Finishing up the Tuesday night meeting results. Amendments 1 – 17 here.
AMENDMENT FIFTEEN TAKEN OFF THE TABLE
Lucas Daily speaks to the amendment on Monroe reconstruction. He says it was scheduled in 2008 for reconstruction in 2010, since then it has been continually moved back, there are some valid reasons for that, they will have to divert 10,000 cars from the street, it is running 17,000 right now. (WHAAAAAA . . . cry me a river . . . compare it to Johnson and Gorham that had 25,000 and 30,000 cars and got delayed for 15 years! Just sayin’) He knows it will have an impact, he doesn’t think they should delay for that reason. 12 pedestrians have been hit by cars crossing the street since this was scheduled for reconstruction, they need intersection improvements. He’s happy to delay if the amendment passes and he gets number on what the substantial impact would be. Right now we have a shadow we are afraid of and we don’t know how big it is, he wants some hard numbers and estimates.
Shiva Bidar asks city engineering about modeling. Rob Phillips from Engineering says they have the WISDOT modeling for Verona Rd and the Beltline, they requested the consultant to model this closure as well, they spend a lot of time thinking about the impact of projects taking place at the same time, that isn’t new. What they learned this year with Beltline construction and the Johnson St. project that they had a dramatic impact on streets downtown, they have spent a lot of time trying to minimize the impacts of projects. He says the work on Verona Rd is two project, Verona Rd and Beltline. He thinks the 100,000 vehicles on the beltline is the bigger problem, a 10% diversion from the beltline is 10,000 vehicles per day. Verona Rd. is problematic too, with diversions to Seminole Highway, if you can’t get downtown through Monroe St., you’re going to take Yuma through the neighborhood. Think about the impacts at Regent and Speedway, that is problematic today, how much more traffic can it take? He has the numbers from DOT, the modeling isn’t always perfect, its good in many regards, but the numbers are a little hard to predict. We know there will be impacts and our constituents would be disappointed with use if we do them simultaeously. Brian says that the Regent/Monroe intersection will be very impacted as well, there will be only one lane inbound on Monroe. The reason for inbound is because of the intersection with Odana Rd. That is going to be problematic when people are trying to leave downtown and how they turn. Rob says that half the 17,000 vehicles will have to divert. Bidar says that they know that there will be impacts, we learned something new this summer, we all knew Johnson was going to be a nightmare, I don’t think we knew it was going to be a nightmare of the magnitude it was, it was a bigger impact of what she thought, all the way to the westside. Are you saying the beltline project has an impact. Phillips says the degree of the fact given it has the same number of lanes was the surprise. Bidar asks if they have numbers of the Beltline/Johnson St. displacement? Phillips says they know from DOT that 20% of the traffic is expected to divert, but he doesn’t have current numbers.
Chris Schmidt asked when the beltline project would be completed. Phillips says it will take place 2015 and 2016.
Denise DeMarb clarifies why the project is moved back. Phillips says one concern is level of borrowing, it was supported by Engineering and Traffic Engineering. He understands the frustration, need and urgency.
Mayor Paul Soglin said he didn’t recommend it in the capital budget because of the enormous weight of the debt service, we are well over the 12.5^ goal, it will continue to go up even if we continue to be conservative, its not just the borrowing but that we lost the application, wisely, of premium to the capital budget. With that in mind he could not see spending this kind of money that in terms of timing would create the havoc that would occur if done at the same time as the beltline.
Matt Phair thought the Monroe project goes into 2018. Phillips says there are phases that go to Fitchburg that are later. The beltline impact will not continue, but the Verona Rd construction will.
Schmidt was a strong supporter, he was convinced by the traffic issues. He would be surprised if there is only 20% diversion, they will have challenges on Seminole and Whitney Way, Yuma will be overloaded, Midvale can take whatever you throw at it, but having seeing E. Johnson traffic back up all the way to Odana this year, has illustrated how delicate this system is and the grid can fail. He wishes he would support it but he was convinced with those arguments.
RESULT: UNANIMOUS REJECTION ON VOICE VOTE
TAKE ITEM 8 OFF THE TABLE
Park impact fees on Demetral. Eric Knepp says this is in the Law-Tenney district, it is projected to be in a significantly negative cash position at the end of 2015, tho there is a lot of development happening they take a conservative approach, that district now has debt service associated with it and he would exercise caution in extending it beyond the $425,000 negative. There are other policy issues we would want to resolve before we did this, we would want to resolve park impact fees going for sidewalks on non-park land. This is technically Engineering land. There are other policy reasons, but fiscal is the main one.
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON A VOICE VOTE
AMENDMENT EIGHTEEN
Parks Division / Project No. 8 – Playground/Accessibility Improvements Impact Fees – Vilas-Brittingham
Alds. Bidar-Sielaff, Schmidt*Parks Project No. 8, Playground/Accessibility Improvements, includes $175,000 in impact fee funding for two playground replacements at Stevens Street Park. This amendment adds $95,000 ($50,000 General Obligation Debt and $45,000 impact fee cash) for improvements to the seating area, basketball court, and retaining walls.
General Obligation Debt $ 50,000
Other Funding: SI 27 cash 45,000
Total: $ 95,000
Adds 5,862 per year staring in 2016
Adds $0.07 in taxes on the average home.Ah, the parks scramble to spend parks impact fees and get projects done in your neighborhood, Bidar-Sielaff is good at this one.
Bidar says this is the second part of improvements to this park. They have some additional needs that were not in the major renovation, this is benches, retaining walls and basketball courts. She tried to use Park Impact fees, but she didn’t want to use them all.
Mike Verveer says the Bidar had promised himself and Alder Ellingson that she would not propose any further amendments for the 5th aldermanic district using Vilas-Brittingham impact fees after the two amendments for Olive Jones Park, just reminding her of that promise. He laughs, says he has a serious question about how the need compares to other needs in the area. Kay Rutledge says that doing the additional renovations on seating between the playgrounds at the same time might give them pricing breaks if they to it at the same time, it also gives them flexibility in design. Verveer asks about the basketball courts. Rutledge says it is nearing the end of its useful life. They are looking at resurfacing it, its not a significant increase.
Bidar says the sitting area right now is an old picnic table. She says the basketball court wasn’t as much of a priority compared to a seating area for the parents watching their kids.
Mayor asks Rutledge who it was 20 or 25 years ago writing all the snappy one-liners in the parks reports, she says was here. They said Dan Stapay or another guy, mayor says it was a woman?
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON A VOICE VOTE
AMENDMENT NINETEEN
Parks Division / Project No. 19 – James Madison Park Improvements Impact Fees – Law-Tenney
Alds. Zellers, VerveerAdd $50,000 in 2016 (General Obligation Debt) and $1,400,000 in 2017 ($500,000 General Obligation Debt, $500,000 from impact fees and $400,000 in private contributions). Change the project narrative to the following: This project provides funding for improvements at James Madison Park. This is a heavily-used downtown community park that is seeing even more use from recent higher density developments. Potential improvements include improving pathways and adding seating. Funding in 2015 is provided by long-term lease proceeds from the Worden House, Ziegelman House, and Collins House and existing resources. Funding is shown in 2016 to update the master plan for the park, with funding in 2017 to replace the existing park shelter.
Ugh, 10 years of attempts to get improvements in James Madison Park . . . and the struggle continues. Replace the shelter! Yay!
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT TWENTY
Parks Division / Project No. 39 – Olin Park Gateway Improvements
Alds. Strasser, Schmidt*Add $100,000 in General Obligation Debt in 2015 (for a total of $150,000) for planning a reflection point in Olin Park.
Adds $ 100,000
Adds $11,723 in payments staring in 2015
Adds 0.13 taxes to the average homeSeems like a lot of planning money, but its a popular number to choose.
Joe Clausius asks what the reflection point in Olin Park is. Rutledge says it is part of the gateway reconstruction at the northwesternmost part of the park near John Nolen Drive. Clausius asks if it is inaccessible, will the pathway be improved? She says it is an opportunity to create a gateway and this money is for planning to determine what it will look like.
Lisa Subeck asks what a reflection point is? What does it mean? Mayor says it is just a name they came up with. Knepp says it is part of the plan, its just what they call that area.
Verveer asks who “they” is? Steve Cover says that Vandewalle and Metcalfe did some visioning for this area and the first component of this is the reflection point area. It would be redesigned and a vantage point to look at the park towards downtown, it would be a magnet to bring people to the area, there is no attraction there, you have jogging, cycling and rollerblading, this is just the first part of something that could be spactacular all along the lakefront there. (Oh barf, yeah, those people using the bike path, they must be the wrong type of people we want using the parks? What?)
John Strasser says his is for a designer competition, this is the city contribution and then the group that came up with the idea will get corporate donations to fund the project. There is already $50K in the budget, but we need to borrow for the design work.
Verveer says $150,000 for one big planning effort, not just one area? Cover says the $150,000 is just reflection point project, they want to nail down a design everyone likes and in the future they will propose funding for the implementation of the project. “There is, apparently, tremendous private investment interest in this project. We would get a considerable amount form private sources to fund the construction of the project” Verveer asks if the plan would be done by the city or the private partnership. Cover says the plan will be first, then then engineering. Verveer asks if staff will work on it or will it be consultants. Knepp says the plans are conceptual visions, this would be more detailed, this is more like a central park high end aesthetic. Verveer asks if this is a city project or money to the private group. Knepp says they would use city process to do an RFP to select the consultant that would be involved, managed by the city and brought to city standards.
Clausius asks if the Parks Foundation would bet involved. Knepp says the planning is city funded, but when they get to implementation he would engage with the Parks Foundation and there are some specific private funding partners that are interested, they would like to work with the Foundation to give them an opportunity to participate.
Larry Palm asks if this went through the Parks Commission. Knepp says 2 years ago they saw the conceptual plan, the gateway. Palm asked what happened to that. Knepp says that there were still elements to be completed at that time. Now that we are near completion they are ready to move forward.
Schmidt asks if we really need the money for this? Knepp says that with this level of aesthetic it is always more expensive than we think, the level of public engagement, especially when talking about the centerpiece of the park, he says that the expenses rack up quickly, if the plan is to have a $3 – 4 million park in that space, $150,000 for planning is reasonable. It is the choice of the council if we want to design to that level.
RESULT: MOTION PASSES, I THINK IT WAS UNANIMOUS? (Stupid voice votes, does anyone ever call roll call any more?)
AMENDMENT TWENTY-ONE
Fleet Service / New Project – Police Squad Vehicles PCED / Project No. 42 – Affordable Housing Fund
Mayor SoglinMove funding for some Police squad vehicles ($412,322) from the 2015 Fleet Operating Budget to the 2015 Capital Budget. Provide additional funding ($215,500) to further support Affordable Housing programs through the Affordable Housing Fund proposal. Offset with a Direct Appropriation to Capital.
Fleet – Marked /Unmarked squads
$ 412,322
PCED – Affordable Housing Fund 215,500
$ 627,822I read this one several times, I understand that under Zach Brandon’s reign of terror on the budget, items that were less than $10,000 and/or lasted less than 10 years were taken out of the capital budget. This seems to be returning some of these items, and then freeing up money for the Affordable Housing Fund. However, I don’t understand the “direct appropriation to Capital”. Appropriating just G.O. funding from operating? Trust Fund Dollars?
Bidar urges them to not vote for this because it is about documents they haven’t yet seen. She doesn’t see how they can take action on it.
Mayor asks Schmiedicke to explain to ease the comfort levels. David Schmiedicke (Finance Department) says that they issued debt a few weeks ago, they programmed a premium of $4M which translates to direct appropriation to capital, the actual premium indludes this amount as a difference. This is for capital assets, the vehicles are over $20K and they can put it in the capital budget and it would reduce funding in the operating budget. The balance adds to the capital budget to recapitalize home-buy programs.
Schmidt asks if this is a one year shift? Schmiedicke says they made a reduction in purchases in 2013 and in 2014 applied fund balance to restore it. It will have to be revisited in 2015 as to if this would be short term financing or application of premium.
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE
AMENDMENT TWENTY-TWO
Streets Division / Project No. 2 – Equipment
Ald. SchmidtReauthorize funding for the organic waste screen from 2014 to 2015. (This is a companion amendment to Legistar #35546, which amended the 2014 Capital Budget.)
Adds 120,000
Adds 14,068 in debt payments starting in 2016
Adds .16 in taxes to the average priced homeSaving the curbside organics program
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT TWENTY-THREE
Streets Division / Project No. 4 – Public Works Facility – Far West Side
Mayor SoglinDelay funding for the construction of the Far West Public Works Facility by one year. Funding of $850,000 General Obligation Debt will be provided in 2020 for planning, design, and site preparation, followed by $24,150,000 for construction in 2021.
Delaying a project in the far future . . . $24M worth!
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT TWENTY-FOUR
Parking Utility / Project No. 7 – State Street Campus – Lake Garage
Ald. VerveerProvide funding of $8 million in 2018. This funding was inadvertently omitted from the Executive Budget. Funding of
$12,600,000 in 2017 is retained, such that total project funding is $20,600,000, funded over the years 2017 and 2018.An $8M oops.
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT TWENTY-FIVE
Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project No. 8 – Neighborhood Centers
Ald. VerveerAmend the project narrative as follows: “This project provides ongoing funding to support, at the direction of the Mayor and Common Council, capital costs associated with expanding or renovating existing neighborhood centers, as well as developing new centers. The funding is for planning, design work, property acquisition and related holding costs, and construction. The funding anticipates at least one project each year, at locations to be determined. In 2015, funding is provided for potential improvements to recently acquired properties, for potential land acquisition of a site that would serve the Allied Drive Neighborhood, and for potential purchase of property that would serve the Darbo Worthington Neighborhood, including property in that neighborhood that is currently owned by the Salvation Army
the former Salvation Army site.$400,000 in GO Borrowing is reauthorized from 2014. Other funding is from private contributions.”(bold is added language)
Being clear and cleaning up language?
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT TWENTY-SIX
Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project No. 18 – TID 39 – Stoughton Rd.
Ald. DeMarbProvide additional funding of $500,000 in 2015 and change the project narrative as follows: “This TID was created to promote economic development within an area generally bounded by South Stoughton Road, Cottage Grove Road, Interstate 39/90 and the property line between Voges Road and the Beltline. 2015 funding includes $500,000 for potential TIF assistance for business retention, expansion, and relocation projects; and, $30,000 for property holding costs and marketing in the BioAg Gateway. The funding is General Obligation borrowing that is TID-eligible.”
Adds $500,000
Adds $58,615 in annual payments starting 2016
Adds .65 in taxes to the average priced homeAdding money and changing language to make the BioAg Gateway TID be more meaningful for the area – but I’m not sure trickle-down/trickle-on spending will be all that helpful.
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT TWENTY-SEVEN
Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project No. 28 – Public Market
Mayor SoglinReduce the General Obligation borrowing by $2 million, from $5,250,000 to $3,250,000 for land acquisition expense.
Deletes 2,000,000
Prevents $234,461 in annual payments
Saves taxpayers $2.61 on the average home
Mayor explains they fully funded what they need for public market, we fully funded fleet services, and either way we are going to use this facility for storage or the public market and we don’t need full funding for both, this is the savings instead of double budgeting.
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE
AMENDMENT TWENTY-EIGHT
Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project No. 35 – Permanent Supportive Housing
Ald. VerveerAmend the project narrative as follows: “This project provides funding to support the two-phase development of up to 110 units of very low cost permanent housing units, which was initiated in 2014. The project will be designed to serve persons who are homeless or recently homeless. It anticipates new construction of housing facilities. The first phase, being undertaken in partnership with Heartland Housing Inc., will develop 60 housing units. Pre-development costs for Phase I were incurred in 2014, and included successful efforts to secure Section 42 Affordable Housing Tax Credits.
Pre- development costs would be incurred in 2014, for Phase I, and 2015, for Phase II, and would include efforts to secure Section 42 Affordable Housing Tax Credits.Construction of Phase I is expected to begin in 2015, with funding from the City, Dane County and other sources. 2015 funds will support construction costs.Funding for Phase II, including pre-development and construction costs, as well as for any potential further development of permanent supportive housing, is provided in Project No. 42.”
Council lawyer at work cleaning up the language
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT TWENTY-NINE
Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project No. 37 – 100 West Mifflin Street (TID 32)
Ald. VerveerAmend the project narrative as follows: “
This project would fund design work in 2014 and reconstruction work in 2016 of the 100 block of West Mifflin Street. With the completion of the central public library and the reconstruction of the 100 block of State Street, the City has the opportunity to reconceptualize and activate the 100 West Mifflin block. This project proposes to engage in a design process in 2014 and to reconstruct 100 West Mifflin as a public space in 2016 using GO borrowing for which the debt service will be paid from TID #32 proceeds.The 2014 adopted capital budget of the Planning and Community and Economic Development agency (PCED) authorized $100,000 in TID-eligible GO borrowing to explore a potential re-design and improvements of the 100 Block of West Mifflin Street area. The agency requested a reauthorization of $100,000 in GO borrowing provided in the 2014 budget, but no funding for the projectiswas included in the Executive Capital Budget CIP. Instead, an inter-agency City staff team, led by the Planning Division and comprised of staff from Engineering, Parks, Traffic Engineering, and others as necessary, will work in conjunction to develop options for area improvements for consideration by the Council in early 2015. Funding of $50,000 of available TID 32 proceeds is to support implementation efforts that may arise from the work completed by the inter-agency staff team.”50,000
Grrrrrr, evil is afoot. Not these amendments, the underlying project. Once again, Mike’s experience is leading to him cleaning up more budget mistakes.
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT THIRTY
Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project No. 47 – Nolen Waterfront Project No. 2 – Law Park Planning (former)
Project No. 2 – Law Park/John Nolen South Capitol Transit Oriented Development District (new)
Ald. VerveerThe Planning and Community and Economic Development agency (PCED) 2015 Executive capital budget CIP provides for a new Project No. 47 entitled “Nolen Waterfront” to explore improvement around the Law Park/John Nolen area, with funding of $120,000 authorized in 2016. However, the “Nolen Waterfront” project is essentially a component of an existing capital project funded in the 2014 PCED Adopted capital budget, which authorizes funding of $80,000 (from a direct appropriation from the General Fund) for a Law Park Planning project, as follows: “This project will provide funding for preliminary planning design work for Law Park east of the Monona Terrace Community and Convention Center. The Downtown Plan identifies the development of this site into a signature City lakefront park as a priority. This project would involve hiring a consultant to further explore alternatives, refine design concepts, prepare final design plans, research Federal and State regulatory implications and funding opportunities, and develop an implementation strategy. Other funding is from a direct appropriation from the General Fund.” As noted on page 142 of the 2015 Executive capital budget, PCED requested a reauthorization of the Law Park Planning funds, but the funding remains available for its original purpose and is not General Obligation borrowing. This amendment will move the 2016 funding of $120,000 and delete the “Nolen Waterfront” Project No. 47 in the 2015 Executive capital in lieu of a re-formulation of the existing “Law Park Project,” to be renamed “Law Park/John Nolen South Capitol Transit Oriented Development District” Project No. 2,, Acc’t No. 810794, with project narrative as follows: “The Downtown Plan identifies the development of the Law Park/John Nolen area as a priority. The City South Capitol Transit Oriented Development (SCTOD) Distrct Planning Committee has reported a number of recommendations regarding potential improvements in the area. This project provides funding to further explore alternatives, refine design concepts, prepare final design plans, implement some potential enhancements of pedestrian, bicycle and roadway facilities around the Law Park/John Nolen South Capitol TOD District area, research Federal and State regulatory implications and funding opportunities, and develop an implementation strategy. $80,000 of funding authorized in 2014 from a direct appropriation from the General Fund remains available to support expenditures in 2015. Funding of $120,000 is provided in 2016.”
Dr. Mike fixing more mistakes.
RESULT: MOTION PASSES ON VOICE VOTE WITHOUT DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT THIRTY-ONE
Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project No. 49 – Co-operative Enterprise Development
Alds. Clear, Schmidt*, DeMarb, ClausiusDelete this project from the Capital Improvement Plan.
Economic Development is good, except when its co-ops? How will individuals make money off that? Eyeroll.
RESULT: SCHMIDT MOVES TO PLACE ON FILE, PASSES ON VOICE VOTE
AMENDMENT THIRTY-TWO
Planning and Community and Economic Development / New Project – Hwy. 113 Improvement Plan
Alds. Schmidt*, WeierProvide funding to develop a plan for improving the Highway 113 (Northport Drive) Gateway to the City.
Adds 100,000
Adds 11,723 in annual payments starting in 2016
Adds .13 to taxes on the average homePlanning to plan, to plan for planing. In addition to the other planning.
They move a substitute.
Palm says they talked about a plan for the area with staff. Katherine Cornwell explains that the alders, economic development staff and her talked about planning on the northside and after a tour they decided priorities for the area and this money would be used for planning.
Subeck asks if the area has other neighborhood plans. Cornwell doesn’t know. Anita Weier says there are. They ask if it is new, 2009 is the answer.
DeMarb asks why $100,000. Cornwell says that it would be done with staff but this would be consulting for retail market analysis or architecture assistance. She asks if this is different than a corridor study, Cornwell says this is pieces of a corridor study.
Clausius says that this is stuff that could be done in house at this time. At a meeting earlier this summer they said on our main concerns was doing too many studies and consulting and he probably won’t support it.
Palm wants to defer to Katherine, this is a staff driven study, but there are specialties that is not something we need to maintain. There are participatory processes that have expenses. $100,000 might not all be borrowed, we just need to access it for some of the skills they don’t have in house, the bulk of the work will be done in house, this is an opportunity to fill in the gaps.
Mark Clear starts a discussion about North vs. West semantics
Weier says that if they want to change this to capital to make the improvements, that is fine with her, her purpose was to draw into the attention more firmly, it is not a good entrance to the city, she wants to approve this to start renovating, improving, bolstering the economy of the northside.
Palm removes “from the west”. He adds “and North Sherman Ave”. Verveer seconds. Palm says this is a highly used corridor, for transportation, business and residential. We have invested, we did a northside neighborhood plan, we approved Northtown Center revitalization and Warner Park Master planning process, the plan is to pull that all together and identify places that need assistance where we can actively seek out new businesses and residents, in fill redevelopment. Some people ask what he wants them to do with their property and Palm says he has no clue because the plan is not that specific. The goal is reduce driveways, improve parking lots, reduce blight, increase density, be we need to study and identify areas to make improvements.
Motion carries. Palm asks to sponsor.
RESULT: ONE AYE (Palm)
AMENDMENT THIRTY-THREE
Planning and Community and Economic Development / New Project – Ann St. Development
Alds. Schmidt*, StrasserProvide funding to purchase, assemble and prepare for development the properties from 1026 Ann St. to 902 Ann St. These properties are a blight on South Madison and if assembled could be preserved for a future development. Their high visibility and Beltline accessible location should be preserved for the highest and best use and not parceled out for low cost development that would perpetuate the sense of blight in South Madison.
Adds 5,000,000
Adds 586,153 annual payments starting in 2016
Adds 6.52 to the taxes on an average homeDing, ding, ding, ding, ding. Alder Strasser wins the prize! Continuing in the tradition of the former alder.
Handouts are happening. Clear asks if they want to apply landbanking money to this project.
Strasser says you probably haven’t heard much about Ann St (WHAT?!) He says this is the boarded up hotel on the beltline, the empty gas station, an empty office building and a cherry picker rental place. This is probably the worst blight in South Madison, its right at the beltline, at grade level and probably the best opportunity for development in the city. The problem for the last two years, he has been fighting off undesirable project like soup kitchens, half-way houses, extended stay hotels, things that got this property in trouble in the first place. What he is proposing to purchase the properties, demolish the buildings, assemble the lots, prepare for redevelopment and sit on it until a developer comes along with a project that makes sense for the city. He goes over the maps and handouts we can’t see. He says the Expo in was a drug and prostitute haven until the city closed it down. He is explaining the context of where the project is by beltline exits. He says there was a major development interest in this property at one time, the crash of 2008 killed that deal. There was going to be an Arbor Gate size project that assembled the properties and mixed use project was going to go in. The spreadsheet gives the land values based on assessments. 1002 is ABC rental behind the properties, it is not necessary to control for beltline visibility, but might be desirable, but it is a business that is not going anywhere. There is a lot of interest in these properties, but quite frankly it is the wrong interest. If we can purchase these properties, assemble them and sell them at the right time for redevelopment, we can even make a profit off it. This is investing in something that has value. Not typical spending where we are exchanging things of equal value that will convert to cash at some time. We don’t have a true landbanking system. There is a lot of properties in my district that we need to get in control of the city to direct how development is going to come to the district. I think these are the first properties that make sense to landbank. Then we can move on to the next set of properties that we need.
Clausius reluctant to support this, but he acknowledges it is a blighted area. Comparing this to the Don Miller properties, the Union Corner properties, we all knew there were developers waiting in the wings, it was just a matter of time. This fronts on the beltline and it is conducive to people going by and looking at it but with the budget constraints, he can’t justify $5M at this time. He probably won’t be supporting it, maybe down the road when something more solid come in.
Palm agrees. The beauty of the landbanking fund was that it was staff driven where we looked throughout the city, he can point out a dozen places in their district where they should make an investment for the same reasons. It this was about landbanking citywide and collectively decide a priority, he might consider it. It’s hard to predetermine what to buy without a analytical response to it. Strasser says that there was a major developer, this was supposed to be generator for the Villager TID. Nobody disagrees that this is not an up and coming area, anyone who sits on this property for 4 or 5 years will make money, where else can you find 15 acres on the beltline for $3.5M with two beltline exits. This is an investment, we can get our money back in 2 years. The urgency is that people are looking at the property now and the proposals that are coming in are not proposals that we want, its not the highest and best use and there is not much we can do to waive them off when they come along if they are intent on doing it.
Long pause.
DeMarb asks staff if they worked on it and support it. Matt Mikolajewski says they haven’t done work on this. In terms of landbanking he is very supportive of it and would be interested in doing it more here and throughout the community. They have been very successful on Don Miller, Union Corners is moving forward.
Strasser asks Katherine Cornwell to comment since his work has been with Cover, Cornwell and the Mayor. Cornwell says she thinks they need to landbank them. That is the way we move forward and make something happen. You have land that the conditions where it is hard to be a pioneer and without use being involved it will be hard to change the future of that area. Strasser says they also had a couple potential short-term uses for the land once it is demolished and assembled, some capacity for office spaces, they were talking about putting in some temporary modular buildings to give them 5 or 6 years more use out of existing space for the Urban League, Boys and Girls Club, etc. they are bursting at the seams and there is no space for them to move into, what they need isn’t feasible, if they had the land in control we could use this to address some of the needs in south Madison.
Mayor says he thinks this isn’t going to pass, he would suggest so we don’t get, I don’t want to use the wrong word, “bad stuff in there”, lets get the staff team going through the kind of thing we did on East Wash like we did on the BUILD project so we have densities and height we need so it is clear we are not interested in a single story stand alone drive in, we are interested in something significant like we have done on the other sites. He says that a compelling argument could be made to go through a process for that site.
Palm says they did 3 landbanking sites for $10M, and by the way we said that we needed to make a profit so it could be a revolving fund and you can see how well that came out. We were supposed to cover our costs. Perhaps a history of landbanking would be useful, not right now, as we continue this discussion. If we are serious about landbanking, maybe we should have a review of where we have come to so far.
RESULT: FAILS UNANIMOUSLY ON VOICE VOTE
AMENDMENT THIRTY-FOUR
Planning and Community and Economic Development / New Project – Women Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Resource Fund
Alds. Resnick, Schmidt*, Clear, DeMarbThis project provides $250,000 in 2015 and $500,000 per year in 2016 and 2017 to catalyze investment in early-stage women-owned companies and small businesses headquartered in the City of Madison for the purposes of job creation and economic development. City Economic Development Division staff and the Economic Development Committee will work with staff from Finance and City Attorney to develop standards, guidelines and a legal framework, subject to approval by the Common Council, to implement a program in the third quarter of 2015, including specific goals and identification of potential partner entities.
Adds 250,000
Adds 29,308 annual payments starting in 2016
Adds .33 to the taxes on an average homeCooperative development bad, small business investment good. And what concrete results will we see from this. One more job? Two?
Scott Resnick asks Ruth Roelich to come up. She explains that she was asked why, since women owned businesses passed the 50% mark recently, why do they need this. She says the issue is gap in funding that they have access to. Another handout we can’t see. Although we passed the mark in gap in ownership, but the issue is the size, they theory is if they invest more, they can create more jobs (most of them hire one or two people). The handout is about lending women have trouble getting. She says if 1 in 2 small business hired one person the country would be at full employment. The potential is in the small women owned business and if you can invest small amounts it can be really impactful. Some groups were interested in talking but they went home due to the late hour.
Mayor says the city attorney has some concerns that this may violate city ordinances. He says there is a couple of options, put on file and see what city attorney says and reintroduce at council.
Subeck asks if it is revolving loan fund or this amount would be needed each year. Roelich likes revolving loan funds. That is why we should partner with people who do this.
Resnick says this idea came from the Entrepreneur festival and the theme was women entrepreneurship, women discussed their struggles with financing, Wisconsin is ranked 46th on economic clout for women and a recent Harvard study shows women are funded 50% less than men. And usually at a smaller amount as well. That was repeated throughout over the course of that week. The goal was to create a capital financing fund to raise awareness and assistance to companies throughout Madison, leveraging that and other resources. About 4:00 he got an email from the city attorney telling him it might violate our equal opportunities ordinance potentially, attorney May is not here, we could place on file or add an amendment to the language. What is suspicious her is that we regularly allocate money for minority owned businesses and we women based businesses, he says there are multiple programs that fit under similar parameters. He would like to see if there is support and they can amend the langague later.
Palm wants to be added as a cosponsor, and add an amendment that we will get the opinion of the city attorney’s office. Clausius asks to be added.
Clear supports it, he wants to re-emphasize that there are a large number of women owned businesses but it is more lopsided when it comes to entrepenuer. He urges them to support and they can tweak the language to address concerns.
Everyone wants to be added as a co-sponsor.
Subeck says the one thing that worries her is the question of legality, she will support it, if it does violate he ordinances, please let us know what we could do to address it.
Amendment passes.
RESULT: PASSES ON A VOICE VOTE
CONCLUSION
Schmidt asks if there are any other amendments.
Palm makes an amendment on Engineering project number one, change it from drinking fountains to bubblers. DeMarb seconds, fails on a voice vote.
Motion on capital budget being referred to the council passes.
Adjourn.
