Somehow, the meeting lasted til 10:00. A surprise to some, as there was no one major issue on the agenda. Confusion about where Edgewater ordinances can be referred. Sidewalk, bike lanes and curb and gutter issues on Femrite and Old Middleton Road, new IT director who doesn’t know much about web 2.0, Pham-Remmele refuses to apologize for accusing Mayor Dave Cieslewicz of pay to play, Cherokee marsh land purchase (offer up to 10% over appraisal price? unlike CDA offer to African American landlords on south side.), Pham-Remmele rant about statement of interest forms and those kindergarten committee members, panhandling ordinance referred and probably a few other tidbits of interest.
GETTIN’ IT STARTED
They started at 6:37. Kristin C from the Cap Times says that is the earliest in a long time. Only Cnare absent.
The Mayor asks for a moment of silence for the people of Haiti.
Tim Bruer calls for suspension of the rules to allow them to introduce items from the floor and take items out of order. No objections.
Accept petition about sidewalk and bike path assessments on Femrite/Marsh Road.
No early public comment.
CONSENT AGENDA
They pass everything on the agenda with the recommendations with the following changes and exceptions.
73 – Change the report date for the TIF Policy Committee to July 15th. [Wow, the committee isn’t appointed, which means the appointments could be recommended at the next meeting, then approved on 2/23, then a meeting has to be set up, they will have about 14 weeks to do their report. Wanna take bets on if it gets done on time?]
79 – This is Mark Clear’s (and now Sanborn, Clausius and Skidmore’s) ordinance to change shortline zoning for the Edgewater Hotel. The ordinance is also referred to Zoning Code Rewrite Advisory Committee, Commission on the Environment and the Zoning Board of Appeals in addition to the Plan Commission.
81 – This is Maniaci’s (no co-sponsors) ordinance for the Edgewater that eliminates setback requirements, allows TIF and sales of condos. This is referred to Board of Estimates and Board of Public Works in addition to the Plan Commision.
Items 38 (Cherokee Marsh), 43 (prevailing wage), 58 (committee members who didn’t file their statement of interest forms) and 64 (panhandling) are separated for discussion.
Mark Clear asks about additional referrals of his Edgewater shoreline ordinance change, he asks City Attorney whether policy items are ever referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Michael May says that the Mayor had the same question. He says he is not sure if they have the jurisdiction to hear this sort of question. [Really? The Mayor, Mark Clear and the City Attorney didn’t see this coming? They are trying to limit the power of this committee, and they didn’t think that someone would think to ask the committee what they think about that?] May suggests that they refer the item and he will advise them of it this is appropriate. He says they have a mormally quasi-judicial function and they may have some cases related to ordinance before them. They usually don’t act on policy. [Even tho they have had presentation on the Zoning Code Rewrite and theoretically, this issue was already before them at that time.]
Clear asks how that would work procedurally.
May says that they can refer and he will send out a memo that says what authroity they have. He says he has doubts they can consider this.
Clear objects to the referral.
The Mayor suggests that they get the memo and then refer at next meeting if they need to. They will wait for the opinion. [And that was that, no vote. ? Which I find interesting because if it can be referred, which it should and could be, but I’m guessing that is not what the memo will say, this will just add to the tight timeline. It looks like another attempt to limit the role of committees. The ordinance says that it can have items referred to it that are covered in the ordinance.]
The Mayor says that 11 (Committee appointments) has to remain on exclusion list because they have a speaker.
NEW IT GUY
[I have to stop calling him a dude, a dude would know what web 2.0 was all about . . . ]
This item was taken out of order, before the public hearings.
Paul Kronberger says he is pleased to be here, he is the candidate for IT director, he says they probably his read background. He has 10 years experience with the City of Milwuakee, 12 years at the State and 9 years in the public sector. He wasy he has worked in IT his whole career. He says that based on the city’s needs and knowledge, he thinks he can meet their needs.
Satya Rhodes-Conway thanks him for coming, apologizes for missing the first few minutes of Board of Estimates meeting [Where he wasn’t asked any questions, not even by self proclaimed computer geek Clear] She explains that during the budget they had quite a bit of discussion about IT department and the number of projects on their plate and apparent lack of work plan. She says he’s probably not familiar with everything, but likely with the larger things like ELAN, new accounting software, maybe not smaller issues like we have only a small number of streams for people to watch them tonigh, Can you speak to number of projects and how to craft a work plan?
Kronberger says he doesn’t know everything about products and process, got a summary of projects, aware of workload, will be interested once get more in depth, and figure out how to prioritize. Resources only stretch so far, probably work plans in place that we aren’t aware of, understanding that dept functions very well and anxious to get more specific and see plans. [Red flag! “Assumes” there are work plans. Doesn’t know how he’s going to prioritize? Doesn’t mention working with the council to determine those priorities?]
Rhodes-Cownay asks about IT energy usage. Says reducing energy is something we are committed to, any experience in how to run IT in a greener way or reduced energy usage?
Kronberger says that energy usage is mostly equipment and hardware, as city goes through replacement plans, energy usage is one of considerations, new technology more efficient, heat thrown off will require less HVAC. Thinks it’s a need to have a constant review in acqusitions that it be one of the criteria and factored in the life cycle cost. [Hmmm, I think that was a no.]
Rhodes-Conway asks about social media and web 2.0.
Kronberger says he doesn’t have alot to offer on that. [WHAT? WHAT? WTF? ONFG? WHAT? Seriously? They couldn’t find someone who was on the cutting edge of technology that has something to offer in this area and has ideas about greening our IT operations? Ugh, my head hurts.]
Thuy Pham-Remmele asks him to share with us and public what year he graduated?
He says 1979 from Marquette.
Pham-Remmele says that is a wonderful school. She says she looked through resume [obviously not based on former and next comments]. She says he never stays any place for more than 5 years and this is a 2 years probation on 5 year contract, should we hope you will make a commitment to stay with us?
Kronberger says that he was with the City of Milw for 10 years, Department of Revenue for 7 years, Department of Commerce 5 years.
Pham-Remmele says that it was not all in one place, spread around.
Krnoberger says he got promotions, but with same organization.
Pham-Remmele asks if we can we hope you will stay with Madison?
Kronberger says yes, Madison has been his home for 20 years and has no intention of leaving.
Bridget Maniaci asks about web 2.0, she says it was brought to her attention by one of her constituents that other cities use web 2.0 for city applications like report a problem and that Google maps can interface with snowplowing and report a problem. What would you be looking to do with the new technology moving forward?
Kronberger says he needs to start and learn about department, don’t have a lot of background information, a lot of technology currently available that is emerging that might lend itself to Madison, need to evaluate. Alot is possible, not all feasible, need to be looked at and should be looked at. Also want to get a sense of priorities for those kind of things, we all have resources and strengths and this is what we should prioritize, technically speaking a lot is possible, need to look at the prerequisites.
They confirm him and then several department heads all get up and leave the room.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
#2 – Edgewater PUD. Some jokes, referral passes on voice vote with no substantive comments.
Femrite
#3 – Sidewalk and street assessments for Femrite Drive.
There were 4 speakers against, representing 100% of the three property owners affected. There were concerns about if the sidewalks were needed and where they would connect and the the addition of impervious surfaces in an area where there was already increased flooding due to construction around the BioAg gateway and the city’s lack of cleaning the ditches of debris. There is a long convoluted path for the water to flow where it needs to go because much of this is a wetland. They say they were promised that there would be sidewalks on only one side of the street. It was clear from the speakers who were small business owners, that it was annoying that this was being done for “Economic Development” and that they felt the TIF district there did not deliver all it was promised (4,000 jobs) and in the end these sidewalks had no connection to the BioAg Gateway but cost them more money. At least one alder tried to get the Economic Director to answer a question about the plan there, but he let another staff person answer it. [Is that what he gets paid over $100,000 a year to do? Stand in the back of the room and lord over the discussion, yet add nothing to it? It was ironic to me that one of the speakers against the costs was from Badger Bus company. In the end, one of the biggest assessments was found to be able to be deferred for 10 years and then they’d have 8 years to pay and there was a petition submitted (#1 on agenda). Ultimately, when it came time to discussion, there was none. Just questions of speakers and staff and then a voice vote.
I should note, Bruer was up and out of his seat for 25 minutes talking to Brad Murphy and Don Marx while the speakers were talking. On the next issue, he was out of his seat for another 20 minutes or so yacking at Noble Wray. he spends another 20 minutes like a yo you jumping in and out of his seat delivering messages to various alders and staff around the chambers.
Old Middleton Rd.
There were two speakers in support, a doctor and the city’s safety coordinator. There were 8 neighbors against. They were clearly upset with their alder (Mark Clear) for claiming that the neighborhood supports the project and not communicating well with them. They did a door to door survey indicating that they neigbhors we clearly against the project as is. They all wanted safety improvements, but they also wanted to protect the character of the neighborhood and save the trees. There were over 200 – 400 trees that would be removed, not all mature. There were concerns about there not being a landscaping plan to There were alot of questions of staff and speakers and in the end, the motion passed with an amendment that said that the Common Council shall receive landscaping replacement plan for the streetscape and storm water management area by November 1 2010.
Those two discussions took 2.5 hours. Sorry I shortened it.
The rest of the public hearing items passed as noted on the agenda without discussion.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Rosemary Lee says that as a courtesy to Alder Thuy Pham-Remmele she is repeating her comments from the December 15th meeting. She says this is the most difficult it has been to speak before the council, this is a serious issue. She is worried about comments made by Pham-Remmele on citizen appointments. First, she was concerned about her comments about not knowing appointees or their interests. She says that alders have to be held accountable too, information on the appointees are available for review in mayor’s office. Her personal feeling is that all members should be scrutinized and held accountable, they are advisory to the council, scrutiny is part of your final decision. Second, she was concerned about comments that Rosemary Lee was “here forever”. She points out she was appointed to the Downtown Coordinating Committee in 2003 and Vending Oversight Committee in 2006. By some standards, she is almost new. Third, she is concerned about the accusation that a person paid $1000 to Mayor Dave’s campaign to get appointed to a city committee. She says this is a serious allegation, insinuation that the process is not open and honest. It is an insult to everyone involved. Mayor did not and would not pay to play, requests Pham-Remmele apologize to mayor and others for her comments.
Pham-Remmele is glad she is here in person. Family circumstance made her miss the last meeting. She stands behind everything that she said. Bruer promised the CCOC (common Council Organizational Committee) would be following up – still holding breath waiting for that. Not imagined, it is true, to protect person she will not reveal name, stands behind it and wont apologize for anything. She asks to be noted as abstaining for 11 and 13 because until CCOC follows up through the process she will not vote for any of the recommendation – will stand behind everything she says and needs to be looked into.
It passes on a voice vote with 1 abstention (Pham-Remmele), 1 absence (Cnare) and 18 aye votes.
CHEROKEE MARSH
Jed Sanborn opposes, thinks they all you should too. A few facts, you may all know this. This is phase three of the purchase. Phase 1 and 2 totall 309 acres, $2.4M total purchase price. $800K city funding and the rest was the state. This new purchase is $1.7M, $900K city and the rest from state. Same state that can’t fund District Attorney offices, make PILOT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) payments for services yet spending all kinds of money buying up land, would like to emphasize that we spend a lot of money on TIF and the primary purpose is to increase our property tax base. We spend millions to promote projects to add to property base. Here we are paying $900K of our and states money for 23 acres when we already have 309 acres and we are taking it off the tax rolls. It is developeable land. He’s been told it is $8M development, even if in that ball park, that’s a lot of property taxes for 7% more land for conservation park, we’re just adding a little piece. Why are we taking it off the tax rolls, and paying to do it, when paying $16M to add property to the rolls. Vote against.
Michael Schumacher says that this has been a longer process. There is a special area plan, he is supportive of the process. Thanks mayor and his office and friends of Cherokee and other northsiders, parks staff, etc. Alot of people worked to make it happen. Mindful of Sanborn’s concern and missed opportunity for development, north side should pursue more development, good for property tax, support small business but this area is unique cuz extremely close to wetlands. This isn’t about adding 7%, but if developed more there would be more run off in area that is precious and important to entire system. Lake level issues and flooding, 7% might sound small but incremental approach to issues. Land never comes cheap. This is a cheap purchase, city and state made commitment. These broader policy decision made over many years. If wait another few years, it might not be available or more expensive.
Pham-Remmele thanks Sanborn for excluding the item, was going to request the same. At this time, tight city budget and proposing to spend $1.7M and as she understands it is already with the preservation trust. Why buy it now? What is the point? $75K per acre is not dirt cheap. Constituents that are tax payers, seniors, families ask why is it? What will it change? Why not leave it as it is now? It’s there, not going to be disappearing. Why now? Why that much money? Is that the priority for us now when compared to people without jobs and the economic downturn, this is not the time to go shopping like this. She has to say no representing her district, cannot support he purchase.
Palm says appreciates Sanborn’s comments. Says he serves on CARPC (Capital Area Regional Planning Commission) and deals with urban service area extensions to control growth in communities and the commission has looked at this fairly carefully. Quite frankly we as a city would have had to get approval to do some of the USA amendments to do more developments on the northside and without preservation of the Cherokee Marsha and this land here it would have been harder. Development might not have occurred, commission might have not been supportive of extending borders, ought to look at it carefully from a number of perspectives, wise and appropriate to make the investment.
Schumacher says that forgot to thank Tiziani and Bill White. Apologizes. Says he needs to follow up question to Pham-Remmele’s. What is the cost to the city and how is it being paid.
Don Marx (Real Estate) says that exposure for city is that $1,735,000 and we pay 50% contingent on getting an appraisal at $75K per acre. If less then stewardship fund will only pay 50% and more may fall more on our plate, max we would pay is $945,000 or 57% of purchase price.
Schumacher asks what kind of fund is paying for the purchase.
Dean Brasser (Comptroller) says that city funding comes from park land impact fee fund. The source of funds it he development fees in lieu of park dedication – that is classified as an impact fee and required to spend within specific period of time and only on park capital improvements and land purchases. This qualifies.
Sanborn asks Marx about appraisal. Marx says one was done by the city, it only says $65K, that was unacceptable to owner, negotiated $75K but DNR has to do own appraisal and anticipating $75K. If not then their contribution will be less than $75K/acre but we limited ourselves to 57% of purchase price, or $71.5K/acre. The city usually give a 10% bump on an appraisal.[I wonder if that is what the city offered the African American southside landlords? I never heard . . . must have been sworn to secrecy . . . ]
Sanborn asks if the $65K is reasonable even if it can’t be developed.
Marx says the plat is sitting out there. Just needs to be recorded, 47 lots plat.
Sanborn asks what the property values is if fully developed plan.
Marx says roughly $100K per lot or $4.7M so in excess of that. But, he says that may be low since this is prime land on a golf course.
Maniaci asks Marx on behalf of her constituents who built who had money go into the fund and curious where the money is going, what is the balance in the account and what other goals the city has with this account? Other projects and sites looking at? [She’s earned the name “Bulldozer Bridget” by many in the district for always siding with the developers, so its interesting this is the question she asks.]
Kevin Briski (Parks) says he doesn’t have the balance.
Brasser says $2,009,000 city wide. No budgeted expenses. This would be a budget amendment, this city wide parkland fee fund is part of 12 funds, other 11 ire the specific area funds and that is the separate development fund for each area.
Maniaci notes that the funds have different rates, she says this one has a higher assessment rate.
Brasser says fees are assessed at the higher rate because this is the in lieu of land dedication fee.
Briski says that there are no other current negotiations, but feelers are out and aware of some property that would be advantageous in the overall park picture, no current negotiations or immediate use for the fund.
Maniaci asks for recent expenditures?
Briski says Cherokee Marsh and Door Creek property in his tenure. In last 3 to 4 years.
Manici asks how does their price compare.
Briski doesn’t know, not here when negotiations went through.
Marx says that last Cherokee acquisition was $103K per acre, that was also cost sharing with DNR, we paid 50%.
Maniaci asks Briski if the lands are on the periphery, any park acquisition on interior of city, not downtown, but established portion so city?
Briski says yes. Reviewing properties in the interior not downtown, all the properties reviewing and assessing are not on the outside perimeter, within the city core.
Bruer now is chairing the meeting.
Judy Compton asks how many acres.
Briski says 23 acres.
Marx says 23.143 acres.
Compton asks how much of the land is usable and where does the 7 acres come from?
Marx says all of it, Marx doesn’t know where 7 acres came from, he says its all developable. All 47 lots.
Compton asks what kind of a commmitment we are making.
Marx says DNR may come up – if approve, as written, are we committed to make up difference in DNR share up to 57%, if DNR doesn’t put money it deal falls apart and we walk away.
Sanborn says that if Alder Palm is right and CARPC would not approve it, then grossly overpaying for the land. And if he is wrong then his original argument is valid. Put that aside, still $900K but also hearing about other purchases, could be improvements of parks and ask people on council if willing to put aside something you would like to see, we know every park has a long list of things we want to see done. Will we do borrowing or put aside our projects?
Maniaci says her understanding is that acquisition fund only for land acquisition, not improvements within parks.
Briski says that is correct, two funds. One by district for improvements, second fund, this one, is for acquisition of land.
Julia appreciates where Sanborn is coming from, respects his perspective and consistency and concerns and good for him for bringing that up. She really means that, however, the 13th district very fortunate that when started people bought Vilas park and others, they benefit the entire city. She’s sure Sanborn didn’t mean to pit district against district, but something like a park like this with that landscape benefits the entire city, fully supporting it, its her night for trees.[She asked alot of questions about the Old Middleton Road trees.]
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz also respects Alder Sanborn, seldom agrees with him and not going to start this evening. Why is this why good for city? He says this is a fairly good use of the park acquisition fund, doubles our money. Every dollar we spend gets matched, we are pretty sure we’ll get that money. It is a way we acquire funds back for the city from the state, we need that, we get 2/3 what the state says they owe us. This is an important purchase, one of most important things to Madison is our lakes, they define us as a city. He knows what lakes look at in late summer, its due to the run off, healthy wetlands filter that run of. This is good for economic development in the city. [Anyone else getting tired of economic development being the excuse for why we need everything? Its just getting to be a joke, even when true.] He agress we ought to be doing infill and develop developable parcels in the city. He was against this development in the beginning. Tiziani is a reasonable guy and worked with them and they came up with a proposal the Mayor could live with but he wanted to, in his heart, preserve the land. Thanks to the recession we can preserve the land, without downturn we couldn’t buy the land or at lease not without it being at an exorbitant price. This is important because it buffers wetlands and will improve water quality at a bargain and we can protect it forever.
ROLL CALL
No: Sanborn, Pham-Remmele
Aye: Rummel, Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Maniaci, Palm, Rhodes-Conway
Absent: Cnare
PREVAILING WAGE
Rhodes-Conway asks Rob Phillips (City Engineering) what is this? What is current practice?
Phillips says that the 2009 state budget bill make changes to prevailing wage laws, so this changes the law. New state law lowered the rate for contract value for prevailing wage, but that had no impact on us. We pay prevailing wage for any value of contract. Portion that has more impact is seal coating and crack filling – not subject to prevailing wage under state law. This would require us to pay prevailing wage when bid through public works process, not when contract with Dane County for maintenance, so basically, this maintains status quo for us.
Rhodes-Conway asks about volunteer labor?
Phillips says that the state law provides that provision and we carried it forward.
Clear asks city attorney why this is a charter ordinance?
May says that it was the first time it was passed so it needs to be changed by a charter ordinance.
[Where the hell were the unions on an issue like this? They just agreed to a pay cut and possibly lost jobs.]
STATEMENT OF INTEREST FORMS
Rhodes-Conway has a question on length of list before us. She says last time we went through this fairly extensive discussion about kicking people off and discussion about changing process, can someone on staff explain to us if there was more effort this year. She understands that we mail the forms, ask them to fill it out – anything in addition done and if not why not?
Maribeth Witzel-Behl (City Clerk) says that they send out letter to complete form, send out reminders, date sent out is set in ordinance, reminders are ignored.
Rhodes-Conway asks if there is any reason we couldn’t put this on the agendas and pass forms out at meeting when people there, might get better response.
Witzel-Behl says yes they could do that.
Rhodes-Conway says this is a remarkable number of people who didn’t file. Some of the committees don’t meet often and some might think not meeting again, hate to put us in situation where staff have to badger people and staff need to spend time doing it, might not have ourselves in situation.
Bruer says times have changed, it used to be we were adamant about public trust and would make no exception and what is happening today is that ironic that members of ethics committee didn’t file. [Bruer is recreating history here. We were adamant that no one be exempt from filing. We were equally adamant that the city do a better job getting people to fill the forms out. It is clear that they made even less efforts. The mail the form out over the holidays with a short timeline for people to return it, that is what needs to be fixed! No one is saying people should be exempt, which is what the original battle was about.] Bruer says the city attorney had suggestions at CCOC and asks him to share those ideas.
May says that ordinance will be introduced at next meeting to make some changes to this procedure that require it to be put on agenda of every committee in December and January and people have forms at the meeting and modifies timing of notices, encourage more people to get them in on time.
Rhodes-Conway asks about if the ordinance was not introduced or passed, how do we deal with the 17 pages of people who didn’t file.
May says that the form goes out to city staff, he staffs the ethics board and he will get emails, calls, etc to the members and he expects other staff will do the same.
Michael Verveer asks about why the motion is adoption of report, is that right, how does it work?
May says the correct motion is to refer to second meeting in February, ordinance says that if two meetings later not in compliance – which would be Feb 23rd – then the correct motion would be to adopt.
Mayor changes the motion to refer and asks if its friendly, it is.
Palm asks about email addresses for committee members, we collect them, can this be emailed committee members and can there be a pdf form in a more obvious place on the clerk’s website.
Witzel-Behl says they can move it to a more prominent location. To email does take time, need to look up individual email addresses, system using can’t copy and paste from the program.
Palms asks how they get addresses?
Witzel-Behl says they have to use select function keys to run report, can’t run to a word document.
Palm wryly asks where the new IT guy is . . .
Thuy Pham-Remmele says this is not the first time they have been presented a list like this, when she look at the names, many are repeated names and many have been held to respect in community. She says there is a former Board of Education Chair, former alder, TV commentator, people who tried to run for mayor, so when recommended to hold these positions did you look at that. These poeple are not elected and if this is one of the few concrete things they need to do, if they are not part of process, takes away trust. She doesn’t know if they attend meetings or look at agendas or make serious decision on commissions. Here we have to go after them and remind them, she is frustrated, its like kindergartners who are fumbling, if people making big serious important decision for entire city and not accountable and this is one of few details, this is proving they don’t take job seriously. This is part she had a problem with, are we supposed to make it easier for them? Wonders why these people recommended to serve again and again, for her, she has very little respect for this, sorry she is being negative, makes her wonder why these people are making demand on a process and voting when they themselves take care of little requirements, they know when they apply that this needs to be done on time, she just has to rest her case.
PANHANDLING
Rhodes-Conway says it is unclear form teh minutes what the motion is before us and what the recommendation is. Did PSRC (Public Safety Review Committee) see EOC (Equal Opportunities Commission) recommendation before came back to us?
Mayor asks Paul Skidmore. City attorney volunteers, PSRC recommended adopt before EOC recommendation.
Rhodes-Conway is concerned that PSRC did not respond to EOC concerns, not put on their agenda again. Would like alders to comment on discussion – send back to PSRC to consider EOC concerns, not addressed.
Solomon – says EOC referred to themselves to find about a few things that they never got answers to, then when came back in November, motion was to refer to PSRC and maybe there was another motion to place on file and one to to vote it down because of questions about effectiveness and PSRC took action prior to that. He has a few questions if move forward on this.
Bruer is volunteering to refer to PSRC.
Kerr attempts to ask a question. Mayor gently points out this is about to be referred and they can ask questions later.
Motion to refer . . . passes unanimously.
WRAPPIN’ IT UP
King introduces a rezoning ordiannce.
Mayor notes Mario will be on family leave for the next three months.
Adjourn.
