Capital Budget Votes at Board of Estimates

September 27, 2016 8:49 am

Live-ish blog, done in pieces and parts off the video . . . not as thorough as possible due to time . . . need more time in my day . . .

They started discussion around 5:30 (1:01 on the video). They attempted to pass amendments 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 24, 27 and 33 which the mayor did not oppose and staff thought might go quick.. Massive FAIL! Sara Eskrich pulled 5 and 33. Mo Cheeks pulled 9. Marsha Rummel pulled 2. Barbara McKinney pulled 7, 27, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16. Zach Wood also wanted 33 pulled. So they decided to take the in order. They said that they would table the controversial items to get the staff out of there where they could. Rummel reminded them that she had to leave at 7:15 for a memorial service.

1 – Community Development Division/Library – Library Multi-Purpose Concept/Partner Study
Alder Verveer* Alder Baldeh

Add $100,000 in GO Borrowing appropriation in 2018 for a consultant to work with community members and City agencies to identify partners for the Library to develop a multi-purpose space concept for the Library on Madison’s Northeast side.

Library director Greg Mickells says there is no need for a study, he thinks the study they did this year covered what was needed to be done and they plan to continue their community conversation. Alder Samba Baldeh made a passionate plea for services for his district and is concerned that work was not done as promised and he is interested in a multi-purpose center, not just a library. Ahrens says the library report is different than what is being asked for here, he also asks why there is such a long delay after Pinney is built in 2018. Mickells says they don’t think it is a long delay, time is needed for the community work and concern over donor fatigue and says they have to open one library and let people experience that before they ask for money again. 5 years is realistic for the work they need to do. Samba says if there is a plan for 2022, so why can’t we start planning in 2020. Mickells says that they wanted $1M in 2022 but it didn’t make it into the budget. He says if we are committed to 2022 then the planning money in 2020 makes sense. He doens’t want to wait until it is too late again. McKinney talked about how she went to the community meeting Baldeh had and this was the number one request they had. Ahrens also mentioned this in his comments. Rummel is trying to get this to be at least on the radar screen, how do we commit to moving forward on this if you think we don’t need the planning money. Mayor interrupts, mansplains and rephrases her question before he lets the staff answer. He agrees with Baldeh that there are some great challenges for this area and something needs to be done here. He says staff capacity is a problem and 30% of all capital budget projects get pushed back. He also says that this area of the city lacks public gathering spaces. Given these parameters and the debt service load and the needs in the area, what is a realistic solution to this challenge. Natalie Erdman (Planning Director) says the library did their part – what hasn’t been answered is the co-located space. They met with parks and library staff and have some information on that. How this would be funded and operated is a question they don’t have capacity to answer, they many need a third party to do some of that work in terms of outreach to the community, including how the schools might play into this. Mickells adds that they plan to use the community conversation tool that they developed. They want to keep what they started now to keep it going, he doesn’t want to wait a few years. They want to continue the engagement that they started, but he wants to be realistic about what they can accomplish. This is a tremendous investment and they want to get it right. Baldeh says that this is about what is outside of the library, the other pieces. He agrees with the library, but the multi-purpose co-lacated project is the part that needs work to be done. This isn’t about the library donors, its for the rest of the project. Baldeh wanted this next year, but he moved it back to work with the library schedule. McKinney asks how they came up with the cost of the study. Baldeh says it is based on the cost of past studies. McKinney wants to make sure that it is enough money to cover the needs. Baldeh admits it might need to be adjusted.

Motion failed, I think only McKinney voted in favor, Verveer and Cheeks definitely voted no. I think Eskrich voted no too. I couldn’t hear the rest of the votes.

They moved to take number 22 out of order.

22 – Library – Northeast Library Branch
Alder Verveer*, Alder Baldeh

dd $300,000 in GO Borrowing in 2020 for design of a Northeast Library Branch. Construction is expected to begin after 2022

Baldeh says that this is a placeholder for design work. Eskrich moves an amendment to say there would be $1,000,000 in 2022 for design and planning work. She says that she wants to respect the wishes of the library and the wishes of the alder. That amendment to the amendment passes.

The motion for $1M in 2022 passes unanimously on a voice vote.

They move to take the only other library matter up first to let the library staff go home.

23 – Library – Central Library Improvements
Alder Verveer

Add $1,000,000 in GO Borrowing in 2022 to the Central Library Improvements project

Motion to adopt is not discussed, passes unanimously on a voice vote.

2 – Community Development Division – Affordable Housing Fund
Mayor Soglin
1,250,000

Add $1,250,000 in 2017 to the Affordable Housing Fund to be available to support the development of approximately 50 units of affordable senior housing as part of a mixed-income housing project on property located at 7941 Tree Lane. The amendment will be jointly funded:
– $750,000 as a direct appropriation from the General Fund, and $500,000 from reserves in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
– After the General Fund balance exceeds the policy goal of 15%, $1.0 million from fund balance will be transferred to the Affordable Housing

Fund to be available for future projects. The source of these funds is one-time revenue generated from building code violations.This transfer will require Common Council approval.

Rummel asks about the one time money from building code violations, does that mean Ray Peterson? Dave Schmiedicke, the Finance Director says that the amendment doesn’t reference those funds, it just is saying that in a future budget there will be consideration of a transfer. This is currently from reserves from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund left over money and the other is from the general fund with money from the debt funds. Mayor says that they can’t directly allocate the forfeitures from the Ray Peterson case, it has to go into the general fund, but he thinks that they should accelerate some of their commitments for affordable housing due to the funds that came in. He’s but for the Ray Peterson case, this would not have come forward. Rummel asks how what the Mayor says and what Schmiedicke says are different. Schmiedicke says that in the future they might add more money.

Seems to pass on a voice vote.

3 – Economic Development Division – Public Market
Alder Eskrich
(1,200,000)

Eliminate the Public Market Project from the 2017 Capital Improvement Plan. Move $1,200,000 in GO Borrowing appropriation for the Public Market from 2017 to 2020. No GO Borrowing will be appropriated for the project until the anticipated matching federal and private contributions totaling $8,750,000 have been secured.

Eskrich says this is difficult, but its the right thing to do. She thinks this is not a priority and thinks funds can come from elsewhere.

Ahrens says that his amendment is similar, number 4. The council voted unanimously that we shouldn’t make this kind of investment at this level, funds should come from federal and other funds. This amendment has us paying it all. There seems to be no federal or private funding for this project and we will end up spending more than we agreed to. This is being moved up instead of pushed out. It moved from 2020 to 2017 without funds from the federal government or private funds. If other entities want to help us out, great. Tim Gruber says that this a city and regional issue. This is about job creation and nothing else in the Capital Budget will create this many jobs. He is interested in the food production corridor and thinks it is a good project to move forward. He says we have been working on this since 2004. He says to put it in perspective his daughter was born in 2007 and she is about to turn 9. We have great momentum and we should get this done. Rummel asks Economic Development staff to come up and talk about the project. Dan Kennelly runs them through all the items they approved and what they have already agreed to and the consulting contracts they have approved. (i.e. they’ve already moved this project along through several votes) He says on the funding, they are working to get funding with their consultant to get private investors and their fundraiser is working on getting donations in the next few months. He says that all those votes they took since March will start to produce results soon, we’ve made alot of progress and hope to continue that. They need the city action to get the New Market Tax Credit and people won’t donate if it doesn’t look like the city is behind it. Rummel asks about property owners and architect and work getting done – so we can buy a white box instead of fixing up the fleet building because it is too expensive. Staff says retrofitting the Fleet Building did turn out to be too expensive as they first planned and they started looking at the shopping center. They still want to look at the whole site, and explore both options. They are looking at the options and cost implications. The initial indication is that a new building would be less expensive and that means the new Fleet Building doesn’t need to be done so quickly. Clear asks about the federal money and the previous requirement of additional funding. Staff says the mayor didn’t include it and it would need to be added. Amanda Hall says that we seem to talk alot about the basics but she wants us to have a vision to make this city what it is. She is not in favor of these amendments and would support the public market. She says this won’t prevent other projects from moving forward. This will be something Madison can hang its hat on in 5, 10 or more years. Eskrich says that there are alot of balls in the air with this project and that makes her uncomfortable. The expedited timeline doesn’t feel prudent to her. She thinks the decision to move it up and wants them to support this amendment or the next one. Ahrens tells staff they didn’t answer Rummel’s questions, do we have any other funding? Kennelly says no and starts to say something else, Ahrens interrupts. Staff says to be fair we set a funding strategy and just signed the contracts with the people to get the work done. Ahrens says that New Market Tax Credits are hard to get. He says this is not just $1.1M, this is $8.7M that we are commiting to if we don’t get the other funding. Ahrens asks if the credits have been applied for. Staff says that the project does apply, the others do (CDEs) and they have applied. Ahrens asks when we will know, staff says when it is shovel ready. Ahrens asks how much the city has invested so far, Kennelly says for all the contracts and dsign work, about $400,000. Ahrens says it was $700,000. Kennelly says in the modern era of this is $250,000 on the business plan, the contracts they just executed contracts for design work which was $100,000 and $100,000 for the fundraising. So about $450,000 or $500,000 has been authorized. Ahrens says that shows good faith. Why was this moved from 2020 to 2017. Kennelly starts to say that the project has been in the budget since . . . Ahrens interrupts and says he doesn’t need the history, why has it moved from 2020 to 2017? Staff says it didn’t. Ahrens shows him. Kennelly says it moved from 2017 to 2020. Kennelly says its been in every capital budget since 2011. He says it is a commitment to small businesses. Ahrens cuts him off again. Mayor says for those who are confused, if we go forward with the project and in the next couple years it fails, we will have lost $1M if not more. Lets also be clear that you can’t compare this project to the Garver Feed Mill, the State St. Mall, Civic Center, Monona Terrace or Judge Doyle. They are all different projects with different needs and requirements. If you don’t have the stomach or the courage to move forward with this opportunity vote no now and every single time. There are the basics (police, fire, sanitation, snow removal) and the essentials and they are not the same. If you want just the basics, then you will be happy as Janesville, which is not a criticism of Janesville, that is what they want to be. The timetable on this project has moved, the most recent shift is because we had an opportunity to have a partnership with the private sector and we didn’t have to wait for the city garage, which can’t move for several years to its new location. The amendment for this year, we had enough things to quarrel about at the end of the process, so he didn’t make this argument. The estimates for funding will continually change as programs become available and partners change. There may still be a role for the state to fund this and his guess is that this isn’t likely. If we are committed to economic opprotunity and equity in terms of regional economic growth and agriculture, which is the focus throughout the country right now – regional – and if we are going to understand that over 1/3 of all new businesses are created by people not born in the United State and economic opportunity for those not built into wealth and ability to get a degree, then we will take this opportunity (that was paraphrased as close as I could) He says this won’t be the last opportunity to support these folks. McKinney was excited about this project and vision from the beginning, she was worried about diversity, but then today she says the visionary project has been moved up, but in the same token, she is also forced to look at the basic essentials that were pushed aside. One project is moved up and we are excited about it, but the downside is that another project that is a basic project is pushed off. Does she support one against the other, she would like to do both. You can’t talk about visions without talking about the essential basic needs. Gruber apologizes for delaying it in the past, he was against it at Brayton. Jobs are essential, this is one thing we can do.

Aye: Eskrich, McKinney
No: Cheeks, Rummel, Verveer, Wood

4 – Economic Development Division – Public Market
Alder Eskrich, Alder Ahrens
(1,200,000)

Move $1,200,000 in GO Borrowing appropriation for the Public Market from 2017 to 2020. No GO Borrowing will be appropriated for the project until the anticipated matching federal and private contributions totaling $8,750,000 have been secured

Eskrich moves the amendment and an amendment to delete the first sentence of the amendment. She explains that she wants to make sure the language from last year’s budget get put back in. Mayor says that this would kill the project. Hall asks staff what this would mean. Kennelly says that as we learn more about the sources of funds, the experts and analysis is that people think this is a city of Madison project and can’t be last money in. When talking to people with grants, construction level design needs to be done, and with any New Market Tax Credit projects you need the other funds first. Private donations will also be hard if the city doesn’t lead. Denise DeMarb clarifies and says we knew that last year when we put this language in. She says that this language shows commitment, is there something making this hard for funders in this langauge. Kennelly says that the $8.75M is based on an estimated budget from last year. We don’t have the total project cost, it might be over committing us to more money than we need. She wants to see a public market. Last year she was in the chair when it didn’t look like the council would pass it, but this language was added. She is looking for language to give assurance of our commitment but also assurance for the council. Kennelly says that we need to get the design done, the $1.2 for 2017 was to get the design finalized, we are committed to the other sources of funding and we are confident we can get them – the challenge is to not be too rigid and tie our hands. Rummel asks if they could distinguish planning money from construction money. Gruber says that 2017 is planning and design. Gruber says vote yes or no, kill the project. Cheeks says that its isn’t that simple. The decision the council made a year ago was unanimous, Mayor didn’t include it in his budget, he understands revisiting it. He wants to move forward to support it and also have fiscal responsibility. He thinks its appropriate to say we are committed to this and we want to see maximum other contributions to the project. Sheri Carter asks if they will be successful in getting funds without a plan. Kennelly says they won’t be. He explains the process they will have to go through, they will continue to get council approval every step of the way and there will be “go, no go” points along the way.

Aye: Cheeks, Eskrich, Verveer, McKinney, Wood
No: Rummel

They vote on the main motion, same roll call vote results. Motion passes.

They next move to items Rummel has to be there for because she has to leave.

27 – Parks Division – Central Park Improvements
Alder Rummel

Amend the existing project description to read:
This project provides funding for continued improvements to Central Park in accordance with the adopted Central Park Master Plan. The goal of the project is to expand Central Park in accordance with the master plan and provide park amenities and other transportation improvements as identified in the plan. Progress will be measured by number of events and attendance at events. Progress will be measured by the implementation of elements of the adopted Central Park Master Plan. Neighborhood and community engagement will be sought as improvements are finalized.

She says she worked with staff on this amendment to create a package to meet the needs of everyone.

Motion passes.

34 – Traffic Engineering – Street Light Installation
Alder Rummel, Alder Zellers
182,500

Provide $182,500 in GO Borrowing to convert existing street lights on E Washington Ave from Blair to First St to LED.

They’ve been piloting this on E. Washington and they are ready to move forward. This will save money in the long wrong to invest now. Staff can tell us more. Mayor asks David Dryer, Traffic Engineering, he says that it will take 25 years to recover the costs. He says the cost of the fixtures have dropped, will the costs drop more in the future, and we can pay this off in 8 or 10 years. Dryer says that anything is possible but the cost is that they are ornamental and its not the cost of the LED driving the cost of the fixtures. Brian says that non-decorative fixtures have been have been less than $300 depending upon the watts and lumens. Low sodium lights are $800 and they need to start replacing them. This is also a safety issue because these lights are better. Mayor says this is to deal with failing fixtures, that is different. They said that there are some that have the old style cobra style heads because they are out of the other kind. Eskrich says we are putting in fancy fixtures, we could spend less but it wouldn’t meet the aethetics of the design. She asks what the cost difference is. Brian says half. Less than $400, but these ornamentals are $1100 – 1200 but they wouldn’t have the look for the E Washington corridor. Verveer asks why the staff chose 1st to Blair. Brian says that was the first part of the project done and they are the oldest and since they are closest to the capital. Verveer asks about Capital to Blair? They had a different type of ornamental fixtures there, the same as the capital square, those are also on W. Wash. They are looking for LEDs for those as well. They should be getting samples in the next few weeks. DeMarb says that this is a small amount of money in the budget, but if we didn’t buy the fancy lights we could pay for Alder Ahrens traffic management. We could be fancy and not have other things or we could be not fancy. Cheeks says that some things are paid for in other ways, some things look like “nice to haves”. What is the mechanism is for spending money out of the TID, instead of GO. What else might be eligible to spend money out of a TID. Schmidiecke says this is GO borrowing not TID. Wood asks if we went to “not-fancy” what terms to be use. Staff say decorative vs non-decorative.

Aye: Verveer, Rummel
No: Cheeks, Eskrich, McKinney, Wood

They take up the other engineering items.

13 – Engineering-Major Streets – Neighborhood Traffic Management & Pedestrian Improvements
Alder Verveer* Alder Ahrens
190,000

Appropriate $190,000 of GO Borrowing to the Neighborhood Traffic Management & Pedestrian Improvements program in 2017 to support construction of structural elements that reduce traffic speed and improve pedestrian safety.

Eskrich asks about staff capacity, could we spend this money. Dryer says they will do everything they can, he would be more confident if there weren’t recent resignations, but they will do everything they can. Ahrens says there is always stiff competition to get these approved, how many projects are approved, authorized and implemented for 2016, and how many go by the wayside due to lack of funding. Dryer says there are two types of projects, traffic calming and pedestrians projects. Traffic calming we spend $100,000 – 150,000 and do 8 – 10 projects. This will give them more capacity, projects are added through the years. Pedestrian projects can be more costly, the additional money lines up well with the projects for 2017, he thinks it will work out. The projects are there for the funds allocated. McKinney wanted to discuss these – she asks about staffing capacity and are there enough dollars – she is concerned about Gammon and the livability and walkability and decrease in isolation. Are there other communities that are bound by that, how do you get to these priorities. Dryer says they work with neighborhood resource teams and alders and civilian contacts trough the mayor’s office. They depend on those and the address where there have been perennial pedestrian issues, they depend on the alders quite a bit. Project come through many avenues. Will the dollars be enough. He says its significant and will help move some projects off the list. DeMarb says Madison’s walkability score is a 4. Dryer says that it depends upon where you look. He says he has sidewalks in his neighborhood and no place to walk to (grocery store and taverns) and that is what they base the score on. DeMarb says there is a science behind walkability, and that is different from trying to get to a park. DeMarb asks if the department has the capacity to do a walkability analysis instead of relying on complaints. Dryer says they would relay on planning for that.

Motion passes on a voice vote.

They go to 24 because Dryer is also the Parking Manager

24 – Parking Utility – Overture Ctr Customer Service CTR
Alder Verveer

Add the following after the first sentence in the narrative: Upon completion of piloting the ‘Ambassador’ cashiering staffing model at the Overture Center Garage, Parking Utility staff shall prepare a comprehensive analysis regarding the outcome of the pilot. The findings of the study will be presented to the Transit and Parking Commission, Board of Estimates, and Common Council prior to expansion of the ‘Ambassador’ model

Verveer has a minor amendment, add the phrase “to existing facilities” to the end of the amendment. Voice vote passes.

Amendment passes on a voice vote.

They take up number 33 next.

33 – Traffic Engineering – Pedestrian Counters
Alder Verveer
90,000

Add $90,000 for the purchase of 20 pedestrian counters to be installed long both sides of the 200-600 blocks of State Street, one on each block of the commercial side the Capitol Square, and one on each side of the 100 block of King St. The amendment will be funded by proceeds from TID 32

Eskrich asks about how this impacts the budget. Dave Schmiedicke says that each of the TIDs has a project plan and allocations for projects in those plans. Those activities might include infrastructure and those are broad categories. The TID 32 has significant cash and that would spend down the cash. In other cases for new TIDs it will be borrowed. Eskrich says if we stop spending money it could close the TID and we could spend the money on affordable housing. Schmiedicke says yes, it could close the TID sooner incrementally. Eskrich asks if this is where the priority is. Wood asks about the intended purpose is, what is the percieved value. Dryer says that this came form Alder Verveer from the BID. They used to count pedestrians once or twice a year, there is now a remote way to do that. This is a novel way and would help the business community. They purchased two that are attached to the light poles. They are hard to place because you can’t have a cafe near it, so you don’t count those folks. The data is uploaded to the company’s site, and you can see it there. We spend $13,000 and there is an annual subscription. What is proposed is more counters on downtown main streets, they haven’t determined where they might fit. They are meeting with Verveer and business community. It’s useful for planning for signals as well. Mayor says in this data driven world this is valuable information to develop retail areas. As the design of the blocks change, its good to have before and after to make informed decisions about things liek 25 vs 50 foot store fronts. Verveer says he appreciates the question about the TID spending, he says that TID 32 is the most healthy existing TID, he says you can see the statement in the budget, there is over $8M and will be in excess of $5M if the council adopts the mayor’s budget. One of the reasons for the amendments is that in 2017 they will close the district and close it at the end of the year. In 2018 they can use it for affordable housing and then close it, so there is a sense of urgency to spend the money now. The BID thinks this has great value, there is a report tomorrow night at Ped Bike Motor Vehicle Committee. The business community thinks that this will help get more retail downtown. The BID is wiling to fund the operating costs for additional cameras. They will discuss more tomorrow in a meeting. The $90,000 is a rough estimate, its an estimate that will more than cover the costs, they may not spend it all. He urges support. Eskrich appreciates the clarification. She says this points out the systemic inbalances in funding projects, downtown is more prosperous and get to do the projects. She thinks these types of opportunities should be used in neighborhoods that don’t complain because they have been ignored. We need to think about technology and equity and fund sources and bring these technologies to other areas of the city.

Motion passes on a voice vote.

20 – Information Technology – Hardware/Software Upgrades and Property Assessment System
Mayor Soglin

Decrease GO Borrowing in the Hardware/Software Upgrades project by $240,192 and increase GO Borrowing in the Property Assessment System project by $240,192

Passes without discussion on a voice vote.

21 – Information Technology – Fiber-to-the-Premises
Mayor Soglin, Alder Baldeh, Alder Clear
250,000

Add $250,000 in GO Borrowing to fund consulting services to develop the implementation plan as outlined in the Fiber-to-the-Premises Analysis report (Legistar File 44446)

Cheeks asks about costs over time, what can we expect in the future. Staff says that is what they hope to find out from the consultant. Clear says the funding part is most important. Eskrich says that she intended to vote against it due to the amount of funding this will be in the future. There is promise here but it has to be done right.

Passes on a voice vote.

26 – Parks Division – Emerald Ash Borer Mitigation
Alder Verveer*, Alder Ahrens
(750,000)

Reduce the GO borrowing appropriation for the Parks Emerald Ash Borer Mitigation program by $750,000 for the staff costs planned in 2017. Funding will instead be appropriated in the 2017 Operating Budget in the amount of $750,000.

The reduced appropriation anticipates shifting project costs associated with labor to the Operating Budget. An amendment to the Operating Budget will need to accompany this Capital Budget amendment if it is adopted.

and

32 – Streets Division – Streets Emerald Ash Borer
Alder Verveer*, Alder Ahrens
(734,500)

Reduce the GO borrowing appropriation for the Streets Emerald Ash Borer program by $734,500 for the labor, depreciation, interest, maintenance, and fuel costs planned for 2017. Funding will instead be appropriated in the 2017 Operating Budget in the amount of $734,500.

The reduced appropriation anticipates shifting project costs associated with labor, depreciation, maintenance, and fuel to the Operating Budget. An amendment to the Operating Budget will need to accompany this Capital Budget amendment if it is adopted

Ahrens thinks the staff costs should be in the operating budget. Dave Schmiedicke says that this is an multi-year capital budget item to preserve an asset – the tree canopy. The staff time was initially considered a capital cost because it is preserving an asset. They do that for IT and planning and other projects. Ahrens understands that, but it still doesn’t meet the test. He says we will continue to have issues with other infestations and he doesn’t think that this is appropriate to keep this in the capital budget.

Motion fails on a voice vote.

25 – Parks Division – Land Acquisition
Alder Eskrich
(7,650,000)

Eliminate the reauthorization of $7,650,000 park impact fees for a Downtown Park.

Eskrich says there was only one prospect for the money so why are we keeping it. Mayor says that late last week they found another prospect. Eskrich asks if it would fit within this dollar amount. Mayor says yes. Parks Department – Eric Knepp – reminds them that they can’t purchase anything without the council permission. Eskrich asks if this would preclude us from purchasing other pieces of property. Knepp says that they feel confident that they can accommodate it.

Motion fails without one vote (that I could hear).

5 – Economic Development Division – TID 32 State Street-Tree Guards
Alder Verveer
32,500
– Add $32,500 from TID 32 proceeds to purchase tree guards in the downtown terrace, within the TID 32 boundary.

Esckrich asks if there is a more efficient way to solve the problem, what are the cost benefits? Knepp says that he doesn’t doubt the effectiveness, the real question is what it takes to put them in and remove them. The $280 in cost falls if they can re-use them several times, but they don’t know how many times they can re-use them. This is an intelligent concept, would like to continue the pilot.

Motion passes.

6 – Economic Development Division – TID 32 State Street-Streetscape Items
Alder Verveer
135,000

Add $135,000 from TID 32 proceeds to purchase streetscape items in the downtown terrace. The area will include State Street and the Capitol square within the TID 32 boundary

Passes without discussion

7 – Economic Development Division – TID 32-State Street-Cameras
Alder Verveer, Alder Rummel, Alder Wood, Alder Zellers
282,950

Appropriate $282,950 in TID proceeds to purchase security cameras for the downtown area. Funding will be provided by TIF proceeds from TID 32. A total of 18 cameras will be purchased, (8 are within TID 32, and 10 are within a ½ mile of the TID 32 boundary)

Passes without discussion.

8 – Engineering-Bicycle and Pedestrian – State Street 700/800 Block
Alder Wood, Alder Verveer
200,000

Reauthorize funding for the State Street 700/800 Block project. The project is funded by TID 32 proceeds. Funds for the project will be used for the installation of public art at this location.

Passes without discussion

9 – Engineering-Bicycle and Pedestrian – Bike Station
Mayor Soglin, Alder Verveer
1,000,000

Reauthorize $1,000,000 for the Bike Station in the Judge Doyle project. The project will be funded by GO Borrowing

Passes without discusison.

10 – Engineering-Major Streets – Monroe Street
Alder Eskrich, Alder Bidar-Sielaff, Alder Phair, Alder Wood, Alder Clear, Alder Rummel, Alder
Hall

Advance the Monroe Street reconstruction project from 2020 to 2018. The project budget will remain unchanged: $10,090,000 GO Borrowing and $4,820,000 of other funding sources. The amendment includes the following adjustments to various Major Streets, Bike/Pedestrian, and Parks projects:

?????

(Discussion says this: Funding sources and amounts for the project will remain consistent, as only the timing of the project is being adjusted per this amendment. The Monroe Street reconstruction project first appeared in the 2008 adopted CIP, where it was originally planned for construction in 2010. The project remained in the CIP while the project timing has changed over the years. The 2016 Adopted CIP funded the Monroe Street project for construction in 2018. The net impact to the CIP of the proposed amendment is a reduction in GO Borrowing of $650,000 for the Pleasant View Road cost re-estimate in 2019. The overall funding movement across the CIP out-years results in a total increase in GO Borrowing by 1.5% in 2018 and 3.8% in 2019, and a reduction in total GO Borrowing of -7.3% in 2020

Verveer asks where the money is coming from. Mayor says that he and Eskrich have been discussing Monroe St. Mayor says he wont’ support or oppose this and they are moving some funds around to make the project work. Eskrich says that she made some changes and lowered some amounts because she offered other cost savings. She says that they have done alot of work in the last year the project will be shovel ready. She says they need to get out to bid and get contracts to reconstruct for 2018. She hopes they can support the original timing. Verveer is supportive, he just wants to know where the funds go? Dave Schmiedicke says

Pavement management – $2M in 2018 reduced and spread over future years
Reconstruction of streets – $1M reduction and that will be spread over future years
$510,000 Jeffy Trail moves from 2018 to 2019
Park St. project planning for Olin Ave $150,000 – moved to 2019
Westowne bike path contruction $2,650,000 moved from 2018 to 2019
Park Land improvements reduced by $700,000 in 2018 and spread evenly $175,000 over 5 years
Elver park $350,000 in 2018 moved to 2019.
Cottage Grove Rd, reduced by $1.437,500 and other funding by $4,324,500 in 2018 moved to 2020
Pleasant View Rd reduced by $650,000 in 2019 and Other Municipal funding moved $650,000 over 2018 and 2019

That offsets most of the 2018 costs. Mayor asks if Rob Phillips (engineer) wants to add anything. McKinney reads an email from the Knitting Tree and thinks that Monroe St. reconstruction wait. She says they talked about setting priorities a year ago, but she doesn’t think they moved strongly in that direction. We seem to be doing business as usual. She points out that Jeffy Trail is being pushed off again, when will we really vote on our priorities. She is frustrated by some of the initiatives we push up based on whether the mayor supports it or not, she says we need to be committed to our priorities and all she sees is talk. We need to look at the city as a whole and see what areas of the city need special attention that don’t have money from a TID.

Motion passes. McKinney votes no.

11 – Engineering-Major Streets – Capitol Square Pavement Replacement
Alder Verveer

Modify the funding source for the Capitol Square Pavement Replacement project to be split-funded 75% by TID 45 and 25% by TID 25 ($1,271,250 – TID 45; $423,750 – TID 25). The intent of the funding source adjustment is to properly follow TID rules for assigning funding in accordance with the project’s location