Everything on the agenda passed without discussion in about 20 minutes except . . .
NEW IT DUDE
Paul Kronberger introduced himself. He’s been a resident of Madison for 20 years, very excited, has spent his whole career in IT. Started in 1989, worked for City of Milwaukee for 10 years, spent 12 at the state, spent last 9 years in private sector. Says he has covered whole range, comfortable with positions and being able to serve city well.
No questions, not even questions from Mark Clear about the major IT projects the city is working on? No discussion. Motion passes unanimously on a voice vote.
CHEROKEE MARSH PURCHASE
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz takes #23 out of order because Schumacher has to go to plan commission. Bill White is there in support on behalf of the owner and available to answer questions, no questions.
Michael Schumacher says that there is a special area plan that would have been developed. Thanks mayor and others for working on it, its the 5th addition, area of the plan 47 of 48 lots that could be developed, those lots were hotly contested in the neighborhood. There is now consensus to keep it as conservancy. Says in this economic climate there might be some concerns, but won’t have this opportunity at this rate in the future. Says this is reasonable and feasible. [Wow, its not often that a developer gives up developable land a below market rate. Interesting economic times we live in.]
Mark Clear asks about likelihood of success on state grant.
Kevin Briski (Parks) says they are partnering with Heritage Land Trust and that increases our chances of getting the grant. They have comparable acquisitions, partnering with them gives us leverage and gives us more points, confident in our percentages.
Clear asks what the timeline is?
Don Marx (Real Estate) says that whenever they decide. They can fast track the application with Heritage. As a municipality they have to wait for May, but even at earliest, no approval til August.
Jed Sanborn says he has a sense this is a done deal. He is strongly against, asks them to think of the ramifications. Says this is money the City is going to put out during a tight budget. They are already borrowing a lot, it takes this property off the property tax rolls. Even if you say the state is paying for it, this is the same state that can’t fund the District Attorney’s office as much as we need to. We are the ones who end up responsible for crime rate. We never say no to anything and we will pay a price for this, as much as don’t want to, he urges them to vote no.
Mayor says this isn’t borrowing, they have cash on hand. We have a fund created for this. He agrees as a general rule that we should try to increase tax base, but because this is sensitive land on edge of our own park and healthy wetlands will help us clean our lakes and improve the lake water quality, a purchase of this kind in this crucial spot outweights the long term value tax revenues.
Sanborn is the lone no vote during a voice vote.
PAID LEAVE CHANGES
Satya Rhodes-Conway says she read the materials but wants to make sure she understands what they are approveing.
Brad Wirtz (Human Resources) explains that the majority is clarifications to bring ordinance in line with what we have been doing for years. [It always concerns me when we are changing laws to fit our practices, especially in the area of Human Resources, which we seem to be doing alot of lately.] Wirtz says limited term employees that are non-represented, which is only 4 or 5, who are working less than 4 years and not permanent are the ones impacted. The ordinances have discrepancy between permanent and limed term employees. 5 or 6 years ago with represented employees eliminated that, this just matches it up with the other standards. Other items are just clarifications.
No discussion, passes on a voice vote, unanimously.
LISA LINK FORGOTTEN COSTS
Rhodes-Conway asks Briski why these funds are needed? Is it for items already done or new work to be done.
Briski says that part of it is for work that was already done and some that is still to be done. Briski says the costs incurred are for design work. There were many changes and it cost $6K for design and replacement of mechanicals and for the additional meeting attended. Remainder is for construction services, not in original contract for contract administration, there is a need for it.
[I missed the rest of this because Bruer was telling me that he doesn’t know how to get the text messages from his phone, and that is why his open records request is late. He also notes that this just reaffirms his belief that no one should put in email or text anything they don’t want splashed across the front page of the papers. I did catch Rhodes-Conway saying that she can’t believe we are paying $6K to put the ATM in this project. That is more than they hope to make in one year from the fees.
Sanborn asked questions, which I also missed, but the gist of it was that this was an ommission in this case, they missed something in the contract.
Mike Verveer says that he concurs, he has been working on this project for long time, this was a staff omission not to have construction administration in the contract. This never came up in their meetings, but apparent in this complex project we need construction administration.
Sanborn says that this is a pattern of amending contracts for design work, we are seeing this on a regular basis. He mentions some street work near his district, called to his attention and can find other examples. It reminds him of a lot of our big capital projects that come in over costs, not recently but prior years, perhaps need to look at more carefully.
Mayor calls for a vote. Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
EXTRA APPROVALS NO MORE
Rhodes-Conway asks why they are reapproving a 2 year contract?
Bill Clingan (Community Development) says it is budgeted on an annual basis, there is language in the contract that says if there is no money budgeted, it doesn’t go forward. [Isn’t that awesome, private businesses would never be asked to sign a contract like that, but when its non-profits, its ok. Convenient and interesting double standard, isn’t it?]
Rhodes-Conway asks if this is the way we handle other contracts?
Dean Brasser (Comptroller) says that it is true that if not in same fiscal year, don’t reapprove. Brasser says yes this is unique.
Rhodes-Conway says this seems odd and perhaps unnecessary. Most people around the table nod their heads in agreement.
Clingan agrees.
Mayor says perhaps in 2 years don’t need to do this.
CONCLUSION
That’s it for the meeting, all those approvals included money for neighborhood indicators and the landlord ordinance that didn’t get discussed. This is essentially the landlord registration that I had proposed during budget a few years ago and everyone freaked out. All landlords have to pay $10 and keep two names on record with Building Inspection so they know who to contact for the property. And not one word of discussion. Very, very, very interesting.
