This is s a draft, audio to be added later, its brief and live blogged.
INSERT AUDIO
GETTING STARTED
Baldeh is late, but shows up and all 20 are present.
Suspension of rules is still in effect from their noon meeting where they covered items 1 – 11, honoring outgoing alders, adjourning sine die for the old council, swearing in the new alders, and the election of Denise DeMarb as the president and Maurice Cheeks as the pro tem or vice president.
Soglin says if there is a question about procedure you can ask for a point of inquiry or information and they will try to answer but it is a parlimentary procedure only about procedure not about the substance of the issue.
HONORING RESOLUTIONS
#12 Earth Day Challenge – no reading of it, there is no discussion. Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
#13 Arbor Week – same thing.
#14 April 19th International Migratory Bird Day – same actions.
#15 100th Anniversary of Bernard Hoover Boat House and 40th Anniversary of Mendota Row Club and June 6th is the “Learn to Row” day. Ledell Zellers moves approval and reads the resolution. The resolution is accepted by the Mendota Rowing Club, they invite people to their vent on the 6th at 8am at the Boat House.
RECONSIDERATION
#16 Chris Schmidt moves suspension of the rules to take it up before 6:45. They haven’t held a public hearing on this so they move to reconsider. Motion to reconsider passes. Now adoption is before them and they have a registration in support and available to answer questions. They open the public hearing, no questions, close public hearing and adoption passes unanimously on a voice vote.
EARLY COMMENTS
One person registered in support of #24.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items 17 & 18 are public hearings
Items 24, 26, 42, 44, 45 and 93 will be discussed.
Extra-majority items are 23, 28, 29, 32, 37, 38, 39 and 43 and will be adopted.
Items 33 and 114 have additional referrals as reported here.
Mayor says on item 24 all of the registrants are supporting number 24, there hasn’t been a request to pull it. They pull it.
Motion for consent agenda passes.
24, 42, 93 are pulled out of order since there are less speakers.
#24 SUBSTITUTE Accepting the proposal of Baum Development for the redevelopment of the Garver Feed Mill.
Steve King artfully points out that because everyone is in support of this proposal, they could pass if they wanted. Speakers speak. Businesses who are in support and want to be placed there, the developer, neighbors, SASYNA, people who work on Starkweather Creek, all speak in support
DeMarb asks the staff (Natalie Erdman, Planning and Community and Economic Development Interim Director) gave a brief history of how this project was chosen and reviewed things that need to happen next, development agreement, land use approval and subdivision and some other details they need to work out. They also need to find suitable replacement park land. They have a tight timeline but hope to close on this by the end of the year. The Parks Board, Plan and Landmarks Commission and all recommended approval. Passes, one no which was David Ahrens.
BREAK FOR AUDIO
#42 Amending the 2015 Adopted Operating Budget of the Planning Division by appropriating $25,000; $15,000 from the Contingent Reserve, $5,000 from the Planning Division Placemaking Budget, and $5,000 from the Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development Budget and to authorize the City of Madison to enter into a contract with the Madison Central Business Improvement District to fund the creation of an Activities Program at Philosophers’ Grove located on the 100 Block of West Mifflin Street, and the performance stage on the 100 Block of North Carroll Street And #55 Approving plans and specifications for modifications to the Philosophers’ Grove located on the 100 Block of West Mifflin Street.
Number 42, lobbyists for DMI and the BID are registered in support. Mike Verveer has an amendment because the City Attorney had an insurance issue. He also says he is excited about the new opportunities that this will give for new activities at the top of State St. Motion to amend passes. No discussion. Motion to adopt passes.
#93 Creating Section 26.14 and amending Sec. 1.08(3)(a) of the Madison General Ordinances to establish a child sex offender cannot reside within 2000 feet of a school or community center and establish bail deposit schedule for violation thereof.
– A sex offender shows up to speak, he is a disabled veteran who had an offense in 2006 and he says he is more than just that one charge. He speaks against the fear based legislation.
– Mary Prosser asks them to take more time to find out if this is the best approach to make the community safer. She submitted a written statement. We need to hear from experts and stakeholders. She says this law doesn’t distinguish between offenses committed when under 18, it includes consensual sex and sexual contact for those under 18. She says there has been a tremendous amount of research showing that the residency restrictions are not effective in reducing re-offending and may have the opposite effect if people are left without a home.
– A probation and parole agent (speaking on her own behalf) shows up in opposition and says this does not impact recidivism. Sexually motivated abductions of children are rare, its usually acquaintances. This will increase homelessness, make it harder to register and make it harder for law enforcement. This would impact halfway houses, Porchlight and other places she currently uses to house offenders.
– 2 other registrants against not wishing to speak.
Larry Palm asks about what the categories of sex offenders are? Mary Prosser says that this an evolving area of best practices, its not a static concept. There are risk levels in other places, a handful of risk categories. She says they should consult experts who have the current best practices. Palm asks the probation and parole officer the same question. She says they look at conviction, age and other factors and rely on risk assessments by providers. Palm asks what factors they consider. She says that there is a static 99 risk factor assessment that is done, but she doesn’t do them. Palm says he has been to the sex offender placement meetings and DOC seems to talk black and white. He says if there was something based on risk assessment but that gets muddier and muddier. He says it seems they need a law for DOC to follow instead of a one size fits all. She says they look at it case by case.
Barbara McKinney asks about the rules of supervision and how they have changed. They used to have up to 100 rules but they now tailor them to the crime, the risk factors and their needs and now they have closer to 30. McKinney said that they used to have 4 to 5 pages of rules but in the last 6 months they have adjusted them. Mayor asks her to ask a question. She says if the DOC has reduced the boilerplate rules, is that a shift of classification of sex offenders. She says classification isn’t the word she would use. They have 6 rules and then they look at other factors and pick and choose rules to meet their assessment and needs.
Paul Skidmore asked about rules the restrict where people live? She says yes, there are people who can’t have contact with children and so they can’t live with children or be by schools, day cares, etc and cannot contact children. Skidmore asks if DOC makes that decision. She says that when an offender has a proposed residence she looks at it, assesses the neighborhood and the department makes a decision. If they break the rules they have a range of sanctions depending upon the risk and severity of the violation. He keeps asking her questions and she asks for this to be tabled until someone from the Department can appear to answer the questions.
Rebecca Kemble refers this to the Equal Opportunities Commission. She says the legislation is from a contention neighborhood meeting that was highly emotional. Her and Anita Weier attended. This is a result of that meeting, she thinks it needs more vetting. She isn’t placing it on file, because there may be a role to give advice about placement but she needs more information. We have a wealth of people in the community that have information on this. She feels there are civil rights issues that need to be discussed.
Skidmore says he’s a sponsor because of an incident in his district and an unpleasant interaction with DOC. He felt this was appropriate but after what he heard he thinks there are some changes and movement to be made, he would like more discussion. He doesn’t think it has to go to EOC, but would like to hear from the Assistant City Attorney Marci Paulson. She says she isn’t the appropriate person to talk about referral. She says that it could go back to PSRC, no public showed up there and there was little discussion.
Mayor asks if they know what PSRC is? Public Safety Review Board. explains there is a motion to adopt and then a referral to EOC, if referral carries we are done with the matter, if the motion fails, then they are back to adoption.
Bidar supports referral and thanks Prosser for thorough communication. She is disturbed about the fear and lack of understanding in the community and that being represented in this legislation, there are complexities and hopes the discussion at EOC will start to talk about those complexities and she wants to make sure the experts are invited to be present there. She says the school district should also be invited, we are trying to work collaboratively with them. She supports referral and hopes there is a larger discussion around re-entry.
McKinney asks about PSRC and if its appropriate to send it back there. Mayor says it is up to them. McKinney says this moved really quickly and she would like to have it go back to them more fully. Mayor says that if you are going to make a motion you need to do that before you speak. He tells her to do it now. She does. That is seconded.
Palm was a co-sponsor as a courtesy to Alder Weier and he agreed it should be debated, he supports referral and is glad the DOC is changing its rules and we should mirror or align with that.
Mayor points out that the main motion and two other motions, 1st to refer, 2nd to add PSRC and no other motions can be made until one is dealt with. Clear clarifies.
Phair supports the amendment, looks like they will be voting for referral but he thanks Kemble for putting this in context and he is not sure what they can do with referral. He is not sure if this is the right ordinance but he hopes to get something back they can work with.
Wood talks too damn fast! (seriously listen to it! its impressive.)
Motions to refer to EOC and PSRC pass.
#26 Authorizing the Mayor to sign, and the Community Development Division to submit, a grant application to the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s Division of Housing for 2015-2016 ETH grant funds on behalf of local agencies providing housing and services to homeless and at-risk persons.
They move to adopt. Bidar says there is a 3 page memo and would like a brief summary. She wants to know about CareNet. Jim O’Keefe says the memo does not address CareNet. Mayor summarizes what the city’s relationship with CareNet and why is it in the mix? O’Keefe says this a request from agencies that work with homeless and at risk of homeless persons and the city is submitting this on behalf of those organizations. One of the partner agencies is CareNet. They are seeking $10,000 for single homeless women who are pregnant. The process that was used to develop the application was one that involved the input of a dozen or more local service providers. This isn’t the city selecting these funding requests, the city is the fiscal agent. Its a collection of proposals to the state which happens because the money is available to agencies but the process requests a single application from the continuum of care. They don’t want a dozen or 15 requests, they only want one that has all of the proposed uses. The city for many years has coordinated this and it is on behalf of that group of agencies that it is submitted.
Mayor asks if they could refuse to forward their request to the state? O’Keefe says that it is a group or collaborative effort, this is endorsed by the Board of Directors of the Homeless Services Consortium and by unanimous consent agreed to forward the proposals. It would take a strong disagreement to withdraw as a convenor of this process.
Zellers says that the city has no control over the list of providers that they could not excise CareNet and distribute it to otehr providers, that we are obligated to say all or nothing. O’Keefe says it is not the city role to pick and choose, it is a group effort, typically done by consensus. The last step is from the Board of Directors of the Homeless Services Consortium. O’Keefe says we don’t exert pressure. Zellers asks if we don’t or we don’t choose to? He says they work with the agencies, they have staff that has worked closely with them and coordinates and facilitates and we don’t exert authority over the projects. Mayor asks if they could refuse to be the fiscal agent and could they find another governmental agency. O’Keefe says this is due on the 24th so there is not time. Mayor asks about the future. O’Keefe says if they felt very strongly about specific proposals that we would choose to try to influence the agencies as they put the package of proposals together or the Board of Directors of the Homeless Services Consortium.
Matt Phair says we could choose to do that, we need to honor the decision that was made, and vote for this and move on.
Samba Baldeh asks if on the list of agencies, if one is removed you will not submit it? O’Keefe says that the sate doesn’t entertain requests from individual agencies, they entertain a single request on behalf of the area. He asks if they remove one agency what happens. Staff doesn’t understand. Mayor asks what if they strike it and submit without it. Pause . . . . . .Attorney May “isnt’ certain” and that they would say they can’t be the fiscal agencies. They worked on it and this would change the entire process that we agreed to, he doesn’t think we have the authority to do that. Baldeh wants to be clear that if they remove one they remove all. Mayor says they have the right to strike it, but doing it at this date, it MAY jeopardize the entire package as submitted by the consortium. Baldeh asks why they aren’t given more time to make this decision. O’Keefe says the request for proposals is normally released in December but it was released mid March, it has been routine and it has worked in the past and relied on consensus and there wasn’t as much time as usual to go through the reviews. The Board of Estimates didn’t see the final list of proposals because the Board of Directors had not yet met. Baldeh asks if CareNet was part of this in the past. O’Keefe says no. There was $40K more than in the past year. Baldeh says that CareNet is in his district and wants to make sure it is vetted and disclosed and hopes in the future that there is more time to make the decision.
Bidar says that CAreNet has been debated previously, timing is too tight to do anythign and there are plenty of good things about this proposal but she wants to go on record about not supporting CareNet for their philosophical approach and wants this discussion shared with the consortium and that here may be issues in the future so they know if this comes again that this is probably going to be raised as an issue.
Clear says its not our proposal and not our money, they are just putting the stamp on the envelope. They would be violating their agreement to be a fiscal agent. He says the disagreement is with the Homeless Services Consortium.
Kemble asks if the Board of Estimates voted without he list. It seems that the “other side” didn’t get this information to us on time for us to make a good decision. O’Keefe says the group had a month to put this together. They had two meetings, there were questions of eligibility. In order to meet the April 24 deadline and get to this council meeting there wasn’t enough time. He suspects that the state felt comfortable proceeding because this is fairly routine.
Mayor says that regardless of the outcome of this vote, he will have the staff check the timelines with the state and consortium and in the future they will get the info in 6 weeks before the application, and if they don’t, this is their problem, the council shouldn’t be put in this position because of the state. If this won’t work, they will need to find a new fiscal agent.
Chris Schmidt says that the boogie man of CareNet is being used to debate this. He says they don’t have the info the consortium saw (we say NOTHING). The problem here is the state was 3 months late, we should not punish everyone else because we think there might be something wrong with one piece.
Ahrens calls the question to come to an immediate vote, any one person could object, no one is in the queue, Mayor calls for a vote. Adoption passes unanimously on a voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Turner Ave
25 registrants argue it out . . . take a listen . . . its over an hour . . . there were also 5 registrants against and 2 for that registered and did not speak.
AUDIO
Questions
Verveer asks to see the petitions. There are no questions of the speakers. DeMarb moves to adopt under suspension of the rules. Mayor asks why under suspension. DeMarb says for the 15 year pay back period. Schmidt says it is here for the first time because Board of Public Works can start it. Confusion about the rules. Rules are already suspended for earlier.
Discussion
Ahrens moves to approve but modify but eliminate the sidewalks, McKinney seconds. Ahrens says its hard to add anything to what has been discussed. He says the main issues are who has the say here in the life of a resident and the life of a neighborhood. What we heard virtually unanimously here and in the survey, that 90% of the people who returned ballots opposed the project and the return rate was about 90%. That is a level of unanimity that is unheard of. The opposition is strongly felt by the people. (ooops, I got distracted . . . its on the audio) He argues that the people who live there don’t think the sidewalks are necessary. He says the census tract is has one of the highest densities of elderly people, the only ones higher are where the nursing homes are. The average income of social security recipients is $17K. He says if we talk about equity and people being able to live and afford to live in their homes that that would trump any other consideration. If we are about reducing inequity and eliminating poverty and other lofty goals, how do we start this session by further impoverishing people who are poor. He says the safety issue isn’t shown in the pedestrian vehicle crash information. He says he has never had issues not having sidewalks. He talks about 15 – 20 trees being lost. He says there will be 20,000 sq ft of cement. He says they will lose the bucolic country-like neighborhood. He says the policy is not applied uniformly, in some places where roads are constructed we build sidewalks and others we don’t, he talks about it not even being discussed in Hillcrest where the property values are 3 times those on Turner Ave. He says the city engineer gave them a list of the criteria. He says its not a collector route, he says the bus can move, and asks what streets provide access to parks or cities or commercial uses which are also ever street. He says that would cover every street or most streets. Why Turner Ave and these three blocks? The staff said that they only did three blocks because otherwise there would be too much opposition. He wants people to live to their rhetoric and vote yes on the motion.
Palm asks staff, if they are acquiring right of way they don’t control. Rob Phillips, the City Engineer says that maybe on one parcel. Palm says that what people considered lawn has been city right of way that we can install the sidewalks on. There is 14 feet of space between the street and the home. Palm says this is old Blooming Grove, so that might be different in other areas of the city. Palm asks about run off and if this will help. Phillips says absolutely, the curb and gutter will have a slope to get the water to the curb and gutter and there will be less erosion and they may put in some catch basins. Palm says the map on their desk is different than in legistar, he asks why. He says the map blue area is the project, 3 blocks of Turner AVe north of Plaum Rd. Green is streets with sidewalk. Yellow are streets that staff feel are streets that should have sidewalk, they are priority streets because they are bus routes or lead to schools or parks that are labeled on the map. It is true they don’t put sidewalk on all streets they reconstruct. In this neighborhood they have a plan for sidewalk and over the last several years they have been implementing the plan in a logical fashion. Red streets should have sidewalk too but they are less of a priority. The council will be faced with more projects in this neighborhood in the future. Not all streets, but those that have priority. He says he is not sure if it is a political decision, but you will see it again. It is unlikely that they could put sidewalk in future areas if this is not done. Perhaps all the yellow streets would not be done. The common council approved a project on Tompkins Drive that is close to Turner Ave and its very similar. It similar but more difficult because they have to acquire more right of way. This is an important decision tonight for this neighborhood. Palm asks again about the differences. Christ Bachmann (engineering staff) explains that they were trying to point out existing sidewalk and the Tompkins project and the priorities. The map was put together for Board of Public Works but Traffic Engineering looked at it more thoroughly and asked for modification. The added areas by FRank-Allis School and Monona Grove School and areas by the park. Palm says Rob said there is a plan, was it approved or was it staff’s plan. Cristy says that it is a staff plan. Palm asked who approved the policy that you are based on the plan. Bachmann says its complete streets that there should be sidewalks everywhere. Dealing with 20 years of city projects they understand they are hard and look at the priority areas. We know sidewalks everywhere isn’t followed but they try to get them in the priority areas. Palm asks about the assessment policy. Phillips says it is a reconstruction street that has an assessment policy where the resident pays 50% of curb and gutter and 100% of sidewalk since it didn’t previously exist, it would be 50% if there was a sidewalk there. Phillips says to confuse it more, the council approved a pot of money, a grant in the 2015 budget so the end result is that in this case they only pay 50%. Palm asks when they established the policy, who has paid for all the other sidewalks. Phillips says that the developer or like this. Palm says that someone mentioned that they are laid out 5 years in advance but he didn’t see it in the budget, when did this get in cue, how is this in the budget. Phillips says it is in major streets and then there are pots of money for rural to urban streets, those pots of money don’t call out the streets in the budget and are used with some discretion as needs come up. This street has been talked about for a year or two. They went to a neighborhood meeting last fall, the second was specific to this street, then BPW and now tonight. Palm asked why some people didn’t know. They say that people outside the project were not notified.
Mayor explains there were 2 people in the queue when he started and now ther eare 4 and he wants to take questions next. 2 people dropped out.
DeMarb asks if Bachmann was at the meeting in January. She says yes. DeMarb asks about the meeting, it seemed to be contentious. Was the city forester at the meeting? Bachmann said Dean Kaul was there, but she doesn’t remember how much was discussed about the trees. DeMarb asks about what city forestry looked at to determine which trees would be taken down anyways. 15 trees would be removed, 2 – 3 were due to condition, 2 curb and gutter. 9 – 10 due to the sidewalk, 3 ash, 7 (or 11?) maples and 1 linden. She said in this neighborhood there is tree loss with the sidewalk, but between trees on the property and the replanting most of these trees have ended up with more trees. DeMarb asked if they are building a windy sidewalk where they can. They say yes. DeMarb asks about the way to pay, was the alternative ways to pay explained. Bachmann said they explained it in the meeting, 8 years is standard and most everyone does that instead of all up front. Those that have multiple assessments often we ask for 15 year but that is at the discretion of the Board of Public Works. There is a special assessment mortgage program, 46,000 is the limit for 1 person, 52,000 for 2 people is the income limit to qualify and if they are under those incomes they can not pay until their house is sold. That helps people to be able to pay later. DeMarb knew that both were being planned for reconstruction last summer, when she put forward the budget amendment, they debated it, and she included Turner in that. She did that because she understood the economics and demographics of the neighborhoods. When we are talking about just finding out in January she is confused about that. She says people on Tompkins were talking about this a year and a half ago. Bachmann says it was in the budget, spring or middle of summer is when we work on the budget. She says they don’t notify anyone until the public meeting is set up. She says there were a handful of people who attended the fall neighborhood association meeting. Some people do get the word out, some hear earlier than others. She is guessing the people with a few days notice was the letter from alder Ahrens.
Clear asks traffic engineering (Arthur Ross) about traffic counts on Camden. He says no, not for lower volume streets. Clear asks if they regularly did that for sidewalk projects. No. Clear asks Chuck Kamp (Metro) if they ever considered moving the buses. Kamp says that they look at issues like this, route 16 is anchored at East and South and operates 7 days a week, the route has increased ridership, when they looked at Turner vs Camden. The issue is a left hand turn from Camden, it would take longer and they would need more buses. They also have the 38 on peak hours.
Marsha Rummel asks about doing the road now without the sidewalks or wait to do the street with the sidewalks in 10 years. He says that he would recommend the street but doubts they would do the sidewalks later. Rummel asks how the map would change. Phillips says that they would likely have little sidewalk north of Phlam Rd. (I missed a bunch here . . . . ) Rummel asks about accessibility for people with disabilities and equity. Phillips says that a sidewalk is always safer. Rummel asks Kamp about neighborhoods with sidewalks and the city shoveling bus stops, what happens when there is no sidewalk. Kamp says that it is difficult to access the buses.
Verveer asks Phillips about the memo given them tonight about projects where sidewalks were not installed and he wants to explain what excessive tree removal is. Phillips says it is somewhat objective. 15 trees is pretty consistent with trees in the neighborhood and while not desirable, it is sustainable. They will replace the trees, many properties have their own trees too. He says heavily wooded areas have more removals. In this instance they would rather not remove the trees but it is a sustainable amount. Verveer says it is case by case and you work with the alder? Phillips says yes. Verveer asks if forestry is involved before the decision is made. Phillips says they are the experts and they work closely with them. Verveer asks about why they have had success in one neighborhood with a different alder and not here. Why is this more controversial. Phillips (sputter) says it has to do with the leg work DeMarb put into it as well as the work of the staff. Bachmann has done a good job explaining these jobs to residents. Obviously we have an alder in a difficult position with a great deal of opposition, that is not unusual however, that is pretty typical. Some are more controversial than others. We usually don’t have residents showing up hear, but once in a while we have one more controversial. Phillips credits the staff work. Verveer compliments the staff too. He asks about the next generation getting sidewalks at a more appropriate time, is that a factor in decisions. Phillips says that on the demographics younger people, especially with kids, are more supportive of sidewalks. The neighborhood will turn over and young families will move in, should we wait 10 years and propose sidewalk again? Its a possibility, but if we have 50% success tonight, we’ll have less after the street is done. That is based on sidewalk only projects, they are rough. Verveer asks about traffic calming, is anything included, this is a bus route, if not, why not. Bachmann says there has been no official request, but they will entertain it. Traffic engineering has a nice site that explains it. They can work with Metro and accommodate those requests. Camden they didn’t install them initially, but with the smooth road they installed them later. Verveer says bottom line is nothing is proposed, but could be included in the future.
Cheeks asks about a resident being rewarded $4000 for the removal of a tree, what is that policy for when that happens. Phillips says that this was on Tompkins Drive, they had to buy right of way, they buy the tree as well when they do that. The tree would be valued by the appraiser, if it was a city tree on city property there would be no compensation for the tree.
Steve King asks the latest they could get it approved and pull it off. Bachmann says that it is bumping up against the end of the timeline, there is little wiggle room in that.
Palm asks Kamp about only 2 people using the bus on Turner, do you have more data on ridership. Kamp says he has a red dot map, the ridership looks like 5 – 10 per day. At each stop? Yes. It increases closer to Phlaum. Palm notes that they will be eliminating one of the stops, they say yes. Palm says they could approve tonight without sidewalks, what would be the cost difference to come back later. Phillips says that with the street they will disturb the grass twice. The driveways they could set up for sidewalk in the future, but they wouldn’t be able to use the sidewalk forming machine as efficiently because they would have to stop at every driveway. He says 25% higher price. Palm says that they would still be responsible for the full price and we’re not guaranteed to have the grants program in the future? That would be up to the council.
Ahrens asks about the metric for “minimal use expected”. Phillips says that is subjective, he says cul de sacs would be an example. They could prioritize a network of streets in the neighborhood to have less sidewalk elsewhere. Ahrens says that many speakers said how few people they see walking, do you thing that means there is minimal use. Phillips says if no here where? Is this any different than suburbs being built today. Ahrens says this is different.
Mayor says he can’t resist sharing this . . . .Brewers scored 10 runs tonight . . .and lost.
DeMarb asks when the next street would be built. (Jokes) He says curb and sidewalk will be 50 – 60 years with repairs. The pavement will be 30 years with crack filling and chip sealing before it needs to be resurfaced, not reconstructed. The sidewalk? He says they do 10 year intervals and can do that indefinitely.
Skidmore says that Board of Public Works heard much of this testimony and staff answered most of these questions and we voted overwhelmingly to approve this project. This is not the first or last time they have this kind of project. Troy Drive and Capital Ave were similar. There are solid reasons to have sidewalks, this is nothing new, its a difficult situation, we’ve been through it before. The grant program is an excellent tool for something like this and it will screw up the process for other sidewalks, he asks them to defeat the amendment and go ahead with the entire project.
Schmidt says he has some experience with this. Hillcrest is an example of where there are no sidewalks. He explains that there is sidewalks on 2 sides for part of it, but one side on another part, there is right of way issues and grade issues. It wouldn’t work in the winter and there would be no sense to putting it in. He talks about Rosa Rd, same issues, trees came out, but it fit the criteria. Merill Crest didn’t mean any of the criteria, they have been following the policy and criteria. He’d rather not assess, but we are suffering from decisions made 40 – 50 years ago. Town let areas be built quickly and cheaply without good infrastructure. He says they will be seeing more of this. We are hitting the point where we need to deal with this infrastructure. Turner Ave fits the criteria, vote against.
McKinney says as a senior living in her own home it is hard for her to shovel the sidewalk. Ahrens was passionate about this and we should remember why we were elected and that was to represent their constituents. She is hearing about the equity lens and that is a discussion they cannot not have. Because of that she will be voting to support the amendment.
DeMarb says when she was elected 2 years ago, she spent a lot of time in the Glendale neighborhood. Its one of the neighborhoods you can walk to all schools. She was concerned when she looked at the neighborhood indicators and that they had more than their share of elderly people and that it would soon be turning over. She was concerned about strong neighborhoods and worked with the leadership there and it was really important to them that they could attract young families to do it all over again. There are people who have been living there 20, 30, 40, 50 years. He says they need rental housing stock but it is difficult for landlords to maintain and they want a majority of owner occupied. They went to the realtors and asked what attracts young families and the number one things was sidewalks. So we started talking about sidewalks and the neighborhood turning over and its been a 2 year project. It was important to handle this with care and concern. She was concerned because of her own parents and people of modest income and changes. Its important to know that we have a lot of this housing and it is important how it turns over and we need to talk about more than sidewalks – aging in place and not having it be a hardship. She went to many meetings to come up with the program for 50% reduction, she knew Turner was coming and she wanted to make sure there was enough money to cover it. (Missed some . . . ) She says an alders role is to take the time and mitigate changes, she works with people and groups and staff, she had staff come out there, she walked the road, talked to neighbors because she knew there was concern. It bothered her to hear that they were just getting this news and she urges her colleagues to put in the leg work and time, but that is our job. That is what we were elected to do. Vote against the amendment.
Clear appreciates DeMarb’s comments. Welcome Newbies. We have had these before. City infrastructure belongs to everyone not just the people who live there. They are part of the city infrastructure. He would be concerned about an equity lens that would make infrastructure decisions based on what neighborhoods could afford and what a city would look like if they did that. He hopes they reject the amendment. The lessons we learned on Camden is that the assessed values have gone up and little turn over, that tell shim that the disaster predicted did not occur. They can provide the same benefit to Turner.
King says there are a lot of issues, we are elected to represent our constituents and we also have to represent he city. We represent issues greater than our districts. He says that the equity lens is where there rubber meets the road. He talks about areas in his district and on the west side that have crumbling infrastructure, we have been applying it fairly, we have a ton of data to make just decisions. We might need to do more than 50%. This is one of the few areas people can buy a house on one income, affordable housing is also an equity issue. He will vote for the sidewalks because that is what they have done in the past. We need to look at the policy and put the equity lens to it and then apply that fairly.
Palm also welcomes the new alders and says it has been a great debate. He says he serves his constituent and the city. If we built walls around all our districts it would be a miserable city and not connecting sidewalks is like building walls for some people. Wheels chairs should be on sidewalks. His residents should be able to go to Turner and Turner residents should be able to go to his neighborhood. His residents paid 100% for a sidewalk by a field that many people use and they did it because it is important to do. This is a bus route. We’ll pay more if we do it later and still have the same concerns. Our constituents shovel sidewalks. He is sympathetic to the money, but we can’t charge some and not others. They haven’t had the responsibility of the sidewalk for 60 years. There is a plan for the neighborhood. They are working on a plan for us to adopt, but for how we have to use the policies.
Cheeks says we all use different parts of the city that were assessed. He agrees with the real estate agents that a neighborhood without sidewalks was out of the question for someone with a family. He understands change is hard. The equity and assessing and cost – what about an assessment district and evenly assess the costs. He agrees with alder King that we need to make it equitable. A neighborhood like this will be affordable and turn over and we want to make it attractive to those families that might be able to come out of poverty.
Ahrens says that we will spend a certain part of each evening celebrating equity and then when something is before us, I don’t know do what. This is where the rubber meets the road and the choice is clear, not for the hypothetical family in the future, but the people who live there now. You can think about the hypothetical family if that is easier, but don’t forget the people in tears who said they might lose their house. This sue with people with disabilities H says he has never seen more people with disabilities than any hearing and all of the opposed the sidewalks, because what they really need is a place to live. He says the question isn’t if engineering that can live with this decision, its the people who live there now.
Bidar says there are times when it is better to take time, it is unfortunate that wasn’t before her now. There is a lot of conversation and data that needs to happen to go back to think about how to make it more palatable. We are forced to vote
Motion fails 15 – 5. (Ahrens, Baldeh, Carter, Hall and McKinney voted no)
Rummel says that her comments were mis characterized, she says there is room for delay here. She believes in walkable streets and investing in these neighborhoods.
Bidar asks what a delay would mean. Phillips says the road would continue to dissolve, the price would go up, another project won’t get done and people will still oppose it next year.
Phair says that even with good alder work the opposition won’t change, unless we are going to talk about how it is paid we might as well go along with it now.
Baldeh says that he understands that things come through quickly and moving forward he would like to see the staff work with alder sto give them adequate time.
Motion passes on a voice vote unanimously.
CHAOS . . . people walking on the floor, people talking . . .
One guy left on item 18, who stayed for nothing, they pass it. They do give him a round of applause.
#44 Authorizing the acceptance of an assignment of an Offer to Purchase from Treysta Group, LLC for the purchase of property located at 3618-3630 Milwaukee Street.
Mayor requests for this to be sent back to Board of Estimates, Palm and DeMarb object. DeMarb moves to place on file without prejudice. Palm says they should do the landbanking project, he represented the area for a long time, he says development will not happen soon, this is not a smart idea, the city has no plans for it. Ann St. could have used the same money and would have been a better development plan. He says that they should have all alders submit their proposals for landbanking and not do it willy-nilly.
Cheeks asks the Mayor if he wasn’t to speak. Mayor says he wants Real Estate staff and economic development staff there band he doesn’t want to put the council through a discussion that could last an hour, he thinks it is a key piece of real estate. Motion carries, one no.
#45 & 46 – Tickets for possession of nicotine products and selling to those under 18.
Matt Kozloweski says this should be addressed with the schools and they should talk about criminalizing smoking and how that would effect school attendance if enforced around the schools. He suggests referring this to the Education Committee.
Ahrens says that this effectively brings kids who might otherwise not be into the criminal justice system, they can be fined up to $500 and are before a judge, who gets fined is discretionary on the part of the police and it deserves further scrutiny. Possession laws are ineffective and not good control policies form his time he worked in tobacco control. He heard stories of kids that don’t go to school because of the fines. He says they just heard about the tripling of ecigs by kids and that would be included in this. Number 46 looks to be the same but it about selling tobacco and selling to kids under 18 is good.
Phair says that public health and Marci Poulson are here and he asks them to explain why the ordinance change is being proposed.
