Sorta live blogged again – this time, with a giant cup of diet Mountain Dew! (Yes, not Diet Coke, so watch out!) Agenda is here if you need to look anything up. NO time to add links.
ROLL CALL
Only Brian Solomon missing.
SUSPENSION OF THE RULES
They did.
HONORING RESOLUTIONS
Food Day
Lauren Cnare reads the resolution naming October 24 as Food Day. Cnare invites Mark Woulf to say a few words, he’s the Mayor’s staff person working food policy. He explains what Food Day is. He says they are trying to unify the efforts locally. That week you will see things going on around the city, they are making a list. The county will have a food summit. The first Food Policy Council will meet on that day as well. More info at foodday.org. Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
October is Pancreatic Cancer Month
Anita Weier reads the resolution. Carlin (sp?) speaks to the resolution. She says awareness is growning, Sunday there was a moving memorial service at the capitol, Overture Center was purple. Statistics are changing rapidly but not for the better. This will soon be the second leading cause of cancer deaths. In September the Housing of Representatives finally passed an act to deal with this but the Senate adjourned before dealing with it. Lucia Nunez says she hates doing this, she is a survivor, she doesn’t listen to the statistics – and when she looks at the statistics, the one where 94% of patients will die in first 5 years and only 6% will survive longer. She is currently at 4 years. She is worried about getting to the next step and there aren’t many to tell the story. They need more survivors and better diagnostic tools. Her brother died of pancreatic cancer less than three years before she was diagnosed. African Americans have higher numbers and so does Wisconsin. Thanks them. Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
onoring Jeff Kuesel for 27 years of public service
Marsha Rummel reads the resolution. The resolution is about his work on the Blair St. Garden. He speaks and thanks the other volunteers involved. Verveer also thanks him for his service and dedication. Talks about the beauty of the gardens, and everyone who sees that space. Hopes he is not really retiring. Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff reads the resolution. Director of a more local Susan B.Coleman organization says pancreatic cancer was where we were at 33 years ago before the group was started. She talks about the Well Woman and Access fund and how women can get breast cancer screenings. Joan, a 5 year survivor, thanks them, invites them to the capitol at noon. Says it is important for law enforcement to get involved. Wear pink and they’ll see them there. Special unvieling by the sheriff, can’t tell you what it is, but it will be well worth it. Weier says that she cannot vote yes, because of cutting money to Planned Parenthood, even tho the decision was reversed, as a breast cancer survivor she cannot forgive and forget so soon. Shiva Bidar-Sielaff says that many of them may feel the same way about the national decision, but our local affiliate did a great job of standing up and speaking up to the national level and they did that, and it made a difference. She says they make a difference locally and she wants to support that. She thanks them for their work. The Director came back to correct the statement that mammograms are not given at Planned Parenthood. Very quiet yeses, no audible nos.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Referred to the next meeting.
EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
Missed the woman’s name, her son was murdered on Balsam and she is seeing the same activities on Teresa Lane where she lives now as when she lived on Balsom. She wants the kids to put down the guns and pick up a pencil. Missed the rest.
David Meyer, lives in Brentwood Neighborhood, talks about rapid growth in families and kids in the neighborhood. Rapid growth is going from 4 kids to 49 out of his apartments. Kids are not properly supervised, they are getting into trouble. Says there were two cop cars in the neighborhood on his way here tonight. Two weapons problems with adults in the neighborhood recently. He talks says there are 56 apartment buildings with 330? apartments. They are trying to do their own programming in the neighborhood. They need some real help. They want some support, but they are doing things on their own. They got a 2 year commitment from UW to help organize the neighborhood. They want to do urban gardening, a science exploration program, they want a non-profit to buy and manage apartment buildings to make money, they want to incubate day care and other small businesses. They don’t just have their hands out, from the operating budget they want to rent apartment units and renovate for meeting spaces. They also need someone to manage it, to work with extension to keep it sustainable. He asks why they don’t use Warner Park or ST. Pauls. He says it is .6 miles to walk to Warner Park, and have to walk across parking lots and softball diamonds. Hard for moms to push stroller there. Warner Park wasn’t built for a neighborhood center, other neighborhood centers stayed open when it was closed. People also want to know why they don’t use the programs at other neighborhood centers. He says it is because their programs are full, its hard to get there and they can’t accommodate people from other areas. He says they need to start small now.
Thomas Kozlovski – lives on Pauline Ave in Mark Clear’s District, is concerned about the TIF funding, read in the paper this morning about it. Originally they said something different, we shouldn’t pay TIF funding if they are going to sell it. He says we know what happens with the Edgewater and how they could afford to do it themselves. He thinks the UW can do it themselves. If they are going to sell 2/3 of the property they should get 2/3 of the TIF requests. He also is here to speak on opt-out for the Water Utility. He supports the opt-out position of the Water Utility, but there should be no charge. This is an installation of meters across the city and they should pay if it is outside or not at all. He also says that these smart meters weren’t known about until the contract was signed and then told people about it. He says there are health problems associated with smart meters. The radio frequency and transmitters are transmitting 24 hours a day all year. They could have hooked these up to fiber optic cable. He says he looked at his water bill, says it would be silly to pay $7/month for these meters. He talks about other cities that have done this. Time runs out.
Brian Solomon joins the meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff explains that the consent agenda means that all items will pass on the agenda as recommended unless someone is here to speak
Public hearing items 6, 7 18 20 24 25 26 27
26 – on consent agenda, recommendation is to place on file.
33 – will record a unanimous consent.
35 – has a second substitute and recommendation is to adopt second substitute.
Separted items 11, 16, 31, 67
Cnare removes 35
Rhodes-Conway votes no on 47.
MOVE RECONSIDERATION ON PANHANDLING
Marsha Rummel moves to reconsider and refer to October 16th meeting. The motion was seconded. They refer the reconsideration to the October 16th meeting. Mayor explains the process. If the motion carries it will before them for reconsideration on the 16th, if it fails there will be no reconsideration because they can’t take any other action because it has to be noticed.
Ellingson asks why they are doing this. Rummel says she has become aware of new court cases and wants the opportunity to revisit her vote.
Maniaci asks the city attorney about the court case, is there anything he is concerned about? Without debating the merits.
Attorney may says that it was the equivalent of a cuircuit court ruling but he hasn’t had time to review it.
Motion fails on a voice vote.
CAPITAL BUDGET HEARING
Jennifer Alston – Also from Brentwood, she wants them to be considered in the budget, there is an apartment building they could use to bring positive influences into the neighborhood. She says if they used that apartment, it would eliminate many of the problems they had this summer. She says she came home to a stand off and several fights in the neighborhood. Need to set a good example for our kids. WE have teenagers and elementary school girls fighting. If they had a canter there would be more opportunities for positive things to happen in the neighborhood and they could decrease the amount of police interactions. She has lived there 2 years, she lived there before and it was much quieter then. This would be a start. We can start small and build big. This would be a good opportunity for us to stop some of the bad behaviors. If we can continue our work it will decrease the violence, she wants the neighborhood to be safe again.
Recess the public hearing.
OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Ideal
4 lobbyists registered in support and wish to speak. Blahbitty, blah, blah. This is great! Vote for us! Sorry to be flip, but I’ve spent too many hours in city hall listening to developers tell us how great they are and I don’t want to type their propaganda. The issue boils down to a dispute about having an extra story. Alder Ellingson supports it, some of the neighbors don’t. It passed UDC and Plan Commission, but not unanimously. Soglin also took the opportunity to take a break while the lobbyists were speaking, Alder Bidar-Sielaff in the chair.
Alder Ellingson says there is a group of neighbors opposed to this and she wants to honor their commitment to making the neighborhood better. They just disagree. She says this will bring more businesses to the neighborhood and bring people to the neighborhood instead of having them just drive through. Asks them to support.
Bidar-Sielaff closes the public hearing. Ellingson moves to recommend with the recommendations from Plan commision. Reminds the developers they now have audio visual equipment. Motion passes.
Number 18
No speakers, no discussion.
Passes – placed on file.
Number 20
No speakers, no discussion. Moves ALRC recommendation. Passes on voice vote.
Number 24, 25 26 & 27
No speakers, some registrants in support. Motion to grant 24, 25 and 27 and 26 is place on file without prejudice. Motion passes on voice vote.
ITEM 11 – LABORER’S CONTRACT
Move to refer, passes on voice vote.
ITEM 16 – POLLING LOCATION FOR WARD 49
Verveer moves but changes Memorial Library to Fresh Madison Market. Passes on voice vote.
ITEM 31 – TIF FOR GI CLINICS
Clear moves adopt.
Schmidt asks for a point of order. Mayor says he didn’t hear the first motion and that he can make a motion. Schmidt refers back to Economic Development for them to do a staff report and to the gap analysis.
Developer – missed his name – says this is just housekeeping on the TIF. They want to build a second building later when the UW wants to, they would build the parking now. They aren’t taking away or adding, just replacing what was there and its consistent with the GDP. He says the gap analysis will show that they need the money, they will have higher density, they will double the density, double the parking and this is just housekeeping. They are not selling for a profit, they are selling for $1 and then get a parking lease back, we are the new owners, we are not selling to a third party. The banks require single entity LLCs to own the property, but it is the same people who would own it. (Wow, I think that was as bad as it sounded but I”m not sure I got it all!)
Chris Schmidt asks if he was saying that when parcel B comes forward, will they be asking for more TIF? No.
Schmidt asks Aaron Olver, Economic Development Director, asks him to explain why none of the analysis was done, since this started 5 months ago.
Questions of Staff
Olver says they did the analysis. They look at how much increment the project generates and how much it needs. In this case we gave them a loan for 29% of the increment. They look at the sources and uses and the gap – in this case it is 1.7M. There are two issues – how can they facilitate more development and how can they protect the taxpayer. The amendment has two protections, one is keeps the equity participation in place (1.37M in the future) and it keeps the PILOT in place as well. He says no one ever suggested that they look at the gap again, his reaction was that Schmidts amendment allows for additional density and give protections. He didn’t think they needed to do a new gap analysis. He says they need to decide how much of the money goes to the parking and the building. He says some of the gap would go to each and it might reduce the gap on parcel A, but it would just push the gap to parcel B and if I was the developer I would ask for that again. The overall sources and uses won’t change. What he heard is that we can get a second building for the same amount of TIF. If they relook at the TIF, he heard that they could apply again and then the city may have to pay more. He says we can protect the taxpayer and facilitate growth.
Maniaci asks if they need to do a referral for gap analysis, my assesment of yoru statement is that this is close enough for horse shoes.
Olver says the costs and sources haven’t changes, the gap hasn’t changed, the project is underway. If we allocated the gap, depending on what is driving it, it is conceivable that it is larger or smaller. If smaller then we would reduce the TIF loan, but still a gap in the project under construction and it would need another TIF loan. He thinks it doesn’t change the picture. He wants to make sure they don’t come in for a second request. He says all they are doing is playing accounting and there isn’t any practical difference.
Clear asks how they would do a gap analysis on just parcel A, if parcel B wasn’t a part of the project, you could have significant additional parking costs. How would you do the analysis and could the gap be higher.
Olver says the project was building plus parking. If you divide it, looking at just parcel A, we would divide the land costs and there would be dmeolition and site prep costs and environmental remediation. The hard costs would be on parcel A and we would decide where the gap got allocated, and we would have to decide what amount goes where. It won’t change the amount of the gap, it just decides if it is credited to the building or the surface parking lot. Anytime trying to assign something as amorphous as a gap you are making assumptions and judgements and if asked 5 people would get 5 different answers. If we assign gapto parcel B we would be inviting them to apply.
Clear asks Schmeidicke, City Finance Depeartmet – this doesn’t increase the taxpayer risk, is that right.
Schmiedicke says yes.
Asks Michal May, City Attorney as well. He agrees too.
Rhodes-Conway asks him to speak to LLC ownership issue.
Olver says that on 800 block if there were 4 buildings, there would be 4 LLCs. In this case there is the same ownership in all the buildings, he says that in the future they will have to create another LLC when they purchase the building. Wow, that was confusing and I understood what he was saying but not how he said it.
Rhodes-Conway asks how the city deals with LLCs in land use and TIF approvals, do we have an agreement with the LLC< the ownership group or multiple LLCs, and what offers us protections.
Olver says that what he found elegant about the amendment is that they attach all the requirements to the current LLC. He understands why you could have part of the gap between the parcels, but this requires equity participation only from this LLC and the guarantee is also only on this LLC. We are pushing all the requirements and responsibilities on this LLC. The question is smart and the way this was drafted is smart too.
Rhodes-Conway asks if we need a policy to deal with LLCs regularly.
Olver says it is a huge challenge with multi-phase projects.
Rhodes-Conway says they are straying and she looks forward to future discussions.
On the motion to refer
Mayor reminds them this is a referral motion.
Schmidt says supported this from the beginning. He says issues is balancing the process with intent. He says that this is the first time they have attempted to do this, but there are several coming up. It’s worth our attention on this first one, he says there is heart burn about it, but we have to have this discussion. He says that the plan hasn’t changed, but when we considered it kept the parcel together and now we changed the assumptions. He isn’t comfortable saying that it will all wash out. He’d rather just stick with the process.
Clear says this is process for the sake of process. He says there is nothing in the gap analysis that will change anything. This is just cleaning up a mistake that was made. They should have subdivided this earlier and this is just an error. This is a housekeeping matter. Simple problem, in the end there will be no difference. This will generate a tremendous amount of increment. Delaying is pointless, this is punitive to the developer, this already took too long, this is ready to move forward. I understand that anything related to TIF generated radiation and may be harmful, we don’t need to do this.
Maniaci says that if we open this up we could be opening ourselves up for more liability and drama totally unnecessarily. The 800 block, for instance, remember the discussion about camping and the two sites and she is concerned she will be in the same spot in the future, the project is the project. Can’t support referral but glad we had the discussion but no need for referral.
Schmidt says this is not a mistake, it was clear when the process was gone through the first time, we had a provision to prevent subdivision and that is why this is here. Comment about small amounts of radiation being harmless.
Amendment
Clear makes and amendment that if TIF is requests at a future date then the combination of parcel A and B be included in that analysis.
They decided that is out of order. Clear withdraws.
Procedure
Mayor says that he should have heard Clear because if referral fails nothing is before them.
Vote on motion
Motion to refer fails overwhlemingly.
New motion
Clear makes motion to approve with his amendment. Schmidt agrees that is what he would do too. Motion passes on a voice vote overwhlemingly.
ITEM 35 – FOOD POLICY COUNCIL
Move adoption of the second substitute.
Cnare moves to substitute one adult for a youth.
Rhodes-Conway asks if the adult member removed is one of the remaining 6 members.
Someone asks what a youth is.
Chare says 18 or under. She explains that we talk a lot about how youth are affected, talks about 4H clubs and other youth groups and we should bring youth into the discussion.
Resnick asks if anything requires members of committees to be 18 or older. City website says that someone has to be 18 or older.
Michael May says that is the rule, but they can put it in the motion.
Amendment passes.
Rummel says she is less than enthusiastic about the large committee. Just had to say that out loud. Mayor has been shrinking committees. Go forth and fix the food world.
Weier agrees with Rummel.
Motion passes.
ITEM 67 – OPT-OUT POLICY FOR WATER UTILITY
Moves the substitute.
Public Testimony
Diane ?? – She says she wants to opt out and doesn’t ant to be penalized by paying a monthly fee for health and economic reasons. She says if the current meters work they shouldn’t be replaced. The smart meters have health risks. Monthly readings will only increase revenue for the utility and will not serve any other basis. There have been no public meeting and she wants transparency in government and shared governance. Until ti was questioned, there was no opt-out policy. This policy is cobbled together in response to criticism after the installation began. She says she got a postcard on Thursday asking for comments on Monday and she thinks this means they don’t really want input.
Len Lindsay, been here in Madison for decades. Supports opt-out. He enjoys riding the bus, glad they allow wheelchairs and they get a discount, bikers don’t get extra charges. He likes the libraries, he doesn’t get charged extra to get books. His family has enjoyed the parks, and there is no fee even if people don’t come. The costs are unreasonable. He doesn’t like how they come up with the costs. 2 minutes to schedule a meeting, 5 minutes to read it and 2(?) minutes to do data entry and drive 10 miles between meters but is only 13 miles East to West Towne, he says that if they kept is 6 months it would be 25 cents per reading and he’d be happy to pay that.
Delores Kester – she was the lead on the complaint to the PSC, she supports the opt-out policy. It was not her first choice, but compliments the water utility staff and board. It is important for officials to listen, they have been listening to us. They have worked constructively with staff over the last months. Some communities have taken years to get where we got in 4 months. She says that is due to constructive working together. You can be proud of how they worked with us customers on these difficult issues. She can live with the recommendation before them, but wants them to consider a tweak. Give a credit to those who opt-out if it turns out to be less than anticipated. Also urges them to consider Dan Melton’s comments about this being a disincentive. It creates special charges for some customers, the total cash amount is minimal but an accounting nuisance and bureaucratic nightmare. He says his comments are important because of his standing in the community.
Susan Pastor – She thanks them for an opt-out. You saved trouble by putting this up front. Many did an opt out after the fact. However, this is not ideal, please eliminate the charge. If you are determined that we should pay, its not an opt-out and not fair if it affects people differently based on income, if it impacts the most economically vulnerable in the community you should make a provision for them. Consider that we already had 8% increase and 20%? in past years and another 12% is coming. Think about those who are already strapped. If do it to those of us who can pay, ok, not fair, but consider those who can’t pay.
Questions of Staff
Weier wants to know if the transmitter is outside the building and needs to be replaced, who pays for it?
Water Utility Director says that would be a repair to the system and that is our cost because it is our property.
Weier asks about option 2, after ti is installed, you will charge actual cost for time and materials if someone changes their mind.
He says yes, when we no longer have the ability for the contractor to do it, not a guaranteed fixed cost, then we have to charge time and materials.
What would that cost be?
It would depend upon the circumstances.
Maniaci asks Water Utility Director about the compromise at $7.78 and it was originally $15.42, how did you get to those figures.
Tom says that $15.42 is the average monthly cost. The $7.78 is a quarterly reading, which requires 2 estimated bills and then an actual reading. When we estimate that requires time too. When look at back office costs and only have filed costs quarterly that is the number you get.
Maniaci asks if there are adjustments based on the number of people who opt-out. If less people opt out will it cost more?
He says there would be a difference and they will have to adjust it to reflect actual costs if it is less or greater.
Maniaci asks what happens if the assumptions are very different, can we just raise the rates, don’t we have to get the rate approved by the service commission, so what is the process for that to adjust the rate.
He says that they would include that in the next application to increase rates, that is when the analysis would be done. Thsi tariff is a new class of customers and the full costs of that should be allocated to that class of customers.
Maniaci asks if this is an annual request or quarterly?
He says technically you could go in as soon as you know, but we do it annually.
Maniaci says that we have been working hard to have the wireless info on a monthly basis and if we do the compromise, ad do it quarterly, what is the cost or trade offs for the agency for doing that.
The opt-out customer would still get a monthly bill, they would get one real read, 2 estimates and then a real read. They wouldn’t know their real reading except once a quarter and they couldn’t go on-line and see their usage. The one time it will affect us is when we do a zone analysis, it will be less accurate. This will help us with leak detection efforts and the more people opt out, the less effective that analysis is.
Rhodes-Conway says the premise is that utility is required to cover the actual costs – they expect the tariffs to do that.
Yes, the cost of service principle, so when class rates, they don’t want to see cross subsidization.
Rhodes-Conway says that the one time charge for the installation on the outside of a building was $50 and now it is $40 and that is only 75% of the cost, will they approve that?
Robin says they don’t know if they will. We have a contract for $18.81 for inside adn the change order is for $69.50 outside. The difference is $59.69 and we don’t have a lot of wiggle room and I don’t think they will be in favor of a subsidy of that.
So the subsidy would come from the rest of the customers.
Yes.
What if PFC doesn’t approve it, will it come back to us?
Robin says it won’t come back, they will set the rate. They are looking for what Water Utility Board and Council wants, but they set it.
Rhodes-Conway says we could propose this and they could come back and it would be more and that would be the final decision.
Tom says PFC staff will look at it, they will make their own recommendation and the three commissioners will decide what to do.
Rhodes-Conway says the meter reading staff was going to be reassigned to other duties, so how would this be staffed.
Robin says that part of their time would be doing the manual meter reads, so we wouldn’t have them doing all of their new duties, they would do their old duties.
Rhodes-Conway says they are under a consent decree, does that allow for estimates.
Robin says yes.
Rhodes-Conway asks if the actual readings you would true up and there would be a credit or additional charge, correct.
Robin says yes.
Rhodes-Conway says one of the speakers asked about danger of creating different customer classes in this way. What is to prevent us for doing this for different wells, what would prevent us from creating a geographic customer base.
Tom says source of supply has always been a common cost. Wells go in and out of service, it is an interconnected service and it is hard to know who is served by which well.
Rhodes-Conway asks if ther eare any other circumstances where we would have another customer class?
Tom says yes, a new multi-family customer. PSC is considering this now. They might have different rates in the future. If three units or greater and one meter would have a different rate.
Rhodes-Conway says this is differen ttypes of classes with different costs.
Tom says yes.
Rhodes-Conway says this is the PSC, they make the decision, when they do, if in a year or two we discover the costs are lower, are we able to give a rebate to individual customers in this class or do we have to wait and reassess and apply it going forward.
Tom says that the second one is more difficult, not beyond the realm of possibility, but its hard when ownership changes, who would get the rebate. Since it is likely we will be back there fairly regularly, there is opportunity for correction, we don’t know if this will be low or high, we are not proposing to charge retroactively if the costs are high.
Rhodes-Conway asks how the public participates in the PSC process, what is the timeline. What should they look for if they want to comment to the PSC.
Robin says that Oct 25th will be when they can decide on it, we will get something submitted this week after you decide. He’s not clear on the details once we file our request, but it should be on the PSC website to know how to be involved.
Rummel asks if we can refund if there is an overcharge, how would we do that? Is there a legal process or is it internal, how could we accomplish that.
Tom says it should be part of the rate order to the PSC and they would approve that.
Robin asked if that has happened before, staff wasn’t aware of it, but the commission would decide if we could offer that option, if we asked for it, they would decide.
Rummel asks if that is the best way to move forward, in the rates, not a policy at teh water utility.
Tom says that would be the best way to go.
Maniaci asks how many households are looking at opting out, do you have an estimate.
Robin says 400 households, when the policy is approved they will get the information on option 1 and 2, but we are not sure that all the city has responded and letters have only gone out to a portion of the city. It could be 1 – 2% of the customers who opt out.
Maniaci says that you talked about efficiencies in the system, what is the break point where too many people opt out and it is a moot point.
Tom says that commissioners had the same question, hard to get an exact number. 2% or 1200 customers depending where they are located, could start to impact it.
Maniaci says she has an older district and if there is a concentration of customers in certain areas, will there be an increase or disproportionate effect on efficiency.
Tom says yes, if bunched instead of evenly distributed it would have an impact. That area would be not a candidate for a water balance analysis.
Are you seeing patterns.
Too small and early to tell, only mailed out to 11,000 customers.
Weier asks if the charge of actual costs for time and labor to add or remove a smart meter would apply to new owners who buy the property.
Tom says yes, to remove a standard installation, that would be their cost. We would give them an estimate and then they would have to pay the opt out cost.
Weier wants to know about option 1.
Tom says that is just when they move it, there would be a charge that the customer would have to bear. In option 2 there is the removal charge and the on-going charge.
Bidar-Sielaff asks them to stop the side conversations.
Clear says if the meter is on the outside, if they opt in do they pay the relocation charge.
Tom says that that is a one time charge and no on-going charge.
Clausius says 400 inquiries so far, from just one area.
Tom says yes.
So it could go higher.
Yes, depending on marketing efforts and people’s perceptions of the system. If 50% actually opt out of the 400, then 200 times 6 its 1200 or about 2%.
Joe Clausius says that we were going to elminate two people and reallocating them, so would we have to keep one half time at least, is that accurate.
Tom says, that could be, and don’t forget about the back office load, to estimate 1000 bills a month is very time consuming.
Clausius says $7.78 might be low if a lot of people opt out and it has to be manual.
Tom says there are a lot of unknowns. We’ll have to see how it pans out.
Clausius asks if $7.78 came from PSC.
Tom says it came from a board member.
Jill Johnson asks about cross subsidization and if there has ever been an exemption where it has been allowed.
Tom doesn’t know of any, that is a bedrock of the policy for the state and industry. There aren’t any economic based rates in Wisconsin, some states are looking at that.
Johnson says they are going to them with something they won’t approve and this is a false exercise and a big fat waste of time. It has no likelihood of being approved.
Tom says that the city decided to have an opt out and there are two options. The structure is a valid policy proposal and the actual charges – the strike out is the water utility board changes and perhaps they thought it might stick. This isn’t a waste of time.
Weier asks again about removing the outside mount being removed.
Tom says removal is option 2, after the project is over and contractor not there, then they would do it themselves.
Weier asks about removing outside – Bidar-Sielaff explains the question.
Tom says good question, cost is lower to remove outside instead of inside. Less time would be spent. Depends upon where customer is located, violent dogs that need to be placated or whatever.
Biadr-Sielaff asks if that is part of the application to the PSC.
Tom says these charges are while the contractor is in place.
Discussion
Rhodes-Conway thanks staff. You heard the will of the council and appreciates that. Appreciates time put in listening to the public, and reading through and responding to many emails. Thinks they have a reasonable proposal, hopes PSC will approve it, but has her doubts too. It’s ultimately their decision. Thanks the citizens who worked on this, while she doesn’t agree with many of them she appreciates their involvement, and wishes that it came years ago when they started this project. She encourages every citizen who cares about this issue to talk to the body that has the decision making power over the dollar amounts. The Public Service C omission sets all the rates, in fact we were told to ask for a higher rate increase than we proposed. There have been multiple hearings where no one has come to comment. If people are concerned you should talk to body that has the power. Urges them to adopt.
Cnare thanks everyone who asked questions. Water Board had 30 – 40 people come to meeting, and acted quickly later that week because council wanted the policy and notices had gone out. Option 1, mount on the outside, the cost is $59.60 and people said that is a lot of money. Why does it matter if outside or inside. We were sympathetic to arguments, we can always go back to the contractor and tell them we need less. Option 2, this is more of a guess but a smaller number but it is a special charge for the special care. I know some people want a refund, we don’t know and we can’t go back and get more money, she would encourage them to review in a year and see the actual cost and then include it in the rate case later. Missed some. She asks them to support, they may have to revisit this. Hopes some day people will accept his as a safe technology. This is about conservation. Hopes they can support it and we will see it again.
Amendment
Manaici applauds staff for their work. They are bending over backwards for a minority of a city that wants, and we come to them with offers and ask for a better, sweeter deal. She makes an amendment ot make it $59.69. Jill Johnson seconds. We don’t have the money for this, we have to cover our costs and the entire reasons to put the system in place is for conservation and efficiency, we are leting a minority of the community undercut the entire system. All it takes is 1 – 2% which we are rapidly getting to and she has grave concern. There is a lot of talk of the 99% and 1% and ???????? – this is like sidewalks, I don’t want to pay the cost, because they get along without sidewalks and we have decided we value sidewalks. We are trying to do something similar here, we have similar policy goals, and asking people to pay the true cost is not a burden to be put off and it should be done on an equitable basis. The whole point of having people testify is to hear what they want and move the football down the field, our staff is bruised and we are going to have a death of a thousand papercuts.
No one else speaks.
Roll Call: Ayes are Ellingson, Johnson, King, Maniaci, Palm, Phair, Resnick, Schmidt, Skidmore, Solomon, Weier, Bruer, Clear and I missed what Bidar-Seilaff said – ayes won.
13 ayes, 6 nos.
Schmidt reminds them that they need to speak up when they vote since the clerk is not repeating the vote. (Indeed!)
Point of order on the count of the vote – Bidar-Sielaff said she is the chair so she doesn’t vote. They tell her she can. They vote now.
Clerk says it was 12-7 and now it is 12-8
Another Amendment
Rummel moves for option 2 to have a rate request for offer a refund if more than actual costs. Seconded. She says staff made a point and we can ask for it then.
Cnare says she is with her, but she can’t support it, but this is another back of the house administrative burden. SHoudl there be a threshold. What if it is .59 instead of $10. She says that if people are concerned enough about not having the water meter, this is a cheap charge for your health, this is a cheap charge, they can afford it. We will create more costs and headaches.
Weier says that she fears a previous speaker denigrated that opposed this, they are not just trying to get out of paying.
Motion fails.
Discussion
Maniaci says that she has discomfort with option 2, if you think that is a good thing or not that would be good to know. Her concern from the speakers about cost, if you jsut have a monthly charge and add that up over the years, that is a much greater cost than to mount it on the outside or to say that you will just go along with it. She is ok with it for other reasons, children, dogs, something in the basement, there may be a reason to say put it on the outside, but has concerns about option 2 undercutting the whole system. She would be more comfortable with the $15.32. We will be back here again in a year. That is the compromise position to adjust it after the fact. She says option 2 doesn’t accomplish the policy goals. Missed some.
Vote
Passes on a unanimous voice vote.
INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Schmidt – Board of Public works item. . . missed it
Verveer – Title only, purchase of the fire station for Hovde, referred to Board of Estimates and Plan Commission
Skidmore – S & M land purchase. Board of Estimates and Plan Commission
Phair – Option to purchase a property for Teresa Terrace Community Center – Board of Estimates and Plan Commission. Cnare asks to add Community Services Commission.
ADJOURN
