Sorry, see part one, technical issues . . . missed a bunch of amendment 11, but will pick it back up now.
Amendment 11 – see part one for details
Sorry I missed a bunch.
Passes on a voice vote with a few nos.
12 Parks — James Madison
General Borrowing
Other Funds 101,000
Total
Average Future year debt serviceSponsors: Maniaci, Clear, Clausius
This project provides funding for improvements at James Madison Park and other parklands. Improvements at James Madison may include any of the following components: garden, terrace and accessible paths; parking, lighting, and public art; lakeshore pier; lakeshore staircase and gazebo; renovation of park shelter; playground and shelter furnishings; irrigation, signage, bocce, horseshoe, and exercise areas. Project costs are to be entirely offset by proceeds from the sale of structures and the long-term lease of land for the properties located at 640 (Worden House), 646 (Ziegelman House), and 704 (Collins House) East Gorham Street, including $101,000 from the sale and lease proceeds from disposition of the property at 640 East Gorham Street (see Legistar #23900). Improvements will not be made until revenues are received. Proceeds from the sale or lease of all properties within the Park will be divided equally between James Madison Park and general parklands.
Maniaci says this is a technical amendment. $101,000 is the sales price for the first home and when the other two homes sell they will come before the council.
Rhodes-Conway says that once upon a time we had a policy that proceeds from sale of property go into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, if that policy does stand, this is in contradiciton.
City Attorney doesn’t know either. He doesn’t recall.
Rhodes-Conway moves to table while city attorney looks it up. Passes unanimously.
13 Parks — Park Ridge Spray Park ($700k in 2013)
General Borrowing
Other Funds
Total
Average Future year debt serviceSponsors: Subeck, Phair
This project provides $700,000 of General Obligation Debt funding in the Year 2013 for the purchase of land and development of a spray park in the Park Ridge Neighborhood.
Subeck says this is a placeholder in 2013 that is critical, people asked why a spray park. Spray park is in Park Ridge Neighborhood, when had bus tour had to wait for kids to get out of street for the bus to go through. 601 kids in the neighborhood, so they do, play in the street. NO front or back yards, half duplexes and apartment buildings and the duplexes don’t have lawns to play in. Near Elver Park, unfortunately McKenna Blvd is a huge barrier especially for young kids to get there. Have to walk blocks to get to the stop light then walk back, not safe for the kids. Want to encourage owner-occupied. It’s nearly 70% rental. Part of shifting that dynamic, they have to get the kids out of the street. Please support. Send a message that we will invest in the neighborhood and help manage the problems and manage the process.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff is supportive, wonders if it could be impact fee funding? Could they add that language.
Mayor says Subeck doesn’t have the floor, but Subeck says yes anyways.
Palm says he appreciates the sentiment. He has asked for a spray park ever since the one built on Park St, there is a process here, the Parks Department has a queue and a process, unless money donated, its hard to go back to people he represents and say that we have the same issues but there is a city wide view we have to take, he has been waiting in the queue and other alders have and he can’t support throwing it in the queue and jumping other projects. Other neighborhoods have the same issues.
Matt Phair says this is one of the neighborhoods that could become Allied Drive, there is little spending, no park or anything in the area, we need to keep the eye on the ball in this neighborhood.
Lauren Cnare asks Kevin Briski (Parks Superintendent) about how the parks planning process looks at finding entertainment options for kids, would you put in a spray park or what.
Briski says that they have not reviewed, studied or planned this parcel, brought by alders a few weeks back, ELver is a half a block away. The district is sits in is not park deficient, but not reviewed that property, we don’t own it. We haven’t reviewed or studied it.
Cnare asks about Palm concerns, how do you getting the queue, what process should we take.
Briski says that they would look at amenities in the area and parking and restrooms.
Cnare asks how quickly they could do that.
Briski says with other plans would take 6 months to a year to evaluate it, could do a quick study, but to do a formal review and planning process would take more time.
Canre asks about experience with teh spray park, how beneficial is it or what issues are there? Can’t use it 6 months out of the year.
Briski says program Cypress Park spray park 3 months of the year, staff it, mechanical issues are self contained and self sufficient, maintenance issues not an issue, cost of water and utilities. Overall use is pretty consistent. When it was first there, it was a rush to use, has tailed off, but stayed consistent.
Cnare asks if close off during other 9 months.
Briski says it is winterized, can play there but not spray.
Rhodes-Conway (more discussion than fire station says the mayor after reading off long list of speakers in queue), she is sympathetic, says may not be the solution, no street preventing people from using Warner, but they still don’t go. She says they leveraged volunteer resources, money and churches, schools to create activities for kids, they got them in to the park, and other institutions but did it in structured way where supervision and education and positive interaction with the community. Doesn’t want to tell alder what to do, but wanted to share that with less money have done more. Understands need for space, not sure it is a spray park, not inclined to support, but something along the lines if less restrictive.
Joe Clausius says this is out of the blue and suggests that alders meet with the staff, research it more and see what the need is, uncomfortable supporting it.
Bruer says heart goes out to alder sponsoring it, had same challenges but there is a process, more comfortable if going through a process to determine . . . missed a bunch . . . .talks about history of neighborhood centers, about Broadway, previous Mayor called it Soglinville, but the area has far exceeded the expectations, spray parks and neighborhood centers would be supportive of, but have to plan and have process, but heart wants to. Hopeful that amendment later.
Mayor unhappy with the electronic equipment, ready to pick it up and throw it, tells front row to duck.
Subeck says that if this was a playground it might be different, repeats information about neighborhood, they have done many of the things that Rhodes-Conway talked about. Wisconsin Youth tried programming in Elver, it crashed and burned. Wouldn’t want kids to go to the park, this isn’t about a spray park. Others saying that they wanted one too. Some need it, some want it. Briski says that not park deficient. She says values dropped 10% or more, this area is park deficient, this is on theing we could do to bring the neighborhood back, when you think of tippping points, this neighborhood is teetering. Every time we suggest something, all I hear but our district didn’t get it, when your district needs it, she’s support it. This is a truly needy neighborhood.
Schmidt asks BRiski to explain costs.
Briski says power, electic and mechanical proceses. It has more costs than a playground that is static.
Number for that?
Briski says no.
Bidar-Sielaff urges support, not designating the funding this year, we have a year to plan it, we can discuss again next year, we will have more data, this gives it a placeholder to work towards, maybe next year we go another way. It is thoughtful to come forward with a proposal that does something specific for the neighborhood. They need it, we wanted Olive Jones and appreciates the support, we don’t have that need, my neighborhood doesn’t have poverty and need and our job as alder sometimes is parochial, sometimes downtown specific, what happens there affects all of us, like west and south and north side, these are our neighborhoods that need our support and help. If alders think this would help, let them have a year of planning.
Cnare says they probably need a park, but 700K for spray park that can be sued 3 months of the year is hard. That is costly, even tho teenager shouldn’t play on kids swingset, they can use it later at night. She would support it if they change from spray park to something different.
Rummel says nothing happen for a year, would lean toward a process.
Phair says part of more comprehensive look that we are doing, and to answer Rhodes-Conway, we have a lot of what is going on in Brentwood going on, small investments that have paid off, they think a park is ok, that would be a place to do programming, this is just one piece of the puzzle, will need to pay attention to this part of town for years.
Mayor says Subeck already spoken twice, she indicates she wants to make a motion. He asks if there is any objection, she says substitute amendment, takes out word spray and replace with neighborhood and on $700K to indicate that $300K from park impact fees. Seconded.
Subeck says this was in the Southwest Side Neighborhood plan, not out of nowhere.
Clear clarifies that could still be a spray park.
Steve King, also say that it is in the plan. Has taken several tours too. Sometimes when at tipping point we don’t have the luxury of process, thinks it will come together and they will have a plan otherwise he will vote against.
Scott Resnick asks about park impact fees.
Briski says the have development fees and about 30 segregated districts that are impact fees and a portion of the fees got to development in the district. (Not sure I got that right or that he described it right)
Motion passes, on the amendment to amendment. The full amendment passes with one no.
14 Parks — Hudson Beach
General Borrowing 110,000
Other Funds (40,000)
Total 70,000
Average Future year debt service $12,895Sponsors: Alds. Rummel, Bidar-Sielaff, Schmidt
Increase funding for the Hudson Beach repair project. The 2012 Executive Budget contains funding of $40,000 from impact fees (SI25 Olbrich Park) and $40,000 from private fundraising, for total project costs of $80,000. This amendment provides funding of $110,000 of General Obligation Debt and $40,000 of impact fees (SI25 Olbrich Park), for total project costs of $150,000.
Rummel says this is a project she inherited, not always easy to get things done in parks, in previous budgets Cieslewicz had a neighborhood match of up to $100K, honestly this is an infrastructure safety issue, described as having a cliff. Rock face, wall is deteriorated and its not safe. She decided to ask to fund it with g.o. so they don’t have to wait.
Ellingson asks if it is a cliff and if people swim there?
Briski says that Hudson Park Beach has a 4 foot retaining wall adjacent to the shoreline, that is the cliff, installed and designed that way many moons ago. It has been in the queue and presenting plans to neighborhood since 2007, they too would like the project completed.
Ellingson asks if people swim there.
Very little, used to be a lifeguarded beach, removed 10 or 15 years ago. Soem neighborhood residents use it.
Is the point of repair so people will swim ther eor worried about people falling off. They can’t dive into the water, you would be diving into the shore.
Ellingson asks what the concern is. Is it to swim or make it safe.
BRiski says its about access to the shore line. The plan presented and approved would terrace the retaining wall to the street 8 – 10 feet. Beach is 10 – 15 feet for shoreline with vegitation on each side in a long linear park. More access than safety
Ellingson asks what street?
Lakeland.
Ellingson says sympathetic to it being on the drawing board, not sympathetic to a bech, one taking away in her district cuz not used, a lot easier and volunteered to put it back cuz just sand and grass, for this money seems like other beaches they can go to, wants Rummel to address further.
Rummel says I should have been more sarcastic when I called it a beach, it is a cliff. If could decommission as a beach, I would have, it is not a beach, this would make it more usable space and a way for people to get to the beach.
Maniaci supports, she has run into it on the shoreline and the matching of private citizens for public improvements. Tenney Park shelter is a laborious process under public-private deal you worked out, people say that this is what their taxes should go to, they deserve a safe way. James Madison Park 220K to redo shoreline, broken concrete, a lot needed work, very nuts and bolts thing we should support, no problem using g.o. debt. Has a problem telling them to pay for it.
Cnare says that she wants to be consistent, dad played on the beach and supports it.
Johnson says she likes this price tag more than Edgewater. (She said some other things, but I got distracted)
Amendment 12
Take it off the table.
May says that it is not a requirement, it is up to you what you wish to do, also resolution you adopted said it would go into the parks capital fund.
Maniaci asks them to support it, straight forward amendment.
Rhodes-Conway says inclination would be ta put the money in the Affordable Housing Trust fund, will vote against, should put money in when should, don’t oppose improvements in park but missed opportunity.
Voice vote, close call, ayes have it.
15 Parks — Churchill Heights Shelter
General Borrowing
Other Funds 45,000
Total 45,000
Average Future year debt serviceSponsors: Clausius, Clear
This project provides funding for the installation of a shelter at Churchill Heights Park. Other funding is from Park Development Impact Fees (SI22 Reindahl District).
Clausius spoke to it, passed on voice vote.
16 Parks — Stevens Street
General Borrowing
Other Funds 15,000
Total 15,000
Average Future year debt serviceSponsors: Alds. Bidar-Sielaff, Schmidt
This project provides funding for improvements in Stevens Street Park. Plans include adding fencing; other minor improvements may also be considered. Other funding is from Park Development Impact Fees (SI27 Vilas-Brittingham District).
Passes on a voice vote.
RECESS
They take a recess. 10 minutes. It’s 10:20.
(NOTE: I MISS KRISTIN CZUBKOWSKI!)
Bidar-Sielaff bangs the gavel, looking for the Mayor, Cnare takes the chair . . . 10:35. They start the roll and they will see who shows up.
ON TO THE EDGEWATER!
17 Edgewater
General Borrowing 12,700,000
Other Funds
Total 12,700,000
Average Future year debt service $1,488,827Sponsors: Alds. Clear, Maniaci, Cnare, King, Resnick, Skidmore, Schmidt, Bruer, Clausius, Phair
Increase the reauthorization from 2011 by $12.7M for financial assistance for the expansion of the Edgewater Hotel, to a total of $16M as was included in the 2011 adopted capital budget. The debt service for General Obligation borrowing is TIF eligible.
Clear makes a substitute, on their desk. He reads additional sentence, reauthorization contingent on proof of financing and construction terms for the entire scope of the project.
Questions of staff
Subeck asks if they could do everything if the info gets in on time from Dunn.
May says there are 4 things that need to be done.
1. May says proof of financing has not been reviewed, just got it today.
2. Construction Contracts, to figure out TIF
3. Then TIF financing documents, this is a loan agreement yet to be negotiated, a note, guarantees, dispersing agreement, mortgage agreement, need to be done by end of year, they are staff duties. Just those things it is well nigh impossible to complete the documents by the the end of the year. He is more pessimistic than the mayor, agrees with Dunn.
4. The last is a borrowing resolution, not included this year. If we had $16K lying around could do that, but question about if that would be prudent in these circumstances, borrowing cannot be done by the end of hte year.
A couple other things. Statement on the not negotiating, he thought it was mutually agreed upon, financing was not available, not sure when or if court decision coming down.
The Escrow agreement is in place, it was at their request, they would not normally have done this.
Subeck asks what is escrow agreement?
Large number of agreements on land use approvals and other things, Dunn asked for the final terms so all ready to go so once conditions met we didn’t have to finalize them. Normally negotiate and execute all of them later.
Subeck asks if requested to get moving on those items? Did they express interest?
May says would not have spoken to him, but wasn’t aware of it.
Could we have negotiated?
We could have, but might have had to redo them, and judgement that to spend time didn’t makes sense since serious question about if going forward.
May says that agreement has to be worked on by both sides, not just the city.
Verveer asks questions about the assessments, I was fixing some of my bad typing and missed it. Asks how they would assess the value.
Assessor (Mike Kurth) says that they would look at income and compare to other numbers and would come up with $45 – 53M depending on the economy. They haven’t analyzed their numbers to see if it makes sense, they do feel some of the numbers are a little on the high side. If they used their numbers, they look at $35 to $45 million depending upon the economy.
Verveer asks if the analysis was done recently, or was it done with the TIF deal.
Kurth says it was years ago, no updated numbers, this was the original project.
Verveer asks if heard anything tonight that would change his mind.
No, nothing different. We don’t understand if condos or not, assuming 190 rooms, no updates to know. A lot of the studies and details we did not get.
Verveer sasy we heard $53M, based on condos, hotel and parking.
$35 – 45M is still their number, almost $300K per room is high compared to other hotel rooms, says Kurth, they thought the ADR was high compared to other hotels.
Verveer asks if argued that $53M is not the correct value and the argument is that city under values all hotels, what would you say?
Kurth says we do not, we are close to 100% value on commercial property including hotels.
Bruer asks about the Hilton and if the Assessor went through the numbers recently.
Kurth says no.
Bruer asks about why we have not looked at their books or verified income or revenue stream.
Kurth says we would have done that but don’t know how recent. WE can get info on appeal but often hard to get cuz of confidentiality.
Bruer asking something I’m not sure I understand. (i.e. not a question) He says we don’t know the value of the Hilton unless they appeal.
Kurth says in this case we didn’t, sometimes we have info, we have room tax, but we were nto charged with doing that.
Bruer asks about Hilton, says concerned about projections sold to the council at the time, today is the Marcus Corporation paying shortfall of projected increment that was in the devleopment agreement.
Joe Gromacki says since 2000 they pay $400K per year, assessed value was supposed to be $18M, but it is the same as it was supposed to be give or take $500K or $1M, but that is the average.
Bruer asks how we know the value is the true value of the properties if can’t go audit their gross receipts.
Gromacki tosses the ball back to Mike Kurth. He says we can’t pull books every year, but we look at economics year to year and keep market value based on other sales of the commercial class, they adjust everything until can look at individual properties.
Bruer asks how much assistance we gave to the Marcus Hotel.
Gromacki says that the file did not have any record of a TIF run on the Hilton, staff was requested to put together a report, how much would it have been in 1995, they recreated using proposed 18M and mil rate and levy and equalized assessed value and did projections and using that number, it was $5M, or $4.3 and using the amount of TIF, that was 300%.
What is the Edgeawter?
142%
Bruer says there is no paper trail on the Hilton.
Gromacki says that there is nothing in the files.
Rummel asks city attorney about opening remarks, when say negotiate, are there still things on the table we can ask for, will details of public access, price for public access.
He says no, dealt with and approved.
May says 15 basic terms and conditions, TIF loan document will be 25 pages, items like when money disbursed which will depend upon when construction takes place, those will take negotiating. In a large loan we will be very careful with the details.
Rummel asks what if the court case is appealed.
May says that if developer could show financing it doesn’t matter, but developer said that he could not get financing with the case pending. If the financing is ready we can proceed.
Rummel says she wants Gromacki to understand the 65 ordinance. It gives the public right to access to building, we have it already, it was changed with the renegotiation, but we have the right of way (driveway) and lower part – that has a value, is there a value on that, it is offered as equity, but it is something that we already own, would like to hear more about it.
Gromacki says long question, he says for those who are new, equity participation policy for 30 years, if the project is ever sold while district still open, even if TIF loan repaid, the would have to pay percentage of the sale (varies over the year), it is the percentage of TIF in the project capped at amount of TIF. For Edgewater, if sold for $100K, we have 17% in project, we could get it, but capped at $16M cuz that is the amount in the project. That provision was problematic to the developer, much discussion. Proposal from developer was to offer the value of the conservation easement at that time, air rights has value, and they will provide an assessed value on that, and they cannot build in that area. The value would be the value of what could be built. That was brought to board of estimates and the council and found acceptable by that body. Developer would have to give us an appraisal that would determine if it meets the value. You can assess it by costs, or other ways.
Rummel asks if we know that now.
Yes, at closing. It is contingent – we need to add that to May’s list of things to do, not sure if needed at closing or after 90 days. I think it was at closing cuz otherwise we wouldn’t close.
Rummel asks what we get?
Gromacki says value for value exchange, the value of the air rights, traded as a commodity, the premise is that instead of getting $16M in the future, perhaps, up front we get $16M asset that means no other development can occur. (WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE!!!)
Rummel asks what happens if there is an appeal, what is the basis. NOt enough income.
Kurth says that we look at valuation based on comprable sales or cost (not often) or income approach. If income approach they have to give us the data we request. That is the way we would evaluate it.
Rummel says several hotels have appealed, what happened.
Kurth says that very large decreases in value based on economy of hotels, so large decreases for 6 – 8 hotels in the city. Of course, if economy increases we could increase them.
Subeck asks lawsuit, since that time, has the developer asked for additional negotiations.
May says not that he is aware of.
At any time since the budget was introduced did they contact you.
Not that he was aware of.
Veveer going alphabetically, he’s on F – Finance Department, asks about deal with Hilton, appreciates the memo. Can you walk us through that and the calculations.
David Schmeidicke, Finance Director, says there are CDA bonds and they own the land (?) and there is debt service on the bonds and that debt service is paid in combination of parking revenues (block 89) and developer payments (both) and TIF credit and that is how the debt service is paid through a lease arrangement. CDA leases to city, city leases to developers. The TIF credit, both from icneption of project and to present day to end of pay off of bonds, the amount of increment relative to the other revenue streams is about 36% of the total amount block 89 and 59% Hilton. Instead of a city subsidy, not the principal of the borrowing, because of the revenue streams, the TIF amount is the percentage multiplied by the principal of the CDA bonds. Block 89 is $10 in TIF support of the CDA borrowing. Hilton is 7.6M.
Mayor asks difference between loan from CDA or TIF.
Schmeidicke, TIF loan given directly to the developer, receives dollars and uses for the project, in CDA, there is a lease arrangement, and other revenue streams, instead of just the increment.
Verveer asks about calculations on the debt service costs for the project. What is is with $3.3 and what is it for $12.7. Explain the worksheet.
Schmeidicke says that DAMN! Missed it!
Verveer asks about $16M, would this be one of the largest items in the budget except the library, what is the impact on the dragon tail chart.
Schmiedicke says that dragon tail si analysis of general debt and shows it as a percent of operating budget. Look at debt service and predicted projects. In making the calculation, they don’t include TIF borrowing.
So we borrow every dollar.
Yes, and its paid back with increment.
Clear asks about TID 25, why through the CDA, seems unnecessarily complex, what is the advantage.
He says his understanding is this is not on our borrowing ledger but on the CDA. Its difficult to do publicly owned parking structures using TIF directly. Key reason was not to have the size of the borrowing on the books.
So parking is publicly owned.
Yes, and leased.
Clear asks what a note on the TIF report means.
He says TIF is open until bonds are repaid, and decisions could be made that until the amortization schedule is met, we could pay off early, but would open option to purchase the structure and other things. Enough cash in tid 25, but then relive developers of their contributions so there are a number of issues to be worked out.
Don’t we have to close the TIF distinct if paid off.
Yes, but not til 2022.
Maniaci asks about newspaper articles and how he got $7.6.
He says look at cash flow to repay the bonds and total of all revenue streams and what part is TID supported and Hilton is 59%. He uses the percentage to apply to the principle, its a general calculation.
Missed some discussion.
Bruer talking, also missed it. Schmiedicke also didn’t understand.
Mayor gavels Bruer, asks him to ask a question . . . he focuses. I’m not very focused, sorry.
Mayor says that this is the 5th time the question is asked. He will answer, if someone had thought of it we might have done it different, but these are totally different projects.
Bruer starts to argue, people call for a question.
Jill Johnson asks if each TIF project is unique.
Schmeidicke says yes, different projected increment and time frame.
Jill Johnson asks if TIF is an unlimited resource.
Schmeidicke says no more than 12% of equalized value by state law. Madison is at 2% of equalized value. Other limiter is Joint Review Board approval.
Can you explain the TIF development. What are the assumptions.
Schmeidicke explains the process . . . I’m not typing it . . . this is an absurd time to be “learning” about TIF.
Johnson says assume 6% increase in property values, any thought that assumption should change.
He says 20 and 10 year lookback that is true, last 3 – 5 years it is not.
missed some more, trying to get blog to reload.
To sum up, assumption about levy, property values, mill rate, discount rate for net present value, so a number of assumptions that could be wrong and all before get to point looking at a project.
He says no, after project is in concept stage. Discussion back and forth.
Verveer is on M – Monona Terrace, asks Greg McManors about the hotel rooms would mean to Monona Terrace and long term outlook.
He says not an asset to Monona Terrace, in Hunden we were looking a 1200 feet. It will benefit University more than Monona Terrace. Issue of rooms and quality. We need to constantly improve. Before Hyatt, Hilton was most recently built, they need quality and quantity of rooms improved. It will be an asset to the community, more offers to our customers. Will force hoteliers to update inventory, will see improvement in quality over time.
Verveer asks if it will compete.
He says if the market is stable, it is competing, hoping pie is getting bigger. If you think we are at our apex, that problem, but if you think growing, then will complement.
Verveer asks about room blocks needed for Monona Terrace?
This will not help directly, may have some bi-products.
Verveer on Planning Department, about condo vs hotel room and other various assumptions.
Gromackis walks through the history – for joint review board, variations of number of condos, 4, 6 or 10, the range of values was $37 for hotel and $4 – 6 for condos so $43, we were skeptical on condominiums. We decided we were out of the business of TIF for condos and market was done, tried to be conservative. Since that time, cuz of lawsuit did other runs, 1 year or 2 year wait. What it told them was the longer we wait, the more the district picks up instead of the developer. 3.5 – 5M.
Verveer asks about $35 – 45M.
Gromacki says that is what they used.
Since joint review board, what number are you using for how much the project pays back.
Gromacki says the $12M district, 4.3M, ealier settlement 11M for dsitrict and project $5M. He has another at 4.8M. Up to $5.4M.
Verveer asks about TIF policy exceptions. Equity kicker, one registrant said 7.
Joe Gromacki says still 4.
Verveer asks about blunt honesty, several enlightening quotes, but one quote want to ask you to respond to, were you misquoted. He asks about “I was pointing out we were looking at least 4 exceptions to policies” so I walked away and the directive from the Mayor’s office was “go with it”, why exceptions were major.
Gromacki says typically when they bring projects, there may be one, but 3 and 4 is questionable. When looking at it and the particular exceptions that all the TIF policy deliberations the equity kicker, 50% and personal guarantee survived (and one more), the four horsemen of the TIF policy, we wanted to get compromise on that. As far of the article the order is a little backwards, we had the meeting, went back and had problems and went to mayor and they told us to work with ti, that is what we do if you give us that order.
Verveer asks about the “four horsemen” – the 50%, self supporting, equity kicker, personal guarantee. We did not waiver?
Gromacki says that there have been exceptions but never that many. And that was concerning for us. They try to reduce exceptions to policy, that was their first blush reaction. That wasn’t the case. A majority of council wanted it at the time, we were given marching orders and that is what we do.
Maniaci says not TIF run on the Hilton.
Gromacki says he can’t say there wasn’t one, none in the file, spent years looking, can’t find it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
But on this we have 37 runs, isn’t this the backbone.
Yes, since I was here, can’t speak to before.
Maniaci asks about since 2009 these have been the policies, can you walk me through where int he time line we got the TIF policies we currently have. Correct me if I’m wrong, we put policies in place when we wanted condos downtown.
Gromacki says on condos, that was the assessment of the market at the time, and then we switched to affordable housing. Prior to Edgewater.
Maniaici says no money for condos, correct? On E Washington Ave on multi-use development, many of them will hit against multiple TIF rules, they are not a single use.
Gromacki says he has heard that, haven’t seen the applications or proposals, but heard it form developers and other staff.
Maniaci asks if these projects are in a model we didn’t anticipate when we did the policies.
Gromacki says the question is what?
Maniaici asks if multi-use projects considered
King says this is absurd, calls the question.
Cnare asks if second.
Mayor takes the chair.
Cnare says “good”.
He explains procedures, tells him to move the previous question, seconded. Mayor explains takes 2/3 vote, ends debate, would come to an immediate vote on the questions, amendment 17.
Voice vote, nos have it.
Rummel asks what $16M gets us? What should we hope to get in terms of tax base?
Gromacki says $160M.
Rummel says that policies were adopted by the council, she was on the committee. We achieved goal to help downtown and more people live there now, downtown is more diverse, Brandon, Konkel, Snaborn, Widder and others decided to focus on economic development, would allow mixed use development.
Bruer asks about exceptions. Did Dean Brasser speak to policy rules at BOE.
Gromacki says we had an internal policy that up to 50 – 60% discounting and Dean recommended to go to 50%, that was informal.
Bruer asks if former Soglin adminsitration there was a equity kicker.
30 years or more.
Personal guarantee?
Since the beginning.
Bruer asks about equity kicker, personal guarantee and 50% rule in HIlton?
No equity participation, or personal guarantee in those.
Bruer says there were exceptions.
Gromacki says that all had equity kickers and personal guarantees except those two.
CHECK IN
Cnare wants to check in – keep going or stop? Members have to work, people have been waiting, have to balance thos.
They have a motion to take a straw poll.
Few want to leave, many want to stay.
Rummel says finish this item or all.
Mayor says decided to stay through this one, then decide.
VOTE ON EDGEWATER
No other discussion. Mayor calls for vote.
10-10 vote. Declines to vote, motion fails.
No = Verveer, WEier, Bidar-Sielaff, Ellingson, Johnson, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon and Subeck.
18 Edgewater job goals
General Borrowing
Other Funds
Total
Average Future year debt serviceSponsors: Solomon, Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Add the following language to the project narrative: “During the operational portion of the project, the following shall apply:
oDeveloper agrees that it or its designated hotel operator will enter into a neutrality agreement with any unions appropriate for and interested in the project, whereby the developer and/or its designated operator (1) agrees to remain neutral to the efforts of any union to organize and represent hotel employees and (2) agrees to allow for an orderly and expeditious mechanism for the determination of representational status, provided the developer and/or operator shall not be prevented from correcting misstatements or distortions of fact.
o Developer shall strive toward a goal of 25% of all project jobs exceed living wage ordinance requirements by 20% and/or through the provision of employer sponsored benefits equivalent to 20% excess. However, this requirement is automatically satisfied if those jobs are included in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expressly states the CBA supersedes living wage requirements.
o Of the 25% jobs exceeding living wage, 15% should be held by targeted individuals.
oTargeted populations shall be defined as 1) low income individuals making less than $64,000 (HUD Dane County definition), 2) underemployed individuals, 3) veterans, 4) minorities, and/or 5) women and with an emphasis on residents of the City of Madison.
oDeveloper will provide an annual report to the city for each of the ten years following the construction phase. If two consecutive reports show performance is less than 80% of the goal, then developer will meet with city staff and selected members of the Common Council to determine mutually agreeable additional steps that will be taken to meet identified goals.”
Place on file.
19 Capital Gateway — Match for Brownfields
Grants
General Borrowing
Other Funds
Total
Average Future year debt serviceSponsors: Alds. Rhodes-Conway, Maniaci, Rummel
Amend the second sentence of the narrative to read: “$5.5 million is provided for financial assistance for potential development
of the former Don Miller propertiesprojects within TID #36, which will include up to $80,000 to be used for the required City cost-share for two EPA Brownfield Clean-up Grants for the 800 North Block of E. Washington Avenue.”
Passes.
20A SW Side Community Center
General Borrowing 900,000
Other Funds
Total 900,000
Average Future year debt service $105,507Sponsors: Alds. Subeck, Phair
Add funding in 2012 for the purchase of land and rehabilitation/redevelopment of a Community Center serving the greater Southwest side.
Subeck withdraws A and B, no objections. So ordered.
20B SW Side Community Center — split 2012/2013
General Borrowing 550,000
Other Funds
Total 550,000
Average Future year debt service $64,477Sponsors: Alds. Subeck, Phair
Add funding of $550,000 in 2012 for the purchase of land for a Community Center serving the greater Southwest side. Provide funding of $350,000 in 2013 for associated rehabilitation/redevelopment costs.
21 Capital Budget — Reauthorization Report
General Borrowing
Other Funds
Total
Average Future year debt serviceSponsors: Alds. Subeck, Johnson
Staff will include with the Executive Capital Budget a report indicating which projects are included as reauthorizations from the current year. The report will also list those current year projects that will be canceled or postponed to a future year in the Capital Improvement Program.
Passes no discussion!
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
First
Technical amenmdment that results in debt for the roads by $1M
Palm says thought not permitting intorductions from the floor.
May recommends agianst?
Mayor says that is why he asked if objections.
Rummel is confused.
Mayor says if don’t adopt it, we leave the money floating.
No discusison.
Motion passes.
Second
Repairs to workshop space, no objection to consideration.
Rhodes-Conway asks if this is protection against contingency in case not relocate Frist ST. facilitiey, is this stop gap or bigger renovation.
STaff says stop gap, if relocate won’t spend the money,otherwise have to fix the roof.
RECESS
Til tomorrow night, 5:30, this room.
Cnare asks taff what they added, SChmiedicke sasy 94.6 go borrowing, 196M, less than board of estimates borrowing.
Mayor announces that if anyone wants to take the three volumes of books back upstairs he would appreciate it, they are the contracts on the Hilton.
GODD NIGHT!! Sorry, I stopped even trying to proof read.
