Live Blog of the Common Council Meeting, Part V (Final)

5:00 am . . . and I’m not kidding its getting light out.

VERVEER NOISE/HVAC MOTION
He reads a long motion, explains that they have had significant complaints about HVAC noise and he wants it to be reviewed by neighborhood, there are ways to mitigate it, says not a undue hardship on the applicant.

Maniaici says to look at A2 101.

Mayor says that is the motion. She wants a copy of what they are on.

Eagon says that with all due respect this is the 11th hour, if there is a noise issue, call building inspection, but do anything beyond that. He can’t support it.

Schumacher says this is details that should have been done at plan commission, what is the typical process.

Murphy says review of HVAC is part of building plan review, prior to issuing building permit.

Schumacher asks wehre they are in the process.

Murphy says it won’t happen for months. Murphy says time to accomplish it, prior to sign off.

Clear says that its hard to believe after all the hours UDC plan and landmarks have spent on this that my colleagues could not find a different way to do this, this is a blatant attempt to keep us here as long as possible until people begin to leave, vote it down, move to main motion.

Call the question – same result, Rhodes-Conway in the room.

Bruer says that he was just talking to Zoning Administrator who informed him that there are specific conditions about noise applied across the city and they are the standards the staff will review. He’s sympathetic, the capable staff can deal with it.

it’s been pointed out to me how pretty the sky is right now.

Verveer asks for point of personal privilege, not trying to filibuster, trying to serve constituents who elected him to serve, would have had them available if he thought plan would take final action on March 22. He assumes it would have been referred, would have been better to have them addressed there. This is the most contentious project, these issues affect his constituents, this is a real life issue in terms of noise, issue at existing property, will talk as quickly as he can and not speak on main motion if can get this motion and one more on buses. He is not filibustering, that was an unfair characterization.

Compton asks at what distance and what decibel level.

Verveer says he is asking plan commission to vet the issue, not staff sign off, this is a big deal in the neighborhood he represents.

Compton asks how far away, its a simple question.

Verveer asks her to read the motion, he just wants the issue heard.

Compton says that in her district she has issues with noise and hvac systems, there are some good thoughts regarding exterior mounted HVAC on a building of this height it shouldn’t be an issue. This is too open, all they have to say they have a complaint for it to go back to the plan commission. [SHE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE MOTION}

Rummel says that this looks at how to put in the equipment, once it is in it is harder to fix, see logic to do this on the front end, police have reasonableness standards, she has been through it and its not pretty.

Kerr passes.

motion fails on a voice vote.

VERVEER AMENDMENT ON BUSSES
That has been distributed, he reads it. No buses parked on streets, or where parking meters. He says this came up constantly, he has assured us repeatedly that this won’t happen, the current practice and current operation, buses are routinely parked on Wis Ave, Dunn has assured this is not necessary. Doesn’t think this is controversial.

Maniaci passes.

Passes on a voice vote.

VERVEER AMENDMENT ON VIEWSHED
Takes it off the table. Motion passes.

Verveer asks Murphy for language.

They are final editing, 30 seconds.

Murphy says that they suggest that they add to the second line, no structure, landscaping trees or other structures, except those on the PUD plans, strike “at city datum” language. Murphy says this addresses future changes not the Plan Commission version of things.

Verveer says that is the intent.

Maniaci asks how this would impact a tent for inclement weather.

Murphy says temporary structure not permitted depending upon the height.

Manaici says the railing and street lighting would be in violation, does that seem correct.

Murphy says that would be ok, but tents and other temporary structures could be a problem.

Maniaci removes temporary language.

Verveer says its friendly.

Eagon says for months we as a council have been obsessed with images and views, he doesn’t know the elevations, can understand the intent, can’t support it without a picture.

Cnare passes.

Maniaci asks about lighting plans and final plans that have not been submitted.

Murphy says good point, as items go to final approval, it could be an issue.

Maniaci says lighting is an issue, doesn’t want to impact safety, so she would be interested in adding language that limits it to after final design approvals.

No objections.

Verveer asks Murphy if that language is appropriate, agrees with the intent.

Murphy says ok. Final approval by UDC is needed, as well as several city agencies.

Rummel says that we are in the trees now, if you want to tell them no trees, you should tell them now.

Motion is addition to PUD
10 ayes, 10 nos mayor votes no.
Nos were Clausius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, King, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore.

MAIN MOTION
Satya Rhodes Conway, 63% of her constituents against, in last 48 hours 300 emails, 78% against. That’s not how she make her decisions per se, but they all opposed for different reasons. There has been alot said and written, not a small group for or against, that is patently false, this stretched throughout the city, very passionate, hopes refrain from characterizing support or opposition in a narrow way. The voices of people from her district sound louder to her.

ROLL CALL
Passes 16 4 with no votes being, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes Conway, Rummel and Verveer.

LANDMARSK APPEAL
Clear reads a long motion I didn’t get. He says what is not in there is saying the Landmarks made the wrong decision or did not follow the laws before them. He says standards for council are different and they find them met.

Bidar-Sielaff says this is contentious in her district, what she heard today was that she has heard from many constituents, she has heard from both sides and she believes that one could end up on either side of the decision. She thinks Landmarks thoroughly and fairly looked at the information and made the decision she could. Process has been a huge part of the debate. Appeal is part of the process, this is not outside the process, its part of the process. She says that she looked at the appeal language. It does say we have to vote first based on the standards, 5 criteria and number one is the issue that created discussion. The ordinance is not clear about how volume relates to site. There are different metrics, can look at it from qualitative perspective, he wants to look at form qualitative perspective. The siting does provide for a taller building on the site, NGL should not be the primary building to arrive at that conclusion. The appeal language talks about preserving interest of public and owner. No one has contended that the Edgewater does not need to be renovated, there is interest in fixing up the property. She says that the hardship language and if it is self created, based on the language today, she doesn’t believe the hardship is self created. She believe the economics of the need is important. She has thought long and hard and listened to testimony. She would like to repeat she is saddened to heard discussion about landmarks, they have been exemplary in their attempt to follow the law. She doesn’t think this is a precedence. Appeal is for very special cases, normally do uphold landmarks.

Solomon says when he served as the WSJ ringleader for the Gang of 5, when we set economic development back 100 years, there were 6 reasons to vote against it and he is down to one and can’t get passed it, think it will pass and that’s ok. Look at language glad it says respectfully, thanks developer for going back to Landmarks, landmarks continues to get beat up, thinks that is a shame. Underline respectfully three times and put it in bold. He can’t get past number one, thinks it sets a precedence that will show hardship to get around the landmarks ordinance, we should be careful about it.

Eagon echos support by Bidar-Sielaff, the reason he agrees with Solomons wording of respect, he sees different criteria between Landmarks and council the key word for him is purview. Our purview is broader, looking at intent and balancing test, he can view it in a larger purview. Can see where Landmarks comes from, but look through.

Kerr says she has to leave in 18 minutes, babysitter spend night on couch, husband in Houston, has to leave, asks to be excused.

Mayor says municipal court starts at 8:00.

Chris Schmidt talked briefly and I missed it.

Verveer wants to talk about his district. Proponents ask why not enthusiastic, he believes that overwhelming majority of his residents are in opposition to the plans as shown tonight. Missed some. He argued in December they should uphold Landmarks commission. He says what has changed since then was its bigger wider, taller, longer, the tower is more massive since December, how anyone who voted to uphold last December can vote differently he doesn’t know. Missed some more. He says hardship was self created, council must find that it causes serious hardship . . . the owner has really only gone after one option of the tower which is larger, its hard to articulate serious hardship is present. He thinks serious hardship test is not met, but even if it is, it is self created. The last part of the ordinance shall not be a basis to reverse. The hardship was not created by the ordinance. Hotel is permitted, just not this big, the hardship is because of developer, they proposed a project that cannot be approved. Council has to uphold landmark’s commission. Since December only gotten more massive. Those who voted to uphold in December, can’t come to any other decision.

Maniaci says that she has had quite a journey on this topic, she was very excited to hear Julie Aulik talk about the environment, she made her arguments in better words, she thinks given the environment, there is a possibility hear. Developer did talk about hard ship. At landmarks Gorman came and she finds hardship on the site, era of building and characteristics and the site are an issue. The reasons she voted against the 850,000 cubic feet motion. She refers to a Gromacki memo and the 8 and 6 and 1 story building costs and in terms of the hardship if they could have done a smaller building they would have. She respects colleagues on landmarks, think purview is important, council has more to look at and has a balancing test.

Rummel says that district 6 is 9 – 1 opposed. Active district, aware of historic districts, a lot of concern about visually related area, when tried to think hard, might be responsible for making project bigger, the hardship is self created. In 1999 the same architect and issues of mold and water were right there and nothing changed. You heard other hoteliers talk about their investments.

interrupted,

Thuy just left.

Bidar-Sielaff, her constituent contact is 60 for, 40 against. She sees has respect for other districts. She says the project has been divisive. She wants to make sure we can divide our community into pro and anti landmarks and preservation. Missed a bunch.

It’s 6:00

14 ayes on landmarks, Thuy and Kerr went home. Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon and Verveer voted no.

TIF
Palm says his issue has always been the TIF, has consternation about the use of TIF, its a catch 22 project, we are supposed to do a public terrace, that is what caused the costs. His district response is 75% support the project, he didn’t expect that. That is quite a show of luke warm support and his email was focused on TIF, some were concerned about schools, and taxes, but overall, he has supporters. He will be supporting TIF.

Compton says this is the one time she was opposed to TIF, She was opposed for the wrong reasons, it was personal. She talked about southwest TIF, appreciate Mayor will talk with me and Clear about making changes to industrial TID policy. Open your hearts and minds to that change. All of her doubts were dispelled by one thing, she would not be supporting it if it hadn’t happen. In her district she was the most opposed. Majority is in support. Paul Riley raised issues, Gary Peterson says it will meet the standards, there is a review committee that will look at it.

Solomon says that TIF is his big concern as well, too many questions, too tired to think about it, the condo thing, battling numbers, transparency thing, and overall his biggest concerns are about policy exceptions, especially the self-supporting rule. Our staff who he has a great deal of faith in, all have said this is a worthwhile investment, that it will generate economic development and when look at it from that side, looking at comments about filling corporate projects, most opponents are against TIF, but in the end that is not what will happen. Staff say no city dollars will go for the project, so that helps him get over policy exceptions, but he also cares about the jobs and public access. He met with developer and . . . missed some . . ..

Still 40 members of the public hear.

Solomon has amendments.

Mayor says cleaning crew wants them out at 6:30, municipal court starts at 8:00.

SOLOMON AMENDMENT
1. Management agreement says that good testimony about 15 days, no more than 5 of the 15 days can be between June 1st and august 20th for complete closures. Changes 8 days for non-profits to 15 days.
2. Construction project, already negotiated a PLA, we’d like to see it. It’s already done. Workforce development targets, he takes some of their language out, the agreement is between them and labor, but he is using that language, work with local programs, 3 job fairs, 25K donation, 25% of work hours in targeted folks – he’s talking so fast I missed it. They defined targeted individuals up to $85K per year, he used poverty level standards.
3. Deals with neutrality for unions trying to organize. Second bullet speaks to 25% of jobs exceed living wage through wages or benefits unless they have a collective bargaining agreement, that language is in ordinance. Last part is 5% of jobs should be from targeted populations.

He says that developer hasn’t necessarily agreed to all these.

Maniaci wants to ask Dunn, they said no, he ask Mike May for his thoughts on this, any concerns on attaching this to the TIF cuz its the PLA and targets being met, previous conversations with his staff they had concerns.

Zellhoefer wonders how city monitors it, is it DCR and do they have staff. The second comment in the construction portion she is worried about if unions would have a problem and say “if permitted in collective bargaining agreements”

Maniaci asks about poverty level definition.

Zellhoefer says . . . missed it. . . .

Solomon says that he meant to include that they would submit report and if less than 80% of goal the city would meet with them to talk about how to get back on target. He is not sure there is more that they could do. Sorry he left that out, he’ll draw up the language.

Eagon asks if this is new precedence.

Zellhoefer sasy with the Marcus Hotel, but that was pre living wage and they also agreed to neutrality.

Verveer appreciates and supports it, he photo copied language from Marcus in 1999. he is not opposed, this is not new territory, missed a bunch . . . actually a lot . . . At Monday nights meeting they asked about neutrality, Dunn hasn’t had a warm working relationship like they have with the trades, but there is not much to negotiate up to that point, language is straightforward, its soemthing communities do all over america. He says alders have talked to the unions, they are interested in representing the employees, missed a bunch more, its nearly 6:30.

He says that the public interest is that we are protecting the citys’ interest as an investor, wants to make sure tax increment is protected, also social justice issues. Please support

Solomon has more language . . . he reads it. Will have to type it later.

Mayor says need to be out by 7:00, not 6:30, 6 alders still in the queue.

King says that we are going to lose everything, is there some way to deliberate this aspect without holding up the whole TIF vote by referring something, we and developer haven’t looked at them, he is comfortable and doesn’t want to lose the issue, will take more time to review but doesn’t want to hold up the whole project.

Mayor says you could approve the TIF and then amend it later.

Cnare asks Zellhoefer about the reports, does the agreement expire in 10 years or does it run in perpetuity or does it go on for ever and ever.

Zellhoefer says that TIF agreement will terminate when city gets increment back, Cnare says it could expired quicker.

Bruer says that this is deja vu and a whole bunch of other things . . . he says this is a slippery slope, doing policy on the fly, this is bad for public participation, if this was the same as Marcus it would be different, today heard from trades and developer and then he says more things that he claims are interesting and I’m not sure that it is . . . 🙂 sorry, its late/early, we’ve been here for 12 hours.

There’s still 75+ hardy Madisonians (or not) in the room, and not a one of them sleeping.

Bruer still talking, asks Brian not to hold TIF hostage, find a better way to do this to make the changes, still talking . . . .says we shouldn’t micromanage union contracts, partnership is working with labor and developer, lets have a time out, we have time. It can come back later. The Trades are dying to get called on, they want to address it. We can work with them in the future. Vote down the amendment, allow process and checks and balances play itself out.

Manaici thanks Brian, developer has seen this, a number of things in the document that developer has a issues with. Cuz developer and city attorney have issues, she wants to make amendments. She makes a substitute . . . Mayor and Bruer tell her what motion to make, to place it on file and have a resolution at the next meeting. She defers. Bruer makes the motion. They will have a motion at a later date.

Solomon asks if they are serious, look at what is in here, can anyone look in the mirror and say they disagree, a whole bunch of yeses. WE are giving them $16M and we don’t want to ahve something, some goals, no claw back, we’re just setting goals to get decent paying jobs, and if they don’t meet the goals they jsut have to meet with us and talk to get back on target, I have 8 of you saying you disagree with it. That is shocking to him, the developer and he are close, they are close to full agreement on 80% of it. Agreement with the developer and you place it on file. That would blow my mind if the developer agrees and you place it on file. If you disagree with targeted goals for minority hiring and good jobs, someone needs to take me out for a beer and explain this.

They table the motion at suggestion of mayor. Voice vote is close.

1965 ORDINANCE
They place 22 on the table, there are registrants on 64. Mayor asks if anyone wishes to speak on 64. No one chooses to speak. Motion is to adopt. No discussion. Compton light blinking not there. No discussion. Voice vote passes, some no votes. 64 is adopted.

INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Bidar Sielaff, by title only, immigration policy resolution. Referred to next meeting.

Rhodes-Conway has 18563 resolution that renewable energy premium of MG&E
should not be supported. I think referr

Rummel number 18555 for MSA services, referred to BPW.

Rummel 18565 on public market report. BOE, EDC, CDA and Plan?

Cnare introduces 18564 2010 budget amendment for Community Development for youth activities. Refer to Community Services and Board of Estimates

RECESS
They take a 2 minute recess. It’s 6:53.

Farmers Market setting up outside. Taking more than 2 minutes.

Just talked to one of the clerks, has to be at work soon, will go home and take a shower and go to work.

7:08 ROLL CALL
Kerr excused, Pham-Remmele absent. Everyone else here.

Motion is to place it on file and have a separate resolution at a later date. Mayor suggests referring motion to next meeting. Mayor says they will place on file and Mayor will work with them.

Solomon doesn’t want to withdraw, we are making a huge statement to every constituent who has said don’t give $16M of our money to support this project, if we pass this today they will feel better, they don’t feel like there is enough public benefit to justify a handout. For some it will be better, for some it won’t be enough, they will feel like we heard them. These are not unreasonable, respects the community development initiative, he was trying to make sure their language was consistent. He says they will just do the workforce development program targets, they will get copy of PLA and 3rd bullet is report to us. This is all what they already agreed to. He wants to call developer back up. Wants to show we are getting a public benefit, I think we are there, this is our chance now. We’re going to talk about TIF we debated fo r10 months, this is the time, let make sure there are community benefits.

Verveer asks what the motion is.

Mayor says place amendment on file but reintroduce amendemnt along same lines at next council meeting.

Verveer urges them to vote, Solomon won’t be here for next 6 weeks, we are doing him as a colleague a disservice, he won’t be here to participate in the next month or two, they are very close, but for some reasons don’t want it to go forward, don’t understand it. It’s a disservice to him since he won’t be able to attend meetings for the next many weeks. Oppose placing on file and vote up or down.

Sanborn says that no one should be casting votes on personal lives of makers of the motion. He is offended that quotas are based on skin color or veteran status without regard for income. This is the second time there were these last minute changes without committees or discussions, this is wrong, reject out of hand.

Schumacher says that you can disagree with Solomon and still walk away as friends, policy making for personality is not a good policy. Hotel not built yet, this can make rounds again. He has issues with the policy. These issues can backfire badly, we could have less employment. Labor unions already have agreements in place, that is a sign it is working and we don’t need to interfere. Look at LA who might be filing bankruptcy.

Palm says that this is a huge thing to be doing last minute, we have heard about process over and over, but if you listen to what Verveer says the maker of the motion should be here to debate it. Two members left and can’t be here, if going to play personal politics about who is here or not, thinks admirable and wants it to succeed, union member himself, but at the last moment, can conceptualize what this should be. Work has been done, we just didn’t see it til now. With heavy heart supports referral to another time so it can get the due diligence and public can speak. This will give them an opportunity to speak. Tomorrow they won’t tear off the 70s addition, we have a few weeks to hammer this out.

Cnare asks if we had a deadline has that been established, is there a date by which we need to have it done?

Zellhoefer says many pre-conditions in the agreement, this would be another pre-condition.

Cnare asks if they could delay it for 10 weeks to work on it, would that still be able to finish the paperwork.

Zellhoefer wants to start work right away.

Solomon, please don’t worry about my surgery, that shouldn’t impact votes. There are three parts, management agreement makes sure PAC is in place, developer agrees with the language. The construction part is the already negotiated pla, the second is the workforce targets already agreed upon, we are just putting it in our tif agreement. 3rd part is just a report on goals they came up with. The operational part of the contract, there is nothing on operational phase, he can see how you might be against jobs for minorities and veterans and low income individuals, can see how one or two might be offended by that. The only think that happens if they don’t meet the goals after two years is they have to sit down and talk with use. We have public benefits, a union on board and a developer, this is the time to do it. Missed a bunch.

Maniaci is angry right now, she is against it because our meeting got hijacked, we recessed, the council is a party to this, its a respect thing, you talk about wanting to be responsible, it more rahs to throw things in at the last minute. Upset because working on the issue and at the very end of thd day, this is not the time to bring this forward. She’s at a loss, nothing in this document she disagrees with, its the process and what we have gone through, this is not good policy making.

Eagon echos that thought. Voting to table isn’t a vote against Solomon or card check, there are avenues to introduce this later. He wants to say reasonable people can disagree.

King says ditto. None of constituent contact was about this, they just want the project built. We didn’t talk about what we should have talked about. More public benefit won’t reasonable with this particular thing, we should do it thoughtfully and do it at a later date when we are in a consensus mode and get something productive done.

Bidar- Sielaff says we should all take a deep breath. Alder Solomon was trying to do the best, we have all brought and amendment at the last minute, he is bringing a good conversation, we can place on file or not, won’t vote to place on file, this is important. 14 hours into meeting, lest try to take it for what it is, we sometimes do things at the last minutes because we have other jobs.

ROLL CALL
Placed on file 11 – 7 with two absences (Kerr and Pham-Remmele).
No votes – to not place on file were Cnare, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Schmidt

MAIN MOTION
Compton wants to say something, Mayor says that municipal court will be starting, Compton says TIF is not a hand out, not a gift, its an investment shared. She goes on . . . I tuned out. She says they are investing in the project, they will have dang good returns.

Rummel says she thought about it alot, thinks TIF is an important tool, is this our priority to fund a luxury hotel, she wants to raise the question, they are breaking rules, if you vote for this, will you tell your constituents that we are extending the TID to 2019 and that it is not going to the schools. You will have to make that case and I haven’t heard anyone talk about how we will stop the blight in the district. There is money for small cap TIF but for her constituents, what about the E Wash Corridor or Industrial TIDs. Yes, it does alot of things, but the long term jobs are not even living wage jobs, how to you get by on $10.16 per hour? Is our priority to create this for the community, we need to step up more than this.

ROLL CALL
TIF passes 12 – 6, 2 still absent (Kerr and Pham-Remmele)
No votes are Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Sanborn, Solomon, Verveer and Bidar-Sielaff.

END
Maniaci says thank you, especially rookie class.

Clear says made history in a number of ways, thanks and move adjournment.

Meeting ends at 7:42.

Court needs room in 18 minutes.