So, I missed the first 5 – 10 minutes of the meeting (I got caught stuck at work) and missed 95% or more of the council agenda, including the consent agenda, luckily I could watch it on Madison City Channel and get caught up, but I was very confused last night.
GETTING STARTED
Roll Call – Looked like everyone was there – Weier, Resnick and Verveer were not confirmed audibly by the clerk, but Verveer and Resnick seemed to be present, I’m unclear about Weier.
Mayor Paul Soglin starts off with announcement that the temperature in the room is usually left at 80 degrees and usually its unbearably hot. Tonight it was left at 80 degrees and it was still cold.
They suspend the rules to take things out of order and introduce items at the end of the agenda.
Item 1 is accepted.
CONSENT AGENDA
About 2 – 3 minutes into the agenda they suspended the rules to take up the consent agenda. They pass the entire agenda as recommended on the agenda with the following exceptions:
– Items 2 – 15 which are public hearing items
– Recommendations as noted with the following exceptions
102. Legislative File No. 36697 Directing the Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development to conduct a one or two year collaborative effort to implement many of the recommendations in the 2012 adopted Downtown Plan, and to take an expanded and more detailed look at a number of issues associated with State Street, the Capitol Square, and adjacent areas – New Business for Referral – Ald. Mike Verveer, D. 4 – Change Lead Referral to Downtown Coordinating Committee (Downtown Coordinating Committee, Plan Commission, Urban Design Commission, Landmarks Commission, Economic Development Commission, Transit and Parking Commission)
– Agenda Items requested by alders to be placed on EXCLUSION LIST
16. Report on City Fiscal Status
32. Legislative File No. 36141 SUBSTITUTE Amending Section 23.05(1) and creating Sections 23.05(2)(a)7. and 23.05(7)(c) of the Madison General Ordinances to define and prohibit use of an electronic delivery device, define retail electronic delivery store and to create an exception to the smoking restrictions for the retail electronic delivery device store. (Report of Board of Health – Ald. David Ahrens, D. 15)
59. Legislative File No. 35036 Creating Section 31.112 and Sec. 31.11(2)(o) and amending Sections 31.11(1) and 31.05(2)(b) of the Madison General Ordinances to create a process for Advertising Sign Banks and Replacement Advertising Signs, and amending sec. 31.04(5)(k)4.a. regarding illumination of certain signs. (Report of UDC – Ald. Chris Schmidt, Council President)
– Introductions from the Floor for Referral
Legislative File No. 36643 – Create the classification of “Principal IT Specialist” in CG18, R14. Retitle the classifications of “Management Information Specialist 1, 2, 3 and 4” in CG18, Ranges 06, 08, 10 and 12 as “IT Specialist 1, 2, 3 and 4,” respectively, and reallocate the incumbents to the new positions, respectively (see attached list). Create 4 positions of Principal IT Specialist to be posted and filled internally with the underlying vacancies being deleted and recreated as Principal IT Specialist. (Ald. Chris Schmidt, Council President) – Refer to: Board of Estimates, Personnel Board
Legislative File No. 36723 – Report – Verona/Allied Drive Food Retail & Economic Redevelopment Staff Team Report: Recommendations to Secure a Full-Service Affordable Grocery Store in the Allied Drive Neighborhood (Ald. Chris Schmidt, D. 11) – Refer to: Board of Estimates
Legislative File No. 36731 – Designating Six Lots Recently Acquired by the City as an Addition to Owl’s Creek Park. (Ald. Denise DeMarb, Council President Pro Tem) – Refer to: Board of Estimates, Board of Park Commissioners, Common Council Meeting
Motion is approved.
CITY FISCAL STATUS
Mayor says this was inadvertently left on the agenda, he’d like it placed on file. The Council President Chris Schmidt and Pro Tem (Vice President) Denise DeMarb are going to meet with the City Comptroller Dave Schmiedicke and they are postponing this item and will take it up at another time. That suggestion passes.
E CIGARETTES
They start taking testimony – 4 people testify before the mayor suggests they table this item, take care of the public hearing items for 5 minutes and return to the item, they approve a motion to that effect.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Items 2 – 14 they open the public hearings and close them, there are no registrations. They adopt them, including as recommended, including several where they had to suspend the rules to take the items up. These items are all passed as recommended on a voice vote without discussion.
NOT ASSISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
Item 15 is a request to waive a traffic fee on an affordable housing project for the elderly (Independent Living Project on Tennyson Lane) on the northside. Alder Larry Palm moves approval of the item with an amendment that says the applicant, prior to sign off shall provide a deposit in the amount of $20,000 to be used at the discretion of city traffic engineers for enhanced pedestrian improvements in the right of way withing 1000 feet of the development, such deposits shall be returned 5 years after occupancy of the project after each phase of the construction and will will be required at the time of sign off at any additional phase. The amendment seems to pass on a voice vote, but then Scott Resnick asks Steve Cover, Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development to explain the discussion at plan commission. He explains the amendment. Resnick asks again about the plan commission recommendations, Cover says that it would be in addition to their recommendations but would not affect the development aspects of the project. (i.e. I don’t think he answered the question) Resnick tries again but asks Traffic Engineering to explain. Staff says that they are putting a time frame to return the money instead of leaving it up to staff to determine. Resnick asks if there are time frames on other projects, is this enough time? Or are there other issues that will arise when other applicants ask for this. Staff says typically they don’t put a time frame on it, they look at all their deposits every year and review them, generally when they start getting to the 5 year mark they start looking at refunding the deposit. Palm says he’s surprised that we don’t have a date final, we could debate if that is 3 or 5 or 7 years, but holding the money indefinitely is “weird”. He says he also added the 1000 feet from the property line because improvements do happen and there should be more construction happening in the area and it would not be fair to pin all the costs on this applicant. He says the other thing is that this will happen in phases, there are 300 units, so he wanted to allow for the return of the money at the end of each phase. He says traffic engineering could decide to return the money after year 1. He is not prohibiting them from reviewing it earlier. There is also a way to charge other charges through special assessments. He says it is unfair to hold their money indefinitely. The applicant did ask to dispose of the whole thing, which he did not do, he respects the plan commission debate on that. We don’t have a policy on this, if they had a policy he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, but this is a start of that discussion. Steve King mostly agrees with Palm, but we don’t have a policy so he isn’t comfortable with ad hoc planning and they should be consistent, they should make an exception for one developer in one case. Motion appears to fail, which is the amendment which I thought they voted on already. Very few people seem to vote.
LET’S ARGUE ABOUT ROBERT’S RULES
City Attorney points out the motion from Plan Commission was to place on file, Palm moved to approve so you need to remake the motion to place on file if that is what you want. Mayor points out there is a motion to approve on the table and if that motion fails, then there is no need to make a motion to place on file if that motion fails. Motion to approve fails with very few people voting. Mark Clear then tries to make a motion to place on file without prejudice. Mayor says that it is not in order, he confers with city attorney, mayor says “the motion failed, what is there to vote on?” Mayor says the item has been voted on and failed and is no longer before them. City Attorney and mayor discussing it on the side. Mayor rules the motion out of order. He says you can’t have a motion on something that doesn’t exist. Clear appeals the ruling of the chair. It is seconded. Schmidt says if they didn’t pass something they could refer it so he doesn’t see why they couldn’t place it on file. He says just because they defeated it doesn’t mean they can’t refer it or place it on file. Mayor disagrees, says you can’t refer it either. Mayor says it doesn’t exist, its dead, he is sure of it. He says reconsideration is in order. Chatter. Mayor asks if there is an objection to withdraw the motion to place on file. They agree to withdraw it. They make a motion to reconsider, that passes. They move to place on file, everyone appears to vote on that on a voice vote except Palm.
E CIGARETTES
They take this back off the table. Schmidt snarkily adds “If I can”.
Public tesimony
Public testimony goes on for another 25 minutes with 9 more speakers. There are 15 registrations against. 4 in favor.
Questions of speakers
Shiva Bidar asks a question of one of the speakers if there is any studies showing that using e cigarettes or vaping helps quit. Speaker says study shows by American Heart Association that they are 70% more likely to be successful in their cessation program. Lauren Cnare asks one of the store owners what percentage of customers are first time users as opposed to people trying to quit. He doesn’t know. He says almost all are looing to stop, they don’t encourage first time users, but the first thing they ask is about how much they currently smoke.
Questions of Staff
Clear asks if the proposal has any age restrictions. City attorney refers to a staff members, Marci Poulson says there are no restrictions by age in the ordinance, but there might be in state law. Bidar asks about scientific studies about linking quiting to use of e cigarettes. Public health says that there are some studies that show there products do help quitting. She says when these are approved by the FDA she will go out and buy one for her father that smokes, but that isn’t why they are there. This isn’t about cesstion, its about clean indoor air. There are studies that show that the second hand air is dangerous to bystanders. Bidar asks how many years it took to link cigarette smoking with lung cancer to understand how long it takes to do these studies. Another Public Health staff says the report came out in 1965 and it took 40 years to take action. Cnare asks about the new study mentioned by the speaker, staff isn’t aware but there is a AHA staff person in the audience. They don’t make an exception to hear from the public. Marsha Rummel is concerned about the rationale about sampling in stores and why some businesses will be able to and others cannot. She asks for the reasoning behind that since this is about clean indoor air. Staff says they set the level at 75% of sales based on what the businesses are currently doing, Minneapolis is set at 90% and Chicago at 80%. Public Health says that grandfathering in those now in practice, they are limiting the exposure for future workers. Rummel says that you are limiting this bad thing for future businesses and she thinks its an unlevel playing field. The Mayor says that they are trying to not prohibit those who currently do it from doing it. Cnare says this portion of the legislation mimics what was done with the tabacco shops and an amendment to the date would be ok with her. Bidar asks Public Health about other Wisconsin governments that have passed something similar. They say Greenfield, Ashwaubenan and a few others. Bidar says we are not that unique? He says yes. Bidar says Portland and Austin are usually ahead.
Amendments
David Ahrens wants to substitute 33% of business for the 75%. The second amendment is to delete the business establishment date. They will take the amendments separately and both are seconded. He says he worked for 15 years on tobacco control and he is conflicted about it, but as he looks at the evidence, he views this product as a harm reduction tool until they know something differently. He says the arguments are similar to those made about sex education and needle exchange – all of them have been effective tools. He says it is fairly uncontested that this is an effective cessation tool and more effective than patches or gum. He says for proponents to say this has nothing to do with cessation is misleading, it has everything to do with it, it will reduce the use of the project. There is an issue with secondary exposure. He says he picked 33% because of arguments 20 years ago about banning smoking in restaurants, he doens’t know why there is any restriction, he thinks the city is being hypocritical because the city licenses the sale of tobacco and pass laws about it – they can sell cigaretes but not this other product. On the second amendment he thinks they are creating a monopoly for people who hold those licenses. Those businesses will get bigger, they will have more employees and the level of exposure will remain te same. He says he doesn’t know of any other area where the city creates such a monopoly. (ahem, cigar bars) He thinks they shouldn’t get into the nature of the businesses and that the evidence doesn’t support those restrictions.
Change 75% to 33%
Lisa Subeck asks Ahrens to re-explain the amendments, he does. Delete (3)(c)1. and change 75% to 33%. Subeck says her understanding is that this is not about sales, but indoor sampling. She asks if that is correct. Public health says sales are not prohibited, it is just the sampling. Palm opposes the change, its a very low threshold. He doesn’t want to go into a PDQ or other place and have people sampling it, its ok for establishments that are designed for these sales. He thinks 33% falls way short of the intention. Ahrens says that notion that you will have sales without sampling can’t be separated, they are bound together. To have sales absent sampling makes the business not viable. Subeck is uncomfortable with this amendment, she says electronic cigarettes are sold at Walgreens and gas stations and they might meet the threshold and doesn’t think these places are appropriate for sampling, she thinks 75% is a reasonable number. Palm says if you lower the bar substantially it is no longer about sampling. He thinks that it then becomes about using not sampling. Motion fails on a voice vote.
Date elimination
No discussion. Voice vote too close to call. Roll call –
Aye – Verveer, Ahrens, Bidar, Cheeks, Clear, DeMarb, Palm, Resnick, Rummel, Schmidt, Skidmore, Strausser, Subeck
No – Weier, Zellers, Clausius, Cnare, Daley, King, Phair
Motion passes.
Final Vote
They pass it on a voice vote, someone asks to be noted as abstaining, some ask to be noted as voting no, becomes confusing, they decide to just do a roll call.
Aye – Verveer, Weier, Zellers, Bidar, Cheeks, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, DeMarb, Daley, King, Palm, Phair, Rummel, Schmidt, Subeck
No – Ahrens, Resnick, Skidmore, Strausser,
Abstain – ?? No one ??
ROBERT’S RULES CLARIFICAITON
Mayor says that a motion to place on file or refer is a motion that is secondary, it can only be made if there is a main motion, when there is no main motion, you can’t make a secondary motion. The City Attorney agrees with the mayor.
UDC ALTERNATE TO PROCESS FOR ADVERTISING SIGN BANKS AND REPLACEMENT ADVERTISING SIGNS
One lobbyist from Adams Outdoor Adversiting Speaks. The alternate the council is proposing doesn’t appear to be in legistar this morning, it is handed out and at their seats and likely will be linked in the future. Lobbyist likes the UDC alternate except for the relocation issue.
Amendment
Schmidt makes an amendment to the alternate that we can’t see. He strikes the language relating to eligibity. He says it is highlighted in their copy, reads it very quickly. There are four deletions on three different pages and some replacement language that is proposed. Sorry, not sure how to blog all the changes without having the necessary documents. Even the council is a little confused and they have the handout. Still explaining . . . still don’t really understand. When he says strike 2 lines etc I have nothing to reference. Side conversations off mic I can’t hear, still clarifying. It is seconded. Denise DeMarb now in the chair, mayor disappeared. Schmidt says he worked on this for a year and a half with Zoning Staff and the City Attorney. He says he is trying to keep it as simple as possible. He says they don’t need to overthink this since there is a relatively small number of signs affected, he doesn’t think that there are that many instances this will come up and they don’t need to address all the loopholes. There is a 5 year sunset on this and they can amend it later.
Lucas Daley thanks Schmidt for the amendment, he talks about signs affected on Regent St., he thinks redevelopment will impact the signs, but that they should allow for relocation of the signs.
Rummel says it should be the policy of the City of Madison to get rid of billboards, this creates a sidways track. She spent two years trying to get rid of the billboard at Union Corners, the only way you will get rid of a billboard is to build a road, in that case they did eminent domain but it wasn’t blighted. When she saw the Urban Design recommendations at the meeting she liked what they came up with. She still is confused about the amendments, she thinks there are some mistakes or details to be worked out in the amendment.
Cnare says this is complex, everyone got some potential amendments today, she wants to clarify that to get rid of billboards they can’t put to time limit (ex 40 years). City Attorney says that the state law refers to zoning code restrictions and this is an ordinance and this may get around the state law. Lara Marinella (city attorney) adds that we don’t regulate billboard through zoning laws, they use policing (ordinance) laws. She says that the signs are currently legal, they are not nonconforming so the rules wouldn’t apply to that either. (Sorry, still confusing without having the documents) Cnare asks how this applies to zoning districts (refers to language), more confusion about a renumbering. Cnare asks if this will end up in litigation again, we seem to have a regular court date with Adams Outdoor Advertsing. Poulson isn’t sure, they don’t make decisions that way, they don’t think they are at risk. More talk about process and when to make amendments. Schmidt says additional new amendments should be taken up after this amendment.
Mike Verveer asks for a broad overview of the ordinance and why it was proposed from a staff perspective and the difficulties in administering this proposal. Zoning Administrator Matt Tucker says in 1989 there was a ban on billboards making all existing signs nonconforming and prohibited future signs. Over time, the signs would be taken down, attrition was the model. There was a lawsuit, a settlement in 1995, 16 more signs were built. There are probably about the same number of signs, a few have been removed through redevelopment, in 2006 there was a change to state law, that has little effect, some developments have been built around signs. Regarding administration of the change, we aren’t afraid of complexity, its better to have words that have detail, that helps them adminsiter the ordinance. There were some things they worked on to make it make sense. They use a carrot to get rid of the older signs. They will be able to administer whatever comes out of this process. Verveer asks about the differences between the original proposal and the UDC recommendations with Schmidt’s proposal. What changes did UDC request besides the redevelopment accommodation. Tucker says the sunset clause.
There’s another 40 minutes of talking . . . . but I gotta get to work. Will try to finish this morning since I worked some unusal hours this week to catch up from the holidays and being out sick, but its always hard to do at work and the best intentions . . . .
