Ok – here’s my update. When I’m done, if I have time, I will post my notes on the great (as usual) public testimony. I’ll keep updating this until I am done later this morning and will note it is final when I’m done.
We couldn’t start the meeting at 5:30 because we didn’t have quorum. We had to wait for a combination of Skidmore, Compton, Sanborn, Webber, Verveer, Kerr, Cnare, Gruber or Pham-Remmele to show up. Within 10 minutes, we achieved quorum and were able to start with the public testimony. The testimony took three hours, and I will do a summary of that testimony, er, soon. Meanwhile, here’s how the actual amendments and voting went down, blow by blow to the best of my ability. Check back for updates, while I update this throughout the morning. (i.e. woke up late and I’m working on it!)
AMENDMENT ONE – AUTO-CHALKING UNITS
Agency/Project: Police / Project #11 – Vehicle Borne Photo Enforcement
Page(s): 20
Sponsor(s): Alds. Webber, VerveerProvide funding in 2009 for two “auto-chalking” monitoring units for use by Parking Enforcement Officers to enforce two-hour and other parking ordinances.
(Note: Beginning in 2010, the Police Department Operating Budget will need to include $28,000 per year for maintenance of these units.)General Obligation Debt $ 1 47,500
Other Funding 0
Total $ 147,500 Levy Impact: $ 19,102
Basically, this equipment would be able to take photos of cars for parking enforcement of laws such as 2 hour parking. Apparently they would make the parking enforcement officers much more efficient, reduce worker’s compensation claims and would pay for themselves in less than two years. Seems like, as Alder Webber said, a “no-brainer”, right? Ha!
Concerns were raised by Alders Palm, Clear, Compton and others. Staff answered the questions about all of the benefits to the city of having this equipment. Concerns about implementing something they hadn’t planned for, the fact that it might not be used in certain alders’ districts . . . etc. One by one, staff shot down each of their concerns. Yes, they work at night and in inclement weather. They could mail the parking tickets or put them on the cars. They are used in many others cities and we are essentially behind the times. They will work to find scofflaws and stolen vehicles and even with amber alerts. The machines last for about 10 years. They might allow us to remove meters in business districts and encourage customer parking. There was lots of rhetoric of “I support this, but not at this time” and “I can’t vote for this if it doesn’t benefit my district.”
By the tone of this first amendment, it seemed as tho this was about to be a very, very long budget. Especially if they were only going to look at how things impacted their own districts. So I said as much to the council. We voted, there were several “no’s” and I called roll call. Of course, there was resistance. Alder Cnare suggested that people just raise their hands instead of a roll call, so that’s what we did. The back row on the left side of the council all voted “no” (Palm, Compton, Clausius, Schumacher, Clear and Pham-Remmele) which prompted Alder Solomon to name them “murderer’s row”.
AMENDMENT TWO – HENRY VILAS ZOO
Agency/Project: Miscellaneous / Project #1 – Henry Vilas Zoo Improvements
Page(s): 44
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Ald. KerrAdd General Obligation Debt funding of $146,000 to the Henry Vilas Zoo Improvements project.
(Note: The 2009 Dane County Executive Recommended Budget includes payments from the City of $146,000 for Zoo Capital projects. The City of Madison 2009 Executive Budget includes no funding for Zoo Capital projects. This amendment will equalize the amounts in the City and County budgets.)
General Obligation Debt $ 1 46,000
Other Funding 0
Total $ 146,000 Levy Impact: $ 18,908
This amendment was sponsored by the Mayor because they did not know how much money would be needed when he put out his budget. They now have the detailed list of items that would be done. It was a total of $730,000 of costs and per our agreement with the county, we pay only 20%. This passed on a voice vote, with only Alder Sanborn voting no. (I think – I don’t know, as I didn’t call roll call.)
NOTE: Alders are often accused of only adding money to the Mayor’s budget, but the Mayor often adds money during this process as well – and most people don’t usually note that. This year, the Mayor sponsored amendments adding half a million dollars to his own budget – but the Council will be blamed for this.
AMENDMENT THREE – UPGRADES TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Project #7 – CCB-201 Council Chambers
Page(s): 49
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Alds. Verveer, RummelReduce General Obligation Debt funding by $50,000 and reduce Other funding (from the County) by $50,000.
(Note: The 2009 Dane County Executive Recommended Budget includes $250,000 in payments from the City of Madison for this project. The City of Madison 2009 Executive Budget as recommended by the Board of Estimates includes City funding of $300,000 for this project. This amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 7 will equalize the amounts for CCB Improvements in the City and County budgets.)
General Obligation Debt $ (50,000)
Other Funding (50,000)
Total $ (100,000) Levy Impact: $ (6,475)
There was a substitute Amendment that cut the project by $100,000 to match what the Personnel and Finance committee of the Dane County Board decided. I added an amendment that had the language in amendment 4 “The Common Council shall approve any changes proposed to be made to the chambers, prior to expenditure of funds”. That was friendly. The amendment passed 11 (Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Verveer, Webber, Bruer, Clausius, Clear) to 9 (Monson, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skimore, Solomon, Cnare and Compton.)
They then asked us to place amendments 4 & 5 on file.
AMENDMENT FOUR – ADDITIONAL CUTS TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Projects #7 – CCB – 201 Council Chambers
Page(s): 49
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, SolomonReduce General Obligation Debt funding by $150,000 and reduce Other funding (from the County) by $150,000. Add the following language to the project narrative: “The Common Council shall approve any changes proposed to be made to the chambers prior to expenditure of any funds.”
General Obligation Debt $ (150,000)
Other Funding (150,000)
Total $ (300,000) Levy Impact: $ (19,426)
AMENDMENT FIVE – CUTTING EVEN MORE FUNDS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Project #7 – CCB-201 Council Chambers
Page(s): 49
Sponsor(s): Alds. Sanborn, Cnare, Schumacher, Monson, Compton, Pham-RemmeleReduce General Obligation Debt funding by $250,000 and reduce Other funding (from the County) by $250,000.
General Obligation Debt $ (250,000)
Other Funding (250,000)
Total $ (500,000) Levy Impact: $ (32,376)
I agreed to place amendment 4 on file, because I got my language from my amendment in amendment 3 and I was willing to cut more in Jed’s amendment, but he also placed his on file . . . doh!
AMENDMENT SIX – RENEWABLE ENERGY
Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Project #12 – Renewable Energy
Page(s): 49
Sponsor(s): Alds. Sanborn, Compton, Pham-RemmeleRemove funding for the Renewable Energy project.
General Obligation Debt $ (100,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (100,000) Levy Impact: $ (12,950)
Alder Sanborn renewed (heh.) his arguments that he used at Board of Estimates that these photovoltaic panels are not good technology, expensive for energy they produce and that they need to be more efficient before we spend more money on it. He argued the city did not need to be a leader, that people will do this on their own if it is a wise decision. This was another voice vote. I only heard Jed Sanborn and Judy Compton voting no, but who knows?
AMENDMENT SEVEN – MORE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS PER CONTRACT
Agency/Project: Facilities Management / Project #13 – City-County Building Improvements
Page(s): 50
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Alds. Verveer, RummelAdd $342,900 of General Obligation Debt funding to the Facilities Management Capital Budget.
(Note: The 2009 Dane County Executive Recommended Budget includes $492,900 in payments from the City of Madison for this project. The City of Madison 2009 Executive Budget as recommended by the Board of Estimates includes City funding of $150,000 for this project. This amendment, in conjunction with amendment No. 3 will equalize the amounts for CCB Improvements in the City and County budgets.)
General Obligation Debt $ 3 42,900
Other Funding 0
Total $ 342,900 Levy Impact: $ 44,407
Note, the Mayor is adding more money to the “Council’s” budget. Essentially, we pay 39.4% of capital and operating costs for the City-County building based on our agreement with the county. The mayor just wanted us to vote – but I asked they they tell us why we were spending this money. It boiled down to roof, hvac, elevators, etc. The amendment passed on a voice vote, with Jed (poor Jed, I can hear how he votes) voting no, and who knows what everyone else did.
AMENDMENT EIGHT – NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (Traffic Calming)
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #8 Neighborhood Traffic Management
Page(s): 62
Sponsor(s): Alds. Webber, KonkelRetore funding for Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.
General Obligation Debt $ 5 0,000
Other Funding 0
Total $ 50,000 Levy Impact: $ 6,475
This item was $250,000 in 2008 and they reduced it to $50,000 in 2009. This amendment would have added just 1/5 of the money back. The staff have never really liked this money – we have had to increase it against their will on more than one occassion and it seems like they have used the “the worst budget year in the history of the universe for the fifth year in a row” as a reason to gut the program. Oh, they promise to get back at it next year . . . meanwhile, as Alder Rhodes-Conway pointed out, there are many neighborhoods who are requesting this funding. The amendment failed 8 (Kerr, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer, Webber, Cnare) to 12 (Gruber, Judge, Monson, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton).
AMENDMENT NINE – TRAFFIC CALMING FOR MINERAL POINT AND OWEN DRIVE
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #8 Neighborhood Traffic Management
Page(s): 62
Sponsor(s): Alds. Gruber, WebberReauthorize $145,325 of Federal Transportation Grant funding for the design and construction of the Mineral Point at Owen Drive intersection improvement.
General Obligation Debt $ 0
Federal Transportation Grant 145,325
Total $ 145,325 Levy Impact: $ 0
This was a simple reauthorization missed in the budget process and passed unanimously on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT TEN – PEDESTRIAN IMPROVMENTS
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #9 Pedestrian Impr on Major Streets
Page(s): 63
Sponsor(s): Alds. Webber, KonkelRestore funding for Pedestrian Improvements on Major Streets.
General Obligation Debt $ 5 0,000
Other Funding 0
Total $ 50,000 Levy Impact: $ 6,475
These arguments were similar to amendment 8. This funding was $155,000 in 2008 and it was reduced to $50,000 and this amendment would have restored another 1/3 of the funding. Larry Nelson testified that these were the improvements that “made it safe to cross the street”. Sounds like a safety issue here people! But, it failed. 10 (Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer, Webber, Cnare) to 10 (Monson, Plam, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton) And the mayor broke the tie against the amendment. What a surprise! 🙂
AMENDMENTS 11, 12 & 13 – COUNTY HIGHWAY M
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #17 CTM – CTH PD Area
Page(s): 64
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, WebberDelay the project for one year.
General Obligation Debt $ (137,000)
Other Funding (133,000)
Total $ (270,000) Levy Impact: $ (17,742)
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Projects #18 CTH M – Midtown Road Area
Engineering – Major Streets / Projects #19 CTH M – Valley View Road
Engineering – Major Streets / Projects #20 CTH M – Watts Road Area
Page(s): 64 and 65
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, WebberDelay all three projects by one year.
General Obligation Debt $ (353,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (353,000) Levy Impact: $ (45,715)
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #21 CTH M – CTH S
Page(s): 65
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, WebberDelay the project by one year.
General Obligation Debt $ (400,000)
Other Funding (2,000,000)
Total $ (2,400,000) Levy Impact: $ (51,802)
Those roads, so many, many roads. A heavy issue after 3 hours of testimony and in the 4th hour of meetings. The issue here, as outlined by Alder Rummel is are we building a sustainable city? Why are we building big arterial roads and not grids. She pointed out the impact of borrowing on debt service. She stressed that we needed to be creating interesting, livable, walkable neighborhoods throughout the city.
Several alders took offense and felt the need to defend their neighborhoods. Larry Nelson did his Larry Nelson thing. He asked us to just stop the projects instead of delaying them if that is what we really wanted. He told council members if we didn’t spend the federal money, other communities might swoop in and take it away. And then . . . he actually made the argument that we needed to build roads to support the workers and the economy and pointed out, a little bit subtly, that we got cheaper rates when more people bid because of the slow down in work. And my favorite line, after about 10 minutes of talking was that “neighborhood plans are promises” of what will get done. HA! OK – I’ll go with that. I got lots of “promises” in several neighborhood plans that I’d like to see the City work on!!!
I asked a bunch of questions about the TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) – I think this might be the first that some alders even ever heard about it – that led to the amendment in number 14.
There was, of course, a roll call vote. The motion to cut these roads failed 5 (Judge, Konkel Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Webber) to 15 (Gruber, Kerr, Monson, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton).
AMENDMENT 14 – FEMRITE DRIVE PHASE 3
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #24 Femrite Drive Phase 3
Page(s): 65
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, WebberDelay the project by one year.
General Obligation Debt $ (410,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (410,000) Levy Impact: $ (53,097)
Second verse, same as the first. This one didn’t have any federal funding, so there was no risk of losing federal funding by delaying this one. Tho, based on the last vote, we could see where this was going, so I made a substitute amendment that said “The TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) shall be presented to the Common Council annually by May 15th, prior to submission to the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization).”
Ok – I’m out of my league here. I asked Larry Nelson a bunch of questions, but . . . the outcome was that Larry basically said that we approve neighborhood plans and then the only time we discuss which projects get priority is during the Capital Budget. I know that when I was on Long Range Transportation Planning Committee, Larry did an annual presentation to us that described the projects he wanted to work on, we gave him input, he went away and we never heard again until Capital Budget time. I essentially, wanted that presentation done at the Council – prior to making decisions, so that alders could have input and hear from the public, outside of the Capital Budget process and prior to the decisions being made by others. Compton said she couldn’t vote yes on it, so I presume she voted against having more information and input. But again, no roll call, so I don’t know. You might want to see the Cap Times for further discussion of this item. Alder Webber had many great comments on this issue.
AMENDMENT 15 – GILMAN ST.
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #27 – Gilman Street
Page(s): 66
Sponsor(s): Alds Verveer, JudgeChange limits from “University Avenue to State Street” to “University Avenue to North Henry Street”. There is no change in funding
General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0
This was the correction of a “technical error” which passed on a voice vote – unanimously, I think. But who knows.
AMENDMENT 16 – MILWAUKEE ST.
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #37 – Milwaukee Street at I 94
Page(s): 68
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, WebberDelay the project by one year.
General Obligation Debt $ (270,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (270,000) Levy Impact: $ (34,966)
Alder Rummel placed this one on file.
AMENDMENT 17 – SEVERAL DOWNTOWN ROAD PROJECTS
Agency/Project: Engineering – Major Streets / Project #55 – University Ave – Campus to Broom
State Street – Capitol Square / Project #4 – State St.-Side Streets Phase 2
Page(s): 71, 29
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer, JudgeReplace narrative and costs for Project No. 55, as follows:
University Ave / Gorham St – Campus Dr to State St
Limits – University Ave/Gorham St from Campus Drive to State Street and North Broom St from State St to W. Johnson St
Construction Year – 2009
Funding – City of Madison
Description – The existing pavement is in poor condition. This project will replace the existing pavement except for portions of the existing bus / bike lane which have been previously replaced. This project will also upgrade portions of the terraces on Gorham Street between State Street and Broom Street, and Broom Street from State Street to Gorham Street in accordance with the State Street Design Project Plan.Total Cost $2,560,000
GO $1,970,000
TIF $ 220,000
Assess $ 370,000Also: Delete TID cash funding of $120,000 from State Street Project #4, as amended by the Board of Estimates. And reduce Year 2010 funding for this project from $800,000 to $600,000. Streets planned for reconstruction in 2010 will be Gorham Street, from State to Henry, and also Henry Street, from Gorham to State. The net result of this amendment is an increase of special assessments by $160,000, an increase in TID cash funding of $100,000, and no increase in General Obligation Debt.
General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 260,000
Total $ 260,000 Levy Impact: $ 0
Not much discussion on this one beyond describing the above. I think it was a unanimous voice vote – but your guess is as good as mine. 🙂
AMENDMENT 18 – CENTRAL PARK
Agency/Project: Engineering – Other Projects / Project #15 – Central Park
Page(s): 79
Sponsor(s): Alds. Sanborn, Pham-Remmele, MonsonRemove funding for Central Park for the Years 2009 through 2011.
General Obligation Debt $ (250,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (250,000) Levy Impact: $ (32,376)
Jed explained to us that “you can’t have everything”. He thought the park should be funded by private funding. People reminded him that the little bit of money here would be leveraging other federal dollars. It failed on a voice vote – and I didn’t even catch if anyone voted no or not. Since you know, there was no roll call. 🙂 (Is that getting obnoxious yet?)
AMENDMENT 19 – STORM SEWERS
Agency/Project: Stormwater Utility / Project #4 – Storm Sewer with Street Projects
Page(s): 83
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Ald. BruerReduce General Obligation reauthorization by $130,400, from $1,271,682 to $1,141,282.
(Note: The $1,271,682 in reauthorization was added by Board of Estimates Amendment #1. The reduction in reauthorization is necessary due to RES-08-00942, which was adopted on October 7, 2008. General Obligation debt associated with the Stormwater Utility is repaid using the Utility’s resources, therefore, there is no levy impact.)General Obligation Debt $ (130,400)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (130,400) Levy Impact: $ 0
Another “technical” amendment that passed unanimously on a voice vote – as far as I could tell.
AMENDMENT 20 – MONEY FOR PARKS NOT COVERED BY DEVELOPMENT FEES (The “Bubbler” Amendment!)
Agency/Project: Parks Division / Project #11 – Development Fee Projects
Page(s): 97
Sponsor(s): Alds. Cnare, Compton, Clausius, SchumacherReplace Development Fee funding with General Obligation debt for Phases II and III for Door Creek Park, a Drinking Fountain (Bubbler) in North Star Park and tennis courts at Richmond Hill Park. Debt service of approximately $90,000 per year will be repaid through impact fees.
General Obligation Debt $ 7 00,000
Other Funding (700,000)
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0
Who knew, development fees don’t cover our actual costs for the parks. Hmmmmm . . . . .
Ok – so there were some accounting games played here because we don’t have enough collections from developer fees for parks and we want to do some project now, so we’re borrowing money and hoping the developer fees come in later and they will be used to pay the interest on our loan, but not for the actual improvements. So, we will need to charge developers for this in the future. If I understood it correctly. I just wish we could have done something this creative for some of the parks in the 2nd district. Maybe next year . . .
One of the funnier comments when was Judy Compton was trying to speak in support of the amendment, but was urging the council to vote against it – Alder Cnare asked the Mayor to “Turn off the mic!” He started to . . . Judy straightened herself out and I think it passed unanimously.
AMENDMENT 21 – NEW DOWNTOWN PARKING RAMP PLANNING MONEY
This was tabled, I’ll come back to it – it contains the most bizarre items of the evening.
AMENDMENT 22 – PARKING EQUIPMENT
Agency/Project: Parking Utility / Project #6 – Parking Revenue Equipment
Page(s): 119
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, RummelDelay purchase of multi-space meter equipment until there is a solution to high credit card charges.
General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding (640,000)
Total $ (640,000) Levy Impact: $ 0
After heavy lobbying from staff, I agreed to place this on file.
AMENDMENT 23 – SMALL CAP TIF
Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #10 – TID 32 – Upper State St. Corridor
Page(s): 125
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, SanbornAmend the CIP to remove $300,000 annually in years 2010 through 2014 for Small Cap TID funding.
General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0
To me, this is one of the most wasteful, stupid programs we have in the city. I empathize with the need to get more owner-occupants downtown and I empathize with the fact that you can’t easily turn these crappy rentals into owner-occupied housing easily and that we are losing our housing stock in the downtown. But this is just NOT the way to address these issues and as long as this program is in place, we won’t get to real solutions. I think we can accomplish these goals withough giving someone $60,000 of free money from the city. Nevertheless, it failed on voice vote. Alders Sanborn and I voted no, I don’t know if anyone else did. (Yup – no pesky roll call vote – so you’ll never really know.)
AMENDMENT 24 – $3M FOR WHAT?
Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #14 – TID 38 – Badger / Ann / Park St.
Page(s): 126
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, BruerAdd the following language to the end of the project narrative: “A plan for the public process will be approved by the Common Council as well.”
General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0
Currently, we are giving $3M for something yet to be determined. The language in the budget says:
This TID was created in 2008 as part of the revitalization of the South Park Street and Badger Road area. General goals include the elimination of blight and the stimulation of commercial and residential development. $3,000,000 is included in 2009 for acquisition, demolition and relocation costs associated with land assemblage. Prior to the purchase or demolition of additional properties for this project, a business plan consistent with the South Madison Revitalization Strategies Report will be prepared for the block bounded by Park Street, Badger Road, Cypress Way and Hughes Street. This plan will be subject to a public process to gather citizen input and must be submitted for review and approval by the Common Council.
So, $3M for what? I amended the amendment to say:
“A plan for the public process shall include at least two additional well publicized full neighbohood meeting beyond the legally required city meetings and neighborhood association meetings.”
Passed unanimously.
AMENDMENT 25 – STOUGHTON ROAD
Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #15 – TID 39 – Stoughton Road
Page(s): 126
Sponsor(s): Alds. Compton, Cnare, Clear, Sanborn, Schumacher, SkidmoreAdd $100,000 for professional fees and other expenses related to the implementation of the marketing plan for the Bio-Ag Gateway. Although the marketing plan was prepared in 2008, actual implementation of the plan did not begin until the 4th Quarter. The amendment will allow the City to continue the implementation activities identified within the marketing plan. (Note: Future debt service will be repaid from the TIF district, therefore there is no direct impact on the levy.)
General Obligation Debt $ 1 00,000
Other Funding 0
Total $ 100,000 Levy Impact: $ 0
At this point it was 11:45 and President Bruer refused to let us take a break. Therefore, I took my own during this item. I have no idea if it was discussed. I have no idea what the outcome of the vote was, but I presume it passed.
AMENDMENT 26 – CUTTING MUNICIPAL ART FUND
Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project #19 –
Municipal Art Fund
Page(s): 127
Sponsor(s): Alds. Sanborn, Schumacher, Monson, Pham-RemmeleRemove funding for the Municipal Art Fund.
General Obligation Debt $ (112,000)
Other Funding 0
Total $ (112,000) Levy Impact: $ (14,505)
It was getting late, and since I didn’t type this up right away, things have become fuzzy. Testimony that I recall was Thuy talking about how this was “too sophisticated” for her and how she didn’t understand. I think this is when she went into how she didn’t get any training to be an alder (like any of us did?). Libby Monson said that this should be funded by private funds. Tim Gruber spoke in support and pointed out that when he and his 2 year old son went to the pool, Martin noticed the gates, and knew that they were special. Rhodes-Conway graced us with a poem:
As we come marching, marching, unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient cry for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for — but we fight for roses, too!
I’m certain Thuy didn’t understand a word of it.
We had another voice vote. I heard Jed vote no, I’m not certain if all the sponsors voted “no” as well – it certainly didn’t sound like it.
AMENDMENT 27 – PUBLIC MARKET
Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #24 – Public Market
Page(s): 128
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rummel, Konkel; Mayor CieslewiczThis project will provide funding in the Capital Improvement Program of $1 million in each of 2011 and 2012 for costs associated with the acquisition, construction, renovations, and other related development costs for a Madison Public Market to serve Madison and promote the use of local foods and products as part of the City’s economic development strategy. Additionally, provide up to $60,000 of expenditures from the PCED Preliminary Planning project in 2009 to prepare additional detailed site selection, market analysis, design assessment, and community input for an additional 2-3 candidate locations to be identified as a potential site for a Madison Public Market.
General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0
Alder Rummel talked about why needed this in the budget to send a signal and that it was seeding for the future. Alder Kerr expressed interest in having it be in an existing buidling. Gruber finally supports because they are looking at additional sites. (Wonder how much that will cost them?) Another voice vote, it was unclear who voted no.
AMENDMENT 28 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Agency/Project: Planning and Community and Economic Development /
Project #32 – Revision of 3-5 Year Strategic Plan
Page(s): 129
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, RummelAmend the CIP to provide $100,000 of funding in 2013.
General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding 0
Total $ 0 Levy Impact: $ 0
There was one question by Kerr, about why this was in the capital budget vs the operating budget. The Comptroller explained that major planning activities were put in the capital budget, others are put in the operating budget. This passed on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT 21 – PARKING GARAGE
Agency/Project: Parking Utility / Project #3 – MMB Parking Garage
Page(s): 118
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel, Webber
Remove funding for MMB Parking Garage until a Council decision has been reached on a downtown hotel placement or a study has been approved on the alternatives of a Brayton Garage and replacing Government East.General Obligation Debt $ 0
Other Funding (1,200,000)
Total $ (1,200,000) Levy Impact: $ 0
This amendment came about because we were given three choices by staff in the budget and the Mayor chose to fund the parking garage behind the municipal building – however, we are no where near making that decision. At the moment, the hotel is on hold and they won’t know if the hotel is interested in building on the MMB property. The Mayor insisted that we needed to keep this in the budget to signal support. However, when alders tried asking questions, it quickly became clear that we couldn’t possibly know what we might even be signaling support for. Alder Solomon was going to make a motion – he had a very long stream of consciousness conversation with himself – out loud – which led us to table the item. It was unanimously tabled until the end of the meeting and then we came back to it.
When we got back to it – Alder Solomon’s brilliant solution was “I got nothing.”
Alder Verveer attempted to make the motion that I think Alder Solomon was trying to make . . . if I recall correctly, it would have passed this in the budget and then required them to bring a plan back to us. It was getting late and it was a few nights ago, so I hope I got that right. That motion failed 7 (Gruber, Judge, Sanborn, Compton, Bruer, Solomon and Verveer) to 13 (Kerr, Konkel, Monson, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rummel, Schumacher, Skidmore, Webber, Clausius, Rhodes-Conway, Clear and Cnare)
We then voted on the orignal amendment and it failed with the Mayor breaking the 10-10 tie. Voting for the motion were Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Rummel, Rhodes-Conway, Palm, Schumacher. Voting against were Monson, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Skimore, Compton, Solomon, Verveer, Bruer, Clausius and Clear.
If this was in the budget to “signal support” – I don’t think it did its job very well. Who knows what the council would support?
FINAL VOTE
It was a voice vote and passed unanimously. I asked to be recorded as voting “no”. Alder Rummel says she voted no as well.
Sorry it took me so long to complete this, I took a few days off!
