Council Recap, Part I of III

Everything except the alcohol issues . . . sorry its late, but there were 26 pages of notes and I went out for a beer after the meeting . . . that’s what you get for free! But you won’t find it anywhere else . . . this is what didn’t make the news. There’s some interesting issues that were discussed for a change.
ROLL CALL AND GETTING STARTED
Everyone in attendance except Chris Schmidt and Brian Solomon who were excused. Paul Skidmore left at some point in the meeting and was also excused.

Mayor says they will dispense with reading of minutes, and if there is no objection, the record is approved.
Of course, that’s not on the agenda and often the minutes aren’t done, no one ever sees them, let alone reads them.

Suspension of the rules to take ordinances and resolutions out of order on the agenda and introduce them at the end of the meeting.

HONORING RESOLUTION
Sue DeBolt honored for her 36 years working for the City of Madison. Mayor Paul Soglin reads the resolution. Sue’s not there, so Brad Wirtz comes forward to accept it, instead of rising and applauding the council members groan. Wirtz says she has been a good public sector employee, intelligent, respected, only regret is he couldn’t get her to stay. She deserves this. Now they clap. Motion passes.

PETITION
Item 2 – referred to July 19th.

EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
Two people Franklin Wilson and Douglas Swiggum, both in support (I think mayor said opposition), here to answer questions on their item (missed what it was, but I think it was a development project).

CONSENT AGENDA
Items 3 – 18 are public hearings.

21 & 22 were excluded to add referrals. The Sustainability Plan is being referred to the Water Utility and the additional restrictions for the Zoo are being referred to the Public Safety Review Committee.

57 & 160 has a note, same item appears twice because it was introduced late. This is the applying for $2M for Brownfield remediation for Royster Clark.

52 is an extra-majority and it will be recorded as being unanimous. It’s an adjustment to the Fire Department Budget for damage from a sprinkler system at the fire station.

They will discuss items 23 & 29 which they will take up together (ALDO), 33 (Taking alcohol from behind the registers to the store aisles in Walmart West.) to place on file at request of applicant and will be voted on with the consent agenda, and they separate 34 (Walmart East) and 93 (nudity) for discussion.

Mark Clear refers number 102 (repealing banning sales of alcohol to chronic drunks) to the Public Safety Review Committee.

Bridget Maniaci separates Curt Brink’s referral to the Housing Committee and refers it to September 6th.

Maniaci also separates item 30 (Majestic request to do an event) for questions of staff.

Satya Rhodes-Conway discloses that on item 20 her partner is being appointed to a committee.

Clear asks on item 20 (appointments, just introduced, change referral date?

Mayor says the item is separated, that is appropriate, they will deal with the motion when it comes up.

Verveer says should separate sister event to 30, and separate 28 as well.

Motion carries.

ITEM 20 – CURT BRINK APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING COMMITTEE
They have to wait 5 minutes until the public hearing, so they take it up.

Clear asks if introduction not acceptance if this is appropriate.

Mayor says they approved everything except Brink appointment.

Maniaci moves to refer to Sept. 6th – no discussion, motion carries.

Essentially, this is to make Curt Brink lobby against SB107, which I find a little sketchy. I think they should have at least discussed why this was happening. If you ask me, Curt is a good representative of the Apartment industry to the committee. I personally can’t think of anyone better at the moment, Curt is knowledgeable and has been involved.

ITEM 28 & 30 – MAJESTIC & WOOFS EVENT
Move to adopt.

Jamie McCarville registered opposing and available to answer questions on 30 and 31.

Maniaci asks City Attorney Michael May why this is being placed on file, what was the change of opinion that came out of this item, knows there was a lengthy discussion but what changed?

May says it is not a change of opinion, it was sometimes the practice of city to do a change in licensed premises to allow people to have sale of alcohol on street with a street use license, they think this is not the correct use of a change in premises request. For a change in premises it should be areas you control, a better and correct way is to get a a class B picnic license with the street use. The change in premises is for when there is a permanent use on property you control.

Maniaci asks about the memo, where is it?

May says not sure there is one.

Maniaci asks to refer to next meeting to get a memo from staff.

That motion gets no second from the other alders.

Maniaci says she wanted to bring this to the council’s attention, she says what is happening to applicants is deplorable, we sent them down a path, they entered into contractual obligations and now have no avenue to go forward, they need a 501c3 to have a picnic license, its not fair to leave them in the lurch. This is frustrating, at a minimum they should get info from staff, there is nothing in front of them why this is changing. The Majestic owners used this in 2009, now being told not proper and I have nothing in front of me telling me what this is, she won’t’ vote for it, and hopes they will do the same.

Satya Rhodes-Conway apologies for not doing homework, she says Maniaci raises an issue, are we saying the event can’t go forward, or just saying this is not the way to do it. Is a picnic license restricted to nonprofits?

May says yes, its just the method not the event. Only non-profits can get the picnic license, that is relatively easily done, only need 7 days.

Rhodes-Conway confirms that they are not preventing the event, just using a different process.

May says yes.

Mike Verveer says this is in his district, he talked to the license holders and as you heard, we heard over an hour of discussion at the last ALRC meeting talking about that opinion, there was no official memo he can recall, it was all verbal. City Attorney Roger Allen and he had several sidebar conversations leading up to the meeting, he didn’t second to refer not because city attorney can or should produce a memo, but his concern is that by referring we will give a sense of false hope that council may overturn ALRC recommendation based on legal advice from city attorney. Not that this shouldn’t be in writing, would appreciate the legal advice in writing cuz it will come back, they did have a thorough discussion and referring this a couple week will give a false sense of hope to Wolfs and Majestic, a glimmer of hope to go back to old way. In recent conversations they are pursuing the only avenue left, a bonafide non-profit organization and that will occur next month.

There is no further discussion, this is placed on file on voice vote, only Maniaci audibly votes no.

PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 – 14
Report of ALRC, items 3 – 14, mayor open hearings, there are no registrations, hearings closed except 8 , 11 and 14 which are re-refered, motion carries to approve the rest with their recommendations.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – ITEM 15, ASSESSMENTS TO CONDOS FOR TRAFFIC LIGHT
Move to adopt.

Public Testimony and Questions
Jeff Crevat (sp?) speaking against, he lives at Sauk Creek Condominiums at Farmington Way and Old Sauk Rd. He is opposed to the traffic signal one block from Gammon Rd. He points out the traffic lights in the area. The proposal is to have 4 traffic lights in a 4 block area. That may not be necessary. He has lived there all his life, he has been there at rush hour and hasn’t seen the problems, they come out of Farmington Way and turn left on Old Sauk and don’t have to wait and a block east they have an exit and they don’t have issues there either. There is a surcharge on the signal, its $1300 assessment on the condos individually. They are assessing individuals in condos and ignoring people who live in homes. They use the signal more often, he wants to know why he is singled out. When the ordinance was prepared, condos were high rise and more densely populated and they expected more traffic, but they are not a large complex, they pay full taxes, and they pay for trash and brush removal and snow plowing and pave their own streets and they get no credit for that. They think it is unfair and inequitable and they don’t think the light is necessary.

Paul Soglin says 3 people oppose assessment, support the light.

Clear asks specific questions about the area. The speaker clarifies for him.

Clear asks if they benefit from the signal?

He says no, if the lights are coordinated in other areas and there should be no problem.

Clear asks if they benefit from gap if created from east, then can get out of Farmington more easily.

He says get same benefit from light one block away.

Clear says he wants to separate assessments from need for the signal, and asks if he is representing the association.

No he’s not.

Clear asks if he knew anything about the assessments.

He says they wrote a letter and it was sent to board of public works.

Lisa Subeck asks if no assessment would you still be opposed?

He says its a matter of equity, the assessment is nominal per unit, but he’s here cuz of how law is applied, that is the consensus of people he talked to.

Lauren Cnare asks if only condos assessed but not single family homes.

He says there are no single family homes in there, they are all complexes.

Questions of Staff
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks staff to clarify the practice and that it isn’t an ordinance, how long doing this?

Staff (Scott?) says that it is the policy for at least 15 years – it’s not that single family residents are not in the assessment district, they are in the city share, they have less than 10 trips per parcel, the idea with the condos as single development produces traffic that feeds out to 2 spots on the city network, like a development of a business center or something like that, that is why they use 10 trip credit to each parcel. Every parcel in district did get that credit.

Bidar-Sielaff asks if every parcel, why each member of condo, each condo owner doesn’t produce more than 10 but get assessed at higher rate?

Staff says they assigned trips based on number of units, if it was a shopping mall, they say x number of trips, they assign trips to them, the city pays for 10 and they pay for the rest. There are two driveways, each single family residential might have 8 – 9 trips per driveway, but these developments have 150 trips, so they pay as a percentage of the entire district.

Paul Skidmore asks after noting this is in his district, two things, one is if the light is needed and second is about the assessment policy. He is on Ped, Bike Motor Vehicle Commission for 6 – 8 years, knows that they have policies to determine when signal is warranted, how did this rank and how did we get here?

David Dryer, the Traffic Engineer says it was on the list of locations to review annually for signalization since 1992, and with time and development and the research office parks, traffic has reached level to need it, Ped Bike approved it.

Skidmore says he has no doubt it is warranted, what do you base the policy on and how many years has it been in place?

Dryer says they use different things in the city to charge assessments like linear curb, but with traffic they proportion it by a traffic generation number, they have reviewed that method and used it for many projects since before he got here, they provide a 10 trip discount per parcel, there is density correlations and linkage between creating a need and funding it.

Clear asks about assessments and he doesn’t see a condo unit where it is more than $60 and for Sauk Creek it is $18.20 and they can pay it over 8 years – is that correct?

They all agree.

Discussion
Larry Palm says this is not specific to the project, this time every year he says that at Board of Public works they do this a lot, it is consistent with adopted policies and council should have concerns about the policies and we should question how we come to the decisions, and there is a lot of the policies about curb and gutter and sidewalk and we should look at it, but look at it not on the issues at hand but on the broader constructive review, once a year look at policies to make sure logical and useful. Not because one community says this doesn’t work for us. We need to do it consistently in the year, they should all be consistent and they have been improving it, if don’t like the policy that is ok, talk to Board of Public Works and others when not doing construction so can revise for the next season. When we talk about unfair, it would be to change how they do it now, we have already been charging people on this policy and we should wait for next cycle to look at the policy, good to look, just can’t do it on the fly.

Skidmore says this is in his district and he served on Ped Bike and he thinks that previous mayor put him on Ped Bike Motor Vehicle Commission because he was concerned about traffic safety and intersections, the need for the signal as David indicated, was first requested in 1992 by his predecessor and she received requests and he continue to get them from Wexford Ridge Village and Walnut Grove, one person in the condo calls me every time there is an accident and he continued to lobby for it and asked every year to get it and it rose through the ranks and eventually got to top 5, it was really needed in an engineering sense. There is another traffic light in his district too, no doubt it is needed. The assessment policy are mostly condos, a church and a day care and overall costs, 88% covered by the city and the rest through assessment and it is a small amount, it’s a uniform policy that was applied uniformly throughout the years. Gammon and Tree signal assessed, city only paid 4% and the rest was assessed including his condo association and they have 327 and they paid more per unit and didn’t get a single comment in opposition on traffic safety, urges support and policy is uniformly applied, hopes you support.

Anita Weier says she voted against at Board of Public Works, ordinarily she follows Skidmore but she didn’t think she could this time because she felt separate and unequal policy, Palm makes a good point that this is what they have done so far and they should stick to it but policy that needs to be reviewed and she will try to get that done, she thinks that the little old ladies that came to testify do not make 10 trips a day and to be fair has to vote against it.

Mayor asks if the public hearing was declared it closed, he closes it, Cnare moves adoption, there is a second, no discussion, passes on a voice vote, didn’t hear any no’s

PART II ON ITS WAY
Really, with no competition from the real media, I don’t feel too inclined to get things out in a rush . . . I guess I’ve just become a lazy blogger. 🙂