Let the games begin . . . all council members here. I had a dream last night that I was the only “media” to show up. Joe Tarr from the Isthmus is here keeping me company . . . no tv, no radio, might be a stray print person around here. Live blogged . . . no complaining about the errors.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Item on agenda? – unclear since the capital budget is the first item.
Homeless woman talking to homeless day center. Mayor interrupts and tells here she is on the wrong item. Says it is needed, there are 150 people on the street. She used to walk by the homeless and think that she should help them, now she is one of them. Please do something, we are human too.
Capital Budget
Ann Fleschli – she speaks in support amendment 2, the permanent restroom. She talks about her civil rights work and an African American woman who was at an appointment for food stamps and the worker made her sit there if she wanted her food stamps even tho she wanted to go to the restroom. She says that the woman had to sit there while her urine pooled around her – it was an issue of power. She says it is fascist. She says that yet we have a barge with fireworks that we all support. She says our local fascists Scott Walker wants us all impoverished and squatting peeing in the streets. She supports the cutting of the funding for Judge Doyle Square, cutting the unneeded office space, hotel etc. She says they should be mindful of our resources. She speaks about Mary Kay Baum and what she would want us to do – she says the budget does not respond to the common citizens needs.
Joe Lusson speaks in support of internet access amendment one. He says it is important access for families and education. The second item he speaks as president of Tenney-Lapham, he supports the two blocks of underground wiring, would like to see it all, he says this will do a lot for a small area.
Wisconsin State Journal in the house.
Susan Schmitz representing DMI, she is addressing amendment #2, she has nothing written down. She knows a lot about the topic due to Lisa Link Peace Park and the work they did there. She isn’t in support or against, doesn’t know if that is the right dollar amount but we need to continue this discussion. Yes, they are needed for the homeless, but also for everyone else. She wants to be part of the discussion. She hands out info on a toilet she thinks is best (perhaps the portland loo?), she thinks they need more than one. She also speaks to item 6, the parking utility and Judget Doyle Square garage, she says she isn’t representing DMI, just herself, she was on the TPC for four years and it was discussed and they paid off their bonds, raised the parking rates to make it happen. The fact that this is connected to Judge Doyle Square has nothing to do with each other, this is about the parking going underground. She doesn’t know why this is on the sheet.
Patrick McDonell is in support of #3. He sent an email outlining his argument about the return on investment, won’t repeat it, but wants to offer another source of support, the body itself and the City of Madison that adopted a policy in 2011 for undergrounding. He says it doesn’t enhance the overall appearance of the street only, but goes on to say that there could be an ongoing interest in improving the properties having a positive effect on property values. Policy says they give preference to gateway streets, not just everywhere. He talks about what the E. Washington revitalization and E. Johnson becoming a Main St. for Madison, he says the investment is worth while. Keep it moveing from a blighted corridor and let it pay off in excess of the investment.
Susan Pastor in support of 1, 2, 3 and 6. She thanks the alders who supported a downtown restroom to address everyone’s needs. We can have something not unattractive, she understands that portapotties are needed, but unattractive, they are needed in the mean time, but hopeful they will make the initial investment. She also speaks to amendment 6. She supports it. We heard repeatedly that this is tough budget times, she is sympathetic to Ms. Schmidt’s comments, but it seems associated. The public has not weighed in on it yet, until a week from now. She is wondering if te cart is before the horse. She wonders if we aren’t looking to hitch our cart to a dinosaur, with sustainability and conferencing technology, she wonders if conferences might not be going the way of the dinosaur and that is not to say that something cool shouldn’t go there.
Dave Peters talks about how much needed the toilets are. (I had to run upstairs) Missed Ulysses Williams also, probably also spoke in favor of the toilets. Sorry guys, needed my recorded.
Tom Kozlowski talked about the need for public toilets and how they should not spend money on Judge Doyle Square.
Mary Jo Walters lived at Occupy Madison for the last 3 months, she knows them intimately, she advocated for them. She says there are portapotties for all kinds of events downtown and wanted to know why they couldn’t stay. She says that she knows how much they cost. She talks about San Fransisco toilets and that they cost a quarter and they should look at them since they flushed out the system when done. She says that they should look into this. She says she that they should look at already existing buildings for showers. She moves on the the operating budget. She says they need showers, its not that hard, build a shower. Portapotties are needed, we already have this cleaned up cemented Lisa Link Park with toilets why not use them.
Linda Ketcham spoke in support of item 2.
Harry Richardson spoke in support of items 1, 2 and 6
They table this item.
Operating Budget
Kieth Valliquette speaks in support of 5, 6 and 7. Was a frequent user of the laundry facilities of Bubbles, well attended for those who need laundry facilities, very effective, people appreciate it. Urges support. On showers facilities. He supports the portpotties as well, please stop criminalizing homelessness.
Russ Albers talks about people being hurt by not having portapotties. Needs storage for those who can’t get things done.
Linda Ketcham speaks to amendment 2 in capital budget. She is in support of 5, 6 and 7. As she was driving to the Homeless Services Consortium today she heard a song on WORT “the times they are a changin'”, she says that is appropriate for today as you make decisions. She says that we are a city at battle with ourselves to be progressive yet fearing that we will be a magnet. You have to face the sad realities, the number struggling has grown, we are not used to having people go to bed hungry, have no place to sleep, and no dignity for basic human needs. We have to address these issues, we can’t deny dignity to people on a daily basis, lets fund SRO’s, laundry, showers, portapotties, housing first. She thanks them for their work, and recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of all people.
Dave Peters doesn’t have much to add. People need storage lockers, when you carry your things with you like a turtle with a shell. When employers see that they will think you are a bum. We need to look at what other cities do. Argh, he got offensive and I lost composure . . . and am not typing a portion here. He talks about people who need hope, most of he public sees people as dirty smelly bums, they smell with the stench of injustice. You can actuate change, they can’t do it on their own, they don’t have the resources, some are so far gone pickled in alcohol, how will they get anywhere if that is all they got in life. You have the ability to help. Everytime someone goes to the hospital, they don’t pay. When someone shits in the alley, its not good for tourism.
David Ahrens objects, wants to know what he is speaking to, says he is repeating himself.
Ulysses Williams talks about the laundry services for the homeless, so they can go to job interviews and doctors appointments without dirty clothes. Same with number 6 with the showers, you can’t get a job if you smell and your clothes are dirty. He supports the portapotties, he has seen a lot, he also works downtown. On number 7, there are lockers, if you have 2 backpacks and go into a job interview you won’t get hired. You need a place to put that stuff. But portapotties, there is no where to go at 2 or 3 in the morning if you are sleeping outside, either hold it or go in the alley and do it.
Mary Jo Walters. She says this is confusing, she already spoke. She says that they should have hand washing stations as well.
Susan Schmitz registered in support of #1 (?)
Susan Pastor, Harry Richardson, Allen Barkoff and Dave Carrig registered in support of items 5, 6 and 7.
QUESTIONS OF THE PUBLIC
Shiva Bidar Sielaff wanted to ask Susan Schmitz questions, but she left.
CAPITAL BUDGET
Chris Schmidt moves approval. Mayor points out that the staff are not sitting in the seats assigned on the mic system. He asks to coordinate that in the future.
Amendment 1 – IT funding
No debate. Passes unanimously on voice vote.
Amendment 2 – Public Toilets
Lauren Cnare asks how they got to this number. Larry Palm says he won’t lie, its a random dollar amount, there were a lot of scenarios discussed, lots of parameters and lots of options on google, there are lots of unknowns, so he figured half million dollars would cover it. Mayor interrupts and says he wants to keep people on track. Asks if that answered the question. They say no. Palm says it answers it but it wasn’t a good one. Cnare asks staff if they want to answer it. Rob PHillips from Engineering says the cost could vary greatly. Mayor interrupts and asks if he can answer how the number was arrived at. Phillips says no. Clear asks Parks Superintendent Kevin Briski if they vetted it and if they had thoughts. Briski says no, they haven’t, they talked to staff, there are a lot of questions that would go into it. Clear asks about public restrooms in Peace Park and when they are open and if they could serve this purpose. Briski says they are BID staff hours of operation, close around 7 or 8 at night. Might be open at 10:30 or 11 in the morning. Clear asks if there are operational concerns if they were open additional hours, could they have public access. Briski says they would have to discuss with staff and police. It would take discussion and study, if there is an available facility then you manage the resource and need resources to manage the resource. Bidar-Sielaff says now that they know this is a random number, she is supportive, but wants a more realistic number, she says half a million is a lot. She would like a couple open 24/7 and that would be a good start for 2014. She says that they will also be in the Judge Doyle Square, it will be an important piece of public amenities. She would direct them to the Portland Loos and they cost $90,000 plus shipping and maintenance, $30K is what she used and $12K for maintenance, she says that is $132K, if they had $300K they could get at least 2. She is hoping someone will make that amendment. Verveer moves and amendment to strike phrase of State ST or Capital and change it to the downtown core area. Verveer says it is difficult to cite something as minor as a trash can, recycling can or kiosk. Mayor says bench. Verveer says also bus shelters and they have had quite a battle, most people do not want them, sidewalk cafes influence the scarcity of consensus on where to place amenities. He says he thinks they might get stalled indefinitely if they don’t make this change. Hopes they will support it. Amendment passes unanimously on a voice vote. Joe Clausius says he agrees with the two speakers before him, he says that amendment 7 on operating budget he will support, this one, meantime is premature, this is something Susan Schmidtz was hinting about, they should be included in parking ramps and Judge Doyle Square. He says anyone will oppose having a public toilet in front of their business. He is concerned right now that there is a lot they could use 500K for and they should be cautious and he supports #7 on operating budget. Palm says he wrote this because for several years, from even before his time on the Homeless Issues Committee people have been talking to him about this need. He kept referring them to the downtown alders, but we don’t have a facility here. He says if he asked where the ideal place was, you’d have 19 different ideas, and each would have different cost estimates. This is his 9th budget and he sees how we do it, sometimes really specific, sometimes wildly generalized number, and yes this is one. You could roll it up or down, it is irrelevant at this time, we will always pay for what we buy. If we buy one, that is what we will pay, we won’t randomly pay $500,000. He assumes there will be a group of staff and alders and stakeholders (homeless and business owners) to look at locations to figure it out. That may or may not be as expensive as you want. That is what he has a concern about, picking a smaller amount is random too. He doesn’t know how much attaching to sewer or plumbing will cost, so to micromanage on the floor about a design, location, quantity that they have not idea about is ???. He asked staff. He heard mostly silence. He heard they should wait for 2015. He is pushing back. We don’t do things without money. It will get lost in the clutter if there is no money in the budget to make things happen, this has champions and then we will have another year, 2015 and we won’t have plans and no one will have answers because we were focusing on items that had money in the budget. Support this, to make it happen. Can it be done in 2014? Absolutely. All it takes is the political will. A shared common vision to get this done and if the council doesn’t have that shared vision or political will, then think about people who don’t have your vote, think about how they feel, they won’t start drafting up ideas, he urges them to vote for it, so our visitors, our businesses, our guests, people who need a late night place, so we can support them all. Denise DeMarb thanks Palm for bringing this forward, she supports, all humans could use them. She has seen many people in her hours downtown and has seen people with a need. She understands not having a solid number, she is concerned this is a 2014 item. She says there needs to be debate, she doesn’t want to rush it, its an important decision, very needed, wants it to be a home run. Scott Resnick amends it to $150,000 and changes some wording at the end about planning and getting other numbers. Determine best locaiton, maintenance costs, management plan and configuration” added to the last line. Lisa Subeck says that she doesnt’ like putting things in the budget when they don’t ahve a firm guess, she is comfortable with $500,000, they don’t need to spend it all. If we put $150,000 then we might have additional concerns – plumbing, weatherization, etc. She is more comfortable that if they are amenable to it, leave it at $500K but put in guidelines for number of restrooms. She says it is worth it to make it realistic and doable. Dialing it that far back makes it an unrealistic project. Lauren Cnare happily supports it, she thinks we need a public toilet somewhere in our city, she is worried about taing people and not giving the money back If we start with $150,000, she thinks that is a safe number, we will learn and improve things, communities have learned a lot about the toilets, lets learn about it, buy one, install one and we can still meet immediate needs, January 2, she urges support. Its a rational number, we can do it as immediately as we can, we can do it in a measured way. Palm moves to separate the two parts, the dollar change and the description. Mayor says that is a third amendment. Palm asks staff about billing the tax payer on Jan 1 for this, what if we don’t spend the money. David Schmiedicke says that the amendment is half a million of GO debt, that would be issued fall 2014 and first on the levy in 2015. Palm says that is clearly that we have until fall before we package it into debt service. He is good with the language, but cannot, urges you not to, support $150K. Anita Weier says sooner rather than later is important, doesn’t like yet another study, or waiting another year, she would prefer $300K and go ahead in 2014. Clausius supports $150K and proceed deliberately and cautiously. Maurice Cheeks is in favor or having restrooms, uncomfortable knowing how many we need, unless Health or Planning have data – presumably we can get that, and then determine how many we need. He is uncomfortable shrinking the budget without rationale about if that is a good number. Bidar Sielaff is uncomfortable with the numbers, if they could get all the stakeholders to agree to one in 2014 she thinks that is a huge step forward, this has to be incremental, siting and the number needed is a lot to think about, she is happy to have one to deal with the urgency of the issue and get things going and push the conversation forward. If we get one we have made a huge strike. She thinks a lower number is appropriate, not sure $150K is the right number. Mayor asks if he can speak from the chair, he says that the fact that eveyrone says that we don’t know the number is what is wrong, this is a 7 month long process, we do it year after year, we figure out what it costs to build and operate, then prioritize and do it. If we have $500,000 is this the highest priority, does anyone know the operating costs, are we now going to do a new process which is to come in on the night of adoption on a subject we have never dealt with before, which we don’t have a clue of constuction costs or operations, he heard that we have done this before, he prays we haven’t. We have had disagreements about the size or in or out, but nothing on the fly like this before. Steve King says he thinks that they want to push the conversation forward, he is uncomfortable with the numbers, but we need to have this conversation and have it in 2014 and the best way to do that is put some money around it and go. Resnick says for the purposes of discussing the dollar amount, he would like to withdraw that, there is an objection. Chris Schmidt says the $150K is a better number, he thinks it is bad precedent, when we have attempted this before, he doesn’t recall it succeeding. He remembers a lot of discussion about taking these items up and trying to come up with a plan on the floor, if we have to pass something, he would prefer the smaller number. He has heartburn over this coming up late, this has been on the table for years, we can plan without capital budget number, he doesn’t like sticking in random numbers. DeMarb asks if it is really necessary to have a dollar amount ot ask for fact finding to happen? Mayor happy to answer that, the formal way of doing it would be to introduce a resolution asking staff to do an analysis. That is the way it should be done. Second way is to talk to the mayor and ask the mayor to talk to staff to see if they can do this in their scope of existing work. Otherwise designating resources in the operating budget. The problem with the third one at this late time, you would have to amend capital budget when report done. He finds all those preferable. DeMarb says that the fact finding has to take place, not sure what the right way to do this is, she is not comfortable with the dollar amount, she knew it was a placeholder. She would like to see this vetted through the departments and then amend the budget if we are ready to do the work. Resnick amendment to language roll call. Motion fails, voting Aye were Skidmore, Clear, Cnare, Ellingson, King, Resnick, Rummel, Schmidt. Subeck changes to $300K and with the same language amendments. She understands the hesitance – we have lots of projects come back looking for more money, we never know exactly how much it will cost, it is right at times to budget without knowing the exact costs, it sets a commitment and sets a cap and that is the best we can do. Mayor suggests at some point they might want to do just the language, then fiddle with the dollar amount. Chair rules ayes have it. No request for roll call. Amendment is amended. Phair moves to strike language and asks staff to study and provide report by June 1, 2014 and no dollars. Subeck asks if that is in order since they just voted on a number. Mayor says yes. Phair says there is a lot of discussion about the numbers being out of thin air, they can decide what staff, it will go to committees, as far as the report he wanted to get it by a certain time. Schmidt says at the end of the meeting they can ask for the report and adopt it November 19, there is interest in doing this, that is what we should do. Lets do the resolution and make sure we ask for what we want. Palm says please vote no. Subeck says this discussion has been going on for years long before she was on the council, they have years of getting no where on it, if we requrest a report, we will will be back to square one. We have gone this way before and failed miserably, we still don’t have neighobrhood center study, important to make the commitment and put money where mouths are. Bidar-Sielaff says it is a possibility they can use TIF for this. Clear says that the resolution instead, he asks the mayor if that is a better option. Mayor says operating budget is far more appropriate, this is immensely better than the original, Clear supports the amendment. Subeck asks finance director if they don’t pass the amendment and move forward with $300,000 would that preclude us from using TIF funds if it is eligible or can we leave the number and if we discover we can use TIF could we do that at that time. Schmiedicke says that a change in the source of funds in the future requires a budget amendment. Motion fails on voice vote. Skidmore, Cheeks, Clausius, Clear, DeMarb, Ellingson, Phair and Schmidt vote aye. Passes with only Cheeks, Clausius and DeMarb vote no.
I’ll insert audio here if I have time. File one.
Amendment 3 –
E Johnson undergrounding passes on voice vote.
Amendment 4
Warner Park study is for 2015, passes on a voice vote. One no.
Amendment 5 – Landfill
Mayor advises against the amendment, he says while going down path of cooperation with the county, he doesn’t want them to be in situation where it falls through and they don’t have the equipment. Verveer says that at Board of Estimates he asked about the need for the item, staff said that there was no need to purchase this in the next year – emphatically. He thought this was a budget correction, appreciates the mayor’s comment. Cnare asks if they delete the funding, can we rent the items. Chris Kelley from streets says that they can look into it, they might not be out there, they have special needs so it might be harder. Palm asks if there is a need for the money? Kelley says they are still in negotiations, it is not always easy to deal with the county, it is looking better, but they can’t guarantee anything, he thought they were close before but they stepped back. John Strausser asks about the timeline. Kelley says that they will know within the next month if they have an agreement. Strauser says if they leave the money in, then like the public toilets we would have authority but not spend it, correct. Kelley says yes. Verveer asks to explain what changed in that last few weeks since Board of Estimates. Kelley says that they though they had an agreement, but they came back with another offer. It is looking better, but he can’t guarantee anything. Verveer talks about highlight 2 in operating budget, he asks if that language is out of date. Kelly says that Schmiedicke has more info. Schmiedicke says that the provisions in the county related to scheule for tipping fee for the 2014 budget are in agreement between county and city, the elements that are open are how the tipping fee changes after 2016, issues regarding land the city owns that might be necessary for landfill expansion and some issues around that. They are important issues but won’t impact the operating budget for the tipping fee. Verveer asks how that related to this amendment. Schmiedicke says that the agreement is not final, where there are disagreements they don’t pertain to tipping fees in 2014, 2015, 2016 but there are fundamental issue and the agreement might not be consumated and we might need this option. Verveer says this is similar to the last discussion. The money wouldn’t be borrowed til 2014, he will withdraw he amendment, he fails to understand that we would use the Rock county landfill based on what he heard tonight, this amendment was based on most recent info they had at Board of Estimates, he is sorry things have deteriorated with the county and will withdraw the amendment. Schmidt concurrs with Alder Verveer. Amendment withdrawn. Mayor says nothing deteriorated on their side.
Amendment 6 – Judge Doyle Square
Ahrens says that in 2013 they had 1.5M for planning and design, this adds $7M, but adds 5M but doesn’t say what it is for. Its not for demolition, because the descriptive paragraph says it won’t occur until 2015 or 2106, not construction cuz that happens after demolition. He says that 1/4M is being used to repair the ramp in 2014, this amendment brings us back to where we were last year, doing planning and design work for $1.5M and if something happens beyond that lets deal with it. If people are concerned about $200K or $300K for restroom black hole, this is many times that. This is really unknown. Schmidt urges defeat, the plan is hardly unknown, this has been worked on for 4 years, yes the project morphed and changed, but the fact is that it has been a long time coming and targeted to start in 2014, we don’t know that for sure, we have a plan, have had it for a long time, not coming out of nowhere, you could argue phasing, but this is parking utility bond money, we don’t need to worry about borrowing, it has been thoroughly vetted by TPC. If we don’t start in 2014, ok, this is not an unknown. He hasn’t seen argument to stop discussing this for another year. We have several garages that need to be replaced and we have heard about the maintenance costs, that would be $2.7 for the one garage, others will be in the same boat, so TPC felt better to replace the garages as the need arose, instead of maintain them. The way they are determining costs is by dragging a chain across the concrete to find rusted rebar, some of the recent maintenance has had to be redone. He says we should replace instead of maintain. Anita Weier says that page 129 said that plannign was estimated to cost $2M, but no explanation for the rest of the $7M, what is it for. Design is $2M, the $5M is for actual potential construction is in there as result of consulting engineer based on the two proposals, Journeyman would start in Sept 2014, if that happens someone would need to build the hole in mid-July in 2014 and they would need the funding for it to begin, if it was delayed and began in the winter they might not be able to begin construction til 2015. Verveer asks Wasnick what president Schmidt was explaining in terms of history of work of JSD professional services and the costs to keep Government East in a safe operational manner. He says that in 2011 they found 1.8M needed to bring the garage up to our standards, that has changed to $2.7M. He says over time they have done the minimal amount ot keep it up and safe, but they have not invested and that has caused additional funding for bays they did work in 3, 4 or 5 years ago, and that will continue unless we address the larger needs. Ahrens asks why they are discussing the maintenance calendar for GE or whether or not it should be replaced – Schmidt is in the chair and rules it in order. Verveer asks how much money parking utility has spend on GE maintenance including what we spent this year. They have spent $478 last year and this year and expect $40K more. So $525K. Verveer urges rejection. Says we are throwing good money after bad. To delay replacement by a year or two would be penny wise and pound foolish. This council has voted time and time again that the GE ramp would be done in conjunction with the Judge Doyle Square project. He says they have been talking about it since 2011. He says they have voted a half time for incremental steps to bring us toward the process we are on now, my colleagues do not need to be reminded that we are examining tow different proposals which the council approved the process. He thinks that if the amendment is adopted it will send a very negative signal to the participants in that process – staff to committee members and development team. That the city has changed it mind, that we are no longer participating in the process. Under state statute that if we don’t adopt tonight or tomorrow night outside of this week, it requires 3/4 votes to amend the budget. That is a factor we cannot loose sight of. He realizes that 1/4 of the council members have not been involved in the discussion, compliments Ahrens on his work, esp on the hotel rooms, but to this budget items this would assure a delay, you will vote in the end to support or not or for the TIF or parking utility funds, those votes will come in due course, to change course tonight would send a negative signal that we are pulling the plug and delaying the project which is a concern for him, esp because interest rates could be on the upswing. Rummel asks Wasnick about JSD report, says she participated in a focus group, what have you heard about this project. He asks if it is the financial sustainability study? She says the financial needs of the parking facility long term, where is the study at. He says there are two separate processes, JSD is the consulting engineer, the financial sustainability study is Walker Parking Consultants and they are waiting for a draft that they hope to get this month. They hope to present early next year. Rummel asks what the risk to the city is for addressing the upcoming questions. He says his professional opinion is that they should have a 20 year plan and project how to replace 3600 parking spaces in 6 ramps, he thinks they should do that in a 5 – 10 year manner in the next 20 years, if so they want to do this project in the next few years. Rummel asks if neither of the proposals are accepted. What is the back up plan? He says that they would go out for bid and replace it themselves. It would be $30K per stall. Rummel asks about the $5M, she would like the language to be clear about what the $5M goes towards, the language should reflect what you are telling us today. Ahrens echos the comments of Alder Rummel, nothing in this language mentions what you have talked about – can we get some clarification. It says no demolition in 2014, possible 2015 and the only accounting for the $7M is the $5M for planning and design and the fact that he is raising that question should not be construed that he is against replacing the ramp or the work of the council. Do you have the language? You mentioned it might be demolished in 2014 and construction might being? He says that this is the Journeyman proposal, they phase it. Ahrens says that the description is not correct. Ahrens reads the language. The staff says that was the plan but it has changed. He says the cost estimate for demolition is $950,000, he says demolition will cost $1M. He says the RFP proposals have further clarified the language. Ahrens asks if this is an endorsement of the Journeyman proposal? Staff says no. Staff says the budget is the best estimate they have. Schmidt says they shouldn’t cross examine the staff. Ahrens says he is asking questions. Schmidt asks if he can speak. He says that the original plan was underground garage, that plan had MMB staring first, completed first and then demo Gov East. That is why the language is the way it is, so we are not without spaces. That is why it is framed that way. The cost estimate – the numbers are there, planning is $2M, this is $5M for construction but he understands the confusion. Rummel says she would like to have time to clarify the language before they vote, wants to place it on the table. Place on table – Skidmore, Strauser, Weier, Clausius and King vote no. It is placed on the table.
Amendment 7 – Royster Clark
Ahrens says this funds a 70 unit affordable housing project, 1/3 of homes at 80% AMI, 1/3 60% and 1/3 below 60%, the below 60% will have significant disabilities. It meets a tremendous unmet need. This is a small part of that cost, the cost is about $7M, the rent and value of that is much smaller, this is $400K from the TID. Clear says this is the budget authority for the TIF. Ahrens agrees. Bidar-Sielaff asks about the other sources of funding, CDBG or others? Jim O’Keefe says that they have $600+ in funding from programs in loans. Ellingson asks Aaron Olver if this project makes sense, will it pay for itself financially in a TID. Olver says they are still working on the underwriting, when they submit the loan you will have the exact number, they certainly expect that they will have a final number that allows the project to sustain itself, but it is not clear if it will comply with the 50% rule, this is essentially putting a budget amount in, the developer will apply for WHEDA tax credits, CDBG and HOME funds and TIF funding from council will be used in application to WHEDA to get the credits. Motion passes.
Another audio file, if I have time.
10 minute recess
Schmidt moves to take item 6 off the table. Rummel has a motion to have a substitute to amend the text in three places. They seem to be moving construction up.
Wait – what that, I spot someone taking a photo . . . must be a campus newspaper person . . .
Ellingson asks if the total amount is the same. Yes. Clear clarifies that this is what staff described. Rummel says that was her goal. Rummel says she didn’t understand where the $5M was going and hopefully that explains it.
Substitute and motion both pass seemingly unanimous on a voice vote.
Final capital budget vote
Schmidt moves approval. Says it looks good. Passes on voice vote. Mayor says much easier than the last 5 years.
Final audio file on capital budget here if I have time. Unless someone is taking campaign photos already . . . 🙂
OPERATING BUDGET
Motion to adopt.
Amendment 1 – Police overtime
Weier wasn’t earlier. Schmidt says that we don’t have to do this, its political theater, we will give them money for overtime. Palm says lets just let the police do their job. Weier says she didn’t like the amendment was more concentration on the downtown area as opposed to the rest of the city. Verveer explains that the only change was for 2014 budget – the last sentence that gives police chief to use other overtime funding for these purposes. He was trying to clarify and provide truth in budgeting and that we give discretion to the police chief, some of it is contractual, some of it is planned, what is important is that the police need to continue to have the discretion to spend the money where they need it most. He says that by highlighting these items is no way saying that this is all that can be spent, this has no levy impact, changes no numbers, clarifies and codifies existing practice. Bidar-Sielaff asks for clarification about what it changes, #3 doesn’t have peak central district times, was that added. Verveer says it might be misleading what I said before, he explains again. Motion passes on voice vote, mayor makes the call.
Amendment 2 – Attorney’s office
Schmidt says they have been doing this and they should pay for it. Palm tries to make a motion o take it out of the Council Budget. No second. Motion passes on a voice vote, Palm votes no.
Amendment 3 – Parks
Palm says he and Alder Weier feel it is important for planning for the first year for Rhythm and Booms not being there, they will do a smaller even with the Madison Mallards. Clear opposed about “me too” issues and Elver Park fireworks being abandoned in favor of downtown. Weier says there used to be a neighborhood festival before Rhythm and Booms took over and became gigantic, they want to get back to that, they need some healing about them making the announcement. People were upset about the way the northside was treated, it would help to return to that former type celebration. Subeck struggles with this because she might ask for money for Elver, she didn’t opt for that at this point, the ask could be coming, but she is not sure what to do with this, we have so many bigger priorities, but this is such a little amount of money, she is worried they might be $5K short on other things, she understands how people feel, she will vote no, but she might support later in the year. Cnare asks Parks staff about how many other neighborhoods or areas are funded for 4th of July at this level or any other one. Briski says none. Cnare asks about what $5K buys, what has begun in terms of planning process. Briski doesn’t know, neighborhood is having a discussion, but no definitive source for that amount. Mallards will offer fireworks, that is the planning they know about. Cnare asks if this is a Dane County event or neighborhood/northside event. Briski says that his understanding is that it is a neighborhood focused event. Cnare can’t support this, we have spent years with people worried about fireworks and traffic, she can’t support it. Palm says that the neighborhood has been planning, festivals in the park, game and fireworks by the Mallards, some things that harken back to yesterday, parades, contests, face painting etc. He says the intent was for a first year event it is difficult to find sponsors and supporters and you have to do things well the first time to do it again and having a little bit for the city to offer to an ambitious group of people would be a benefit to the community. Warner Park was originally more community focused that grew beyond the capacity. It took years to develop that and they have lost those skills. Weier says that the committee is working hard but is unfamiliar with the processes, this would give them a boost. Clausius says they are headed down a slippery slope and Elver Park will come in with a request and that would be fair, he thinks they should look at it after one year, if going to do it for the northside have to do it for the whole city. Rummel is struggling with it given the last note, we are over $22K, she would rather provide gap money for homeless services and can’t vote for the library, think holistically, maybe we can whittle it down. Phair says Elver is West and SW side, and he plan is not to come to council, hope to solve it through community partners. Tho he does understand from a “we lost our fireworks” – I understand your pain, I get the frustration, but he won’t support it, there are other priorities and not a lot of dollars left. Weier appears to be the only aye vote, motion fails.
Amendment 4 – Emerging Opportunity Funds
Phair says no levy impact, he says if there are unanticipated funds, they would put it in the Emerging opportunities program, it would have to come to the council. He says they had $200K, 69 proposals worth 2.9 (?)M of proposals came in, this would just raise the amount a little bit. Bidar-Sielaff asks them to support, when we saw how great the program was, we should focus on putting more in the program if they have the funds, it would have to come back to council. This sends a signal that we want to continue funding at a level that will make a difference. Strasser makes an amendment and raises it to $200K, Cheeks seconded. Strasser says everyone remembers how this began, this was there to deal with unanticipated revenues, at the time everyone was complaining we didn’t have a system to deal with the money, with the one-time revenue we have it, now we changed the process to funded on the levy program, but don’t address how to deal with unanticipated revenues. So, when we get that check, we will be in the same pace we were in this summer. Unless we say we want the money to go into a system, we have not cured what we claimed was ailing us this summer. Rummel says can’t support the amendment, was sure she supported the first. She says that there are many needs in our community, why not community services or Affordable Housing Trust Fund, she knows there is a need, but she is not convinced this is the best way to add more money to it. We should think about all the things we can do with unanticipated money. Schmidt says that he doesn’t like budgeting on unanticipated revenue, says it should be a policy not in the budget, he says this is not a good budget practice. We don’t know what our expenses might be. Cheeks says that this will need council approval. This number is an indication of political will like we talked about earlier. He says we will still have to make a decision. Mayor says that is the way he understands it, he says it is a commitment to amend the budget with a 3/4 vote later. Mayor says half the council can vote tonight but 3/4 have to vote later. Palm says he is against the amendment, agrees with Schmidt, this is a weird thing for him. He does remember that unintended money should go to affordable housing trust fund and we haven’t done that. We don’t know why or when we get unanticipated money and it might have ramifications about how it should be spent. If we want a system we should have a review and plan for truly how we spend unanticipated money, he thinks supporting community services is a goal, youth and trust fund are important. Weier said something I missed. Also missed Cheeks – sorry. He’s talking about having a flexible system that reacts to what is going on in the community and we saw a huge need. Subeck says that Rummel and Phair said what she was going to say. She says this will require a resolution and we had this for the affordable housing trust fund and it just didn’t happen, so she is not sure this means anything. Strasser withdraws the amendment. No objection. Bidar Sielaff says this was a statement of priority that we want to fund at a level to minimally meet the need that is out there. She says they understood there was more process, it is just a statement of priority. She urges people to look at the applications that they couldn’t fund. She says you would be surprised about the new projects that they could really make a difference with. Whether it has support tonight or not, you can anticipate she will have a resolution. Rummel asks how they will know. Mayor says he sees big difference between what he sees as a true unanticipated revenue as opposed to various accounts creating more or less income than budgeted. When they do budget forecasting part of it is based on estimate that revenues will be larger than anticipated, that influences how we set the levy and the unbudgeted reserves. Mayor asks Schmiedicke to elaborate. He says that you have revenues and appropriations and that is a plan and there could be positive and negative variances. The only fixed amount is levy, but other revenues can vary, and cost stream as well. Mayor says an example is locking in fuel prices. Schmiedicke says weather events and we have targets of 15% of expenditures for the reserves and that impacts the bond rating. Rummel asks what happens now, the proposal is that we are directing the city to do something. Mayor says sometime in March we will get our final report on 2013, we will know our income and revenues on fees and reconcile the expenses and have overtime accounts and you will get a report and it tells you what the situation is. Rummel asks if it goes to Board of Estimates. Schmiedicke says they are trying to institutionalize that, talk about the general fund budget, they have monthly updates as well in an excel sheet to the council. Schniedicke explains how they come up with unanticipated revenues, like one time revenues, they budget $300K, sometimes they are over. Mayor says in the past when there are large unanticipated revenues they try to use it for capital budget item. Motion fails.
Insert audio file here.
Amendment 5 – Laundry
300 customers per month, this is one of two bridge amendments. Cnare asks why this belong with CDBG, and it is a purchased service, what non-profit would there be that could provide this service. Jim O’Keefe says that the CDBG is the unit in the division that administers resources for organizations that work with homeless services. Cnare asks who the nonprofit is. O’Keefe says they would have to search for one. Motion passes, Cnare votes no.
Amendment 6 – Transportation to showers
Schmidt says this is a rough estimate pigging back on county to get transportaion through June for Catholic Multicultural Center which is the one place they can go, we need to get them there. Clear asks for a levy limit update. Schmiedicke says that this is $20,500. Bidar-Sielaff asks for update on the county discussions about what the county is funding to Porchlight. O’Keefe says that the county board is looking at a number of proposals and won’t for a couple of weeks. The county board has already approved $22 – 24K to support Porchlight and to provide a van to provide transportation services and the intensity of the services, frequency and routes is somewhat up in the air, while porchlight looks at a variety of options. This amendment could be used to supplement those efforts. This might not just be for shower transportation but perhaps other. Bidar-Sielaff asks if this is a RFP or work with county to enhance what they are doing, $12,000 doesn’t go very far. O’Keefe says that if there are arrangements by the county, it would make sense to augment that effort. Bidar-Sielaff says that she had the opportunity to have discussions with Andy Russell and Steve Schooler and she wants to make sure there is a good understanding that the county is funding some of these services and the money won’t go as far if we don’t augment what they are doing. She says it is important not to pick the nonprofit but the services. Clear moves to place on table. Fails. Rummel changes the amount to $10K, seconded. She is counting down and she can’t support the library position and support these services. Subeck asks why if the vans are running and on the couth side, why will it cost $10 – 12K to get people to Catholic Multicultural Center, she wants to know where the cost is coming from. O’Keefe says Porchlight is working on stops at Tellurian, Safe Haven, Job Center, Hospitality House, Bubbles and others. He says it is an increase in the intensity of the service provided. Subeck asks if they don’t pass the amendment would that kill the services. O’Keefe says the impact is that the duration of the service or intensity (routes per day) would be less. Mayor says hes not keeping track of who spoke. Schmidt says the county is not sure where they are, Porchlight will only provide service through March, this would extend for 3 months, this would get them to June. Number is not sacred. Strasser says that the multicultural center is only open 3 days a week from showers, they are already maxing out the capacity of showers and people can’t get in. CDBG staff can’t answer it even tho we just talked about this at noon. Bidar-Sielaff says 9 – 2:30 M, W F is what they can do, they are not at capacity, 20 minutes per person, that is 45 people per week, they are not at capacity. Porchlight has been working with them and this would help them through June. Strasser asks what the capacity left – Bidar-Sielaff says some days they don’t have any, some days they do. Porchlight and Multi-cultural Center are working on it, it won’t meet the entire need. Mary Jo Walters says they have one shower. Mayor threatens to have her removed. Asks Chief to discuss the process with her. Mayor asks her to respect the process. She says she doesn’t. Motion passes with no one voting no. So does the main motion so $10,000.
Mayor reviews the rules. Once we are in the council meeting, only the council members may speak, the council members have the right to ask questions of staff and the first to ask questions of the public after a hearing is concluded, it is only at the privilege of the ocuncil, it is your decision, he hopes the public will respect that.
Insert audio file here.
Amendment 7 – Portapotties
Zellers says that the dollars for this are the portable restrooms, 4 portapotties for one year, delivery, pick up for one year with hand sanitizer, 4,643 and then dollars for lockers. That is less able to be pinned down. There is at least one location that could be used that is $1,500 a month which is 4 months. Cnare asks if parks can get a better deal than in the amendment. Briski says that they go out to bid every year, he doesn’t know, he can check and compare, they do it by week, they go out for competitive bid. The bids have been the same for the last few years. Cnare makes amendment to include text that acquisition of portapotties is done by parks division. She thinks they might be able to get 5 or spend more money on lockers. Cheeks asks to clarify where they are at on the levy limit. $10,500. Amendment passes, no no votes. Voice vote. Motion carries!!
Amendment 8 – Library
Clear makes a motion – change the funding source from levy, $500 from levy and the rest form continent reserve. Schmidt argues that there are one-time projects. Rummel asks if they will actually fill the position. Library Director says yes. Amendment passes with a few nos. Resnick says that this is not on the list of things he would fund out of the contingent reserve. 10-10 tie. Aye: Skidmore, Verveer, Weier, Zellers, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Palm, Phair, Schmidt. No: Strasser, Subeck, Ahrens, Bidar-Sielaff, Cheeks, DeMarb, Ellingson, King, Resnick & Rummel. Mayor votes no and it fails.
Amendment 9 – Library
Palm says they add money for planning, he thinks they can do this through the capital projects they have, this would be a planning position for capital projects, they want a more extensive process like they had at Meadowood. He thinks that would help the city and library system, has no levy impact. Cnare urges support or you will listen to years with Clausius and Cnare doing point, counter-point. Thinks libraries are taking on greater roles than ever, Meadowridge is a model for what can be done. DeMarb has a question of Mickels, thinks it is a good idea, she supports planning, but wants to know how you would manage this, how would the asset be used and managed. He says that it would be supervised by the administrative supervisor who oversees facilities and siting criteria and building projects, this would let us put the horse in front of the cart. The only time we do community analysis after we do a project, this allows community input, to determine where we might benefit from a relocation of a facility. Ellingson asks if capital projects are some completely defined that you could do it – can this be done in the budget or does it need to be done? Schmiedicke says the amendment creates a position and funds it. Subeck urges support, she didn’t support $100K but sponsored this because she couldn’t figure out how staff couldn’t do this and Palm found an opportunity to use a model used by engineering to keep projects in house but recognize that we don’t have resources or expertise to do that, she is thrilled to be spending money this way instead of with consultants.
Motion passes.
Amendment 10 – ?
Clear says it is a late item, realized this morning the funding won’t be spent in 2013, its a carry forward.
Schmidt says the motion is approval, thanks everyone for their hard work, wrapping up before 10pm on the first night, not sure how often that happens but that is because they used their process well this summer. We managed to squeeze a lot of human services into this budget. Verveer . . . . you know what Verveer does . . . thank yous! Thanks to the staff. Clapping. No further discussion. Passes.
SET THE LEVY
$198,480,300 on the levy. $96,288 supplemental.
Authorized borrowing of
$113,456,772 for capital budget.
$38,356,000 in water utility bonds
$11,355,300 in sewer utility bonds
Cnare asks for taxes on average home. $2,196. 9.51 mill rate. Mayor has to say something, besides thanking the council, 3 years of eveolution on this and alderwoman Cnare and Bidar contributed to a process with more citizen input, online might work better than in person. Can’t resist but doesn’t think once tonight anyone said the word “Overture”. Passes.
INTRODUCTION
Resolution about public restrooms introduced.
ADJOURNMENT
Passes 9:38 time of death.
