Looks like there will be a part 3 or 4 as well . . . 7 hours and 15 minutes meeting. Here’s everything but the capital budget and capital budget part 1. But I have 4 hours left to go and I won’t finish this morning.
After a break, right before 7:30 they return and finish discussing Amendment number 6
Amendment 6 – Schenks Corners
Rummel $0 – This amendment will provide funding for improvements at the Schenks Corner: Atwood Ave. / Winnebago Ave. Intersection in 2018. The proposed project will reconfigure the existing roadway and provide for placemaking and include undergrounding of overhead utilities. The cost of the project is $2,420,000 which includes $2,270,000 of GO borrowing and $150,000 of Special Assessments. Construction year will be 2018.
Dave Schmiedicke says that it was first in the budget in 2014 and was scheduled for 2016, in the 2015 budget it was in for 2016 and this amendment puts it in 2018.
Marsha Rummel asks for their support. They started this when they thought Atwood would be reconstructed, they thought they would start early, they have done their work, she is trying to move forward the goodwill and creativity and the work they have done.
Sarah Eskrich says she is voting on priorities tonight, the costs are worrisome. If there is no realistic hope that this will get done she doesn’t want to create unrealistic expectations. She looks forward to supporting some of it and getting the costs down and getting to something they can support.
Denise DeMarb asks if this is the same project, did other things get added?
Rummel says at first it was just tearing out the space – now they are redoing the intersection.
Rob Phillips, city engineer says that the added undergrounding of the electric lines and a few other things.
DeMarb asks them to separate those costs if this comes up again.
Motion passes on a voice vote, seemed unanimous.
Amendment 7 -Atwood Ave (Utility Undergrounding)
Rummel $400,000 – This amendment will provide funding for the undergrounding of overhead utilities on Atwood Avenue from Rusk Street to Division Street. Funding is GO borrowing reimbursed by TID #37 using the 1/2 mile rule. Payback time is estimated at 2 years. Construction will take place in 2016.
$400,000 Engineering, Major Streets
Debt Service $46,892
Taxes on the Average Home – $0
Rummel says next to United Way there is a building being torn down and a 4 story building put in. We said we would underground that part of Atwood and so they are doing this in front of that development.
Mike Verveer says this isn’t for the new building, but its one block of wires. Rummel says Rusk to Division. Verveer asks if this is only done with reconstruction? Phillips says this is stand alone. Verveer asks if it costs more this way, is there a premium. Verveer says usually they lay conduit with resurfacing or reconstruction. Will it need to be torn up? Phillips says they will patch it. Verveer asks if one half of the street? Probably not, but there would be crossings too.
Motion passes.
Amendment 10 – Monroe Street-Reconstruction
Alder Eskrich, Bidar-Sielaff – $885,000 – This project will resurface Monroe Street from Odana Road to Leonard Street and reconstruct Monroe Street from Leonard Street to Regent Street. Included in this project is $2,000,000 for undergrounding of overhead utility lines and placemaking. Design will occur in 2016 ($885,000) and construction in 2017 ($9,120,000).
Debt Service $ 103,749
TOAH Impact $ 1.15
Amendment 11 – Monroe Street-Leonard to Regent
Eskrich – $0 – This amendment will provide funding to reconstruct Monroe Street from Leonard Street to Regent Street. Included in this project is $1,000,000 for undergrounding of overhead utility lines and placemaking. Design will occur in 2017 ($150,000), 2018 ($150,000) and 2019 ($140,000). Construction of the project will begin in 2019 ($5,410,000). The total estimated cost of the project is $5,850,000.
Amendment 12 – Monroe Street-Pedestrian Improvements
Alder Eskrich, Bidar-Sielaff – $150,000 – This project will improve pedestrian crossings within the Monroe Street corridor. Design and construction in 2016.
Debt Service $ 17,585
TOAH Impact $ 0.20
Eskrich asks Rob Phillips, City Engineer to talk about all three amendments. The mayor says they should discuss all three at the same time as alternatives. Eskrich asks for a history of this in the budget. Phillips says work was last done on Monroe St. in 1989, it was resurfaced, there is concrete under there and resurfaced in asphalt. The entire area was done, however, the stretch from Leonard St. to Odana had the curb replaced. The curb is in good shape in the south, poor in the north. Pavement is rated 3 – 4 in the whole stretch. Something needs to be done. Mayor has $200,000 for patching pavement. There is a series of amendments #10 is the entire project back in. The replacement of all the pavement and new curb and gutter on the northern end. That is what they hoped they could do in earlier years, all done in 2017. Amendment 11 reconstructs just Leonard to Regent with the poor curb and gutter, they resurface the southern portion of the street, that is $5M in 2018. Amendment 12 is pedestrian improvements. This is patching with some pedestrian improvements over time. Eskrich asks about the Monroe Commons TID, it would reach Leonard in the half mile rule, she will look into if they can use that. She asks Schmiedicke what it would mean to use that funding. TID 33 has closed out its project costs, the council extended it for one year for affordable housing. The project plan would need to be amended, it would need joint review board approval and approval of the half mile rule. This is a unique TID in that it is a one parcel TID, it is riskier, it generates $600,000 a year and would take 6 years to finance this project. The TID could be open until 2032, or 17 more years. This would be a higher level of risk to use the TID for this scope of a project. Matt Mikolajewski just reminds them that they needs to get Joint Board approval and the single parcel TID risks.
Mayor Paul Soglin says the most disastrous thing that could happen is the building gets destroyed in its entirety, seems it would be rebuilt, then could we recapture the value. Schmiedicke says yes, but you would have lost the time. Mayor says that might be 3 years. Mayor asks if we could take out an insurance policy on the building. Mikolajewski says he doesn’t know. Schiedicke says he doubts it since they don’t own the building. Mayor says in life insurance you have dead peasants insurance, where somebody else can take out a life insurance policy on an individual, it seems we have an insurable interest. Schmiedicke (keeps a straight face and says) you’d have to weigh the cost of the insurance and the cost of simply issuing the debt. Mayor says at some point we should refer this to another meeting, which might be unusual, but he’d like staff to look at the alternatives and evaluate the risk.
Verveer says that he knows he mentioned this in previous years, to Ellingson and Daley, but he never thought about using the half mile rule. He thought they could figure out what one block is, and just amend the project plan. Mikolajewski says they are not over the budget yet and there is some money for streetscapes. Schmiedicke says there is about $300,000 left. Verveer asks O’Keefe about the half million dollars for affordable housing, if we did use this approach, if we reconsider this and not use it for affordable housing, what would happen to the 2016 budget for affordable housing. Would we use the $6M in the budget. Jim O’Keefe, director of Community Development, says that it would reduce that amount of money available from $4.5 to $4M the amount of money available. With the exception of the 2nd phase of supportive housing where they expect to spend 1.5 million, they haven’t committed the balance of the funds. They are currently evaluating responses to an RFP and there are requests that could consume all of the funds proposed.
Mayor asks if these are WHEDA projects, O’Keefe says the deadline is end of February and decisions would be made in April or May of 2016, the funds wouldn’t be needed til later, but they have to be budgeted under WHEDA guidelines.
Verveer asks about the numbers, was he including the $1.5 in reauthorization, O’Keefe says no, those are supporting the first of the 3 tax credit projects that were approved earlier this year, they were budgeted and approved in 2015. The new funds are for 2016 but won’t be spent until a year later.
DeMarb thanks Eskrich for looking for money and searching for ways to partially fund this, its a large number and she appreciates that. During the summer we had special Board of Estimates meetings and at one of them we said we don’t pretend to know which streets will be done when and how it all fits together, so we asked Engineering to come back with $10 – 12M less and Engineering came back for more. What was your criteria? Were you looking for federal and state dollars, per the mayor’s memo, or was it what was needed, or both. Phillips says that the prospect of losing funds definitely factored in, which is the right thing to do. Beyond that they funded route to urban project because of the need and that is not to say that there aren’t other needs. We can do the patching need. Utilities will drive the projects in the future if this continues. This is the opposite, in the past utilities were following the street reconstruction projects. DeMarb asks if that costs more money to do when they have to repair utilities. Phillips says they would just do a single location, it will be confined to a short distance. (Apparently it is happening right now, tonight)
DeMarb asks if they adopt 10 and they wouldn’t need 11 and 12. Phillips says they wouldn’t need the $200,000 already in there as well. DeMarb says that if they don’t do 10 and 11, then they could adopt 12 and use the budget. They could do 11 and 12 together as well. Phillips says that would make sense 11 would do the northern portion, 12 would do the southern portion.
Eskrich asks about the age of sewer and utilities along Monroe St. Phillips says it divides around Leonard, but chance, the northerly segment is 1905 – 1911, on the south 1922 – 1932, slightly older as you get towards campus.
DeMarb asks Schmiedicke about referring to the next BOE meeting for answers on the TID, she would like to get to yes on Monroe St, but would also want to know how creative they could be with TID dollars? Scmiedicke asks what the questions is, can this be referred? She says yes, he says you are acting on amendments that will be forwarded to the council, there could be amendments at the council as well, we can deal with it at that point or move it to another BOE meeting, but you do need a recommendation, the more you can address now the better, and they could address this at the council.
Shiva Bidar says that she hopes they vote tonight, to set a direction of the priorities, if they refer it, they should refer the whole budget, there is plenty of time before the council votes on this and we don’t have the operating budget yet. She says there could be language about looking into the TID between now and the council meeting.
Mayor says motion is adoption of item 10 – noting that staff will work with alders to consider partial funding of the portion of the project from Regent to Leonard through TID 33.
Rummel says she would have voted for it without it being complex. She would need to know a whole lot more before agreeing to give up affordable housing money for street construction – mayor interrupts her again, its getting really annoying – she says that is why the mayor suggested referral, but at some point they shouldn’t under estimate that there are 2 amendments at Joint Review Board, she thinks that is a big lift.
Mayor says that is why he asked for consideration of referral. He says this is one of the smaller TIDs and its not as tho we are jeopardizing $5M for affordable housing, so he wants to weigh using GO debt. He would also like to look at the impact on other governmental agencies and the risk to the city if anything happens to the single parcel in question. He says they could get an answer for the council meeting where they will take this up, or they could get one to BOE prior to that, to allow for an established known position prior to the night the council takes this up.
Chris Scmidt says he likes Eskrich’s approach. He says the property isn’t in great jeopardy and that they haven’t done much on the side of improvements and he doesn’t think people were expecting it to close next year. He doesn’t recall them talking about that until recently.
Mo Cheeks says that he supports Eskrich’s approach, we do need to investigate options and we can discuss when it comes to council, there is no reason to delay.
Eskrich says the reason to keep it in the budget it because it should be considered in the wider context of the budget and not look at the overall impact, she thinks there are opportunities (like Jeffy Trail) where money might be moved in the budget, to keep their priorities, like affordable housing. That is a commitment she wants to keep. She thinks that they can do that work, she apologizes that they haven’t done that work yet, there is flexibility to look at it but not commit to that. She says there are ways to communicate outside of meetings.
Barbara McKinney says that they should look at priorities, as the work through the budget she is not understanding a systematic priority. There is a plan, but doesn’t know what the plan to fix streets and it is hard to follow. One we look at the greater good for the district and the community, the only way we can get at those is to look at priorities and we haven’t been able to do that. Because the city is growing so rapidly, we need to consider when and how we are accountable to looking at the needs and follow that instead of pushing projects in our districts. We’ve got plans but we don’t follow them consistently.
Rummel asks about the $200,000 fit in to this motion. Are you still resurfacing it.
Eskrich says they need to clean that up, there is no need for $200,000 for resurfacing if they do the full project. She says the amendments are in the order of priority, they have pushed this back time and time again and the lack of certainty for the businesses is hard. The idea that we not move forward at this time is unacceptable, the loudest concern is pedestrian safety that could go with the resurfacing.
Mayor says that if item 10 is adopted, then that would be a motion to substitute that for the $200,000 that is there and then they will place 11 and 12 on file. This is the amendment to the amendment, that passes.
They have no discussion on 10, passes, only DeMarb votes no.
Items 11 and 12 are placed on file, unanimously on a voice vote
Amendment 15 – TID 36-Capitol Gateway Corridor
Soglin – $4,500,000 – This amendment will authorize $4,500,000 for potential TIF investment in the redevelopment of the 1000 North Block of East Washington Avenue, site of the former Madison Dairy. A developer has approached City staff with a potential mixed- use redevelopment of the block into a mix of market-rate and affordable housing and office space, to be served by structured parking. A formal TIF application is anticipated. $4,500,000 is an estimate of possible support. Upon future underwriting of the project, City staff will provide a recommendation for approval by the Common Council. The Boundary and Project Plan of TID 36 will require amendment to accommodate this project. The General Obligation borrowing is TID – eligible.
Debt Service $ 527,537
TOAH Impact $ 5.85
No discussion, they vote aye – but there is confusion. They ask to wait. Verveer suggests they might want staff to explain. Mayor says they already voted, it has been adopted, they move to reconsider. Cheeks makes the motion, it passes.
Eskrich asks for a description from staff.
Mayor says that the notification of interest in the project came after the capital budget was submitted. Matt Mikolajewski says there are often one or two of these during the budget. This is TIF for the Madison Dairy, it would be mixed use, office, market rate and affordable housing. This is Stonehouse Development, they have approached staff, there is no formal application, the project could support up to 4.5 in assistance, once they have a formal application it would come back.
Rummel asks about the boundary and project plan being amemded, are you just adding the parcel. We have been talking about creating a new TID, so where are we at with that? The project plan is at the expenditure maximum, so the plan and the boundary would need to be amended but staff are going to run some models to see if it makes sense to use this TID or create a new one as they have discussed with Zellers, Palm and Rummel. This project will push them to answer that question. If they create a new TID they could move this dollar value to the new TID.
Verveer asks if Stonehouse will ask for TIF and Affordable Housing Funds. Mikolajewski says that they have asked for WHEDA bonds as well. O’Keefe says that they have requested Affordable Housing Funds so they plan on seeking WHEDA tax credits as well. Verveer says they want 2 pots of city money. Verveer asks how much? O’Keefe says $1.1 M ish.
Rummel says now we are giving 5 or 6 million? They want city funds and a placeholder, help me understand. Mikolajewski says they will look at all the funds they have when they evaluate the TIF, this is not what they requested, it was the staff estimate of the maximum they could get. If they get other funds that will be taken into consideration. O’Keefe says TIF staff also review the projects for the Affordable Housing Fund, they coordinate the two resources the best they can.
Schmidt says that it caught his eye because they don’t have a project. Do we put ourselves at a disadvantage when we put a number out there. Good TIF projects haven’t been at a disadvantage. Mikolajewski says he doesn’t think this puts us at a disadvantage, we understand the issues in this neighborhood and will come to consensus on staff and hopefully can get agreement with the developer. Most likely some of the gap will be poor soils, structured parking, environmental remediation – those are already identified.
Barbara McKinney asks about the “placeholder” – you don’t have numbers, could you talk about why this is important to put in now instead of waiting until analysis is complete. Mikolajewski says it is a large number, they are aware of it, there is a good chance that they will need the money to proceed. McKinney asks if this shifts other projects we are now considering? Mikolajewski says for TIF projects, because they are repaid for by the increment, they don’t compete with GO projects. Schmiedicke says it does use borrowing authority, we are only at 1/3 of the constitutional limit. In last years budget there was a $13.3 M add for Anchor Bank.
The vote again, it passes except McKinney votes no.
Amendment 18 – Employee Development Center & EMS Unit
Alder DeMarb, Hall $0 – This amendment will provide funding for the construction of an Employee Development Center and Medic Unit to serve the neighborhoods in southeast Madison. Design and site preparation will begin in early 2017 with construction being completed in 2018. The amendment will authorize $5,500,000 in 2017 of CIP. Medic services will continue to be provided out of this location until a permanent location for Fire Station 14 can be constructed beyond 2022.Operating Budget Impact
Staffing the new medic only unit on a 24-hour posture will result in the hiring of 9 additional Firefighter Paramedic positions. Under existing contract terms the ongoing cost of these 9 positions is approximately $900,000 annually. These costs will be borne by the General Fund.
DeMarb says that she looked long and hard to save money in the budget with safety of her residents in mind. She says that there are 1200 households south of beltline and ? of Stoughton Rd, the response time is three times that of other areas of the city. Households are paying twice the amount of insurance because of the risk. If you can believe insurance companies, believe that one. There are move projects coming – 48 lots in Owl Creek, 2 proposals for multifamily at 100 units plus in each, Ho Chunk has a sports complex that they want to start construction in 2017 and up and running in 2019. Ho Chunk has 60 calls per year, it may increase to 150 calls in half of the year. Public Safety is the number on priority to our residents and these residents don’t have the same service. The stations are too far away and congestion is to great. They reduced the request from $7M for a fire station to $5M for a training center to double as a fire station until past this CIP (5 year plan). The 2.3M in 2020 is for the exercise building, that has been removed from the CIP. The $400,000 has been moved from 2019 to 2020. Fire is looking at regional approaches and we may be getting money in, she thinks the regional approach is best instead of these artificial lines. They did try to dig out some money, what she has is pretty essential for her residents.
DeMarb asks the cheif’s to talk about how doable this is and how it falls short. Chief says that in the interest of budget constraints they have gone at this different ways and they discussed that brick and mortar full stations is not in the best interest of a growing city, as we explore regional concepts, at first blush is makes sense to put the station there now, but it might not in 10 years. They do need a training center any which way, even tho they are back at MATC, but they are in a situation that they needed to train people to avoid overtime and MATC cancelled the training on them. There are conflicts, so they need the training facility and they also need service there now as well. They can have a temporary location until 5 – 10 years when they know more.
DeMarb hopes they can support this. This is about heart attacks and babies not breathing and waiting for ambulances.
Eskrich asks if the training center was part of the CIP (the 5 year plan in the capital budget) request in the past? Or is this a new request.
Chief says this goes back to 2013, they took the money that we agreed to pay and bought land, they negotiated a good price and it meets the station and training needs.
Eskrich asks if the training location would stay there in the future. He says yes. She asks about coordination with police? Chief says that he can’t speak for Koval, but it might look like a great idea, but based on the needs it would be a challenge to coordinate that. They could explore it, but he’s not sure how it would end up.
Schmidt asks about the Ho Chunk paying taxes or a pilot. They do pay something, they don’t know the value of what will be built. He thinks that they can look at the projects that might soften the numbers a little bit.
DeMarb says that a couple years ago property was bought off Dairy Drive and Femrite and this is where the training center would go, and they aren’t sure about the fire station at this point even though the land was bought for it. Realistically this might not be the best place for a station.
Verveer asks about why they can’t do a medic unit only? Chief says that it would be a new concept, they never had a stand alone ambulance, because the engine companies bring water if there is a fire and medical staff. He says no one ever asks for a fire engine, you always ask for an ambulance. Under the assumption that the paramedics will be there and arrive, a stand alone ambulance makes the system weaker. Engines don’t need paramedics to provide life support. They have explored it, it can work 80% of the time, and he’ll have to explain the 20% of the time that it doesn’t. The issue here is that there will be a resource there.
Verveer asks about the response times – they are not medical vs fire are they, its for all. Chief says yes. Verveers asks about mutual aid option in this area. Is there a difference between fire and medical. Chief says Monona is an ALS paramedic ambulance, so if its a high acuity call, they would respond, with a Madison Fire Engine, they have no automatic aid agreements, its about quality of service, we have no way to control what they send in terms of number of people and qualifications, so we call upon request. Except for the communities that signed on to ALS, so they have the same training and protocol. Verveer says the ALS agreement predates most of people, and only is for the most severe cases. They also say that when we took over Bloming Grove, that left another gap in the system, as regionalization occurs, it will create more demands in this area of the city. Verveer asks if for the severe medical calls, so we arrive first or do they? We are typically the first to arrive because we staff the stations 24/7, the other agencies come from elsewhere in the community, they don’t staff 24/7, that is a 7 – 10 minute response times. As part of the Blooming Grove deal, we picked up EMS only for Town of Burke, our unit will arrive before Sun Prairie even tho we are paged at the same time.
Mayor interrupts, says that distance is not necessarily the fastest, especially when you are staff 24/7 with professionals.
Verveer asks if they went to the station, what would the cost differential be? The operating impact is $900,000 and engine company is $1.8M, staffed with 4. Verveer asks about cost of construction. The idea is the operating costs, the construction costs are the same due to the training center. The difference is the retrofit of living quarters in the training center and when we get a permanent location they make that training again. Verveer says doesn’t matter if 2 or 4 beds.
DeMarb says there is a difference between ambulance vs fire engine. Ambulance is $325K, fire engine is $500. DeMarb asks if they ever staffed a fire engine with one person. Chief says no, DeMarb asks if it would be impossible to do, chief says yes.
Mayor says we don’t even go as low as three.
Cheeks ask about the paramedicine program, how might that impact the need for this district. Chief says that the medical prevention piece, which the grant would address, he talks about a report that talks about prevention to lower costs. Will he see it in his time, he doesn’t know, but the hope is to reduce the number of calls. Their calls are on the rise, we have to do something to see a reduction in that. As they see a growth in population, they don’t want to have to ask for more as quickly. They try to prevent people from going to the hospital, not that we won’t let them go (haha)
Bidar says that model is used in many places around the world, including Europe and it is proven to be effective. Chief says it is not surprise European countries are ahead of us but it is starting to take hold here in the United States.
Motion passes.
OK, GOTTA GO TO WORK, THE REST LATER THIS WEEK
3 hours left . . . .
Amendment 19 – Residential Internet Access Assistance
Alders DeMarb, Cheeks – $362,000 – This amendment will provide an additional $362,000 in funding for the “Residential Internet Access Assistance” project in the Information Technology budget for 2016. This will enable the implementation of all four pilot sites previously identified by the Digital Technology Committee. The current funding is sufficient for Darbo-Worthington and Kennedy Heights. The additional amount will provide funding to complete the Allied Drive and Brentwood sites as well.Operating Budget Impact
The City pays maintenance fees to the MUFN Consortium for the use of fiber. It is estimated that this amendment will result in additional maintenance fees of $9,600 per year.Debt Service $ 42,437
TOAH Impact $ 0.47
Amendment 20 – Relocate Pinney Neighborhood Library
Alders McKinney, Hall – $5.1M This amendment supports the purchase and design of a “gray box” for the relocation of the Pinney Library in the Royster Commons development (500 block Cottage Grove Road). The purchase price of approximately $3,000,000 will deliver a facility valued at approximately $4,500,000 due to the developer’s in-kind contribution. Design fees are estimated at $500,000. Build-out of the gray box is scheduled for 2017 ($3,900,000 GO/$1,000,000 private funds) with an anticipated occupancy of fall 2017.
Operating Budget Impact
In 2014, operating costs for the existing Pinney Branch Library location were $1,052,451. Costs to operate the branch have slightly increased due to an annual 3% escalator in rent and increases to staffing costs. The new location will result in the hiring of additional 4.55 full time equivalent positions within the Library. The projected cost of these positions is $282,385 annually. Additional operating costs associated with the new location are estimated to be $38,000. The net operating impact of the amendment is $218,385 annually. These costs will be borne by the General Fund.General Obligation Debt $ 3,600,000
Other Funding 1,500,000
Total: $ 5,100,000
Debt Service $ 422,030
TOAH Impact $ –
Amendment 21 – Library Major Repairs/Replacements
McKinney – $100,000 – This amendment provides funding in 2016 for major Library facility repairs and replacements. Planned projects for 2016 include two new heating coils, new carpeting, painting and major furniture replacements at Sequoya Library. It will also address HVAC replacement, the addition of a book drop, and a new door entry system at the Monroe Street Library. Remaining funds will be used for the most emergent facility issues which arise during the year.
Debt Service $ 11,723
TOAH Impact $ 0.13
Amendment 29 – Midtown District Station
Alds. McKinney, Schmidt, Bidar-Sielaff, Clear, Hall, Phair, King, Carter, Skidmore – $6,441,695 – As part of the Strategic Planning effort, staff has reviewed current data and future trends, including city population growth, citizen demands for service, and staffing levels to assist in establishing geographical borders for Police Districts. While MPD has been using a five district community-based model to provide primary police services for nearly two decades, data indicates that the districts are outgrowing capacity to meet the demands of the community. There are also capacity issues at four of the five district facilities. With the annexation of portions of the Town of Madison and Blooming Grove, and increased city growth, a new district station in the Midtown area will alleviate workload issues in the South, West and Central Districts, and maintain efficient response times. In 2014, the City purchased property on Mineral Point Road to be used for a Midtown Station. In the adopted 2015 Capital Budget, the project plan called for demolition of the structures at the station site in 2015 and commencement of construction in early 2016, however the former did not occur.General obligation borrowing required is as follows:
Add $981,695 of reauthorized General Obligation Debt (the Executive budget includes $728,305 of reauthorization).
Add $5,460,000 of General Obligation Debt in 2016.
Add $1,435,000 of General Obligation Debt in 2017.Operating Budget Impact
Staffing the new district station will result in the hiring of 11 additional positions. Under existing contract terms the ongoing cost of these 11 positions is approximately $933,000. Ongoing building operating costs are estimated to be $135,000 per year. In addition, six marked squad cars and one unmarked squad car will be purchased for approximately $337,000. These costs will be borne by the General Fund.Debt Service $ 755,163
TOAH Impact $ 8.37
Amendment 30 – Body Cameras
Verveer – $0 – Amend the project narrative as follows: (DELETE ‘A committee is currently evaluating whether or not the Police Department should utilize body worn cameras.) Funding in 2016 will implement a body worn camera pilot program in one Police district, (DELETE if the committee evaluating body worn cameras for police makes a recommendation to do so.) upon the adoption of a resolution by Common Council to proceed.
Amendment 31 – Midtown Station
Soglin $0 – This amendment provides that, prior to the construction of Midtown Police Station, a comprehensive analysis will be carried out reviewing staffing levels, district boundaries, and demand for police services in the City of Madison. This review will also examine policing levels in the City of Madison compared to comparable peer cities. The analysis will be carried out as a joint effort between Police, Finance, and RESJI Committee. The goal of the study will be to ensure new construction of a new facility is reflective of demand for service and Madison’s equity needs. Future funding of the project is subject to the presentation of findings to the Mayor, Board of Estimates, and Common Council.
