And so it begins . . . likely just two issues of interest forestry charge and Judge Doyle Square.
GETTING STARTED
Attendance: All 20 and the mayor present.
Opening remarks: Latino health promoters of Planned Parenthood are recognized by the council through and announcement by Council President DeMarb
Hullabaloo about the suspension of the rules, yes or no, yes or no, yes. DeMarb suspends rules to take things out of order and take up items not properly on the agenda (noticed, but procedurally not quite right), plus introducing things at the end of the meeting. That passes.
Honoring Resolution standing with the families impacted by those slain at Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in
Charleston, South Carolina. Alder Barbara McKinney read the resolution. The room stood in silence as the names were read. Schmidt moves approval, someone seconds, Palm says his name should be added. Mayor shares remarks because of a news story this morning. The state of Texas sets many of the rules and standards for the content of history and textbooks used because the publishers of the books know that they can’t make money if they can’t sell books there due to the size. The Texas legislature has meddled in the content of these books for years and re-wrote American history and he has a degree in history, and has taken countless classes on this time in history, there is some controversy on the cost of slavery and nullification. There is no question that the civil war was fought over slavery and the curse has been on this nation over it. The recent version of text books minimize slavery and say they cause is over states rights. In South Carolina, where we saw the first stages of outright rebellion using force and violence against the United State, those that convened made it clear that they did that in defense of slavery. He thinks it is incumbent on all of us to embrace the content and heart of this resolution, but to share with the community the faults in the retelling of history. This was a violent, forceful military effort to overthrow the government and continue slavery. Passes unanimously on a voice vote.
Petitions and communications, accept number 2, attachment to City of Madison from Town of Westport, to be referred to the next council meeting.
Accept item number 3, another petition, detachment from the city of Madison, recommended action is to place on file without prejudice. Verveer points out that staff is requesting it be referred to next council meeting. DeMarb then makes that motion. Mayor says he thinks this is for procedural processes.
CONSENT AGENDA
They pass all items as noted on the agenda with the following exceptions:
4 – 15 public hearing items.
Extra majority items 63 (fire dept capital budget for a lake rescue boat)
Additional recommendations on
20 – re-refer this item back to ALRC
66 – substitute should be on the desk, adopt the substitute
92 – entry of vehicle fines ordinance, request referral to EOC
110 – sq ft license fee for sidewalk cafes, reefer also to the Downtown BID
125 – refer to CCOC
127 – Deputy Mayor 1 creation – 3 people in the new positions, DEputy Mayor 2 creation – one person in this position, this is referred to the September meeting.
144 – Appeal of Cerificate of Appropriateness – applicant requests withdrawal.
60 and 71 referred.
More details on all that are here, in case I screwed it up.
Verveer asks for 110 an additional change in the referrals to have the Vending Oversight Committee be the lead.
Schmidt votes no on 102
All those items pass as amended above.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearings on 4 – 14 opened, closed, no registrants. They separate some of the items, Mayor asks questions about 2 licenses at 620 University Ave, same agent, but there is a different LLC for the second one. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 , 11, 12, 14 motion to grant. Mayor asks Verveer to explain, he asks that 12 be recessed adn the application re-referred to the ALRC. Same owner. Mayor and City Attorney debating process. They say they are voting on 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14 and it passes.
Item 5 – move to grant with conditions in the report. Passes voice vote. No discussion.
Item 8 – Grant with conditions. Passes on a voice vote. No discussion. Mayor a bit confused, but they muddle through.
Item 10 – Adopt with conditions as agreed upon. Passes on a voice vote.
Verveer moves to reconsider number 10, that passes. Verveer moves to grant the application with the proposed conditions but strike #2 that the outdoor patio will be non-smoking. They have been getting advice from the city attorney’s office that conditions on smoking are pre-empted by state law, the license holder can make it non smoking, but the council can’t. The amendment and main motion passes again, voice vote.
Item 12 – Recess public hearing and re-refer to ALRC, Verveer first has to re-open the public hearing. Verveer moves to refer to ALRC, that all passes. All of this so far has been voice votes and unanimous.
Item 13 – Grant with conditions is the motion, no discussion, passes on voice vote.
They open public hearing on item 15. There is a registration supporting and available to answer questions. Hearing closed, motion to adopt, no discussion, passes on a voice vote.
ITEM 60 – Urban Forestry Special Charge Policy
Mark Clear explains that this is a result of an alternative revenue sources committee. Their charge was to find revenue that was not property tax. They explored several things in 2013 and 2014. Most items were either not available to them or the door was slammed in their face by the legislature. The one item is in December they passed and ordinance on the urban forestry charge, staff has been working on this, they have $1M in the 2015 budget for this fee and the methodology for the charge is in front of you now.
Denise DeMarb asks staff (ERic Knepp from Parks Department) how this charge was arrived at. Knepp says that they were tasked to allocate the charge in an equitable and efficient manner and they looked at several option, this option is simple and the end result of other methods, there is a flat rate per month per parcel. It has a low cost to implement for the city ($10,000, no extra staff) which makes it easier to keep the rates down. How the rates are arrived at and they take $100,000 and divide it by the linear street footage of the 5 categories of water bills (residential – 63%, commercial, etc.) They put the $1M in the buckets and then split it evenly across all parcels, they did not do it based on parcel characteristics because it would take more staff time to evaluate the characteristics.
Marsha Rummel asks about if this is for 6 months or a year. $2.76 is the rate for residential customer, that will be $1M in a 5 month window, they will reduce this 60% for next year when they can spread it over a year, depending upon what the discussion at budget time is, but they expect this to go down.
Shiva Bidar votes no. Passes on voice vote.
JUDGE DOYLE SQUARE
Rebecca Kemble moves the alternate.
Clear asks the negotiating team to comment on the changes in number three on how it will impact the negotiation. George Austin says that the position of the negotiating team, the items are all very important elements to this and will be thoroughly vetted throughout the process. The only comment they have is that the preliminary development agreement would be authorized and it will come back to the council on August 24th. He wants to make sure that the process you put in place on May 19 goes thorough the process, and they can’t resolve these issues by July 19th and that would defeat this motion. They think the items are reasonable and you will get them as the process goes on.
Clear asks if these things should be done before the “final” plan, not “preliminary” plan.
Mayor asks for other questions of staff, mayor says there are people registered to speak, but he wants the issues on the table before they speaks.
Kemble asks if any of the items could be settled before the July date. Some are partially updated in today’s memo. Austin says f, g and i have more information in the report. Kemble asks about h. Austin says that would come with the final development agreement. Austin says it could be done by July 15th, but the intent was to bring it back later.
Ahrens says on Sept 1st the final development agreement, what happens if the council has substantial concerns, what happens, it says we must go on because of the schedule. Ahrens asks what happens if we have issues. If A-J is found to be of concern, these are complex issues, this will be our first review of the material. Austin says that they don’t have to adopt it, but there will be choices made by the city and JDS Development. They want a site decision by July 15th. Austin says the large items are before them, if you adopt this resolution, a preliminary agreement could be done by July 15th. We shouldn’t move to some of the items if the level of public assistance or land use is not acceptable. Ahrens says we don’t know how many dollars JDS is putting into the package. We don’t know the level of debt, who is lending them money. The only details are about the 1/4 that is all our money. Natalie Erdman says it is $45M in equity and $90M in debt. We don’t know the details. They ask us to firm up the major pieces, size of hotel, parking, what th guarantees look like, $42.5M for parking, jobs TIF and land write down. They will spend money and we spend time on finer detail. August to December is due diligence, land use approvals, approval of CSM, budget approvals, more detail on the schedule, TIF application, final form of the lease, plan amendment for TID 25. For JDS to move forward, they want some approval of the basic terms.
Mayor says from July 15 – Sept when the council acts, is the council left in a position where it can only vote yes or no or will there be opportunities (meetings) that are open to the council in this intervening period, or is it a black out period. Erdman says they can go back to BOE. There will be multiple opportunities and meetings. Ahrens says that they are perfecting our part of it, but 2/4 of the project is elusive, the equity share, who is putting it up, who is putting it up. On the issues raised in today’s memo, you seem to be . . . he asks some question about money. Mo Cheeks asks for a point of order about if we can have public testimony. Mayor says he is being gernous but the council can object. They vote for public to speak. Mayor jokes about a 6 – 1 vote.
Public Testimony
I testified. Can’t blog me. Matt Kozlowsky also testified, also missed him. We were the only two members of the public.
They go back to questions from staff. Ahrens asks about the $75,000 in parking fees which is 25% of the net income, he asks about $375,000 in net income that seems to be only a few dollars per space, how did you get that from 650 spaces. Erdman says that they get no revenue during the day, the revenue is for after hours and the hotel income. That is what is in the memo. Ahrens says that they are in competition with Government East. Erdman essentially says yes on the weekend. 600 spaces during the day will have no income. Ahrens asks if that is consistent with the Transportation plan. Erdman says that they were asked by Board of Estimates to pay for the spaces, JDS says that Exact Sciences does not pay for parking on the periphery and they will not pay it. This was the best they could negotiate. They are requiring a transportation demand management plan.
Verveer asks Austin to walk them through the memo they got at their places this evening. The memo has been referenced a few times. Austin says that there are two provisions on the guarantee – the job based TIF (Exact Sciences) and the other is the 650 parking stalls, 600 for Exact Sciences and 50 for the hotel (for 250 rooms?!) They were negotiating the terms of that, we kept working on it and they met July 2 and yesterday and they came to the conclusion in the memo. The first is the jobs based TIF, they will guarantee to retain or create 300 jobs on July 1, 2017 and it will grow to 400 by 18 months later and they will all be in the facility. It is different than they discussed at the Board of Estimates because some jobs can’t start until the building is inspected by the FDA(?) Each job is $30,000 per job and to the extent those jobs are not created, they have 6 months to fix the deficiency and if not (I missed it) There will be a relocation penalty for jobs not created. There is a schedule in the memo. For the point of accessory parking, JDS will guarantee the incremental property taxes sufficient to offset the 20.8M. There are two tiers. Parking income will be assigned to the extent that the schedule is not met, if not met, the money is assigned to the city. That remains in effect until the tif is paid. There is a corporate guarantee for $10(ish), and a net worth covenant. I missed a bunch, but here is the memo.
Verveer asks about the memo and timeline, please explain what the July 15 deadline is and how flexible it is. What are the specifics of the deadline and why they are requesting this tonight. Austin says that Exact Sciences wanted to make the decision in June for occupancy in early 2017, they understand the complexity of a downtown project, they extended to July 2017. The city council on May 19 that directed staff to work on this, the resolution has parameters and JDS and Exact Sciences agreed to it. They moved the dates back to August 24 where the final development agreement will be presented. Austin talks about debt and equity requirements and land use requirements that JDS has to know. Austin says that the city negotiating position is we tried to not have the city bea n obstacle with the time line, you can turn this down tonight but there will be consequences. They requested a June 29th extension and they gave it to July 15th. Verveer asks who came up with the date, that was the date Exact Sciences was willing to accept. Verveer asks about the substitute language, specifically the request for a TIF application, will one be submitted soon. Austin says they expect it to be submitted later this month, in time for analysis for the August date. Austin says that if they submit it without accurate info it will not be useful. Verveer asks if they referred this for 2 weeks, only a few days after the extension, we wouldn’t have any additional info that is requested in the substitute. Austin says they would not have a. b, the parking analysis and the guarantee. He would not have the real estate consultant attorney’s opinion. Verveer asks about the master schedule, its ambitious but understandable. They have been discussing the 1031 tax exchange deadline on Sept 1, can you talk about that deadline and what that requires and how it relates to the master schedule. Austin says hat one part of the equity is the fact a component of the equity is in the form of a partner and there are tax requirements for re investments, that date was brought to us, we responded timely and tried to make it work in the schedule. Erdman adds that the closing is a real estate transfer, a lease on parking garage and MMB building and an unwind provision if this whole deal isn’t done in January (? she said December first) Verveer asks what happens if we approve this tonight, there are tremendous unknowns, he sees this as a comfort resolution, showing the council is supportive of the broad outlines, correct me if I’m wrong and what obligation, if any, are we obligated to if we adopt the original resolution.
Austin says this is a 2 step process, as outline in May resolution of the council, this is to define what the project is. There is a clear definition of what the project is, the blocks, city investment, etc. If those agreements aren’t made, there is no need to move forward. Without the final agreement the project doesn’t move forward, without the preliminary agreement Exact Sciences won’t move forward. Mike May says it is less out the outlines and a good faith effort to get to the final agreement, and then they will bring it back with the details, beyond the commitment of staff time and a general sense of the money we will put in, you aren’t committed beyond that, this is to keep the process going and proceed. Verveer says that there are many approvals needed after this.
Marsha Rummel says they are all learning about the jobs TIF. This is to grow jobs, are they obligated to use it in payroll or can they use it in general operations, if they can use it in general operations, then how do I tell my public why this isn’t just a write down of rent or a gift to the developer. Erdman says that it is not for uses of the developer, it goes for tenant improvements in the space for Exact Sciences. Rummel asks if that is a rent writedown. Erdman says improvements of the space. Rummel says that is their occupancy costs and she would like more info on that. Rummel also asks about 300 vs 400 jobs. The jobs number is reducing, but also hotel parking. The parking for the hotel seems too little and if the jobs aren’t there can the hotel parking increase. Erdman says they assume the 50 spaces are people leaving the car throughout the day, hotel parking is more at night. THe thought is that not just 50 spaces, but 650 spaces for the hotel, it is the management of the parking for the hotel. Rummel asks for the evidence of that. She says she goes to a conference and just leaves her car. She asks about the landmarks issue, why is it just advisory and not a certificate of appropriateness. Erdman says the state preservation office has to have approval, plus demo of annex also has to be approved, they have begun that process already. She is not sure as to why they are just advisory, but she thinks it is only a national landmarks. Rummel asks if it is not a local landmark. Verveer seems to be saying its a local landmark as well. Rummel would like that clarified as they were told something different at their last meeting.
Ledell Zellers wants more information on the parking on page 3. She asks the value of the parking the city will be foregoing based on the monthly average rate that everyone else has to pay? Austin says they did based on the value of the ramp. Austin says that with other businesses downtown it is hard to tell who really pays for the parking, the person or the company. Exact wants free parking and won’t absorb the additional cost. We are caught in a position to deliver that good, they didn’t calculate the opportunity cost. She asks why are they stuck on this? There are quite a few businesses in the downtown that don’t give away their parking. Erdman says that is a question for Exact, especially since many employees will want to live downtown. Austin says that they asked for a TDM and they are hopeful that will pan out. Zellers says that is a huge barrier for her. Zellers asks about the national flag for the hotel, what is the timing and requirement for that? Austin says that they can only accomplish so much in 7 weeks, This is the site, size and style of the hotel. We want 250 rooms, but they only agree on that as a goal, but they are only committed to 210. They want to know the operator, room block and flag, (he reads from page 7) Those elements would be completed to closing on the project and operator by August 24th. Zellers says no project if they don’t have a national flag in December? Austin says yes. Zellers asks about project risk, how did you select the analyst and why only one. Austin says in hindsight they would look at a broader perspective, they did look at a variety of sources, stock performance, etc. This analyst knew about health diagnostic companies, this was the recommendation. He was willing to visit with us in some detail. It was written rather narrowly, this was the primary source. Zellers asks who recommended him? Stock mutual fund companies. 3rd party.
Rebecca Kemble says the substitute was her attempt to get to yes, she keeps getting stuck on $20.8 and she needs answers before she can say yes to that, she is conflicted in her role on the TPC and the council, Why invest $20.8M in a competitor to our parking utility. 600 free parking spaces, but only 300 employees and then 400, why 600 free parking spaces, will they rent them out and will they under cut us and for how long? She needs to know that before she can agree to $20M in a private parking garage. The other part is that the current design of the buildings, the Parking Utility will have to pay more to go down 4 floors to accommodate Exact Sciences for Exact Sciences that will only go down one floor. Austin says the size of the ramp is for the two blocks. The parking is calculated based on the expansion space. They can’t build that later. The design of the ramp is driven by the schedule. To have Exact Sciences get in by July 2017, to dig down deeper, underpin the Municipal Building, that will take them beyond the schedule and it will cost more for the parking utility, they are working on that design, to the extent they want to go deeper in the ground (two other proposals do that) but can’t do that on this schedule. Kemble asks about the extra spaces before they build out on 105. Dave Schmiedicke (Finance Department) says that they are yet to get to that discussion, but they are coming at it that any spaces for Exact they have to agree to not undercut the Parking Utility and an agreement about what happens with those revenues. On the incremental costs underground, the parking utility will only pay for 600 stall above ground, the rest will be paid for by TID 25, we can use TIF now due to changes in state law. They tried to address those issues, by not burdening the parking utility. Kemble says that their might be additional maintenance and water pumping issues. Schmiedicke says they won’t be below the water table, there might be additional operating costs. Austin says that they wanted at grade development (land use) in their RFP. Kemble says it is going deeper than it would have, Austin says yes.
Schmidt and McKinney are in the cue, but Mayor asks DeMarb to go next so she can take the chair. DeMarb says “Thank you Mr. Mayor?” She also requests that the staff come to the front so the alders don’t have to talk to them face to face without the alders backs to the speakers. DeMarb asks about proposals they got in for the RFP. Austin says that the goal is 250 hotel rooms, but they have to redesign block 105, that will reduce the scale of the ramp and that they can get the extra rooms due to that design. Austin says that financing requirements are going to need a market study on the 250 rooms. DeMarb says that they weren’t able to get 250 the first time because it didn’t fit because the parking is out of the ground. Austin says it was parking and additional space for Exact was why they couldn’t get the 250 hotel rooms. DeMarb says c. d and e on the amendment are all on parking. She says they haven’t talked about losing the parking for 17 – 18 months, she understands its not just the revenue, but what about the businesses and people working downtown, what is the plan for that, the more she thinks about that, the more concerned she becomes. Austin says page 6 – 7 of the report covers it, preliminary strategies of evening and weekend and large event parking. He says that based on the council they will let the public know by March 2016, they don’t have the answers yet, they might not be perfect solutions. DeMarb says we don’t have any idea the cost to provide temporary parking, Austin says they don’t and they would expect to get revenue form the parking.
Chris Schmidt asks about CDA owning parking and who owns it and when. Natalie says the land is owned by the developer, the condoize the parking, city or CDA would own the condo, when the parking is split, they hold it for 27 years until the TIF is paid off and then the developer owns the parking. Schmidt asks about if monthly parking spaces were offered t Exact Sciences, Erdman says yes. Schmidt asks who pays for what. Exact Sciences parking is free to employee during the day, during evenings people pay to use it. WE get $40,000 per year and 20% of the parking income. Schmidt says they have about 7 designs for the parking and one is all underground, has that been looked at. Austin says they encouraged JDS to meet with ULI about their design, the fatal flaw is time. If we had another year, we can’t start construction before the end of summer, we can’t dig the hole, underpin the building and get the building occupied by July 1 2017. If they would give us til 2018, we could do it. Schmidt asks why it will take so long to get the annex down. 60 days for approval from state preservation office, set of plans for the demo, what do you do with the holes in the building (also needs approval of state office), then have to bid out the work. If you start in May, you can’t get the building down until December. Someone says we also have to relocate employees.
Alder McKinney asks about the jobs growth and the 200 living wage jobs by July 1, 2017. The jobs are headquarter jobs, located at Judge Doyle Square, the positions are research and development, operations and corporate functions. They committed to a diverse workforce and have a pipeline of potential hires. What are those positions they are creating the pipeline. Austin says that you’d have to ask Exact Sciences. McKinney wants language about the make up of the jobs. What is the relationship with the Urban League and what is the pipeline. Austin says that the guarantee doesn’t line up job for job. They hope to have more than 300 jobs. THey will nail this down in the final development agreement and confirm the relationships with the pipeline development. Those will be verified and detailed later. McKinney says before the finalization of the project we will have the details? He is not sure there will be jobs by job category, there will be a plan, but it might not be what really happens, they haven’t gotten to that level of detail. Erdman says that tey need a hiring diversity MOU to be executed by the City and Exact Sciences.
Amanda Hall – page 17 – labor peace section. There are many things up in the air and there is a level of detail about the no strike provision, how is this so specific when other things are so up in the air. Austin says that there are many areas of great specificity, labor peace info has been provided by advocates and their own work has allowed this small subsection to be identified. He says there is less known here than the other sections.
Mayor says that they were working on models for the labor peace agreement long before the project, we had the model form the Hilton and a model from the Edgewater 5 years ago and 2 years ago when working on this project (Judge Doyle 1st edition). This was something that could be adopted from other activities, while the development is clearly unique.
Hall says the concept was there, why the “no strike provision”. Mayor asks Peter Rickman to refresh his memory. Rickman says that is the heart of the agreement. DeMarb asks if anyone objects. Hall asks again, are we ok with the no strike provision. Rickman says that there is a balance being struck, this is seen as a salutatory way to protect workers rights. This is based on what has been done in other cities, he is ok with it. City Attorney says that they basically agree that you help us form a union and we won’t strike.
Zellers asks about if Exact doesn’t expand, the parking would be needed for whomever else goes in. Who would own it. Austin says CDA would own it. Would they get free parking. Austin says no. Zellers asks where the timeline for preservation approval came from, it has been done in as little as 24 hours. They have a right of 30 days to respond. They expect there to be discussion and another round of comment.
DeMarb asks Erdman what she was raising her hand for. She says they have not negotiated specific terms on labor peace. Hall points it out. (I think its poorly written)
Discussion
Clear moves an amendment to change the wording to be “prior to consideration by the Board of Estimates of the final development agreement”. King seconds.
Maurice Cheeks suggests that the info be provided to the Board of Estimates instead of the Common Council. Cheeks clarifies he wants to know if the info would be sent to all alders.
Clear says the purpose is straightforward.
Ahrens speaks against the amendment. He says that he doesn’t know what “consideration” or a mental event would be neither here nor there, they shouldn’t pass amendments about thought processes. The salient point here is pushing it to the final agreement, this puts us in a position of waiting to the last minute, with the last information and the most difficult to say no, because we are neck deep in the water and it is too late to turn back. We are trying to get the information before they jump in the water, as opposed to hope they get the information. They want most of the information, we know our share, but we need to know their share, we need to know what they are about. He urges them to reject this.
Verveer says he wanted to acknowledge that Exact Sciences was available and willing to answer questions.
Schmidt supports Clear’s amendment. They have to answer those questions before they can fill out a TIF agreement.
Clear says that they want to be very specific with the negotiating team and the developer about the document they need to have before they can take action on the agreement.
(Clear and Schmidt were rather snippy)
Roll call request by Ahrens. I believe it was 13 – 7 with no votes being McKinney, Kemble, Rummel, Skidmore, Zellers, Ahrens and Baldeh.
Questions of Exact Sciences
DeMarb asks if they have questions of Exact Sciences, he is the chief operating officer.
Zellers asks about parking, its a big concern to give away parking in the downtown. The negotiating team is that they have grown with employees who are accustomed to free parking. Biggest concern is commuting downtown, this is a benefit they have now. Our shareholders need to be done right by. It’s a great opportunity, and we respect and understand your position. Zellers says that she was a HR director in an organization that recruited internationally, she never had a problem with employees saying no over free parking, she is still struggling with that as a concept given Madison’s culture with Metro, walking, biking. Are you saying you can’t retain or recruit. He says it would be problem, it would change their workforce. As they grow, the goal is not to rent out the parking, their goal is to make it a great environment for employees and not disadvantaging them.
Schmidt asks what the TDM would look like. He says they have begun it, as they thought about moving downtown, they think it will change the types of workers they can attract, hopefully they will encourage employees to walk or ride bikes, but that will play a part, it is too early to say. Schmidt asks if it is fiduciary responsibility to shareholders or employees there is an issue with. He says people don’t live in an urban area. Schmidt asks if they realize that they will have climate controlled parking as opposed to exposed parking. Schmidt asks fi employees were asked is they would pay to parking a garage. They did focus groups but did not poll.
Ahrens asks about investor relations – how many investors are there in excess of $48M. He says that the reporting is that 85% are institutional. Of the institutions have invested $40M, he doesn’t know.
McKinney asks about job growth, speak on the pipeline and the Urban League partnership. That doesn’t say anything to her since it doesn’t line up with the employment positions. He says that 18 months ago they had 150 employees with specialized jobs to 600 today, they are committed to Madison, they are starting discussions, in billing, manufacturing and other entry level positions. They have begun the dialog and started to hire folks. McKinney asks if they are entry level positions, a 4th category. He says there are different positions in billing, manufacturing, they would hire appropriate to the skills in the departments. She says this is vague, she wants to hear specific guidelines about the programs that the pipeline would foster and develop. Can they have that by the target date. He says they can lay out the things they are doing to promote it.
Rummel asks about the money they got from the state and how does that relate to the money they get. They have 4 facilities, some of the money are for the other facilities, they have 600 employees, some on Badger Rd, this proposal is to bring some sets of employees downtown. Rummel is asking about relations, how does the $12M help the deal. He says if it is not viable, it is not possible to do, the real conversation is that they stand firm by that. If they move downtown, because they are FDA approved, the employees have to stay elsewhere until they can move downtown, they have to move people downtown to consolidate, he says there are infrastructure investments. Rummel asks if $30/sq ft is viable, he says less than that, that is a give. Their target was far less than $30/sq ft, they are making some trade offs to accommodate a win for the company and the city. That is their perspective. The further they push this back it is a trade off with the growth of the company. Rummel asks to clarify the target, he says they were at less than $30 and that has had to come up.
McKinney asks about the unknowns, but you have drawn a line in the sand with the start date and everything we are doing is base don this accelerated rate, we want a win win but to not ask these questions is not good on our side. What kind of leeway is your company willing to make in that line in the sand, we want this to work, but the devil is in the details, you are coming with a lot of detail not set but not willing to move the line in the sand, is that a consideration, can the line be moved and to what degree. He says that our goal is we need January 2017, he would rather it tomorrow, it is a function of their business, 1st world problem, it isn’t arbitrary, we think this is dictated by our business. Going from Jan to June is a big give. Going from June to July to August is a big give, he understands and respects the council needs to be comfortable, things are going well. He says he’s trying to be nice. She says don’t be nice, be straightforward. He says that is the reality.
Baldeh asks how many of the 200 – 400 jobs will be outsourced. From outside of the country. Every employee would get stocks. He asks again how many would come from outside of the country. He says that there are less than 5% now, over 50% of employees are affiliated with UW Madison, we don’t have a policy or program to hire foreign workers and that isn’t a big focus, but he doesn’t know what it will be in 2017. Baldeh asks if there will be just entry level jobs? He says there will be all wages against all departments. Baldeh asks how negotiations are going with other cities. He says that when you have a good performing business, their goals are higher than the analysts forecasts, this is bigger than the minimums, because of that we are in a strong position, he won’t speak to those conversations because its not appropriate but right now this is our focus.
Confusion . . . . May says the motion is to make the alternate to be the main motion, if not then they go back to the main motion. DeMarb calls on Carter, she wants to hear from JDS, DeMarb asks if they want to hear from him they agree.
Questions of JDS
Carter asks about a project labor agreement to hire local. Bob Dunn says no, not yet.
Motion
Alternate becomes the main motion on a voice vote.
Mayor says that he wants to put this in context, he discussion has been about specifics without a discussion about Madison. Its been about 100 years since (his phone rings . . . ) commuter rail started taking residents from city to the suburbs, ti was not a great significant impact when it first occurred but gained momentum in the 30s, in Madison Shorewood and Maple Bluff were just tiny enclaves and Middleton was a blink as freight trains went up university. With WW2 and automobile, urban America had changed, by the 70s the urban population was declining. Only a few cities (Madison. Columbus Ohio and a few others) had increases in population. One of the failures was to appreciate the infrastructure we had created, worst example was Washington DC where the entire core went to sleep at 6pm. He spent a lot of time looking at the future of the city, he says what happened in China, San Francisco, naval yards being reused, we are fighting trends and we have to deal with our contradictions, if we want to stop urban sprawl, we have to have greater densities. He says our core is not Midvale to 1st St. and that we need densities for transportation. He says that they adopted a TIF policy in the 70s and it was destroyed, it was supposed to help with blight, but it became a mechanism to pave over cornfields, making it harder to create a sustainable city, now we have a event we couldn’t foresee, a modern tech company locating close to the center of downtown, that was unimaginable, we have to decide to embrace this challenge or walk away from it. We are taking risks with the environment, transportation, housing patterns and the economics of the city. There are other folks taking those risks as well JDS/Exact Sciences, investors and lenders. We are not all of the same opinion of what is necessary. If the vision of some of us is correct, the required parking will not be fully utilized by the employees. For the 150 employees that have to relocate, its a significant shift. New employees may have different views of sustainability and whee they want o live, not all the parking will be necessary. NO one can predict that demand and how rapidly the growth will take place. There will be greater utilization of the bus system, its not just Exact Sciences and this site and what it does to build ridership and make the bus system more efficient. He can understand the concern, its not unwarranted, the concerns can be addressed. The council will come on Sept 1st and will see for the first time the results of the negotiations, we may have some lost opportunities if this fails, staff time and some money. If it works, success will breed problems, if it works it will give us the opportunity to change the city and move on to the new challenges, gentrification, meeting goals of equity and employment, but if we don’t make the effort, we have to ask what the city will look like in t20 – 30 years. The only way to pay for the things people want to do is contained by a tax base that has a limit on it and what happens in the next week with the room tax. For all the good works we want to do, we have to have the money, the only way to do that is to build the property tax base, if it weren’t for the new construction, we wouldn’t be paying the bills to undo the damage of act 10. WE can’t envision a sustainable city without looking at revenues and cost of operations. No one is going to regret their vote to move forward tonight, if this doesn’t work out, if we can’t bring it to consummation in 2 more months, I’ll feel bad, but I’ll know I tried to build the city I want, one in the best interests of the people of the community.
Schmidt says he agrees with the Mayor, concerns about parking, not about the TIF policy. THey created an exception for something like this. Lets see how it plays out when we have an application, he doesn’t have heartburn about that. He doesn’t think we need to change the policy, we allow us to have exceptions, that is why it is written that way. Potential densities are keep to an infrastructure. We have transportation infrastructure, 600 employees won’t break the bank. We’ve approved so many offices and apartments and that has changed the system much. He isn’t worried about that. The infrastructure on the suburbs does cost us something. Parking has been described as free, but that doesn’t take into account the infrastructure. It’s still publicly subsidized. (Missed a bit) He says that they should do parking and sell air rights above. A three month lag won’t matter because they won’t have their land use approvals. He can’t decide if he is going to vote aye, he hopes the issues are revisited, the questions about if employees would pay for parking aren’t answered. Would they pay for an automated parking garage. He doesn’t see parking as a show stopper with employees, we’re talking about young professionals making money, they are doing a reverse commute. A TDM will cost something, he might suggest that they should sign on to the bus pass program, about $40 per month that could be applied to parking as well, this is a cost you can’t get away with if you have a real TDM. We should have written that into ordinance, to have a TDM, he doesn’t know how he will vote tonight. He has a hard time letting go of the parking issue. The TIF side he is less concerned about, this still has to go through staff and questions will be answered one way or the other. The sticking point is the parking. (still talking . . . but going in circles about parking and history) We have wanted to redevelop Govt East for 5 years and we should have done it.
Rummel says that the building on block 88 should have a life span of 80 years so others can use it, they are going to regret one layer of parking, that needs to be addressed. Maybe we need to add a K to address issues of timing and undergrounding parking in block 88.
They have the motion, Kemble had an amendment, Clear amended Kemble, now they are voting on the amendmended motion. Passes on a voice vote, no roll call.
Introductions from the floor
Verveer has a resolution on 25 W. Main parking amending a previous resolution. Didn’t say where it was referred.
Moved to adjourn at 9:55!
