Since I’m here- this is the short story. Not making any promises here. Half paying attention.
I’m not guaranteeing anything about the quality of this recording. I didn’t edit or even listen to a portion of it – it is what it is.
This is what got separated
15, 29 have registrants
19, 26 – Rummel, asks for presentation on number 10 if staff is here.
30 – Garver Feedmill
31 – Is the Capital Budget
21, 28 – Verveer separates
15 – Cheeks also asks for
They pass everything else on the agenda without discussion and unanimously. This is where a bunch of people get up and leave the room.
UNIVERSITY HILL FARMS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
There will be a powerpoint presentation in other committees, the plans are in front of them. She describes where the neighborhood is. The DOT 20 acre site up for redevelopment did not include that land, but the steering committee and planning staff heard from the public on that property. There is a letter that summarizes that public input during the 2 year planning process. Jules Stroik highlights redevelopment sites, Sheboygan area, has a lot of gated or underutilized properties, they think growth could happen there in a dense manner. University and Whitney Way is an area that could be a hub for the western part of the neighborhood. They also looked at sites on N. Segoe – they think the west senior center is dated and small and could use support in that area – could be redeveloped for housing and senior center. Sheboygan is a possible BRT (bus rapid transit) route. They also are looking at how they will provide parks and open space in a densely developed area that expects to increase density. They want to expand Rennobohm Park using impact fees.
DeMarb asks them to explain how a neighborhood plan comes to be, how do people start the process – is it the city or neighborhood that starts it. She says this is an affluent place, how did they get in line to have this process take place. Stroick says there was a grant program where neighborhoods applied and were willing to spend time doing this, University Hill Farms Neighborhood Association applied for the money in 2012 when it was available and they were the only ones through the door that year, they had been knocking on the door for several years in a row. Today, since the grant monies are not available they should work through the elected officials and call their office. Thay have a limited capacity and they can’t help everyone the first year they knock on the door. DeMarb asks if you have a plan if that positions you for change. Stroick says that it allows them to identify what is important to their area, they build a base. The plan is a tool they can use to build advocacy. There are a lot of talented people that can help advocate and make it happen. DeMarb says its important to note that this isn’t a city driven process – there is no needs assessment. The neighborhoods and elected officials come to the city. Stroick says some neighborhoods want to work with the city to see what can be done, the steering committee is appointed and its neighborhood based and they come up with the recommendations. DeMarb says that some neighborhoods might not have the sophistication and capacity to go through the process. The challenge is how do you get the voices that you need.
Mike Verveer asks about funding through CDBG, do they still use those funds. Stroick says yes. She says the majority of the planning is through the CDBG office and they look at neighborhood with 50% or more low to moderate income neighborhoods. She says that a portion of the CDBG monies are allocated to do project implementation at the end of the process, it is about $100,000 but they allocate the staff time. Other city departments and agencies are good about working to implement the plans.
$25,000 with Nehemiah
I spoke and asked how this money fell out of the sky for a particular agency. And what they might be doing.
DeMarb asked Jim O’Keefe to explain. He couldn’t.
The Mayor answers the question. He’s obviously angry, didn’t type fast enough but he said that this organization spent some time on the street and had a recommendation. He says that he wants to work with an organization with experience and have success before the winter. He says its not about the nonprofits. This isn’t an agency that is interested in helping people survive on the street.
Barbara McKinney says that the money might be better spent with agencies that work in the area, that know the needs of the homeless and to have $25,000 for another assessment, seems like the money would be better spent. She is having a bit of hesitancy because there are agencies already doing this work, there is no need for an assessment, we have heard that over and over again and to make it a fair playing field we have to allow all agencies to apply and be transparent.
Marsha Rummel wants to invite people to help us, but she wants a better process. She would have asked for a referral to the homeless issues committee if she had noticed, but she shares the concerns.
Mike Verveer was surprised to see no mention of the CBB, has your office been involved in this initiative or was it expclusively between the Mayor’s office and Nehemiah. Verveer says it was drafted by Gloria, but did you discuss this proposal. O’Keefe says they weren’t involved in the drafting and they know too that there are individuals that outreach workers find it hard to connect with and this is to reach a segment of the population that the other agencies haven’t been successful in connecting with.
Mayor says this is not just about homeless, many have housing, homelessness is just a part of it. Also, a large part of this population has not been effectively contacted and worked with by existing agencies, it has been going on for some time, the concentration is a result of those failures. He says we have an agency that has a record of working with people who have been working with people who have been in the criminal jsutice system. He doesn’t want to spend another 5 years on failed policies, he thought it was time to do something quickly that made sense.
Verveer asks if the resolution is adoption would the Community Development Group have a contract. Mayor says yes. Verveer asks if the $25,000 was because they could only have that much, the budget submitted was $30,000 and they scaled it back to move it forward.
Verveer asks if they wanted to have a special RFP go out, with the urgency and this population, how soon would it go out? If there was a special process. O’Keefe says a week or two to draft and to be a legitimate RFP process you need a few weeks to invite responses, then review and presentation back to the council could be another month. It would be 2 – 3 months. Mayor asks if they are invluding all the usual referrals (CDBG, Community Services, Homeless Services Consortium)
Sara Eskrich asks about metrics, budget and information that could be shared. Mayor says they will put together a contract, this will be different so there won’t be metrics.
Rummel asks if the contract would come back. Mayor says that would be the last stop unless there was a different designation. She asks if there would be a contract by then. He doubts it. Michael May says that it would be a standard Purchase of Services Contract. They already have a scope of services.
Mo Cheeks appreciates him seeing the issue and deciding that the typical process is too slow to be nimble. He asks if this would be a reasonable application to the Emerging Opportunities Grant. Mayor says this should have come 30 days earlier, but something needs to be done and he says they have standards and procedures. He says one of the criticisms is that the services are white run, this is an opportunity to bring in an organization with African American leadership – this is a focus on how to get people off streets into stable family situations – and not keep them on the streets as we have with 30 years of failed policies.
DeMarb says this is an assessment. What are the next steps and where is that budgeted and will there be an RFP for that work. Mayor says once the report comes in, he’s hoping there is some chance we might see it before the adoption of the budget – and that they can budget for 2016 and then put in a request for services based on the proposal.
McKinney says that as someone experienced working with this population and an African American woman, she says we don’t need another assessment. We have assessed until I’m blue in the face and another $25K for an assessment for a population already working with agencies, $25K is a drop in the bucket, but we have to start somewhere – she would rather it be spent on services, not an assessment of what the population needs. She knows what is out there and what the needs are and she’d like to see it go to agencies that are out there that have a strong track record working with this population.
Mayor discussed this with Reverend Gee, went to the site, he believed he could do the services, he thought they could do it, mayor asked what they would get, Gee said that he could tell you until he did an assessment.
Eskrich says she hears the mayor that we have failing policies and we need a wider assessment of the system, there are ways we can tackle this from a systems perspective, so we hold the agencies accountable. She is hesitant to put this forward for a small piece of the picture because its more complicated than the small piece of the picture. We need to be accountable with every dollar we spend. We need to fix this problem at the root cause – she can’t support this funding at this time. We need to get to the underlying challenges.
Rummel is conflicted, this isn’t a usual provider, the systems approach to ending homelessness is much bigger than a city policy, its a global economic problem. She could try this and see what happens.
Verveer asks about this returning by the operating budget – but the work doesn’t need to be done by the end of January. Mayor says this is the practical response they got from Nehemiah, they gave us a date they were comfortable with.
Mayor says we probably have more nonprofits per person than any other city in the United States, we have everyone giving us advice, he had three meetings today on issues related, this takes up more time than anything else we do. Someone asked about parks services and we are spending more staff time from parks cleaning up on State St. and the square as a result of these rising challenges, how are we paying for it, we are butting back on park services, police services are drained from other parts of the city, the damage being done to the City-County Building and the rodent problem will be another cost we incur. He doesn’t think we are getting cooperation and leadership from our so-called partners and we will have to do this ourselves sand be creative and decisive, he wants to try something different that doesn’t get at what has been done before. He says the social service platform in this community does not rely on African Americans in dealing with failed policies for decades, which gives us a significant population that has been incarcerated and not part of the education, the housing, the employment, the health care systems. He wants people who can deliver results now. He doesn’t want to discuss a report. This is not another study, this is an assessment by an organization who has done this work to answer what it will take to get into the field and produce positive results. He can think of 50 – 70 organizations that they fund that can’t give an answer to that question. He would work on an alternative with them.
Matt Phair says that there is a sense of a lack of strategy in a comprehensive, clear and coordinated way, its not that we don’t appreciate the immediate problem, this is a piecemeal solution, but ti comes in a vacuum of a broad strategy. He says we can’t do this ourselves, we have to involve other groups.
No’s have it, it fails. Rummel and and Cheeks appear to vote aye.
Verveer asks to have a roll call vote.
Aye – Rummel, Verveer and Cheeks
No – DeMarb, Eskrich, McKinney
Mayor breaks the tie in favor. Verveer asks for a resolution that has more detail and includes the Community Development Division.
Grant Acceptance for Supervisor for Mental Health Officers
Verveer asks about why they need a supervisor. They say it started as a pilot, but moved to a must have, to sustain the work day to day supervision is essential.
Verveer asks who will fill the Journey position in 2017 when the grant ends in 2017. Journey Mental Health agreed to do that in the future.
They seem to be explaining the same thing over and over – I think Kristin Roman is speaking and saying this would allow supervision and coordination. The second part would be the clinician responding in the field with the officers, they would be dedicated and there is a partnership with UW to provide measures for the program.
Verveer asks if the crisis worker would remain with the police department, but would be a Journey employee. Journey has committed to maintaining this beyond the grant period.
Verveer asks what their changes are of getting this. Roman says very good, they doubled the number of agencies that will be awarded this grant, which is new this year. That combined with our other projects makes us well positioned. They should know by October 1st. Preservice academy starts Monday. They might have to ask for an extension.
Rummel says it is an obvious need, this is how we always add more officers and wouldlike a better understanding of how we do this. We don’t do this for any other kind of hiring. She asks if the UW report would be available to the council.
Cheeks asks about Journey’s commitment is once the grant is over. She says they will pay for the clinician beyond the grant period. Cheeks says this is the 3rd or 4th time that DOJ has held out a olive branch that looks like more money, we continue to increase the size of the department and we continue to get money, they look great, but there is no off-setting of shifting to these values. The council has adopted a few initiatives to look at the optimal way we can police a city, maintain safety. He is hoping those initiatives will allow them to decide when to say yes and when to say no.
Traffic Safety Grant
Verveer wants to know how we are doing with the federal grants, we had hit rock bottom with the money available. Teri says that the COPS grants have increased, there are more specialty grants, there is more for innovative and for DOT the alcohol grant is slightly higher than in the past – some of it is left over money, there are no indicators it will go down or increase. Verveer says they should still expect to see decreased revenues in traffic court. Yes.
Attic Angels Settlement
City Attorney Michael May says they have been in court for years, they lost in circuit and court of appeals, pending in the Supreme Court. While the case is pending, they talked about a settlement, the city would make the refund, allow them to qualify for tax exemption and they would make a PILOT in the future and for the past years. PILOT = Payment in lieu of taxes.
Mayor asks if they sign the settlement do they withdraw their appeal. May says that we would withdraw our appeal and they would withdraw all their claims.
Mayor asks if others would challenge them that are not already tax-exempt. May says no, but during the land use approval they would have to create a PILOT.
Mayor asks if they can go to the legislature and seek a change. May says yes, and that if the law changes the agreement would be revisited.
Verveer asks about the PMS. PMS = Payment for municipal services. He says there is no formula they use. This seems like a low number, What formula was used? There is a blank, something didn’t get attached in legistar. He says it will get in there before next week. Schmiedicke says this is the same as for Capital Lakes, it takes the number of residential units in the city, divides the costs in the city per unit and then the entity pays a certain amount per unit. The dollar amount is based on if they are constructed and completed and occupied. They pay $882 per unit for 200+ units.
Verveer is verifying they use the same formula as for Capital Lakes.
Schmiedicke explains again how they calculate it. (Accountant talk . . . didn’t try to keep up)
Verveer asks for Exhibit two to be emailed to him, as well as a list of groups hat pay PMS.
Mark Clear asks about the fiscal note. The $268,000 is what we don’t receive this year, the amount we are refunding is escrowed, does it come out of contingent reserve. Schmiedicke says it show up in the 2014 statements. It won’t come out of the contingent reserve.
5 year contract with Schmidt Auto Towing
Verveer asks for a presentation on the recent towing RFP – almost every year there is controversy and that doesn’t seem to be the case this year. How many bids did we get, etc.
Bach recuses himself because of allegations in the past. They were surprised when Schmidt didn’t exercise their extension, he just did that because he was losing money on the contract. This came up late, the contract expires Oct 1st. There was an accelerated RFP process. Stephanie says that 3 vendors responded. 2 towing companies, 1 dispatching company (Clear says Uber for Tow Trucks?) Schmidt has the lowest cost, highest number of points for the responses and Verveer says tons of experience.
Verveer says the increase seems modest, were there other ways that they could cover the costs. Bach says there was a new insurance and he was trying to give it his best price, but he didn’t low ball it. OUr costs is $240,000 and it was $200,000 so it wasn’t a large increase.
Verveer asks how this impacts other agencies. Do we have maximum prices that can be set. Stephanie says that is all set in the contract. They can’t remember if those increased. Everything increased a little bit. Verveer says that private citizens will be charged more. Verveer asks if the fiscal note covers all the agencies. They say yes. Verveer asks if they have had any accusations of throwing the bid. Not this time.
HMO program/Wage Increases for some employees
Rick Marks supports, President of local 6000. Another example of the new process after collective bargaining. They jointly developed this and it calls for a transition to a $500 and $1000 deductible and wage increases over the next 4 years. And there is a promise to have pay equity in increases. Since the agreement, there were new things that have come up, and they became aware of a surprise of a significant increase in costs for employees and reduction to the city. 65% of city employees will have to pay 5% more of the premiums and the city 5% less. The dollar amount shift is about $354 and $842 on top of what they worked on. They are concerned that the combination is an additional burden that needs to be addressed. They continue to support this and would like the 1.5 increase to be no later than July 1st of 2016.
Dan Rolfs represents MPSE – there was an unanticipated expense that is a burden on everyone that worked together. He says this was no doing of the city, but moving up the 1.5% increase would make a big difference, they continue to support the resolution as it stands.
Mark Clear asks about the change, is this because of the change between the providers, is this just if people don’t change their plans – they say this is for the lowest cost plan.
Greg from HR explains how the costs increased. Mayor asks how they got to the commitment to 1.15 increase. He says that is wage percentage parity would be reached by 2015. Mayor says it has been their intent to maintain equity for all employee groups but it is a challenge because they have different rates of salary increase and health insurance increases. He says that over an 8 year period it might look like a 16% increase is actually a 8% increase because of payments to health and retirement plans. They are just getting started on the operating budget and its been a goal to obtain the equity and eliminate the unfairness created by act 10, but at this time there is no plan for the increase, but they will do it as soon as possible. He points out the contribution to the benefit plan that lets them put money in as pre-tax dollars, they can also do that for childcare expenses, not all city employees have been using those deductions – they will be educating employees to get them good advice about how they can take advantage of these payments so they can reduce the impacts they have suffered.
Greg says police and fire will see an increase.
Mayor asks if all the health plans that were available that were – he says yes in the Dane County service area.
Mayor asks what they do to inform an employee if they max out, how will they know what the increase will be. Greg says that they will create a worksheet.
DeMarb asks about $1.15%, what does that add to the budget. Greg says a rough calculation is $700,000 a year.
Verveer asks about the voluntary benefit association or voluntary retirement health fund and how that is expanded to other comp groups. Greg says that AVivia is the trust the associations will establish on their own, we make a contribution to it and they control how it operates from that point forward – it is used for post employment health care benefits. It will include more groups. Right now it is only Teamsters and 246. Mayor asks about the flex spending. (sorry missed it)
David Ahrens asks about the employee compensation that is not levy supported. Schmiedicke says engineering, metro and water utility. Enterprise funds.
Neil Raniford speaks from the public now too. AFSCME 6000 group. He has a document that has a table explanation about what happens due to the changes in health care and compensation. The table makes a number of assumptions, the things we knew about before the recent changes was that there was an opportunity to take a $500 or $1000 deductible and 65% will meet that and they will pay that if this plan is adopted. The plan also changed with prescription drugs – which cost more $380 and the new premium cost shift which is $842 and that is over $2,000. For a family plan holder, at $30K, those employees if the 1.15% is not added, they would have see fairly significant pay cuts. Employees might still be under water in many scenarios, but it ameliorates the effects.
DeMarb asked something I didn’t hear about teh flex spend accounts.
Ahrens says that he doesn’t get it – Rainford says that a percentage increase is different depending upon the base.
DeMarb says she and Verveer sit on an employee relations board – she wants them to look at the action text. She reads it. She says that there are two things, she thought the measures to get to parity over time, but each year that there are not the same wage increases, that money is lost to them forever. A 5% increase in 5 years to get to the 1% increase for each year, that isn’t the same. They need to look at the total package and is that equal, and she says it is not, because many employees are not represented.
Verveer wants to amplify what DeMarb said. Verveer explains who is on the committee. They had two meetings, they heard loud and clear from the 4 associations, that they support the package. The mayor supports it and feels there is money in the operating budget. As to the 1.15%, you can see in the legislative history that there was an amendment to assign this, the committee voted nearly unanimously, but this is a number on priority. He knows that when the mayor says this is a priority he means it, and its a priority of ours. He says we might see a fuel savings this year to cover it.
Ahrens asks about the data from the union, he asks Human Resources Department what the percentiles are at the increments – what percent of comp group levels are so you can see what the level differences are. He wants to better understand the inequity. Greg says average employee makes $64,000. He doesn’t know the median. He asks for more info.
Motion passes unanimously.
GARVER FEEDMILL (no link)
The mayor asks if they need to go into closed session for the report from staff. Staff says yes, they go into closed session.
Hopefully they reports something out of closed session – I’ll let you know if they do.
