Development agreements and TIF

How much of the council's recorded discussion was about development agreements and tif, and how contentious it was, year by year.

Scores of the written record, normalized by era. Minutes are the clerk's summaries, not transcripts: tone is muted and the style changed with each clerk and era, so every score is compared only with meetings of the same minute-style era (1962-1979 narrative minutes, 1980-2004, 2005-2016, 2017 on) and shown as a percentile of that era. Signals: divided and failed votes, motions that died for lack of a second, tabled or postponed items, amended motions, ordinance readings that stalled, hearings with objections, public appearances, the length of an item's discussion compared with its era, and words such as "objected", "protest", "concern", "thanked" or "commended", each kept with the sentence it came from. Only pages whose reading scores at or above the archive's score target count. The record is scored, not people: no resident is named or scored, and members appear only through their recorded votes. Meetings named as the most contentious or most congenial are published only after a person reviewed them.
224items on this topic
115meetings
1.5%share of discussion (era average)
4contentious items
2divided votes

Items per year

YearItemsShare of the year's items ContentiousMean contentionWords
20004 2%1 0.15276
20011 0% 0.1276
20061 3%1 0.44251
20103 1% 0.0023
20111 1% 0.004
20125 2% 0.11527
201315 2% 0.09996
201410 2% 0.07470
201523 5%1 0.111,725
201619 2%1 0.091,280
201730 4% 0.041,712
201811 1% 0.05529
20192 0% 0.0067
202012 2% 0.06612
202110 2% 0.05544
202217 3% 0.05880
20233 1% 0.0387
202419 3% 0.061,239
202529 5% 0.051,548
20269 2% 0.05500

Reviewed examples

Examples appear here once meetings on this topic have been reviewed by a person.

JSON

Data last updated October 21, 2026. Built from the archive's documents; see how the data is built.