Or Dane County, for that matter. From the council meeting the last week. With a little follow up and some bk comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Randy Wautlet, says he is the owner of Steve’s, he is in opposition to intersection, he thinks 2 left hand turn lanes would solve most of congestion problems and save millions of dollars. He says he also knows he is not going to stop the intersection, that is water under the bridge, he is willing to accept it, but he is here to ask for help. 16 years ago he signed a lease, a 30 years lease cuz it is a strong location for business, with Target going in and the Giallamas office center, he saw there would be lots of traffic, they had 14 years left on the lease. It’s really difficult when they first started the business wasn’t viable, they were not making money, but they worked hard, today it is a really good business, its viable, they pay taxes, they are happy and good at what we do. They have been voted “Best in Madison” forever, its a 50 year Madison business, and they will be asked to move after tonight, and we need to find somewhere to go, they are trying to find alt location one ¼ mile from where they are. Studies show businesses like our that move go out of business in a few years, the customers frequent them on the way home, its one of the best intersections, they haven’t found a place, still looking. If they do find a place, that is where they need help. 3 years ago they opened a store in Fitchburg, sorry i missed a bunch – he talked about what it took to put in the store, gave them a number, $200K? He thanks the mayor, he had a meeting with him and he went in pessimistic, they talked for an hour, he felt like he cared about business, Steve’s is real people, . . .buzzer goes off, Mayor says “go ahead, please” . . . real people, with real mortgages, employees have babies in the oven, in grade school, in college, and there are empty nesters, he wants city to help find viable option where they can succeed.
At this point, I’m wondering where the Office of Business Assistance is on this one? Shouldn’t they be the ones to be helping this business being displaced by the city road? I don’t think I’ve heard them or either Economic Development Director (Tim Cooley, Aaron Olver) ever talk about this business. What has been (not) going on for the last several years that this is landing on the council floor without resolution? I mean, I voted against this project when I was on the council – so its been a project for over 2 years.
Dominque Taquet- worked for 10 years for Steve’s as the European wine buyer, please don’t destroy the business. He has been working hard to make it successful, they are know for service, their products, the selection, it has become a destination, out of town customers come to visit them. He trusts Mayor Soglin and city officials and engineers to work in the public interest, he asks to help them as a small business find and customize a new location, needs visibility, space, loading dock and a basement for the wine, that is important for the wine business. On a personal note, he is happy about the intersection, but will feel bad if it cost him his job.
Vladimir Scebbotin – This guy has a very thick accent and is hard to understand He says he is a customer and they have a great section of beer for him and wine that his wife likes. He tells a story about a girlfriend and a breakup and a gun and suicide and I didn’t get it. He bought his house 10 years ago on west side and each day they drive from Junction Rd – he passes out info – to Mineral Point Rd. This is supposed to be the worst part, they drive right after work, use intersection 10 times a day, if it’s a problem he doesn’t see it. He shows pictures and what he found at various points in time and places – doesn’t understand what it is about, should be a reason for traffic congestion – there is no traffic, why such huge investment?
Karen Eigenberger, partner in Steve’s, no ownership in other locations, this is her job and future, if it goes away she doesn’t have a job. They can’t stop the jug handle intersection, you will approve it, your vote will put an end to our business, when we lose this location we will suffer, please consider the business in the decision. It is not the goal to stop the improvement, help us, consider our costs, we offer paid vacation, retirement, health care for all full time employees, plus they hire people with disabilities. When forced to move will they will incur real debt, not all the expenses will be covered. They provide a service and have success by having a lease agreement in place 16 years ago that should have 14 years more, they have a good basement, they are on two great busy streets, people can find us and get in and out of our location, help us as we are forced out, give our business a fair chance, please allocate funds to try to continue to succeed as a business.
QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Lauren Cnare asks what the help is, what money are you talking about and how was that derived?
Eigenberger says we’re tenants with a long term lease, for 30 years, we have a favorable lease rate, the city relocation specialist worked with us, we will not be compensated, we will get some relocation costs, for the moving of product in the store and a few other things, no where near the cost to move or start a business especially not with their needs, this is a convenience business.
Cnare asks how much?
Eigenberger says We don’t know – we need help to modify a new building so it is usable, there were 100 sites the city looked at, but they looked at many more, none had a basement, she doesn’t know what that costs.
Bridget Maniaci asks if when they signed they lease, was it build to suit?
Yes.
Maniaci says you are petitioning us for assistance, she wants to help you but there is nothing to tell us what the costs are, there was a fair amount of time in the process, but without anything in front of us, what can we accomplish?
Wautlet says if they found a space they could answer the question, he tried to talk about the costs, in Fitchburg it was 200K, let say they found an empty space, they would need lights, coolers, signage, compressors, that was over 200K, we will have to do that again, but can’t give you specific number, not sure what basement costs.
Maniaci says she hears people advocating but she doesn’t know what you want moving forward.
Mayor Paul Soglin says absolutely Waulet is correct, until a location is found and they know what improvements are needed they will not be able to do an estimate, they are trying to do it in order, first find a location and secondly when they do that, do the remodel as reasonable as possible. One of the things we will do is what is what is allowed under statutes, they will provide the greatest amount of moving costs as possible, but we’re controlled by state statutes, there is a greater compensation for owners than tenants, that is the challenge we face.
Of course, tenants getting the shaft again . . . anyone surprised the law would favor land owners over tenants? Funny, its seems more unjust when its is business tenants. Why?
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Maniaci asks City Attorney Michael May – what are we limited to? What does the law allow? Can we go above and beyond that.
May says relocation costs and and a few other things is what the City has to do, if the city wants to give money away they can, but his office recommends staying with what is allowed under statutes.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks City Engineer Rob Phillips, they have been getting a lot of emails that this will will cost us 18M, what is that for and what are the sources of funding?
Phillips says that the project is more than just the intersection, it includes Junction rd. form Isaac Drive north of Mineral Point to Valley View and includes a large stretch of Mineral Point to the beltline to Pleasant View Rd., its more than the intersection. The funding source is 50% federal , 50% local, City of madison, and Dane County and assessments as well.
Bidar-Sielaff asks about amount of traffic and need for the intersection, can you clarify why this is a priority intersection for the city?
Phillips says that certain movements are failing today, this area has a plan for extensive development in Pioneer Neighborhood, UW Research Park and other lands surrounding the area, there is a great deal of undeveloped property, have a problem today and a great deal of land to develop, including an office center which we will expect to create a number of jobs in the future. The existing volumes on Mineral Point and Junction are 36,000 or 37,000 cars per day and those volumes are projected to increase to 70,000 in 20 years. The East Washington volume is 6 lanes and there are are 40 – 50,000 cars per day, they expect a lot of growth and they are trying to accommodate growth in the future and they need to take care of today’s needs. Also, this project is different in approach, there is a special emphasis on bikes and pedestrians, it is unlike anything we have undertaken in accommodating pedestrians and bikes at a major intersection like this.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if there is a maximum we pay for reloaction? Do we have a line item for this? Where is the flexibility?
Phillips says that the statutes provide for paying their moving expenses, complete moving expenses and differences in rent, that is limited to $40K, he can’t say specifically, has to look at actual rent of equivalent places and make the calculation.
Bidar-Sielaff asks about moving expenses, just moving the items or additional equipment needed?
Phillips says it is moving expenses, just moving the items, but he is not certain.
May says he has to sit down with real estate and look at the regulations, they are several pages, before he tells you exactly. WOW! Twice in one meeting he refrained from shooting from the hip and giving his opinion about what the law should be!
Bidar-Sielaff asks if the analysis is not done?
No
Scott Resnick asks if there is an appraisal for the building?
Phillips says it is not done yet, that is done after council approves this.
Maniaci asks May what we have in front of us, once a site available can we come back to help with this?
May says they are just starting the process, they saying go forward and figure out value and payments and calculations.
Maniaci says they can do it later?
Yes
DISCUSSION
Satya Rhodes-Conway says those with long memories recall Alder Rummel and I and Webber and Konkel tried to remove this when it first showed up and were unsuccessful at the time, but it bears remembering why we wanted to do that, while heard about one business tonight, that was not the conversation at the time, it was about need, in the context of the area and the city and the need to create as many new lane miles of road for plowing and maintenance. Alder Rummel and I and Webber and Konkel felt no, we didn’t need the new lane miles, and we should reevaluate here and other projects around the city, not rehash, she has been opposed since beginning and plan on voting no and hope you will join us. We can’t build our way out of traffic problems, Los Angeles is the epitome of that, they kept building lane miles and they fill up, it is not working for them, it won’t work for us, we need to do other things, she doesn’t think this project is a good idea, she doesn’t think we should have started and we should not move forward and I know you will hear from everyone, there is money invested, plans and studies, time and work done, to which I say past performance should not be an indication of future performance, we can stop and make a good decision.
Marsha Rummel says it is a pleasure to say in 2007 I was one of the votes where I voted against the project, and the answer is we need to build the city in ways that make them more vital and connected – not huge roadways where we funnel one way and get there, that is the suburban way, she voted against a plan, its not just Steve’s but no one came up in 2007, wish you would have come earlier and made a poignant case when we could have stopped it, this might be engineering brilliance, but it is not socially brilliant.
Paul Skidmore says he is the alder of this district and intersection, he disagrees with previous speakers, not with the rationale, he was first involved 8 or 9 years ago when the Pioneer Plan and UW Research Park was being planned. They asked traffic engineering for a traffic study, with conventional means we could only handle 85% of the traffic, this started long before he was on council. The City Engineer is being modest, since when he was the Assistance City Engineer he came up with the plan, it was vetted through committees, they have been working on funding and received substantial funding outside the city and we have quite a bit invested, preliminary engineering and decisions have been made, this is good for city and the region. He doesn’t believe in if you don’t build it, it will change where people live and work and how they travel, this is a good project, we have been progressing towards this point and looks forward to working with city and Steve’s on a relocation plan.
VOTE
It’s a voice vote, there are several no’s, they sound like all women. I think it was Rhodes-Conway, Rummel and ?? Maniaci??
AFTER THE COUNCIL MEETING
This was sent to all alders from Lisa Subeck:
From: Subeck, Lisa
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 2:54 PM
To: ALL ALDERS
Cc: Mayor
Subject: Steve’s Liquor ownershipFellow Alders and Mayor Soglin,
First, please don’t “reply all”.
During last night’s discussion/testimony re: Steve’s Liquor, I recalled a phone conversation I had with one of the owners in which she indicated the owners will be compensated for the property but that as tenants, Steve’s Liquor is not adequately compensated. I asked her about who owned the property, and she indicated it was owned by the Varese family. I asked who the Varese family was, and she indicated that the Varese family is the family of one of her co-owners, Joe Varese.
I did a little further checking today, and the property is listed by the assessor as being purchased in 1995 by Steve and Alice Varese. Steve Varese is Joe Varese’s father and from what I can gather from some google searches the original owner of Steve’s Liquor who has since passed away. The property was transferred to the Varese Family Trust in 2007 from Steve’s estate. It was later transferred to the Alice Varese Survivors Trust. Joe Varese is the trustee for that trust according to a Legistar document I found from a survey done of the liquor store site. The mailing address of the Varese Trust according to the Assessor’s website is a home owned by Joe Varese.
Because the testimony last night and some of the contact I received prior to last night’s meeting seemed to imply that the owner would be compensated for the value of the store and would then just leave the tenants (liquor store owners) high and dry, I think it is important to know a bit about the ownership of the property. I didn’t raise the question last night because I felt though the testimony related to compensation, we were not deliberating on that part of the matter based upon what was before us at the time.
-Lisa
Lisa Subeck
District 1 Alder
Note, that the family that owns the land was not there, it was two other owners, and perhaps they are being left high and dry? The only reason I think that is because during the meeting the staff and others were talking in the back of the room, and the woman who testified stormed up and said, “hey, I should be part of this meeting to” and she seemed really annoyed. My guess is the partners can’t agree, but that is just a wild guess. A completely wild guess.
One other question, don’t we have an Office of Business Resources? Why aren’t they helping this business? I guess it gets complicated when we are negotiating with the party to pay as little as possible? Again, a guess. But, if this has been going on for years, why is this hitting the council floor now?
