The rest of Monday’s meeting. Allied Drive Grocery, TIF Report, buing the Expo Inn, Global City Indicators and Judge Doyle Square, including a poorly handled open meetings law violation (plus Konkel rant).
ALLIED DRIVE FOOD REPORT
One speaker in support (Mary Mullen?), Dunns-Marsh Neighborhood Association President. They want a full service grocery store. After Cub left Walgreens was having 20% of its sales for groceries, most Walgreens are only 1 – 3%. She describes where the other grocery stores are, but you can’t ride a bike to them and carry groceries home. They need a grocery store on the east side of Verona Rd. They became members of the Allied Drive Community Coop at their last meeting, they are interested in small neighborhood businesses and having a cooperative business (she says she is speaking on her own behalf on this issue). Transportation to groceries is a major issue, taking a bus isn’t really an option when you have to carry 6 bags of groceries. Other things that have been tried, a van or fresh market (was only there a few hours once a week) – really need something there every day. Subsidized cab rides seems the most feasible for now.
Larry Palm asks what a full service affordable grocery store is defined as. Staff says fresh produce, meats (maybe butcher on staff), milk and dry goods. This has nothing to do with size? No.
Mayor asks them to look at the map, he says most efforts to put in a viable grocery have failed for a number of reasons. Supermarkets, giant 80,000 sq feet and larger. We are often told by the experts that 20,000 – 40,000 square foot markets will not make it. The first time he heard it was when they put it on the Triangle. He says that there has been a grocery there ever sense. They also said that about Capital Center, and that has been there since 1982. The grocery industry is constantly in flux, for 60 years they have seen it, with IGAs, Krogers, etc. to Hy-Vee, Festival Foods etc. What they know is if it is the right size and local ownership that helps it be viable – Jennifer St. Market, Metcalfe’s, etc. He says we have the man-made barrier of the beltline, Verona Rd barriers should be improved, also a limited residential area until run into Arboretum and it is limited to the south. They need a grocery in proportion to the area being served and is of interest to the people in the area. He hopes they might specialize in ethnic foods – he says that is the success on the Triangle. They have had discussions, but haven’t been successful. They are not alone in struggling with this, it is similar in the Darbo Neighborhood. There is a question about funding – he doesn’t know, he doesn’t know how to get the funding resolved. The first critical question has to be answered today, are we committed to this and should they move forward to find the funding. This is the first step.
Ruth Rolich, Economic Development Staff says this is some draft language for the RFP. The issue is where will the money come from. She says the number is based on talking to grocers and what they think the gap might look like. She thinks this will continue to be a highly visible place to have a business, but there is a period of time (3 – 5 years) where there will be construction and it will be hard to get people here. They are looking to incentivise people to move in sooner.
Mark Woulf, Food Coordinator for the City, says they really don’t know what interest is out there beyond the neighborhood interest. He explains that “affordable” is an industry term and many of those aren’t full service, so they are asking for something specific. He says that you see all kinds of models, convenience store, restaurants in grocery stores. What we don’t know is what will go in, there are a lot of options. We know there is interest, this will be high visibility. They think if there is a RFP process they will see what real interest this is. The 3 -5 year gap has to be filled, and that is why they want to do this.
Lisa Subeck remembers when Sentry closed and Cub Foods open, they consistently heard how hard it was to get there, most were on foot, and packing the kid in the stroller you could do it, but you still had to cross Verona Rd. She asks why it is not a requirement, instead of a preference, for it to be on the other side of Verona Rd. Ruth Rolich says that foot traffic has been greatly improved, there is an underground pedestrian access. One reason they left it open was because of what land might be available, it allows for more proposals. Could be an outlot at Home Depot. Woulf says that the RFP language will come back to the council. Maurice Cheeks supports the preference to be on the neighborhood side, he says that if the improvements to crossing the road weren’t there he wouldn’t say that.
Palm asks about the gap, is the baseline notion that this is a significant gap and that this doesn’t pay for operations or start up, it is the gap between what it costs, and oppotunity costs of what another area of the city provides. Rolich says it could be used for property purchase (which is more clear) or capital start up. He says we aren’t buying a grocery store, we are just lowering the rate they pay to go into this enterprise. Rolich says that this is part of looking at 10 or 15 years down the road and what kind of economic development we can do in this area. It will have great potential in the near future.
Denise DeMarb says she supports ready access to food. She asks about the population in the area. Rolich says there is a city staff report to figure out the $15,000 immediate needs. It was from some work on neighborhood centers. She says there are 2500 residents. What kind of population generally supports a grocery store. Rolich says that from city information the Neighborhood Resource Team and the Neighborhood Association have identified this as the highest need. Woulf says that usually they want 10s of thousands of people. Because we are talking full service, they will need to attract from outside the area. Mayor clarifies if 2500 includes Dunns-Marsh. Rolich says it is Madison and Fitchburg. DeMarb says that this is an issue in many areas of the city, there is a group working on other food deserts, she is concerned about making this decision independently, there are many places that have these needs. Many areas of the city would qualify in the same way. The mayor interrupts and says that if you look at the entire area, its 5600. 2500 is immediate Allied Drive. DeMarb continues that if they put it on the other side of the road it will make it harder to access. Site selection is important. She is concerned they don’t have a plan, know where the greatest need is. Woulf says that will they don’t have a document, they know the Allied Drive Area is the only USDA approved food dessert, based on distance and the transportation needs, this would raise to any metrics you might want to use. There are many other needs, and some need healthier options, and there is some money in the budget to look at healthy food and they are looking at how to prioritize neighborhoods. They think this works in tandem with that. The $100,000 in the capital budget is a drop in the bucket. They hope this $300,000 would be used later to reinvest in other areas, especially if it was a low interest loan. This is a significant investment, not every neighborhood needs that. Transportation, type of foods, marketing etc all need to be considered to determine needs. They know the big indicators are here. For this neighborhood staff is proposing something aggressive for this neighborhood. This is an important first step, this doesn’t solve the issue of affordability and being able to afford the groceries. DeMarb says that we are being put on notice that there is more to come, she welcomes that. Rolich says this is a city-wide issues.
Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
TIF REPORT
Move to accept the report. Mayor asks if they want a presentation. Joe Gromacki says there are 5 main parts to the report, there are new projects, the AT&T building and Union Corners. AT&T is $2.4M it requires a new TID (#45) and Anchor Bank is included in that TID, they are currently reviewing the AT&T application. Union Corners application came in before the holidays. They need to demonstrate they need the land written down by the $6M value, that will come before them in the next few months. TID 33 might be closing (Monroe Commons) he says he has agonized over since it was started, it was risky and he’s glad they recovered their costs, it was a 2 parcel TID. Then TID 40, which you are familiar with, its condition and they will work with the alder on ways to rectify that district.
Verveer asks about TID 33 closure, he asks if that will be used for affordable housing funds, they are meeting to discuss how that could be used. Mayor says he wants a staff review on extending it for a year to use the funds for affordable housing.
Passes unanimously.
BUYING THE EXPO IN
Schmidt moves to approve with the caveat that he will vote against it. Larry Palm jokes that this is Don Marx’s fault. Marx says that Alder John Stasser said that he would be here, the staff is not prepared to speak to it. Mike Verveer asks if they should refer it til he can be here. (Stasser was across the street in the City-County Liaison Committee meeting hearing about the homeless sleeping outside the city-county building) Mayor says they should refer it. Everyone agrees.
GLOBAL CITY INDICATORS
Verveer asks for reconsideration. Staff was opposed to it, he wants to know if they changed their minds. David Ahrens says Sustainability Committee asked for it to be placed on file (not approved). Verveer asks wah tthe sponsor, Alder Dailey is interested in. Rob Phillips from City Engineering says that it is $6 – 10,000 a year, and then there is staff time to get the data for the 47 indicators. Some are easier than others. Ahrens says that there are rather large cities doing this and some geographic emphasis. He says they’d have to buy consultant time to gather the data, this is outside of their scope. Discussion about process and clarifying what they approved. Palm wants to vote to reconsider so they can vote it down. Subeck moves to place on file cuz no one else wants to. Palm asks if there should be some type of index used, is that a good function. Phillips says there is always value in data, but its up to the council to determine at what cost. Palm asks if staff could give them more data on which program might work for the city. They unanimously place it on file.
JUDGE DOYLE SQUARE
One registrant, lobbyist from Convention and Visitors Bureau. Blah, blah, blah, niceties, flowery words, blowing smoke up their butts prior to getting to the point. They want a developer willing to build a hotel with a national brand and enough rooms with appropriate amenities. They need 250 rooms to be committed to them, not 250 rooms total. They are ready and willing to help them with this project moving forward.
Open meetings law violation
Schmidt explains that they violated the open meetings law at a meeting when they had 4 members of BOE present at a meeting and they can’t remedy that, so he is going to tell them what they discussed so that there is sunshine on the issue (HOLY SHIT. This could easily become the new way of doing things and they could talk about whatever they want and just report the parts they want us to know. This makes me really, really really uncomfortable. Apparently the people in violation were the Mayor, the Council President Chris Schmidt, the Pro Tem Denise DeMarb and Mike Verveer – in addition to Alders Marsha Rummel and Ledell Zellers – this group, more than any, should have been WAYYYY more on top of this. I’m so disappointed! And so distracted now that I heard that! The appropriate solution would have been for two of the 4 people to remove themselves from the discussion and voting so that the outcome of that meeting didn’t have an impact on the final vote on the item. Sunshine? I don’t think that is enough, and quite frankly, I can’t believe that we are hearing the full context of the discussion no matter how hard people try to recount it. What the hell. Is this gross incompetence or a cover up. Neither answer seems like a good one. This is worthy of a full blog post – but I don’t know what else to say. How embarrassing and disappointing. WTF? JFC.) Watch here at 2:30. They discussed the office space issue (100K for private use and the city office space) and they asked if that reflected what a potential applicant had put that out there. The Mayor said yes. They discussed the bike space and the TIGR grant and if it was required, they need to have a multi-modal component. They ask about large plate parking and if that should be in there explicitly. They discussed if the hotel could be on either block, they don’t have to use the right of first refusal and the municipal building could remain intact. That was all he could remember. He says no one indicated how they would vote and there wasn’t any agreements. DeMarb adds that they discussed employment qualifications for the developer and the changes in room block and no meeting rooms and what Monona Terrace would say about that. Schmidt, says that if they don’t have a financial stake it is harder to enforce, which brought up TIF, which he also forgot to mention that they discussed. They discussed if TIF could only be used for the hotel, or other elements, but they said it could only be used for the parking. Verveer says they also discussed the pending renovation of the Inn on the Park and how that might mean they don’t need the extra room block and how does that fit in to this discussion.
The mayor says that what is before them is three separate elements to the project. It separates the Municipal Building from the proposal, there could be pedestrian access, but the municipal building will be a separate entitiy, only city offices. Parking plates will be on both blocks, serve the municipal building, hotel, other private construction in the project and if there was city subsidy, there would be access to the parking at below market rates. No TIF for the hotel. The hotel could be on Wilson St or Pinckney St. on the municipal building block or at Pinckney and Wilson on the parking ramp block. If they do it on the municipal block, the right of first refusal might be an issue. They will consider office space, on property we own. Some people thought the city would build private office space, but they are just making the air rights available. The hotel rooms is 250 minimum, and in regards to reserving room blocks for Monona Terrace there was a recognition that since there is not TIF for the hotel, they will have a hard time with requirements for the hotel to set aside rooms for Monona Terrace.
Discussion
Palm asks if the addition in the back of the MMB (municipal building) stays. Mayor says only the original building needs to stay. Mayor says that reminds him that they could reserve empty space on Doty behind the MMB which could be used to have the City leave the City-County Building and have all the municipal offices in one building. Palm says he felt the hotel was getting too small. He thinks MMB should be part of the projects. Palm says that the downtown toilet committee (shitty committee) discussed a visitor center being in the project. Palm says that they were looking at new development projects that might be able to have public restrooms. Mayor says they asked if they could take parking stalls and turn them into bathroom stalls. George Austin says that he hadn’t heard that, but they can explore anything. Palm asks if that should be in the RFP, he thought the bike station with a shower was a no-brainer but that wasn’t in the RFP. Mayor says that those things can be part of the public development, in the parking so it doesn’t need to be in the RFP.
Ahrens asks if block 89 will be given to the developer, or will they pay the fair market value. George Austin says that 3.j. says that city will subsidize parking and air rights will subject to appraisal. Ahrens thought that only applied to 105, but it applies to both blocks.
Ahrens asks about meeting space and 100,000 sq ft office building, can the city take control of some piece of that (ex. 20,000 sq ft) and use that for an extension of Monona Terrace to address the space needs and could address the loss of the meeting rooms behind the MMB. Is the 100,000 sq ft spoken for, or can we use it. Mayor asks if we put in the RFP for the hotel operator, that the city reserves the right, at its discretion, to put in 20,000 sq ft of meeting space. Ahrens says that is fine, depends upon what block the hotel goes on.
Verveer asks about the process, if the council adopts this RFP on the 20th, there will be a radical approach as to how the RFPs are evaluated, can you review what is laid out here. The negotiating team would take on that role and it would not be the committee. George Austin says it becomes the Board of Estimates purview. They would use much of the boiler plate language. Developers would have til April 15th for the proposal. City staff would review the responses and report to BOE on May 15th, it won’t be a full report, depends upon what they get back and they will present recommendations on how to proceed and narrow it down on the 15th of May. They can decide how to proceed in the next 6 – 8 weeks, but it will be driven by policy makers, not the committee. Verveer asks if they would conduct interviews prior to the 15th. Austin says yes. Verveer asks if the BOE could ask the developers to join us in open session so its not all done behind closed doors. Austin says not on the 15th, but yes.
Verveer says what they have is sparse compared to the previous RFP, could you reassure us, could there be comfort language that states that the boilerplate stuff will be added. An example is whether or not we had any concerns about ceasing negotiations on JDS and reopening the RFP and the boiler plate language says we can always reopen. Austin says that language would be fine, if you want to see the whole document before voting they could do that. This was an abbreviated process, they are changing the parameters of the project, but the RFP will have the same language in terms of form of proposal, our rights, who signs it, etc. If you want to see the final before it is sent out, that is fine. If we delay this by two weeks its not the end of the world, we want to do this right.
Verveer says we don’t see the bike center in the new list, would the negotiating team insert that language, or does that go by the wayside. If its not there its not a requirement. The city could do that in their project. Verveer says they should clarify that so people don’t think it is lost. Austin says this board could make that decision. Verveer says there is attractiveness to clarify that it is still in the project but not required of the developer.
Verveer asks about financing the costs of the parking, does that include non-hotel development? He points out conflicting language about parking in the requirements and he thinks that needs to be clarified. Austin says that city is responsible for parking for all uses and they might lease the parking spaces to the private developer. The city financial responsibility (financing resources) is the parking and it will be leased. The developer can do the construction, but it has to follow all city bigging rules.
Verveer asks why no discussion about above or below ground parking. Austin says that the developer might have some other ways to do it, and they are leaving it open. They aren’t proposing any one solution.
Verveer asks about the 100,000 sq ft of private office space. The mayor said “consider” but language is “high priority”, do we want to just say it will be considered. Mayor says he likes “high priority”, that was purposeful, he wants to see it as an option and see how it costs out. He doesn’t want a plan that comes in without it so we don’t know what the options are. Verveer asks about what they said in the illegal meeting about developers having interest. Mayor says there is not a lot of class A office space and we need to explore the opportunity.
Subeck asks how that became a priority and why? She asks if they can require that it be a new or expanded business, not just a business moving, that there is actually added value. Long pause . . . Mayor says if the city subsidized it, he could see the point, but if it is not subsidized they don’t want to make the assumption. Subeck says she assumes they will ask for a subsidy. Mayor says that if that comes up they should address it at that time. Subeck asks if they are steering this towards a developer. Mayor says that this is not a developer, but a company that wants to be down here. Rummel asks if they have information on Class A office space vs. Class B. What is the landscape. Mayor says he has seen studies and private developer reports indicate that there is not a lot of class A space, Rummel asks if that info was shared, Mayor says it was at some meeting but can’t remember which. Schmidt asks if this is a potential tenant, Mayor says yes. Mayor says that we have not had significant new companies coming downtown in quite a while.
Ahrens asks about the solvency of the parking utility that might be required to build three levels below ground and lease below cost. How is that being calculated or audited to see if that is a viable long term strategy. This might be 1000 spaces. Austin says that there is alot of analysis that has to be done with some real life proposals in front of them. They have past reports that they considered, but whatever they receive they review in great detail at that time, this will be one of the key issues. This is making it clear that this is where the city will participate. There is a lot of work to do and an large team looking at it. Dave Schmiedicke says that they looked to TIF to fill the gap all along, and that is why they secured the law change to allow that investment. Ahrens asks if the increment returns to the parking utility. Schmiedicke says that the increment would support repayment of the debt.
Joe Clausius says they should see the boilerplate language. He reiterates what he heard, if it comes back on May 15th, we could bring in developers at that time? Then we would choose who it is, and it goes to the council, is that how it works. Austin says that the resolution didn’t assume you would see the full RFP, but we can do that and come back to BOE. May 15th is a launching date and we will figure out how to proceed at that point. He asks if April 15 – May 15 is enough time to evaluate the proposals.
DeMarb asks if they see the boilerplate will that throw a monkey wrench in the process. Austin says not necessarily, they could bring the RFP on the 9th and issue it immediately, its 2 – 3 weeks and its not the end of the world. Schmiedicke says there is a meeting on the 26th, Austin says they could do that. DeMarb says they could do a special meeting before council. DeMarb would like to see the language, Austin suggests some changes to the timeline to move the due date to May 1. Mayor suggest they make a motion with that change but deal with specific language changes first.
Schmidt asks about the pedestrian mall, when did we set that as a plan. Mayor says that there has been discussion about creating a plaza and it will take additional discussion and study to consider it and alert the developer so that they consider it in the development.
Schmidt says the office space being “high priority” fits in our downtown plan and he is uncomfortable with favoring a tenant, he thinks they should get the best deal for the city, he thinks they can take the language out or cite the downtown plan. Mayor says he doesn’t know about the square footage, but they could say office space would be consistent with the downtown plan. Schmidt says he is more worried about the class A space and thinks it could be done elsewhere. He feels this gives a preference to some developers who can get this done so quickly, it is a tight timeline. He would prefer more general language. Mayor says that he thought they would have a lot of land on the two blocks that is available if we only have a hotel and we are taking space and inserting 100,000 sq ft of office space, it might not be built at the time the rest of the block is developed, it might come later, but he would like to see a design and approximation of cost. Maybe someone will be ready to do it immediately, maybe later, but we know what the block looks like. He wants to see it as an option. In terms of availability and in terms of the square and outer ring, this is one of the last sites without taking stuff down. They mention Breighton Lot.
Subeck asks about parks or green space by city hall, it could it be part of the development, she doesn’t want to discount that possibility.
DeMarb is curious about 3.d. about “significant amount of public parking” and government east, is it full typically, what does the parking utility think they need to replace it. How much parking do they need for all the uses, will it fit in the space available. Schmidt says that is in reference to the construction process. He says they envision it being done in phases and always having parking available. Mayor says they went through it with the Dayton St. Ramp and Civic Center Ramp and in both cases they did things to alleviate the situation. We can attract people to other parking options. Schmidt says it is 90% full on most days, they got people to otehr ramps by lowering rates in other ramps.
Verveer says that in the Anchor Bank redevelopment they have language about the parking as well. (they approved that without discussion by the way – $13M in TIF and no discussion) That might be an option to solve this as well.
DeMarb says there would be a riot of sorts if there was not enough parking, should there be something in the RFP about the public parking when it is done. We will own it, but should we say what we need and make sure there is enough. Schmidt says that with leasing spaces the Transit and Parking Commission has the staff look at what is available, they balance the rates to get good utilization, and they will be managing it. These won’t be permanent leases.
Schmidt moves to refer to the next BOE meeting.
Move adjournment.
