The room was crowded, the lobbying was fierce and they were about to blow the 15 minute rule if they don’t start the meeting. (FINAL) I’m not sure what is going on for sure, but the Mayor, his staff (Joel, Mario, Janet), Alds. Clear, Bruer and Schumacher are frantically talking about something . . . likely the room tax . . . and they started the meeting at 4:45.
Here’s the public testimony. It took a couple hours so I made it its own post. There are quite a few good comments in there and its worth reading.
After the public testimony, they then took up amendments 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13. #7 was amended to add $700. Those all passed and there was a motion for a “5 minute break”.
Amendment No. 3
Agency/Service: Miscellaneous Appropriations / Zoo and CCB Bldg. Mtn. — New Charges
Page(s): 10
Sponsor(s): Mayor CieslewiczIncrease funding for the “CCB Bldg. Mtn. — New Charges” line item by $10,590 to $20,590. Decrease funding for the “Zoo” line item by $10,720 to $359,280.
(Note: The 2009 Dane County Executive Recommended Budget includes payments from the City of $359,280 for Zoo operations and $917,700 for CCB building maintenance and janitorial services. The City of Madison 2009 Executive Budget includes $370,000 for Zoo operations and $907,110 for CCB building maintenance and janitorial services. This amendment will equalize the amounts for both line items in the City and County budgets.)
Zoo (10,720)
CCB Bldg. Mtn. — New Charges 1 0,590
Total $ (130) Levy Impact: $ (130)
Amendment No. 5
Agency/Service: Public Health / Animal Services
Page(s): 40
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer and Clear (Supv. Stoebig for the companion County amendment)Add the following language to the Operating Budget:
The Dane County Department of Administration is directed to work with the Department of Public Health for Madison and Dane County to negotiate the following provision into the 2009 contract with the Dane County Humane Society:
The Dane County Humane Society shall provide detailed information on each animal admitted to the shelter.
This information shall include the following:
a. agency that brought the animal to the shelter,
b. animal species,
c. booking number,
d. admission category (impound, stray, abandoned, or rabies observation),
e. date admitted,
f. date released,
g. disposition (euthanized, released to owner, enrolled in Humane Society program(s),
h. medical charges beyond routine care,
i. number of days charged per category (rabies observation, stray, or impound), and
j. fees collected.(Note: This amendment would provide information important to the management of the contract with the Humane Society and future planning for animal control needs. The Executive Budget increases the Humane Society funding for stray animal services by $152,851, a 40% increase from 2008. With the increased budget, the Humane Society should provide performance measures. This data will help Public Health of Madison and Dane County manage future animal control needs.)
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
Amendment No. 6
Agency/Service: Public Health / Animal Services
Page(s): 40
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer and Clear (Supv. Stoebig for the companion County amendment)Add the following language to the Operating Budget:
The Dane County Department of Administration is directed to work with the Department of Public Health for Madison and Dane County to negotiate the following provision into the 2009 contract with the Dane County Humane Society:
The Dane County Humane Society Board of Directors will include one representative of Dane County to be appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by the County Board, and one representative of the City of Madison to be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Common Council.
(Note: The Executive Budget includes over $527,000 for the Humane Society to provide stray animal services. With public funding making up a significant portion of the Humane Society budget, the City of Madison and Dane County should have representatives on the Humane Society Board.)
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
Amendment #7
Agency/Service: Public Health / Health Promotion
Page(s): 40
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer and Clear (Supvs. Manning and Erickson for the County amendment)Add funding of $3,450 for Public Health of Madison and Dane County to fund a pilot program to post fish consumption advisory signs, and assess awareness among anglers fishing in areas where signs are posted.
(Note: Many people fishing in Dane County are unaware of fish consumption advisories and may not know about potential health risks of contaminants found in fish. This amendment would fund a pilot project that would consist of posting 6 to 8 signs in popular fishing locations, and would have advisories written in English, Spanish, and Hmong. The University of Wisconsin Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies will assess the impact of the signs to inform future action.)
Other Services – General $ 3 ,450
Dane County Reimbursement (1,894)
Total $ 1,556 Levy Impact: $ 1,556Amendment #13
Agency/Service: Traffic Engineering / Special Services
Page(s): 121
Sponsor(s): Ald. ClearAmend budget highlight #3 as follows:
“$30,000 to support bicycle programs. Funding is to be derived from a restructuring of the current bicycle registration and licensing program as determined by the Platinum Bicycle Committee in consultation with the Pedestrian Bicycle Motor Vehicle Commission (PBMVC). An increase of $30,000 associated with Bicycle Registration fees has been included in the City General Fund Revenues. The Platinum Bicycle Committee and PBMVC shall, by January 1, 2009, make recommendations regarding both the licensing and registration restructuring and expenditures in support of bicycle programs and infrastructure for approval by the Common
Council.”
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
The break lasted 15 or 20 minutes and it was filled with more frantic negotiating with the Mayor and his staff (Mario, Raechel, Joel, Janet, Andrew) plus Schumacher, Bruer, Clear and the comptrollers staff. . . and later with the Mayor and staff and Schumacher twisting Joe Clausius’s arm in the hallway. After 20 minutes or so . . . it was hard to get people back together and the Mayor had to yell “PEOPLE SHUT UP!” And the meeting resumed and we went back to the amendments.
Amendment #1 – Verveer moved to table to the end of the meeting, Rhodes Conway seconded. Many other amendments use this same pot of money and he thinks we should work through the other amendments. It was tabled til after #16 by consensus.
Amendment No. 2
Agency/Service: Miscellaneous Appropriations / Direct Appropriation to Capital General Fund Revenues / Ungrouped Revenues / Miscellaneous Revenues / Capital Revolving Fund
Page(s): 9, 14, 21
Sponsor(s): Ald. SanbornDissolve the Capital Revolving Fund and eliminate Façade Improvement Grants. Transfer fund balance and loan repayments from the Capital Revolving Fund to General Fund Revenues – Miscellaneous Revenues. Add a corresponding amount of expenditure authority to the Direct Appropriation to Capital / Special Revenue line in Miscellaneous Appropriations.
Direct Appropriation to Capital $ 1 ,183,443
General Fund Revenues (Increase) $ (1,183,443)
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
Sanborn moved, seconded by Bruer. Sanborn called this program “facade Santa Claus”. He said we shouldn’t act like a bank to loan to corporations. He thinks this is an area that the city can do without.
Verveer speaks in favor of the program – says it has been successful. Latest numbers is that we have awarded 30 grants at $330,000 and we believe that an additional $600,000 of private funds were invested, so it was about $1M invested. 2 applications committed and 8 – 10 applications being processed and they are throughout the city.
Sanborn – noted that the amendment should subtract $250,000 because of a loan that is approved that has not been distributed yet. Jed says its not just his libertarian philosophy, but he feels like people need other programs instead of giving to businesses.
Schumacher – asks what kinds of financial means testing we use or why we don’t use one?
Percy says – since he’s been working with the programs in 2002 he says these are largely small mom and pop businesses that could not make these improvements without our help. He hands out list of groups that have applied. Percy says he would go back and research the numbers for Ald. Schumacher if he wants.
Clear points out that the loans are from the interest and repayments from previous loans.
Sanborn votes Aye (as did Alder Webber who isn’t on the body) everyone else votes no.
#3 was previously adopted.
#4 was placed on the table for more frantic behind the scenes negotiations.
#5, 6 & 7 were adopted earlier.
Amendment #8
Agency/Service: Streets Division / Snow and Ice Control
Page(s): 111
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer and Rhodes-ConwayRestore $25,000 for public education. This amount is to be dedicated to providing education on winter parking regulations.
(Note: This amount restores one-half of the Executive reduction. The amended total budget for Public Education in 2009 would be $50,000. The 2008 Adopted Budget contained $75,000.)
Advertising $ 2 5,000
Total $ 25,000 Levy Impact: $ 25,000
Verveer moves, Rhodes-Conway seconded. Verveer explains that the concern is that given last winter and all the snow, now is not the time to be cutting back on the public education efforts. Tomorrow night is the snow ordinance amendments and this is part of the package of the snow approvals. Verveer says that “supposedly the tightest budget we’ve seen” and this money is an easy target, but this is imperative in the coming year because if we make these changes, we need to get word out to the public, especially since we are going to do the text messaging, plus we are doubling the fines and that is alot of extra revenue and it is only fair to let the public know before we “sock them” with these additional fines. Verveer also pointed out that much of the advertising was not directed at snow and so that is why he made the amendment.
Sanborn – asks how much of the existing budget could be earmarked towards better messages. Budget went from $75,000 to $25,000 so there isn’t much left. They do press releases but there are no free ads. As the budget stands now, they would have $25,000 and this adds $25,000.
Georger says $3600 is committed to week students return in January to advertise snow rules. Sports package cannot be renewed, time has passed. He also missed the “one day sale” where you get cheap ads in the first quarter. You can’t get packages for $25,000 and for TV you can’t get a week and a half.
Cnare – says this is a new program, and asks if we will we need it for forever. George says this $25,000 would ideally be an annual commitement of 15 – 20,000. 6,000 for radio, some targeted newspaper ads (onion, etc), student radio, ads in neighborhood newsletters and etc etc
Clear – asks about the excess inventory on Madison Metro. George says “No money, no ad”.
Several want to here from Madison Metro on this issue. Chuck Kamp says that is true for outside of the buses but that he can “work out swaps and other creative arrangements” with Metro. George says that is not what he was told.
George says that if the snow ordinance passes, its $60 for everyone throughout the city so he will need to advertise outside the Isthmus.
Bruer suggests that they advertise on their own trucks. George says that it is $3,000 per truck. Bruer than asks about current advertising. George talks about advertising for compost bin sale, and says the bag zombie ad is in the waste reduction area to get them to rethink some of their wasting patterns so we can get it to pay off.
Bruer says he supports this because of the public safety issues and the towing issues. It’s a small amount of money and a great value.
Pham-Remmele is wondering if we are going to tell people what we are doing or are we going to do something small print like an insurance plan. George says goal is to make sure they know the fines have changed. Plus, we will be trying to do new notification and direct people to the website. Thuy says it should also be printed on the ticket that we get.
George asked us for ideas on how the money should be spent.
It passes – unanimous.
Amendment #9
Agency/Service: Metro Transit
Page(s): 118
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway and VerveerEliminate budget highlight #2. Amend budget highlight #3 as follows: “($100,000 changed to $150,000) for additional service expansion, as determined by the Transit and Parking Commission. Service improvements shall be determined according to the priorities outlined in the Long Range Metro Transit Planning Ad Hoc Committee’s final report.“
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
#9 Rhodes Conway moved adoption, Verveer seconded.
Rhodes Conway says not opposed to return of 10, but we have a plan in place. And she respectfully requests that we respect the process we set up.
Passed unanimously.
Amendment #10
Agency/Service: Metro Transit
Page(s): 118
Sponsor(s): Ald. Rhodes-Conway and VerveerEliminate the 50 cent general fare increase and associated fare revenues. (The result of this amendment will be an increase in the City levy support for Metro operations.)
(Note: Amendments 10 and 11 should be considered as alternatives.)
Metro Fare Revenues (Decrease) $ 6 82,000
Total $ 682,000 Levy Impact: $ 682,000
#10 – Rhodes-Conway moved, Verveer seconded. Says amendments 10, 11 and 12 are a menu of options. Also pointed out that there is an amended #12. She spoke against the fare increase. Says it is not a long term solution to put security at transfer points. Instead we need to look at where the transfer points are located because they are isolated. But supports safety initiative for now. She is adamantly opposed to fare increases, because we do that then reduce service and its a downward spiral. She supports an RTA. She asks us what pavement rating we should accept on our streets, how big should a pot hole get, how do we decide whether to plow at 2 or 3 or 4 inches of snow. Her point being, how do we decide at what level to fund our basic services. We shouldn’t apply that question to only Metro. She talked about her constituents and how they are transit dependent and can’t afford an increase. She says that while working on the long range plan, no one talked about raising the fares, instead the report focused on increasing ridership and increasing the fares will not do that. She didn’t ask people to support #10, but instead of support #11. (This was much longer, you’ll have to view it yourself. I obviously was getting restless at this point and it was getting harder and harder to keeps notes and pay attention to the meeting.)
Sanborn speaks to all the amendments. He doesn’t want to raise fares, but the reason he asked his question. He says if we are going to oppose a fare increase every time, we are headed towards a free bus system in a back door way. He says we talked about how people can’t afford the fares, but we never talk about how homeowners can’t afford new taxes. He says it has been at $1.50 for a long time. He is also concerned about unlimited ride passes – if we bring in small businesses then the people who used to pay cash fares otherwise will ride for free. We may add riders but they won’t be paying more.
Rhodes-Conway and Verveer voted aye, 4 nos (Bruer, Sanborn, Clear, Clausius)
Amendment #11
Agency/Service: Metro Transit
Miscellaneous Appropriations: Transit for Jobs
Fleet Service
Page(s): 118, 10, 130
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway and VerveerEliminate the 50 cent general fare increase (resulting in reduced Metro fare revenues of $682,000).
Reduce funding for Metro as follows:
Service Enhancements (including Route 10): ($66,671)
Metro Reserves Generated: ($235,329)
Transit for Jobs: ($40,000)
In addition, eliminate funding of Clean Air action days, which will result in an increase in Metro fare revenues of $40,000.
Finally, apply $300,000 in savings from Fleet Service fuel expense toward support of Metro operations.(Note: Amendments 10 and 11 should be considered as alternatives. Amendment 1 proposes an alternative use of the Fleet Service fuel expense savings.)
Metro Fare Revenues (Decrease) $ 6 82,000
Metro Fare Revenues (Increase) (40,000)
Metro Service Enhancements (66,671)
Metro Reserves Generated (235,329)
Misc. Approp.: Transit for Jobs (40,000)
Fleet Service: Gasoline/Diesel (300,000)
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
Rhodes Conway moves adoption, Verveer seconds. Clear talks about sustainability, says we should have a free bus system, and we should find a way to make Metro sustainable. And he thinks the most sustainable of the fare options, he thinks we should raise the fares and it will give us enhancements. We can’t put the entire burden on the property taxes. He is disappointed that we can’t spread the increases across all riders – he thinks it is fundamentally unfair that we are locked into contracts and that they won’t be charged with this increase until there are new contracts. Ultimately, we need an RTA. He thinks this is the medium term solution.
Gruber – not on BOE but supports #11. Wrong time to raise fares. We should be promoting the bus.
Rummel – brings up the fact that this is the first time we are funding a reserve. Thinks it sends the wrong message.
Clausius – asks question about how amendment 9 relates to number 11. Says he’s a non-bus rider. He asks about clean air action days.
Satya says the clean air action days were ineffective . . . people don’t hear about it soon enough, and instead everyone just rides for free. Doesn’t do what it was intended to do. Metro is working on a program to support encouraging people to take the bus in a way that would be revenue neutral.
Sanborn – asks about the funding of Clean Air Action Days. Brasser tries to answer the question about the history, but says it became part of the Metro Budget and it became part of its base budget.
Webber – 33% increase in cash fare is not what we need. We need alternatives that work that people can use and want to use. Robbie asks what is the % we spend on other modes of transportation and perhaps we should allocate a percentage and proportionately increase it as we fund other transportation modes. She thinks this is the way to answer Alder Sanborn’s question about how to decide how much to raise fares. Robbie points out this is a growing city and we should be growing our service
Mayor then tries to justify his thinking. .25 increase needed to run in place. .50 keeps Metro whole and we could add service and add the other goodies (security, marketing, etc.) He thought the right choice would be to raise the fares. He thinks this amendment leaves out important items. Yes this is the first time we have increased the reserves. He talks about Transit for Jobs and how he will double this program. At 40,000, that buys 850 monthly passes, but 1,450 if increase fares and double transit for jobs. He talks about Clean Air Action days is a promise we make to our partners. Brings up non-attainment. Then he talks about the $300,000 and says it means we need to find it somewhere else, and thinks we would take that from fund balance applied and he says the comptroller says we shouldn’t take anything, its a rainy day and its raining. He says he’s a strong supporter of RTA, but doesn’t think it will happen any time soon.
Mayor passes out his analysis of cash fares and went into lecture mode . . . I have to admit, I started to tune out . . . Then he urged us not to vote for 11 & 12.
Rhodes-Conway and Verveer vote aye, Bruer, Clausius, Sanborn and Clear vote no.
Amendment #12
Agency/Service: Metro Transit
Miscellaneous Appropriations: Transit for Jobs
Fleet Service
Page(s): 118, 10, 130
Sponsor(s): Ald. ClearEliminate the 50 cent general fare increase (resulting in reduced Metro fare revenues of $682,000).
Reduce funding for Metro as follows:
Service Enhancements (including Route 10): ($150,000)
Transit for Jobs: ($40,000)
Apply $372,763 in savings from Fleet Service fuel expense toward support of Metro operations.
Finally, add to the budget highlights language directing Metro staff and the TPC to report to the Council by 6/1/09 on the feasibility of a graduated low income fare/pass structure.(Note: Amendment 1 proposes an alternative use of the Fleet Service fuel expense savings.)
Metro Fare Revenues (Decrease) $ 6 82,000
Metro Service Enhancements (150,000)
Misc. Approp.: Transit for Jobs (40,000)
Fleet Service: Gasoline/Diesel (372,763)
Total $ 119,237 Levy Impact: $ 119,237
Clear moved to place on file. Supports the fare increase to “keep Metro strong” Passed unanimously.
#13 adopted previously.
Amendment #14
Agency/Service: Planning Division / Neighborhood Planning Preservation and Design
Page(s): 134, 37 (Supplement)
Sponsor(s): Ald. VerveerIncrease the Preservation Planner (Planner 3) position from .7 FTE to 1.0 FTE and add the following budget highlight: “In the event the incumbent resigns in early 2009 as anticipated, the position would not be filled until April 1, at which time it would increase from .7 FTE to 1.0 FTE.”
(Note: There is no levy impact in 2009 as there are sufficient funds included in the Executive Budget to support the salary and fringe benefits for a full-time position, if the hiring is delayed as proposed.)
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
Verveer moved adoption, Bruer seconded. Verveer speaks to great need, comments on Ledell’s comments, but this is a compromise and has no levy impact. Kerr speaks in support. Says we are a staff dependent group and we rely on staff and thinks this position is critical. So, it is important to get a really good candidate. Also, increased responsibilities due to new demolition ordinance. Mayor supports the amendment, “it makes alot of sense”.
Motion passes unanimously.
Amendment #15
Agency/Service: Planning Division / Neighborhood Planning Preservation and Design
General Fund Revenues / Other Local Taxes / Room Tax
Room Tax Fund
Page(s): 13, 17, 134; 123 and 124 (Supplement)
Sponsor(s): Ald. SanbornRemove funding of $102,000 for Art and Performance Contracts. Funding consists of $15,000 from a State Arts Board Grant, $20,000 from corporate grants, and $67,000 from the Room Tax Fund transferred to General Fund Revenues.
Increase funding for the Event Booking Assistance Subsidy by $72,000 by reallocating $67,000 for Arts Grants and $5,000 for the Sister Cities Program.
Art and Performance Contracts $ (102,000)
Inter-Agency Billings (decrease) 3 5,000
General Fund Revenues (decrease) 6 7,000
Total $ –Room Tax Fund:
Transfer to General Fd for Arts Grants $ (67,000)
Sister Cities Program (5,000)
GMCVB: Event Booking Assistance 7 2,000
$ – Levy Impact: $ –
Sanborn moved to place on file – Verveer and Bruer second – Verveer says thank you.
Amendment #16
Agency/Service: CDBG
Office of Community Services
Miscellaneous Appropriations: Emerging Neighborhoods
Page(s): 165, 168, 10
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway and VerveerIncrease funding for CDBG service providers by $38,376 (specific program allocations to be determined by the CDBG Commission). Increase funding by $36,300 for Community Services community resources programs (specific program allocations to be determined by the Community Services Commission). Eliminate funding for Emerging Neighborhoods.
(Note that Amendment 1 proposes an increase in OCS funding of $72,763. If that portion of Amendment 1 is not approved, then the funding for OCS as proposed in this amendment shall be increased by $72,763.)
CDBG Purchased Services $ 3 8,376
OCS Purchased Services 3 6,300
Misc. Approp.: Emerging Neighbor. (50,000)
Total $ 24,676 Levy Impact: $ 24,676
Rhodes-Conway moves adoption, Verveer seconds. Restores to the commission request levels. Takes the rest of the funding from Emerging Neighborhoods. Mayor disagrees. R-C says it is at such a low level, we might as well apply to it places where there is a need. She also speaks to the need for various programs. We spent alot of money on police department. And having seen the results of the staffing study, we got close to what we need. But what she has heard since, from the police department, that we have not made the investments on the community services side. The police are looking for programs and things for young people to do so they don’t get into trouble. So, this year, she is looking to make small strides to help the police department.
Alder Bruer moves a substitute to add the money, but taking it from the levy and not taking it from emerging neighborhoods. Verveer says that it is friendly, Rhodes-Conway agrees. Bruer says that yes, public safety is not just about police services, but about community services. This is important, especially with the economy. Says this is a modest amount and we need these programs now more than ever. Says he’s not a strong fan of emerging neighborhoods but he has seen it work well. He has seen the value of the program. He says we need to look at how we are combating poverty and strengthening neighborhoods and that is the conversation that we need to be talking about.
Mayor supports the amendment. Says there are about 90 small grants in the Emerging Neighborhoods and he talks about all the programs that are funded.
Sanborn says all we do is add. We never say no. We already added money for advertising and fish signs . . . asks people to look at what we are adding.
Bruer – these are work horse investment programs. If we keep 5 or 6 kids out of the criminal justice system or get people jobs, we have more than paid for this investment. When you have your neighborhood leadership and the police department calling for a commitment from the city, he thinks this will come back to us fivefold.
Clear asks about the Emerging Neighborhoods process. He says the process became “a little clunky” this year. So they stripped it down to a staff process for Emerging Neighborhoods and made it a staff process.
Jed votes no, 5 ayes. Motion passes.
Amendment #17
Agency/Service: Office of Community Services
Page(s): 168
Sponsor(s): Ald. Rhodes-ConwayAdd funding for a 1.0 FTE Healthy Neighborhood Liaison
Permanent Salaries $ 4 7,170
Fringe Benefits 1 7,830
Total $ 65,000 Levy Impact: $ 65,000
Rhodes-Conway moves adoption, Verveer second.
Need better communication, better coordination and we need someone thinking about challenged neighborhoods in the City. The police, the neighborhood and others have called for this. She hopes this position would help build the cross-department communication. We have seen the success of the work done through Weed and Seed and its important to continue that function but expand it.
Cnare says that this is great that there is support, but the question is how do we pay for it. Talked about value of Weed and Seed Coordinator. The (federal) money went away, but we do need to keep the program going. She read off some of the job description. Says this position is needed to oversee contracts and says that they can help with making sure we have good objectives for the program. She talks about how if we really want to fund Emerging Neighborhoods, we really, really need to fund it at a much higher level. She then talked about why she thought they should take the money from EINPC. She has concerns about them fulfilling their contractual obligations. Community Services are critically important, even tho not everyone uses them.
Mayor points out that Alder Cnare spoke against Emerging Neighborhoods in the last budget and now she says it is not enough.
Solomon says that the $50,000 is not enough, because the amount of agency and staff time is almost costs $50,000 in and of itself. Is this efficient? He does think that provides important services – is the juice worth the squeeze? He talks about the Weed and Seed Coordinator in Allied. He says the new job description keeps the good things that are needed from experience with Weed and Seed as well as help OCS staff get their job done. Including residents, help them grow and learn and move forward in a way that many of us take for granted with the neighborhood associations that we have in our communities. Some people in Allied haven’t always agreed with the direction that this person put forth, but every single one of them spoke up to keep the position. Because of the value to the community and that is the kind of thing we need in our low-income communities, we need 10 of these positions. It is that vital. He says he knows a number of people from all positions that have across the spectrum have come out in support of the position (United Way, Police, agencies, neighborhood, staff, etc. “from public safety to social services”)
Bruer – says that this is about personalities and people in positions. But he thinks that this is about Neighborhood Indicators and that we should figure out that program and then add a staff person. (And then I left and took a break.)
Kerr says this is about more than Neighborhood Indicators (which she supports) and she talked about the Weed and Seed Coordinator who helped her with her problems in Penn Park. She talked about the 15 – 20 young men that have been impacted and how it positively impacted her neighborhood. She says we don’t need to wait for a study or grand scheme, but we have needs now. Said she isn’t saying that person in that position needs to be kept, but feels that the position is needed.
Mayor calls Clear back to table for the vote. 3 (Rhodes-Conway, Verveer and Clausius)- 3 against(Bruer, Sanborn, Clear) and the Mayor votes against and it fails. Which means if the Mayor didn’t call Clear back, it would have passed.
Amendment #18
Agency/Service: Office of Community Services
Miscellaneous Appropriations: Emerging Neighborhoods
Page(s): 168, 10
Sponsor(s): Alds. Clear and CnareAdd funding for a 1.0 FTE Healthy Neighborhood Liaison (Community Services Specialist 1). Eliminate funding of $50,000 for Emerging Neighborhoods. Reduce funding of $15,000 from the Community Resources funding of $3,592,545 in the Office of Community Services and direct the Community Services Commission to reduce its proposed allocation to the East Isthmus Neighborhood Planning Council by $15,000.
OCS Permanent Salaries $ 4 7,170
OCS Fringe Benefits 1 7,830
OCS Purchased Services (15,000)
Misc. Approp.: Emerging Neighbor. (50,000)
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
Clear moves adoption and someone seconds and then he announces that he is voting against.
Rhodes Conway moves, Verveer seconds to strike language on EINPC. It would have been friendly, but Clear objected. She says with the new process this singling out is inappropriate. She thinks that there is a process, there is a reason we have use it and we should not address the process by putting particular numbers on particular agencies. She says this isn’t about what EINPC is doing or how they are doing it . . . it should be discussed at the Community Services Commission and that body made a decision and it should be honored.
Alder Cnare says that she’s seen the process from both sides. She says there is a synergy here that if they fund this position it would be duplicative to also fund the Planning Councils in all areas.
Alder Clausius spoke in support and about the work that is going on in Hawthorne.
Bruer makes an amendment to the amendment to eliminate the reduction in Emerging Neighborhoods Program and . . . mass confusion breaks out . . . no one knows what is on the table . . . the Rhodes-Conway amendment is now friendly and Bruer says not to take the Emerging Neighborhood. Rhodes-Conway says that isn’t friendly. They vote on amendment – Rhodes-Conway is opposed, all others in support. Now we are back to amendment #17 which just failed.
Rummel points out that we need all of these things. We need the Neighborhood Planning Council’s, the Emerging Neighborhoods and the Healthy Neighborhoods positions. “It was worth staying until 9:00 to watch this!” Now it is 3 (Rhodes-Conway, Verveer, Clausius) – 3 (Bruer, Clear, Sanborn) and the mayor votes no again.
Amendment #19
Agency/Service: Office of Community Services
Page(s): 166
Sponsor(s): Ald. ClearAmend budget highlight #1 to specify the funding amounts for each of the various Community Resources Program Areas, as follows:
“Funding of $3,592,545 for Community Resources programs. This is the same level of funding included in the 2008 Adopted budget (adjusted for the transfer of two programs to other funding sources). The allocation of these funds will be determined by the Community Services Commission, which will submit an allocation plan to the Council for adoption at its meeting of December 2, 2008. However, total funding for each of the Community Resources Program Areas shall be as follows:
Child Care: $838,514
Support to Families: $447,819
Senior Services: $566,558
Youth Services: $605,261
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault: $360,031
Community Assistance/Access: $460,558
Neighborhood Organizing and Capacity Building: $313,804“Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
Clear says intention is to restore some of the detail that was removed from the budget. He says it is our way to set priorities. He says it is inappropriate for us to be meddling at a lower level. He says that this level of detail helps set the priorities and explain to our constituents.
Bruer moves to place on file, Verveer seconded. If we are truly interested in getting rid of earmarks and micromanaging, we shouldn’t do this.
Clear votes against to place on file, everyone else in support.
Amendment No. 1
Agency/Service: Miscellaneous Appropriations / Contingent Reserve Funding Sources / Fund Balance Applied / General Fund Revenues / Computer Reimbursement / Fleet Service /Office of Community Services
Page(s): 10, 12, 14, 130, 166
Sponsor(s): Alds. Bruer and Clear; Mayor CieslewiczRecent changes in projected Fleet Service fuel expense and State Aids require amendments to the estimated figures that are currently included in the City Executive Budget. Changes include: Decrease expenses by $602,763 for Fleet Service fuel expense and decrease anticipated State Computer Aid Reimbursement revenues by $30,000 due to new estimates. The result is a net levy reduction of $572,763 which, under this amendment, will be allocated toward an increase of $200,000 in the Contingent Reserve; a decrease of $300,000 in Fund Balance Applied; and, an increase in expenditures of $72,763 for Community Services programs (the specific program allocation to be determined by the Community Services Commission).
(Note: Amendments 11 and 12 propose alternative uses of some of the Fleet Service fuel expense reduction. Amendment 16 proposes an alternative in the event that the OCS funding increase of $72,763 is not approved in this amendment.)
Misc. Appropr./Contingent Reserve $ 2 00,000
Fund Balance Applied (Decrease) 300,000
Computer Reimbursement (Decrease) 30,000
Fleet Service: Gasoline/Diesel (602,763)
Office of Comm. Svcs Purch. Svcs. 72,763
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
#1 was removed from the table and adopted unanimously without comment.
Amendment No. 4
Agency/Service: Room Tax Fund / Payments to Greater Madison Convention & Visitors Bureau
Monona Terrace
Page(s): 17, 18, 85, 81 and 83 (Supplement)
Sponsor(s): Alds. Clear, Schumacher, Monson, and ComptonIncrease the estimated payment to the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB) for destination marketing by $263,310 to $2,018,710. Increase the amount available to GMCVB for event booking assistance by $50,000 to $200,000. Decrease the operating subsidy from the Room Tax Fund to Monona Terrace by $50,000 to $2,877,033 and correspondingly reduce the payment to GMCVB for convention marketing in the Monona Terrace budget by $50,000 from $180,490 to $130,490. These changes will reduce the projected balance available in the Room Tax Fund at the end of 2009 by $263,310 to $816,564.
Add the following language to Room Tax Fund note (b): “The City of Madison intends to amend the existing contract with GMCVB to extend the term of the agreement, for the existing scope of services and performance outcomes, through 2013. The percentage of prior year room tax collections directed to GMCVB pursuant to the new agreement will be increased from the current 20% to 23% in 2009 and by an additional 3% each subsequent year resulting in a payment to GMCVB of 35% of prior year room tax collections in 2013.
Also add the following language to Room Tax Fund note (b): “In conjunction with a semi-annual report to the Board of Estimates on event booking assistance activities, the GMCVB shall also report to the Board of Estimates and the Common Council on its progress toward the program and performance goals outlined in the contract.”
Room Tax Fund:
GMCVB: Destination Marketing $ 2 63,310
GMCVB: Event Booking Assistance 5 0,000
Monona Terrace: Operating Subsidy (50,000)
Decrease in Room Tax Fund Balance $ 263,310
Monona Terrace:
Convention Marketing Services $ (50,000)
Transfer In from Room Tax (decrease) 5 0,000
Total $ – Levy Impact: $ –
#4 was removed from the table and then Bruer moved a “5 minute recess”. So minutes later, after all kinds of arm waving, cajoling and who knows what else . . . everyone congratulated themselves on a job well done. Problem is there is a new amendment, no one has it in front of them and there are lots of questions about the amendment and what it means and the 12 day old report that the council has not acted on.
I don’t have good notes on this part of the meeting, mostly, as I was just kind of stunned. And it took forever to figure out what the new motion was . . . this is what Alder Clear emailed me during the meeting:
Increase the amount available to GMCVB for event booking assistance by $50,000 to $200,000. Decrease the operating subsidy from the Room Tax Fund to Monona Terrace by $50,000 to $2,877,033 and correspondingly reduce the payment to GMCVB for convention marketing in the Monona Terrace budget by $50,000 from $180,490 to $130,490.
Increase the estimated payment to the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB) for destination marketing in 2009 by the difference between the actual 2008 room tax collection, less $8,594,625, which is 3% above the 2007 collection. The 2009 executive budget estimates 8,777,000 in 2008 room tax collection, making the estimated additional payment $182,376.
Add the following language to Room Tax Fund note (b): “The City of Madison intends to amend the existing contract with GMCVB to recognize the additional one-time payment.”
Also add the following language to Room Tax Fund note (b): “In conjunction with its semi-annual report to the Board of Estimates on event booking assistance activities, the GMCVB shall also report to the Board of Estimates and the Common Council on its progress toward the program and performance goals outlined in the contract.”
Add the following note to the Room Tax Fund: “In order to guide the Mayor and Common Council in future room tax investment and distribution decisions, the Board of Estimates and the TOT study committee shall, by June 1 2009, review and recommend implementation steps from the 2008 report of the TOT study committee.”
Some of the notes I do have is that Rhodes-Conway was concerned about violations of open meetings laws in that there was likely a walking quorum that decided the vote on this amendment during the breaks. Instead of a during the open meeting. (I totally agree with her concerns and saw the Mayor meeting with Bruer and Clear . . . and then later with Clausius, creating the walking quorum. But hey, who needs open meetings laws!)
The Mayor supports the amendment because “we’re going to have to deal with it one way or the other.” So BOE should just pass it and then amend it at the council. Of course, he knows that if the motion passes now, it takes 11 votes to get it out of the budget. If they waited like they should have, it would take 11 votes to get it to pass. And that 1-2 votes could make the difference at the council. He says he’s sensitive to the process concerns. And he likes the amendment because it puts the decisions in the hands of the BOE not a committee.
The bullshit went on and on and on . . . congratulating each other on a great compromise. It was a horrible end to the meeting. The motion eventually passed. I think Rhodes-Conway was the only one voting against.
On another note – all alders except Libby Monson attended the meeting for some portion. The award for the shortest appearance clearly goes to Palm . . . He made sure to get there early, set up all his stuff at the table so everyone knew he was there . . . then left. Alders Cnare, Solomon, Kerr, Webber, myself, Rummel, Schumacher were the ones that stayed the longest beyond the BOE members who got to vote. Rummel, Kerr, Cnare and Solomon left for the room tax amendment, which was likely wise. The meeting was over by about 10:15.
It will be interesting to see what the council does next. Amendments are due noon on Tuesday the 4th – Election Day. Many of us not on BOE clearly have some amendments to make, but there is no point in making them at BOE if you don’t get to vote and . . .the Mayor won’t call on you. 🙂
Council amendments will be out around noon on Thursday, November 6th. The Council meetings on the budget start on November 11th. The first night is when the public is invited to testify . . . last year, that is all we did on the first night of budget, I suspect the same will be true again this year. Stay tuned . . . .
