Here’s my run down of day 2 of the City Council Budget deliberations:
Last Night we dealt with amendments 7 – 13, plus an added #14 on the Capital Budget and passed the Capital Budget. We started the Operating Budget and dealt with amendments 1 – 6, 21 & 39. So, we’ve handled 23 of 55 amendments plus a little over 3 hours of public testimony. We have 32 amendments left to consider tonight. Here’s a brief summary of what we passed.
CAPITAL BUDGET
Amendment #7 – Santiago Rosas moved reconsideration of the improvements to James Madison Park. He had asked the Comptroller Dean Brasser to provide us with a memo about his thoughts on how it was a bad budgeting practice to use a one time influx of money to offset the Operating Budget. The comptroller’s comments were as follows:
It is the Operating Budget impact that I find troubling. My concerns are twofold:
1) The $1,200,000 land sales revenue is a very speculative revenue source. I will always argue that we should build our Operating Budget using revenue sources that are predictable and assured, and I do not believe the proposed land sales revenue meets that test. Typically, our revenue estimates are based on solid past trend data and known fees and rates. Without a known buyer or a consensus to sell the properties in question, we cannot say with any confidence that the budgeted revenue will materialize. And if the City does not receive payment for these properties within the calendar year, we will face a substantial hole in the 2007 Operating Budget.
2) The proposal to see land in the vicinity of James Madison Park is a fairly unique opportunity. Essentially, this is a one-time revenue source that is being used to fund ongoing operating costs. It is unlikely that such a revenue stream can be expected in future years, unless the City adopts a policy of selling parkland or other property on a consistent annual basis. In the absence of such a policy, the City will face a $1,200,000 Operating Budget hole in 2008, even if the James Madison Park land is sold in 2007.
As I tried to describe last night, the City has historically deposited property sales proceeds, when received, in the General Land Acquisition Fund. Then, through the Capital Budget process or mid-year budget amendments, the known and available funds were used by the council to purchase specific parcels of land for park expansion, or undeveloped land on the periphery for future City use. This policy of “banking” property sales process was used effectively to purchase desirable lands when rare opportunities occurred.
The motion to reconsider passed. I offered a substitute that would spend $200,000 in 2007 and $1M in 2008 on park improvements. Ald. Brandon proposed a substitute which Ald. Golden amended. The issue was tabled to work on it further and we eventually passed an amendment that read as follows:
Reduce other funding to $200,000.
Replace current language with the following:
The project provides for improvements at James Madison Park and development of a detailed master plan for the park. Expenditures will not occur until funds from the sale of related properties are reviewed by the City. Other funding consists of land and property sales revenue.All the proceeds from property sales will be deposited in the General Land Acquisition Fund Account #810347.
This amendment essentially does what I proposed, with a slight twist/dirty trick by Ald. Brandon. It may prohibit us using excess land sales proceeds for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as allowed in MGO 4.22. I attempted to make an amendment that would have allowed making this an 11 vote item at a later date. Alders Webber, Benford, Bruer, Cnare, Konkel, Olson, Sanborn, Thomas and Verveer voted to do this. Alder Brandon, Compton, Golden, Gruber, Knox, Radomski, Rosas and Skidmore voted against. Ald. King was out of the room. Ald. Palm “wasn’t paying attention” and abstained. Ald. VanRooy was absent. I’m not sure how many Alders actually understood the issues, but the motion failed (the Common Council requires 11 votes for anything to pass regardless of how many people are present). So, it was a bittersweet victory for me, excellent news for James Madison Park, but it may end up costing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund a million dollars, so not so good news for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The amendment ended up passing on a voice vote, with me being the sole “no” because of the “dirty trick”.
Amendment #8 -Removing $3,000,000 for funding for the Mid-State St. Parking Ramp. This amendment would have no effect on the taxpayers bills because it is funded out of the Parking Utility. This is similar to our discussion last year when Alder Webber and I wanted to remove this funding.
02392 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT # 7 – Parking Utility / Mid-State Street Ramp, Project No. 5, p. 114
A motion was made by Ald. Konkel, seconded by Ald. Webber, to Adopt. The
motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Konkel, Palm and Webber (3)
No: Benford, Sanborn, Brandon, Bruer, Cnare, Compton, Golden, King,
Gruber, Olson, Knox, Jr., Rosas, Skidmore, Thomas, Van Rooy, Verveer
and Radomski (17)
Non Voting: Cieslewicz (1)
This year the amendment to do this was sponsored by Brandon, Sanborn, Cnare, Skidmore, Knox, Palm, Compton, VanRooy, Radomski, Thomas. Verveer made a substitute motion that would:
Replace the project narrative with the following:
This project would provide funding for the land acquisition, plan preparation, site preparation and construction of approximately 200 public parking stalls in the Mid-State Street area. Initiation of the project is dependent upon demonstrated support and promotion from the Downtown Business Improvement District, the Greater State Street Business Association, Downtown Madison Incorporated, the neighborhood and other related agencies and individuals for locating such a facility. The Buckeye surface lot has been chosen as the proposed site. This lot currently produces approximately $150,000 in parking revenues. Common Council approval is necessary before any funds may be expended.
This substitute passed on a voice vote.
Amendment #9 – To remove borrowing of $500,000 in borrowing for the project. This amendment would have saved the taxpayer $64,752. After a brief statement, Ald. Brandon acknowledged he didn’t have the votes and the item was “placed on file”.
Amendment #10 – Removing $70,000 in borrowing for the East Isthmus Arts Incubator. This would have saved the taxpayers $9,065. I wish I had the notes but Ald. Olson listed off the many jobs created and businesses started in other incubators around the City. These incubators have a tremendous economic impact, and yet, several champions of economic development sponsored and voted to remove this funding. This motion failed and the Arts Incubator will be funded. Voting to remove funding were Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Palm, Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas. Voting to keep the funding were Webber, Benford, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, King, Knox, Konkel, Olson, Rosas, Verveer. VanRooy absent.
Amendment #11 – Removing $300,000 in borrowing for the TIF 10% set aside program that provides affordable housing. This may or may not have had a $38,851 impact on the budget. If the funds were available in the TIF district, the borrowing may not need to occur. The borrowing is necessary because in the past, developers have come forward with projects approved by the neighborhood and the funding was not available. Voting to keep the funding were Webber, Benford, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, King, Konkel, Olson, Rosas, Verveer. Voting to remove the funding were Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Knox, Palm, Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas.
Amendment #12 – Removing $1.7M in borrowing for the Badger-Ann-Park and Todd Dr-Beltline project. This would have saved the taxpayers $220,158 in the operating budget. This item had alot of discussion but was “placed on file” with voice vote that contained a few persistent “no” votes.
Amendment #13a & b – These were competing ideas about how to handle the excessive manganese in well #29. Neither of the amendments would impact the taxpayer. Ald. Cnare’s (amendment a) proposal allowed the Water Utility to look at re-siting the well at the same time as they did a pilot test on a filter. Ald. Brandon’s version would have only looked at the re-siting of the well. And if that didn’t work, we could be back in the same place we are now. Since we need to get the well up and running by 2008, it became apparent that plan a was more reasonable. Plan a passed on a voice vote, plan b was placed on file.
Amendment 14 – This was introduced from the floor by Ald. Gruber. It was borrowing of $404,000 for the Automated Collection Equipment Project. Funding was from the Fleet Service Reserves and therefore had no impact to the taxpayer. This motion passed on a unanimous vote.
Capital Budget Final Vote – Ok – here’s where it got nutty. Before voting on the budget, Ald. Gruber moved for a 5 minute recess at around 9:40. When we returned from break, Ald. Gruber explained that there were several projects on the periphery that he could have cut, but that he didn’t. This started a discussion about our budget process, the Council’s role in the budget, micromanagement, periphery vs downtown voting, etc etc etc. It’s the subject of a whole other blog for another day. Around 10:30, we finally voted. The following people voted against the operating budget: Brandon, Compton, Gruber, Sanborn. VanRooy was absent. The remaining people voted for the budget.
Whew! Check back here a little later this morning for updates on the amendments to the Operating Budget.
