Took a while to get quorum . . . . they pass items 1, 2,3, 5, 6 and 9, 4 and 10 were requested to be separated and the rest had registrants. And here we go! This one will be everything except the budget.
Here’s the agenda to look up the items.
Item 4
Denise DeMarb asks for it to be explained. This is a grant for home visits to people or follow up care to people who have been released. This is consistent with the pilot program to work with frequent users. DeMarb asks to clarify what that means. Staff says they have people who use the ambulance 40 – 50 times a year and they think there is something else going on – this will allow them to have people referred and to get follow up care and social services. DeMarb asks how the person will be selected. They will be a paramedic, its a new program, but they will receive additional training. Its a 4 year grant for $240,000. They think the hospitals may fund it in the future. There are issues with records management and they are trying to get calls for service into the medical records for the patient. DeMarb asks about the paramedic doing this, will they have mental health training or having more appropriate people for them to see? They say on the northside they are working with the health department to get a list of resources to refer people to.
Motion to adopt passes unanimously.
Item 7
Ken Eagan available to answer questions, there are none, the motion passes.
Item 8 – Allied Grocery
Speakers in support speak – more than a half a dozen people. 2 neighborhoods in the same area and they agree that they are in support. They want to make sure the store is in the neighborhood and that they won’t have to cross Verona Rd. Stores are all 2 – 4.5 miles away. This isn’t just Allied Drive, there are others in the neighborhood that don’t have cars. They talk about it being a food dessert and how people are impacted. They are excited about it, they have incorporated as a group, gotten insurance and are getting ready to be a buyers club. They are hoping for a forgivable loan. Their alternatives are unhealthy foods from McDonalds and the gas station. It makes people develop unhealthy habits. They say people are concerned about theft, but they are insulted by that and that is not what the residents are concerned about. This is a human right. They talk about how great their neighborhoods are, despite their challenges (most kids bused to school, no library, no school, transportation challenges, etc) They talk about how this will boost the neighborhood.
Questions for staff – Mark Wolf, Matt Mikolajewski and Ruth Rolich
DeMarb asks what a “buyer’s club” is and how is that a cooperative. Ruth says that you create a membership for an eventual cooperative. Willy St. will mentor them for 2 years. Their intention is to be there until it is up and running. DeMarb asks about the comment that the neighborhood is “taking back” but it seems like it is “giving”. Mark Wolf says that the stores cited “shrinkage” and one form is theft from the store -so they talked aobut that in terms of how to make this work.
Marsha Rummel asks about a location. Rolich asys that they don’t want to get suck to a site yet until they know what they need. Rummel says that they are expecting improvements, Rolich says that a landlord would expect that to get them to sign a 5 year lease.
Sarah Eskrich asks how this ties into the capital budget. Mark says there is $100.000 this year, $250,000 next year and $300,000 inthe out years. This will be one piece of that. There will be some reallocated numbers. This is one of the larger “Healthy Retail” projects and money can be used for it.
Mike Verveer asks if we are accepting or adopting the report. Wolf says just accepting. Verveer asks if there will be a follow up resolution at a later date. Wolf says likely, after adoption of the capital budget.
Mo Cheeks says he wants to talk about priorities, a year ago they approved a report to explore the possibility of a store and do a comprehensive plan for the entire area. Two other priorities were neighborhood center and economic development plan. This is the first step. He says that people were worried that people would not apply for a grocery store there and this is about the best (as in its better) that we could hope for, to make their own economic development. This isn’t what we were looking for, we were looking at it the wrong way. Thank you for your demonstration of priorities.
DeMarb says they probably learned a lot in the last year and she is interested in how we can bring similar models to similar areas in the city.
Motion passes unanimously.
Item 10
DeMarb asks staff – Matt Mikolajewski and Ruth Rolich. She asks about economic development – she says that this is for leasehold improvements, so what is that. They ask Mike May, City Attorney to answer. He says that its any physical improvement made by the lessee. Walls, sinks, HVAC systems, but not fixtures (fridge). So these are things that stay with the building. DeMarb says she asked because these are matched grants, and it stays only for retail leassors, but they stay with the owner. DeMarb asks if there is a time they have to stay there, Ruth Rolich says they ask for a 5 year lease. DeMarb asks how it is funded – Mikolajewski says that it is TIF and needs Joint Review Board. DeMarb asks how long this will be open. 2 years says Mikolajewski.
Eskrich asks for a report about the success when they are done. She wants to know if it could be replicated. Rolich says they should look after 5 years as well.
Verveer asks where the edits came from. Rolich says the edits were made today. One edit makes State St. a priority if that is an issue. A second change is 2 make it clear that a project can apply after the project is completed, but hey still have to go through the process.
DeMarb says there was a robust discussion, the improvements will be left with the owners of the buildings, regardless of if they stay retail.
Rummel says it is clear that once a propoerty becomes a restaurant or bar, it doesn’t go back to retail becaus eof the restrooms and improvements.
Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
Item 11 – Sidewalk cafes
Several speakers – 1 in support, two against.
The mayor asks what area of the city is impacted. Mikolajewski says that it is for cafes outside the mall concourse and then mall concourse (state st, capital square and king st) Mayor asks if it goes to 414 Gilman St – Mikolajewski says it would. Mayor asks if this is similar to the BID, Mikolajewski says it is close but different.
Rummel asks what they do about the disparities, is it really a one size fits all, we should do something, but she would like to hear more.
Verveer moves an alternate, or version 2. It’s a substitute. Mayor says there may be amendments and he says sub 2 is a better document and he recommends they vote to make it the main motion and work on that document. Verveer says that the alternate is a compromise, based on discussions with the operators, but not all agree. Its still modest, but significant but reasonable. Verveer appreciates the intent. He’s not sure if the staff report was in the BOE packets, but they did a great job researching. The alternate was approved by Economic Development and Downtown Coordinating Committee. Verveer says that he doesn’t want further amendments tonight, there are several issues that he supports and will move forward later, among them are the agreement that we will increase food cart fees. They will change it to give credit to unusable space and spaces that can’t be used during events (farmers market) and he will look at some other areas that need to be addressed that shouldn’t be treated the same as others. He will keep working on it. The licensing year begins on tax day, so they have time. He urges support of the alternate.
DeMarb asks Verveer about the things left up in the air, does it make sense to not adopt it until more work is done, and wait til its complete. Verveer asks the mayor. Mayor suggests they adopt it and note that they have more work to be done on the areas this applies to, food cart fees and credits for dead spots. Verveer thinks this might be dealt with in the operating budget and would like any increases to stay in the downtown area for programming downtown, but they can’t be earmarked. Rummel asks to clarify that. Mayor says the increase in fees allows them to do more acitvities. DeMarb asks why its illegal. Schmiedicke says that there aren’t enough fees to create a new fund. Rummel asks if there will be a fund or account set up. Mayor says there will be an equal expense and income. Rummel pursues it more. Mayor says future councils and mayors can ignore it all. Rummel says they will. Cheeks asks about current fees and costs, Schmiedicke says that fees don’t support all activities, general funds support some of the activities. DeMarb asks about the $4.50 surcharge to make sure it is used to promote the downtown, we didn’t understand it was illegal and she says that this can still be tracked and they will want to know what the surplus is. Schmiedicke says they will see in the budget an income estimated and an appropriation to the Economic Development division to spend on actvities.
Verveer makes a motion to add language to the motion about the three areas of concern instead of making an amendment. They do that. Motion passes.
