Part One is the public input . . . first 3 hours . . . this is the capital budget . . .
CAPITAL BUDGET
Here’s the budget the Mayor proposed, the amendments Board of Estimates considered and passed. And here are the amendments that the council will be considering.
Another roll call – everyone appears to be hear, some of the “here”s coming from all over the room, the chair challenges the existance of a quorum, 14 are here. They got 15 people and the mayor called it into session. Verveer comments that the County Board wrapped up long ago and they ordered more coffee. He says they will start with the Capital Budget and then move to the Operating Budget and he reminds people to get any amendments in writing and that the original offers will make the first motions.
Capital budget is taken off the table.
Amendments
1 – Community Development Division – Neighborhood Centers by Alder McKinney & Alder Baldeh, 500,000
Barbara McKinney moves the substitute number 1, it was distributed and of course I have no idea what it is. She reads an addendum from Rubin Anothony that was sent to them. She reads the note which says that additional space will prevent space conflicts, they did a survey and community members want to expand space for community education, retreats, seminars, etc. He says that the city can use the space, it can host meals, host graduations from programs and other things. She did the substitute because the original footprint left alot of things out. They discussed dedicate space for office, computer lab, etc. She thinks they should enlarge the footprint now before the opportunity to expand is lost. She says this is a great opportunity to give back to a community that has had little hope.
Mark Clear asks if this came up in the last few weeks or if they knew about it? Jim O’Keefe (no mic) – waiting – He says the limitations were well known when the property was acquired. He said there was an interest for adult and youth employment, it was secondary to provide public meeting space. They were pursuing the direction given to them by the council. As they heard from the community they heard about other needs and are trying to make it as flexible as possible for other public uses. It is clear that the neighborhood wants employment services on the weekends and night. McKinney is responding to what she has heard.
Clear asks if it is an addition or re-purposing – and how did it go from $500,000 to $450,000. O’Keefe says it is an addition, 300 sq feet for restrooms and vestibule. 1600 sq ft for community space. The original estimate was added to by staff not realizing what was in the original estimate.
Clear asks if they need this space or if they can use the West Police District Community room. O’Keefe says that Alder Lisa Subeck had heard the concerns and this addresses them.
Steve King says that when he voted for this he thought community space was included. He’d rather see them by a Veridian home because they do it cheaper. He understands the need, but he won’t support it.
DeMarb supported buying Griffs for employment, but she wants a Neighborhood STudy and that work needs to be done. She has space needs too and she wants to see the study to show the needs.
McKinney reads the mission statement and goals of the Community Development Division or a resolution or something about how they work with neighborhoods to get them what they need, she talks about what they approved in 2014 and the process they used to come to this project. (OK, I have no clue what she is reading, but its lengthy and frankly I stopped typing.) She says the focus is employment and training, the flexibility is the added value but the primary focus for the property is employment training to build the economic structure and fiber of the community. This can be used by employer fairs.
Larry Palm – passes.
Matt Phair is torn, doesn’t think he will support it. He says that they should think about the history and he’d like to talk about how to do it the right way. He was involved in the discussions and it is legitimate that the neighbors need and have asked for meeting space. This is coming from a real place, not that he would doubt Alder McKinney or the Urban League. He is glad they did the Meadowood Community Center right. He thinks they are moving forward and we have to engage neighbors in a real way. But its tough now at the last minute to support this.
Sheri Carter says that she will support it if it is for the employment center and job fairs, people get hired on the spot, but they need room to do the job fair, it sounds like there is no room for a job fair. She has the same issue with the community rooms – she only has two and they are not centrally located. If this is a training center and job fair space she supports it.
Marsha Rummel is sympathetic, but she would like to see the plan that they have supported. It seems like it could be built and operational and they could add a room. There is no site plan or information on what this is. It’s just more money would help this project but she is skeptical at the 11:30 hour.
Palm asks about the vestibule. O’Keefe says it is the only one, Palm asks if they add 1300 feet later what would happen? O’Keefe says that there might be design considerations but they haven’t discussed doing it at a later point.
Baldeh says this is alot of money, but we need this, not just at this location, but throughout the city, this is where we invest in our people – not the police station. Compared to the amount of money this looks like a good investment. The amount of money it will save is worth voting for it – he has no meeting space, he has to pay hotels for space. He hopes they will support it and he will. This is where we invest in our own people. $500,000 is alot of money for the community room. At the end of the day they will pay what it costs, there might not have been enough time to determine the exact cost, but we should do this to help our kids from running into trouble, particularly kids of color.
Bidar says that everyone on the council agree with needing to invest, the issue here is for those of us who voted originally, it was poorly planned without input from the neighborhood and what happens now is the consequences of not planning for what the neighborhood wants. Part of the reticence is just that we went down that road without having every comprehansive plan on the building. She supported it, but the flags were in our minds about if it was planned with the neighborhood in mind.
Mike Verveer is in the chair – Mayor speaks. He wants to make sure they don’t re-write history. He says they worked through the neighborhood resource team with the neighborhood and the neighborhood discussed their priorities and they said the single most important thing is employment and training and access to jobs. At Allied Drive they had a similar discussion and that led to food access, number two was jobs. He says the selection of the site was based on discussions with the neighborhood. He says like so many things that we do, whether it is moving up the timetable for a police department or _____, (missed some) this was a response to a community decision that has morphed into something else. He says they went down two paths on the neighborhood centers. First they directed the staff to provide a report, they spent a year and a half on that and said they couldn’t do it. They the council created a position. They recruited and they can’t findpeople with that skill, they don’t exist in this country, there might be a high priced consultant, but inventorying community needs and ranking them is a skill that doesn’t exist.
Phair says that the facts are the facts, he was on the ground with Lisa Subeck, but the number on issue was community space. That is what we heard when we talked to and listened to people. It’s going to be a long and ugly night and he doesn’t need to get into he said and she said.
McKinney wants to ask staff a question. Mayor (back in the chair) says that she spoke twice and asking questions is a way to get aroudn that rule but he will allow it this one time. McKinney asks about private funding. O’Keefe says that Smart Growth might pay for some but they need to have more discussion.
DeMarb says that she thought she heard that this was in response to a community project that has now gone down another path. She says this was a $1M project and now it is $1.5M. How do we continue to spend money in this way. Every alder has a need for community space or programming. She has to go outside her district for community space, they go to McFArland south of the beltline. I’m not saying you can’t have it because I want it, I”m just saying we have to be thoughtful about it. She understands the great need, all over our city, so we need to be really thoughtful. She can’t support it cuz they haven’t have a comprehensive report.
Fails on a voice vote.
2 – Economic Development Division – Public Market (Future Funding Requirements) by Alder Palm, Alder Verveer, Alder Rummel
Larry Palm moves it, but says there is a substitute by Amanda Hall. DeMarb says the substitute is at the desk. She moves it. She reads the language. (I didn’t type it cuz I thought I had the amendments and could cut and paste . . . but it was the operating budgets.) GAH!!! Sorry, I failed. DeMarb says there are many questions. She says that with the quarterly reporting the questions can be asked at the time and become more routine. She hopes they support this. She wants more clarity and accountability to the process.
Verveer back in the chair. Mayor says that he appreciates Palm calling with his amendment to allow them to go over the unintended consequences. He says he sees problems with this. He is ok with the quarterly reporting. The inclusion of an NGO or cooperative for some of the functions is far too limiting, there are several things that need to be done, the building itself needs to be managed. Seconding, there is a function of the advice, council and leadership and guidance. Those are two different functions. The management of the building itself should not eliminate the possibility of a commercial management company to manage the building. The most troublesome and fatal is to assume responsibility for construction. AS the principle funder in terms of capital, the supervision should not be turned over to anyone, we are going to own the building, we are not turning the construction over to anyone.
Rummel says that she appreciates the spirit of this, but she has the concern about the construction and the private developer could do the construction and she says she wants to do something constructive, she would take out “construction and”.
Palm makes an amendment but the mayor says they have two motions and that they have to defeat this and then make a new amendment. Palm says with the term “for construction and” in here he won’t support it.
Amanda Hall says that she appreciates the spirit of the friendly amendment, she would support it. She is a big fan of the public market. She was surprised by the concerns of her colleagues, she learned that we hadn’t done the best job we could to present it as a complete project. There were misconceptions about the facts and process and communication has been an issue and we didn’t build the trust. She says that they laid out a framework to lay out their successes and activities. She says that we need an entity and hopes they earned their confidence with this amendment.
Ahrens says that this has the same lack of clarity. He doesn’t know what “responsibility” is being asked for. He doesn’t know what “all sources” or “committed” means in the resolution. He says they are going into this and no decisions have been made about where the buckets are and who is taking what out of which bucket. He thought the comments of the mayor put it out there with clarity – he said the city is the principle funder of capital – that is a whole new story. This just kicks it down the road. He says this is a blind way to go into this, if you vote for this, you might be saying tha tthe city is the principle funder.
Mayor tells Verveer to take the chair.
Ahrens says that he was talking, but “you know, what the hell”. He says that we need to know before we go down this road.
Sarah Eskrich says she has been making this argument for quite some time. She says to put it in context with all the other funidng. We have heard about community control and priorities. We have heard about the public market from one segment of the community and she thinks this does not reflect the city as whole and their job is to represent their district and the city as the whole. She is concerned this is a city project that is for one area of the city. This is just too risky when we have other core responsibilities we have to fund. We have to take fiscal responsibility seriously and we cant do the public market and all the other initiatives we need to do.
Sheri Carter says it reminds her of when she wanted saddle shoes and 5 years later when they were no longer popular, guess who bought me saddle shoes. She says people are excited and we can’t dangle things in front of the community and then not do them. We should support the public market, we can amend what is in here, don’t let it be the saddle shoes I never wore because they were no longer popular.
Mayor says he thinks its appropriate that they have this discussion in this building. The Civic Center, this building and others all took risks and sequencing of events, spending money at various stages without knowing the final answer because you can’t get there without doing the research and making the financial commitment. Don’t twist my words, I choose them carefully. I said principle, not majority funding. We did that for the other buildings, we took the lead responsibility. When it comes to tax credits, they are not going to be the principle funder, but they might be the majority. It’s going to be a very long evening.
Ahrens says that he wants to respond to Carter, not about the saddle shoes but what people who have been promised and who promised it. This is a staff and mayor driven PR campaign in which alot of promises were made. What we have is “let’s box ’em in” so we have hundreds of people lobbying to say you have to do it. He says if for no other reason we have to resist that strategy. He says we didn’t tell people but meeting after meeting people have been told we were going to do it. 2 years ago people were told that construction would start in 6 months. (missed some) He essentially says people were misled and misinformed. He says that the same sort of promises were made about not needing subsidy for the Monona Terrace. Public Market says the same thing. Monona Terrace has needed $100M since it was build and he hopes that the public market would not need that level of subsidy. WE need to be careful and that is why I wanted to know who will operate it and we don’t know.
Mo Cheeks has questions for Dan Kennelly. Who will run this? What confidence can we offer about the scope of the project and building? What commitment do we have to ensure ensure people of color are included and do we need to own the building? Kennelly says that the business plan approved a year ago the daily operations are by an independent nonprofit set up for that purpose with its own staff and board of directors. Operations would be over seen by the city with a master lease and operating agreement with the nonprofit. Cheeks says the operators are not yet determined, its “to be determined”. Kennelly says that the committee has thought alot about it, but right now it does not exist as an organization. Confidence in the scope of the project? Cheeks says that is about the cost of the project, LEED certified, etc. Kennelly says the business plan was on retrofitting the fleet building but subsequently they decided to rethink the option of master planning the site, that resolution was approved in the spring to look at both options. The design team is doing that as we speak. We are guided by the business plan on the scope and program for the project, but the building may change from the Fleet building to the shopping center. It could be a less expensive building and there would be inefficiencies. $14M is in the ball park. It may get less expensive. On the equity goals, they used the RESJI tool and came up with some key recommendations – at the top of the list is emphasizing recruiting vendors, that is the market ready project, you approved the RFP a few months ago There is a whole series of recommendations that came out of that equity analysis. Kennelly says there are different models of ownership, the recommendation is that they city would maintain ownership while handing off the day to day operations. IN order for the public market to maintain the mission the public has to have oversight and the best way to do that is for the city to do it as described above. (masterlease and operating agreement).
Cheeks says he likes getting boxed in to doing something awesome for the city. He likes a fully baked idea. He is greatful we have amendments in front of us to finish baking. He doesn’t think we have clarity to go back and say yes to our constituents. He wants to know the operator is awesome and we have the funding and it will be transformative as an economic development effort and that we know the final costs, but we don’t have that clarity. He is interested in having a public market. Other communities have done it with varying success and varying structures. He says this amendment provides clarity for a path forward. He can support this or a variation of it, to have that certainty and he doesn’t think we are there yet.
It’s now 10pm.
Bidar thanks Hall and DeMarb for crafting this, and Palm’s underlying language. Bidar will probably support some version. She says she doesn’t think we should own the building. She agrees with the Mayor we should be a principle player, that is what we have been, but our role is not clear moving forward. She wants to know what we are committing our taxpayers to. She is also concerned about engagement of the vendors and who they will be. Have we really been able to meaningfully engage vendors that reflect the diversity of our community. She says that vendors are not engaged not because the city has not asked, but its not what they want, that is not where they want to sell their goods. She was at the Latino Support Network and there was not widespread support for that, so that concerned her. She knows there is a core group of people who are committed, but it is not an engagement across our city. She has had maybe a couple constituents contact her. The majority of the people are not talking about it. Would they think it is cool, yes, but is this the thing they want from the city council, no. She is looking forward to seeing what the baked cake looks like.
Phair won’t support it, but if it passes it will be much improved. He has come to not support the project over the last year, he wants the project to succeed and he wants a public market but the city is not in a position to spend this money. That doesn’t mean it could be dead, there can be another way, it might be more difficult or challenging.
Took a break . . . I think I missed Carter.
Tim Gruber is talking about all their past approvals. We’ve been clear in our votes that we are moving forward. He says they can change their mind. He says they have been working on this for 10 years in various proposals. He says that we could do this for us here in Madison, for the whole city and as a west side alder he supports it. He says it is good for the region. He supports the original not the substitute.
Palm says they talk about the budget as a plan for what we are going to do, it has been in the Capital Improvement Plan for years, as we get closer we have more details. There are lots of lines that say “other” and we don’t know what that is, right now we are conceptualizing this and at some point if we don’t know we can stop. They do this at the library board with libraries. Poeple expect this because we constantly approve things (without discussion) and then wonder what mysterious group of people made that vote. People who have seen us move forward year after year, they take faith in your vote. We did this. We keep doing this. I don’t know what else to say, things will change, we will figure out how to do this, the planning process, negotiating with the devleoper etc, we have to work through this and that is why we hire staff, to work on our behalf based on the budgets we pass and resolutions we pass. I don’t like that every year he has to answer people who wonder if the city is behind this. He isn’t into the “wants” and “needs” – there is no chart for that. Economic Development is a real need for us. He asks the to support the other amendment, or at least not remove it from the budget.
DeMarb says “other” is for roads and when its not in the budget it is for state and federal funding. And when the funding doesn’t happen, we don’t move forward. She says that Mayor Soglin has given more guidance about why we shouldn’t support this- the funding crisis. She wants to find a way to support this. (sorry – tuned out, checked email . . . going on 5 hours, on amendment 2 of 42 or 43.) She’s up in the air on this, she is concerned we don’t have answers in place. We haven’t had this debate in this way until now, except at last year’s budget meeting.
Steve King says he has never gotten emails about any of your libraries, I get emails about my traffic calming, but they hate yours, I haven’t gotten emails about all kinds of things and I support them, we have to balance our districts and the city. All these things we see that make Madison the best places to live is a combination of all those things. I have never had anyone ask about a bike path. He wants to read the article in 15 years when he is not and alder with his vodka and cranberry and say look what he did. He will not vote to kill the project, but will vote for one of the measures to cautiously move us forward. He says it has detail and we should move forward.
Phair says they should think about the priorities they have heard, affordable housing, community services funding, BRT moving forward. Those things will cost us alot of money and all he is trying to say is, we have to make those decisions. He voted every time and he is culpable of leading people on. He doesn’t think this would ill it if they vote not to fund it at this point. He says they need to think about 2027 or 2028. People are not clamoring for this, he doesn’t think its a priority, but maybe he is wrong.
No speakers left, Bidar asks for clarification. If this is adopted, it replaces Palm’s amendment, if it is defeated Palm’s amendment is before them.
Roll call vote – only DeMarb, Rummel, Bidar and two others vote aye (McKinney maybe? not sure who else, couldn’t hear apparently)
Palm asks the mayor how to make the amendment and the Mayor talks him into the following series of amendments:
1. The first amendment is to say that the project has completed final design. Passes on voice vote
2. Says a NGO has been created and is ready to take responsibility for daily operations.
Ahrens asks what they are responsible for – debt and subsidizing it or just maintenance and cleaning. Palm says this will be the NGO sole purpose and they will enter an operating agreement with the city and they will work with vendors, education and support services, finances of operations, good question about the lease and who would do maintenance and custodial stuff. We would not have an agreement about getting money from the city, they would have to request that budget by budget. He thinks the city would have appointments to that board.
Rummel says to look at page 4 or 5 of (something) they approved, she is frustrated with the council for not knowing what they have already approved. Its all there, we are not looking it up on the fly. She explains the process outlined. (Mayor thanks Rummel)
Passes on a voice vote.
3. Quarterly reports to teh council – and things will be renumbered. Passes on a voice vote.
Now everything has been amended.
Ok, I can’t hear. They say it passed 17 – 3. No is Eskrich, Ahrens and Phair – I thought also DeMarb and Harrington-McKinney
3 – Economic Development Division – Public Market (Remove 2017 Funding & Matching Requirements) by Alder Eskrich, Alder Ahrens, Alder Bidar-Sielaff, Alder Clear, Alder Phair (1,200,000)
Fails on a voice vote without discussion.
4 – Economic Development Division – Public Market (Remove from CIP) by Alder Eskrich, Alder Bidar-Sielaff, Alder Phair (1,200,000)
Fails on a voice vote without discussion.
Mayor says that at midnight any staff who have all their amendments done can go home.
5 – Engineering-Facilities Management – MMB Renovation by Alder Clear, Alder Phair, Alder Eskrich, (23,000,000)
Clear says he put this in to talk about priorities and how they got boxed in to a project that deserves more scrutiny that it has gotten. He says that this will be the most expensive office space in the city by a factor of two. He says that this was not part of the JDS project and that boxed us in. He says they have not discussed this yet and its the mot expensive thing in the budget. Approving this amendment has consequences, but think about the cost of the project. Supporting a crazy thing because is has momentum is still crazy and if its crazy we should stop. This isn’t economic development or safety related. Staff deserve better working conditions, but that doesn’t mean this has to be a huge burden on the taxpayers.
DeMarb says that we should just remove it if we have concerns, not just delay it. She wants a brighter, safer work environment for city employees. Maybe we should sell the property and secure righter safer space for our employees, maybe with them all under one roof. In the mean time, there is very little difference in operating costs of running the MMB and leasing. But she needs time to review and digest this information.
Verveer is back in the chair. Mayor says this is one of the projects he tried to pull out of the project to allow them to do other things, but the bottom line is that we have to do this. We’ve looked at the options, we tried alternatives, we costed them out. How did we get to this place? Through negligence, in the first decade of this century, he has worked so hard to work with the challenges of our rising debt, stuck with decisions from the first 5 years in the last decade and not taking care of things we should have and the following 5 years loading up the borrowing, using the premium which should have been applied to capital projects and the building was neglected. If you ask 40, 50 , 60 years form now, what is the best decision for the city and our constituents, unfortunately the answer is to go ahead with this project. Yes we can lease space. After 60 years we won’t have an asset and the cost will be the same. IN addition, something that is overlooked is the efficiency of having space across the street. He used to work for a company that thought about how muh it costs if you send a company wide email that takes every employee 30 seconds to read, it costs you thousands of dollars. Think of the cost of not being across the street. No private company wants our space. He knows what the problem is, the problem is we made some very bad decisions in regards to capital budget. WE kept borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and the debt service is going up, the levy is going up and this is a beautiful opportunity to go back to our constituents and pander, no less than pander, and say that you introduced this and voted for it and say you tried to do something. What would happen if 9, 10 or 11 people vote for this and created an enormous crisis in terms of the lack of responsibility when we have been at this for the past 5 years. There were plenty of opportunities to go in a different direction. This is nothing more than a cheap trick.
McKinney remembers Jeanne Hoffman doing a presentation about what is wrong with the building. She says when there was an opportunity to stop and go in a different direction, why didn’t we do it then? Do wade so deeply in the water at this time, why? She supports us moving on. She says she is offended when the mayor says this is the best decision for our constituents and forcing us to make these decisions. She is voting against this only because we had an opportunity to challenge this and go in a different way, we didn’t. Contracts have been sign, people moved. It’s too late we’re in the middle of the water. She is voting for it with regret.
Cheeks says that the mayor talks about his great efforts be fiscally responsible in the largest budget ever, larger than we asked for ever and he is suggesting through his recommendations that we increase the budget further.
Phair asks what options were explored. He remembers the vote in 2012 about MMB not being part of JDS, what else have we explored.
Jeanne Hoffman says she looked through the files and found in July 2012 the long range facility planning report and the JDS resolution it was mentioned to keep itin civic use. The pre-design was presented in Sept and November – they looked at re-aligning agencies for our customers to find services, we looked at moving staff out of CCB and building on block 88, we looked at taking over 6th adn7th floor of CCB. On May 2015 presentation they also looked at a study of what it would cost to do minimal improvements, phasing the project, and a full renovation. The systems in that building – heating, ventilation, plumbing, etc are at the end of their life and there is cost in that. There are other things to be addressed, the roof needs to be replaced, it needs to be tuckpointed. The report concluded that we need to go forward with renovation. Natalie Erdman looked at building a new facility and evaluations of the MMB and the conclusion was that because of the condition of the building the value is limited.
Phair says he vaguely remembers them. PHair says they never stopped to look outside the box. WE could look at private ownership, we could look completely differently. Rob Phillips says we did look at selling the building. Its not economical to repurpose it. Maybe it will be TIF, but there will be a subsidy. Its been our building since 1929 and you could build a building in a cornfield cheaper, but you can’t build this building, this building is priceless, you can’t build it. It will be a tremendous space for our staff. WE looked at it, it can’t be delayed because of the HVAC and it can’t be phased because of the heating system., so this is where we ended up. It would be costly for someone else to do the project, it will be quality office space for our employees.
Mayor asks about phasing the project. Jeanne says that the system need to be fixed and it would be invasive and there are hazardous materials, like asbestos and that needs to be removed. Mayor says phasing would add $1M, Jeanne agrees.
Ledell Zellers says that she appreciates the concern about the cost. She says this reminds her about many situations about the city that the building inspectors can tell us about. We did this to ourselves in not maintaining the building. It happens with the public library and the houses in James Madison Park. This is building that could not be built today. She will be voting against.
Marsha Rummel says that this is the perfect storm of things we didn’t deal with. She says that she had tried to get people to fund the improvements and no one would pay attention. She was embarrassed when the elevator didn’t work and they couldn’t hold public meetings there. She says maybe they should move on because they have alot of things to discuss.
Paul Skidmore says they have been talking about this for years, he was married in the building 40 years ago and it still looks the same. He won’t ride in the elevators because people get stuck in them. This is best suited for a public office, he doesn’t support this amendment.
Eskrich says she is legitimately trying to be fiscally responsible. Even tho this project is in motion and moving forward and in lieu of cutting somewhere else, we need ot seriously consider prioritizing where we spend our money. Think about the whole package, and see if we can find compromise. Ths thinks this is an item we must give serious thought to, she supports the amendment.
DeMarb asks Natalie Erdman about the city securing housing for city staff for half the cost of the renovation. Not one of her constituents supports this, but they will hear that we can get property for half the cost and they will not like that. Erdman says that about a year ago in the middle of 2015 she looked at what it costs to buy land and build the same amount of space and what you could sell it for and she thought it was not a significant economic savings. Jeanne might have the powerpoint. 38274 is the legistar number.
Carter says that given the concerns about cost, we need to look at our historical sites and we need to save it. Whether the community and our constituents think that is important, to the city as a whole this is important.
Hoffman says page 8 of 9 shows it would be $24M to build it elsewhere. She lists off the details. It was appraised at $5.8M but it did not consider the condition of the mechanical systems.
King wants a facadectomy, we didn’t approve that. The ship has sailed, departments have moved out,they could all move into the rayovac building, the ship sailed, call the question.
DeMarb says it was $19.1M. DeMarb is really testy – she wants to hear that we cannot secure space for 1/2 of the cost. Jeanne says that it would be $24M. For the 6th and 7th floor it was $29M. That is the ballpark of the numbers. She disagrees with King that the ship has sailed. Jeanne is trying to explain what she already explained that they are not listening as she explains what is in the reports that they apparently didn’t read. DeMarb asks if they are stuck with teh CCB. Yes. DeMarb says this is landmarked and anyone would need to deal with the costs.
Roll Call vote: Ayes = Clear, Hall, Phair and Eskrich
6 – Engineering-Major Streets – John Wall Drive/Graaskamp Road by Mayor Soglin, Alder Baldeh 2,255,000 (other funds, not city tax dollars)
DeMarb asks the city engineer if they have capacity for all their projects.
Rob PHillips says it is often a struggle, they do have the capacity for item 6.
DeMarb says there are other projects.
PHilips says 6 is driven by development and if we want to do it we need to do it now.
Verveer is back in the chair.
Clear asks what the project is and why it needs and amendment.
PHillips says we own property in the Center for Industry and Commerce and we put the infrastructure in and we didn’t know someone was interested in buying the land.
Passes on a voice vote.
7 – Engineering-Major Streets – Rural to Urban Streets by Alder Clear, Alder Gruber 350,000 (other funds, not city tax dollars)
Gruber says this is for the flooding in Sunset Village. There is a square mile of area that goes into one inlet and in major storm events it floods and overwhlems the system. The storm sewer goes through the Midtown site.
Passes on a voice vote.
8 – Engineering-Major Streets – Pavement Management by Mayor Soglin, Alder Ahrens 250,000 (other funds, not city tax dollars)
This is for a box culvert when it is resurfaced.
Eskrich asks why it wasn’t in the budget originally.
Phillips says sometimes when they get into the design of a project they realize an opportunity, it just came up late.
Passes on a voice vote.
9 – Fire Department – Fire Station #14 by Alder DeMarb, Alder Eskrich, Alder Hall, Alder Palm, Alder Gruber (5,050,000)
DeMarb is disappointed, she learned after BOE – Mr. Phillips came to him – and they said that it could not be constructed in 2017 because the design work had not been done, she had never been appraised of that. It is not disappointing that city staff has to go through a lot more scrutiny with public money, that is how it should be. She has a couple thosand families that this impacts. The study wants a 5 minute response time. WE know there are flash points at 8 minutes that consume a structure so 5 minutes is really important. We know that every minute someone is not breathing past a couple minutes, there is brain damage. We know changes of survival in a heart attack. Her constituents wait 15 minutes, but this will not be done in 2017. She breaks down crying.
Motion passes on a voice vote.
10 – Information Technology Case Management System by Alder Kemble, Alder Eskrich 80,000
Rebecca Kemble says this should have been in the budget. Norm Davis says that that it was in the supplemental request. He told the BOE this was not included. This is critical for the EOC division. The federal requirements for the grants require this technology. This will pay for itself over a 3 year term.
Bidar asks why the Mayor is a no on this. Is there a policy or APM issue?
Deputy Mayor Reyes says that when they submitted the budget there was no APM. This was not approved by IT. They did meet with IT and last week it was approved by IT.
Kronenburger form IT says that they had not anticipated it as a project in 2017, they were planning on it for 2018. He thinks there may be a similar need in the City Attorney office. This might be combined as a joint effort. This will need to be a competitive procurement. He is not sure when they will get to it, they will need to do a analysis and issue a RFP.
Kemble says that this was not a supplemental request, the mayor did not allow those. This was the IT solution to generate income. The Mayor was going to fund the request but there was confusion. The need is dire. There has been a huge backlog of cases, some back to 2008. They are within 4 or 5 years now. This will allow us to take more cases and earn more money. People filing complaints are suffering.
Mayor says that everyone explained it correctly but is satisfied with it now. He says some members of management teams have not read their emails.
McKinney asks how software expands the cases?
Davis says that in the current system they closed 89 cases, they will be able to work on that backlog. Since they cannot communicate electronically on the investigations, there is alot of wait time. If we have current technology, it will save the alot of time. The time savings would be in communications about case information.
McKinney asks about the license fee, is that $6,000 a year? Yes. They looked at several options. Charges are based on the number of licenses they need.
Carter asks about the software being used in the attorney’s office. Kronenberger also needs a case management system. It is a common need, but depending upon the procurement we might get a producet that could serve both agencies
Passes on a voice vote.
11 – Library Relocate Pinney Neighborhood Library by Alder Ahrens, Alder DeMarb 0
Ahrens moves the substitute. He says that the budget says the library will be in Royster Commons but gives an option of it being in the Lake Edge or Esast Moorland neighborhoods.
Palm asks Gregg Mickells (Library Director) if the Library Board approved this or discussed it? No, not with the timing of the amendment. His recommendation to the library board would be not to approve the amendment. Normally we wouldn’t limit it to two neighborhoods and he says the direction in the past was more strategic and intentional. They did a two year study and that was based on a number of factors. The plan was accepted by the library board and that is what they recommended.
Palm says he supports location at Royster and thinks the language is disingenuous.
Rummel says the neighborhood name is spelled wrong. She didn’t hear why this would be needed.
Ahrens says that he proposal the counsel passed was at least 5 years ago and it was a fertilizer plant. Alot of expectations and hope have happened. The plant is gone, there are two residential buildings but little else has moved. He says that this amendment still allows the project to be done at Royster Corners. The director says that they can’t move the library at this point because they would have to go back to all the funders. There is always a reason people can’t do what we want to do. They have gone round and around with the developer. They have submitted the 4th or 5th TIF district. This would show the devleoper that the library could move if he can’t make it work.
King asks if this could be moved to referr to the Library Board. Mayor says no. King says it doesn’t have a budget impact. Mayor agrees, it could have been done in a resolution.
It’s midnight, staff are sneaking out . . . streets and fleet are leaving . . . and the treasurer . . .
Mayor says that to refer it, they should introduce a resolution. He says the resolution would be more binding because it goes past the budget year.
Ahrens says that several items from tonight did not go to a committtee.
Palm points out that the libarary has different responsibilities and powers. He says that there could be other places that would work.
McKinney is on the library board and says this is out of order and she wants direction on how it would go back before the board. It should not be decided at this point.
Mayor reiterates that if this was a separate resolution it would go before the board.
DeMarb asks something I missed. Erdman is talking about TIF and what can be assessed to TIF.
DeMarb says that this is one of the top concerns of her constituents. She supports any new location and wants to know how to move the project forward, it should have been built by now. Pinney is too small, its in decay, there is mold, it snot safe for staff and people who go there. She wants to light a fire under this project and move it forward.
Roll call requsest:
Aye = DeMarb, Gruber, Hall, King, Phair, Rummel, Verveer, Zellers, Ahrens, Baldeh, Bidar, Carter
Originally on the voice vote the mayor siad the nos had it.
12 – Multiple Eliminate all projects funded by TID 32 by Alder Eskrich, Alder Bidar-Sielaff, Alder Ahrens (7,077,450)
Eskrich says she sent a memo on Friday and she says that some of these projects might not be supported by her and its important to look at that when the TID is so close to closing. She supports TIF and its usage. She just wanted to bring this to people’s attention. She says there are a number of items that would not pass if we were weighing against other priorities.
DeMarb says that sending an email to everyone isn’t sufficient, people at home feel left out.
Eskrich thanks DeMarb for the reminder. She says that TIF is a powerful tool, and that is important when we are limited in other revenue sources. WE don’t have alot of state authority to leverage other funding. TIF is one of the reasons we are the fastest growing int he state. This might not be the best place or time but we need to have this conversation. We need to scrutinize this more. She is talking about the project plans and that we should close the TIDs to get the affordable housing money and provide the increased taxes. She thinks we should close TID 32 and we can. She says it would be more equitable to close the TIDs once the plans are done. She says when there are other resources like the BID to fund things she doesn’t think this is equitable. She wants future expenditures to be compared to the project plan.
Verveer (this is the first time he spoke tonight) He hopes this is really just a teachable moment and that the projects won’t be deleted. This district will close next year, this is the last year to fund projects and then in 2018 it would fund affordable housing. Its’ only been open for 13 years and it could be open for 27 years under the state law. He says that the TIF Joint Review Board has been updated and several are in the half mile rule that have been approved by the Joint Review Board. He is explaining that these are ll projects that need to be done and this is not the result of him being skilled at getting amendments passed at BOE. Staff are not rushing to get projects done, the city engineering staff brought these projects forward to get the projects done. Some are in various stages of design. He says these projects will need to be funded at some point and they will need to make amendments tonight to solve that. There have been public information meetings on several of these projects. He asks to please not support this amendment tonight. He talks about the art on the 700 and 800 blocks of State St. He urges rejection and to take this as just a teaching moment.
Clear is channeling Jed Sanborn . . . . and I”m taking a break . . . he says these are tax dollars and we need to be responsible for them . . . and he lectures on . . .
Ahrens thanks Eskrich for her work and says she did great work . . .
Rummel says they have done two TIF policy reviews since she has been on the council and the resolution for the second resolution and it talks about what we fund, and public improvements are part of what we fund. It seems clear these projects fit that test. TIF staff report quarterly to the BOE and talk about the TIDs. She says that would be a good time to have that discussion.
Soglin says that they should think about a few things. He says most of the aldermanic districts do not generate enough property taxes to generate support the services. The more single family homes you have, the more they depend on downtown or East or West Town. He says that the School Board and County don’t make investments infrastructure int eh city of Madison. Without TIF we’d collect far less taxes than we do today. He says that development crease jobs, increases tax values and so we have a dilemma in closing out quickly to have immediate funds, or the opposite end to keep extending them like Middleton and then there is the responsible policy like we have – to pay off the investment and then make additional investments to generate investments. Please respect the work the committees have done. The city is the economic engine that works in the state for a number o reasons. Part of it is our development philosophy and striking a proper balance. It might mean the county and schools have to wait, but they will get a greater return.
Zellers defends the undergrounding of utilities on Johnson St. and she reviews how it meets the policies that they have and she notes that this was approved under the half mile rule. She thinks having discussions about TIF and TID is good, she went to most of the meetings. She hopes they vote this down.
DeMarb asks Mayor Soglin about his statement about the districts not providing the tax base for the services they need. Most homes provide about 75% of the cost of services to the home. DeMarb asks how that relates to TIF. Mayor says that revenues are made up through state aids and fines and forfeitures, but the bulk of it is made up by commercial or retail or multifamily housing and those are where the TIF districts are that are creating the investment. DeMarb asks if she he is suggesting that they only invest in those areas. Mayor says only for the life of the TID.
ok – my computer has had it with this post . . . need to move on to the next post . . . .
