Here’s the rest of the meeting that I didn’t get to yesterday.
AMENDMENT TWENTY-TWO
Planning and Community and Economic Development/Project #6 – TID 32 – State St. Corridor, page 121, 148
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway
Remove the funding of $8,000,000 in years 2010 and 2011 and amend the project as follows: $8,000,000 each in 2010 and 2011 is included for financial assistance for the expansion of an existing hotel and $300,000 is for Small Cap Loan funding.
General Obligation Debt: ($8,000,000)
Other funding: $0
Total: ($8,000,000)
Levy Impact: ($1,036,037)
Alder Rhodes-Conway moves adoption. She says that she will start out by saying what the amendment is not. It is not opposition to Edgewater project, not an attempt to delay it or make it harder to get it done. Its not actually a comment on the project at all. Mostly because they do not have a project in front of them. What it is, is an attempt to not have all of our cards on the table. She points out that they don’t have a project (she thanks the developer for working with neighborhood)/ She also says taht there are multiple steps to go through before we know what it is, including analysis by the TIF staff – she points out that someone during public testimony incorrectly stated that staff has determined it meets the “but for” test, that is not true. Even the original project had not met the “but for” test and given that there is no project before us, it hasn’t met the “but for test”. We don’t know if we have a project that is eligible for TIF funding, we don’t know what the project looks like, we don’t know if it will be supported by the neighborhood or if it will make it past Landmarks or UDC or Zoning Appeals or Plan Commission. We don’t actually know anything about this project for certain. She says it is not appropriate for us to say we are willing to put this large amount of money towards a project where there are so many question marks at this point. She doesn’t think its a good position for the city and it doesn’t put us in a good bargaining position. It basically says that they can come forward with a project designed to spend that amount of TIF. She says that is not a good position to put us in and hopes you will support taking it out of the budget. Her reason to support it is that it puts them in a city in a better position regarding the amount of money they will need to spend and the approval process that they will go through when they have a project before them. Not making a statement about how she will vote. She hopes a project is introduced and it is one she can support. Happy to vote for a renovated or expanded Edgewater, but we don’t need to have this in the budget in order to do that. She’d like to see what the project is before they decide how much money to spend on it. Notes that her amendment leaves in the $300,000 for the small cap loan funding for the project, where as Sanborn’s amendment takes it out.
Clear says that he says that no matter what Alder Rhodes-Conway thinks, this is a referendum on the Edgewater project. That’s because he is convinced if the amendment passes and the funding is not included in the budget, the developer will walk away. [BULLSHIT! Sorry, I couldn’t hold back. Too much time spent staring at my computer screen!] He says it substantially increases the risk for them in the entire project and they are already incurring significant costs in redoing their plans and this would be the end of it. He’s not ready to say we should pull back. He also says that the whole point of putting it in the budget is that we are anticipating it and she has said that if we can anticipate it, it should be in the budget. [Ahem, apples, oranges. She’s was talking about regularly occurring costs in the operating budget, not huge undefined costs in the capital budget. ] It doesn’t mean were going to do it or in this amount but we expect to see it come through in 2010 and we want the authority to spend the money.
Rhodes-Conway asks if we delete this funding and leave in the language about financial support for a hotel. She cares about putting a number on how much we are able to support. She says this harms our position in any future negotiations about this TIF funding. Maybe we are ready to say we will spend this amount of money, but that’s not prudent or smart. We shouldn’t tell them this is how much they can ask for. They should ask for what is needed, not what is in the budget.
Brasser says the need for a specific number is required because it is the appropriation and that has to be a specific number. Without a number, there is no appropriation. He says what a 15 vote item is is completely separate. He says they have treated appropriations in the capital budget as being specific to that purpose. Otherwise it takes 15 votes to create that appropriation. She says she is not taking the project out, just not putting a number a number in. She says regarding the 15 votes that people think that is too high of a bar in order to allocate the TIF funding. She doesn’t think that is as hard as people think it is if there is a good project. If the developer comes in with a project that the neighborhood likes and can pass the commissions then it shouldn’t be that hard, but this might not be the only 15 vote item that the project needs to get approved. This might not change the game that much. And with the right project, this project shouldn’t be that hard.
Schumacher agrees and fully supports Alder Rhodes-Conway’s amendment for a number of reasons, as she indicates, what is the project? We’ve seen a number of designs and they don’t seem to meet our ordinances and zoning code and certainly not the nearby community – height and process and full design are problems. You don’t put your cards on the table and then ask what you should bet. That isn’t how you do it with someone who wants the taxpayers money. He says we also have to keep in mind this is a single project for a single developer. One hotelier gets a benefit when others don’t get it. There are many underlying questions of fair competition, community involvement, city ordinance to say we are going to give $8M away, but we are are selling ourselves short. This is selling low and buying high. Hopes the amendment is supported, but he would bring it up on the council floor if it fails.
Clear says that you could make the competitive argument for any TIF assistance. He hopes that Schumacher knows that we don’t give TIF away. Also, to Rhodes-Conway, he says again that if they adopt this amendment, they will not have a project in front of them.
Maniaci says we will all see the plan eventually and it is a discussion for the full council. She passed out some documents and wants them to look at it in terms of TIF. Because of the rule that was passed two years ago that you need an increment of $3M dollars. [This isn’t that important, but I need to point out that rule was in effect long before I got on the council. It had nothing to do with recent changes.] She says this neighborhood has very few places where you could enact a TIF district, if you look at the neighborhood on the map, it is a very needy neighborhood. A number of streets are scheduled to be worked on in the next few years. She thinks we need small cap TIF for the houses around James Madison Park. Mansion Hill has many houses valued around $400,000 but if you go further east, the houses around the park, are $200,000 and $250,000 for single family homes and they are very attractive for small cap TIF. [Hmm, after living in this neighborhood for 18 years and recently buying and selling a home in the area, I don’t think that is correct either. I’d like to see facts to back that up.] She questions the amendment and why she would leave in the $300,000 for small cap TIF. She says if you don’t expand the district then it is just for the state street area. Rhodes-Conway explains that her amendment is silent on the expansion. Maniaci tries to clarify and Rhodes-Conway says that nothing prevents her from expanding the TIF district. Maniaci says that they can only expand the TIF district if there is a $3M generator. [Also painfully wrong.] She says there is alot of needs in the neighborhood, we are going to be spending money on Johnson and Franklin and Blair in the coming years and there is millions of dollars of infrastructure that needs to go forward and do we want to pay for it out of GO or do we want to pay for it with TIF. This is planning and budgeting and it is smart to have this money in there. The project will be judged on its own merits and she thinks they should look at what the TIF money will enable. This project is the only project on the table that would be of a scale that would enable the neighborhood to be able to open up to a TIF district. And she would be very upset if you tore down a group of houses to build a project that has $3M in increment. She thinks there are very few commercial properties in the neighborhood and this is the struggle. This is one project in one spot and we aren’t tearing anything down and we can open up the neighborhood to so may great things in terms of infrastructure and homeowners. [Upon re-reading it, it makes we wonder why she thinks she needs a TIF district to get repairs done in her neighborhood, that doesn’t happen in most other areas of the city. I wonder who led her to believe this is the only way to get things done. It also makes me wonder what TLNA thinks about this since they very strongly felt that TIF harms the schools because they aren’t getting funding. Also makes me think that a TIF district isn’t very effective when the property values are declining in the area, it creates less increment.]
I missed a bit of what Sanborn said and Maniaci’s response. . . there was a 1 – 2 minute gap between TiVo and me getting back to the meeting.
Schumacher says that he thinks that as Rhodes-Conway said, let them come forward with an approved project and then let people weigh in and make a decision. This is as close to corporate welfare as you can get. In California, TIF went overboard to hand out money. If the project has merit and it has value to the community, it will succeed, but if this is taxpayer relief money, then we are handing out money and we are going down a slippery road. In California people were giving money away without looking at the merit. We do a thorough “but for” analysis and we are mindful of where TIF really makes an impact. We are not at that place, this project isn’t ripe yet. Lets memorialize this in such a way that we deal with TIF requests when the project is really in front of us.
Mayor Dave says we did it before, we did it for Union Corners and maybe others. He laid out money and then application process goes forward. If library passes it is self executing if this passes, there still needs to be an application, vetted by city staff, need to show “but for” and gap and analysis just like any other application. I needs to meet the 50% rule when TIF application comes before the council. Second or third he says this doesn’t guarantee $16M, it just says up to $16M and we might get a modified version. Could be less and if its more it will be 15 vote item. If you support 21, hard to be opposed to 22. It’s the same thing as land banking. No specific project here. When it happens, is just won’t be a 3/4 vote, very similar to number 21.
Rummel says that she wants to see the project get to a point where it doesn’t break all the ordinances. At this point she doesn’t have a vote, but wants to remind them that the TIF policy committee spent alot of time talking about priorities. I guess I made jokes about all the hotels, and this is the one ready to go, but is it the one we really need to have. Fixing up Edgewater is cool and it can be done right and be a cool project, but is this our priority? To Jed’s point about blight, we need to look at true blight vs. cracked sidewalks. What is really our need? She suspects it will not succeed at this level, but it won’t go away. She wants to see a project her district will support. We want a win-win, not a give-away, even if we know that is not how TIF works. This sends a message and we need to decide if that is the message we want to send.
Schumacher says he is supportive of TIF for a downtown hotel because it adds value to Monona Terrace, there is a public policy we should pursue and saddened they can’t move forward at this point. Finally, he points out to the Mayor that he said that he did this at Union Corners, and where are we at today? Mayor says he makes his point, they put the money in, and it didn’t get spent. TIF alone cannot make a project go. No guarantee that the project will go, it just clears one hurdle. Schumacher asks why we are so afraid to wait? Are we really afraid of the 15 vote threshold?
Clausius says that the TID project is considered individually. This project has a long, long way to go. We don’t even know if we are going to spend $8M, if we go ahead with the amendment, we would kill it right here tonight. If we vote it down, and let it got through, alot of issues will be resolved one way of the other. He says labor was here, it has a huge intangible benefit. We’ll get that with the library too. Opposes amendment.
Maniaci says that Sanborn put it succinctly, that it is a truly blighted area. Disheartened to hear Schumacher support Monona Terrace over this process when it brings people to the downtown. It gives them an opportunity to invest in the neighborhood in a way they haven’t before and in a way they can’t do it without a TIF district [again, why does she think that? Who told her that?], to give the neighborhood what they need. They have water lines that need maintaining. This is a forgotten corner of the downtown, we have to think about how to preserve the neighborhood and how that will be funded. [If you want to preserve a neighborhood, a TIF district is not the way to do it, a TIF project will lead to more development, but also more tear downs.]
Compton says that this conversation is exciting. We’re talking $16M, she supports it, usually she supports injection of TIF and she’s not sure we have blight here. An argument about the heights is not sufficient for her. They voted to change the heights and they are doing that. [What is she talking about, who voted and when?] The people who live in the houses only have a minor assessment. Maniaci’s argument is not a good one for her. TIF is not an investment in the project, it is an investment in the city. She’s not going to support the project, because they denied $300,000 into a major business that was a major positive thing for the eastside and it affected the whole city and she wanted that supported. [At this point, the word logrolling was getting tossed around in the back of the room. Funny how brazen and transparent the council has become lately by commenting aloud about trading votes.] Until they show the tax base to support it, she can’t support it. When we are talking about TIF we are not giving it away, it is an investment that would bring money back to us. Lets get that straight.
Verveer says that he is torn. If this amendment was presented a month ago, he would have largely supported it because development team and neighborhood were on a collision course. They were talking at each other, not to each other. It was a disaster. About a month ago, the development team made a wise choice to communicate with the neighborhood again. Maniaci and he represent the neighborhood. In last month extremely fruitful discussions taking place. He thinks the developer wisely decided that course is to continue dialog and will meet at the end of the week and he thinks the project has tremendous potential. A month ago the process was broken. Maybe he’s too much of an optimist and sees hope. He is shocked by the comment that if this amendment is recommended tonight, the project is dead and the the developer would pull the plug. [Its odd that several alders are using that argument. I wonder where that rumor came from?] They have not indicated that to him. So, he is very hard pressed to believe if the amendment is adopted or rejected, or approved or rejected by the council that the developer will walk away. Maybe he’s all wet, maybe he’s too much of an optimist, but they barely talked about this amendment when he met with the developer, the main factor as to why he’d be shocked if they walk, this project has so many hurdles to pass, among them is the fact that if enough adjacent property owners object, this will be facing a verified protest petition. (he explains the process) and that requires a 15 votes on rezoning. Forget the TIF, this is 15 votes if the neighborhood is not supportive of the project. Everyone knows that. Its going to take 15 votes anyway unless they all work together to get a project the neighborhood can support. It needs a shoreline variance (he says he read between lines of mayor’s blog) and their decision is not appealable to the council, it goes to circuit court and may end up in litigation. That may be why the developer came back to the neighborhood, or maybe because it was the right thing to do. It’s worth the time to work their way through this. The way projects get done is by working with the neighborhood. The vast majority of the downtown TIF projects have not been in the adopted capital budget. They have been 15 vote items. Talks about Keller/Krupp project and it got the 15 votes. The first of many in that wildly successful TIF district. Most of the TIF projects need 15 votes and already need it for the land use unless they can get this worked out. If we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya, that will be beyond his wildest imagination. He appreciates where Alder Maniaci is coming from, but it pains him to support a land use proposal because of public works improvements. It bothers him to think that we would vote for a project based on potential to do public works projects that could be gotten by TIf. He is one of the biggest users of TIF for the public works projects, but he has never supported a land use for public works. Owes it to neighborhood to support the amendment, and its not a big deal because they will most likely need 15 votes and they have lots of other hurdles. 15 votes have been needed before.
Mayor disagrees, it is a higher bar, it is a big deal. Its 14 votes for land use, not 15.[The Mayor is wrong, it was confirmed by staff. They also explain the possible confusion – “In the event of a protest petition on the zoning map amendment (the PUD), it will require “a favorable vote of three fourths of the members of the Common Council voting on the proposed change” to adopt the ordinance. On an appeal of the decision of the Landmarks Commission to grant or deny a certificate of appropriateness, it would require the favorable vote of two thirds of the members of the Common Council to overturn or modify the decision of the Landmarks Commission.” Note the bolded italicized words] Different alders will vote on this for different reasons. There is not 15 votes for this, he says Sanborn will never vote on the TIF, but maybe on the zoning he will vote on it. It is much harder to get the 15 votes on TIF, they may support the zoning, but won’t support the TIF. So, it is a big deal, it is an extraordinarily high bar.
VOTE: Fails 3 – 4, Rhodes-Conway and Verveer were joined by Sanborn which created a tie and the Mayor voted against the resolution.
AMENDMENT 23
Planning and Community and Economic Development/Project #6 – TID 32 – State St. Corridor, page 121, 148
Sponsor: Sanborn
Remove all funding for this project.
General Obligation Debt: ($8,000,000)
Other Funding: ($300,000)
Total ($8,300,000)
Levy Impact: ($1,026,037)
Sanborn moves a substitute to eliminate the small cap TIF. He says that small cap TIF is one of the things he has the hardest time with because of the scale and the amount of money and projects and the small impact it has. Why should we subsidize lifestyle choices. This is some vague idea that we are improving the downtown.
VOTE: Motion fails on a voice vote, Sanborn is the only one to vote for it.
AMENDMENT TWENTY FOUR
Planning and Community and Economic Development/Project #22 – CDA Redevelopment – Truman Olson Acquisition and Demolition, page 124
Sponsor: Bruer
Increase 2010 funding by $275,000 (form ($160,000 to $435,000) to purchase property located on Nakoosa Trail from the Madison Water Utility and fund improvements at teh site to bring it to a “buildable” condition. This property would be transferred to Porchlight, Inc. in accordance with the draft Legally Binding Agreement approved by teh Common Council on September 2, 2008. Of the $435,000 project cost, it is expected that $225,000 would be a paid to the Water Utility, $160,000 would be used for the installation of Geopiers and $50,000 would be used for grading and environmental remediation on the site.
General Obligation Debt $275,000
Other Funding $0
Total $275,000
Levy Impact $35,614
Bruer says that this is one of the stumbling blocks, this is about surplusing out the Truman Olson property. It has been vetted by lots of committees and on the council floor. Thanks the water utility and city staff and Clausius [?] for their leadership and I have to admit at this point, I have no clue what he is talking about. Wingra plan, park st gateway, truman olson, affordable housing, deancare, copps, grocery stores, HUD, stakeholders, st. mary’s, Wingra BUILD, rental properties are investing millions and didn’t ask for subsidy, retention and expansion, small investment, applauds water utility, Clausius and Cnare and Compton and thanks her for her great real estate advice. Thought it was next to impossible that all those players could come together . . . Mayor says great comments, people laugh . . . they suggest turning up the heat . . . [I really, really didn’t follow all that . . . it is a much abbreviated version of whatever he said.]
Sanborn asks why it wasn’t in the Mayor’s budget. Bruer says the water utility just finalized the negotiations in the last week or so. Mario says roughly yes, that is what happened. Engineering costs that had not been estimated, those costs just came in. Bruer keeps saying the non-profits support it.
AMENDMENT TWENTY-FIVE
Water Utility/Project #23 – Automated Metering System, page 132
Sponsor: Cnare, Rhodes-Conway, Clear
Amend the Water Utility Capital Budget in the amount of $250,000 for a professional services contract to create an RFP to evaluate and select a vendor for a fixed network Advance Metering Infrastructure system to initiate automated meter reading (AMR) for water use billing. Other funding is from Water Utility resources.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $250,000
Total $250,000
Levy Impact $0
Item 25 –
Cnare says that this is to bill people monthly, its a massive multimillion dollar project to make that happen. This allows them to get a consultant to figure out how to do it. Its not just customer convenience, but it is a problem that they can’t do a conservation rate if they can’t measure their usage, with a monthly bill they can do that. This brings them closer to doing that. Water utility wants to lay the groundwork.
Clear saya that if the IT department and schools can get wireless mesh, that project line item could decrease. Cnare says looking forward it could be a very big price tag.
Schumacher says that people want monthly bill, but also want no bill.
Cnare says that you can get monthly billing based on past bills.
VOTE: Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT TWENTY SIX
Library / Project #2 – New Central Library, page 8
Sponsor: Schumacher, Compton, Skidmore, Clear
Add the following language: This funding shall be contingent upon passage of a binding Referendum in favor of the Central Library project to be placed on the ballot for the regularly scheduled election on April 6, 2010.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding 0
Total $0
Levy Impact: 0
Clear moves for purposes of discussion, Bruer seconds for purposes of discussion.
Schumacher says he knows that this will fail, but he wants to point out that the importance of referendums is an important statement – with major decisions where we don’t know full costs and don’t know the fundraising, general population should have input. We shouldn’t govern by referendum every day, but this big project should. If the referendum comes in positive the great, are we afraid a referendum doesn’t pass? Its only a 4 month delay, no costs to referendum cuz county election. Compton will address specifics, supports the library system, but he has two concerns. One is that he is not convinced about the fundraising capabilities, what happens if the money doesn’t come in? Risk is higher than we state. Second, we are using prime real estate for a distribution center. Many businesses say they want to be downtown, but logistical operations are on the outskirts where you can get in and out more easily. Thinks we should be considering more innovative changes. There are changes in how people are organizing things, people can use most of UW system libraries. He just wanted to raise the issues.
Compton says that no one is opposing the library. She says that alot of people came to speak about how much we need it. No one is arguing we need it, this is requesting the referendum in a city that likes transparency. [She says that as if this is a bad thing.] She points out this is a done deal, everyone (board of estimates) is leaving, no one is listening to her. We have so many vague statements about the library, is it $37M or $17M, steel and materials have gone up, we pay prevailing wage. We can’t use the cheaper labor. Our ordinances require prevailing wage. We need to ask the tax payer. We don’t want to leave process to referendum, this is not process. Talks about Markle’s comments on building a pool. Monona Terrace was a new building, this is a new building. This is new and this is going into partnership with someone else, a developer to create a hotel or apartments or condos. She thinks taxpayer should be able to vote. What does this body have to fear, you are elected to represent those people if you think it is going to fail then you should vote against the project. She says this is “putting bling downtown one more time” when people on the periphery are not getting what they need. State St and every other thing is for downtown. If she has to go pull her lever, she will vote for it. She is “for giving developers money to develop, that is what she does as her day job”, but we are in crunch time, we are taking $37M from $43 because it is so much cheaper to build now, but now $37M to 17M, but the taxpayer has the right to go to polls and decide. Vote will be in April. Approving the project subject to the referendum. what is the fear. What is the fear of the Mayor, he doesn’t support the referendum either. What is the fear if people say not at this time. Yes, her constituents elected her to vote and if she votes for it too bad, her vote is no, she would like to vote yes. She knows that this is just for discussion because it was already decided to place it on file. This body needs an open mind if they are going to spend her tax dollars, she thinks they need a referendum.
King says that he’s been here 5 hours and can’t vote so has to talk. Lafollete didn’t live in our age of special interests. This might not cost dollars, but in terms of special interests misinforming the public this will cost us alot of money. He comes form a sate that rules by referendum and he’s not in favor of it. The votes for our offices is the referendum. We can’t refer everything that is difficult back to them. It’s our decision to make, doesn’t want to send everything to referendum in Madison.
Rhodes-Conway asks comptroller a question. She asks ballpark how many projects are in the cap budget that come to total of over $35M. Brasser says very few. This is a substantial project. Are the ones that do, roads or engineering projects? Yes if you count the phases. She asked because if this was a proposal to go to referendum on projects over $35M she might support it because we would be creating a policy of asking tax payers on large projects and she could support that. But we are saying this project and not the others. So, she won’t vote for it tonight, but if you want to have a policy discussion she will have that discussion, but we have to be consistent. Can’t weigh in on just a library project.
Verveer moves to place on file, seconded.
He says he won’t repeat, he agrees that we are paid the big bucks to make these decisions (choking and laughing), he says that we sit though all these discussions to get educated and know the ins and outs. Several of us have memorized the embarrassing reports of what needs to be repaired and how awful it is. He thinks it is fair that we all have a unique perspective on this weighty issue. Two other points. Agrees with King, but even without negative and misleading campaigning, he thought when Alder Compton called that the most recent referendum they had the Garver Mill project Commonwealth Development had a campaign committee, raised funds and had to work on this campaign. They spent thousands of dollars for the the project that passed. Cost of the election, not the tabulators but the cost of our community and to our library advocates and the foundation that will be raising the money for the project, but the talents, time and financial resources would be diverted to the referendum. Its a waste of resources that would otherwise be working to work on central library. Its a waste, the community will likely embrace and support it if it was on the ballot. Last point is that the parochial turf battle over library funding. Has happily gleefully proudly voted for branch project after branch project and agrees that some need more services but some of us have been very patient for years as they allowed and happily supported all the millions of dollars of new and improved branches. Agrees North and East side need more branches and better branches but have done a proud job with our branches. We haven’t put in one penny except the duct tape to hold the Downtown Library together. Hates to waste the time and talent to put it to the voters. should be working on architects and plans. By delaying, they won’t do construction drawing, its a total waste. No disrespect to the electors that he doesn’t think they can make the right decision, its just a waste of money and time.
Cnare says that the Pinney library is fabulous. She’d love to have a branch library. She talks about the meeting, and people who said downtown gets everything, we never get anything. Need to talk about what has been done. The meeting was 3.5 hours and good questions were raised. We need to talk about the components of a downtown, a city hall, fire and library. Talked about the financing, what if we have a Union Corners next to our library. She thinks people changed their minds at the meeting. Doesn’t think it should go to referendum, hard to understand that no referendum language that could describe all of this. She wants people to hold meetings and conversations because once they explain the project and the uses, people start to think differently. Not the year to do it, is another issue. People need to understand this is not just a downtown issue. This is an important component of what makes a city. this is like a piece of the spine that holds us upright.
Schumacher says that constituents call, and he was amazed to find that when the amendment was put together and people called and said thank you. He thinks it is an education and once communicate value of central library to people they can vote. This is an instrument to do that for those who are upset. Even if placed on file, still more work to be done. Will ask offline about what happens if worst case scenario on fundraising and what the tax payer liability is.
Clear says Verveer point about campaign won’t go into fundraising is important. Second, King talked about New Market tax credits could be lost with delay.
Compton says that she has a question, about if place don file tonight, vs without prejudice. Mayor says without prejudice makes us feel better. They explain that she can still bring it to the floor. Compton asks why we should be afraid to spend money to educate people when we talk about money for snow removal to put info on students windshields. This has been given lots of opportunities to be educated on that and doesn’t give the campaign part of it any credibility because everyone talks about how important education is. People might get out and vote and learn something. She wants to make point that Schumacher made, that she got calls from all over the city, thanking her for going to referendum. If you read the comments on the comment page at madison.com, people said we need to do this. This is not dental procedures, but it is about spending a big chunk of money when things are difficult for us and if there is an easing of that pain by giving them a vote, why wouldn’t we. She doesn’t understand why we wouldn’t. This is not TIF policy criteria, this is about committing $37M. If you want to cut it to $17 she might vote for it. She says the numbers are vague and maybe that would come out in an election. Not saying not to approve it, its just subject to referendum. She’s old, she wants to hang on to book. Doesn’t want to go to a computer to get all her information. Just cuz do it, save money to got get dvds, won’t stop doing that cuz don’t build a new building. Question is what do the people want? From that point we were going to make, we got a result that people were hungry for a chance to do this.
Clausius echos comments. It was a very positive meeting they had, despite lack of branches, they supported a downtown library. They did a great job of presenting the facts. Good community meeting, don’t need a referendum, but go out and meet with people and present the facts and questions. Doesn’t support a referendum. Was elected and will make a decision.
Mayor says this is a good discussion, says they will likely have it again on the council floor. Lots of good questions asked and hopes they are getting the questions answered. His problem with referendum is the wording of the question and the time of the year the election is held determines the outcome. Referendum is specific question at that point in time and who turns out in that election, but it doesn’t tell you how the constituents would vote if they knew what they needed to know. We have to make decisions with incomplete information some times and we can’t expect our constituents, with busy lives to know everything they need to know to vote. We are paid to know, that is our job. So hopes no referendum here. But hopes that we have a good robust debate. Why not debate the project, not referendum. If don’t like the answers, vote against and he’ll respect that. Referendum is ok on RTA, new tax in new jurisdiction and he may regret that.
Schumacher says that with all due respect to WSJ, the whole discussion was not one against the other, its about airing the issues and not a conflictual approach. Its an alternative to moving forward.
Mayor says he didn’t take it personally, no one in their right mind wouldn’t have thought we wouldn’t be discussing this.
VOTE: Unanimously placed on file.
They move approval of the capital budget.
AMENDMENT TWENTY SEVEN
Clear says that he has motion on behalf of King delete funding for project 20. King says that neighborhood not ready, more discussions needed and so he deletes it and not move it one year forward. Sanborn asks about the amendment being brought at BOE. Mayor says its ok. Says point of deadline is to carefully draft the amendment. If had 26 just brought in, it would take three time as long.
VOTE: Motion passes unanimously on a voice vote.
ENTIRE CAPITAL BUDGET
Sanborn can’t vote for it. He’s been thinking about the percentage of debt service as amount of expenditures and it looks bad and our trend in borrowing is like 10% per year increase since 1990, 11% since 2000. Wants to know what this means in the future? Is the chart not realistic. He says he intends to look at it more closely, but back of the envelope in upcoming years, what is the difference in dollar amounts vs what the graph shows. In 2011 its $8M and what does that mean for property taxes or cuts in operating budgets or what will it mean for streets and cop cars in the future. He doesn’t think anyone is thinking hard about this, what will happen in the next few years when we have to pay this back. That is why he votes no – he doesn’t see anyone showing any restraint. True his constituents don’t support library and don’t have facts. He can’t vote for this.
Mayor says that Mayor spends alot of time thinking about it. They call it the dragon. The Mayor says they made cuts, you just didn’t see them. He asked for 20% less budget. He did add spending, $2M less than projecting in 2009. Secondly, if you looked at the graph a few years ago you would have seen the same thing, largely because we don’t always borrow for everything that we plan to borrow for. This year we did and dragon is getting more and more real and that is a concern. It is an assumption about interest rate and how fast the budget grows. If you look at where the big money is, its radio system and we don’t know where we will end up. The other biggest borrowing is streets and there what you are likely to see is increased spending for a few years and then tapering off. Trying to reduce substandard streets. Alot of money going in there, also new streets at UW research park, at some point those projects will be done and he doesn’t see those projects in the future. He’s hoping we will see that go down, we are making up for neglect in the past, 25 years no fire station, 15 years no ambulance, streets, the library. Raising the right issue, don’t think we didn’t struggle with it, and he respects his position on it to ask the questions.
Sanborn says that the numbers are assuming less and less borrowing in years coming up. But the trend doesn’t show a downtrend, it always trends up. Mayor says possible the borrowing will go down.
VOTE: Passes 5 -1 with Sanborn voting no.
