Council Overture Discussion Live Blog Part I

. . . to the best of my ability. My “c” on my keyboard is a little finicky so be kind to my typing skills. I have to do this “live” or I will never get it done as I have about 7 hours of budget meetings to still catch up on.

Alders here include Clear, Schumacher, Bidar-Sielaff, Rummel, Schmidt and Eagon who are all members of the Common Council Organizational Committee

They are joined by Rhodes-Conway, King and Solomon

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None disclosed.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
– First person talks about the free tickets for kids and how great the program is.
– Employee of Overture talks about how private/private model puts more employees in jeopardy, not just the union jobs. Also concerned that neither model will work.
– Small business owner just moved to State St and loves it and they have aggressive sales goals, they are selling 4 times more than in Fitchburg, they employee 8 students and support 14 artists. They bought their building. They think they benefit from and benefit the Overture.
– Rosemary Lee says its a problem that Mayor appointed the chair, 201 State has an interest in becoming owner and it smells. Also concerned about the employees. Soglin was right the employees don’t deserve to lose their jobs for a private non-profit to take over because they can’t afford them. Overture too large, too grand and too magnificent for city and county our size. Don’t accept the deed and execute the lease, not fair to tax payers or employees.
– Carto thanks them and then talks about the report they got from the consultant, says board should be able to own the project and be accountable. Effective boards deal with policy and fundraising and empower staff to do their jobs. Programs are impressive. Problem for all arts centers is that they are called elitist and we are working to make it more open and inviting.
– Local 60 Vice President, opposed to privatization of Overture.
– Stan Woodard remembers when Overture was formed, talked with Gene Parks on his show and he agreed with him about how it would be bad for the community. He is now associated with Overture through WORT, been in a play and various organizations and Gene and I were wrong about its value. He has worked with the staff and they take their jobs seriously and are professional second to none and to turn them out as employees please consider a way to maintain the employees. Doesn’t know how you put a price tag on the smiles on faces of kids. He works with Lussier.
– Boys and Girls Club also thinks the free tickets to their kids is great as well as Kids in the Rotunda

MORE ALDERS ARRIVE
Verveer, Kerr, Manaici, Compton, Cnare and Claussius

QUESTIONS FOR REGISTRANTS
No questions for the speakers.

There are several people registered to answer questions.

Bridget Maniaci says “Hey Joe, Come on up”. She asks former Mayor Joe Sensenbrenner why this new proposal is inviting.

He says that looking at a fresh set of possibilities is interesting to donors. Its simple. Opportunity and responsibility on one or two organizations. The process of building support for the former proposal involved adding on new requirements and processes as time went by but didn’t get added support. He says a new way to look at this is welcome cuz it takes away much of the doubt in the first proposal and the obligations are different. Donors like the simplicity of who to go to and no worries about future Mayor and Councils.

Maniaci asks if you worked with this on Clear?

Sensenbrenner says it was Clear’s break through and they have been asking for alternatives all along but this was Clear and Cnare’s resolution.

Maniaci asks if they can change this.

He says yes, but hurry up, lots of documents to be drawn up and new processes. They hope that ideas come forward because they can support what is going forward. Last time ideas added by no support on the council. He says if they amendment it, they want it implied that they would support it.

Maniaci asks what this means for the banks, there are audibles being called here in fourth quarter.

He says they need a proposal to go back to the banks with.

Manaici asks if they are aware of this?

He says they read the papers, donors are comfortable and they can go back to the banks.

Manaici asks to what extent they should use the last month and a half?

He says areas that were troublesome before and they will continue to be issues moving forward.

Marsha Rummel says they just got this, what is the future of MCAD.

He says that there isn’t a single way forward agreed upon, both groups meet on Tuesday to talk about it. The two existing organizations would work to empower a new organization.

Rummel asks if open meetings still unresolved.

He says that sentiment is to have open meetings as with the old one.

Rummel asks if they would comply with open meetings law.

He says no, they are a not for profit, meetings and books would be open but not walking quorum rules.

Judy Compton asks if we do a subsidy or grant.

Mark Clear says that he used the word grant but he doesn’t see it as being any different.

Compton asks if City is removed from all micro-management once taken over by 201.

Sensenbrenner says as he reads it city would not micromanage or set details for the new organization.

LATE REGISTRANTS
– Thanks alders for their work, he is with a service group and they heard about issues Biddy Martin has with getting professors. He also aaware hospitals hard to find and retain physicians for the hospital. There was a time when football stadium not filled and restaurants not filled. He appreciates concern for the workers but if the Overture is closed, no on will have a job.

QUESTIONS OF REGISTRANTS
Micheal Schumacher says there is a cause and effect to recruiting talent. Where did you get the data and how are you drawing those conclusions.

He says that a major city with a place like Overture would be a major plus, its common sense.

Schumacher asks Soglin about the new proposal and his thoughts.

Paul Soglin says that when Overture proposed over a decade ago, he supported public ownership and management and thought that way til three months ago. As ad hoc committee met and he heard about the problems and needs of arts and they city, to take on ownership was too risky for the city. Private ownership was responsible thing and that makes sense to have private management. It is not the long range solution. The planning processes used to plan community facilities like doing a charrette process to find out needs of users, the audiences, the people who paid for it is what we do. That was not a necessary process 10 years ago cuz privately funded and owned and operated. In retrospect he figured out he got caught up in the political outcome. He thinks that was a mistake. He says he asked the resident companies repeatedly what they wanted and got different answers. He thinks the resident groups were not included in the focus model. He says there should be an interim solution which is this one. Then do the work to examine what our outcomes should be with all the interested groups and he thinks they will end up with public ownership, but we will know the bottom line and real cost. No idea how management would be structured but doubts it would like anything we’ve yet seen. He says you can’t measure the value to community in dollars and cents.

Bruer shows up.

Soglin says that one arts teacher said their students will never perform there, but they will understand the arts and later buy tickets. He has talked with many who are engaged in turning around arts facilities, and they all say the process was flawed. He would suggest amendments to this proposals. He says all of the employees should remain as they are, since we don’t know the final outcome in a few years. Also recommend that the study be beyond Overture itself. Include city and endowment fund. A facility that costs this much must have an endowment for the facility.

Schumacher asks if it would take 2 – 3 years.

Soglin says it would take that long to work it out.

Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks how its private if employees remain public.

He says MCAD would have to stay in place.

Maniaci asks how he would get beyond the interim.

Soglin says let me spend your money, hire consultants. He says in the past there were consultants hired for major projects like State St and Civic Center and they got input and the design was good. He says observations from people who are not professional planners really are good for the outcome.

Maniaci asks about having a built building, what kind of process would you have for a building already built?

Soglin says absorb the Mortensen report and go beyond. You have a consultant for cultural planning – but if you had each of the arts groups who are residents and others and have them talk about their needs and experiences, he hasn’t seen that and he has heard from board members that they were an after thought. He doesn’t know the answer to that question and that is why that needs to be done. You don’t know the answer either.

Maniaci asks Sensenbrenner to come back up. Soglin likes public ownership and Sensenbrenner likes private, please explain.

Soglin says he liked the Civic Center that held up to constant traffic and heady use and it was designed with user groups in mind. They modeled it after library board, they wanted accountability but not censorship. they wanted sensitivity to groups that could not pay the bill. He had to remind D’Angelo that there had to be accommodations to those groups.

Maniaci says it is designed, can it be achieved if the building is now designed.

Soglin says that there is soemthing else they haven’t discussed. Overture has so little support because it is insulated, the community does not feel like it is their building. We are all fortunate no one put forth a referendum for this. We’d be in serious trouble given how hard Monona Terrace was. It is indicative of special districts. Unless they cultivate a warm relationship with electorate, they find themselves isolated in a time of crisis, there is no support. But the advantages is they don’t need to deal with the meddlesome public.

Sensenbrenner wants a public ownership, has worked for two years, but the focus model came under fire. From a philosophical point of view he agrees with Paul. He can’t find a way to get there, can’t find money in private sector, no committee structure, doesn’t overcome fears of council, added restrictions and nothing improved. He’s ready to go forward either way, but pared down way could get us there quickly. He also agrees in year 2000 the public process didn’t happen, but the resident groups were not in favor of the Civic Center. It’s a balance, he says its not a better way to go, we’re just trying to make it happen.

Soglin says if we do the process, we might all get comfortable with something different.

Schumacher says he didn’t know it took place over two years, maybe with the Mayor.

Sensenbrenner says that there were two members of council were on the committee that made decisions for the past two years. There were ways that council could have been included, but it didn’t happen. That is his concern moving forward. The banks were the trigger to make it happen.

Schumacher asks where we draw the line, should we own a baseball team, Boys and Girls Club or neighborhood center, why Overture and not other public goods.

Sensenbrenner says the community decided this in the 70s. Civic Center and arts facility would be important to the community. When the building was available local political leaders helped make it happen. He doesn’t know where to draw the line. The whole person benefits from green space, sports, arts and a whole range of options.

Soglin says there needs to be a public need and the private sector can’t provide. He says that some cities sell the parking ramps to make profits, but then it can’t be part of your plan. If they get filled up with employees there is no room for the shoppers to park. Says a friend priced Overture, Coliseum Bar and Monona Terrace. Overture was the cheapest. That’s a deep discount. That is a matter of public policy on how it competes with Monona Terrace and private industry. If you are supporting it with public dollars, then it comes out of your pockets or at expense of other groups that use the space, this is not a small issue.

Schumacher says that some we should start looking at the Alliant Center, that is a missed opportunity and a larger debate that is missing.

Compton asks a very long question, says benefit of having the intelligentsia downtown, is everyone has an answer to everything. Says she doesn’t remember your advice at the time this was created. Are you saying you would have done something different, too late to go back and figure it out? She is hoping it succeeds. Noisy and I didn’t hear it all but she talked a long time.

Soglin says in this very room he spoke against the creation of the Overture the way it was, he gave extensive testimony, he’ll be blunt, I told you so. He doesn’t know where this will end that is why the process is important.

Compton says that there was a Mayor that was involved that is not here and we have a Mayor now that was involved that didn’t really tell us what is all going on.

Bruer asks Mayor Joe . . . rambling . . . lots of rambling . . . asks about item 3, on public accountability and access while limiting taxpayer contribution. rambling . . . help us understand the financial decision . . . more rambling . . . seriously, is there a question here . . . I could have typed a paragraph but I thought he was going to ask a question . . . ok, people are just laughing at his inability to get to the point . . . his question after a long diatribe, why should we have any confidence that either model will not fail.

Sensenbrenner says he won’t validate or challenge your premises, but donors, resident companies and free ticket users have been focused around saving the building. The only way forward is not what is before you. The people involved have the resources and judgment and expertise to make it successful. That is the act of faith you are being asked to make. The vetting the council did so far gave it a clean bill of health, you claim it was not maintained, he thinks it is in good shape. Donor community will support the gap. Resident companies gap has to come from well run organizations and donors. He has confidence in the people that brought this forward. What happened in 2005 and 2008 he can’t describe or defend today.

Bruer starts to ask another question. Soglin asks if he got to answer it. Bruer says he has another question, Clear admonishes Bruer to keep it short. He ignores it and rambles on . . . . about all the problems he sees with the management, asks how the public model would function and operate given the relationship with the people with money.

Soglin opposed the focus model. Soglin says it is an iceburg, they know what is above, not below. He thinks virtues in public ownership but we don’t know what we are getting into. That is why he thinks there should be a process and then we can decide on public ownership. It might cost more, but rather do that than the present model that might be cheaper, but we don’t know what we get. If the focus model fails, the non-profit operators walk away, the city cannot. A friend noted that who ever fails in the focus model might mean the loser gets the Overture Center.

Rummel asks why the donors can’t says here’s $15M and write off the $28M and keep looking for the best way. Then we can have that longer process. Keep governance and employment as is until there is a better way.

Sensenbrenner says the donors want to see a way for it to succeed. They thought they needed certitude for the future, if we take years it will be unlikely to be successful with the acts that need to be booked. He says the 20th of June the proposal came forward anything else could have been proposed or studied much earlier, this seriously surfaced on Saturday and gotten attention and life since.

Rummel sasy if just take away the debt the management can’t do the work.

Sensenbrenner says Overture has to raise alot of money, won’t be able to pay the bills, it needs an infusion of dollars, it needs a restructuring of its financial house. They proposed a restructure of the debt and something they can have confidence in. We need a viable sustainable way forward not a study and hope and back wouldn’t be confident nor would the donors.

Rummel asks Soglin and says won’t ask more questions.

Soglin says if debt paid off still not sustainable. Need to study how to use the facility more effectively in the summer months. Sensenbrenner tried a international festival of the arts in the summer, 20 years too early. Need to talk about coordination with Monona Terrace and Alliant Energy Center, not sure combined management of the three but structures to bring them closer together. Problem of Broadway touring shows, no more blockbusters in the pipeline. There will be some in the future, but no Wicked or Lion King of Phantom of the Opera ((which he doesn’t really like).

He reads a few more registrants not wishing to speak.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Julia Kerr asks if Dean Brasser, Comproller has reviewed the current proposal.

He says yes.

Kerr asks how this impacts the taxpayer.

Brasser says that its $2.5M offset by $500M so $2M. $2M on levy for average home is $22 or $23 since it is $ 1.13 so for every hundred thousand.

Kerr asks what the difference is.

Brasser says that it is an increase of 700K, since our current amount is $1.3M.

Schumacher asks if they adopted this what else would they have to do?

Michael May, City Attorney, says that this could stand on its own if the debt is paid off, maybe some other waivers and other things and it might take a while to wind down, but in terms of this, all you would do is look at their reports and decide if they want to continue to give the money.

Cnare asks if there is something like they require from non-profits in their contracts, would there be a similar contract like we require for community services.

May says that it is not envisioned in this document.

Cnare asks if we had a contract do we look at it every year, we would need to see prior years plan and outcomes and then see if we should give them money again. Do we need a separate contract every year? How do we have the assurance?

May says that its is not in here.

Rhodes-Conway asks HOW do we do it, that is what she is asking.

May says that you would need to add language.

Mark Clear asks what the ramifications would be.

May says they might not want to sign an agreement and there could be ramifications, from a legal stand point you would want to have that in place.

Kerr says there are a few issues for her, these are changes to the alternate resolution.

Clear says that there are other questions of staff and people are getting impatient.

Maniaci asks why owning it makes a difference. When Project Lodge they kept ownership of the idea, what is stopping the non-profit from owning the building and the city calling the shots.

May says agreement with the non-profit.

That doesn’t seem to be the answer she is looking from.

May says that we own it and we lease is and want a say, otherwise you just have a grant and say here is the money and this is what we want you to do with it.

Bruer asking a question and everyone is talking.

Brasser says in the new proposal there is no capital expense, but we woudl do opertian funds for oeprating and capital costs.

What about original proposal.

Brasser says there were items in capital and operating budget. In that case there is a smaller operating expense and then capital costs as they occur.

Bruer asks if there is anything that changed in last three years about concerns from capital budget. And what happened with the $6M amount we would be on the hook for.

May explains the firewalls from the 2005 agreement. City was last in the line and if things went bad we might own 1.8M in final year, the year we are in. There have been disputes about where payments went and the swap was liquidated and that was another $2M, so now up to as high as $6M, our office disputes if we owe any of it. That all disappears if the debt is paid off.

Compton asks if there was any explanation of the document, she has a question on page 2, she is wondering about adjustment of consumer price index and why no ceiling. Brasser says that they have that in many contracts to make sure they can have assurances so they can budget the right amount in the next budget. She asks what $1 would be in 10 years. Brasser says it all depends upon inflation.

Compton says $2M could be $10M in 10 years? He says it could but there has been 3% inflation over 10 years would be about $3M in 10 years.

Compton is worried about having no ceiling. Ramblling . . . asks if they can put in a ceiling.

May says they can do it any way they want a floor and ceiling and this has been the language with MCAD and in term sheet and included in the resolution. (Here’s an idea, let the nonprofits have that in their contracts!)

Compton wants a ceiling, which she said in many more words.

May says if inflation is 10% and our costs are going up, we aren’t getting anything. Compton argues her point.

DISCUSSION
Kerr says can’t stay up til 2:00 in the morning with you again. She wants to go through her points. On page 2, acceptance on item 2, of the audit before we give out the funds. She thinks they need to have an audit, they have not been timely and that should be a condition of the funding. She says she was a legal system to make employees whole on their retirement benefits. If they become employees of the entity, they should not lose their benefits. They should get what they would have gotten if stayed community employees. She also wants community programs to be quantified and we should escalate that by the same methodology we escalate our grant money by, this is an important thing we are getting. They also want acceptance by MCAD or 201 of projections of our capital need projections, she doesn’t want them coming back in 10 years and saying they need more money. City representation on board and exec committee, she is ok with not having open meetings. We don’t expect other non-profits to have open meetings. She wants an annual plan that has summary of contracts with residence companies. She says this would move me further along to supporting it but not making any commitments tonight.

There is a short process discussion . . .

Solomon says that he has a lot of changes that he would want to make to term sheet, won’t talk about that, but that is what he thought they were talking about. He wants to back up a step. He says he doesn’t see a private/private model, not if we are putting $2M, and don’t we have a private/private model now. What happens in 2 or 5 years from now if there is another deficit, we all acknowledge mistakes have been made, but here now. We can all acknowledge Overture is important to Madison, we all agree. If something happens in private/private model they’ll still come back to us. He was not a huge fan of private/public, but he is better with it, we have a lot of work to do on the term sheet, he wants experts to run it, but we can’t sit on sidelines and pretend we don’t have a stake in it, unless it had all the same criteria in the term sheet he worked on. We need a clear statement of what we want to see in Overture, we are the backstop no matter what. The difference between the two is $1.4 plus maintenance and just giving them $2M. Just a different model, to pretend private/private is possible we are missing the boat. He hopes they get to a point where they discuss the terms to get the money. In the end, if they need the money we have to support it and critical that we have a voice. Before we spend too much time talking about what to change on private/private we should talk about if we want it. We have lots of study and information on private/public, we have nothing on private/private. Timing makes it impossible for private/private.

Clear clarifies if he likes the alternate or original.

Solomon wants changes to the original.

Clear asks top 4 or 5 items.

Solomon says that he re-wrote the whole thing. If I were the Mayor and was in charge I would hand a document back and it has dozens of changes. Its the same principles we all talked about.

They ask him for top issues.

Solomon says that he thought we had to have Andrew’s financial projections were close, the 60/40 model, but he changed his mind and now our terms of agreement should be 3 years instead of 5 and have 6 instead of 4, that way we can renegotiate before bad things happen or gives us the out clause. That would help him with the capital expenditure ceiling. 3 year study on staffing, not transition period, they stay city employees and take three years to assess the long term staffing. 201 State could work with us or independently, we could get resolution on staffing. Failure to reach approval just carries it over for another 3 years.

Council getting impatient, want him to be more precise.

Solomon wants long term affordability for residence companies. Language about residence companies doing free or reduced cost functions. Residence company committee. Financial reporting if any event 50K or more under then ad hoc report created and given to council in 30 days. Not wait til annual report.

They stop him. Ask for questions.

Steve King agrees with first point, should discuss which model they should do. King won’t support public/private model. Thinks they should take a straw poll. He thought they couldn’t get 11 votes on public private model.

Kerr doesn’t want to take notes.

Schumacher says we don’t need to decide which model cuz they will merge. He says if support one model, you can’t add that many items. He can’t support the public/private model, too many issues. Both Mayors made excellent points, this could be a transition model and could talk about bigger picture. He focuses on the alternate, but no way he would support the first one.

Clear says he wants to get to point of recommending one of the resolutions.

Claussius says won’t vote for the public/private model, he was hoping they could flesh out something on private/private model and hopes we don’t get bogged down in points on the old model.

Maniaci likes the public model, thinks we have been short sided, “why the hell” do we need to own the buildings. There needs to be a process on the public side. Nonprofit owns building, city owns concept and visions, nonprofit maintains building, we maintain public good will. Operating board for donors, community board for public input, sorry, she’s losing me with all the details, can’t type good enough quick enough for a live blog, but its detailed and hopefully it is being captured. She says can’t sit here with two distinguished mayors saying we need a public model and now be looking at a private model. She says they should pick it apart.