Dropped in to check them out . . . a live-ish, recap. Development Process changes, Public Market timing and the city Certifying landlords, employment (living wage) and taxi companies.
They got the minutes and disclosures out of the way. One disclosure from Meghan on the Public Market.
Development Process
Jay Wendt from city planning talked about the development process and the 2011 report.
Matt Mikolajewski says over the years there has been discussion about changes recommended. Mikolajewski says most of the EDC are new, it was a huge undertaking, working with the business community and the Chamber to pull together the concerns and recommendations to the process, he is happy to say that they have been making some of the changes. They asked Wendt to talk about the report and what has done. The entire report is available, it isn’t the end all and be all, but it a very thorough good summary of concerns expressed.
Jay says he got his position about a year ago, he and he and Steve Cover and Katherine Cornwell looked at the Development Process Improvement Initiative and Implementation plan, he thinks the plans are still relevant, but the implementation plan might need to be updated and to be re-prioritized.
He says there were 4 segments. The pre-application phase they tried to not get answer shopping and make sure that we have one clear message as the city, making sure the message is clear and concise. They were trying to hone in on the predicable-ness.
Pre-application is recommended and the Mayor is saying it should be mandatory. The 30 day notice for the alders could be used for the pre-application process. Denise DeMarb asks about the 30 day period that the alder can waive, Wendt says it is to get the alder looped in and let the neighborhoods know. He says that simple projects might get waived through. They are still working on making the pre-application process more streamlined. He talks about neighborhoods being looped in to the process and getting notices. He says that they are also modernizing, the website has been under construction for 3 – 5 years and it might be done next month. Making GIS data available. They are also working on ACCELA which helps agencies communicate on sign off and permitting. They just started using it for land review. There is also a front door for the public, the neighborhood can as well. They are also looking to digital plan review, applicants don’t like all the paper they have t submit, can they use PDFs if they get bigger monitors? They are hoping to do that in the next year or so. He notes that the concept plans can be really different than what gets approved.
Application Review and Approval Phase – They are trying to have different processes for simple vs complex projects. They are always working on effectiveness with the commissions, they had some tours that were helpful. He says that they are work on clear standards. He says one of the things that they can work on is checklists. The projects are so much more complex, like the E. Wash projects. DeMarb points out how the project fit with the BUILD plan. He says this is more about the specifics, landscape plans, etc. One of the members asks about if having more economic data into the neighborhood plans, does that fit in here? Wendt says that we don’t require any of that right now, they don’t ask the applicant those questions. They are looking into tools to measure the urban imprint to compare single family homes to different types of projects to see the impact on the infrastructure, so they can weigh cost benefits, they are working on the tools. DeMarb says most things that are contested are when the developer is trying to do something outside of the plan. Typically an extra story, the folks on council and plan commission don’t know what is accurate when the developer says they need it to be financially viable. Most neighbors are against it and the developers insist they need this. She says it surprises her that there are no financials on the project, the info could be provided simply. He says they wish they had the info as well. He says construction costs have gone up 10% in the last 10 – 12 months, and everyone is struggling with that. DeMarb says it is surprising they can’t get more information. She says that developers are not under oath when they are before us. We don’t have any information. He says maybe some of the new tools can be used to start this. DeMarb says residents rely on the plans and then things don’t happen like in the plan. He gives examples where they get 2 stories based on their word and he doesn’t know how to correct for that. Mikolajewski says sometimes they can pull info from TIF applications. He says that they really need to look at the financial information when they are making the plans. He says that they can look at the market conditions in neighborhoods. Stick built is 4 stories, after that you need more intense construction and 5 – 6 stories might not be viable, it might need to be 7 – 8. DeMarb says ok, but you have to go back to the neighborhood and rediscuss the plans. Blake-Horst says that it might help or inflame the neighbors. Scott says that we don’t look at the tax base and as a home owner he is afraid that his taxes will go up unless we build these projects. The chair says that if you look at 10 or 20 years ago, we need to make progress work for the neighbors as well as the developers. If the process can move up by 2 months by making the process better, they are development shopping, here or Austin? He says we need to compare to other cities. Maybe something exists where we can compare projects with other cities. It will help people assess, developers and others, we can imagine doing things differently in the future.
Post-approval phase – the report says that they want to expedite city sign off. The applicant has to chase this down, he thinks a project staff liaison is the answer, that person would be with the project to be there beginning to end, they don’t have the resources to do this, he thinks that there needs to be a post-DAT committee. This is a spot they can work on, we have things that get missed or held up. They also have things that get constructed and there are conflicts with what is approved and what is permitted.
Administration Improvement – they talk about neighborhood plans, they talk about plans that need to be updated and areas that don’t have plans. He says that he recently looked at a plan that was done in 1992. Development guidelines and districts can be out of date, an example is UDD 5. Still working on the website, need better meeting rooms. He talks about a plan commission meeting where the technology wasn’t working. He says they need to revisit the process and they are doing that now. He says they need to make sure staff and commissions are cutting age, not techniques and ways of looking at projects.
Current initiatives – they did a bus tour with Plan Commission and UDC, he talks about the neighborhoods they looked at. They want to make that an annual event. He says that they started it last year, but I went on one of those tours 15 years ago. Sigh. He talks about the retreat UDC and plan commission had and the things that they talked about and how the two groups communicate through reports. He says the pre-application process will have an ordinance amendment. DeMarb says that they need to make sure that the council makes informed votes, there are 20 of us and we all have different backgrounds, strengths and time constraints and she has asked for staff reports at council as well. She says they hear from the developer and residents and she wants an “impartial” report on where things stand. She says there has been confusion on the council floor, there has been confusion on what we are voting on and that is not ok. Wendt says the staff reports can get wordy. An 18 page staff report should have an executive report. She says they need an update. He say they could do that on the changes and what the major issues are. Wendt talks about other issues of the retreat and how they need to listen to the customer and following up to make sure they look at what ends up different.
Green says that he liked this, and would like further updates from the staff.
Public Market Plan
Dan Kenenlly says they talked about this many times here, but a quick status update is that right now they are finalizing the business plan. The EDC gave good imput and some of it will be in the final version. He says the business plan is a snap shot of where an initiative is at a certain point in time and hopefully is a good guiding document and used for fundraising, but it will change, it is a living document. The resolution before you is accepting the plan as a guiding document and points out next steps. The are going to go through the resolution clause by clause. They will be accepting the plan, he basically reads the whereas clauses which is just background about what has happened. They have done the equity analysis and will be an attachment on the final business plan. He says the plan lays out three visions. The resolved clauses, where the action is that the plan is adopted realizing that it will change, they accept the findings of what should be pursued. Option 1 is smaller footprint (less expensive on capital size but more expensive to run). They say options 2 or 3 are in the capital budget. They will use parts of 2015 budget if necessary. They direct the food committee and EDC staff to report back to them by the end of the year, and develop a plan for the district around the market by the end of the year. They make relocation of fleet services a priority in 2016 and asks the staff and committee to look at an interim location and to work on racial and social equity and coordinate with other groups.
Kemble asks about what happened at the Board of Public Works and their recommendation. They like option 2 instead of option 3. There wasn’t a lot of discussion around it, but they liked it better. The different between 2 and 3 is the roof deck. He says he doesn’t think that they actually said that was the reason. Staff says it seemed quick and confusing. Everyone is wondering why. Kennelly and Mikolajewski explain that they anticipate making changes to the resolution after getting input from the committees and it will likely incorporate some comments of the committees and then create a substitute.
DeMarb wants more economic analysis about the investment, they want to see the impact. DeMarb asks about the aggressive timing for moving fleet, what does that mean? She says that is not until 2019 and they are recommending it get moved to 2020. She says that what is being talked about is aggressive, she thinks that language should be taken out. It is the last year of the 5 year plan says Younger. DeMarb says they don’t want to move it out of the 5 year plan, moving fleet is $19M or $20M on top of the $15M for the market. Schramm asks if this is too far down the line to make suggestions. Can they focus on the district and fundraising to keep the momentum going. They don’t know what might happen if the position it better so it doesn’t seem like a “no”. The chair asks if they are recommending a change to make the public market district a high priority. Mikolajewski says that regardless of when it is built, they have 2 years of work ahead of them, that work will continue even if the construction doesn’t start until 2020, he says that the public market plan is the lunch pin of the plan, we still need to focus our efforts there. DeMarb also want to keep the momentum going, but the language as written isn’t acceptable. Schramm says that the council still needs a frame to do the work. Younger says it is always at risk until it is done. DeMarb doesn’t want it left in the capital budget knowing it won’t happen and right now it is in there before fleet is moved. She says we need to be honest about this. There is lots of work that they can to in between and they might have an interim space. Kennelly says that it is important to recognize the extraordinary work in the last 2 years, as the plan is developed, they have been building relationships with partners and they continue to ask if it is real? He says that the last few years it has been in the capital budget and it only works with these partners and if its not in there, how do we do this, we need a plan and a strategy. Peng Her suggests they put some hard dates in there to indicate what aggressive means. DeMarb says they should not vote on it tonight and it should work more. She would appreciate a friendly amendment, but as written she won’t support it. The chair seeks clarification, DeMarb says the timing is not “aggressive” and they need to add something on the expectation on the work that could take place. Schramm says that Matt seems to be talking about it differently, but they should look at the work. Mikolajewski talks about the language and adding fundraising strategy and development work that lead up to it. He says a reference to a district is not the building itself, but the broader neighborhood, which can be considered along with the details of the public market. The chair asks if the final paragraph to the front or near the top. DeMarb asks if the need to vote on it tonight? He says they don’t have to, they don’t have hard deadlines of a grant or something else. The Food Committee might feel it should move quickly. Kennelly says that the purpose of the committees is to give feedback, Board of Public Works gave feedback and adopted the resolution, he wonders if this is a path to go down. Kemble asks about the deadlines to do work by the end of the year, and how much time do they need. Mikolajewski says they were going to push those back anyways because realistically they won’t be able to reach their goals. Kennelly tried to alleviate fears DeMarb says that working with all the vendors, that is a huge piece, where does that fit in. Kennelly says the last one that lists the organizations. The chair says that is why they need to move that up and say make it a priority in the 2016 plan. Younger says that they are wanting to be honest about the language, he wants to make it happen aggressively if it can. They want it to be aggressively done, but they understand the reality so maybe they could finesse the language. Denise says that they have to slash the capital budget in half in the next two years and there is no one on the committee that doesn’t want it to go forward, but this is hard work. We can’t move it up when we are moving other projects back. Younger says that it should be “as aggressive as feasible”. The chair says again he would like to see that moving the language up to focus on doing it, and on the timing just say, make it a priority, no when, but a priority. Younger suggests some more language about continuing to work on the district work. Shramm says to put “future capital improvement plans” but no date. Take out the word “progressive”. DeMarb says that it is also a priority for Fleet. They continue word-smithing and explaining how much Fleet wants to move as soon as possible. More word-smithing. They accept it with their changes, they staff say they have the changes and ask committee members to send language they suggested. (So really, who knows what the hell they are voting on?) Some general confusion and explanations and committee sausage being made. They apparently think they have a motion and it passes.
Kemble says that some of the issue is about what the city can pay and last week they went to a conference and there is news that there are grants out there and public market districts are a priority. Mikolajewski says that will be in his report. Kemble says there may be other resources. They say this is a big deal.
Certification Program
Mikolajewski says that staff would prepare a voluntary certification for taxi cabs, landlords and a living wage. He says that they are to focus on living wage. He says that the city will set standards for a living wage and they will certify businesses that meet the standard and that it is voluntary. This will be developed by staff working with the committee and businesses to prepare guidelines about what this would look like.
Committee asks him to explain more. Mikolajewski says they could develop standards of a living wage and businesses would pledge to meet those requirements and would be certified. The could be more complex and have the businesses submit information to something even more complex to have city staff audit businesses. He says the program could fall anywhere on this scale.
The chair asks what the outcomes would be, other than consumer information. Mikolajewski says since it is voluntary so there would be no consequences. The chair asks if it could impact city decisions, Mikolajewski says that it could in the future. Kemble says this is pre-empting the state pre=emption ordinance. In all three areas the city had standards, ordinances on the books, that held businesses to higher standards. IN each of these cases they pre-empted them. We already have a certification program for childcare that is a gold standard. The thinking is if we can’t protect safety and welfare and consumers, we can promote good actors who engage in gold standard behavior. The question is will there be follow up. We already had higher standards and this is a way to re-assert those values.
Her says if this is voluntary, we would spend staff time to do audits, are we charging for the certification and how does it increase economic development for the city, he is still looking for that.
Mikolajewski says a charge is still be be determined depending on the program developed. In terms of increasing economic development. He says there are different views. Some would see it positively and others would be indifferent, it depends upon their perspective. Younger asks if they talked to businesses, taxi cab companies and landlords at this point. Mikolajewski say not him. Kemble says taxi cab companies like it. Younger says we are always trying to work on the perception of Madison being tough for developers and businesses, he would like to engage the businesses and get their input. We don’t know what the businesses want.
Shramm is wondering why they are all three together. Schramm says she did work in Sauk County to see clear economic impact effect if you have higher wages, there is data to support whatever side of the coin you are on to support good wages. DeMarb asks what the living wage is, they get answers of $12.95 – $14.95, Schramm says $15 per hour is what you are looking for. Mikolajewski says they can still require a living wage, not the prevailing wage for city projects. The chair says that we could have businesses suing the city if we have these requirements in bids that are put out, he would like to see the legal ramifications and business community input first before they move forward.
Blake-Horst talks about other cities that might have done that. Mikolajewski says that other counties use a living wage, Kemble says the certification is new. DeMarb says they need to talk to the Chamber, but this is how we operated before the state said we couldn’t, this isn’t new, we’re just trying to get back to where we are. This is what we had – taxi companies, tenant rights. She says the fiscal note says that this could be done under existing staff, that might be possible with taxi’s and businesses, but much more difficult with landlords. Building Inspection is called for problems, but this is more pro-active to look at the criteria. That is a lot more work. There is no way she can imagine current staff doing that.
DeMarb asks me a question at 6:44. She asks if I think Building Inspection would be able to elp ensure that apartments were quality apartments. I said probably not, but there are other things that the City Attorney’s office could do with verifying that leases comply with the old laws. DeMarb is concerned about building inspection having to certify it is a habitable place.
Blake-Horst asks if it includes commercial properties. (my two cents would be no)
Chair asks for a motion to re-refer and ask staff to talk to the business committee, apartment folks and tax folks. He says that they have said many times that they have to reach out more.
Kemble says the city attorney drafted this but they might have thought about lawsuits from the Attorney General’s office. It might be a good fight to have, but we need to think about it and we need buy in from stakeholders.
DeMarb thinks that all three should not be combined with the three different stakeholders, she would like three resolutions, some may move forward faster than others. We need to talk to he experts on both sides of the issue. She would recommend they be separated.
Someone asks why taxi cabs. Uber.
They recommend to separate them, but they have a motion to re-refer and ask to have more information on their questions.
End
The rest was just reports, but if I have time, I might fill you in on it. Maybe. 🙂
