Category — Karen Paul
8:16pm Miro Weinberger has won the election for mayor of Burlington! Congratulations to the mayor-elect…
10:55pm- Time for a little unpacking of the day’s events here in Burlington, Vermont.
*Thank you to Kurt and Wanda for running honorable campaigns.
* From a personal standpoint, thank you very much to the 1,392 people who voted to re-elect me to the school board from Ward Seven. It’s an honor to serve you. I believe I received the
4th 8th highest vote total in the city behind Miro, Kurt and Bernie O’Rourke. Oddly Bernie was the one school board member with an opponent on the ballot and he got more votes than all 6 of the rest of us who were unopposed.
*Thank you Lauren Glenn, Meghan O’Rourke, Nat Ayer, Jess Wilson and everybody at Channel 17 for hosting election HQ tonight, and to Kathryn Flagg, Paula Routly, Tyler Machado, Cathy Resmer, Andy Bromage and the rest of the crew at Seven Days for inviting me to blog with them there.
* Jay Vos, formally of the wonderful local blog “Blazing Indescretions” tells me that Blogger has deleted his entire blog because they mistook it for spam. That is upsetting.
*The school budget passed 5359 to 4490 .
*Council Winners by Ward: 1- Ed Adrian, 2- Max Tracy 3-Rachel Siegel 4-Byran Aubin 5-Chip Mason 6-Karen Paul 7-Paul Decelles Congratulations all.
*The council takes a step to the left. Kurt departs in 4 and is replaced by a Dem. Berezniak departs in 2 and is replaced by the Prog
he Bram beat by 13 14 votes 2 years ago. Paul Decelles, whom I voted for today, got 54 more votes than ge got last time, yet only won by 97 votes, beating Tom Ayres 52.6% to 47.3%. Ayres is likely to run again next year when Vince Dober retires from the council. Ed Adrian envisions a “New New North End” that is solidly Democratic. Is his vision correct?
*Chart and numbers stolen from Seven Days:
Burlington Mayoral Race
7 of 7 wards reporting results.
The winning candidate must receive more than 40% of votes to avoid a runoff.
Miro Weinberger (D) 5801 Kurt Wright (R) 3746 Wanda Hines (I) 498
Burlington City Council Races
Ward 1 Adrian (D) 709 Write-ins 0
Ward 2 Tracy (P) 503 Hammerslough (D) 297 Write-ins 0
Ward 3 Siegel (P) 755 Hurley (D) 440 Ruloff (I) 44 Salese (I) 40 Write-ins 0
Ward 4 Aubin (D) 1095 Kenworthy (R) 974 Write-ins 0
Ward 5 Mason (D) 1177 Daigle (I) 453 Write-ins 0
Ward 6 Paul (I) 1118 Write-ins 0
Ward 7 Decelles (R) 965 Ayres (D) 868 Write-ins 0
March 6, 2012 8 Comments
Hello to all my wonderful readers! Please excuse the scarcity of new content on this blog over the last six months. I’ve been holding my tongue since April on the advice of council, and out of an abundance of caution. I had my reasons, but the cone of silence has now been lifted and that can only mean one thing! The 2012 Burlington local election season is on! Thank you for reading BurlingtonPol.com. Visit this blog often, and follow me on Twitter too!
So this year’s mayoral race promises to be hot! I was at a meeting with mayor Kiss yesterday in my capacity as a school commissioner and I asked him if he is going to run for re-election. He told me he’ll be announcing his decision in early November. What we know now is that there are three announced Democrats competing for their party’s mayoral nomination- airport commissioner Miro Weinberger, state representative Jason Lorber and city councilor Bram Kranichfeld. Our venerable friend Kurt Wright, the only announced Republican candidate will be making his third run for mayor- and two Progressives other than mayor Kiss- state senator Tim Ashe and former city councilor Brian Pine are considering running. And you know, I have a suspicion Independent city councilor Karen Paul hasn’t Payday Loan ruled out running either.
Whether Bob Kiss runs for a third term or not, I expect to be doing a third interview with him for this blog before the election. If you want to read them- the first is here, and the second is here. You can also read the interview I did with Kurt Wright before the last election here. I had a pretty good chat with Bram Kranichfeld at party at the Gundersens’ Fairwinds office yesterday, but he would not commit to doing an on-the-record interview for BurlingtonPol. That seemed a little silly to me. If he really wants to become mayor, doing an interview for this blog is de rigueur. I also have tentative plans to sit down for coffee with Miro Weinberger at some point too. We’ll see how it all plays out. Between work, family and being on the school board, I’m pretty busy, but I will make time to blog this election and we’re all going to have a lot of fun together over the next five months! Woot!
Let’s check in with Maverick Media’s Greg Guma over at Vermont Digger and see what he’s saying about the 2012 race. Comment moderation is now off, so please feel free.
Talk to you soon…
October 13, 2011 2 Comments
In an email with little precedent, Burlington’s Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO) director Larry Kupferman told city councilors on Friday his office cannot afford to staff a task force which the council will vote on creating Monday night. With little explaination he estimates the council would need to give CEDO an additional $10,000 to staff a proposed new task force on urban agriculture.
Does this mean CEDO is now working at its maximum capacity and cannot take on any more work? If so, then shouldn’t the council have been alerted to that a while ago?
Below the row of stars to follow is Kupferman’s email and below the row of stars after that is the resolution to be discussed at the 03.21.11 city council meeting.
From: Larry Kupferman
To: Bram Kranichfeld, Ed Adrian, Joan Shannon, Nancy Kaplan, Vincent Dober, Bill Keogh, David Berenziak, Karen Paul
Cc: Ken Schatz, Richard Haesler, Bob Kiss, Jonathan Leopold, Richard Goodwin
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 3:30:03 PM
Subject: Urban Ag Task Force?
I notice that a council resolution entitled “Creation of Urban Agriculture Task Force” is scheduled to be discussed at Monday’s meeting.
I have not been involved in the discussions that have led to this resolution nor consulted about the staff time required to staff a task force of this nature.
Based on my experience with past task forces staffed by CEDO, I will state now that the department does not have funds designated now or in the next budget year for such staff assignment. If Council does not appropriate a sum (I estimate $10,000) for this purpose, I am afraid it will be an unfunded mandate until a way to pay for staffing requirements is determined.
I’ll be glad to discuss the intent of this resolution further before Monday night. Thank you.
Community and Economic Development Office
City Hall, 149 Church St.
Burlington, VT 05401
RESOLUTION RELATING TO CREATION OF
URBAN AGRICULTURE TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, a strong community-based food policy can provide benefits to the citizens of the City of Burlington including access to a healthier diet, a stronger local economy, a more robust food supply, and environmental benefits;
WHEREAS, Burlington is home to innovative, community-based food projects including the Burlington School Food Project, the Burlington Area Community Gardens, the Food Systems Spire at the University of Vermont, and the Intervale Center, a nationally recognized leader in food system innovation;
WHEREAS,Burlington residents are engaging in urban agriculture, defined broadly as “the growing of food and related activities within city boundaries,” including urban homesteading, permaculture, gardening, and community farming;WHEREAS, the City of Burlington currently lacks sufficiently clear regulations or a cohesive policy addressing urban agriculture;WHEREAS, this lack of sufficiently clear regulations or policy can cause confusion and creates an obstacle to engaging in these activities;WHEREAS, there currently is no single governing board devoted to review issues related to urban agricultural activities;
WHEREAS, the City of Burlington currently supports the continued development of a healthy, equitable, and sustainable food policy through the Burlington Food Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Burlington City Council hereby creates the Urban Agriculture Task Force (“Task Force”) which is charged with recommending to the City Council a cohesive urban agriculture policy, improved rules and regulations addressing urban agriculture, and steps to better promote and govern urban agriculture in Burlington;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community and Economic Development Office is designated as the lead department for providing staff support for the Task Force with additional staff support to be provided as appropriate and as necessary by the Planning & Zoning Department, the Code Enforcement Office, the Parks & Recreation Department, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Public Works Department; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Task Force shall consist of one (1) member of the Burlington Food Council appointed by the Burlington Food Council, one (1) member of the Board of Health appointed by the Board of Health, one (1) member of the Planning Commission appointed by the Planning Commission, and up to 4 additional community members appointed by the Burlington Food Council;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in particular, the Task Force is to
(1) Generate a cohesive urban agriculture policy informed in part by current research, best practices, and the needs of City residents,
(2) Review the current rules and regulations that govern urban agriculture in Burlington, including but not limited to city ordinances and zoning regulations,
(3) Seek input from residents, stakeholders, and experts as appropriate, such as the Intervale Center and the UVM Food System Spire;
(4) Identify potential inconsistencies or gaps in the current regulations and make recommendations on clarifying and improving them,
(5) Identify barriers to urban agriculture and make recommendations on how the city can better promote and govern urban agriculture,
(6) Make recommendations on how to integrate the needs of city residents with statewide and regional food system development efforts, and
(7) Create a written action plan including actionable next steps for the City Council and city departments, a timeline and outline of necessary work, and potential funding sources for further policy development and implementation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Task Force shall provide a final, written action plan as outlined above to the City Council within 1 year after adoption of this Resolution by the City Council, with interim reports to the City Council at three-month intervals describing activities to date.
March 20, 2011 8 Comments
Merry Christmas. Thank God it’s over. I have to finish up my reporting on the Wards 4 & 7 NPA meeting Tuesday. It’s not going to be great reporting, but it’s free to read. I just want to relay a couple of things before I forget them. Off the top of my head and in no particular order-
*Somebody asked Vince, Paul and Kurt to respond to something Shay Totten reported in the 12.15.10 “Fair Game” column. Specifically:
“Leopold remembers it differently: He presented “Fair Game” with minutes from a late November 2007 city council meeting, during which he explained to councilors that BT would run out of money in March 2008.
In the spring of 2008, the finance board got a follow-up analysis of BT that included the good, the bad, and the ugly.”
Their answers were all surprisingly weak. In a nutshell- Vince:’I wasn’t there’; Paul:’I don’t remember’ Kurt:’Being on the council is hard/I blame the mayor’
*People have wildly different levels of understanding of the Burlington Telecom issue. That’s because it’s complicated.
*Kurt said again that his top priority was recovery of the 17 million. I said the 17 million was lost and what we really ought to be worried about was the 33 million The City owes Citi Capital. To try to make this point I asked the city councilors if BT was part of the City of Burlington and they hedged on even that. Kurt tried to say it was an ‘Enterprise Fund’ or something- but I mean seriously. Really? We can’t even come to grips with known, obvious and basic facts like ‘The City of Burlington owns Burlington Telecom? ‘ If BT isn’t part of The City, then why were three city councilors and the mayor there anwering questions about it. I mean, really?
*In hedging on whether or not BT was even part of the City, Kurt also hedged on whether the 33 million will even have to be paid back. I said Citi Capital will sue us for it and win. Kurt said nobody knows how such a lawsuit would turn out.
*Bob then said the 17 million wasn’t lost, that it was invested in the building of the fiber network.
*The mayor’s assisant Joe Reinert, sitting near me in the audience leaned over and told me that the 33 million dollar loan was not backed by the full faith and credit of the City of Burlington as I was suggesting, and he advised me to Google what a “municipal lease purchase agreement” is, which I did immediately with my super-duper Blackberry smart phone. I read this which kinda backed up what he was saying, but not entirely in my opinion.
After the meeting I discussed the municipal lease-purchase concept with Reinert a little more. I said that in theory, the city was only on the hook for returning the equipment it was leasing, but that giving back a fiber network was not the same as giving back a fire truck. I pointed out that a smart person (Leopold) once said “you don’t just walk away from a 33 million dollar debt” and asked why the city’s damaged credit rating didn’t indicate the debt was ours. Reinert said the damaged credit rating was not because BT couldn’t make its monthly payments to Citi Capital, but because of the insolvency caused by the 17 million missing from the cash pool. I’m not sure I get it. I’m not sure I buy it. But it is interesting, and I will pursue these questions further when I interview the mayor in January.
*None of the Republican councilors advocated for the city dumping BT outright. Actually maybe Paul did. I’m not sure. Kurt didn’t. He said he wants the City to be a minority stakeholder so there would be some chance at recovering the 17 million. I’m not sure I buy Kurt’s line of thinking on this either. Even as a minority stakeholder, The City would still endure the risk of loss, and BT would still have to succeed for the City to see its 17 million again someday. Going for the minority share just seems wishy-washy to me. I’m more of the opinion that the City should either be all-in, or get the hell out entirely.
***This is totally off topic and unrelated- but I heard an ad for the New York Lottery the other day promoting lottery tickets as great holiday gifts. I can’t imagine a worse gift idea. The odds are you’d would be giving a losing ticket and a worthless present. If you beat the odds and actually give away the winning lottery ticket as a gift, then how shitty would you feel knowing it could have been yours?
December 25, 2010 6 Comments
The NPA was a little disorganized, but it worked. The open forum on Burlington Telecom broke out during the city councilors’ report, and it never stopped, so in essence it took the form of a Q & A with Vince Dober, Paul Decelles and Kurt Wright. Bob Kiss took part from the audience, answering questions from there. I spoke with him a bit before the meeting convened and he agreed to do another interview with me. Sweet. Hopefully we can set that up soon.
The place, as usual, was a virtual who’s who of hardcore local political types. In attendance beside the folks I mentioned, Dale Tillotson, Lea Terhune, Karen Paul, Russ Ellis, Bernie O’rourke, Dave Harnett and Loyal Ploof.
I’ll come back to this…
December 21, 2010 4 Comments
Senator Tim Ashe on running for mayor:
“I am hoping to play a big role in my second term,” said Ashe. “I’d have to be a total jerk to be talking about another office or election. Particularly one that is so far away.”
Obama was talking about running for president two years before November 2008. I don’t think that necessarily makes him a jerk at all, let alone a “total” jerk. I’m curious to know which nomination Tim Ashe would seek. Progressive or Democratic? As far as I know there is no “fusion” primary. Whatever. New Poll. One vote per computer per month this time. Not scientific, but just to tend slightly more toward science, I’ll ask that only likely Burlington voters participate. Thanks. Now let’s get it on! (Ding Ding)
December 19, 2010 8 Comments
City Council Keeps “Nuclear Option”
to Scuttle After-School Changes on Table
I talked to John Briggs downtown today and he said Paul Decelles and Karen Paul were sponsering a resolution that would put the kibosh on the politically disastrous plan for the school department to absorb the after-school program and kick its long-time leaders to the curb.
I went to today’s informational meeting about this incredibly unpopular, practically radio-active proposal at CP Smith, and there was nobody there representing the superintendent or the ‘leadership council’ she’s a member of, which is offering the proposed changes. The community members who were there were livid and non-plussed. They implored me as a school board member to try to stop the plan.
I called Paul Decelles this evening and he said that he and Karen Paul had both drafted kibosh resolutions, but he deferred because hers was better and so it’s Karen’s resolution- which will call for an expanded leadership council to go back to the drawing board- that’s on the council’s agenda for Monday night. Here is the operative clause:
“NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the recommendation put forward by the Leadership Council be put on hold until January 1 with the Leadership Council continuing to meet but with the addition of the following members: no more than three parents who have children attending Burlington Kids, one site coordinator now employed by Parks and Recreation and one now employed by the School Department, one school board member and one City Councilor who will together to review the budget, evaluate the program and assess its challenges and successes, and arrive at a process for public engagement so the communities’ voice can be heard.”
The tea leaves say Karen’s resolution would have broad support if it remains on the agenda. The latest scuttlebutt however is that ‘leadership council’ member Mari Steinbach who runs Burlington’s Parks and Recreation Department may be backing off and rethinking. She, the superintendent and the other ‘leadership council’ members met tonight to come up with some adjustments to their incredibly unpopular current plan.
Decelles said the council is keeping the kibosh resolution on Monday’s agenda as a sort of “nuclear option,” in case the current incarnation of the ‘leadership council’ doesn’t step back from the brink of its utterly toxic, third-rail of an idea on its own. “If the leadership council recognizes their error, we may not need to go through with the resolution.” he said.
June 9, 2010 2 Comments
A letter from Councilor Adrian to Mayor Kiss…
November 19, 2009
I would like to follow-up on Karen Paul’s letter of the other day and Joan Shannon’s letter of today. We have, over a period of time, been asking as individual Councilors for many of the documents that were requested of the Administration at the Council’s November 16, 2009 meeting. Some of these requests have been for weeks, some for months and in some instances years. The information contained in these documents will likely range from the mundane to the esoteric. Many of us will need help interpreting and understanding them to do our jobs. In addition, the audit and its off-shoots will require money.
Bob, my understanding is that the Administration will soon be requesting a budget amendment to rectify an “overpayment” of PILOT monies made to the City by BT. The overpayment amount is in the 100s of thousands of dollars. My understanding is that most of this payback will come from the DPW for this fiscal year. I am requesting that since you were able to come up with these monies out of the budget of another Department, that you look hard, and that on or before November 25, 2009, you find another $250,000.00 to be put into a special account, to be distributed by a majority of the Council in obtaining independent and expert review of the many working parts that BT contains.
Bob, without getting all of the documentation that we have requested and without having a third party expert interpret this information for us, I will simply not be able to vote to continue the enterprise of Burlington Telecom in its current construction. If this condition is not met, I will also do my very best to convince others to do the same.
Bob, at the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance for Burlington Telecom, Joe McNeil said that if after asking we were not getting the information that we needed as Councilors from the Administration to make decisions, then we needed to demand that information.
Based on that advice Bob, I am demanding that you provide us with the information requested and that you provide us with the moneys to obtain the resources necessary to make that information relevant.
The City and the people that populate it deserve no less from their elected officials.
Heading in to the Thanksgiving holiday, I am thankful for the fact that although we vehemently disagree on how to proceed in this instance, I know that we are all trying to do what we think is best for the City. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family. For now, I remain,
Very truly yours,
November 19, 2009 2 Comments
Well that was one of the more entertaining council meetings I’ve seen in recent years. In the end Bill Keogh couldn’t quite keep up with his officiating duties and posed the motion to postpone in such a way as to be unintelligible by all present except city attorney Ken Schatz, and perhaps Jonathon Leopold. The council didn’t really understand that they had just voted to kick the can down the road to December 7, but they did.
The administration wanted the council to give its collective signature to a letter of intent with Piper Jaffrey to start working on the 61 million dollar financing deal. The resolution on the table had two parts. Part one said the BT would come into compliance with condition 60 by repaying pooled cash within sixty days. Part two was the letter of intent.
On a motion from Ed Adrian, the council voted to split parts one and two. He and Joan Shannon had attempted to split the “whereas” clauses, as well as the operative clauses in the resolution, but Ken Schatz and Sharon Bushor correctly pointed out that for Shannon to have assigned her notion of which whereas clauses fit which “resolved” clauses, would have in fact created two new resolutions.
C’mon people. Really? Split the “whereas” clauses? You got to be kidding me.
The council passed part one, but then postponed funding it with part two pending more info.
What info? Mainly like a business plan for Burlington Telecom. Apparently the one they’ve got is two years old. In other words no planning since Nulty left. Nice. Here’s an idea to save BT some money. Besides start their CSRs at $2 less per hour- just eliminate Chris Burns. Does he do anything except fill the space between Leopold and the rest of BT?
Anyway. At one point Sharon Bushor was very vexed, red-faced and at a complete loss of words, quite obviously because of Adrian. You could almost hear her wishing Kurt Wright were there to call the cops on him. That was kind of funny to see.
The meeting started sizzling around 11:30 when words started to fly. Some quotes-
“I won’t be scolded!” -Nancy Kaplan
“I won’t be boxed in by this council!” -Sharon Bushor
“I am appalled!” -Marrisa Caldwell
“You are voting to destroy Burlington Telecom for the sole purpose of embarassing this administration!” -Jonathon Leopold
“I would appreciate Mr. Leopold it if you would not speak to me in a condeceing way!”-Mary Kehoe
“I screwed up the queue.” -Bill Keogh
“How is that doing what’s right for the city?”- Marrisa Caldwell
“I really don’t like be accused of not having the city’s best interest in mind.” -Joan Shannon
“Befuddling…Infuruating…Very disappointing…” -Emma Mulvaney-Stanak
“We have the power.” -Sharon Bushor
“Just for the record [Jonathon Leopold and I] did kiss and make up.”- Mary Kehoe
“Think before you speak.” -Karen Paul
“I move to call the question.” -Paul Decelles
Had I been there I would have voted against splitting the question, and against the postponment of the letter of intent.
November 17, 2009 7 Comments
This is very strange. At the last city council meeting, freshman Ward Six Independent city councilor Karen Paul led a successful effort to table the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the city and the Childrens Museum slated to go in the old Moran Plant on the waterfront.
She was upset because the city attorney’s office had apparently reneged on an agreement to have outside council review the agreement. From the Burlington Free Press:
“…He [Councilor Adrian] and other councilors said Paul, chairwoman of the council’s Parks Committee, had an understanding with the city attorney that the city would use outside legal help to examine the initial agreements. After the administration reneged, Paul exchanged e-mails with other councilors over the weekend urging a tabling — an indefinite postponement — of the agreement with the museum until the administration agreed to an outside counsel. Her perspective was persuasive to nine of her colleagues.
“I have told the city attorney I will not put my name on an agreement that has not been seen by an outside attorney with years of experience in this field,” Paul said Tuesday. “Our potential tenants are getting this kind of advice. Why shouldn’t we?”…”
The article went on to quote Community and Economic Development Office director Larry Kupferman…
Kupferman, who agreed the council vote Monday was important, said, “It seems to me folks might want to know what the reasoning is. Outside counsel has not been part of our thinking. Nor has it been brought up by anyone else, until last night.”
From the email Karen Paul sent the city council Sunday…
“…Putting aside my act of good faith and taking the City Attorney at his word, I have consulted with three local attorneys with many years of experience in contract law who have told me independent of one anther that this MOU is seriously lacking in several areas…” [Emphasis added]
But now BurlingtonPol has learned Karen Paul will reverse herself and move for passage of the MOU at this Monday’s city council meeting. Just four days after her first email calling for the MOU’s tabling, she wrote to the council again Thursday…
“…I spoke earlier today with Ken [Schatz] and Larry [Kupferman] about the MOU. Ken has fully consulted with Thomas Melloni on this MOU. Thomas did make some additions that add clarity and deepen the understanding between the parties. I also discussed some of the more minor changes with Ken that I had received from other attorneys I spoke with. We have come to an understanding about those points and have made adjustments in the MOU when warranted…” “…I have asked Ken, after consulting with the President of the Council, to please place the MOU on our agenda for this coming Monday…” “…I urge you to fully support this MOU and vote in favor of its passage at the City Council meeting on Monday night…” [Emphasis added.]
“…I spoke earlier today with Ken [Schatz] and Larry [Kupferman] about the MOU. Ken has fully consulted with Thomas Melloni on this MOU. Thomas did make some additions that add clarity and deepen the understanding between the parties. I also discussed some of the more minor changes with Ken that I had received from other attorneys I spoke with. We have come to an understanding about those points and have made adjustments in the MOU when warranted…”
“…I have asked Ken, after consulting with the President of the Council, to please place the MOU on our agenda for this coming Monday…”
“…I urge you to fully support this MOU and vote in favor of its passage at the City Council meeting on Monday night…” [Emphasis added.]
Ok. So these two emails obviously don’t square. Since when do “minor changes” ameliorate an MOU that is “seriously lacking?” Paul provides no specifics or timeline for the ‘full consultation’ the city has supposedly now had with attorney Melloni. Apparently it all happened on Tuesday and Wednesday. Sure. That’s more than enough time for the city to reverse course from “outside council has not been part of our thinking” to “it’s fine now, let’s all pass the MOU and buy the world a Coke.”
If I didn’t know better, I might think Karen Paul found a severed horse head lying next to her when she woke up Thursday morning. I mean WTF is going on here? Leave a comment if you know…
PS- I was trying to tell Poopsie just what the heck I’m blogging here, and becoming annoyed with my long-winded explanation- she asked me to break it down to her in simple terms. “Just tell me who the bad guy is,” she said jokingly.
“Jonathon Leopold” I said, for the sake of simplicity.
“And who’s the good guy?”
“That’s easy,” I said. “I am.”
First of all I don’t really think in terms of “bad guys” and “good guys” and I don’t really think of Jonathon Leopold as a bad guy. That was a joke.
Secondly, item 9 was removed form the council’s agenda tonight…
9. RESOLUTION: Authorization for Execution of a MOU Between the City and the Green
Mountain Children’s Museum re: Moran Redevelopment Project (Board
of Finance) (to take from the table)(MOU to be sent out on Friday,
September 19, 2008)
September 21, 2008 Comments Off