A little short, but at least I’m back to paying attention to city business AND my keyboard works which makes blogging much, much easier! Yay!
ITEM 1 & 2: Parks position. Approved unanimously no discussion.
ITEM 3: Cold Case grant. Approved unanimously no discussion.
ITEM 4: Neighborhood grants. Approved unanimously, no discussion.
ITEM 5: Commonwealth buying different property. Approved unanimously, no discussion.
ITEM 6: Allowing applying for Energy grant. Approved unanimously, no discussion.
ITEM 7: Allowing additional spending from a grant. Approved unanimously, Satya Rhodes-Conway thanks staff and says the program is a national model.
ITEM 8: Amend 2011 budget to accept grant from the EPA and authorizing grants on energy efficiency. Several people in support. Jim Amudson from Sergenians speaks in support, thanks them for MPower program. Bruer thanks Sergenians. Brian Joiner, Sustain Dane, Dale Ripp from Webcrafters, Kristin Joiner from Sustain Dane, Karl Shulte from Union Cab all also in support not speaking. Chit chat, no questions of speakers, passes unanimously with no substantive discussion.
ITEM 9: Amendments to Hartmeyer Ice Rink Land Contract. Dan O’Connell from Madison Ice says last time here was 7 years ago, been operating them for 7 years, some didn’t think they would last, but they did, did a lot of improvements, but more work to be done so this proposal allows them to do that. Lighting needs to be improved, need new boilers to be energy efficiency and need more lockers to get more regional and national events. Working with autistic and disable folks and may host their national events. 100s or 100s of people might come, will increase revenue in the area. They have brought in more tournaments for high schools and groups, they spend a lot of money on hotels, restaurants and t-shirts. It’s been good for Madison. City was subsidizing the rinks at 250,000 per years. That’s 1.5M savings and they need help to get some things done. Initial cost to city is minimal but will get more money in the long run. Mark Marizon(?), Executive Director available to answer questions.
Satya Rhodes-Conway asks about getting money from MPower to help with energy efficiency. O’Connell says that they worked with Focus on Energy. Rhodes-Conway says there is also another city program coming that will initially be residential.
ITEM 10: Library temp location lease.
Mike Verveer asks Don Marx about the exterior of the property, he has gotten many complaints about it. He says he supports the location, but the exterior is in “unfortunate” condition. Marx says it never came up, except sidewalk has to be fixed. Verveer says that was one of the main points. Marx says there is a separate entrance that will be established, there will be a new door.
Verveer says that there are building inspection reports on this property and we want to be proud of the building. He says this needs some extra attention. Also asks what the timeline is for the building project and when will they move to this location and how long?
Jeanne Hoffman says that 50% of the design development is done. 100% will be available on April 7th. There will be a large public meeting that night and that is the last chance for the public, they will have more details on that date about colors and materials. Verveer clarifies that they still need to go through the city process. She agrees. Hoffman says lease will start September 1st. They will move around that time with the hope that they will be bidding the project out in Nov. or Dec. And construction will take 14 or more months.
ITEM 8: Failure to disclose conflict and voting in violation of ethics law
Mark Clear says that he has to go back to item 8. Both Sustain Dane and M Power are clients of his and he needs to be noted as abstaining. “This slipped my mind.”
ITEM 11: Amendment to Lease for Marquip
Brad Mullins available for questions. No questions. Passes unanimously without questions.
ITEM 12: Cutting projects from capital budget
Dean Brasser, the Comptroller, explains that they have worked on the re-authorizaitons an re-budgeted them. This is a technical change that cancels parts of project they are not needed. They did this administratively in the past [but this is an election year].
Clear asks if these are 2010 projects carried over.
Brasser says these are portions were not carried forward.
Deb Simon says that, for example, the fire department didn’t get grants and technically they have the authority to spend it, which they won’t do, but they have the authority on the budget. This is cleaning up the items they already voted on so that it doesn’t remain in their system.
ITEM 13: Rate Adjustment Policy
They discussed this a few weeks ago, but ask staff to explain again. They hand out a new version.
Mike (last name?) says that this was before them a few weeks ago. The primary issue is 10 year tax credits for ag land, 53 of 67 were expiring in 2011. They were no longer eligible for the reduced billing. They were only billed for first 5 acres of the building. This was a phase out instead of 100% all at once. That made it past you, but not the council. It was sent back to Public Works. He worked with Compton, Cnare and Skidmore and now proposing that for those expiring, another 10 years if document you are in an active farm program, meet standards for erosion control efforts and conservation. He met with Dane County and they can verify compliance. Most of the farmers that have credits expiring think this is a good compromise. Any new farm would have to meet the standards from the start and if not yet expired, then can join 10 year extension. He says he has some more edits, there was a clerical error on page 2. Added some language on page 3, two year verification and what if not in compliance, so he added that they can back bill for wrongfully applied credits. The rest of the changes are the same as last time, mostly housekeeping amendments.
Clear asks how many 10 year extensions they can get? Can they extend again. Rob Phillips says that they can’t get one again, but they might extend in 10 years.
Rhodes-Conway says that encouraging good farming practices is something we want to have. We want these good neighbors, is there any reason not to continue to allow it. Is there a significant impact on our stormwater system that we are losing money here and want to recoup it. Phillips says there are lots of changes in this area and they would want to revisit it to see what improvements have been made in technology for stormwater run off. He thought they should re-visit it. She moves to make the two changes. No objections to that being friendly.
ITEM 14: Undergrounding of Overhead Utility Lines
Rob Phillips, city engineer, hands out a new version. He says that they discussed aesthetics, how to do this in low-income areas as well. Board of Public Works discussed it and sent it to the council. He says there are two ways to qualify for G.O. borrowing for undergrounding of utility lines. The second way is that 50% paid for by another source or poles being relocated for another reason. The other way to qualify is if arterial or collector and a commercial use and one of the following 5 items apply:
1. Greater than 50% of the properties are ready to apply
2. The poles have been removed from majority of properties
3. The street is in a facade grant target area
4. The street is in a Urban Design District
5. The street is “blighted” in accordance with the definition that we use for TIF funding. [Meaning, anywhere else]
The last three were added since the last meeting. Also added text on the front page to explain Urban Design considerations and important gateway streets.
Rhodes-Conway thanks them for listening to their concerns and fixing the draft.
Tim Bruer says the reality is that it is very unlikely there will be funding for this in the near future, which is sad, but reality. (in a whole lot more words than that)
Jed Sanborn says this is the last thing they should be doing right now. He wants them to vote no.
Marsha Rummel thanks Rob, comments at Board of Estimates were spot on. She points out that this is in the capital budget, not operating budget.
Jed Sanborn says it doesn’t matter if its G.O. borrowing. He asks her to clarify. Rummel says that the levy limit won’t be impacted. Jed asks if the costs are different. Rummel says no.
Mike Verveer says that his constituents have been very enthusiastic about this.
Mark Clear agrees with Sanborn and Bruer, its important to have the policy in place, even if they can never afford it. But he supports it in principle. It makes a huge difference in the streetscape, he just wishes it wasn’t so expensive.
Phillips says some could be lower costs (50K or 100K) instead of $1M.
It’s adopted, but I couldn’t hear the votes.
ITEM 15: Development Review Process
It is referred to April 11th. (After the election)
Pete Ostlind is there to speak and he speaks. He represents Capitol Neighborhoods and they have a long history of working on the development review process. He says 10% of the projects that have come forward have been in their district and that is why they have the expertise. They agree with much in the proposal, but have some concerns. There are some with budgetary considerations that they should think about. Almost all of them make information more readily available and we support all of those, with a few caveats. The basics are to engage development teams and other parties and make information available. Not all need to be adopted, but a lot can be done with those and some others in the report. He notes there was no indication that it was broken, but there are improvements that could be made.
Bruer’s mic is low and I can’t really hear what he says . . . thanks him for the written comments.
Ostlind asks when it comes back.
Clear says the Mayor wanted to be there, and then the next time they could be on the agenda it will be at Plan Commission so the next opportunity is the 11th of April. And, it might look different by the time it gets back so he should come back and comment.
Verveer thanks Ostlind for all his work on this and other downtown issues. He says that Pete and other downtown residents “labor mightily” and he and others volunteer hours of their time. He says this is very detailed, is the item in legistar. Simon says she will enter it.
Clear asks if it is new comments, Ostlind says mostly the same, 20 pages of comments sent to EDC, 120 suggestions and less than 10 received any traction there. So, many are return comments for those on EDC. Ostlind says there are some but they are not flagged.
Rhodes-Conway says the memo was useful. Wished she had read it before she read the draft it would have saved him some time. She was going to go through comments and requested edits, she won’t do that, but asks who to meet with. A voice off camera says she should meet with “me and Matt”.
Referred.
ITEM 16: Putting money back in the affordable housing trust fund from the IZ fund
Jed Sanborn says that ever since his amendment passed, he expected that this would come. He says its ironic that the reason this money exists is cuz of the “utterly failed” inclusionary zoning law that is now gone “thankfully” and now we are taking the money so that the council can “meddle” in the real estate market again at some point and spend a lot of money doing it. There is an “insatiable desire” to spend money, and not just pay off debt. The money is there and “we got to spend it”. He says there are 4 people who voted for this, if you believed in it then, and we have worse news now, he doesn’t see how they could support this now.
Rhodes-Conway says she has an “insatiable desire” that families in this city can afford a home and have a roof over their heads. And its not about spending money, but a decent quality of life in a city where housing is expensive. She doesn’t think we have found the ways to create affordable housing and she is not happy with the way they have used the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the past or how they proposed to use it. They need to continue to work on that, but we need more affordable housing and whatever we can do to make that happen, through CDA, the City or public-private partnerships it is important because it is only going to get harder for middle class families and housing is a huge part of any family budget. If we are not providing affordable housing we are doing our constituents a disservice.
Sanborn says they should look at items 5 and 6 and several other federal funds that go towards housing initiatives, he thinks this 500K isn’t going to make that big of an impact.
Verveer asks about CDBG discussion about amending the ordinance language.
Bill Clingan says that last year they submitted a draft and they were going to roll this into the fund at that point. Former Alder Konkel pointed out that the language was not sufficient to spend money for IZ homes, they said they would bring forward an amendment. That was the discussion and we will work with city attorney on it.
Clear says that can’t agree with all of Alder Sanborns pejorative statements, but agrees with his initial concept so he won’t support this tonight.
Joe Claussius says he voted on it too and is planning on supporting that tonight.
They vote, mics aren’t on. 4 ayes and 2 nos, the motion carries.
They adjourn.
