Here’s the votes and discussion on each of the Board of Estimates amendments 1 – 21. Amendments 21 – 27 including the Edgewater and Library will be coming this evening.
AMENDMENT ONE
Library/Project #9 – new Branch: Far Northeast Side, Page 6
Sponsor: Alder Clausius
Amend the Capital Improvement Program to add $750,000 in borrowing in 2013 to purchase land for a new far northeast branch library.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $0
Total $0
Levy Impact $0
Clausius explains why they need this. He says there are alot of dynamics and related to downtown library. Almost 4 years this is the most intense lobbying he has gotten from his residents. They know that downtown library is worn out, but they don’t have a library in their part of town. There is big area that is 1/4 to 1/3 of the city and Hawthorne serves the whole area. Grandview library is coming up, but that is to the south of his area. They are asking what he is doing for them. They want to see something on the board. This amendment is simply to put money in to look for a site. This was originally further out, this one is for 2013. Would like to move it up to 2012. People would feel more confident we are sincere if they moved it up. He also says that they had a good meeting with the east side alders. Comments were made that a downtown library is needed, some concerned about the cost, but what are they doing for the far east side? This amendment is to rectify this and it is a ways off yet and in his area he has several powerful neighborhood associations. Its hard to get fundraising going with out this. It shows we are sincere.
Mayor confirms that this is for 2012 not 2013 as in the amendment.
SRC has question for staff, both Barb Dimmick and Tripp Widder. She asks about the amendment and the timeline for build out and how does it fit with everything going on.
Widder says library board continuously looking at where new branches needed. Have identified a need in this area, haven’t gone through the siting process yet. Don’t know where or when, but as he understands the amendment, its to have funds to acquire a site. The Library Board has endorsed landbanking, this hasn’t gone to the board, but conceptually this is something they have done before.
Compton asks about the land at Grandview Commons given by Veridian. Have you discussed with developer about dedicating that land instead of purchasing it. Grandview Commons was a gift and the reason it is being looked at, especially because it will go away if the gift isn’t used in 7 years. That land met the siting criteria. They haven’t approached a developer on the Northeast side because they haven’t identified a site. Compton reiterates what Widder just said. She asks if they would put the Northeast side one ahead of Grandview. Widder says no, this is just to go through the siting and to purchase a site. This is just a site, no the construction of a branch. Compton says she is in favor, but doesn’t want to give the funds if they don’t have a site. She says in Grandview the plan said there would be a library there. Widder says that they know that they need an additional site, they just haven’t identified where yet. Compton makes some snarky remark about downtown. She struggles to understand and reiterates again. Widder says if they adopt this, they will work on it.
Rhodes-Conway asks Clausius if they found a site for cheaper than the amount authorized if he would be ok with that. He says that the price depends upon the location.
Sanborn says won’t vote for it, when looking at out years, would prefer to just wait for next budget process. We don’t know about budget circumstances. It should be on list of project for future capital budgets.
Mayor supports it, it says that we will work towards 2012 to find some land. Gives that part of the city comfort that we are moving forward. He says Alder Sanborn is right that you don’t “play with live ammunition” [dude, has he been hanging out with the cops just a little too much lately? where the hell did that phrase come from?] its not really “real” until that budget comes up. Obviously if we’re not ready to go in 2012, we won’t pull the trigger.
Clausius says this is in no way intended to usurp the Grandview Library.
VOTE: Passes on a voice vote, Sanborn votes no.
AMENDMENT TWO
State Street – Capitol Square/Project #2 – Capitol Square Streetscape Updates, Page 27, 139
Sponsor: Alder Verveer
Amend the project to remove General Obligation funding and provide $1,987,338 in funding from TID cash for several projects around the Capitol Square. Funding of $1,185,458 to complete a variety of projects relating to updating the Square, including the replacement of built-in benches, completion of granite curbing, replacement of planters, tree replacement and related Square improvement projects. $157,422 is for similar work in preparation of a Rotary Plaza near the new Madison Children’s Museum. $250,000 is for a new irrigation system for East Washinton planter beds. $238,932 is for survey, design and inspection work in conjunction with the various projects. $155,525 is for similar projects on teh 100 block streets (King St., S. Hamilton, N. Hamilton, E Mifflin, E Washington and Wisconsin) off the Square. all project funding is from TID cash derived from an amended TID 23 project plan.
General Obligation Debt ($108,000)
Other Funding 1,987,238
Total $1,879,338
Levy Impact (13,986)
Verveer moves adoption. Of the 26 amendments, this is the most exciting to him. Multiple city staff have worked hard to help him put this together. This completes the Capitol Square project, most of you use the Capitol Square and it is currently a hodgepodge of streetscapes. Different sidewalk, concrete, benches depending upon which block you are walking on. Current old benches with the wood dividers that have received attention of late are literally splintered and bricks are coming out of them due to the weather in Wisconsin and the freeze/thaw cycles and they need to be replaced. This won’t be GO borrowing to do one block as in the Mayor’s budget, he would use TIF funding and finish the entire square. TID 23 is scheduled to be closed next year because we have cash and there are no outstanding obligations. Coupled with the half mile rule recently adopted in the statute, we can use that to accomplish covering the entire Capitol Square and the side streets. They will do limited work on the side streets, no reconstruction but upgrading streetscape with bike racks, concrete and benches. Verveer says building trades were hear earlier and this is a shovel ready, stimulating project. We need to move now to take advantage of the price tag we have now. Says that the project has 15% contingency and he doesn’t think they will need it and they will come up with some good bids. He hopes that the Laborers get to work on the project and a Union contractors is the lowest responsible bidder, but regardless these are prevailing wage jobs. He notes testimony from Rotary to help with project by Children’s Museum and that this will help move that foward to help with outdoor activities. There will be a tabletop and they will redo two areas. He holds up the plans if people want to see it. He notes that is spends quite a bit of money there and leverages a private gift from the Rotarians. He urges support. Verveer notes that every amendment his name is on has $0 levy impact. Trying to be prudent like they all are. This is TIF money and saves over $100,000 in borrowing as proposed in the Executive Budget.
Sanborn asks if TID 23 closes and we don’t spend the $2M what happens to it? Brasser says it would revert to the current overlying taxing districts. One third of it would go to Madison, half to the school district and the remainder to Dane county and MATC. Sanborn asks if we wanted to if we could apply it to general obligation debt. Brasser says it goes in the general fund to use as we see fit.
Clear asks Briski about the tour he took last month and he asks about the pumps in the fountains would be replaced. Verveer says that the Mayor and Parks Staff took care of that, $50,000 for East Washington fountains in the Mayor’s budget. Verveer says it should all get taken care of next year.
Sanborn says that one thing he has harped on, TIF money is not play monopoly money. And yes, if we don’t spend the money, much of it would go back to the school district. If we approve this amendment, we shouldn’t think of it as not being general obligation borrowing or not having a positive impact on the levy in fact even the Madison portion of the funds that we could recoup could be used to lower the levy. It is misleading to think this won’t have an impact on the levy. He thinks it should just be general obligation debt, he can’t vote for it. [I agree it doesn’t have “no impact” and it does prevent money from going back to the schools, but its hard to say it should be general obligation borrowing when this is why we set up TIF districts. Hopefully improvements made in the area help increase property values bringing in tax revenue to all of the taxing jurisdictions and that is why they agree to TIF districts, for the investment that can bring in more money in the future.]
VOTE: Passes on a voice vote. Sanborn lone “no” vote.
AMENDMENT THREE
State Street – Capitol Square/Project #3 – Side Streets: Carroll/Dayton, Page 27
Sponsor: Verveer
Reduce funding from $84,300 to $50,000 for the project in 2010, which is comprised of design fees in anticipation of ocnstruction in 2011. The cost reduction is due to the assumption by Engineering of some of the design work in-house, rather than outside contractors. All funding is from TID proceeds.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding (34,300)
Total (34,300)
Levy Impact $0
Verveer moves adoption. He says this isn’t necessary, but wanted to point out that for the last few years the Engineering staff have been doing work in house. This saves us some money, but wanted to make policy makers know that these streets are being designed in house instead of contracting it out. Truth in budgeting.
VOTE: Passes on voice vote unanimously.
AMENDMENT FOUR AND SIX
Facilities Management/Project #5 – CCB – 201 Council Chambers, Page 45
Sponsors: Alder Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Add the following language: “This funding shall not be released until the design is approved by the Common Council.”
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $0
Total $0
Levy Impact $0
Facilities Management/Project #16 – CCB – 201 Council Council Security Improv., Page 47
Sponsors: Alder Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Add the following language: “This funding shall not be released until the design is approved by the Common Council.”
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $0
Total $0
Levy Impact $0
Rhodes-Conway moves adoption and says that this amendment and amendment 6 are comfort amendments for the council. The changes to the space we work in will be reviewed by us and approved by us.
Mayor asks if she wants to move amendment 6 at the same time, she says yes.
Clear asks Jeanne Hoffman if the County has the funds in their budget for the remodel. Is there any chance this project will happen this year.
She says her understanding is that it will be reauthorized on the county side as well.
VOTE: Amendments passes unanimously on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT FIVE
Facilities Management/Project #9 – CCB City Treasurer’s Office Remodel, Page 46
Sponsor: Alder Verveer
Add $38,000 in funding from the Parking Utility to the Treasurer’s Office Remodel project as the Utility’s share of the project. The project includes creating room for a multi-space parking meter coin canisters and relocating the parking meter collection areas.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $38,000
Total $38,000
Levy Impact: $0
Verveer moves adoption. Talks about the formed meeting where they talked about needing to redesign Treasurer’s Office as a result of the the multi-space meters. Paid for by Parking Utility, no direct impact on the levy.
No discussion.
VOTE: Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT SEVEN
Facilities Management/Project #16 – Common Council Security Improvements, Page 47
Sponsors: Rhodes-Conway
Delete Project #16 – Common Council Security Improvements
General Obligation Debt ($55,000)
Other Funding 0
Total ($55,000)
Levy Impact (7,123)
Rhodes-Conway says they are familiar with the project. She says there are better things to do with this money than build a new wall and door for the Council Office, she doesn’t think there is a need at this time.
Bruer says this was placed in the capital budget by accident. He talks about similar concerns with security in Mayor’s office. Says there have been concerns and alarming incidents recently. They brought in the police department to help with the assessment. He thinks it is solid and it is in response to growing concern on the floor and he doesn’t think you can put a price tag on the safety of our staff and in a broader sense, in other areas of the building. He says there are safety concerns in other areas and this is a primary concern.
Clear says that he echos support for the project. Alot of us have concern for the amount of money for the little construction and he says that the architect was pretty clear that there is a large contingency because when tearing things up in the city-county building you never know what you will find. Its unfortunate that the council office is configured the way it is, it makes it difficult to do this project which could be easier if a rectangle office. He says that if we agree this is important, this is the price tag that comes with it.
Rhodes-Conway says they don’t all agree. She doesn’t think that we have had any incidents that rise to the level of having to put in a full on security door and system for the office. This is not a good use of the taxpayers money and there are other ways to address issues. It’s not just about the money. She doesn’t think we need to spend money on it at all.
VOTE: It looked like Sanborn, Clausius and Bruer in support. Clear, Rhodes-Conway and Verveer against. And the mayor asks if it is three to three, Clausius changes his mind and then there are two ayes and four nos and the motions fails. In the end, I think Verveer and Rhodes-Conway voted for the amendment, but it wasn’t clear at all how that vote happened. [I was informed that actually, Rhodes-Conway and Sanborn voted no, Verveer was a little hesitant and Clausius was a bit confused when the mayor asked again, but the no votes were Sanborn and Rhodes-Conway]
AMENDMENT EIGHT
Engineering – Major Streets/Project #2 – Reconstruction Streets, page 58
Sponsor: Verveer
Change “N. Carroll Street (Gorham to Langdon)” to “N. Carroll Street (Johnson to Langdon”. There is no impact on upon total funding sources or uses.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $0
Total $0
Levy Impact $0
Verveer moves adoption. He says this adds on more street segment to project taken on by Engineering. They heard his appeal and didn’t object to adding one more block. After crunching the numbers, no increase given the construction bidding climate we are in. So, no price tag to adding a block to the project.
VOTE: Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT NINE
Engineering – Major Streets/Project #4 – Railroad Crossings and Quiet Zones, Page 58
Sponsor: Sanborn
Remove TID cash funding for quiet zones. (Funding of $130,000 of General Obligation Debt for crossing surfaces is to remain in the budget.)
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $(675,000)
Total $(675,000)
Levy Impact $0
Sanborn moves adoption. he says he has offered this before. Doesn’t question the sincerity in their concern about the noise, but he objects for a couple reasons. One is that this is the kind of use of TIF money that is deceptive. We generally justify TIF spending because we will increase property values and we will get more tax money. That isn’t the case here, the railroad crossing won’t pay us more property taxes. He thinks this is GO debt because of that. The people who chose to live here and bought property here knew that ahead of time – they knew what the noise situation was. He says that this will increase the property values of the properties around it and he asks if we have considered increasing the assessments to the surrounding properties. Has anyone ever proposed that?
Mayor says it would be difficult because it would be hard to define the area impacted and who would benefit. Brasser says that assessment value is more about market value at any given time, so its hard for the assessor to modify the assessments as a result of this.
Sanborn says that we are taking on a large project and we need to look for things to cut and he thinks it should be cut.
Clear asks staff which crossings are in this quiet zone and the exact original schedule, how much is reauthorized? Phillips says that 5 crossings are impacted over next two years. Blount, Livingston, Paterson, Brearly and Ingersoll. $225,000 a piece. They are funded by City of Madison, maintained by railroad. Once a half mile or greater you can have a quiet zone along a railroad track. Clear asks if it has anything to do with railroads request or hinting at closing some of these crossings? Are these the same crossings. Phillips says the railroad has asked for permission to close Blount, Livingston and Brearly. Phillips sasy that this helps our case and we can show that we are making safety improvements. It is somewhat unrelated, but also shows trying to improve the crossings. Clear asks if we have any say. Phillips says we would testify in front of the railroad commissioner. Clear asks if we would go forward before we know if the commissioner will agree to close the roads. Phillips says we wouldn’t. Clear says we shouldn’t spend money on lights and gates and then have them closed.
Rummel urges them to reject the amendment. She appreciates Sanborn’s quest to cut the budget, this just isn’t the place. She says Leslie who testified with he little baby literally lives right next door to the tracks and when her husband bought the property it was during the ban. Our approach to railroads and cities is changing and more and more we are going to hear about noise pollution being a health issue. This is something we need to grapple with as a community and society. This money will get us alot more value than it gets on the surface. It will help property taxes once the park comes and and if they don’t have to listen to train horns. She got so many emails on this issue and he new strategy is to send them to the Mayor every time she got a complaint. She thinks it had an affect and she thanks the Mayor.
Verveer wants to amplify what Rummel said about it. Agrees to disagree with issue on quiet zones. He says that the most popular thing he has done was to work on a quiet zone from area between Monona Terrace and the Kohl Center. Many people mention it to him to this day. It makes a big difference in the quality of life and he believes it impacts property values. He says condo owners ask about when quiet zone will resolved, can I use that to help sell my condo, should I buy a condo? Its a big issue and the quiet zone is very popular. He says they used TIF money and he says that many of his constituents made the same argument that when they moved in, there was a whistle ban. It was superseded by Congress. Doesn’t buy the argument that you get what you pay for. How could you move there and then complain. Well, the horns was something they thought there was an agreement on and the issue was settled. This makes a big difference in quality of life and he notes that not only Alder Rummel by Alder Maniaci’s constituents will be impacted by this.
Sanborn says that if Alder Verveer is right, he hopes it is reflected in the assessments and those that benefit from it pay for it.
VOTE: Only Jed votes for his amendment, at least that was all I heard. The motion fails.
AMENDMENT TEN
Engineering – Major Streets/Project #52 – Winnebago St – Eastwood to First, Page 58
Sponsors: Rummel, Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Move all funding to year 2011.
General Obligation Debt $(1,180,000)
Other Funding $(20,000)
Total $(1,200,000)
Levy Impact $(152,815)
Rummel says that she didn’t ask for it to be in the budget. had a neighborhood meetings, 90 people showed up, this has been a 10 year issue. Asking for another year delay. There are some new developments between the two overlapping neighborhoods working with the business district and would like to work through the process more instead of creating more adversarial relationships.
VOTE: Passes on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT ELEVEN
Engineering – Other Projects/Project #11 – Central park, page 76
Sponsor: Ald. Sanborn
Remove all funding for Central Park for 2010 and all years of the Capital Improvement Program
General Obligation Debt $(982,015)
Other Funding $0
Total $(982,015)
Levy Impact $(127,175)
Sanborn says that this is an area where he has nothing against Central Park, but on-going expenses we can’t have it all Central Library, Central Park and Quiet Zones and we never say no. The person who testified about the ice rinks kind of brought it up. If we keep borrowing, how will be pay for the operating budget and take care of the parks that we have. If we want the park bad enough, they should raise the money. He understands that we are giving up federal dollars, but its still tax money, its not free money. Its still $1M in in GO and $2M in TIF cash, it is real money that would revert to the schools, taxpayers still pay. There are also impact fees that could be spent on existing parks. He says he got information on economic value of parks but its not ever that simple, you have to weigh all the costs and other factors. While nice, this is an extravagance for a city that has a great park system and it is struggling to maintain it.
Mayor addresses this and says this project has been talked about for 10 years and gone through studies and committees and plans and the key is that we need to develop a park without moving the railroad tracks – its just too expensive. One that message was accepted they developed a park plan that is achievable. He says this plan is something he can support because it is practical. They are spending $8M to get it done, but only $2M is general obligation funds. $3.2M from Baldwin and that will go away if not used so they are leveraging federal funds. This gets us off to a good start, makes the corridor more usable and in the long run it will contribute to economic development in the corridor. We have identified this as one of the most promising areas for economic development and infill. Having this amenity will help, its hard to quantify what that means. He hope people will support the park.
Rummel says not only federal money leveraged, but $5M in funding from Center for Resiliant Citites, Evejue and MG&E. This is how we can help.
Clausius says that he has been on the committee and this isn’t a new project but has been worked on for years. Size has decreased by 50%, but we can add to it. Skateboard people have been waiting for years to get their proposal included and it does include that. Keep in mind we don’t have a skateboard park, his son is a semi-professional skateboarder and he reminds him monthly of this, a city of this size should have a skateboard park.
Mayor says that funds will be privately raised by skateboarders.
Sanborn says we are also hearing about things that are not in the plan. People listening should realize this is going to cost more than $8M.
VOTE: Fails on voice vote, I think only Sanborn voting for his amendment.
AMENDMENT TWELVE
Stormwater Utility/Project #9 – Shorelines, pages 82,170
Sponsors: Maniaci, Clear, Verveer
Adding funding to complete shoreline work at James Madison Park, in ocnjunction with the Parks Development Fee Project (see page 170). Funding is to provide riprap for the shoreline.
General Obligation Debt $60,000
Other Funding $0
Total $60,000
Levy Impact $7770
Maniaci not there, put on table. They do 13 and then come back. Maniaci joins them and she points out the impact fee district. She says that as she was going through the budget she realized that the money that parks staff told her was going to come from Stormwater Utility never quite made it in the budget, so this is a correction to put the money in that Stormwater Utility had committed.
Verveer asks Brasser about the reserves that could be used and how we decide when to use GO as opposed to reserves. Brasser says amendment came in late in the process, they have already budgeted to use the reserves and so they have to borrow to pay for it at this point.
Verveer points out the beauty of having the impact fees information. Santa Claus is in the cookie jar. [? Giggle. I just needed to pick on Verveer a little, lest I disappoint him. Plus, it’ll give Rosemary Lee something to yell at me about! :)] Its good to see what money is available. Supports what is proposed here, we talked about this last year, we started the project and improved the basketball courts and parking lot, but there are alot of needs there including the shoreline. Urges support.
Clear asks about GO debt being repaid by Stormwater or GO borrowing. Brasser says it won’t be paid by impact fee but by the rate payer. Brasser says that debt service is paid to the Stormwater Utility.
Verveer says that impact fee will be used to support James Madison Park this year.
VOTE: Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT THIRTEEN
Park/New Project – Lisa Link Peace Park, pages 90, 148
Sponsor: Verveer
Reauthorize funding included in the 2009 Adopted Capital Budget for Lisa Link Peace Park, as adjusted for new actual amendments and expenditures in 2009. (See 2009 Adopted Capital Budget, page 288.) funding will consist of $565,000 of cash from TID #32 and $385,000 of private contributions. There is no impact upon General Obligation debt.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $950,000
Total $0
Levy Impact $950,00
Verveer says it is a reauthorization, ready to break ground in January and urges their support.
Sanborn asks why this needs to be done with an amendment, why wasn’t it in the budget. Brasser says that they thought it would move forward in the current year and they realized too late that they would not get it done this year. Sanborn asks the Mayor if this was just a timing issue. Mayor says yes. Verveer says that the delay due to the redesign of the building and going to through the committee and the timing of council meeting, pushing it back a few weeks. The visitor center is being built with private donations. TIF money is for park improvements, not the building.
VOTE: Passes on a voice vote, sounded unanimous.
AMENDMENT FOURTEEN
Parks/new Project – Olive Jones Park, paes 90, 171
Sponsors: Bidar-Sielaff, Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Olive Jones is one of only 2 small public parks in District 5. This project provides funds for the major renovation of Olive Jones Park which also serves as the playground for Randall School. This renovation will allow better public access, including ADA accessibility, a toddler area, and a more age appropriate playground for school children. Funding consists of $25,000 from Vilas-Brittingham impact fees and an additional $100,000 in private fundraising.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $125,000
Total $0
Levy Impact $125,000
Bidar Sielaff says that you heard testimony from Franklin Randall PTO and Regent Neighborhood Association, she says this is much needed renovation of one of two parks and right now it is essentially a parking lot. It is heavily used, and the only park neighbors can go to so they want to add a toddler area and make it ADA accessible. It’s impact fee money, PTO has raised $40,000 and confident they can raise the rest.
VOTE: Passes on a voice vote, seems unanimous.
AMENDMENT FIFTEEN
Parks/New Project – Brittingham Boathouse, pages 90, 171
Sponsor: Verveer
This project is to construct restrooms and a drinking fountain at the Brittingham boathouse. Funding of up to $60,000 in Parks Impact Fees from the Vilas-Brittingham Impact Fee District will be matched on a one to one basis by private donations.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $120,000
Total $0
Levy Impact $120,000
Verveer explains that the Camp Randall Rowing Club testified earlier. He notes this is part of a project to restore our oldest city owned structure, a historic landmark. This supports the Camp Randall Rowing Club and the work they do with the community. They hope they can raise a minimum of $30,000 in 2010 which would get them a unisex bathroom/changing room as well as a drinking fountain. If they are successful at the fundraising beyond that, this amendment would authorize two restrooms. Another example of leveraging private donations.
Sanborn asks about impact fees since there are so many of these. Are the impact fees designated for one spot, do they need to be used for projects or can they be used for maintenance. What is the thinking behind having the money available and not using it.
Brasser explains there is a new section added to the Capital Budget this year. This shows the balances available and the last couple years of history. In many cases on the periphery, they will establish districts that borrow in advance for development and as development occurs the impact fees will pay for the improvements done. With parks, its a little different, as development or redevelopment occurs, impact fees are paid into the fund. The whole city is divided into districts and development fees in that district are used within those districts. There is also a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and that money is used for regional parks. Current state law requires the impact feed collected be used within 7 years and if not used, the payer of the fees can get the money back, so we need to identify where we have fees and use them for the capital improvements authorized by state statute. They can only be used for capital improvements, they cannot be used for maintenance. There are a series of specific exclusions or exceptions. These funds are available for use as identified in these projects.
Sanborn asks the Mayor why the money is sitting there and wonders why the money is not already allocated. Brasser says Parks staff might be able to shed some light on that. Brasser says that the planning for the use of impact fees is something that parks is working on. It is an area that didn’t have alot of focus in the past and they added it to the budget to make it clearer and hopefully parks will be able to do more planning around that.
Briski says that he doesn’t have much to add. The parks division has been using it for many years, them using the fees now is nothing new. With their planning processes, they are planning in out years for use of the fees. They are incorporating that in a more structured planning process now. Sanborn says he hopes he isn’t the only one that is uncomfortable with this process of alders finding this money and getting what they want. He asks the Mayor why he didn’t have a plan. The Mayor says he was nervous and figured this would happen. He says that impact fees weren’t something he thought about when he put the budget together and he says it was the new parks administration that is using it differently. [Ahem!] and they are paying more attention. He says when the information is available they need to provide it to the council. He says he used impact fees for central park. It does give them opportunities to use them like a cookie jar, but they have to share the info with the council.
Clear add to strike the word drinking fountain and add bubbler. Verveer says its friendly to put bubbler in parenthesis.
Clausisus asks about phase 2 of the renovations and says that he expects to continue to see matching funds. He asks if there are other phases. Verveer says that there may be some interior work. Briski says they want an office space and they need to finish the interior space. Coaches room, locker room and finishing interior are project. Verveer says they want to get rid of the porta potties.
Sanborn says he can’t support it right now. We need a better process, these are dollar amounts that alders can grab at and decide how it is spent.
Verveer says that this amendment has full cooperation and support of parks staff. Can’t speak for the rest, but this one is something they are very enthusiastic about. He asks parks staff if this project is worthy of impact fees. Briski says each of these projects were on their radar. Each of these projects is on the list. They may be been presented for this year or out years. He says of particular interest to him is that these projects have momentum and neighborhoods or user groups are behind them and there is a challenge matching momentum. As far as the parks superintendent, that is a great thing to have. The only tough part is so many projects and limited staff.
Sanborn says that usually we have a body or staff or committee that has the money available and all the projects and you can prioritize. This is bypassing that process where they are not considering the alternatives. This might be the best project not budgeted for, but how do we know. That’s why we need a process.
Mayor says that he supports the project, they were working on it and ran out of town, probably would have seen it in the budget if they had more time. He says Sanborn is raising a good issue, this is the first time that they have listed the fee areas and we need to develop more of a process in the future. Mayor thinks comments are well taken, but this is a good project. It would have been in his budget if they got it all worked out.
Bidar-Sielaff says that the alders who share these impact fee areas, there has been discussions among them and its not like other alders didn’t know. There is a sense that each of us just did this on our own, but there has been discussions. They are making sure that they are using it across the impact areas in a way that makes sense. There was a discussion process among the alders affected.
VOTE: Sanborn votes no, passes on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT SIXTEEN
Parks/New project – Street Trees in TIDs, pages 90, 139, 141, 148
Sponsor: Verveer
This project would replace street trees in three tax incremental financing districts. A total of $10,000 each is provided for TIDs #23, 25 and 32. The funding would be for large caliper trees tha are less prone to damage and vandalism. Funding is from TID cash.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $30,000
Total $30,000
Levy Impact $0
Veveer says that this is a TIF project. It is parks and he works with Parks staff and Forestry staff. He asked about this at the last meeting. This will speed up replacement of street trees. There is a backlog. He mentions emptry tree grates outside city hall. This will leverage TIF funds to get several dozen trees planted. The forester said that but for the TIF amendment you would not get the trees and he is trying to replicate this here. These are to fill in where trees died or were vandalism. Forestry supports this. Not going to really spend $30,000 but erring on the side of caution in case they find this many place to plant them.
VOTE: You guessed it, passes on a voice vote, Sanborn votes no.
AMENDMENT SEVENTEEN
Parks/New Project – Breese Stevens Field Improvements, page 90, 151
Sponsors: Maniaci, Clear
Add project to provide funding for signage, banners and landscaping at Breese Stevens Field. Funding is from TID $38 cash.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $40,000
Total $40,000
Levy Impact $0
Maniaci says that this goes to a number of improvements done over recent years. There is a laundry list that parks staff has and the next up is the press box which is outside the bounds of this years budget. This is also tied in with the E Washington TID, they thought this might be good, not just to get identity and brand but to help enliven that block by E. Washington Ave.
VOTE: Again, passes on voice vote, Sanborn votes no.
AMENDEMNT EIGHTEEN
Parks/New Project – Reynolds Field Improvements, pages 90, 170
Sponsor: Maniaci, Clear
Add project to provide funding for recreational equipment and seating at Reynolds Field. Funding is from Law-Tenney impact fees.
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $15,000
Total $15,000
Levy Impact $0
Maniaci says that Reynolds Field is a small dusty field with a pretty battered baseball diamond. Looking to spend money for seating and a new backstop.
VOTE: Passes on a voice vote, Sanborn votes no.
AMENDMENT NINETEEN
Parks/New Project – James Madison Park Improvements, page 90
Sponsor: Maniaci, Clear, Verveer
This project provides for improvements at James Madison Park. A detailed master plan will be developed for the park, and may eventually include many of the following components: grading and restoration of house sites ($55,000); garden, terrace and accessible paths ($170,000), parking, lighting and public art ($300,000); lakeshore pier ($35,000); lakeshore staircase and gazebo ($150,000); playground and shelter furnishings (($155,000), irrigation, signage, bocce, horeshoe and exercise areas ($210,000) and major shelter renovation for restaurant-concession ($150,000). Project costs of $1,200,000 are to be entirely offset by land and property sales at the park. Imrpovements will not be made until revenues are received.
General Obligation Debt: $o
Other Funding $1,200,000
Total $1,200,000
Levy Impact $0
[Real impact $0. Of all the amendments, this is the one that pisses me off. We’ve been here, we’ve done this, it won’t happen. The neighborhood has taken a position on selling the houses and where that money should go, this flies in the face of that. It also ignore the fact that surplus property funds are supposed to go to the affordable housing trust fund. This plan also is one where the houses are removed and the gazebo and gardens and paths are put in, not the plan that the neighborhood supports, but the plan the Mayor supports to improve the vista for the drivers coming in to town. Additionally, without a surplus committee set up, this likely won’t happen in 2010 and I think we all decided now was a bad time to sell the properties because of the market. So this whole amendment is absurd. Ok, done ranting . . . now I’ll watch and see what they decide! I went to two neighborhood meetings last night and Tivo’d this portion of the meeting.]
Maniaci says that this carries forward amendment that has been in the budget, this is something the neighborhood wanted in the budget in case a buyer came forward in the nest year. All the costs would come from the sale of the houses.
Clear asks if it is sale of the houses, or sale of the land beneath Lincoln School. She says they cut and pasted the language and that the council and committees have decided not to sell the land, instead long term leasing the land and that is what she supports. Clear asks if it is just the two houses, she says two houses and Collins House, and not the land. Maniaci says the school building is not part of this. Clear asks if houses would be moved. Maniaci says there is a disagreement on that. She says her predecessor, herself, the neighborhood and the committee are all in favor of keeping the houses where they are. The Mayor feels differently about this.
Schumacher says he understands the cut and paste, but the cut and paste is outdated given the committee has made a decision and the council accepted that report. At this point, unless someone reverses course, the land sale is off the table unless we reverse course. The projections for the sale of the houses is very minimal. Taking the same language and moving it forward is an inaccurate reflection of the current times. So if there is any hope of getting $1.2M, its a disservice. If they want these improvements, there is a high chance that it won’t come from the sale of the buildings. [Amen! Thank you Schumacher!]
Maniaici says she is open to recommendations for changes to the language.
Sanborn asks if anyone remembers when we discussed this a few years ago, we discussed that the sale of these assets should not all go to one park. It used to be that $200,000 for James Madison and the rest to general parks fund to be allocated across the city. Schumacher says the committee also addressed that and said a substantial amount should go to the park, but not all of it. We were fully aware that the money would go to the general fund and decisions would be made from there and that this was not a quid pro quo sale.
Rhodes-Conway asks Briski to shed light on this, most of discussion were from before his time and this is more controversial than the previous amendments. How are we moving forward, what is the potential to sell the structures and keep them in place and how much of the improvements could be done. He says they didn’t evaluate it post committee recommendation and with current economic climate they haven’t done any study with regard to the sale of the properties.
Rhodes-Conway asks if as written, is this just an authorization to spend money if it comes in. Brasser says yes.
Rhodes-Conway says the amendment is silent on how many houses and where they might go and what might be paid for them, so they aren’t locked in to anything there.
Maniaci says another committee needs to be formed and that committee goes through the Mayor’s office.
Mayor says nothing in his budget, don’t expect to have any movement in 2010 unless we want to buy high and sell low. So that is the reason there is nothing in the budget. He says her amendment is fine, it says if that much money comes in it can be spent. He says it gives comfort to the neighborhood. Says we are moving forward and keeping it in focus, but he says it is extremely unlikely we would sell properties in 2010. [So, just exactly how does that give us comfort? We just heard the parks staff have no intentions of doing anything and you don’t think the properties will be sold.] He says the amendment is fine.
Clear says that we are telling real estate division to sell them for whatever you can get for them. That is one interpretation of this amendment. Mayor says he hopes they don’t interpret it that way, he doesn’t want them to sell the properties for whatever we could get for them. We need a certain level.
Clear says sales need to go through BOE and Council, Mayor doesn’t know but thinks there might need to be a surplus committee.
Schumacher recommends that $1.2 really doesn’t have specifics in it. The only issue is the use of the word “land”. If that word were taken out, the paragraph reflects the spirit of the committee. Maniaci says its friendly. Clear informs her she can’t, she isn’t on the committee, but he says its friendly. No one objects, they take out the word land.
Conmpton says there is no way we would sell the houses for $1.2M.
Sanborn says the reason to not vote for this is that there isn’t any reason why the sale of the properties should all go to the James Madison Park. He says we had a tentative agreement in the past that a chunk of the money should go for the park and the rest should go to other priorities. This is arbitrary to spend all the money on this park, we should prioritize with our regular process.
Clear agrees with Sanborn. This isn’t quite ready for prime time. He’d say put it on file and rehash the amendment and do more due diligence and address it when they get to a further stage of the budget.
Verveer asks if they could punt and refer it to the November budget process. Maniaci says it is ok. Verveer asks if place on file or refer. Brasser says place on file. Verveer moves to place on file. No discussion.
VOTE: Unanimously placed on file (i.e. it fails). [Good decision, it totally needs a re-work!]
AMENDMENT TWENTY
Metro Transit/Project #1 -Transit Coaches, page 105
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Add the following to the project narrative: “To the extent possible, buses purchased in 2011 – 2015 will be hybrid buses.”
General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding $0
Total $0
Levy Impact $0
Rhodes-Conway says no fiscal impact, it just memorializes desire to buy hybrids when can. She says most of them have seen the numbers on what they can save in fuel costs and there are other positive impacts as well. At the moment the bus order has just regular buses but we have an option to upgrade for the remainder of our order and all the buses we are purchasing this year are hybrids.
Sanborn wants to amend possible to feasible. He is supportive but we are looking years in the future. Rhodes-Conway says its friendly. No objections.
Clear asks about the difference between possible or feasible. Are they talking cost effective. Rhodes-Conway says they have already shown they are cost effective. But, rather availability of dollars, this year we can do it because of stimulus money. In the future we might have other funds. She is leaving it to Camp and the Mayor to work it in. It is a policy statement more than anything else and she isn’t trying to box them in. She says that we want them because of fuel savings, environmental impacts and noise issues.
Kamp says that they will talk in fuel costs later. $1.99 per gallon and the break even points change compared to the $4.24 they were paying last year. Current federal capital funding is looking scarce. He says feasible is based on a hybid bus costs $550,000 compared to a regular diesel bus at $350,00 and he replaces about 15 buses a year. That’s a big cost differential. Right now with cost of fuel and cost of buses, while he loves the hybrids, with those numbers he would be recommending standard diesel buses.
VOTE: Passes unanimously, voice vote.
AMENDMENT TWENTY ONE
Planning and Community and Economic Development/New Project – Land Banking, page 118
Sponsor: Clear, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Schumacher, Palm
This project provides funding to purchase and stabilize developable parcels of land. Priority should be given to parcels for which a development plan or special area plan has been approved, but no development is forthcoming due to overall economic conditions or the financial condition of the developer, making the parcels available at a below-market price. Funds used for this purpose will be reimbursed through subsequent sale or ground lease of the property as part of the redevelopment or plan implementation process. All transactions shall be approved by Board of Estimates and Common Council.
General Obligation Debt $5,000,000
Other Funding $0
Total $5,000,000
Levy impact $647,523
There is a substitute on their desk. He says there are a number of places where the city has approved plans that are not moving forward. He says that the city might step in and buy the parcels to preserve them in whole and preserve the development plan that was put into place for those areas. We would hold them and maintain them at a minimal level (mow the grass) until the economy recovers and someone makes us an offer to buy the properties and hopefully they will buy it at a price that covers the lost tax revenue and other holding costs and the cost of the borrowing. He says they will vote again on this later, this just puts in the budget authority in case the opportunity arises.
Rummel asks about Clear’s explanation of getting taxes and holding costs, but what does he mean in the amendment where he says market-price. What was your thinking? Our history is that we sell at less than market to help facilitate a project. Clear says that there is times where that might be appropriate. But he wants to be cautious about that and they can’t bind future councils and their decisions to sell.
Clausius says this is a great scheme and he’d like to be added as a sponsor.
Sanborn is wondering how we are confident that this is buying low and selling high? How do we know the price is right? Are we just assuming real estate will go up? If that is so certain, why is no one else doing it? We’re becoming real estate speculators for political purposes so we can control how land is used. He says this is a terrible idea. We are borrowing more money in a capital budget that is strained. He urges them to vote no. [Shit, I find myself agreeing with him . . . 🙂 This is half-baked at best and without clearer goals that outline our public purpose, I can’t see borrowing this money at this time given the impact it has on the operating budget. I know everyone is thinking Royster and Union Corners, I was thinking the parking lot by the GEF building, but this isn’t the way to do it. And I don’t see a great danger in having a bunch of smaller developments as opposed to one huge one.]
Schumacher says he doesn’t think that we should be in the real estate business for speculation and that probably is making the private sector nervous, but there are times that these types of large project we need to keep a larger policy in mind. Sometimes a seller might not want to hold it becasue of investors and if we can buy it under the market they might take our price [I’m not sure I really followed what he was saying. That may not have been his intent.] He says this is one of the few occasions where the city should get involved to either pursue buying it or facilitate getting the land used as we planned in its total concept.
Compton says that she is worried about potential for abuse. She has in mind two projects that are sitting there, that our process delayed and the cost was so great that the developer lost the projects. And she can think of one project that has had two good development teams and the city’s process has become too costly. She says that there is a question about if the city would be challenged because of our ability to delay so that we can buy the land. And she thinks we should consider this before we go into this business. We should be encouraging private development and diverse development and not trying to acquire land to unbalance those neighborhoods. She says that in the two projects she was thinking of they would be raising the value of the neighborhoods and that was the biggest problem and what slowed them down. She thinks we might be putting city at risk by destroying a persons right to development for the benefit of the city. She says its a good idea but not soup yet. [Ok, what the hell is she talking about? Is she saying Union Corners was the city’s fault? Or is she talking about something completely different?]
Clear says that there is some risk and we mitigate our risk by trusting our real estate department to evaluate what is a good value for us and when is the right time to accept an offer on that parcel. To Schumacher’s point on speculation, he thought of that issue and that is why he didn’t create a revolving land purchase fund. This is really a one year process where money comes back to general fund.
Rhodes-Conway says that in a few relatively unique cases the city has an interest to make sure it doesn’t go piece meal into the development process. She hopes plan department will advise us as well. She says other communities do this, it is something we can learn from and her intention is that we will spend the money tomorrow, but that the planning department will figure out how to spend the money by looking at successes and failures of others.
Sanborn says cost is more than mowing the grass. There is the cost of borrowing money. He hears we are doing this to control the land development and he says when you do that, you decrease the value of the land, which makes the scheme risky.
Bruer says he is sensitive to the buy high and sell low comments. He says he knows of several instances where we have doubled and tripled our investment. If it is part of the strategic plan and with the market the way it is, we have done well. If we had land banked more, we would have done better with affordable housing and community development projects. He says we could have a role in increasing the tax base like Monona did and particularly in the older neighborhoods we could do well. He also talks about how we do this with industrial land and how that has worked well. He says it is a slap at city real estate, not that it was intended that way, but they do well. [That was a low blow, that totally wasn’t what was meant by Sanborn’s comments.] He says this could have a good impact on the city and neighborhoods.
Compton says she wants some definition and she wants some guidelines to see how we would invest. She wants to see guidelines on purchase of land and the type of development they want to see. She says they have a diversity committee now. She says several of these properties are in areas where we don’t need affordable housing, we need to raise the bar. Shes talking about some project in her neighborhood and free lunch numbers and how she doesn’t want that to be affordable housing. [NOTE: NO ONE MENTIONED AFFORDABLE HOUSING! It’s like she’s making shit up in her mind. ] She says we need to say were are out to balance the city not out to create pockets of poverty all over the city just because we can buy the land.
Bruer says that he wasn’t suggesting that it would be for affordable housing, he was just alluding to the fact that if we had done this years ago, we could have avoided pockets of poverty. [Wow, now I get it, she misunderstood Bruer, which is easy to do.] Now she says the amendment is in order.
Clear says the priorities are in the second sentence. He reads it, and says those are the guidelines.
Rhodes-Conway says that they could add language that says PCED will develop implementation guidelines for the use of the funds. That is friendly, no objections.
VOTE: Voice vote passes with Jed voting no.
Alright, I’m taking a break, there might not be more updates til later this evening.
x
