Purchasing an ambulance, affordable housing fund and quiet zones.
This is partially live blogged, so it won’t be as pretty or as complete. I did some rehab so its better than the original.
You can watch along here
Part one and two and three are here:
- Common Council Budget Recap – Night One, Part One
- Common Council Budget Recap – Night One, Part Two
- Common Budget Meeting Recap – Night Two, Operating Budget
CAPITAL BUDGET
Shiva Bidar moves adoption as amended by the finance committee.
Amendment 1 – 9th Ambulance* (Corresponds to Op Amends 1a-c)
Sponsors Henak, Tierney
Appropriate $82,000 in GO Borrowing in 2020 and add $305,000 in GO Borrowing to the 2021 CIP to fund a 9th ambulance housed at Station 14. The 2020 appropriation will fund medical equipment ($45,000) and turn out gear ($37,000) for 10 new Firefighters to staff vacancies created by promotions to Paramedic to staff the ambulance. The 2021 appropriation will fund the ambulance vehicle.
Analysis
Council Operating budget amendments #1a, b, and c create 10 new Firefighter Paramedic positions in the 2020 Operating Budget to staff a 9th ambulance. This amendment funds the ambulance, medical equipment, and turnout gear necessary to put the ambulance into service. The last ambulance added to the Department’s fleet was at Station 12 in 2010.
Funding for medical equipment and firefighter turn out gear was moved from the Operating Budget to the Capital Budget in the 2020 Executive Budget.
Annual Impact
Annual operating costs associated with the ambulance (fuel, maintenance, depreciation) are anticipated to be $66,500. In 2020, the cost is anticipated to be $33,250. The 2020 costs will be absorbed within the Fleet rate.
Motion
Zach Henak moves to place on file (not take it up) – seconded.
Lindsay Lemmer has an alternate, she adds $305,000 to fund the ambulance without the staffing. She passes out copies of the amendment.
Sheri Carter asks Fire Chief Steven Davis to repeat his answer to the question he was asked yesterday about if they need an ambulance. Chief Davis says “yeah we’ll take the ambulance” Carter asks if they need other equipment. Chief Davis says a cot is $40,000 and monitor is $35,000 and the other equipment – medicines and other things are taken care of in the operating budget in supplies.
Mike Verveer says he asked Fleet and Fire about this at Finance, on page 88 is speaks that the funding will be to purchase 2 more ambulances – could you elaborate how this would fit into the program, there would be 3 new ambulances? Is this the normal cycle? Would the reserve ambulances be sold? Chief Davis says they did a remount program, they can take the box off and put it on a new chassis and then it gets reworked and rewired as a new vehicle. They did that for nearly 20 years, it saves quite a bit, its environmentally friendly, it’s about half the cost of a new ambulance. In the last year or two they have found out that they recommend only remounting 2 times and some of them they have done 4 to 5 times and they had issues this last time. They are starting to turn the fleet over again and the new ambulances can use anti-idling technology. They purchased 2 new ambulances last year, 3 will be delivered in June and there are 2 in the budget for 2020. It takes 6 months to get an ambulance after it has been ordered.
Verveer asks if there would be 3 new units? Davis says all front-line ambulances would be new in the last year, they will be out of the remount until the 2018 ambulances are needed. They will go back to the remount program, but hey can wait 3 years and everything would be brand new.
Verveer asks if they would expand the reserve fleet. Davis says they would expand it to have 15 ambulances, 7 would be in reserve and if they get the 9th ambulance they would have that ambulance too.
Grant Foster says there would be a new ambulance that is not staffed and one additional reserve ambulance. Foster asks what the benefit is and what is the harm if it didn’t pass it. Chief Davis says that they use them for special events, as the units get older, they like to use them less – the mileage is high, they get complaints about the bumpy ride from patients and they aren’t good for daily use. They get by on them as reserve for maintenance. On football Saturday they have 3 ambulances, 1 for the team and 1 or 2 for the crowd. If they have one vehicle down, they use the older ambulances. They try to have 2:1 back up.
Foster asks if they would need another reserve if they got ambulance 9. Chief says they have to go back and work with fleet and analyze the usage. There is a new staff there that is good at analyzing the usage and that will help us long term on determining replacement cycles.
Foster asks about the new ambulances all coming up for renewal all at once. They say they re-chassis after 60 months, for the next 3-4 years they will stay the same. It won’t impact it.
Verveer asks finance why this in fire instead of fleet budget. Schmiedicke says they will put it in the appropriate agency and it will likely be in fleet. Verveer says they might need an amendment, Schmidicke says they can just make the change, it’s a technical adjustment.
Discussion
Lindsay Lemmer says thy all can agree that yesterday’s discussion was painful, they know the need has been there for a long time, people in station 14 range, don’t have the same level of service, we have a lot of competing priorities, this moves us in the right direction, they are moving to have a staffed ambulance at station 14. She is also requesting that her council colleagues and mayor office to work to make sure there is a staffed ambulance in 2021. She appreciates that they need to discuss budget earlier and she hopes this is one of the first discussions.
More Questions
Sally Rohrer asks the Chief if they budget now, and it’s there in 6 months, would that mean that it would be ready if they have staff in 2021. He says that this would allow them to have the ambulance ty Jan 1, 2021
Carter says she’s confused – will you have staff for the ambulance in 2021 when you take possession. Mayor says not unless this body gives it to them.
Vote
Passes on voice vote
Amendment 2a – Police Squad Cars – 2 Squads* (Corresponds to Op Amend 2a)
Sponsors Henak, Tierney
Appropriate $118,600 GO Borrowing in 2020 in the Police Department’s capital budget for two squad cars and related equipment.
Analysis
Council Operating budget amendment #2a creates 6.0 new Police Officer positions in the Police Department’s operating budget effective in May 2020. Two additional squad cars will be necessary to equip these officers.
Impact
Annual operating costs associated with the squad cars (fuel, maintenance, depreciation) are anticipated to be $24,200. In 2020, the cost is anticipated to be $16,100. The 2020 costs will be absorbed within the Fleet rate.
Motion/Vote
Henak moves to place on file and it passes
Amendment 2b – Police Squad Car-1 Squad* (Corresponds to Op Amends 2b)
Sponsors Verveer, Albouras, Harrington-McKinney, Lemmer, Carter, Tierney
Appropriate $59,300 in GO Borrowing for one squad car and related equipment in the Police Department budget.
Analysis
Council Operating budget amendments #2b and #2c create 3.0 and 4.0 new Police Officer positions respectively, in the Police Department’s operating budget effective in May 2020. An additional squad car will be necessary to equip these officers.
Impact
Annual operating costs associated with the vehicle (fuel, maintenance, depreciation) are anticipated to be $12,100. In 2020, the cost is anticipated to be $8,050 and will be absorbed within the Fleet rate.
Motion/Questions of Staff
Verveer moves adoption, there are no questions of staff.
Discussion/Vote
Verveer says that this corresponds to the 3 new officers, this is the squard cars and he urges adoption of the amendment
Motion passes on a voice vote
Amendment 3 – Bus Rapid Transit* (Corresponds to Op Amend 3)
Sponsors Foster, Kemble
Appropriate $500,000 in GO Borrowing to Bus Rapid Transit for studies associated with implementing BRT. The studies will include, but are not limited to, a route analysis, mobile ticketing feasibility and an organizational analysis.
Analysis
The 2020 Executive Operating Budget included $1,150,000 for studies associated with implementing BRT. In the Executive Budget these studies were funded through the Vehicle Registration Fee. An amendment proposed to the operating budget transfers funding to the capital budget to ensure fully funding for studies in 2020. Amendment 1 adopted by the Finance Committee reduced funding for these studies by $100,000.
A portion of funding for these studies can be accommodated by the $1.5 million proposed for Bus Rapid in the Executive Capital Budget. The net impact of this amendment is a $500,000 increase in GO Borrowing.
Impact
No projected impact on the operating budget
Motion/Questions of staff
Foster moves adoption – no questions of staff
Discussion/Vote
Foster says this is the corresponding amendment with operating 3 that was passed
Motion passes on a voice vote
Amendment 4 – Planning Studies* (Corresponds to Op Amend 2b)
Sponsors Verveer, Albouras
Appropriate $45,000 in GO Borrowing for planning studies that will occur in 2020. The studies will include Odana, East Towne, and South Madison.
Analysis
Finance Committee Amendment 19 increased funding for costs associated with planning efforts at East Towne, Odana, and South Madison. This amendment proposes transferring the costs of these amendments from operating to capital.
Impact
The amendment has no ongoing impact to the operating budget.
Motion/Questions of staff
Verver moves adoption, no questions of staff
Discussion/Vote
Verveer says 2nd and final corresponding amendment to the amendment they passed last night
Motion passes on a voice vote
Amendment 5 – Affordable Housing – Development Projects
Sponsors Heck, Evers, Verveer, Bidar, Rummel, Martin, Foster, Furman
Increase funding for Affordable Housing-Development Projects by $500,000 annually and change the project description to read:
This program continues a major initiative to expand and improve the supply of affordable housing in Madison. The program’s goal is to leverage other public and private resources to improve and expand the supply of quality, affordable housing accessible to low and moderate-income households in the City of Madison. Progress will be measured by the production of 200 units of new rental housing serving households with incomes at or below 60 percent of the County’s median income. Specific 2020 projects and locations will be largely determined by Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority’s (WHEDA) allocation decisions, which are expected in early 2020. In addition, projects not tied to WHEDA allocation decisions may be considered. Anticipated construction for those projects successfully receiving support from both the City and WHEDA would likely begin in 2021. The reserves applied funding is reallocated from the Public Market capital project.
Analysis
The proposed amendment will increase general obligation (GO) borrowing by $500,000 annually across the 2020 Capital Budget & CIP, increasing annual funding for Affordable Housing projects to $5.5 million. The 2020 Executive Capital Budget includes $30,270,000 for the 2020 CIP, resulting in approximately $5 million in annual appropriation. The 2019 Adopted Capital Budget included $4.5 million in Affordable Housing-Development Projects funding for each year of the 2019 CIP.
The proposed amendment also changes the project description of the capital program by adding the following as the third to last sentence: “In addition, projects not tied to WHEDA allocation decisions may be considered.”
Impact
No operating impact.
Motion/Questions of Staff
Patrick Heck moves adoption and wants to ask questions, Mayor interrupts and sends staff home that don’t need to be there for the rest of the amendments.
Heck thanks Evers and the co-sponsors – He says there was an increase for the affordable housing fund and this matches that, there is a crisis in affordability and this adds more to the tool box, one of the other things this does is clarifies what types of projects can be considered, it opens it up to non-WHEDA projects. As they have seen there are opportunities for the city to consider funding non-WHEDA projects, there are a number of relatively small housing opportunities such as coops and other smaller projects. He appreciates their support on this and he asks Jim O’Keefe from the Community Development Division if there is capacity within CDD to handle some additional appreciations.
O’Keefe says yes, there is.
Barbara Harrington- McKinney asks to be added as a cosponsor.
Carter asks to be added but has a question for O’Keefe. When you talk about non-WHEDA projects, can you give me an example and how would they qualify. O’Keefe says that for years they have supported housing developments other than those supported by low income tax credits (LITC) – the LITC programs have a common profile because they are responding to what WHEDA is looking for, they are larger in scale, mixed income, and they are fairly uniform. There are other types of affordable housing programs undertaken by nonprofits, they involve acquisition of existing stock and rehab with affordable rent. Those kinds of projects have been supported in the past through federal resources, CDBG and HOME but that is a small resource so this provides another tool or resource to support these projects, whether they are acqusition rehab, coop or single family housing. When the affordable housing fund was created in 2015 those projects were envisioned to be funded, but when the fund was created the council charged them with creating 1000 units and in trying to meet that goal they turned to leveraging the tax credits. Now they are getting more financial capacity and they felt there were other things they could do beyond WHEDA and this amendment provides clarification that they can do that and extra resources to make that happen.
Syed Abbas asks to be added as a co-sponsor
McKinney asks about the amendment language about the Public Market reserves being applied. Laura Larson from Finance says that was in the executive budget – cash that was going to the public market went to affordable housing and the cash was replaced by funding for m TID 36. The authors are allowing projects beyond those eligible for the tax credits.
Albouras asks if the full amount of the fund would be available for the beyond WEHDA or just the new money. Larsen says that the process would be done outside the budget and have separate approvals. Mayor says the full amount is impacted.
Evers says that midway through the language is an important point, the reality is that we still want to leverage the WHEDA tax credits but also look at nonprofit developers, community land trusts, tiny house projects and others that can’t afford an attorney to navigate the WHEDA tax credits, they are also increasing the funding by $500,000.
Evers asks OKeefe about the rise in the construction costs, they can’t do as much as they could when the funds started. OKeefe says the costs associated with he developments are increasing, land costs increasing, increases in supplies due to disasters driving up the costs of materials. Also tax credits have been eroded in value, not as much as they feared, but any and all of those things mean that to develop housing and keep rents affordable requires more support, not less.
Marsha Rummel thanks everyone for signing on. Not only is the more money important but one of the keys things is allowing projects not tied to WHEDA, because as we improve neighborhoods those areas no longer qualify for WHEDA funding but still have affordable housing needs. We can try to push developers into those areas, but that’s hard. She says for the 2020 projects that is 2019 money that we chose to move forward. The beauty and brilliance of the project was to help the developers to be more successful with WHEDA and that worked.
Henak asks what demand they see for the funds in the next year. O’Keefe says that they have not had difficulty using $4.5M each year. They generated a bit of a surplus because one of the projects, 1202 Park St, stalled and that was 2 years they weren’t compelled to put two projects forward at once. When that project was cancelled it create more money. There is a practical limit to the 9% tax credits we can leverage with WHEDA because its funding for the entire state. They won’t get more than 4 or 5 projects per year, but WHEDA has other resources and we are getting more developers in Madison and so he is confident there will be adequate demand whether it is larger or smaller projects. They’re aware of a number of properties in desirable locations coming available that they can use with he land banking fund, they won’t be wanting for uses of these funds.
Discussion
Mayor thanks the sponsors and cosponsors. It corrects an oversight in the budget, it was always her intention to increase the use beyond 9% tax credits and their staff team are working on increasing affordable housing. They would need to do this and it’s better to do it now and she appreciates the commitment of the council. She says they can use the money and will have no problem spending the money and with the council support they will move forward as they can.
Question
Christian Albouras talks about the Commonwealth Development project on Raymond Rd – are they using tax credits? O’Keefe says that in that instance they can use HOME funds but its the kind of proposal that would fit in the Affordable Housing Fund. Albouras says it’s a good project and when they held a neighborhood meeting the neighbors concerns were validated and he’s glad the fund could support that.
Vote
Motion passes unanimously.
Amendment 6 – Railroad Crossing & Quiet Zones
Sponsors Rummel, Foster, Verveer
Appropriate $1.5 million from TIF Proceeds for two new Quiet Zones. The anticipated Quiet Zones would range from Brearly Street to Blount Street, and Fair Oaks Street and Sugar Avenue. The projects will be funded by TID 36 and TID 37 respectively.
The amendment also places a Quiet Zone at Dempsey Road on the Horizon List, pending the identification of a non-GO Borrowing funding source for the project.
Analysis
The 2020 Executive Budget includes $50,000 annually for the Railroad Crossing and Quiet Zone program. The annual amounts are sufficient for routine improvements to railroad crossings in the City, but do not include construction of any new Quiet Zones.
As proposed in the amendment, funds from two TIF districts would be used to construct two Quiet Zones in 2024. The first project is on Brearly Street to Blount Street. The anticipated cost is $1.0 million and will be funded by TID 36. In 2020, the projected increment from TID 36 is $7.6 million. The district currently has $10.6 million of unrecovered costs.
The second project is at Fair Oaks and Sugar Avenue. The anticipated cost of the project is $500,000 and will be funded by TID 37. In 2020, the projected increment from TID 37 is $2.1 million. The district currently has $1.5 million of unrecovered costs.
Impact
No operating impact is anticipated.
Motion/Discussion
Rummel moves approval.
Rummel says that at the finance committee she realized none of the quiet zones were in the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan or 5 year budget plan) any longer. There are many new developments along the railroad tracks and there are many places where there is no quiet zone. The train horn can be as loud a 100 decibels and is disruptive. She says she knows it is spring when people have their windows open complain about train horns, the complaints are perennial. She says she wanted to get these projects back in there, it took 5 years to get the ones they have. This is paid for by TIF, but it’s the only way the policy allows them to pay for it. She asks that they look at TID 36 and she wants this to be on the list. The process her and Heck put together to look at TID 36 will consider this.
Questions of Staff and Sponsors
Keith Furman asks why these locations and not others.
Rob Philips, City Engineer says the vast majority of the quiet zones have leveraged TIF funds, the intent was to leverage TIF funds that would be available in the future.
Grant Foster says the short answer is these are crossings in their districts and from the conversation at Finance the only mechanism to make them happen are using TIF funding, there are two additional crossings in 15 that are out out of the TIF district and can’t be funded. The Dempsey Rd. is not going to move quickly and there is no certainty there will be money in the TID for it. He is interested in figuring out other ways to pay for this. The amendment was trying to put these locations back in the CIP and on the horizon list.
Fruman asks why TIF is the only way to fund it? Phillips says they could do GO borrowing,
Furman asks what else they could do in those areas that could be funded by TIF – Philips say streets, underground wiring, bike paths, etc.
Bidar asks staff for an example of how many trains per week and day there are (she emailed map of the crossings to the council members) Phillips says Brearly to Blount is 5-7 trains per day, it’s the heaviest line in the city. Dempsey is 3-5 per week but that could change. Bidar asked for an example south and west. Philips says University Ave is 1-3 per day, Fish Hatchery is 3-5 per week and they vary quite a bit, 5 trains per week on the north side.
Bidar asks if they have done quiet zones with other sources of funding. Philips says that they have funded the work with TIF districts, when its done with construction projects its usually a spot improvement for a future quiet zone. There was one crossing that if it was included in broader district that they put in a quiet zone a while ago. Generally speaking quiet zones at least half a mile, but they have done GO Funded only projects.
Bidar asks if there has been an overall look at railroad crossings and other ways to prioritize the projects. For examples are there other noises in the area, like on the northside there is airport noise, are there ways that we look more holistically and prioritize?
Heather Stouder, Planning Director says they mostly react to threats for closures, but she thinks it’s a great idea to take a broader view and do an equitable review of resources.
McKinney says that some districts don’t have tid and she was looking at the projected increments in TID 36 and 37 and she is wondering what other eligible projects would be available. She asks about unrecovered costs – what is the projected generator
Matt Mikolajewski, Economic Development Director says that in both of the districts there have been several generators in the past decade, and they have projected if they spend no additional funds the increment of the existing project will pay off all the debt by 2024 for both districts.
– End live blogging –
McKinney asks about the projected spending being recovered by 2024, does this include the quiet zones? Mikolajewski says it doesn’t. In the case of TID 36 starting in 2024 that district will general around $7M of positive cash. If this $1.5M was expended in 2024 and assuming there were no other expenditures using TID 36 dollars between now and then, theoretically in that year that district could use cash rather than borrowing to pay that amount of money.
McKinney says the reason this amendment was put forward was because of the possible availability of TID funding, not that it was a priority. She doesn’t want to put words in the sponsors mouth. Say again why this is put forward now.
Mayor asks Rummel to respond to that. Rummel says that historically there was in the CIP funding for quiet zones because she has been diligent about tracking it and waiting until the time comes. When she went to the finance committee there was nothing in the CIP and maybe that was her fault for not pushing. As Heather pointed out, some of the stuff Brearly to Blount didn’t get done sooner because the railroad was petitioning to close our streets and we had to go to court and we prevailed in court and we had to work through a new gubernatorial administration to get past that road block of the railroad. In the meantime Festival Foods and all the stuff on W Wash and there is now a pathway along Livingston between the grocery store in Alder Heck’s district and her district. Meanwhile they were going to close the street. They had to wait until that got resolved to go back and ask for that corridor to be included. It’s always been a priority of hers, but she has had to wait for a long time. The other one is Fair Oaks and that has seen several new developments literally right on the railroad track. There are 5-7 trains a day and they have to sound their horns for safety. She has been diligent in 12 years getting quiet zones in her district, it just takes a long time.
Foster says in terms of priority, its a priority for residents in East Mooreland, it was surprising to him, its one of the key things that he heard while knocking on doors. It wasn’t about money being available. For him and his district reducing the noise coming from the horns is a priority. In terms of why this amendment and why this process, as a new alder it was his understanding that this is how it has been done. He appreciates that perhaps they should look at a different process and he would support that. He doesn’t think this is a good process, he doesn’t think that relying on TID is a good way to do it, I don’t think it is equitable. He would prefer for them all to be put in a list and have them evaluated and figure out how many people are impacted, who is impacted, number of trains, etc and perhaps planning might be able to help us with that effort. And also to look at different ways to fund these and not restrict it to TID funding. He isn’t looking to get something special for district 15 that is not happening somewhere else, in terms of process. He was following the lead of Alder Rummel who has worked on this in her district for many years and it is a long time to do something like this and you have to get started at some point. He would prefer a different process and a holistic approach moving forward.
Discussion
Heck says that TID proceeds can fund affordable housing and general infrastructure needs and that can be interpreted relatively widely and recently they approved usage of TID 36 ($7M wish) money for the public market and there are a variety of projects that it can be used for. He says TID 36 is shared with Alders Rummel, Abbas and his districts. He says all of his windows face the railroad tracks that go down the Isthmus and yeah, they’re kind of annoying and the closer you get the worse it is. He is wondering how this intersects with the Capital Budget amendment he and Alder Rummel put forth to do a study of how to use TID 36, to study the needs and where it can be used. At the same time keeping an eye on the fact that it allows the increments to be used elsewhere in the city once it is closed and he thinks there is some movement towards evaluating that to see how much can be used in portions of the city that don’t have access to TIDs. Even regarding infrastructure needs in the Town of Madison that will soon become part of the city. He says there are a long list of projects that can potentially use this money. There are all sorts of ideas passed around and so they put forward that amendment for a public engagement process related to the usage of TID 36 increment. He feels that even tho its kind of the way it has been done in the past, he feels the public engagement process is really important and the city needs to weigh in on what our priorities are before we start segmenting money into separate pots. He felt the same way about the Public Market, even tho he voted for it. We need to star having community wide conversations about this, in the end he isn’t going to support this, even tho he sympathizes with the need.
Questions of staff
Alder Carter asks staff to describe what a quiet zone is in case people don’t know. Phillips says that trains are required to blow their horns at most railroad crossings. One of the exceptions is quiet zones. In a quiet zones the crossing protection (signals or signals and gates) is analyzed and compared to a national average and if you’re not at that national average you have to make improvements to the railroad crossing to get that safety index below that national average. Typically what happens is that they have to make improvements to all the crossings to get to that point, about $250,000 per crossing and once you have done that you have to apply to the federal rail administration and get approval. Once approved, a minimum of 1/2 of a miles, then the railroad will not sound their horn unless there is an emergency or someone on the tracks.
Carter won’t support this. She feels they need a comprehensive study on all areas of Madison that are affected. Especially when they are bringing in a municipality that is also affected by having trains going through their neighborhood.
Abbas says his opposition is not opposition to quiet zones, but allocation of the money. He completely gets it, he has sympathy and empathy. He hears from residents complaining about the train being parked outside or in front of their houses. He asks Matt Mikolajewski about the meeting where they discussed how they could use this money for the Town of Madison. There is a huge need for affordable housing there, there is the Mobile/Manufactures homes that are out of code. He fears if they implement their codes when they merge with them, he doesn’t know where these people will go. He asks Mikolajewski to share the discussion with the council.
Mikolajewski says TID 36 was implemented in 2006 and E. Washington Ave. looked very different then. The city invested significantly in the district and leveraged 10:1 private investment that has greatly increased the property values in the district and is producing significant increment. Currently that district will be generating $7M of increment per year and all the existing debts for projects we spent funds on will likely be repaid around 2024. It begs the question about what should be done with the district and there are three options: spend additional funds in the district, the district could be closed and have the extra year for the affordable housing fund, or the district could be used as a donor district to other districts to help fund projects. One of the ideas under discussion is a donor/donee relationship with a new S. Madison TID and the thought is because TID 36 is doing so well it could be a donor TID for the south side TIDs and could provide up front cash to help support projects before those districts have generators to support themselves. They also may never have that level of generator activity and we might not want them to. Another option and what will likely happen is a combination of the choices. That is the impetus behind the budget amendment for planning in TID 36, to ask the question what the priorities are in that TID and then how do those priorities compare with other priorities like in South Madison where they could potentially donate funds.
Discussion
Abbas says they could have a lot of social justice impact through donor districts, also Public Market is there and they spent a lot of time and there is social justice and equity attached to the Market which will create 100 jobs and he would love to support this, he would love to have a quiet zone, as a City we value green space, quiet zone, environmentally active. At this time, with the unknown situation on the South side with the Town of Madison merging with the City of Madison he has some concerns about how they will figure that out financially. He doesn’t support it and he encourages others not to.
Bidar also won’t support it. She’s not prepared to make amendments to make the changes that were in her line of questioning. She wants a look at all of the crossings and other factors to prioritize, she says they can do that through a resolution in the future. She also wants to see the study of how we are going to be using TID 36 and there is a lot of opportunity for us to think outside the box and look at it through an equity lens and keep in mind that just because a TID is in a certain area we don’t need to use the money there, we can close it and reinvest it too. She can’t support it, she understands fully and 100% where Alder Rummel and Foster are coming from, because this is the way it has been done and she is happy that they won’t be doing things the way they have been done. She has been thinking for many years that this doesn’t seem right. The answer has been that we can only do it with TID districts and that is it. This is in no way or shape because of the University Ave line that impacts her (lives 2 blocks from the railroad) and her district, she says if you put all the elements together that would list really low in the priority. She’s been saying that as the alder in the district, that they won’t spend $500,000 because that is not the priority. She hopes they can move forward with the planning process.
Rummel says there are a lot of questions that have been raised and she welcomes them and the thought that everyone wants to support studies about noise impacts and other things city wide and hopefully that raises the questions around other things that have noise impacts, such as F-35s etc. She wanted to remind people that the amendment in the capital budget had $50,000 that had no purpose other than to pay for other costs that come up through the TID and Alder Heck and him through talking with staff decided we needed a plan. They support helping the town of Madison. This district is a legal entity and has rules and some of the rules they have as a policy body is that we pay for public infrastructure, not just developer subsidy. She wants to make sure they get their fair chance at getting the public infrastructure in this TID instead of donating it to people who need it more. Her goal is to put this in the CIP so far out that the planning process will have happened and if it does’t come to be . . . there are thousands of people living along Willy Street and we want to build housing there and they are building housing all through her district in old industrial areas where they have these impacts. If we’re going to keep building it I”m going to say no, because they aren’t fixing the railroad track because you want to have an ambulance or other things that are important, and they are all important. This become a thing where people’s quality of life, out goal is to build housing where people can thrive, not where they wake up every night at 2 in the morning to say this is horrible. If you don’t vote for it I understand. She just wanted to remind Alder Abbas, if you look at the map, those are all quiet zones that I helped get approved for your district in previous times. You can say people still complain, but you have a quiet zone there now because of TID 36. She just wants to have what this money is supposed to provide. Part of the money for TID is doing public infrastructure to stop blight, and blights is train horns.
Foster thanks everyone for the questions and good comments. He really likes to challenge how things have been done and he thinks that was a good conversation and based on that conversation he’s not going to vote in favor of it either. He’d like to join Alder Bidar in working on a resolution to pull this together and to do it in a more comprehensive and city wide way. He says this came up during the F-35 conversations and part of him studying the EIS and the methodology helped him understand that noise and the impact it has on people is variable and part of the difference and reactions between some of us saying its a big deal and others thinking it is not, really comes down to people being impacted differently by it. He understands and it is a big deal, its hard to say is this more important than affordable housing, but noise pollution is really impactful and we should be having these conversations and not dismiss it. He wants to work on the plan to determine that impact on different parts of the city and move forward not based on who has a TID open that is paying out. Thanks for the conversation.
Heck says that they are having a broader discussion about use of TIF funds and he wanted to make sure people understood what Alder Rummel is saying, that TID 36 is relatively successful and is going to have funds available for various uses, and its still has needs and the needs are broad. It’s not just quiet zones, but other needs that will support the district. Lest you think its a cash cow, they do need the consideration of quiet zones and other infrastructure needs that can support the continued growth and success of a good TID.
Questions of staff
McKinney thanks her colleagues for an in-depth decision on how they make decisions for future budgets. It was a well defined and deep discussion and she appreciates the second look and considering equity. Her question was the $50,000 annually for quiet zones, where does that money sit, is it used, what is it used for?
Phillips says the $50,000 is for any contribution the city has to make in the railroad crossing surface repair. The railroad is responsible for that surface but sometimes the city has a small share in that. It’s a placeholder and they don’t spend much of that money on the railroad crossing surfaces.
McKinney says its a placeholder, so has $50,000 been going there since when. Phillips says generally speaking they budget some amount for railroad surface repair in case they have an obligation. The railroad has the obligation, but sometimes the city has a small cost.
Vote
Fails on a voice vote.
Amendments 7-12 will be in the next post.
MORE
All 5 posts in this series are here:
