This will be live blogged, i.e. not proof read. Some details will be missing. Will be updated infrequently.
Roll Call
All here except McKinney. (she arrived just a few minutes late)
Suspension of the Rules
This is done so they can take things out of order and introduce things at the meeting. Passes.
Honoring Resolutions
Item 1 – Poet wasn’t able to make it, so it is referred.
Item 2 – Hispanic Heritage Month. Resolution read by Shiva Bidar, Karen Coller accepted the proclamation. Hopes there are more ways to do this in the future in a more integrated type of way. That everyone has the same opportunities in the future. She hopes next year we reflect on the heritage of Madison that we are building together. They are going to be more vocal in 2016 and she hopes people reach out to develop more innovative programs for the community. Veronica Lazo also said that they were as a community underfunded and we need more services for their community. Several people were introduced in the audience.
Item 3 – Miss Viva Mexico La Movida Director spoke a few words of thanks.
Early Comments
Anthony Dugdale (sp?) – 71 – Labor Peace agreement. He works for Unite Here! Their union represents hotel workers. He has been working on the JDS project. He says that Madison wants to have labor peace protections before TIF is granted, so he has been working with Bob Dunn and others from Hammes Group. A few hours ago he got a new proposal but they are actively engaged in conversations. Madison is making a huge investment and to protect that investment, the development agreement should say that there should be a labor-peace agreement before November. They have reached agreements with all major hotels, in other right to work places, its not a big deal, they can do it. It just requires some plain language in the development agreement.
Two other speakers on 81 and 85, DeMarb says that they can’t comment because they are for introduction. Patty Coffee and Greg Gulembiek are not allowed to speak.
Consent Agenda
You can find the info on these items here.
4 is a public hearing (capital budget)
7 is override of mayor veto.
Extra majority items are 9, 15, 26, 27 – there require 15 votes and the vote was unanimous.
35 – there is an amendment by the city attorney (see language in link above)
70 – re-refer to Sept 29 special meeting.(Judge Doyle Square)
71 – re-refer to Sept 29 special meeting (Judge Doyle Square)
85 – Body camera report (additoinal referrals to Equal Opportunities Commission and Public Safety Review Board)
86 – referred to City Attorney not Risk Manager.
Items Separated for discussion
10 – HMO and employee raises
33 – Nehemiah $25,000
34 – Park Edge Community Center
37 – there are resistrants on an assessment
56 – Deputy Mayor 1 position
Public Hearings on Capital Budget
No registrations on the Capital Budget.
Mad City Frites
14 votes needed to override the veto. There are two registrations. Joel Gratz speaks to support the override, he thinks it is a waste of time to veto this, he understands that vetos happen when there is disagreement, the mayor was well heard and the decision was unanimous. We know what the outcome is going to be, this waste of time is common. We also have it with the bench sitting ordinance, it has zero support, but we spend time on this instead of things that might be productive. The mayor says this isn’t an attack on an individual entrepreneur, but he disagrees, it would have made sense with Hop Cat, but this is an existing restaurant. This is saying that we hope you fail so we can have this spot for a retail spot. He says it is disingenuous to say this is going waste money since we threw away art work ($200,000) and tearing down a $50 – 100,000 bus shelter. And now you have Judge Doyle Square across the street. The new employees and people attending the hotel will want more restaurants. He goes over his three minutes. Ahrens requests an additional minute. Mayor asks if they will let the speaker continue his rant. He finishes. DeMarb takes the chair. Steve King (I think) said he wanted to call the question before the mayor spoke.
Mayor Paul Soglin says that several things were attributed to his position by council members, he says he can offend people in his own way on his positions on the issues, but he asks them not to attribute things he did not say. He didn’t criticize the operator, except to say that they will give a liquor license to anyone that opens a restaurant. He says the issue of public safety is a great concern, he did not attribute that to this license. His focus is singular. It is about a conscious decision to reaffirm decade after decade that State St. should be a destination for retail. A healthy downtown must have a healthy retail center and that we are dedicated to that, but over the last 10 years we are no longer faithful to the commitment that is in plan after plan that the council has ratified over the years. He wants to continue with the study and analysis, but if we are going to abandon State St. as a retail destination, lets do that with discussion befitting Madison WI. He will not be silenced, he feels that strongly about the commitment to 240,000 who just wrote another check to rebuild 2 blocks of State St. 2 years ago. If you think we can’t control events, remember (he gives history lesson on rail, the creation of the automobile and the end of WWII and how downtowns were abandoned. He doesn’t care if its DMI or the city council, we have to have vision and think into the future and we can’t abandon the notion that retail can survive in the downtown. Otherwise the downtown would have died decades ago. When he hears present trends are inevitable, what if the people we inherited our seats from felt the same way for generations, we’d probably all be living in downtown Fitchburg. It seems we have a challenge before us. He’s not going to give up or give in to a bleak forecast for our society and he believes retail can survive and that the technology that created Amazon and eBay can be used to create a viable downtown. Right now, inch by inch, store by store, block by block we are succuombing not just to the deterioration of the downtown, but of our city. Cities don’t exist without a downtown core.
Paul Skidmore says his last ALRC was his first as a member, he shares the concern about waiting for the study to be done and he voted against the liquor license at the last council meeting. He says it was not against the applicant or the business, but he feels they need to take a look at the policy before thye grant more licenses. He is a supporter of downtown, business and the State St. area. He says its a good business and applicant and he will vote to uphold the veto, he knows he might be the only vote. He says there was a collegial discussion at ALRC and is disappointed it went downhill from there.
There is a registrant – Fernando Connor – he is a member of ALRC, he asks them to override the veto. They have spent hours talking about the issue, he understands the Mayor wants a great city and comes at it from that perspective, but he says this project shouldn’t be used as a tool to make his point.
Steve King moves the previous question – no one is in the queue. He says “good, vote”.
Roll call vote: Only Paul Skimore votes no. 19 votes to support the override.
Item 10 – City employee Healthcare and Wages Agreement
Dan Rolfs represents city employees in MPSE. (Madison Profession Supervisory Employee Association) and they and 3 other employee organizations are there in support. He explains what the resolution does, he says that they got more information since the substitute that was drafted. There is no longer a no cost option for employees. They have a table that shows the real impacts in dollars to families at various wage categories. Most people will have a loss in take home pay with the health care costs and raises.
Tim Sobota was here to talk about the equity issues, not for him, but his colleagues. He supports the teamsters agreement as well. I missed a bunch, but he asks that what options for dental plans will be.
AFSCME 6000 also speaks in support, members supported it but with caveats, that they would like the 1.15% included this year if possible. He reads remarks from his members.
12 registrants in support.
David Ahrens moves an amendment (distributed earlier) on compensation to achieve greater equity in each unit. He says it is a minor change, it only changes 1/3 of the compensation increase. He says purpose is in the chart provided, where the % of salary change for people of $30,000 – it reduces the reduciton in pay from 4% to 3% and for the 40,000 it is slightly less and for those that are 70-80,000 they don’t have a pay increase under this proposal. They would have a 0 net increase so the people at the lower end of e scale would not lost money. He says the difference here is that because the reductions in pay due to the deductible and the premiums, that we can make people whole with the 1.15% increase (.26) immediately.
DeMarb asks the mayor to take the chair back so she can speak to it. She agrees with the purpose, 100%, she wants to see pay equity, but she sits on the new committee for employee relations and this was their recommendation, but it was not responsible to not ask for it before the budget and consider it for 2016 and we don’t know know what is in the budget and what might need to be cut to pay for it in 2016. WE could put a budget amendment in for it, but we would have to decide what to cut. If this is a priority, great, but we have to understand what we might step back on, and without knowing what is in the budget, she would recommend we ask the mayor to take a strong look at this.
Mark Clear asks Dave Schmiedicke from Finance if this is an aggressive way to get to parity. Does this have the same fiscal impact? Schmiedicke says it is the intent that it be no more than 1.15% increase, they haven’t been able to run those exact increases per hour and model them, but they could. Clear asks what the error is. They agree there is a typo. They will make an editorial correction. Mark Clear asks Michael May (City Attorney) if the language is binding for the 2016 budget. May says that they have to make the appropriation to have the increase.
Larry Palm asks what the difference is between a pay increase or specific pay increases as in the amendment. Staff are tossing the question around. Schmiedicke says the resolution is the intent of the council and it will have to be in the budget. The substitute before the amendment was a floating 1.15% increase at some point. Palm says the specificity is the issue, but it puts us in the same situation with the budget. He says the mayor proposes and you can increase or decrease funding as you see fit. Palm says that the arguments work on both the original and the amended version – Schmiedicke says its not moot, but only shows intent.
Barbara McKinney says that there is still a budget process, please clarify. Schmiedicke says yes. She supports the amendment because when living pay check to pay check when this applies is significant. She knows we are in the budget cycle and it impacts other decisions, but at some point we need to say we support our city employees. She supports this because it will still have to go through the process and it sends a message that the council understands what employees are going through.
Mayor leaves the chair, DeMarb goes back to the chair.
Ahrens removes the language specifying what pay period this begins. He says they can argue about when it will be implemented at a later date. Palm seconds it.
Mayor says he’s glad he doesn’t have to vote on it because he has never seen anything like this in his life, this is a major financial decision is made hours before the meeting, it hasn’t gone to the Board of Estimates or the Committee on Employee Relations and there is no fiscal analysis. He talks about last year when they gave $100,000 to the sports authority without a contract or deliverable. He can talk about equity with the best of them, but wonders who is steering the ship, what is going on here? I know you don’t have the answers.
Rummel says its hard to follow that. She asks about the substitute, was this retroactive to 2015 or did they mean 2016. Lots of cross talk. May is trying to explain that it only happens when it passes, Rummel asks about retro-activity, May says it could be retroactive, but you can decide that when you decide.
Rummel asks about the Mayor thinks about including this in the 2016 budget. Mayor says they had a lot of discussion and evaluation at the staff level on the main motion before you. He didn’t hear about the amendment until a few hours ago. He will do his best to have the 1.15% as soon as possible, he’s not sure when it will be, he’s not done with the budget yet, its still being formulated. They are about $1M over the levy limit and 3% higher than they think is a reasonable increase in the property tax. Rummel asks if – last minute-ness aside – is this reasonable. He says he won’t comment on something that he received a few hours ago, he wants consultation with finance officials and he doesn’t know the legality.
Clear says he is sensitive to the concerns about it not being vetted, but supports the goal. He thinks in an ideal world he would like to propose a directive to mayor and staff to come back with a more progressive proposal, he doesn’t know what it looks like, or when it would be, he can support the proposal since there is work to be done in the budget and there is time for that. Overall it might not completely matter since the intention of the council is clear and they can make the changes in the budget. Clear says that the mayor now knows how we feel all the time about things being brought up at the last minute.
Matt Phair can’t support it but for the same reasons Clear stated, it might not matter, but he will vote no, but hopes the mayor hears what we said and will consider it in his budget.
Ahrens asks the Mayor if there have been contracts where the pay raise was expressed in cents per hour and not percentages. Mayor says one in 1978, where they had meter maids and meter monitors where they wanted to give comparable pay. It got turned down, union and city got sued and the meter maids prevailed. There have been other differentials where they based calulations on cents, but he would have to go back, but all contracts have been percentages.
Ahrens asks if the mayor thinks there is something illegal about cents per hour. He asks what might be illegal. Mayor says he doesn’t know but hasn’t discussed it with the city attorney or had the finance director evaluate it. He is curious about how they make a monumental decision that is introduced hours before the council meeting and don’t send it to the BOE. Is this a new financial matter. Ahrens asks if they can refer it to the BOE, mayor says he can’t, they can. Ahrens is trying to ask questions, mayor just says “I don’t know” to everything. Ahrens asks why he is opposed. Mayor says he isn’t. Mayor repeats his arguments about it needing review. Mayor says we did this before when we all marched around the square, but in that name and in that honor it isn’t wise to vote on something without information. Ahrens asks if marching around the square was a mistake. Mayor says he is talking euphemistically. They were all well intended, but there was a difference between some of the contracts we rushed through without an analysis of the implications. Mayor apologizes for being responsible. Ahrens says he is “being something”. Mayor asks him to say it. Ahrens asks if he thinks this resolution is binding. Mayor says he doesn’t know. Ahrens says that is remarkable, no further questions.
Bidar clarifies. She says they will need to specifically allocate the money later, she wants to amend it but she can’t. She asked Schmiedicke to write language to provide policy direction, similar to the employee relations text. She reads it in case she gets to make the amendment, she forwarded it to people in email. (I’ll insert if it I get it) She thinks it gets to the intent of Ahrens amendment but there are no issues with the fiscal note.
Rummel thinks its “awesome” and urges her colleagues to dispense of Ahrens substitute and adopt what Bidar is suggesting.
Palm says the attorney and finance director are here to answer their questions and it pains him to hear that we haven’t asked people questions when they are right here. He doesn’t think this is illegal, this isn’t a contract, its resolution language. He agrees it will be a challenge to figure out the math, but it is an opportunity to move the conversation forward instead of talking about when something was proposed. Palm says the budgets are always tight, have been for 11 years, we’ve always had to make choices and we make some bets that pay off and some that don’t and even with assistance from our great finance director and attorney, going through the process, we get things wrong. We should adopt something on principal tonight and work on it for the budget to live up to the principles we can adopt tonight.
Mike Verveer says DeMarb expressed their thoughts, the four associations worked closely meeting and conferring with HR with the aide of a federal mediator from Chicago, the resolution is the result of some hard work. He talks about the timing of this, they need to change the plans by the end of September (employee trust), so they can’t refer. Also, some employees might not feel comfortable with them changing the health plan without a change in pay. So, this is a result of hard work, we have to do it tonight and we have to give comfort that there will be an increase. As to Ahrens and Bidar amendments, it is consistent with the unanimous vote of the committee, they thought the priority should be on wage equity. The Schmiedicke amendments will amplify that and we can get a good strong unanimous vote for the mayor as he struggles to put together the budget.
Rebecca Kemble calls the question. Ahrens objects. He withdraws the amendment. Parlientary confusion. No objection to the referral. Ahrens supports the motion that hasn’t been made yet. Mayor returns to the chair. No amendments on the floor. Everyone’s phones are going off, amber alert.
Bidar makes an amendment to say the city is committed to provide the 1.15% increase and to give larger increases to lower pay classes, in 2016 as soon as possible given other budget priorities. Bidar thanks Ahrens for bringing the discussion and having stronger language. Clear clarifies . . . this replaces the “in addition” paragraph.
confusion . . . . . lots of suggestions about how this will be done . . . kinda silly . . . . .
Everyone seems to understand the amendment. Amendment passes unanimously. Main motion passes unanimously.
Item 33 – $35,000 for Nehemiah
Referred. She said that she is uncomfortable with the usruption of process, she won’t be here on Oct. 6 so she is stating her objection to the item at this time.
Item 34 – RFP for Park Ridge/Park Edge Community Center
Bidar supports but pulled it to remind us about the need for a plan before funds are used, because we had extensive discussions about how we work on this without a comprehensive plan for the needs for neighborhoods. They had a robust discussion, a year later we don’t have a plan and we are at a place where we have purchased the building, we have to move forward, but we still don’t have a plan and we haven’t had it since she has been on the council. She understands there have been updates and challenges, but we lack the ability to look comprehensibly as we move forward.
Clear asks if this is a budget amendment, but it says its a 15 vote item, and it seems to override the language. Michael May says they discussed it, they agreed it is a budget amendment. This changes the purpose, but it is a 15 vote item, but the fiscal note wasn’t changed to reflect that. Clear asks if it is properly before them.
Barbara McKinney says she wants to be added as a sponsor.
DeMarb echos Bidar. Without a plan, we don’t have direction. It’s what comes up next, what opportunities present themselves, instead of looking at the greatest need. She says we need a plan, its important to have a direction, with strategic initiative we can see progress and people know what to expect. People are dismayed with the neighborhood center funding being out of the capital budget, they see help in neighborhood centers. She will vote for it, in lieu of not having a plan, but it is important.
Mayor says this is our second effort in 3.5 years, 1st effort staff tried, they said they were not qualified. Last year they put a position in the budget, they didn’t find anyone in the recruitment process. He says his intent is to check with other municipalities to see what they have done, he should warn them that he suspects that they hire a consultant which none of us want to do, which will be the outcome unless we cant to spend more money on the position.
Phair wanted a plan too, we don’t have resources or staff capacity, wanting a plan is great but how do we do it. Mayor may have answered our question.
DeMarb says the original intent was a plan for centers and she thinks it is much more than that – the plan is broader than centers and we shouldn’t give up on that, as we move forward with the comprehensive plan, its about the neighborhoods and the people who live there and we need to support that.
McKinney says we need to look at quality of life, glad it is moving along, but we need to look at how to serve the neighborhood, its broader than just putting a place in the middle of a neighborhood at risk. We need to make sure what goes up supports the community.
Samba Baldeh says that he has been talking about a neighborhood center or library and no one has brought this up, am I just wasting my time. Mayor says that council members might want to answer now or meet with you, but one of the reasons, beyond the financial crisis, that the took community centers out of the budget, is because they need this plan
Bidar says she’ll talk to Baldeh, nothing is a waste of time, don’t forget about the budget deliberation discussion. She says we need the plan to make an investment and it also impacts the operating budget and we don’t have a plan for that either. If there is no money in the budget. She says that the budget deliberations are intense and important and if we change our minds we need to intentionally move in a different direction.
Baldeh says this reminds him of the liquor license and not giving the license until the report is done, and there is nothing in the pipeline to get it done, but we need to look at it.
Mayor says that we are not moving forward on community centers because there are no plans, but we are moving forward on liquor licenses. Mayor says that he will reflect on the question and look into what other cities are doing and figure out how we can have a structured discussion on the points you are raising. He says sometimes given how long plans take and how much they cost, in the meantime some situations are obvious and they need attention.
Passes.
Item 37 – Assessment
They do procedural wrangling and re-approve or approve this item. Confuison about if it was passed or separated earlier.
Item 56 – Mayoral Deputy 1
Phair votes no, changing his vote, he says he voted yes because Deputy Mayor is more prestigious when they go to conferences. Afterwards he thought more about what it means to the public, he thinks its confusing that people might think they were the vice mayor or take over when the mayor is gone. He doesn’t think the prestige at the conferences was that important.
Mayor says it is very important. He says that he did mention what happens in travel, but people who come to the office when they see the titles and Monica’s title, there is confusion. Deputy Mayor occurs where the council elects whoever should succeed the mayor, that happens where the mayor is not the chief operating officer of the city. In some places there is a city administrator or city manager and the mayor is elected from the council, and they elect a deputy mayor from the council and a deputy mayor. He hopes that you will vote for the change in title that comes with no increase in pay.
Clear says he supported it at CCOC since he thinks the mayor should run his own office, but he has a suggestion about the confusion. The working titles on business cards. Mayor asks if he was in the office today, he asks Clear if he was in the office today? Clear jokes he has a surveillance camera. Mayor says that they talked about it today. Clear says that they should let the record state they are in agreement.
Kemble says that she voted for it at CCOC and will again, she says it just is a formality to make it conform with reality.
Amanda Hall likes it, but she thinks it is confusing with the department heads with similar titles.
Chris Schmidt. Same as Kemble.
Mo Cheeks says that in previous administrations there was a chief of staff, is that now unfilled. Mayor says that is just the title they have given some people.
Passes. Seemed split. No challenge.
Amendments from the floor
DeMarb makes the two amendments here.
10/12 and 10/13 are added as referral dates.
Adjournment
Passes.
