7 pages of 2 dozen amendments to the Mayor’s Budget, 5 hours of public testimony and questions of the public and after 7.5 hours, here’s where we are. I had the luxury of sleeping in because I have the day off, so this will be complete by noon. Kristin at the Cap Times live blogged all the testimony, so I’ll let you look at that there, and stick to the discussion and [my comments!].
LET THE DEBATE BEGIN
It’s 10:30, 5 hours after the meeting started. The testimony is over and the Mayor looks up to call on Bruer, who, as usual, is not in his seat. [He spends more time wheeling and dealing and being out of his seat than anyone else, and lately, the Mayor keeps busting him on it when he’s not there to make motions and do his job as Council President.]
CAPITAL BUDGET
AMENDMENT ONE
Agency/Project: Library / No. 1 – New South Madison Branch Library
Facilities Management / No. 2 – Energy Efficiency Improvements
Facilities Management / No. 17 – ARRA-Energy Efficiency Grant
Page(s): 8, 45, 47
Sponsors: Mayor Cieslewicz, Ald. Bruer
Library Project No. 1 – New South Madison Branch Library: eliminate the $100,000 of budgeted Other Funding, eliminate the narrative reference to federal stimulus program funding, and add language that says “An additional $100,000 of energy efficient lighting, budgeted separately in Facilities Management Project No. 2 – Energy Efficiency Improvements, will be incorporated into this Library construction project.”Facilities Management Project No. 2 – Energy Efficiency Improvements: modify the narrative to add $100,000 for energy efficient lighting at the New South Madison Branch Library to the list of projects for 2010.
Facilities Management Project No. 17 – ARRA Energy Efficiency Grant: eliminate the narrative reference to lighting at the new South Madison Branch Library.
The effect of this amendment is to change the source of funding for $100,000 of energy efficient lighting in the new South Madison Branch Library from federal stimulus funding to G.O. borrowing already included in Facilities Management Project No. 2 and to correct the total amount of budgeted ARRA grant funds to the anticipated level of $1,000,000 ($100,000 was previously double-counted). $100,000 in stimulus funds will be used instead for other specific lighting projects budgeted in Facilities Management.
($100,000) in Other funding.
No levy impact.
Since Bruer is not in the room, the Mayor explains that this is a technical amendment to fix a mistake – Clear makes the motion, someone seconds it.
Amendment PASSES on a voice vote without discussion.
AMENDMENT TWO
Agency/Project: Library / No. 2 – New Central Library
Page(s): 8
Sponsors: Alds. Schumacher, Sanborn, SkidmoreAdd the following language: “The City will not enter into binding development and construction agreements for this project until commitments for tax credit financing and $4,000,000 of private fundraising have been secured.”
No borrowing or levy impact.
They skip this as Schumacher is running around trying to craft a compromise.
AMENDMENT THREE
Agency/Project: Library / No. 2 – New Central Library
Page(s): 8
Sponsors: Alds. Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, SolomonAdd the following language: “In their evaluation, development and design of the new Central Library, City staff is directed to study and consider the feasibility of including either a rooftop intensive community garden and/or a greenroof.”
Verveer moves adoption. Thanks the grassroots effort and people who made it happen with the Downtown Garden group. Says he would have never thought of it on his own, appreciates their efforts. This amendment is straightforward, directs city staff to have a community garden study and he doesn’t want to lose that idea and this amendment keeps the discussion going. Credits Fiore for considering a green roof or community garden. Wonderful education opportunity and teaching experience for patrons of library for years to come. He calls it a living classroom. His constituents have commented on significant of University Square rooftop garden and the residents of the Lucky have said that for many of them this is the first time many have seen a green roof up close and in person. Tremendous waiting lists, huge need in downtown for community gardens, there are no community gardens in downtown. Many downtown residents live in apartments and condos and have no gardening opportunities. Not sure if can make it work, don’t know the cost, but it just asks that we determine the feasibility. Hopes it has support. Budget neutral amendment. No staff concerns.
Compton has a question for developer or staff. She says she supports using rooftops, but has there been an estimate of the costs? What will this do the structure, will it change the structure? Verveer suggests she asks Jeanne Hoffman on staff, the Mayor says the developer Kunkler should answer it. [The time for questions of speakers has passed, they did that during public testimony, changing the procedure to ask questions after every 10 speakers. This is out of order and questions of staff would have been more appropriate.]
Kunkler (Fiore) says that they did promote a green roof in their original proposal. Extensive green roof would be about $250,000. Have not done a fair job of what an intensive roof with gardens would cost. Hasn’t evaluated the structure requirements. Has rough estimates and thinks it could be several million dollars and haven’t penciled it out in detail.
Compton asks if the structure of the building can be taken care of with a few million? Kunkler says the structure may not be capable of supporting an intensive green roof. Did evaluate a 6 story library structure, but doesn’t know what additional lode would place on it. We just don’t know.
Compton says that she supports garden but wants to see numbers, its millions of dollars on a project that had a $45M RFP, dropped to $25M and now $17M. Says can go back to Board of Estimates, this is a scary proposition. Doesn’t want to deny the gardens, but will pull the project out.[I think she started to say she wouldn’t vote for the capital budget, but it was unclear what she was saying.]
Palm says the truth is this amendment doesn’t do a lot, it just allows them to investigate the options. Has said to the groups that he doesn’t want this to penalize the operations of the library. 7 floors to finish and doesn’t want to have to fundraise for it. Green roof is different than community gardens. Would give conditional support. Doesn’t want the price tag to become a burden to the library.
Solomon says that they should support this tonight. Hears why it is so exciting and what potential they have. Huge waiting list for garden spaces, he says there is a a local food movement, a green building movement and a community garden movement all coming together. Says he hopes they try to get to yes, heard a lot of numbers, not a full analysis, obviously not going to let this stand in the way, but if we can find a way to yes we can turn an incredibly exciting project into something that could stand the test of time for future generations. Hopes nobody votes against this. Hopes that when do feasibility study, hopefully do it to get to yes, not to get to no, would be an exciting addition.
Pham-Remmele missed a chance to ask questions, was out of the room.[Christ, can’t anyone stay in their freaking seats? How hard is it and what is so important everyone has to be up and running around? She must have missed questions during public testimony as well as when Compton was asking questions too.] She says this is a new idea and interesting concept and she is unprepared because now being asked to approve something not yet even designed. Most of things unanswered, not just cost, but when mention different places in the country that have this type of rooftop – mentions law school in MN with a leaky roof, did you look that? Millions of dollars to maintain it and new library is expensive and now adding on the rooftop. She says that other buildings have a lot of air conditioning and heating units on other rooftops of buildings, do we have underground heating and air conditioning – it will be a nightmare to have a rooftop garden in this weather.[That was a question?]
Kunkler says he doesn’t know the answer to any of the questions. Aware of examples and looking at info, sensitive to waterproofing being more complicated and would be costly, but with the extensive green roofs it is done all the time. Haven’t done the research and that is what the sense of the amendment is. What would it mean? City staff can explore impact on cost, design and operations.
Pham-Remmele says answer gave her another thing to ask, this asks for a feasibility study and it says no cost. How can you study with no cost, it costs thousands of dollars, is there a pro bono service here?
Kunkler says that they have been doing alot of pro bono work and they will work with staff to get some answers.
Pham-Remmele asks it will raise property values for which properties and what values? She says it won’t raise my property value. [Did anyone claim it would increase property values miles away?]
Kunkler says that he isn’t sold on it himself, so he’s a bad person to ask.
Pham Remmele says she is short, five foot 1 inch, [Ohmigod, where is this going?] how can she enjoy a view from the ground, is there something to bring her up there and make it accessible for the public.
Kunkler says there is elevator access and stairs.
Pham-Remmele thanks them for being patient and not creating difficulties, too many loose ends like being asked to do something unfair.
Verveer wants to respond to Compton an Pham-Remmele, all they are asking is for a total investigation to the feasibility of community garden or green roof. He won’t support inclusion of either if cost prohibitive or operationally infeasible. Lots of research and investigation needs to be done and what they are asking for is continued discussion and investigation. If have questions direct them to Hoffman, facilities management and library will take the lead with the development team. Like other aspects of project that need to be developed, just wants them to look at it. It will come back to the Council several times throughout the process for approvals on land use (PUD), advertising the bid, plans and specs, agreements with development team. Shouldn’t be controversial.
Skidmore supports it. He says he’s a landscape architect, this is great technology, rooftop/greenroof at new fire station, engineering has green roof and patio in one of their buildings. Talks about building on Demming Way that has a green roof, captures the water run off that is caught in a cistern and that water is used to water lawn. This can save money. This is just a feasibility study and no commitment. Can look at it when the study is done.
With that, the discussion is over. The motion PASSES on a voice vote with Pham-Remmele audibly voting no. I think she was the only one, but it is hard to hear.
AMENDMENT TWO
Schmacher is back in his seat and ready to get started.
He makes a substitute amendment as follows:
The City will not commence any significant portion of the construction of its portion of the project until it has received assurance that the federal New Markets Tax Credits are available.
Schumacher hands out the amendment. Says it was not his intent to kill central library. Wants to assure that this is not just giving other people’s money freely. Wants to build in some kind of stake for everyone who wants to make an investment. Wants to get donors stepping up, tax credits and reduce city liability. Spirit of compromise. Substitute would get at the city’s dollars to assure us as taxpayers that at least that part of the project we won’t need to be worried about. Support the substitute. Good comfort language for those who are worried about price tag and good for supporters too. Would like to ask Widder to make sure he is ok with it – out of fairness.
Widder – says amendment as drafted will not affect ability to get New Market Tax Credit, says the city wouldn’t proceed without it anyways according to Brasser.
Schumacher says thanks to people.
Bidar-Sielaff asks Brasser what this does. Why need the language, to feel good?
Brasser says they don’t need language, but reaffirms a good business practice, to make sure funds available before proceeding. Brasser says it is something we should do.
Cnare asks if the New Market Tax Credits are available now, wouldn’t it better read “when awarded” or “committed” or “given to” us, not just “available”.
Brasser says awarded would be stronger, it is a matter of semantics and its up to you how strong you want to make it.
Cnare asks if it is friendly to say “awarded”. It’s not friendly.
Schumacher says he understands and can live with both ways, but preference to keep language cuz it was a compromise.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT
Compton moves a substitute, change “are available” to “have been awarded”. Seconded by pham-remmele. Objection to it being friendly. No one speaks to it.
ROLL CALL ON AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT
Maniaci passes when called on first.
AYE: Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Compton, Kerr
NO: Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Eagon, King and Manaici
MAIN MOTION
Verveer says that central library project is very exciting, thanks people. Many years in the making, doesn’t think amendment matters. References Levitan talking about library. Momentous evening. Served on committee and thought what are we doing? This won’t get in the budget in this recession. Huge price tag, we all know that the library is in need of repairs. It’s pathetic back of house, luckily OSHA hasn’t been there, kept together with duct tape and string. Thanks library staff. It’s an embarrassment and pathetic. Committee unanimously supports Fiore proposal. Edgewater and Library projects lots of comparisons, good jobs for unions so saddens him that in a sense, it seems if the neighborhood does not care about good paying jobs, his constituents very loudly and clearly support this project. No opposition of any significance among his constituents, they are thrilled and excited and can’t wait and look forward to review of the design, this is embraced by neighborhood. Thanks more people . . . development team, library staff, library board, library foundation. He says this is a historic night and he is thrilled.
Palm says that he’s been on Library Board since 1996 – wants to thank people . . and does. This is the year it is real, library board done a good job looking at all the proposals. Director and staff done a good job to plan facilities with short staff. Branches are still the heart of our service delivery. Once passes, library will look at city as a whole to deliver services and where we need to locate branches. Says they need to look at development as it happens so not get stuck without a library. This is a vital service. Libraries will be relevant and even more so as we try to decipher the huge amount of info the internet provides us. That is what libraries do. Appreciates support. Not just for downtown, Dane County and 9 counties of South Central Library System that depend on them as a source of info. Looks forward to ground breaking.
Bruer thanks members of council, he just takes a really long time to do it. Says Schumacher not off base, a number of people in the community have concerns and whether live downtown or periphery, wants some comfort that this is in the best interest of the taxpayers. There will be continued oversight which is healthy, especially in difficult economic times.
Solomon says that as we move forward, this is exciting, hope that we keep a very constant diligence on the operating costs and the importance of local and smaller branches. We shouldn’t do it at the expense of the local branches. There was a proposal to close Monroe last year and everybody in here understands importance of strong central library, but also other libraries in the system – don’t disrupt the balance.
Compton says this is business, and we are going to be cognizant of other costs and if that is part of the package. Will be holding out project number two who might vote against the capital budget. Said people told here they don’t need Grandview Library, there is a discrepancy, can’t vote for the downtown project and not have a branch. Our branches aren’t supposed to serve more than 30K and Pinney serves 50K. Numbers don’t work. $37M is hard for her to swallow. Admired the plan, can’t run back on – still talking, missed some. Says there might be 19 votes for approval on this central library spending $37M, it will be pretty and nice and it will serve UW, state and county well, but nothing for her constituency who have strongly told her not to vote for it. This amendment she’ll vote for.[It was still confusing to listen to what she was saying.]
Kerr says that hoping that this will pass and thanks Tripp Widder, her constituent.
Eagon says he came to Madison in 2006 and only first got a library card a few months ago, sad to say. [The audience indulges him and boos and hisses at him.] Clarifies that the UW has 42 libraries which he has taken advantage of, not that he hasn’t been in a library. Thinks this is a great investment in future of Madison. We revel in knowledge and abilities we have here. Walking the walk and projecting to city and future residents that we invest in knowledge not only structures but ideas. Tried to attend every meeting and was fascinated and has been using central library. Even compared to cages in Memorial library, it is not a well used space. Good investment for good people students at the UW who want to stick around.
Schumacher says that with this amendment he tried to memorialize what which we sometimes do, for alders where constituents have mixed reactions. No one is against public library but have issues with the timing, financing, lack of branch libraries and lack of library in the Northeast corridor. As we move forward need to be mindful that libraries take on a higher ground, we also have to make sure that other opinions and concerns get some level of assurance and that the library has received the message that fundraising is extremely important. Wants to maintain reasonable operating costs, so in some ways this debate is healthy for all sides. Happy moving forward. Palm has served council and library well. Thanks people too.
Rummel says that she was on the surplus committee. One key decision they made was to allow RFP to look at different locations. And that was one of the smartest things they did. This block is the best location for the most benefits. Still stuck on the rehab idea, which had virtues, but this block can be more than the sum of its parts. Her district is between Hawthorne and Central so served well by libraries. $8M to keep old library going was a concern, no option to delay.
Clausius didn’t know this debate was about branch libraries vs. downtown, but he has the most deficient area so he has to speak. People were opposed to a downtown library, no branch library anywhere on all of NE side. Hawthorne serves one quarter to one third of the city. He says he got an amendment in budget to address that, his constituents support the downtown libary and are comfortable with his amendment.
Pham-Remmele was not going to say anything but what Compton said and now Clausius made her realize she has to put in a few words for her area. District 20 was promised a new library before her time and a location was not decided on and the money was moved away when she was started and was told it has to move to east side before return to west side. It is going to come up and hope this time it does not fly away, for her district it is a difficult thing to hear from so many people about what is going on. Everything goes downtown and she hates to think of that as the reality. Madison has 20 districts, not just downtown. 20 districts, hers contributes to tax base and makes it good city we are living in. Talk about future and vision come back to reality and think about residents staying in Madison, dutifully paying taxes and still with us instead of leaving us. Difficult to hear about 30M+ or 40M for a library downtown, when actually should repair or fix it. [At this point she talks to someones, asks a question and it is answered, but they weren’t on mic and I didn’t catch it.] Why such neglect, why not maintain it, talking about union work, of course want local jobs for working families, so by keeping maintained and fixing $7M should be a lot of jobs to do that. Don’t have to wreck building that is functional to get jobs. Surprised to hear about historical district and carbon footprint and talking about demolishing a big building that is still functional. Sounds frivolous, maybe at some other time, but now people cannot pay taxes, don’t have jobs, worrying about keeping food on table and mortgage payment. We are looking at pies in the sky, seniors worried about staying in the home, family man not having the jobs, world class 21st century jewel, who wouldn’t like it, with our library – talk about equity, think of city as a family, if father of 20 kids no way to spend a lot of money for one kid cuz a favorite, rest just waiting and shifting around, not right, think of all Madison people as a family before putting everything in one spot, citizens are proud of the city, and also should be proud of city council and in Meadowood, some and look at library and it’s so crammed and not in any place for people to read and get enlightened, downtown is prime real estate, is this a good choice to keep it there, if keep moving the collection in the leaky basement is it a wise thing? Painful decision to make.
Palm says that it warms his heart to be talking so passionately about libraries, hasn’t heard it from many of these alders. Says Meadowood was removed form budget because the community did not come to consensus about that to do with the library. Money can be in Mayor’s executive budget for Meadowridge again and if you feel underserved, should come forward and speak to library board, mayor and council. He says Pinney could be changing location and Royster has a lot of land where the library could be expanded, but he has to advocate for that to happen if that his what he wants. He says that getting a library starts with speaking out. Appreciates support and that more areas need for libraries but advocacy begins with us.
Bidar-Sielaff doesn’t support amendment number 2, loves library. Appreciates the effort on the language, but we have good processes that will ensure that happens. Voting no for amendment that doesn’t do anything and just adds a layer of discussion to something that will come back to us doesn’t make sense. Hopes this isn’t a trend for this year’s budget. Would like to get moving. Everyone has made a statement that we’re going to support our central library. Please lets vote.
And with that, they do. It PASSES on a voice vote, but not unanimously.
AMENDMENT FOUR
Agency/Project:State Street – Capitol Square / No. 2 – Capitol Square Streetscape Updates
Page(s): 27, 139
Sponsors: Alds. Sanborn, Pham-Remmele, SchumacherReverse Board of Estimates Capital Amendment No. 2, which added $1,987,338 in TID funding and reduced $108,000 of G.O. funding for several projects around the Capitol Square.
Borrowing and levy impact as noted above.
Sanborn moves his motion and someone must have seconded it. Sanborn explains he is not objecting to work being done. His problem is it’s TID cash and improvements won’t generate income or property taxes. He says there is a complex thing going on, cash in this district exceeds the cost, it would have to close in 2010, and be distributed to the taxing authorities and added back to tax rolls, but this keeps it open, so no property tax revenue for the school district. Significant consequences to what they did a Board of Estimates. Understands cash is tempting like a slush fund, city doesn’t have to share cash or taxes with schools, MATC and county. School state aid is impacted, so residents all over system will help pay for these improvements. Arguing that regardless of how tempting, it is not right. Says they should fund it outside of TIF but with general obligation borrowing.
Verveer urges support, explains project in more detail. Every year we go through this exercise, respects where Sanborn is coming from. This is an oddity for Sanborn, but he points out it has a levy impact. The Board of Estimates reduced the levy impact and took away $108,000 by using TIF funds. Would be scheduled to close next year, he didn’t come up with tons of new projects or grandiose ideas. He presented a plan that city staff worked on to do over many years and he brought it to the staff attention that the money was there. Good detail for each TID in the capital budget document now. As a result he asked why are we not using the money for the capital square and why using general obligation debt? Thinks this is a good thing. Second to central library this is most exciting to him. This will also help Children’s Museum and Rotary plaza. This is the Rotarian’s centennial project and made a decision to award a substantial capital gift for the Children’s museum, this will be the prep work for the Rotary plaza. This will finish the capital square, state is done with their portion, our side is a mish-mash of (he stops) . . . some blocks are done, some not touched. Walk across the street and have a new bench and some have deteriorated brick and splintered benches – this will take care of controversial bench dividers on the square. He says tree replacement, trash receptacles, benches, bike racks, plantings, irrigation systems and other items will be replaced. Glad the trades are still here, this is a $2M project subject to prevailing wages. Can’t guarantee union, but prevailing wage. He says aesthetics are important to the property owners and it is their property tax dollars funding the project. Support TIF and Board of Estimates and vote no.
Sanborn says that he’s not targeting Alder Verveer. Just wants to point out that levy impact is positive, but this does delay when they close the district, returns property to property tax rolls and the cash will be distributed. This encourages us to spend money on things we might not otherwise do. To the extent that it creates the psychological effect, the levy impact is misleading.
Amendment FAILS on a voice vote. Sanborn appears to be the only one voting on his amendment.
AMENDMENT FIVE
Of course, now Rummel is out of the room! Sigh . . .
Agency/Project:Facilities Management / No. 16 – Common Council Security Improvements
Page(s):47
Sponsors: Alds. Rummel, VerveerAmend the project by removing the funding for Architectural and Engineering Design Fees ($10,000) and for the Miscellaneous Contingency ($1,142).
Lessens borrowing by $11,142 and impacts the levy by ($1,443).
Since Rummel is out of the room, they move on to amendment six, Bruer interrupts and says that this has been agreed upon and its not controversial. So, they go back to amendment five, make the motion and it PASSES on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT SIX
Agency/Project: Engineering – Other Projects / No. 11 – Central Park
Page(s): 76
Sponsors: Alds. Sanborn, Pham-RemmeleRemove all funding for Central Park for 2010 and all years of the Capital Improvement Program.
This is $982,015 less borrowing and $127,125 less on the levy.
Sanborn makes a motion, Cnare seconds.
Sanborn has created a handout that explains why he is concerned about the capital budget and made all these amendments. He is giving his reasoning for all the amendments now, this also applied to amendment one as well. He says he adapted the comptrollers chart on future borrowing. He says the chart has looked scary for years. Without digging into it we are left wondering if we should be worried. He crunched some numbers, 1st page is borrowing at current levels. Just original executive budget as it is, see in yellow portion that it points out how far they exceeded the 12.5% goal. In 2011, we’ll spend $5.2M in more debt service if exceed 12.5%, $9.3M in 2012, that is what it shows. He notes these are just projections, but on page 2, its is they freeze borrowing at 2010 levels. 3rd page is if grows 3% per year. Since 2000 it has increase 10.65% per year. Go back to 1990 and it is 8% per year. Another point is library borrowing not included, it’s a different item. This understates the issue, much like storm water utility, but that has its own revenue. Not a catastrophe, not sure what will happen, we have benefited from TIF district closings, substantial cost savings in diesel fuel ($3M down to metro), reduction in interest rates in borrowing costs. Maybe people are counting on more revenue. RTA suggests we might get property tax relief? More state aid? Growth in property tax base requires more services which will be compromised by increased debt. What about unforeseen things, rising interest, decline in property values, etc. Not sounding an alarm, but should be concerned and look at it very carefully. Want to recognize what it means and give us a margin of error. We are going right up to the edge. Library, park, all my amendments that I’m sure will fail, this is a problem that is very real. Central park is a perfect example and he lists where money comes from. He says the $8M price tag might not be correct, want to do other things not yet budgeted for. That is why central park is in here, it would be nice, but have to have priorities, had to restore funding for ice rinks and cutting grass, have issues with operating costs. If charts are wrong, we can do it then.[I gotta admit, I think Jed is dead on here, he did a good job with his charts and looked into something that all of us had wondered about for years. And he appropriately qualified everything thing he said, but this is where the city is going to get itself into trouble like the county, if it is not careful. Of course, we have alot bigger general fund to play with!]
Pham-Remmele is very thankful having the chance to co-sponsor with Sanborn because if he hadn’t proposed it she would have to do it herself.[And we all know she’s not going to put any work into anything, just complain loudly about it when it isn’t what she wants.] She says she married to a bean counter and they are very thrifty, don’t want to owe anything to anybody, not buy anything they cannot afford, 31 years married, freedom is that if they don’t want to continue working, they can come in the next day and (say that?) I won [I don’t know, I was listening and it didn’t make sense.] She wants city to have same freedom. When looks at cutting positions, asking people to do more with less and tightening belt, but not equity, other people sacrifice and we don’t. When look at old gentleman that come to council tonight it is painful [I believe she was talking about Will Sandstrom and yes, that was painful], she respects old age and experience and to have people get upset with how we conduct business something is very wrong. Asked comproller because she depends on staff to do her work, to give her a price, is this the right thing to do what we are promising to do. Yes, rating is good, best time to borrow, and the way she looks at the budget is like family budget. Can this wait, can we afford it, is it fair to put this on someone else? To give us this free right, no free lunch, no free right, when saying good rate lets borrow, she can borrow $75K but who is going to pay for it. Son is 39 and lost job and brother in law 54 and lost job so when talk about all these wonderful things who is going to foot the bill, when looks at graph, and see that we are borrowing frenzy, a lot of people worrying cuz property going down cuz gas price going up and everytime they goes to grocery store it costs more. Please don’t think that she is against parks, against row boat house or anything that will be so nice and make city wonderful, asks you to before approving more spending, just stop and think is this the right time, can we afford it or is it because we have a credit card, let’s go out to eat and take a cruise to Hawaii. Thanks Sanborn, says it makes her sound negative and ugly to sponsor these, think about everyone in Madison, not just your own special group or interest, is this the right time are we doing the right thing?
Palm says that this discussion isn’t about Central park, but discussion about debt service. Looks at history and thinks we were not spending enough money on facilities. How did the library get like this? We weren’t budgeting for improvements. Has to thank current mayor for moving along a budget that makes improvements to have a more useful life. North dist police station HVAC was poor and we made a decision to make the reinvestment to improve system to be more efficient and more comfortable for people who are using it. If those things had been done to central library might be a different thing. Taking care of things before we have to replace it. Current proposal is central park, doesn’t exist now, but we have to create and maintain it, so while agrees with Sanborn that debt service is a huge issue that will increase, also sees that question is do we support creation of central park and fund it. Appreciates and supports creation and not sure if we should be funding it. Have to keep up with facilities. We will have this discussion every year. Need stop looking at how expend service we provide and should maintain what we do.
Rummel says that they should reject this. Appreciates lessons in debt service, says she has tried to address through roads in past years, for the record. This years the only road she cut was one in her own district. This is not like grocery shopping where you consume something, this will be with us for generations. Talks about amenities in the park. Says it will be a regional draw, revitalize the rail corridor which is identified in many plans as an employment district. Many functions in the park, this is investing in infrastructure that is at its lowest ebb it has ever been. Worked on planning and it has gone through several approvals. Unfortunately, new buildings market isn’t great, but ready for opportunities and this send the message of a revitalized industrial area. She says there are opportunities for art, sustainable environment activities, open spaces and it could be really be stunning. Process will be like Olbrich where it is a a public-private partnership, other projects on table. Center for Resilient Cities paid $5M for the land and donated it, MG&E hired a consultant. They are not going to move the rail, some future utopia when we have rail stations may be then, in the future. We have partners with the city, plenty of opportunities to work on this.
Clausius is opposed, he say on the Isthmus Central Park Task Force. He says the whole process is straightforward, mission was to explore concept of large urban park in a former Brownfield. Says they had 32 meetings, 4 huge public meetings and out of all that, several times changes the mission to shape the concept. 4 parts to the park a large open space for festival, community garden, public playground, skateboard park (privately funded). The skateboard park can’t raise money if doesn’t move forward. This is the right plan at the right time and includes East Isthmus bike trail. Urges reject amendment.
Cnare thanks Sanborn for educational instrument, but disagrees with the amendment. Not as attached as colleagues are, but impressed by how many parties have come to together to make this happen. If not so far down the park path they maybe would stop it. Cities do what we can’t do as individuals, she can’t build a Central Park. This is what cities are supposed to do and sometimes we nee to borrow money. We made the plans, let this one continue.
Amendment FAILS on a voice vote
AMENDMENT SEVEN
Agency/Project: Stormwater Utility / No. 9 – Shorelines
Parks / New Project – Olive Jones Park
Parks / New Project – Brittingham Boathouse
Parks / New Project – Reynolds Field Improvements
Page(s): 82, 90, 170, 171
Sponsors: Alds. Sanborn, Pham-Remmele, ComptonReverse Board of Estimates Capital Amendment Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 15. Amendment No.9 added $60,000 of G.O. debt for James Madison Park to provide riprap for shorelines. Amendment No.11 added $25,000 of Vilas-Brittingham impact fees and $100,000 of private fundraising for Olive Jones Park renovations. Amendment No.12 added $60,000 of Vilas-Brittingham impact fees and $60,000 of private donations for the construction of restrooms and a drinking fountain at the Brittingham Boathouse. Amendment No. 15 added $15,000 of Law-Tenney impact fees for recreational equipment and seating at Reynolds Field.
Saves $320,000 in borrowing and $7,770 on the levy.
Sanborn says that impact fees shouldn’t be used this way. First year that this was in the budget and this was our version of Washington earmarking. These might be the best projects but they should got through the process with parks.
Compton says not support Olive Jones Park, was going to ask separation on Brittingham boat house.
Maniaci says that she urges to vote against, worked hard with parks staff and neighborhoods to address parks needs. This is what the fees are set up for, infrastructure is what they are for. Asks Briski to chat about it. Mayor asks what the question is. She asks what is the goal of including impact fees.
Briski says that they have been using the impact fees since the inception, have to defer to comptroller. They were fully disclosing the fees they have access to and exposing it to all the alders.
Brasser says impact fees statutes are realitivey new, the funds have grown under the radar, explain these in the budget this year. Unfortunately not a chance to see these all in advance of the budget process, but hopeful next year they will have a vetting process for parks impact fees. Also have traffic engineering and stormwater fees as well. Included to provide you with additional details to decide how the dedicated funds would be used.
[Um, my answer would have been that myself and other pushed for years to make the parks budget more transparent and to make the numbers in these funds available to the alders to that amendments like this could be done when appropriate. It was always very, very, very difficult to find out how much money parks was sitting on for projects and they were always saying they didn’t have money to do anything, when in fact they did!]
Maniaci says all of them were approved by BOE, we went through the process to get this into the budget. This is a step in the right direction for transparency, never included for the vetting process. Welcomes attention to this by Sanborn, would encourage use of districts and work to improve their parks.
[I hate to say it, but I think Sanborn is right here, we finally know where the funds are, but that doesn’t meant that they can just use them for whatever they want, the parks department should have a transparent process for neighbors to express their needs. However, in this case, I think the projects are all projects that they have been talking about for years and this helps them move forward. But in the future, I would like to see a better process and simply going to Board of Estimates is not the process I’m talking about.]
Verveer opposes the amendment, when he informed Camp Randall Rowing Club they were very concerned and wondered what is controversial. Don’t know motivation, respect Sanborn very much and his fiscal conservatism, but can’t agree with the logic that we as alders are spending like drunken sailors because we finally have the info. Reality is that our alders are closest to the priority projects in each of our district, they communicated among alders and were collegial about it, not fighting over money, still 10s of thousand in each of the accounts. Left a fair amount of money in the district where various members offered the amendments. Doesn’t buy the argument, but does respect it, it just that this is no longer held so closely to the vest by staff and now the policy makers have the information no reason we can’t use it. Each of the projects are priorities for the parks division. Briski said at Board of Estimates that there is nothing objectionable to parks staff and parks commission. Asks alders to tell them if there is controversy. He says Camp Randall Rowing Club impresses him – missed some of what he said. Says the porta-potties detract from historic monument. No running water is criminal. Doesn’t see controversy in this, registration slips would note that more opposed to this than on any other budget item except library and Edgewater. This is a dollar for dollar match and there is no controversy.
Bidar-Sielaff, urges them to oppose. This is what impact fees are for. Good conversations about how the money should be used, and all of the projects use the energy around these project by using impact fees and raising private money. [I don’t think that’s true in James Madison and Reynolds] Commitment by constituents to raise funds. Understands the process issues. Perhaps you can bring back a process to help with allocation of impact fees for next year. Time is not now, money just sitting in the bank without being used to improve the districts. Not spending willy-nilly, Vilas has $411,000 and they are only using $25,000 and $60,000 for Olive Jones and Brittingham. Being conservative.
Kerr wants to correct a statement. Brittingham boathouse improvements have been discussed for years, not just cuz the numbers are now public. Wants to bring us back to a couple years ago when problems at Brittingham park. They wanted to effectively police the park and bring people in for positive uses. This was one of the groups using the park on a regular basis, this has made a huge difference on appearance and safety. Sort of random thought, but seems that we should be saying to neighbors to be part of a solution and when ask for basic things, like running water, it doesn’t make sense to vote against it.
Sanborn says not about merits of projects.
Sanborn asks May if the impact fees would be 15 vote item if not a budget amendment. May says yes.
Sanborn says if we passed the amendment, if went through the process and parks commission voted, it shouldn’t be a problem getting though the council.
Motion FAILS on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT EIGHT
[Warning, this one is headache inducing to me.]
This is the amendment given to the public.
Agency/Project: Parks / New Project – James Madison Park Improvements
Page(s): 90
Sponsors: Alds. Maniaci, Rummel, VerveerThis project provides funding for improvements at James Madison Park and other parklands. A detailed master plan will be developed for the park, and may eventually include many of the following components: grading and restoration of housesites; garden, terrace and accessible paths; parking, lighting, and public art; lakeshore pier; lakeshore staircase and gazebo; playground and shelter furnishings; irrigation, signage, bocce, horseshoe, and exercise areas; and major shelter renovation for restaurant-concession. Project costs are to be entirely offset by proceeds from long-term lease revenues at the park. Improvements will not be made until lease revenues are received. Proceeds will be divided equally between James Madison Park and general parklands.
This has no levy impact, but there would be 1.2M from other proceeds.
And so the reason this gives me a headache is this is the mayor’s amendment from years ago with the plans for what he wants to see in the park with the neighborhoods wish list added to it. Several items need to be taken out of this amendment. Plus, this sets us back several years, to when we are once again waiting to dispose of the hosues in the park and it gives the Mayor leverage to get what he wants by withholding improvements until we agree with him. It puts the neighborhood in an awful position and essentially guarantees another year of nothing getting done.
So, Maniaci has a substitute.
[She apparently negotiated with herself to reduce the amount of money coming to the park and cement the deal that nothing will happen until the real estate market improves, which could be years.]
Maniaci says that she initially brought it up at Board of Estimates at request of neighborhood. Brought previous language. Several alders pointed out language concerns, so back to drawing board, and now it is better language. Staff pulled together better numbers. That is what is before us. None of money spent until and if the houses are sold and land is in a longer term lease. Highly unlikely that will happen, but if perspective buyer the neighborhood could move forward.
[So, she just admitted that the amendment is essentially useless. Thanks Maniaci, for representing my neighborhood so well. Ugh. We deserve better than that! How’d Rummel and Verveer let this happen?]
Clear asks to clarify, plan would be to sell the house and lease the land and houses would stay – help me understand last sentence that says $75,000 for each of 2010 to 2015.
Maniaci asks Bbrasser to explain it for her.
Brasser says that Marx looked at a 10 year lease, the value of property and the land under the structures and determined it would have a $1.5M value, $150,000 per year and half of revenues for the park, the rest reserved for others. Half of $150,000 per year is $75,000 which is half of sale of structures and half of rent.
Clear asks if the money would be determined in future years.
Brasser says it will be in the capital budget.
Clear asks how impacts Lincoln School property. Would that continue?
They explain it isn’t touched.
Motion PASSES on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT NINE & TEN
NINE
Agency/Project: Parks / New Project – Street Trees in TIDs
Page(s): 90, 139, 141, 148
Sponsors: Alds. Sanborn, Pham-Remmele, Schumacher, ComptonReverse Board of Estimates Capital Amendment No.13, which added $30,000 of TID cash funding for tree planting inTIDs #23, 25, and 32.
TEN
Agency/Project: Parks / New Project – Breese Stevens Field Improvements
Page(s): 90, 151
Sponsors: Alds. Sanborn, Pham-Remmele, Schumacher. Compton
Reverse Board of Estimates Capital Amendment No. 14, which added $40,000 of TID cash for signage, banners, and landscaping at Breese Stevens Field.
Sanborn moves both nine and ten, someone seconds, but I never hear it.
Sanborn says that these are the same as capital square improvements and impact fee earmarking. TID cash should go through regular process and we should not use TID cash.
Maniaci urges not to support either. Like to speak to 10. Landscaping and signage at the field. Ties in to work done by parks department at Breese and Capital Gateway corridor goals. Rummel spoke about central park and the goals there for the corridor and she’d like city plan staff to perhaps chat and speak to the goals of the money and how it ties to the marketing studies and work done on the capital gateway.
Mayor again asks her what the question is. Olinger can’t find a working microphone as he’s sitting in a spot without one. Rummel suggests he take Bruer’s seat, since he’s not in it once again! :)]
Maniaci asks Olinger to please speak to how TIF money will impact goals of Capital Gateway.
Olinger says they have been working for years, have a TIF plan in place, Urban Design District was passed last week, all three things done to help cement E Washington as future growth area for city of Madison. They identified historic structures that should be maintained, Breese Stevens is one of those and part of plan was to enhance quality of improvements and these improvements are consistent.
Verveer speaks for the trees. Board of Estimates recommended adoption, TIF cash to replace street trees in downtown in 3 TIDS continuing successful program started in other TIF districts. He explains it benefits every district, because forestry has a limited budget for replacement trees and by using this money, leave levy money for areas outside the TIDs.
Motion FAILS on a voice vote.
CALLING IT QUITS
Rhodes-Conway rises, literally has to stand up to get attention, for a point of personal privilege. She explains that due to the lateness of the hour and questionable ability to make good decisions at late hours and weighty nature of amendments still left and given that new information has been provided in relation to amendment number 12 (Edgewater) that they need to read or digest and as a matter and finally, as a matter of aldermanic privilege, several alders have asked to recess until today at 5:30.
No discussion, motion passes, but only after a roll call!
AYE: Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Sanborn, Schmidt, Skidmore, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Cnare, Compton, Kerr, King and Maniaci (who passed the first time because she didn’t know how to vote.)
NO: Palm, Schumacher, Solomon, Bruer, Clausius, Clear and Eagon. Note, all are men . . .
GOSSIP AND OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
First of all, ala the county board, Clear announced at the beginning of the meeting that only the council, staff and media are allowed on the floor. He references MGO
2.31
NO PERSONS ALLOWED ON COUNCIL FLOOR EXCEPT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
No persons except members and officers of the Council or City Staff shall be allowed to come to the Council floor during the session of the Council without the permission of the presiding officer. The Council may designate certain seats in the rear of the Council Chambers for media. (Am. by Ord. 8156, 11-14-83; ORD-07-00194, 12-20-07
As Clear is talking, he says “media, as defined in the ordinance”. I presume he’s referring to me and the “is a blogger the media?” controversy. We worked that out at the county, but if they push it, I can “a legitimate” media outlet to sponsor me. But I think they will find that this is a news story that some media outlets would like to write and I don’t think it will look good for the elected officials.
The more interesting part of this is apparently the presiding officer (Mayor) didn’t mind that the Edgewater folks were sitting on the council floor. I didn’t see the Hammes folks who I heard sat there for some time but finally left, but I did see Scott Faulkner, owner/manager of the current sitting there for nearly the whole meeting and I heard him defiantly says “I’m not moving”. Oh, and apparently David Remmele had to move and was none too happy about it. He does realize it is his wife that is the alder, right?
Second item of interest is that vote to end the meeting. Rumor has it that they were intending to go all night and Clear had ordered pizzas. Why you might ask? Well, the boys were trying to push through to get to the Edgewater vote because they had worked out another “compromise” like the one on the library that did nothing more than what they would have to do anyways. Here’s that amendment:
Prior to providing TIF assistance for the hotel project, a funding Resolution prepared by City staff must be approved by the Common Council setting forth:
(a) the terms of the TIF loan, (b) the repayment schedule for the loan, (c) a detailed underwriting analysis indicating whether the value of the completed project will generate sufficient increment to jsutify project funding under existing City TIF policies, and (d) the terms that will govern and permanently establish the public access to the public improvements built as part of the project.
Seems Bidar-Sielaff was right, it is the budget of useless amendments called compromises that don’t change anything. Worse yet, the city staff were all told that they had to be there no matter if they had amendments up or not, so the boys were planning on holding a whole bunch of staff hostage and paying to keep them there til all hours of the morning for this do-nothing amendment.
More tonight, starting at 5:30. My guess is they will finish tonight.
