The meeting starts off with the Mayor braking the gavel and it going flying towards Shiva Bidar-Sielaff . . . she asks if he’s trying to set the tone . . .
Roll Call: Everyone here except Verveer and Solomon, but Solomon’s computer is here and Verveer is in his seat by the time the early testimony begins.
Mark Clear suspends the rules to take things out of order and introduce things from the floor.
EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
– Susan Schmidt from DMI here to support the outer loop work and landbanking.
– Gary Peterson speaks in support support of amendments to support the planning department (operating 14 adn 15)
– Woman from Nakoma supports funding for ice rinks.
– City channel worker who’s job got saved, testifies that she thinks its a good compromise to cut her colleagues jobs. Clapping . . . Mayor asks them refrain from clapping.
CAPITAL BUDGET
– Scott Thornton, Marquette Neighborhood Association. Opposition to amendments 4 & 5 relating to Central Park.
– Many people here from AFSCME and IATSE and they register in support of keeping the amendment from Board of Estimates to stop automation of the parking ramps. Says joining the rally tonight at Overture against privatization.
– Steve Breitlow from Building and Construction Trades against the Edgewater amendment. I think he has the wrong talking points. Supports the Edgewater, but we know that. Talks about press conference where they signed the agreements no one has seen. He is opposed to the amendment 11, they didn’t consult the unions affected, language might sound good, but respect our process. (Seriously, it would be a lot easier if they shared the agreement.) None of his union folks are here.
– Registrations in support of 7 (2), opposition to 11(1), support of 13 (1) available to answer questions.
– 32 more in support of BOE 14.
Questions of Speakers
Bidar-Sielaff asks Steve Breitlow about PLA and community development agreement, can they see it? He says that no project yet, not done it. Usually they are private, we don’t have a lot of experience. First he knows of.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if it deals only with construction part of the project. He says yes.
Julia Kerr asks if the agreement is public or not. He says the people it applied to have all seen it. He says no one asked for it, he would send it to them.
Kerr asks if it addresses post construction jobs. He says no.
Thuy Pham-Remmele says haven’t seen the agreement, after construction, the developer still reporting 10 years later. Breitlow says that when they are done they walk away and they are done.
Pham-Remmele confused, trying to ask about the developer reporting which is not part of the agreement that Breitlow participated in, its the amendment.
Bridget Maniaci asks Amy Supple questions about information she had requested that they were supposed to have tonight. Amy says there was a PLA (Project Labor Agreement) and the Community Development Agreement. They agreed to $100,000 for community development, but there is no project in place, that is why we didn’t release it. She says no one contacted them and no one asked them to see it. (NOT TRUE, I did, I have the emails to prove it.) So, they were surprised yesterday.
Maniaci asks what they are opposed to. She says they have never talked to the group that would do the card check neutrality, they never talked, but they spent 2 years working with building trades. They will get a better project because of the skills of the workers. But here, we don’t know who we will be dealing with in the future and we don’t know what that entity will bring to the table. Living Wage from a hotel perceptive, the other hotels don’t pay that, its puts us in an uncompetitive position. If the project is to be feasible they need a feasible operating structure.
Kerr says that similar language presented during TIF debate. Does the CDA address any of those items? Supple says that it does, on the construction side . . . Kerr interrupts and asks about the non-construction side. Supple says they tried to address it on the construction side. They will train employees and pay living and prevailing wage, they have a benefits provision and so its not exactly what Solomon asked for but along those lines. Kerr asks about card check neutrality. Supple says that provision is unacceptable to us.
Mike Verveer says that the City Attorney has requested these documents for some time. Supple says they were not executed, she did ask for them and at the time she requested them they did not want them to public. Verveer says that Zellhoefer asked for them again last week cuz of this amendments, Supple says first heard of this amendment was last week, we’ve been trying ot get up to speed. A lot of discussion about being ready to release them, today they discussed not releasing them. Verveer says he has asked through Zellhoefer,
Kerr says they are not executed? Supple says they are executed. The execution copies are between building trades and themselves. Kerr asks about CDA, is that with the trades too? She says yes.
Tim Bruer asks if Hammes corporation and Trade/Labors group have been reaching out to other service unions to be part of the hotel in the future to work through or expand upon provisions already signed. Supple says Breitlow has talked with other unions, told them to contact Hammes and we have not had a discussion about operations because not in position to talk about operations, but happy to begin them. They have no project and no operating agreement. Bruer asks if dialog is going on now with the service unions, you did not intentionally not try to disclose the agreements but want to build on agreements they currently have. Supple says that they put together an agreement that will be beneficial for the operating agreement, they are open to entering formal negotiations. They want to build off what is there. Bruer is trying to help her rehab her inconsistencies, Supple catching on and repeating herself. They are going on about how unusual this is.
Verveer asks if Hammes has had any contact with service employee unions. Supple says they have not, Breitlow asked the labor union to contact them directly, but they never heard from them.
[Wow, she was talking out of both sides of her mouth.]
OPERATING BUDGET
– Woman testifies about help she got from AIDs Network.
– Man testifies about how AIDs Nework case management will impact his health if not funded.
– Executive Director for AIDs Network talks about cuts they already had and how much the money will mean to them and why case managers are needed to help people lead successful lives.
– Chair of the Community Services Commission speaks about the process they went through this year. It was long and arduous because they made changes to every aspect of the process, they were mostly positive but they took more time for staff and volunteers. There was a substantial disparity between the money asked for and the money available. Hard to fund new programs when knowing it meant cutting another. It was virtually impossible to please everyone. The process was not perfect, but they are working on a process to fix that. Sadly, they could not fund all worthy funds. He says that they knew some programs would not get the same funding as 2010, but the city is not the only funding source, so while it might look like agencies got cuts, that might not be the case. [Oh brother, no one is getting increases out here, that is an incredibly naive comment] He says that if they get additional funding, they will bring that funding into their process. He says that they took into account other factors, like performance, etc. Restoring funding to 2010 might not be equitable, please use the CSC process to determine where the money goes.
Eileen Merchart from YWCA was in support of amendment one, but went home.
Kent Craig from Centro Hispano supports the amendment as well. He explains that his general support program is being cut, which is the core of their services. It is an A-1 priority, received positive staff recommendations for past performance. These types of reductions require drastic funding changes that will leave many unserved. It is likely that immigrants will face more challenges in future years. Please support the amendment.
Steve Starkey from Outreach, they were an A-1 priority. The mayor promised that the A-1 groups would not receive such cuts. He talks about increases in services that are needed, and fundraising problems, they also have downsized their staff from 3 to 2, 23% more work with 33% less staff, luckily they have volunteers, but someone needs to coordinate them. They have had a good relationship with the city, they are a mayjor funding, this cut would be a big cut.
Lisa Subeck serve on the Community Services Committee, echos what the chair said. She says they were faced with a new challenge, they set priorities and then judged the applications. [but they didn’t follow them]. She thinks they did a great job, she wants the 50K to go back to the committee to determine who should get the funding. She says they opened the process up to different services. She says the A-1 programs refers to a priority area. There may be many programs that did not get funded in the higher priorities because there was not enough funding. But they did want some money to go to the lower priorities. She also doesn’t want the money to come from emerging neighborhood funds because her neighborhood has benefited from those funds. She says this money is the only money for emerging needs since it is a 2 year process.
Questions of first speakers
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks each of the Executive Directors had any issues with performance? AIDs Network, Centro Hispano and Outreach all say no.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if there was any discussion of how they would make the cut and still perform. Centro Hispano says no.
Verveer asks chair of committee, but first thanks him, if it was ever brought to his attention any performance issues with the three and Luther Social Services and YWCA. He says he is not prepared to recall what happened in all the meetings. He says they did ask staff throughout. Whether or not these 5 has specific performance problems he cannot say. Verveer says in the testimony there is an implication that there were performance issues with these groups. He apologizes if that implication was there, it was a more general comment. He says that
Cnare asks how much of your total budget is this? And what have other funders done? AIDs Network says state is biggest funding. They get $500,000 from the state. She says that the city funding is important, they have over 50 clients per case manager. She says it is for support services too, food pantry and dental services. Cnare says if the reduction stands, what will it mean? She says they have had to eliminate a position and have lost money. They will likely lose a half a person.
Outreach says they get $57K from the state and $15K from Community Servies. He says if they don’t get new funds, for a small agency that is alot. They will have to cut back on operating budget or benefits. He says without looking at the budget he can’t say off the top of his head. It doesn’t mean a full time staff. They also lost 2% at the county and have been losing eah year at the county. Other funding sources have been cut. Cnare says a pattern of funding cuts, do you know why? He says the recession.
Centro Hispano says that United Way is hteir largest funder at $150K, Dane County $130 and City of Madison and Schools are $80K each. He says they got cut in 2010, about 40K. He says this is the largest cut, $27K is a major cut, its the only palce we can make up for it is in staffing, still working on what that will mean, either a half or whole position.
Palm asked something I didn’t hear, but it must have been about who they serve. Palm asks if there are any changes with city resident usage. Outreach says large increases, serves South Central Wisconsin, but most of clients form Madison, AIDs Network says the same.
Palm asks the chair how they consider the other funding sources and who they serve in the application. He says it is not easy. He says they attempt to assess if the proposal is a reasonable reflection of the clients and services that they offer to address. Not a precise science. They do look at how many clients are city residents since it is city money.
MORE OPERATING TESTIMONY
– Mary Carbine lobbyist for the BID opposes the Capital Revolving Fund amendment. They support the small business specialist.
– Lori Kief representing AFSME, against pensions for alders, always in favor of compensation, but oppose on principal, since the Overture employees would lose that benefit if privatized. Not against item 10, but concerned about taking a represented position and keeping a non-represented position. Opposed to IT budget, a lot of fat in that budget. Opposes the amendment to keep his job, make no amendments to City Channel and IT budget and approve as submitted.
– City Channel employee losing his job asks to keep his job. Explains what he does, also concerned about stopping charging departments which will increase the work, and he says his options if position limited, he can only get a job in IT at 18-7 or lower, and there are not positions in that classification. Can also look at other non-represented job, working with HR, it is unlikely there will be openings.
– More testimony supporting the ice rinks.
– Missed some testimony here – bike coordinator who’s job is being impacted is speaking.
– Man speaks on the continued funding of arts commission and its economic impact.
– Man speaks in support of arts funding and the BLINK grants. Creative class will leave town if you cut the funding.
– Jennifer Hilgendorf supports merging her job with another job to be a full time job, it will be more efficient.
Questions of staff
Kerr asks Kief about her opposition to alder benefits. Kief says that its an equity issue related to
Pham-Remmele asks bike coordinator what will happen if he loses his job. He says he doesn’t know, limited options, has to work with HR. Will you just leave your job. After 24 years, I might have to. She asks when he found out and what his supervisor thinks. Art says that he found out in the budget when his supervisor told him and his supervisor is not in support. Dettman is asked by Pham-Remmele why he talked about this, she asks if he will be penalized for being here since he serves at the pleasure of the mayor, he does not know.
So, my apologies, I have a cold and am not at the top of my game. More in the morning, as they go on to the discussion about the budget, at 7:35.
