More head-spinning Maniaci antics and questionable ethics. I posted here previously about the scoring anomalies.
Here is video, it starts about 13 minutes in. Testimony goes until about 36 minutes in, then Alder Maniaci Speaks:
Well, this house has been on the agenda of the city to deal with for over 20 years now and today is another day in the process. She has a lot to say and has thought a lot about it, but will keep her comments pertinent to the Plan Commission, she has other comments about financials that she will reserve for Board of Estimates. We, as a city just invested in the Livingston in with a facade improvement grant, she has a big problem with setting businesses against each other. It is the plan commission’s role to make sure that there are complimentary uses in the neighborhood. To put two nearly identical business models three doors down from each others and hope and cross your fingers that that will be a success. She sat down with Dave Gawenda and looked at confidential room tax records and the history of the Collins House and Livingston. She has concerns about that and she thinks the Fant proposal hits on all the things we are looking for in this neighborhood. She will let Matt Tucker speak to the zoning issues, but the reasons she cannot support this is because of the land use and conflicting with the other owners three doors down. She says if you go along with this proposal you will set one of them up for failure, they can’t both be successful given their proximity in the long term. She thinks that because the city has invested in the Livingston, there is a bed and breakfast there so the Fant proposal would bring a new dynamic to the neighborhood . She is concerned about the quality living experience if this is a bed and breakfast for 30 years if the living unit is in the basement, and then if you dig a little further and pull that, ok, since this is a rooming house, and you don’t have to be owner-occupied, that was a major thing for the neighborhood, so she is concerned about the long term of the proposal. Both applicants put their heart and soul into these proposals and she appreciates that but at the end of the day she has to do what is best for the neighborhood and she wants the plan commission to support the Fant proposal. She thinks there is extensive zoning issues that Matt Tucker can speak to.
Hamiliton asks if this has gone before Economic Development Commission and if they have a opinion on these two Bed and Breakfasts being located next to each other.
Maniaci says that Economic Development Commission was not a referral but the alders and the Mayor will vet the economic issues at Board of Estimates.
Hamilton also asks why the Fant proposal was scored higher but not chosen.
(I have an answer, silly alder games! Erik Poulson blogs about it here.)
Maniaici says that Kevin Briski wasn’t there and that two people flipped their votes after hearing the testimony.
They ask some questions of the speakers. The Collins house opening in 1985 and the Livingston opened in 1999 and then sold as a private residence 3 years later.
Judy Olson asks Manaici what testimony at the meeting changed the votes of the members?
Maniaci says that Barbara Fant spoke in her testimony about one of the members knowing the applicants. She says there was a number of friends of neighbors of Klebba/Waugh that came out to support them.
Olson says “but they must have said positive things”
Maniaci says they advocated, there was a bit of unhappiness with the point spread that myself and Alder Claussius gave the proposal and there was a lot of testimony – then she says that perhaps and unbiased voice, Dan Rolfs, would be better to answer that question.
Dan Rolfs, staff to the surplus committee says that he won’t try to speak for the committee members about why they changed their vote, but there was a lot of testimony about their commitment to the neighborhood, the activities they do, chef’s night out, desire to see the bed and breakfast there, Clear was married there and there was a nostalgic view of it. Not any one thing changed the votes. The Request for Proposal allows the city to waive any irregularities and do what is best for the city and the surplus committee rules says that the committee can pick the best proposal irregardless of the scores. A lot of effort goes into this, there is only one property, and two proposer for each property that will go home empty handed, the ordinance says the city can do what is in its best interest. He says he can’t say what is in the best interest, they made the decision, but that is what they felt was in the best interest.
Rummel asks about the scoring, says it is parkland and integration of public accommodation, the Klebba/Waugh proposal hits a home run, how did you come up with the ranking and what did you see about public use of the land and how we go into the future.
Rolfs says that scoring was set by committee and the reasons that had such a high point total was that there was a strong feeling and sentiment, because of architectural qualities, but people want to have access to the exterior and interior as much as possible to appreciate the layout, design and character and that is why the committee decided to make that the most important, in terms of point value. But that is just one tool to decide, committee could use as gospel, use as a guideline or throw them out according to the ordinance.
Rummel asks about the goals of the RFP.
Rolfs said that there were selection criteria, renovation of the historic buildings, public use, permitted or conditional use, compatible with plans, financially sound and no city funding and development schedule timing which referred to the referendum and the development team.
Matt Tucker describes the ordinance that defines a Bed and Breakfast, they can’t be within 500 feet of each other. But there is another ordinance changed to allow the owner to move out and still operate for transient guests, also allows serving of breakfast. The original proposal was not allowed, but it could be under the alternative, so yes, it is possible. It is a different area to lay out the uses in the building. The zoning part is satisfiable, but the building inspection part might be possible. The ordinance could be changed. Or they could apply for a variance, but it might be hard to get cuz they couldn’t prove that it is overly burdensome and can’t be used for another use. That is difficult to get. It’s unclear if the Bed and Breakfasts were operating at the same time in the past and the 500 foot rule came into effect in 1990.
Maniaci explains that the scores on the public use was problematic after they set it up, we ranked it high but didn’t understand the ramifications of what it meant for building inspection.
Rummel points out that the ordinance has been changed many times recently and asks if they can amend it.
Brad Murphy says you can do it, not sure why the 500 foot rule there?
Olson asks Tucker about the 500 ft and if it is kind of standard in the ordinances and how long would it take to change it.
Tucker says it is consistent, others have a 1000 foot rule, but previously landmarked sites were given an exemption. Looks like that was also for the Collins House. 500 foot is also for adult entertainment taverns, there are also others like adult books stores, payday loans and cell towers. To amend the code you need a sponsor and it would take 60 – 90 days.
Andrewjeski asks Maniaci about the landmark and desire to have it be public and preserved and notes they are kind of a odds.
Maniaci says that was more about moving the houses. Owner occupancy was key, to have people on site. Because the city had the property so long and it went through this long cycle, so the goal was to have stability, long term owner and usage. It is a 99 year lease, with the Pratzels is was 20 years, more commercial.
Andrzewjeski says that the criteria don’t really talk about preservation use. Didn’t you think that the single family use preserved the property better.
Maniaci says yes, single family better than turning over people who live there?
Andrzewjeski asks if this goes to landmarks.
Maniaci says that it isn’t, but they have to go there before work is done, Rolfs says it is going to landmarks.
Another question if any other bed and breakfasts are withing 500 feet, Matt says there may be one by Camp Randall that is within 1000 feet.
They ask questions about the Farm to Fork proposal. There are clarifications on what restrictions are on the lease and sale of property – the ground lease will state the use and it can’t change without city approval. So, single family home has to stay that way. Another use would have to be approved. Catering is a conditional use in a landmark in a residential area. Chef’s Night Out might also need a conditional use permit as well to be a restaurant. Rummel reminds them of the history of the building and that is is a Claude and Stark home and finally moves approval and hour and a half into the meeting.
Maniaci says she wants to talk about what is best for the house vs the city, she is worried about the Klebba/Waugh future and what it means for the future. She explains it is rooms upstairs and the basement is a windowless space that was a commercial kitchen. Now you will keep it divided up and they will live in the basement and she has severe reservations about that and now they have to put in a commercial kitchen in the livable space upstairs. She has reservations because it is “ill of the city to throw people under the bus” to try to put two bed and breakfast a few doors down from each other competing. She is concerned about what that will bring and the long term viability and sustainability for businesses in the neighborhood. She is not prepared, “I am not prepared, I AM NOT prepared” to introduce an ordinance to change the zoning requirement, she respects that it is there . . .
TIME OUT!!!! WTF???!!!!! The alder who respected NOTHING about city requirements when it came to the EDGEWATER not suddenly has RESPECT for the ZONING REQUIREMENTS?????!!!! I can’t even wrap my brain around the inconsistencies in this. And now, more than ever, I believe this is a witch hunt against Klebba/Waugh for being vocal in the neighborhood about opposing the Edgewater and supporting political opponents of Ms. Maniaci. I’m listening to this for the first time as I’m writing the and didn’t know where this is going, but I really believe the ethical thing to do here is to recuse herself from this matter. Between the scoring anomalies, her comments and former Alder Olson having to followup and drag out of her the inconsistencies in here scoring, I think this woman has some serious ethical issues. Perhaps its because of previous incidents about working to get a free trip to Japan and not wanting to pay for her steak dinner and whining about having to eat salad or maybe it was the whole parking fiasco where she used city resources so she could park to go to work or maybe that bizarre rant in the Edgewater debate, or when she tried to shut down a neighborhood meeting that DAVID WAUGH (sound familiar?) wanted to call on the East Washington project – but man I am sick of my alder not having an OUNCE of integrity in her body. Add to that her new McCarthism of having looked at the confidential room tax records and concluding, because we should trust her, that we should be concerned. This is all just really too much. Our neighborhood needs and deserves better representation – its driving me absolutely nuts that so many neighbors showed up to support Klebba/Waugh and she sides with the paid lobbyists and people from out of town over someone who has lived in the neighborhood 20 years. It would be one thing if one of the two proposals was clearly better than that other, but it is close – tho I do think that the Klebba/Waugh proposal is more favorable because the highest point total was for public use of the building and I think they do that better. Anyways . . . end rant for now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
. . . and to say that we can just tweak it, at the end of the day this is a square peg, round hole this has dragged on and the first proposal as submitted, was a bed and breakfast and then they can’t do it, plain and simple, so then it sort of morphed into this convoluted rooming house and they will live in the basement and she has concerns about it. Also, this might not concern you, but there is also a proposal to do geothermal heating and that would requiring boring into the ground in the back parking lot and land use and the sensitivity of the land and it being park land is another concern, she is worried about them drilling hundreds of feet into the ground. If this is a long term lease, what is the maintenance of that. The Fant proposal is more straightforward. The Klebba/Waugh proposal has to sell the house, the Fants have the financials. It’s a more straightforward proposal and frankly she is comfortable with this. She is not comfortable changing the zoning laws for this property. She asks them to vote down the Klebba/Waugh proposal, these properties are sitting empty, they are sitting empty for another winter. WE nee dto have people in there right away taking care of these properties, she is not willing to see the properties sit any longer than necessary and she asks that if they do approve it that they make them close in the timeline in the proposal instead of having it dragged out. If you’re going to propose, you should do it in the timeline in the rfp. At the end of the day, this proposal is not in the best interest of the house, of the block, the neighborhood nor the best financial interest of the city.
Heifitz won’t support it. Shares some of Manaiaci’s comments about what it would require to move to the bed and breakfast and not sure what to do with the committee’s work, individual people scored Fant higher, but not much to work with on what to evaluate this on so he goes back to the public interest of the city, he doesn’t think it is in the interest of the city to have another bed and breakfast. The farm to fork, it is interesting in the city for this not to be favored in this case, thinks it would be excellent for the neighborhood and better preservation of the property. This is not an easy one, Rummel has a lot of influence on this because she has expertise on these issues, but he is not supporting the motion. We may need a committee to figure out this committee process, with all the work that went into this, it is not providing the committee anything substantive and objective to decide on. Everyone put a lot of work into it and they are sitting here on this discussion talking about 500 feet for 45 minutes and and he’s not even sure that is the crux of the matter. So that’s his preachy part of the soliloquy, but he is not prepared to support it, it is not in the best interest of the city.
Rewey says that this is difficult for him too, but the tie-breaker is looking at Klebba and Wugh and their committment to the community, they have lived here for 20 years and ironically, and this hasn’t been brought up, but have a commitment to organic gardening and community gardens for over 20 years. I’m not sure that the other folks have a commitment to the community and I have more trust in them working for the community, so that is why he is supporting it.
Cantrell says that he comes down on the side of the committee, he is not going to second guess that, both proposals are very, very good and this has been a long process, this is the second time this has come around for that group and if you can approve a restaurant as a conditional use, I would just eliminate the 500 feet, bed and breakfasts are very approporiate in large historic structures and there are others in that area and mansion hill, but he is not going to second guess.
Olson says Cantrell just said what she is going to say, there are two good proposals and we didn’t sit through the process and to second guess what they decided it would require more information than they have today, they had a committee to this and its not their job to redo it. They are supposed to look at the land use and to her it is fine.
Anderzejewski says she has concerns about proper information to vet this tonight, she can’t recommend either proposal, she thinks both proposals are good, but they don’t have information they need on land use and she is not sure that this doesn’t need more public vetting, she can’t support it on not the quality of the proposal, but he inability to make the decision based on the information she has.
Hamilton-Nesbit can’t support it, partly based on the concern for the building itself and the amount of traffic with a bed and breakfast, there is s precedence that has been set with the 604 location, also feels this process is very muddy and somewhere along the line before it gets to the commission there should be other vetting to allow for a set of criteria to be reviewed so we can make decisions based on a logical set of criteria.
Anderzejewski makes a motion to not make a recommendation at this moment given the issues before them. Heifitz seconds. She says the major issue at stake is that we need to move forward, so she hesitates to ask them to do this, but she asks them to think about it and what they heard and whether or not they have enough information to move forward.
Rummel urges rejection, she has served on several surplus committees and they might not be the poster child for standards, but that is because the properties are unique, remember what set this in motion, we have park land we want to preserve and houses that need to be cared for and we have gone through this process and this is the second of third houses and the committee created standards, scored them, but have a larger cause to look at the best interest of the city, with that in mind, what would happen if you reject this, months and months and another year. There were two good proposals, we have a recommendation, one of the alders who gave a low score is a sponsor on this as a park commissioner and I think we should accept this and move forward.
Heifitz says not the most diplomatic in his last statement, all applicants deserve compliments for their proposals, forwarding this without recommendation sends a message that they have two good proposals, but with all due respect to his colleagues, who in this case and perhaps in other cases, decided to follow a committee I won’t say we routinely reject other committee work, but we do it and we do it for valid reasons, and tonight he is supporting the substitute.
Cantrell says the council will hear the same arguments, so he thinks that our role is to move this on and I think that we have two good proposals and committee recommended this one and he doesn’t see a good reason not to go with their recommendation.
Maniaci says she would welcome the motion on the floor, this would keep it moving forward and this going to the Council, Board of Estimates and Parks and she thinks there are a lot of questions and if this is not the body, keep it moving along, Parks commission had several peopel on the committee, David Wallner has been on three committees and helped pass some of these ordinances and this will be in good hands moving forward since there is such ambiguity she would ask for no recommendation and send it on.
Motion fails. 3 ayes, motion fails.
Motion to approve, lots of confusion, Murphy is trying to clarify the votes and Maniaci is trying to speak. Fey informs Manaici that she is not a member of the body and she doesn’t vote. They retake the vote on the main motion to clarify.
Maniaci asks the body to recommend the original closing vote instead of having a 180 extension.
Chirp . . . chirp . . .
Fey says the motion as it stands is a motion to approve, sounds like we would have to actively change that, is there any will to change that.
chirp . . . chirp . . .
4 aye votes, 3 no, motion passes. Nearly an an hour and a half later.
