Apparently, its too hard for some people to read a TIF policy document that's been around since last June and a memo to the plan commission that's two months old (August) and make a few clerical changes to the document.
To add insult to injury, the Mayor asked me to write yet another memo about the minor changes I suggested at the Board of Estimates despite the fact that the TIF Coordinator took notes and the staff to Board of Estimates took minutes and had the changes noted. Excuse me, does he realize I'm not his staff? He's got 8 staff members plus there were 4 TIF staff team members in the room. Why should I be the one to write a memo making minor changes such as changing .05% to .5%?
Besides, if after four months he can't read a policy document and a plan commission memo at the same time without getting confused, a third memo is going to make things even more confusing.
Finally, when the Mayor remarked that he "could use more time" and I reminded him it has been a few years, his response was "well, then another 2 weeks won't matter."
So, why is the Mayor stalling on this? Why doens't he want a new TIF policy that DMI, Smart Growth Madison, the TIF Coordinator and TIF staff team, and people like me and Tim Bruer all agree needs to get passed to end the uncertainty surrounding TIF requests? Does he like giving away TIF dollars ad hoc? After all this time, the Mayor has not said what his concerns are, but he sure has made sure he stalled passing a policy. At this point, I think the public should demand an explanation. After all, these are our tax dollars.
Read more!
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
TIF: What's In? What's Out?
Tonight the Board of Estimates may finally act on the TIF policy that we've been working on since fall of 2004 . . . tho it is only a partial package . . .
For a more thorough history of TIF and background documents, see this post. The post you are reading will be my attempt to summarize which issues in the BOE subcommittee report and from elsewhere have been resolved with the proposal before the BOE tonight and which are left for the committee that we are forming.
1. The whole policy is completely re-written and re-arranged to make it more readable. Staff did a great job making sure the new policy references the old one, so you can easily track the changes.
2. It has been a practice that "student housing", both publicly and privately owned, is not funded with TIF and now it is written in the policy. 1.2(c)
3. Simultaneous review of TIF assistance and land use approvals. 2.1(a)(2)
4. Land use applications should include the information about if a developer is going to ask for TIF. 2.1(a)(3)
5. Complete TIF applications are due by April 15th in order to be considered in the following year's budget, including having met with the Alder. 2.1(a)(4)
6. TIF application fees should be paid at the time of application and are non-refundable. 2.1(a)(5)
7. If the property isn't in a TIF District, and it requires the City to amend a TIF or create one, land use approvals and TIF approval must be obtained by April 15th. 2.1(a)(6)
8. Staff must be completed with their analysis of a project by June 15th in order to be considered for the following year's budget. 2.1(a)(8)
9. Applications that miss the deadline have to either wait for the following year or get 15 votes at the council. 2.2(a)
10. After June 15th if there are too many requests or there are requests that do not meet the City's goals, the Mayor may authorize a vetting process before the Board of Estimates to prioritize the requests. 2.2(b)
11. Changes were made regarding new state laws. 2.3(e)(3), 3.4(c), 3.4(d)
12. A report will be made to the Board of Estimates prior to a new TIF District proposal coming forward. 2.3(f)
13. TIF assistance shall not exceed the amount of equity the developer is putting in to the project. 3.1(b)
14. Donated developer fees do not count as equity. 3.1(b)
15. The practice regarding Equity Kickers has been written into the policy. 3.1 (i)
16. Language about recent changes to condemnation law was written into the policy. 3.1(j)
17. If more than 50% of the gap is attributable to IZ or if the units are receiving more than 50,000 per unit, the Board of Estimates shall review the IZ waiver request in a joint session with the Plan Commission. 3.1(o)
18. Developers have to do "due diligence" and provide information to the City when purchasing land. 3.3(a)(1)
19. Requires meetings with Alders and City Staff prior to consideration of the TIF request. 3.3(a)(2)
20. Developers are encouraged to utilize options to purchase prior to finding out the results of their TIF request. 3.3(a)(3)
21. TIF requests, even if borrowing is not required, require Council approval. (i.e. if there is enough money built up in a TIF district) 3.5(a)
22. Project must be included in Capital Budget in order to borrow funds. 3.5(b)
23. The Council must approve internal borrowing for TIF. 3.5(c)
24. Pay-As-You-Go financing or "developer financed" TIF can be considered on a case-by-case basis. 3.5(d)
25. TIF policy exceptions shall be made only in rare instances and the Council shall state the reason for making the exception. 4(a)
Plan Commission added the following things:
1. Definition of "speculative" for office developments to be "projects that have not secured anchor tenants" 1.2(a)
2. Clarifications in various sections. 2.1(a)(4), 2.1(a)(5)
3. An "interested party registry" was added. 2.3(g)
4. Requirement of developer to pay for mailings for neighborhood meetings regarding TIF District creation or amendments. 2.1(a)(6)
5. Added details of what must be reported in open session prior to going into closed session at the Board of Estimates. 2.1(a)(7)
6. TIF assistance for IZ is withheld until the IZ units is actually sold as an IZ unit. 3.1(d)
7. Requires an Annual TIF report that includes:
a) The financial position of each TID
b) progress of the implementation of the infrastructure improvements
c) TIF assistance to private developers
8. The use of a "term sheet" to document agreed upon terms after BOE recommendation. 2.1(8)
The short list of things (I'm sure there are more) that were not considered in the TIF proposals are as follows:
1. A forum for developer appeal of a decision.
2. Making the "50% rule" ironclad.
3. Re-examine the policy for rental housing and TIF.
4. Revising the equity kicker formula.
5. Review of the 10% set aside program.
6. Re-evaluating the TIF priorities. (economic development and job creation vs. housing)
7. Small Capital TIF Assistance program for conversion/restoration of historic property, commercial facade improvements, conversion of homes from rental to owner-occupied.
8. Community Benefits agreements.
9. Review of Industrial TIF goals.
10. Public oversight of TIF Districts.
11. Policy regarding timelines for new TIF districts.
12. Restricting the amount of parking that can receive TIF assistance. (Mayor suggests .8 for owner-occupied, .5 for rental and 1 per 1,000 sq ft of retail)
13. Measuring the outcomes of TIF assistance.
14. Streetcars.
15. Grocery Stores.
Oh, I'm sure there's more, but I'm exhausted . . . as you can see, there's still plenty to talk about . . . but I hope we move forward with what we have . . .
Read more!
For a more thorough history of TIF and background documents, see this post. The post you are reading will be my attempt to summarize which issues in the BOE subcommittee report and from elsewhere have been resolved with the proposal before the BOE tonight and which are left for the committee that we are forming.
1. The whole policy is completely re-written and re-arranged to make it more readable. Staff did a great job making sure the new policy references the old one, so you can easily track the changes.
2. It has been a practice that "student housing", both publicly and privately owned, is not funded with TIF and now it is written in the policy. 1.2(c)
3. Simultaneous review of TIF assistance and land use approvals. 2.1(a)(2)
4. Land use applications should include the information about if a developer is going to ask for TIF. 2.1(a)(3)
5. Complete TIF applications are due by April 15th in order to be considered in the following year's budget, including having met with the Alder. 2.1(a)(4)
6. TIF application fees should be paid at the time of application and are non-refundable. 2.1(a)(5)
7. If the property isn't in a TIF District, and it requires the City to amend a TIF or create one, land use approvals and TIF approval must be obtained by April 15th. 2.1(a)(6)
8. Staff must be completed with their analysis of a project by June 15th in order to be considered for the following year's budget. 2.1(a)(8)
9. Applications that miss the deadline have to either wait for the following year or get 15 votes at the council. 2.2(a)
10. After June 15th if there are too many requests or there are requests that do not meet the City's goals, the Mayor may authorize a vetting process before the Board of Estimates to prioritize the requests. 2.2(b)
11. Changes were made regarding new state laws. 2.3(e)(3), 3.4(c), 3.4(d)
12. A report will be made to the Board of Estimates prior to a new TIF District proposal coming forward. 2.3(f)
13. TIF assistance shall not exceed the amount of equity the developer is putting in to the project. 3.1(b)
14. Donated developer fees do not count as equity. 3.1(b)
15. The practice regarding Equity Kickers has been written into the policy. 3.1 (i)
16. Language about recent changes to condemnation law was written into the policy. 3.1(j)
17. If more than 50% of the gap is attributable to IZ or if the units are receiving more than 50,000 per unit, the Board of Estimates shall review the IZ waiver request in a joint session with the Plan Commission. 3.1(o)
18. Developers have to do "due diligence" and provide information to the City when purchasing land. 3.3(a)(1)
19. Requires meetings with Alders and City Staff prior to consideration of the TIF request. 3.3(a)(2)
20. Developers are encouraged to utilize options to purchase prior to finding out the results of their TIF request. 3.3(a)(3)
21. TIF requests, even if borrowing is not required, require Council approval. (i.e. if there is enough money built up in a TIF district) 3.5(a)
22. Project must be included in Capital Budget in order to borrow funds. 3.5(b)
23. The Council must approve internal borrowing for TIF. 3.5(c)
24. Pay-As-You-Go financing or "developer financed" TIF can be considered on a case-by-case basis. 3.5(d)
25. TIF policy exceptions shall be made only in rare instances and the Council shall state the reason for making the exception. 4(a)
Plan Commission added the following things:
1. Definition of "speculative" for office developments to be "projects that have not secured anchor tenants" 1.2(a)
2. Clarifications in various sections. 2.1(a)(4), 2.1(a)(5)
3. An "interested party registry" was added. 2.3(g)
4. Requirement of developer to pay for mailings for neighborhood meetings regarding TIF District creation or amendments. 2.1(a)(6)
5. Added details of what must be reported in open session prior to going into closed session at the Board of Estimates. 2.1(a)(7)
6. TIF assistance for IZ is withheld until the IZ units is actually sold as an IZ unit. 3.1(d)
7. Requires an Annual TIF report that includes:
a) The financial position of each TID
b) progress of the implementation of the infrastructure improvements
c) TIF assistance to private developers
8. The use of a "term sheet" to document agreed upon terms after BOE recommendation. 2.1(8)
The short list of things (I'm sure there are more) that were not considered in the TIF proposals are as follows:
1. A forum for developer appeal of a decision.
2. Making the "50% rule" ironclad.
3. Re-examine the policy for rental housing and TIF.
4. Revising the equity kicker formula.
5. Review of the 10% set aside program.
6. Re-evaluating the TIF priorities. (economic development and job creation vs. housing)
7. Small Capital TIF Assistance program for conversion/restoration of historic property, commercial facade improvements, conversion of homes from rental to owner-occupied.
8. Community Benefits agreements.
9. Review of Industrial TIF goals.
10. Public oversight of TIF Districts.
11. Policy regarding timelines for new TIF districts.
12. Restricting the amount of parking that can receive TIF assistance. (Mayor suggests .8 for owner-occupied, .5 for rental and 1 per 1,000 sq ft of retail)
13. Measuring the outcomes of TIF assistance.
14. Streetcars.
15. Grocery Stores.
Oh, I'm sure there's more, but I'm exhausted . . . as you can see, there's still plenty to talk about . . . but I hope we move forward with what we have . . .
Read more!
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Halloween: By the numbers
Congratulations! This year, the State St. Halloween celebration seems to have ended successfully! "Riots" at 1:43 am didn't need to end in tear gas, and for that we owe the police department a great big "thank you!" And thanks to all the staff who spent their weekend working on this event. Now, let's review some facts . . . .
Friday 2006: 10,000 people, 200 cops, 68 arrests
Saturday 2006: 35,000 people, 250 cops, 145 arrest
- 34,300 entry tickets distributed, of which 2,300 were complimentary for people who live or work on the street
Friday 2005: 25,000 people, 400 officers, 197 arrests
Should it be by the standards that Mayor Cieslewicz sets out:
2006: Attendees were more likely to see a cop (1 cop per 100 people) as opposed to 2005 (1 cop per 156 people)
2006: Attendees were more likely to get arrested (1 arrest per 195 attendees) as opposed to 2005 (1 arrest per 278 attendees)
Perhaps its just a result of having more cops which means more arrests. Or maybe this year's event was had more trouble makers, but I suspect the former.
And perhaps, we should re-examine if those goals laid out by the Mayor were actually met:
1. Yes, there was no pepperspray this year, that was a good thing. However, it appears that there were still the same "riots" and chants of "Ole, Ole" at 1:43, as in previous years.
2. I'm not sure how they are measuring "less over-consumption" but according to Mike Hanson at 1:19 last night detox was filled.
3. And yes, while we made $160,000 (32,000 x $5, tho they're only reporting $150,000) on ticket sales, we likely made less money on arrests, so are less likely to have a positive fiscal bottome line. (Which, for the record, I count less numbers of arrests as a good thing, but am disturbed by the higher number of arrests per people in attendance.)
Anyways, there's alot that doesn't add up. And while I'm glad that there was no pepperspray this year, we still have significant problems before us . . . because the City of Madison can't continue to sponsor this event and there isn't enough money to be made for someone else to do it unless the City heavily subsidizes it or we use significantly less police officers.
Read more!
Friday 2006: 10,000 people, 200 cops, 68 arrests
- 1 cop per 50 people
- 3 cops per arrest
- 1 arrest per 147 attendees
- How much $ from fines for the City of Madison?
Saturday 2006: 35,000 people, 250 cops, 145 arrest
- 1 cop per 140 people
- 1.72 cops per arrest
- 1 arrest per 241 attendees
- How much $ from fines for the City of Madison?
- 34,300 entry tickets distributed, of which 2,300 were complimentary for people who live or work on the street
- $160,000 for the City of Madison to cover the following costs:
- Police Department
- Equipment Rental $22,800 ($16,500 Lights, $6,300 Sound system)
- Facility Rental $18,968 ($15,000 University Inn, $3,968 Lowell Hall)
- Work Supplies $11,500 (Camera installation, lights, earpieces, OC Gas, etc.)
- Office Equipment $2,500
- Engineering Division
- General Equipment Supplies: $1,500 (Rental of construction fencing)
- Equipment Rental: $1,500 (Purchase of construction barrels)
- Parks Division
- Portable Toilets: $2,200 (Rental of 20 @ $110/unit $2,200)
- Equipment Rental: $1,400 (Rental of ticketing trailers)
- Security Services: $3,342
- Printing $10,000 ($6,000 info. banners, etc.; $4,000 purchase and printing of tickets)
- Armored Car Charges: $840
- Credit Card fees: $2,500
- Crowd Control Equipment $600 (hand stamps and pads)
- Hourly Wages: $4,400 (Additional temporary staffing for ticket sales)
- Benefits: $502 (For temporary staffing for ticket sales @ 11.4% of wages)
- TE Other Inter-Departmental $1,140 (Electrical hook-up for ticketing trailer(s)
- Plus, police overtime and staff planning costs. Last year, police staffing costs were:
- Overtime and Benefits: $126,492.43
- Premium Pay: $2,786.07
- Straight Time and Benefits: $188,448.82
- Total: $317,727.32
- 70,000 less attendees than last year
- How much less money for the local economy?
- 1 cop per 100 people
- 2 cops per arrest
- 1 arrest per 195 attendees
- How much $ from fines for the City of Madison?
Friday 2005: 25,000 people, 400 officers, 197 arrests
- 1 cop per 62 people
- 2 cops per arrest
- 11 arrest per 126 attendees
- 1 cop per 250 people
- 4.58 cops per arrest
- 1 arrest per 396 attendees
- 1 cop per 156 people
- 1.78 cops per arrest
- 1 arrest per 278 attendees
Should it be by the standards that Mayor Cieslewicz sets out:
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz set three goals for this year's celebration, and all three appear to have been met, he said in a statement early Sunday. There was no pepper spray, there was less over-consumption and the city made some money - about $150,000 through the estimated 32,000 tickets sold.Or should it be by having less cops and less arrests per people in the crowd?
2006: Attendees were more likely to see a cop (1 cop per 100 people) as opposed to 2005 (1 cop per 156 people)
2006: Attendees were more likely to get arrested (1 arrest per 195 attendees) as opposed to 2005 (1 arrest per 278 attendees)
Perhaps its just a result of having more cops which means more arrests. Or maybe this year's event was had more trouble makers, but I suspect the former.
And perhaps, we should re-examine if those goals laid out by the Mayor were actually met:
1. Yes, there was no pepperspray this year, that was a good thing. However, it appears that there were still the same "riots" and chants of "Ole, Ole" at 1:43, as in previous years.
2. I'm not sure how they are measuring "less over-consumption" but according to Mike Hanson at 1:19 last night detox was filled.
3. And yes, while we made $160,000 (32,000 x $5, tho they're only reporting $150,000) on ticket sales, we likely made less money on arrests, so are less likely to have a positive fiscal bottome line. (Which, for the record, I count less numbers of arrests as a good thing, but am disturbed by the higher number of arrests per people in attendance.)
Anyways, there's alot that doesn't add up. And while I'm glad that there was no pepperspray this year, we still have significant problems before us . . . because the City of Madison can't continue to sponsor this event and there isn't enough money to be made for someone else to do it unless the City heavily subsidizes it or we use significantly less police officers.
Read more!
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Game Halloween: 68 to 0
That's right, in this game the "excited" police are at 68, civil liberties at Zero.
I wonder how that compares to downtown arrests on a typical weekend?
One thing for sure the 200 cops in the State St. area were unnecessary on Friday night. By most accounts on Kristian's live-blog of last night and from folks I talked to who were there, the police nearly outnumbered the bar-going crowd for much of the evening.
I'm surprised there isn't a taxpayer revolt due to the City's ridiculous planning for this event. For tonight, only 15,000 tickets have been sold, and yet there are plans for 250 police plus private security. It appears these silly plans have driven the partiers into the downtown neighborhoods for houseparties - and that was definitely true on my block last night.
And the police continue with their silly statements . . .
Wray said he was optimistic that tonight's celebration, with the public's cooperation, would be a "good balance of safety and fun."
Um . . .was Friday night really a good balance? Or overkill?
p.s. 200 cops for 10,000 people is 1 cop per 50 people.
Read more!
I wonder how that compares to downtown arrests on a typical weekend?
One thing for sure the 200 cops in the State St. area were unnecessary on Friday night. By most accounts on Kristian's live-blog of last night and from folks I talked to who were there, the police nearly outnumbered the bar-going crowd for much of the evening.
I'm surprised there isn't a taxpayer revolt due to the City's ridiculous planning for this event. For tonight, only 15,000 tickets have been sold, and yet there are plans for 250 police plus private security. It appears these silly plans have driven the partiers into the downtown neighborhoods for houseparties - and that was definitely true on my block last night.
And the police continue with their silly statements . . .
Wray said he was optimistic that tonight's celebration, with the public's cooperation, would be a "good balance of safety and fun."
Um . . .was Friday night really a good balance? Or overkill?
p.s. 200 cops for 10,000 people is 1 cop per 50 people.
Read more!
Friday, October 27, 2006
A reason to be afraid this Halloween weekend?
Reading the WSJ is always a scary experience, but this morning, it was particularly scary . . .
Mostly, I was surprised by this statement about the Halloween weekend coming from the Public Information Officer for the City of Madison:
Play ball? Is this a game? Are they trying to defeat the other team? I wonder how hard they're willing to play and if they'll try to win at all costs?
Sorry, but that's a really crappy way to describe the police department attitude going into this controversial weekend. Perhaps is was a simple mistake . . . but I'm afraid it reveals a more disturbing truth . . .
Read more!
Mostly, I was surprised by this statement about the Halloween weekend coming from the Public Information Officer for the City of Madison:
"We're excited about it," Madison police spokesman Mike Hanson said Thursday. "This is something we have planned for so many months, and now it's time to play ball."
Play ball? Is this a game? Are they trying to defeat the other team? I wonder how hard they're willing to play and if they'll try to win at all costs?
Sorry, but that's a really crappy way to describe the police department attitude going into this controversial weekend. Perhaps is was a simple mistake . . . but I'm afraid it reveals a more disturbing truth . . .
Read more!
I didn't see that in the Halloween Budget!
Plasma screen tvs for the police department?
Where was that in the budget?
Watching channel 3 this morning I learned that the police department has a newly remodeled and refurbished command center for Halloween . . . did we approve that? Plasma screen tvs? Tell me it isn't so.
Read more!
Where was that in the budget?
Watching channel 3 this morning I learned that the police department has a newly remodeled and refurbished command center for Halloween . . . did we approve that? Plasma screen tvs? Tell me it isn't so.
Read more!
Revised TIF policy - will it take 3 years, or more?
Q: How long could it possibly take for the City of Madison to pass revisions to the TIF policy?
A: An unbelieveably long time.
This is embarrassing.
Fall 2004 - Board of Estimates forms a subcommittee of Alds. Olson, Konkel and Onken to make recommendations for revisions to the TIF policy.
1/24/05 - BOE Subcommittee update to BOE
2/1/05 - Council approves $2.5M TIF for the SuperSaver site near Allied Drive
3/15/05 - Council approves $2.3M TIF for Monroe Commons
4/19/05 - Ald. Onken retires from the Common Council and has to be reappointed as a citizen to finish our work.
- TID #34 created and project plan approved (Covance)
5/17/05 - Council approves up to $2.4M in TIF for public improvements in TID #34 for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, street reconstruction and new street and sidewalk construction.
6/29/05 - Board of Estimates submits its report on recommended changes - STILL HAS NOT BEEN ACTED ON
7/5/05 - Council approves TID #35 (Todd Drive)
7/19/05 - Council approves $4.3M TIF for Capital West (Randy Alexander)
9/6/2005 - Council denies Gorman TIF for 800 E Washington
9/6/05 - Council approves TID #36 (E Washington Capital Gateway)
9/7/06 - Housing Committee recommends approval of the BOE subcommittee report
- Economic Development Commission recommends approval of the BOE subcommittee report
9/20/05 - Mayor introduces change to 10% set aside committee process - STILL HAS NOT BEEN ACTED ON
9/20/05 - Council approves $100,000 of TIF (amended version here) for consultants for Allied Drive
11/7/05 - Plan Commission passes BOE subcommittee report - WAITING FOR BOARD OF ESTIMATES TO ACT ON THE REPORT
3/7/06 - Council approves $40,000 of TIF for planning for the BioAg Gateway
3/29/06 - Due to lack of action, Konkel, Verveer and Olson introduce resolution to adopt procedural recommendations of the BOE subcommittee report - PASSED 5/2/06 WITH REPORT DUE ON JULY 11
4/4/06 - Council approves $200,000 of TIF for Brittingham Boat House
4/18/06 - Council approves $5.8M TIF to buy Hauk property in Allied Drive
4/25/06 - $2M TIF for Landmark Gate introduced - NO FINAL ACTION
5/16/06 - Council approves $3M TIF for University Square
7/18/06 - Amendment to TID #32 (State St.)
- Creation of TID #37 (Union Corners)
- Council approves $130,000 TIF for TJK Properties
- TIF policy on process finally drafted and introduced to the council
9/5/06 - Council amends TID #29 project plan (Allied Drive)
9/06/06 - Economic Development Commission recommends approval of TIF process resolution
9/18/06 - Plan Commission recommends approval of TIF process resolution
10/3/06 - Council approves yet another committee to discuss TIF - this one is supposed to focus on the policy recommendations of the report of the BOE subcommittee from June 2005.
So where are we at? Since recommendations for changes have been made several million dollars of TIF have been approved and several TIF districts have been created. Hopefully the BOE will take up the policy recommendations of the June 2005 report on Monday and they will pass it so that the council can pass it on November 7th and then the committee that is being formed (citizens, alders) can work on additional policy recommendations in the June 2005 report. Apparently, the committee is supposed to report back to the council by August 2007. Over 2 years after the last report . . . this is absurd. You'd think someone didn't want to make any improvements to our TIF policies!?
Read more!
A: An unbelieveably long time.
This is embarrassing.
Fall 2004 - Board of Estimates forms a subcommittee of Alds. Olson, Konkel and Onken to make recommendations for revisions to the TIF policy.
1/24/05 - BOE Subcommittee update to BOE
2/1/05 - Council approves $2.5M TIF for the SuperSaver site near Allied Drive
3/15/05 - Council approves $2.3M TIF for Monroe Commons
4/19/05 - Ald. Onken retires from the Common Council and has to be reappointed as a citizen to finish our work.
- TID #34 created and project plan approved (Covance)
5/17/05 - Council approves up to $2.4M in TIF for public improvements in TID #34 for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, street reconstruction and new street and sidewalk construction.
6/29/05 - Board of Estimates submits its report on recommended changes - STILL HAS NOT BEEN ACTED ON
7/5/05 - Council approves TID #35 (Todd Drive)
7/19/05 - Council approves $4.3M TIF for Capital West (Randy Alexander)
9/6/2005 - Council denies Gorman TIF for 800 E Washington
9/6/05 - Council approves TID #36 (E Washington Capital Gateway)
9/7/06 - Housing Committee recommends approval of the BOE subcommittee report
- Economic Development Commission recommends approval of the BOE subcommittee report
9/20/05 - Mayor introduces change to 10% set aside committee process - STILL HAS NOT BEEN ACTED ON
9/20/05 - Council approves $100,000 of TIF (amended version here) for consultants for Allied Drive
11/7/05 - Plan Commission passes BOE subcommittee report - WAITING FOR BOARD OF ESTIMATES TO ACT ON THE REPORT
3/7/06 - Council approves $40,000 of TIF for planning for the BioAg Gateway
3/29/06 - Due to lack of action, Konkel, Verveer and Olson introduce resolution to adopt procedural recommendations of the BOE subcommittee report - PASSED 5/2/06 WITH REPORT DUE ON JULY 11
4/4/06 - Council approves $200,000 of TIF for Brittingham Boat House
4/18/06 - Council approves $5.8M TIF to buy Hauk property in Allied Drive
4/25/06 - $2M TIF for Landmark Gate introduced - NO FINAL ACTION
5/16/06 - Council approves $3M TIF for University Square
7/18/06 - Amendment to TID #32 (State St.)
- Creation of TID #37 (Union Corners)
- Council approves $130,000 TIF for TJK Properties
- TIF policy on process finally drafted and introduced to the council
9/5/06 - Council amends TID #29 project plan (Allied Drive)
9/06/06 - Economic Development Commission recommends approval of TIF process resolution
9/18/06 - Plan Commission recommends approval of TIF process resolution
10/3/06 - Council approves yet another committee to discuss TIF - this one is supposed to focus on the policy recommendations of the report of the BOE subcommittee from June 2005.
So where are we at? Since recommendations for changes have been made several million dollars of TIF have been approved and several TIF districts have been created. Hopefully the BOE will take up the policy recommendations of the June 2005 report on Monday and they will pass it so that the council can pass it on November 7th and then the committee that is being formed (citizens, alders) can work on additional policy recommendations in the June 2005 report. Apparently, the committee is supposed to report back to the council by August 2007. Over 2 years after the last report . . . this is absurd. You'd think someone didn't want to make any improvements to our TIF policies!?
Read more!
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Hype about Neighborhood Conservation Districts
You'd think that the recent proposal for Neighborhood Conservation Districts said that nothing could ever be demolished or built anywhere in the City again, ever. But if you read it, you'd find otherwise. Don't believe the hype! Or everything that someone says in the Wisconsin State Journal.
Residents and taxpayers and supporters in the City of Madison from multiple neighborhoods waited until 11:00 (5.5 hours) to address the Plan Commission and support the Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance. They had the following to say:
1. Conservation Districts have been discussed multiple times and the Comprehensive Plan that was passed by the City says that we should pursue this ordinance. Conservation districts also are in other plans like the East Rail Corridor Plan and were part of the agreement to approve the E. Washington TIF District (Capital Gateway). This has been a long time coming and is in high demand with many different neighborhoods.
2. They understand this isn't going to prevent the demolition of houses. What it may prevent in some cases, depending upon the characteristics that are trying to be preserved, is the assemblage of many smaller homes to build a huge building that is out of scale and character with the neighborhood. This will not be the case in all Neighborhood Conservation Districts, but it certainly will be in others.
3. This will help send a message to developers about where neighborhoods want to redevelop and change and where they want to preserve a certain character of the neighborhood, instead of doing it on a case-by-case basis.
4. Zoning is kind of irrelevant in the downtown areas because it's so outdated and everything becomes a PUD, and this would help direct the PUDs.
5. Neighborhood plans are hard to defend. Often they are not specific enough to address individual properties or areas of a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Conservation District is a more specific layer to the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Plan. These overlay distrcits outline more specifics to the goals set out in the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood plans. They help define things like "compatible scale".
6. This will help the City economically. One of our biggest assets is the strength of our neighborhoods and the quality of life that we have. That is due in part to the design and composition of our neighborhoods.
7. We can't wait for the downtown masterplan because this effects much more than the downtown, this is a city-wide ordinance and many other neighborhoods are interested as well.
8. If this is drafted correctly it may benefit developers if standards are clearly laid out. It should lead to predictability. This will be a useful tool to help facilitate the process between the neighborhood and the developer. This is a proactive approach to how we design and plan our urban environment instead of reacting to development plans.
9. This isn't a radical notion, its done elsewhere. (Sorry, I missed the list of places that they gave as an example.)
10. This will not stop development. What it will do is preserve the character of neighborhoods. We are trying to create "new urbanism" in cornfield (my word, not theirs!) development, but we have "old urbanism" that currently exists and we should work to keep it where we can.
Alder Olson had some additional comments and observations:
1. The Landmark ordinance is simple – and yet that ordinance adopted in 1973 has created 5 historic districts – that have served Madison very well. There's "a little bit of hysteria" about this proposal and it won't lead to a blanketing of the city with neighborhood conservation districts. Neighborhood conservation districts are for unique areas of the City.
2. In order for a Neighborhood Conservation District to move forward, its going to have to get neighborhood support before an alder will be able to convince the staff and council to go through the efforts to get a study for the area.
Alder Verveer also added:
1. This discussion has been going on ever since the mid-1990's and its over a dozen years in the making.
2. If something like this were in place, we wouldn't have the problems we had with a recent development in his district on Dayton St. (See the end of this article.)
3. This should lead to more predictability. A developer won't waste time assembling property only to be turned down. This is a way for neighborhoods to make their intentions known prior to a development project and prevent "unpleasant surprises".
4. The point of this ordinance was to "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
Some of issues raised by the three professional paid lobbyists for the REALTORS, Smart Growth Madison Inc. and Downtown Madison Inc., all opponents of this proposal are as follows:
1. Unlike Historic Districts, politicians not professionals will make this decision.
BK Response: Yes, you are correct, it's called guhv-ern-muh
nt. That is how these types of decisions get made. Politicians are elected to represent the people. However, in this case, we will be requiring a "Neighborhood Conservation Study" that will be done by professionals to guide the decision-making of the elected officials. (The great irony here is that the person grumbling about the dumb ol' politicians is a former politician himself!) FYI - The entire 2nd page of the ordinance is currently devoted to discussing that study.
2. Property owners should have a say in if a Neighborhood Conservation District can happen or not. In fact, they should have a vote.
BK Response: See number one. Additionally, property owners do have the chance to influence the process; this isn't something that is decided by some rogue alder to screw some property owner. (I'm repeating the snarky tone of these comments, not the actual words) This is something the alder and the neighborhood work together on to decide to propose. Then you have to convince the city staff to put time and effort into the study. Then the plan commission and the entire council has to vote to approve the overlay district at which point there will be additional public hearings.
3. The process is unclear. How does the request originate?
BK Response: This can originate from a property owner, the neighborhood, the alder, the staff or as a result of planning activities. Any which way, it will probably rely on city staff or the alder taking the initiative to help make it happen.
4. City staff will be the "arbiters" of what the characteristics of the neighborhood will be.
BK Response: Wait a minute, the same guy who doesn't want the politicians to decide now doesn't want the professional staff to decide either? Additionally, remember this takes a study, then an ordinance, which means it has to go through the City Committee process. And most developments still will need to get city approval through the public process.
5. 11 alders can "freeze" a neighborhood.
BK Response: Huh? 11 alders can do alot of different things, however, 2 years later, 11 alders can decide something different. These decisions are like any city decision, the can be repealed or changed when the votes change. Again, that's how it works. I'm curious what the alternative might be? Additionally, the neighborhood won't be "frozen" in that development can still occur; this just determines what the characteristics of that development might be. It could be something that has very little impact on the development but maybe requires benches and bus stops and pedestrian scale lighting.
6. This will prevent affordable housing.
BK Response. Hmmm . . . so ripping down rental housing and building high end condos is a good plan for affordable housing? As far as I can tell, everything new being built costs more than what currently exists. Well, except for that little ol' IZ thing, but if the court finds that IZ doesn't apply to rentals, we're not going to create alot of truly affordable housing.
7. This is a way to "nibble away" at neighborhood plans and the comprehensive plan.
BK Response: Actually, it is just the opposite. This is a way to add clarity to the comprehensive plan which is quite general and more clearly defined in the neighborhood plans.
8. There is no need. We have a process with checks in place.
BK Response: See Verveer's comment above about how it didn't work so well with the Dayton St. project.
9. Neighborhood boundaries aren't appropriate for making these decisions because the characteristics don't correspond with the neighborhood boundaries.
BK Response: Um . . . you are right, but nothing in the ordinance refers to neighborhood boundaries. I'm not sure where this notion came from, but this ordinance is likely to apply to small portions of a neighborhood that are unique in some kind of way.
10. This belongs in the Comprehensive Plan. This needs to be in the comprehensive plan before you pass a zoning code revision.
BK Response: Um . . . it is. We said that the City should adopt a Neighborhood Conservation District Plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
11. This should apply to commercial areas as well.
BK Response: Um . . . it does. Nothing in the ordinance says this is residential only.
12. We should do the downtown plan before we pass this ordinance.
BK Response: The Downtown plan is a small piece of the city and this can apply to other areas that shouldn't have to wait.
13. The ordinance is too vague.
BK Response: And so is this comment. As usual, I'd like to see a proposal about what is too vague and how they would change it. (I won't hold my breath.)
14. We already have too many restrictions on development and we should wait for some of our newer policies (IZ) or policies in progress of revision (TIF, demolition permits, zoning code re-write) to be done before we do this.
BK response: It will be years before the zoning code re-write is done. TIF doesn't have anything to do with the character of what is developed, its a financing tool. This isn't something that has to wait; this is something that should apply to small, very localized areas.
16. We need to clearly define what characteristics make something unique.
BK response: Um . . . isn't that the point of something being unique?
Unique:
1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.
6. the embodiment of unique characteristics; the only specimen of a given kind: The unique is also the improbable.
17. There are too many questions to move forward. (examples given: Can this be repealed? Can neighborhoods ask for this to be over-ridden? Does it have to overlap with the neighborhood boundaries?)
BK Response: And there are plenty of answers to those questions. Yes it can be repealed. Neighborhoods can lead the charge to change a district if it no longer meets their needs. And no, it doesn't have to and probably won't overlap with neighborhood boundaries. (Where did they get that idea?)
18. Areas where there are already other restrictions in place (historic districts, capital height limits, etc.) should be exempt.
BK Response: Why? This makes no sense. A capital height limit doesn't address setbacks and building features and streetscape criteria.
Sorry if I got a little snarky. It's just that some of these arguments are pretty ridiculous. That's not to say that there aren't some improvements that can be made to the ordinance proposal and hopefully we can meet and educate the misinformed and address some of the questions that were raised. When it comes down to it tho, it seems the "process" issue is the one that needs to be addressed, not the content of the ordinance. It seems that education and a careful reading of the page and a half ordinance clears up most of the concerns.
Note: The plan commission referred this for 45 days to talk to the lobbyists who had these concerns.
Read more!
Residents and taxpayers and supporters in the City of Madison from multiple neighborhoods waited until 11:00 (5.5 hours) to address the Plan Commission and support the Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance. They had the following to say:
1. Conservation Districts have been discussed multiple times and the Comprehensive Plan that was passed by the City says that we should pursue this ordinance. Conservation districts also are in other plans like the East Rail Corridor Plan and were part of the agreement to approve the E. Washington TIF District (Capital Gateway). This has been a long time coming and is in high demand with many different neighborhoods.
2. They understand this isn't going to prevent the demolition of houses. What it may prevent in some cases, depending upon the characteristics that are trying to be preserved, is the assemblage of many smaller homes to build a huge building that is out of scale and character with the neighborhood. This will not be the case in all Neighborhood Conservation Districts, but it certainly will be in others.
3. This will help send a message to developers about where neighborhoods want to redevelop and change and where they want to preserve a certain character of the neighborhood, instead of doing it on a case-by-case basis.
4. Zoning is kind of irrelevant in the downtown areas because it's so outdated and everything becomes a PUD, and this would help direct the PUDs.
5. Neighborhood plans are hard to defend. Often they are not specific enough to address individual properties or areas of a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Conservation District is a more specific layer to the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Plan. These overlay distrcits outline more specifics to the goals set out in the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood plans. They help define things like "compatible scale".
6. This will help the City economically. One of our biggest assets is the strength of our neighborhoods and the quality of life that we have. That is due in part to the design and composition of our neighborhoods.
7. We can't wait for the downtown masterplan because this effects much more than the downtown, this is a city-wide ordinance and many other neighborhoods are interested as well.
8. If this is drafted correctly it may benefit developers if standards are clearly laid out. It should lead to predictability. This will be a useful tool to help facilitate the process between the neighborhood and the developer. This is a proactive approach to how we design and plan our urban environment instead of reacting to development plans.
9. This isn't a radical notion, its done elsewhere. (Sorry, I missed the list of places that they gave as an example.)
10. This will not stop development. What it will do is preserve the character of neighborhoods. We are trying to create "new urbanism" in cornfield (my word, not theirs!) development, but we have "old urbanism" that currently exists and we should work to keep it where we can.
Alder Olson had some additional comments and observations:
1. The Landmark ordinance is simple – and yet that ordinance adopted in 1973 has created 5 historic districts – that have served Madison very well. There's "a little bit of hysteria" about this proposal and it won't lead to a blanketing of the city with neighborhood conservation districts. Neighborhood conservation districts are for unique areas of the City.
2. In order for a Neighborhood Conservation District to move forward, its going to have to get neighborhood support before an alder will be able to convince the staff and council to go through the efforts to get a study for the area.
Alder Verveer also added:
1. This discussion has been going on ever since the mid-1990's and its over a dozen years in the making.
2. If something like this were in place, we wouldn't have the problems we had with a recent development in his district on Dayton St. (See the end of this article.)
3. This should lead to more predictability. A developer won't waste time assembling property only to be turned down. This is a way for neighborhoods to make their intentions known prior to a development project and prevent "unpleasant surprises".
4. The point of this ordinance was to "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
Some of issues raised by the three professional paid lobbyists for the REALTORS, Smart Growth Madison Inc. and Downtown Madison Inc., all opponents of this proposal are as follows:
1. Unlike Historic Districts, politicians not professionals will make this decision.
BK Response: Yes, you are correct, it's called guhv-ern-muh
nt. That is how these types of decisions get made. Politicians are elected to represent the people. However, in this case, we will be requiring a "Neighborhood Conservation Study" that will be done by professionals to guide the decision-making of the elected officials. (The great irony here is that the person grumbling about the dumb ol' politicians is a former politician himself!) FYI - The entire 2nd page of the ordinance is currently devoted to discussing that study.2. Property owners should have a say in if a Neighborhood Conservation District can happen or not. In fact, they should have a vote.
BK Response: See number one. Additionally, property owners do have the chance to influence the process; this isn't something that is decided by some rogue alder to screw some property owner. (I'm repeating the snarky tone of these comments, not the actual words) This is something the alder and the neighborhood work together on to decide to propose. Then you have to convince the city staff to put time and effort into the study. Then the plan commission and the entire council has to vote to approve the overlay district at which point there will be additional public hearings.
3. The process is unclear. How does the request originate?
BK Response: This can originate from a property owner, the neighborhood, the alder, the staff or as a result of planning activities. Any which way, it will probably rely on city staff or the alder taking the initiative to help make it happen.
4. City staff will be the "arbiters" of what the characteristics of the neighborhood will be.
BK Response: Wait a minute, the same guy who doesn't want the politicians to decide now doesn't want the professional staff to decide either? Additionally, remember this takes a study, then an ordinance, which means it has to go through the City Committee process. And most developments still will need to get city approval through the public process.
5. 11 alders can "freeze" a neighborhood.
BK Response: Huh? 11 alders can do alot of different things, however, 2 years later, 11 alders can decide something different. These decisions are like any city decision, the can be repealed or changed when the votes change. Again, that's how it works. I'm curious what the alternative might be? Additionally, the neighborhood won't be "frozen" in that development can still occur; this just determines what the characteristics of that development might be. It could be something that has very little impact on the development but maybe requires benches and bus stops and pedestrian scale lighting.
6. This will prevent affordable housing.
BK Response. Hmmm . . . so ripping down rental housing and building high end condos is a good plan for affordable housing? As far as I can tell, everything new being built costs more than what currently exists. Well, except for that little ol' IZ thing, but if the court finds that IZ doesn't apply to rentals, we're not going to create alot of truly affordable housing.
7. This is a way to "nibble away" at neighborhood plans and the comprehensive plan.
BK Response: Actually, it is just the opposite. This is a way to add clarity to the comprehensive plan which is quite general and more clearly defined in the neighborhood plans.
8. There is no need. We have a process with checks in place.
BK Response: See Verveer's comment above about how it didn't work so well with the Dayton St. project.
9. Neighborhood boundaries aren't appropriate for making these decisions because the characteristics don't correspond with the neighborhood boundaries.
BK Response: Um . . . you are right, but nothing in the ordinance refers to neighborhood boundaries. I'm not sure where this notion came from, but this ordinance is likely to apply to small portions of a neighborhood that are unique in some kind of way.
10. This belongs in the Comprehensive Plan. This needs to be in the comprehensive plan before you pass a zoning code revision.
BK Response: Um . . . it is. We said that the City should adopt a Neighborhood Conservation District Plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
11. This should apply to commercial areas as well.
BK Response: Um . . . it does. Nothing in the ordinance says this is residential only.
12. We should do the downtown plan before we pass this ordinance.
BK Response: The Downtown plan is a small piece of the city and this can apply to other areas that shouldn't have to wait.
13. The ordinance is too vague.
BK Response: And so is this comment. As usual, I'd like to see a proposal about what is too vague and how they would change it. (I won't hold my breath.)
14. We already have too many restrictions on development and we should wait for some of our newer policies (IZ) or policies in progress of revision (TIF, demolition permits, zoning code re-write) to be done before we do this.
BK response: It will be years before the zoning code re-write is done. TIF doesn't have anything to do with the character of what is developed, its a financing tool. This isn't something that has to wait; this is something that should apply to small, very localized areas.
16. We need to clearly define what characteristics make something unique.
BK response: Um . . . isn't that the point of something being unique?
Unique:
1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.
6. the embodiment of unique characteristics; the only specimen of a given kind: The unique is also the improbable.
17. There are too many questions to move forward. (examples given: Can this be repealed? Can neighborhoods ask for this to be over-ridden? Does it have to overlap with the neighborhood boundaries?)
BK Response: And there are plenty of answers to those questions. Yes it can be repealed. Neighborhoods can lead the charge to change a district if it no longer meets their needs. And no, it doesn't have to and probably won't overlap with neighborhood boundaries. (Where did they get that idea?)
18. Areas where there are already other restrictions in place (historic districts, capital height limits, etc.) should be exempt.
BK Response: Why? This makes no sense. A capital height limit doesn't address setbacks and building features and streetscape criteria.
Sorry if I got a little snarky. It's just that some of these arguments are pretty ridiculous. That's not to say that there aren't some improvements that can be made to the ordinance proposal and hopefully we can meet and educate the misinformed and address some of the questions that were raised. When it comes down to it tho, it seems the "process" issue is the one that needs to be addressed, not the content of the ordinance. It seems that education and a careful reading of the page and a half ordinance clears up most of the concerns.
Note: The plan commission referred this for 45 days to talk to the lobbyists who had these concerns.
Read more!
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Money Making or Good Citizenship Opportunity
I've been asked to help spread the word, so here it is!
Election Officials Sought for Downtown and Madison's South Side
The Madison City Clerk's Office is seeking Madison residents to serve as Election Officials at polling locations downtown and on the city's south side for the November 7 General Election.
Election Officials will set up the polling place, check-in voters, and facilitate Election Day Registration.
To qualify to work as an Election Official, you must be an eligible voter--a United States Citizen and a Madison resident age 18 or older. Three shifts are available:
- Morning Shift (6:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
- Afternoon Shift (1:30 p.m. until paperwork is complete after the polls close)
- Full Day (6:15 a.m. until paperwork is complete after the polls close)
Anyone interested in serving as an Election Official may submit an application online. The City Clerk's Office will call applicants to fill the remaining vacancies.
Read more!
Election Officials Sought for Downtown and Madison's South Side
The Madison City Clerk's Office is seeking Madison residents to serve as Election Officials at polling locations downtown and on the city's south side for the November 7 General Election.
Election Officials will set up the polling place, check-in voters, and facilitate Election Day Registration.
To qualify to work as an Election Official, you must be an eligible voter--a United States Citizen and a Madison resident age 18 or older. Three shifts are available:
- Morning Shift (6:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
- Afternoon Shift (1:30 p.m. until paperwork is complete after the polls close)
- Full Day (6:15 a.m. until paperwork is complete after the polls close)
Anyone interested in serving as an Election Official may submit an application online. The City Clerk's Office will call applicants to fill the remaining vacancies.
Read more!
Nothing is Ever Easy!
No good deed goes unpunished. Last night, I tried to be "pro-business" and move reconsideration of a demolition permit. Silly me.
Last week at the plan commission we had three demolitions before us. I was troubled by the fact that the information we had before us in the written materials was not sufficient to find that we met our standards, so I asked the applicants to supplement the information through their oral presentations.
We approved two (one, two) of the demolitions and denied a third. By all accounts, despite my efforts to draw information out of the applicant, they just did a lousy job with their presentation and we couldn't find that the standards for demolition had been met.
CONTROVERSY NUMBER ONE: Was a motion to reconsider in order?
I'd argue yes. Last June we passed a resolution saying that boards, committees and commission would follow MGO 2.21 and a motion for reconsideration could be made at the meeting where a decision was made or at the following meeting.
First off, the chair thought I needed to make a motion to recind because that is what is required in Robert's Rules of Order, but our rules say that we follow Robert's Rules of Order unless we pass something that addresses the issue and then we follow our own rules. That's typical of many bodies. Since our rules indicate that a motion to "reconsider" is appropriate, that motion would be in order.
Second, at least one Assistant City Attorney and some staff think that the motion is out of order because it did not appear on the agenda. I can tell you that has not been the practice in the past. But with revolving City Attorney's no decision is ever final. So I await an official decision from the top. Meanwhile, I requested the motion to reconsider in time for it to appear on the agenda, however, the staff did not amend the agenda. Should a member of the body's efforts be thrwarted because a staff member doesn't act on time? That doesn't make sense.
CONTROVERSY NUMBER TWO: Just cuz someone made a lousy presentation, should they get a do over?
Well, I feel like I'm on a little shakier ground on that count, but here's my argument.
A) The applicant could appeal our decision, go to the Common Council, do the presentation that they should have done in the first place and win the argument and get a 2/3 vote by the council, making the plan commission look like fools and giving the WSJ and all the critics a huge "I told you so" moment; or
B) The applicant could be forced to re-apply, pay an extra $500 and waste another 6 weeks.
I made the second argument at the plan commission, but not the first. I tried to be "pro-business" and not create unnecessary obstacles to getting a good decision. I'm not certain that the decision will be any different, but I'd like to be sure and have the correct information before us and know that we made a good decision and then have the applicant go through the motions in A) above and have a good defense of our actions. I think this is the right thing to do, lousy presentation notwithstanding.
The motion to reconsider barely passed 3 - 2. Stay tuned to find out if I was successful in my efforts or if the City Attorney finds that I was out of order . . .
Sigh. Nothing is easy.
Read more!
Last week at the plan commission we had three demolitions before us. I was troubled by the fact that the information we had before us in the written materials was not sufficient to find that we met our standards, so I asked the applicants to supplement the information through their oral presentations.
We approved two (one, two) of the demolitions and denied a third. By all accounts, despite my efforts to draw information out of the applicant, they just did a lousy job with their presentation and we couldn't find that the standards for demolition had been met.
CONTROVERSY NUMBER ONE: Was a motion to reconsider in order?
I'd argue yes. Last June we passed a resolution saying that boards, committees and commission would follow MGO 2.21 and a motion for reconsideration could be made at the meeting where a decision was made or at the following meeting.
First off, the chair thought I needed to make a motion to recind because that is what is required in Robert's Rules of Order, but our rules say that we follow Robert's Rules of Order unless we pass something that addresses the issue and then we follow our own rules. That's typical of many bodies. Since our rules indicate that a motion to "reconsider" is appropriate, that motion would be in order.
Second, at least one Assistant City Attorney and some staff think that the motion is out of order because it did not appear on the agenda. I can tell you that has not been the practice in the past. But with revolving City Attorney's no decision is ever final. So I await an official decision from the top. Meanwhile, I requested the motion to reconsider in time for it to appear on the agenda, however, the staff did not amend the agenda. Should a member of the body's efforts be thrwarted because a staff member doesn't act on time? That doesn't make sense.
CONTROVERSY NUMBER TWO: Just cuz someone made a lousy presentation, should they get a do over?
Well, I feel like I'm on a little shakier ground on that count, but here's my argument.
A) The applicant could appeal our decision, go to the Common Council, do the presentation that they should have done in the first place and win the argument and get a 2/3 vote by the council, making the plan commission look like fools and giving the WSJ and all the critics a huge "I told you so" moment; or
B) The applicant could be forced to re-apply, pay an extra $500 and waste another 6 weeks.
I made the second argument at the plan commission, but not the first. I tried to be "pro-business" and not create unnecessary obstacles to getting a good decision. I'm not certain that the decision will be any different, but I'd like to be sure and have the correct information before us and know that we made a good decision and then have the applicant go through the motions in A) above and have a good defense of our actions. I think this is the right thing to do, lousy presentation notwithstanding.
The motion to reconsider barely passed 3 - 2. Stay tuned to find out if I was successful in my efforts or if the City Attorney finds that I was out of order . . .
Sigh. Nothing is easy.
Read more!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Anti-business. Or, Anti-business?
It's funny how you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
Tonight, at the plan commission we will be debating the project at 301 S. Livingston. If we vote for the project, we'll be anti-business because we are not preserving areas of the City for job creation. If we vote against the project, we'll be anti-business because we are standing in the way of development.
This project is complicated in that it has competing planning efforts. The East Rail Corridor Plan and a Willy Street BUILD plan conflict with each other. We, and the developer, have known this for quite some time and the Plan Commission and Council voted to follow what was outlined in the East Rail Corridor Plan and adopted it as part of the Comprehensive Plan, but the developer moved forward with his project that did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
It's also complicated by the fact that MG&E was one of the main groups opposed to having residential, as opposed to commercial uses in this area, but they have now changed their mind. (Staff wonders if it has anything to do with plans to change from coal to natural gas at that location.)
The staff report isn't so helpful in helping us reach a conclusion, but their observations seem to be:
- 6 studios, 27 one-bedroom and six 2-bedroom units doesn't provide housing for families
- there are no common areas or amenities in the building
- there should be a lobby or waiting area in the entrance to the building
- landscaping is minimal
- they have landscaping and bike parking in the right-of-way
- the project is "far from being primarily an employment land use" because only 6,600 sq ft of non-residential space (20%)
- the area facing the internal driveway appears "somewhat grim"
- "There remains a concern that in the present market, even allowing consideration of predominantly residential projects at locations recommended for employment uses might encourage developers to look to those sites as residential devleoperment opportunities, rather than work to help generate and serve a demand for business development; and that this might eventually limit future employment growth in one of the few redevelopment locations where substantial employument growth is still possible by using up the most pomising sites."
The other thing is that the developer has apparently performed a miracle. Without any help from the City they are saying that they will have 70% of their units available at 60% AMI. Of course, since this is rental the IZ ordinance doesn't apply and we have no way of making sure that this promise is kept.
So, how would you vote? Would you be anti-business, or anti-business?
Read more!
Tonight, at the plan commission we will be debating the project at 301 S. Livingston. If we vote for the project, we'll be anti-business because we are not preserving areas of the City for job creation. If we vote against the project, we'll be anti-business because we are standing in the way of development.
This project is complicated in that it has competing planning efforts. The East Rail Corridor Plan and a Willy Street BUILD plan conflict with each other. We, and the developer, have known this for quite some time and the Plan Commission and Council voted to follow what was outlined in the East Rail Corridor Plan and adopted it as part of the Comprehensive Plan, but the developer moved forward with his project that did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
It's also complicated by the fact that MG&E was one of the main groups opposed to having residential, as opposed to commercial uses in this area, but they have now changed their mind. (Staff wonders if it has anything to do with plans to change from coal to natural gas at that location.)
The staff report isn't so helpful in helping us reach a conclusion, but their observations seem to be:
- 6 studios, 27 one-bedroom and six 2-bedroom units doesn't provide housing for families
- there are no common areas or amenities in the building
- there should be a lobby or waiting area in the entrance to the building
- landscaping is minimal
- they have landscaping and bike parking in the right-of-way
- the project is "far from being primarily an employment land use" because only 6,600 sq ft of non-residential space (20%)
- the area facing the internal driveway appears "somewhat grim"
- "There remains a concern that in the present market, even allowing consideration of predominantly residential projects at locations recommended for employment uses might encourage developers to look to those sites as residential devleoperment opportunities, rather than work to help generate and serve a demand for business development; and that this might eventually limit future employment growth in one of the few redevelopment locations where substantial employument growth is still possible by using up the most pomising sites."
The other thing is that the developer has apparently performed a miracle. Without any help from the City they are saying that they will have 70% of their units available at 60% AMI. Of course, since this is rental the IZ ordinance doesn't apply and we have no way of making sure that this promise is kept.
So, how would you vote? Would you be anti-business, or anti-business?
Read more!
Friday, October 20, 2006
Advertsing . . . and Fiscal Awareness
One of the latest mantras by the band of merry moderates on the City Council is that we need advertising to fill the gaps in revenue to help Madison Metro. Well, there's a few flaws with that . . .
First of all, remember all the hoopla 4 months ago about being able to raise $260,000 by starting a pilot program to have busses are fully wrapped in advertising. Well, its been 4 months and I haven't seen a fully wrapped bus yet. Have you?
Truth of the matter is, that advertising revenues for Madison Metro has been steadily declining. A recent report by Madison Metro says that income from advertising has declined as follows:
2001 - $284,420
2002 - $341,276
2003 - 390,405
2004 - 301,100
2005 - $169,112*
And part of this advertising revenue has to be paid to someone to install and remove the advertsing and sell the advertising. This costs the City $100,000 a year.
And at the same time, its interesting that while some council members act like we haven't been getting enough revenues from bus fares, the fares have gone up by $1M in the last 5 years:
2001 - $6.6M
2002 - $6.4M
2003 - $6.1M
2004 - $6.6M
2005 - $7.6M
But council members remain fixated on advertising that isn't performing the way they anticipated. Another example is that adverting in parking ramps isn't meeting its goals either. Last I checked with staff, we were supposed to raise $75,000 with our advertising in parking ramps, but we're only on track to make 82% of that or $62,000.
So, when the proposal came up for advertising on bus shelters, I felt like we were being sold another promise that wasn't going to be kept. These are proposals that might make folks feel good and give the illusion of "holding the line on taxes", but they aren't delivering they way they promised. Talk about having "fiscal awareness", these proposals are feel-good gimmicks that don't deliver and I think the public should be more aware of the fiscal impact of these proposals and rhetoric.
*Please see the report to interpret these numbers on your own. Seems that either in 2001 - 2004 these are not all advertising revenues or we should add $124,134 to this number.
Read more!
First of all, remember all the hoopla 4 months ago about being able to raise $260,000 by starting a pilot program to have busses are fully wrapped in advertising. Well, its been 4 months and I haven't seen a fully wrapped bus yet. Have you?
Truth of the matter is, that advertising revenues for Madison Metro has been steadily declining. A recent report by Madison Metro says that income from advertising has declined as follows:
2001 - $284,420
2002 - $341,276
2003 - 390,405
2004 - 301,100
2005 - $169,112*
And part of this advertising revenue has to be paid to someone to install and remove the advertsing and sell the advertising. This costs the City $100,000 a year.
And at the same time, its interesting that while some council members act like we haven't been getting enough revenues from bus fares, the fares have gone up by $1M in the last 5 years:
2001 - $6.6M
2002 - $6.4M
2003 - $6.1M
2004 - $6.6M
2005 - $7.6M
But council members remain fixated on advertising that isn't performing the way they anticipated. Another example is that adverting in parking ramps isn't meeting its goals either. Last I checked with staff, we were supposed to raise $75,000 with our advertising in parking ramps, but we're only on track to make 82% of that or $62,000.
So, when the proposal came up for advertising on bus shelters, I felt like we were being sold another promise that wasn't going to be kept. These are proposals that might make folks feel good and give the illusion of "holding the line on taxes", but they aren't delivering they way they promised. Talk about having "fiscal awareness", these proposals are feel-good gimmicks that don't deliver and I think the public should be more aware of the fiscal impact of these proposals and rhetoric.
*Please see the report to interpret these numbers on your own. Seems that either in 2001 - 2004 these are not all advertising revenues or we should add $124,134 to this number.
Read more!
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The War Against Neighborhoods
Last night at the Common Council meeting (live-blogged by Kristian at the Isthmus) a group of conservatives (I guess that's what you call them?) attempted to kill the City's Neighborhood Conference.
This is much of the same group of folks who wanted to get rid of Neighborhood Planning Councils during the 2004 budget and the 2005 budget.
At issue was the funding for the conference. This was a budget amendment so it required 15 votes to pass the council. Alder Brandon took the lead on this expressing concerns that someone was supposed to raise $45,000 in private funds and they only raised $9,000. I thought he said $45,000, but the fiscal note indicates that it should have been $35,500.
Personally, I take exception to sending staff or the Mayor's office out to raise private funds on behalf of the City. I think it raises ethical and procedural concerns. Additionally, if we're going to require fundraising, we should probably make it clear who is expected to do it . . . but I digress . . .
Anyways, because this was a 15 vote item and Ald. Van Rooy and Rosas were absent, just a few votes could have prevented the Neighborhood Conference from moving forward. The first vote we took Alds. Brandon, Compton, Sanborn and Skidmore voted "no", effectively killing the funding for the conference. There were a few quiet "nos" uttered and a "yes, under duress" from Alder Palm. Alder King subsequently changed his vote to "no" in order to reconsider the item.
We finished up a few items and then moved a 10 minute recess. After the 10 minute recess we reconsidered the item and the votes changed a little . . . hmmmmmmm. Ald. Brandon chose to leave the council meeting instead of vote and as he was leaving he was muttering something about people who "have no spines". Ald. Skidmore changed his "no" vote to "yes". Ald. Palm voted "yes, still under duress". So, despite the theatrics, we had our 15 votes and the Neighborhood Conference was allowed to go forward.
I don't get it. What is it that these Alders have against neighborhoods? Are they afraid that folks can get organized around issues that they care about and leaders will be established who later might run for Alder? Are they afraid that neighbors will fight for issues in their districts which the Alders are opposed to? What is to be feared about having strong neighborhoods and strong neighborhood leaders?
Read more!
This is much of the same group of folks who wanted to get rid of Neighborhood Planning Councils during the 2004 budget and the 2005 budget.
At issue was the funding for the conference. This was a budget amendment so it required 15 votes to pass the council. Alder Brandon took the lead on this expressing concerns that someone was supposed to raise $45,000 in private funds and they only raised $9,000. I thought he said $45,000, but the fiscal note indicates that it should have been $35,500.
Personally, I take exception to sending staff or the Mayor's office out to raise private funds on behalf of the City. I think it raises ethical and procedural concerns. Additionally, if we're going to require fundraising, we should probably make it clear who is expected to do it . . . but I digress . . .
Anyways, because this was a 15 vote item and Ald. Van Rooy and Rosas were absent, just a few votes could have prevented the Neighborhood Conference from moving forward. The first vote we took Alds. Brandon, Compton, Sanborn and Skidmore voted "no", effectively killing the funding for the conference. There were a few quiet "nos" uttered and a "yes, under duress" from Alder Palm. Alder King subsequently changed his vote to "no" in order to reconsider the item.
We finished up a few items and then moved a 10 minute recess. After the 10 minute recess we reconsidered the item and the votes changed a little . . . hmmmmmmm. Ald. Brandon chose to leave the council meeting instead of vote and as he was leaving he was muttering something about people who "have no spines". Ald. Skidmore changed his "no" vote to "yes". Ald. Palm voted "yes, still under duress". So, despite the theatrics, we had our 15 votes and the Neighborhood Conference was allowed to go forward.
I don't get it. What is it that these Alders have against neighborhoods? Are they afraid that folks can get organized around issues that they care about and leaders will be established who later might run for Alder? Are they afraid that neighbors will fight for issues in their districts which the Alders are opposed to? What is to be feared about having strong neighborhoods and strong neighborhood leaders?
Read more!
It's not just the WSJ . . .
So, I was intrigued by the Cap Times reporting of the Plan Commission discussion on demolitions we had at the Plan Commission the other night.
The Cap Times reported:
I recently wrote an op-ed for the WSJ Business Journal that explains what I was talking about at the plan commission meeting the other night:
Read more!
The Cap Times reported:
Commission member Ald. Brenda Konkel said she wants the city to take a tougher stance on older structures, including requiring information on what will be built, the historic context and the cost of rehabilitation vs. demolition.I'm quite certain, I didn't say anything to that effect. What I was talking about is the CURRENT law. I said we need to either have the information before us and follow the law, or we need to determine how to change the law. The CURRENT law requires us to consider what will be built. The CURRENT law requires us to consider the historic context of the building and the CURRENT law requires us to consider if the applicant has tried to rehabilitate the home.
I recently wrote an op-ed for the WSJ Business Journal that explains what I was talking about at the plan commission meeting the other night:
Why is there a special subcommittee set up to look at demolitions? One word: predictability. Currently we have an ordinance that simply doesn’t work for the Plan Commission or applicants. The Plan Commission has been approving demolitions that don’t technically meet the requirements of our ordinance but are good planning and development. We need to bring our ordinance up to date, making it consistent with current practice.
The current ordinance requires us to find, in part, that any demolition meets the following requirements:
- Encourages preservation of existing buildings that are structurally sound, economically productive and suitable for rehabilitation and repair
- Encourages voluntary compliance with building and housing codes
- Aids in the preservation of residential neighborhoods
- Requires the Plan Commission to evaluate proposed alternative uses of the property before existing buildings are destroyed or removed
Clearly, we have allowed demolitions that do not meet the stated goals of the ordinance. If the applicant doesn’t provide documents proving that the building is not structurally sound, economically productive or suitable for rehabilitation or repair, should the application be denied? We currently do not receive such information with the demolition application. When applicants submit pictures of buildings that don’t appear to meet basic minimum housing codes, should the application be denied? Since we started asking for pictures of what is to be demolished, I’ve seen many minimum housing code violations. If residential properties are to be demolished to make way for a commercial property, should the demolition be denied? And when a building has outlived its usefulness or is creating a safety hazard (e.g. abandoned and being used for illegal activities) should we require that we know the details of the future use prior to allowing the demolition?
There are times when a demolition is desirable, yet it doesn’t meet the requirements of the ordinance. This puts the Plan Commission in the difficult position of choosing between making a good decision for the community or following the current law. The choice is further complicated because the Plan Commission is an administrative body that must base our decisions on the criteria outlined in the law. Lack of consistency opens the door for potential lawsuits.
Additionally, our ordinance does not address such issues as:
- Demolition by fire (used as a fire department training opportunity) and requirements for notifying neighbors
- Consistent conditions for approval of demolitions without a known future use
- Requirements for a reuse and recycling plan
We’ve also had a few demolitions without a permit in recent years. The owners subsequently asked for a retroactive permit. Additionally, some residents have expressed concerns that the ordinance does not adequately spell out criteria for denying a demolition permit based on historic preservation.
Clearly, there are multiple complex issues involved and the Plan Commission has been struggling with this ordinance for the past few years. Hopefully the subcommittee can accomplish our goal of writing an ordinance that leads to more predictability and clear expectations that updates the ordinance to reflect our current planning goals.
Read more!
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Local Purchasing
One more from the Economic Development bizzaro-world . . .
Yesterday, the WSJ editorialized AGAINST a preference for local purchasing. What? Did they forget to check in with their friends at the Common Sense Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce? Only they could twist an initiative to assist local small businesses into an anti-business initiative. My guess is, that once again, they know NOTHING about the facts of the topic of which they write.
I heard a statistic the other day that 80% of the jobs created are created in companies or businesses with less than 20 employees. It would seem that job creation could be enhanced locally by supporting these small local businesses. It would seem this should be a no-brainer. More local business = More local jobs. Ferchristsake, Russ Frank and the Common Sense Coaltion and the Mayor and I agree on this one! So what's the WSJ's beef? Here's a few comments I have about their editorial.
1. They start off with calling this another government regulation and they end by calling it a "mandate" for local businesses. It's quite the opposite. It's opening up opportunity for local businesses, not requiring them to do anything. It's a way to give local businesses a competitive edge.
2. They assume that this will cost the taxpayer more money, or least want the taxpayer to fear that might be the case. Ummm . . . if they had taken 2 seconds to talk to anyone involved, they would have known that a local preference could be simply that local vendors are allowed to match the lowest bid. But of course, instead, they sound the alarms and assume the worst.
3. My favorite out-of-touch-with-reality statement from the WSJ was this:
4. They also claim:
5. The next uninformed statement they make is:
6. Next, they make this statement:
7. The final statement they make that I want to address is:
Honestly, is Sunny Shubert back working for the State Journal editorial board? At least her over-the-top type editorial would have been fun to read.
Read more!
Yesterday, the WSJ editorialized AGAINST a preference for local purchasing. What? Did they forget to check in with their friends at the Common Sense Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce? Only they could twist an initiative to assist local small businesses into an anti-business initiative. My guess is, that once again, they know NOTHING about the facts of the topic of which they write.
I heard a statistic the other day that 80% of the jobs created are created in companies or businesses with less than 20 employees. It would seem that job creation could be enhanced locally by supporting these small local businesses. It would seem this should be a no-brainer. More local business = More local jobs. Ferchristsake, Russ Frank and the Common Sense Coaltion and the Mayor and I agree on this one! So what's the WSJ's beef? Here's a few comments I have about their editorial.
1. They start off with calling this another government regulation and they end by calling it a "mandate" for local businesses. It's quite the opposite. It's opening up opportunity for local businesses, not requiring them to do anything. It's a way to give local businesses a competitive edge.
2. They assume that this will cost the taxpayer more money, or least want the taxpayer to fear that might be the case. Ummm . . . if they had taken 2 seconds to talk to anyone involved, they would have known that a local preference could be simply that local vendors are allowed to match the lowest bid. But of course, instead, they sound the alarms and assume the worst.
3. My favorite out-of-touch-with-reality statement from the WSJ was this:
But such a parochial policy ignores the realities of an increasingly global economy. It also could lead to retaliatory measures in other cities, hurting the many businesses in Madison that sell elsewhere.I laughed about this one with a member of the EDC (Economic Development Commission) yesterday. What do they think, businesses in London will stop doing business with folks from Madison because of this policy? This cracks me up. Did Madison stop doing business with businesses in New York City because they implemented a similar policy? I mean, do they have any proof that anything like this has happened? Anywhere? Ever? Where's their, um, evidence?
4. They also claim:
On top of that, there's next to no evidence that favoring local businesses for municipal contracts is needed.Alright, this too, is humorous. "Needed"? Probably not. Good for the local economy, definitely. It doesn't take a doctorate in economics to figure out that money spent in the local economy that then stays in the local economy instead of being shipped to another state helps the local economy. I mean, should we be buying things from Walmart if we can purchase them from a local vendor who uses a local attorney and a local accountant and hires local people to do adminsitrative tasks? And if the local businesses get more business, they may hire more employees and create local jobs. Isn't that what the WSJ editorial board has been whining about for the last few years. More importantly, isn't that what we want in our community?
5. The next uninformed statement they make is:
Um . . .yes, Walmart and Office Depot and Office Max and all kinds of other vendors have local addresses, but is that really buying locally? I think not. Anyone who thought about this for more than a moment would have figured that out. This statistic they use is absurd when interpreted the way the WSJ did and even the Comptroller was quick to point out this flaw in that statistic when making his presentation to the EDC.The city already spends 60 percent of that money on vendors with city addresses, according to city purchasing staff. An additional 6 percent goes to vendors within Dane County.
That means about two-thirds of city spending is already buying locally.
6. Next, they make this statement:
I'm not sure what this is supposed to add to their argument. Obviously, this is just a preference for local vendors and as I said earlier, if there is no local vendor that wants to match the lowest bid, we'll go with the lowest bid. This is a preference for local businesses, not a mandate to buy from local businesses. And for some things like city busses and fire trucks, likely we won't have any local vendors, but if a company moves into one of our industrial parks that makes firetrucks, I sure hope we try to help that business get started and thrive and buy our firetrucks from them if they can be compete and match a lowest bid.* Many products such as city buses and fire trucks are not manufactured locally.
* Other products, such as computers, are purchased through a state buying pool to save local governments significant time and money.
7. The final statement they make that I want to address is:
The way to succeed in the modern economy is to hustle and to innovate, to produce and to market quality products with added value that attract customers no matter where they may be.Hmmmm . . . this doesn't square with their mantra that local government isn't doing enough to help the local economy. This statement seems to to say that success in business can be accomplished without the help of local govenment. So which is it? I guess they don't have to be consistent in their arguments.
Honestly, is Sunny Shubert back working for the State Journal editorial board? At least her over-the-top type editorial would have been fun to read.
Read more!
Monday, October 16, 2006
I wonder . . .
So, we gutted the lobbyist registration ordinance last year . . . but some people still need to fill out the expense reports . . .
While many ended up being exempt from the ordinance, it is clear that the following are not:
(k) Provided that the City gives notice of the registration and reporting requirements under this Sec.2.40 to the person seeking City assistance or approval, the exemptions in Sub. (i)1. and 2. are not available with respect to any lobbying activities or expenditures incurred:
Stonehouse Development
Arneson, Richard
Bradbury, Helen
University Square (Executive Management, Inc.)
Bastian, Mark
Duhr, Michael
Gilbertson, Rick
Lawson, Eric
Mclean, Jeff
Springmen, Susan
Wilson, John
Union Corners
Beattie, John
McGrath, Lance
McGrath, Todd
ODriscoll, Kevin
Landmark Place (Mortenson Investment Group, LLC)
Hursh, Doug
Hutter, Bradley
Temkin, Harvey
These reports were due July 31 and I waited for the clerk to have time to post the forms to the website and the city attorney's office to follow up on the most blatant violations, but it is now 2 months later and these expense reports should be in . . . .
While these are the projects that received TIF jumped out at me . . . there are 140 registered lobbyists who did not appear to have filed an expense report due July 31st. Many of them may not have spent $1,000 and may be exempt. Another problem may be that their expense report was filed with another lobbyist and the clerk's office didn't post them in two different places. But there are 97 registered lobbyists that work for businesses that appear to me to been likely to have spent over $1,000 and for which I couldn't find any other filings. A few that come to mind are Midvale Plaza (Joe Krupp) project, City Market, MG&E and the folks trying to buy the land under Lincoln School.
I wonder, what is the City Attorney doing to look into this? Or will they wait until someone starts filing complaints?
Read more!
While many ended up being exempt from the ordinance, it is clear that the following are not:
(k) Provided that the City gives notice of the registration and reporting requirements under this Sec.2.40 to the person seeking City assistance or approval, the exemptions in Sub. (i)1. and 2. are not available with respect to any lobbying activities or expenditures incurred:
- In seeking direct cash assistance from the City in the form of a loan, grant, TIF funding, or similar assistance (not including for this purpose the provision of goods or services directly to the City or a City agency) in an amount greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in a calendar year; or
- In seeking approval of any development or redevelopment as defined in MGO § 20.04(8) located within the City of Madison that is reasonably expected to include over 40,000 gross square feet in a non-residential building or buildings or ten (10) dwelling units.
Stonehouse Development
Arneson, Richard
Bradbury, Helen
University Square (Executive Management, Inc.)
Bastian, Mark
Duhr, Michael
Gilbertson, Rick
Lawson, Eric
Mclean, Jeff
Springmen, Susan
Wilson, John
Union Corners
Beattie, John
McGrath, Lance
McGrath, Todd
ODriscoll, Kevin
Landmark Place (Mortenson Investment Group, LLC)
Hursh, Doug
Hutter, Bradley
Temkin, Harvey
These reports were due July 31 and I waited for the clerk to have time to post the forms to the website and the city attorney's office to follow up on the most blatant violations, but it is now 2 months later and these expense reports should be in . . . .
While these are the projects that received TIF jumped out at me . . . there are 140 registered lobbyists who did not appear to have filed an expense report due July 31st. Many of them may not have spent $1,000 and may be exempt. Another problem may be that their expense report was filed with another lobbyist and the clerk's office didn't post them in two different places. But there are 97 registered lobbyists that work for businesses that appear to me to been likely to have spent over $1,000 and for which I couldn't find any other filings. A few that come to mind are Midvale Plaza (Joe Krupp) project, City Market, MG&E and the folks trying to buy the land under Lincoln School.
I wonder, what is the City Attorney doing to look into this? Or will they wait until someone starts filing complaints?
Read more!
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Affordable Housing . . . some day . . .
In 2002, then Alds. Todd Jarrell and Tom Powell worked very hard to pass an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I'll admit, I was the skeptic in the bunch . . . and I was wrong. We ended up passing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund and at the end of 2006 we will have $2,470,160 in the fund. The goal is to make it to $10M so that the fund makes enough interest on that money to fund affordable housing projects while keeping the principle.
Now, at the time, we were extremely frustrated by the fact that all of our intended funding sources slowly got taken out of the policy. The core of the money currently comes from TIF funded projects that make more money than expected and then the developer has to give money to the City because of the unexpected profits.
The other sources of funding are the annual budget or sales of excess property, but whenever we sell property, we usually lose the battle to put the money into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (In 2004 we got $47,318 but that's it). So, the only sources really are our annual contributions and the so called TIF "equity kicker".
In 2003 . . . again, because of the work of my collegues at the time, we made a budget amendment and got $400,000 put into the fund contingent on the Council passing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund policy . . . which we did.
In 2004, the Mayor put $100,000 into the fund. And then . . . if there was money left in the contingent reserve at the end of the year, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund could recieve an additional $400,000. Amaziningly enough, that happened and we ended up with $400,000 from the contingent reserve or a total of $500,000 that year.
In 2005, we again got $300,000 and with the opportunity to get an additional $200,000 if there was money left in the contingent reserve. There were no additional funds so there were no additional payments to the fund.
In 2006, there was again the $300,000, and a new contingency. This time if the City sold more than $1M in surplus property (primarily the houses in James Madison Park) then the next $500,000 would go into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Needless to say, that's not going to happen. We're currently at $695,000 and there doesn't seem to be a hurry to resolve the James Madison Houses issue. In fact, the Mayor is now suggesting we sell them for $1 and move the houses. So , I think we can safely say were getting $300,000 in 2006.
So, lets review
2003 - $400,000
2004 - $500,000
2005 - $300,000
2006 - $300,000
If you take the average of the last 4 years at $375,000 a year, unless we get lucky on some property sales by the end of 2006 or get another equity kicker, it will another 21 years before we have a fully operating Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could so things like assist with downpayment assistance programs and other affordable housing activities.
Hmmmm . . . where's our commitment to affordable housing? The sooner this fund is capitalized, the sooner we can be putting our money to work. It makes sense to invest now.
Read more!
Now, at the time, we were extremely frustrated by the fact that all of our intended funding sources slowly got taken out of the policy. The core of the money currently comes from TIF funded projects that make more money than expected and then the developer has to give money to the City because of the unexpected profits.
The other sources of funding are the annual budget or sales of excess property, but whenever we sell property, we usually lose the battle to put the money into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (In 2004 we got $47,318 but that's it). So, the only sources really are our annual contributions and the so called TIF "equity kicker".
In 2003 . . . again, because of the work of my collegues at the time, we made a budget amendment and got $400,000 put into the fund contingent on the Council passing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund policy . . . which we did.
In 2004, the Mayor put $100,000 into the fund. And then . . . if there was money left in the contingent reserve at the end of the year, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund could recieve an additional $400,000. Amaziningly enough, that happened and we ended up with $400,000 from the contingent reserve or a total of $500,000 that year.
In 2005, we again got $300,000 and with the opportunity to get an additional $200,000 if there was money left in the contingent reserve. There were no additional funds so there were no additional payments to the fund.
In 2006, there was again the $300,000, and a new contingency. This time if the City sold more than $1M in surplus property (primarily the houses in James Madison Park) then the next $500,000 would go into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Needless to say, that's not going to happen. We're currently at $695,000 and there doesn't seem to be a hurry to resolve the James Madison Houses issue. In fact, the Mayor is now suggesting we sell them for $1 and move the houses. So , I think we can safely say were getting $300,000 in 2006.
So, lets review
2003 - $400,000
2004 - $500,000
2005 - $300,000
2006 - $300,000
If you take the average of the last 4 years at $375,000 a year, unless we get lucky on some property sales by the end of 2006 or get another equity kicker, it will another 21 years before we have a fully operating Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could so things like assist with downpayment assistance programs and other affordable housing activities.
Hmmmm . . . where's our commitment to affordable housing? The sooner this fund is capitalized, the sooner we can be putting our money to work. It makes sense to invest now.
Read more!
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Planning and Development Department Reorganization
Sorry - I didn't do so well on the blogging, I got pneumonia instead . . . but I got out of the house today for the first day since last Friday and so I thought I try a blog as well . . .
I left the house to go to the two hour Board of Estimates discussion on the reorganization of the Planning and Development Department. This is a tough one for me. There are some good things in the reorganization proposal, but most of them can stand alone, without the "reorganization". And I'm having a hard time understanding what the "reorganization" part of the proposal achieves.
In general, I got out of my sickbed to ask the following questions or raise concerns:
1. Where is the public process that was promised? Originally, the proposal for reorganization was supposed to go to all of the affected committees so that there would be ample input. Now, we are expected to vote on this and then there will be resolutions in the future that will implement portions of the proposal. When I tried to ask about this in more detail, we were interrupted by Ald. Bruer and I'm not sure the Mayor's office got to adequately answer the process questions.
2. When they combine the Community and Economic Development Unit with the Office of Business Resources, CDBG Office, Office of Community Services and Senior Center under the Economic Development Director, and the Director is directed to "analyze these sections to find better ways of targeting and coordinating the City's economic development resources" and "he/she may choose to combine or reorganize these sections or change the way they interact." with "the end game will be a better-coordinated set of economic development tools, with a units mission and philosophy working twoard shared priorities" what is to happen to the non-economic development goals of the existing departments such as the CDBG office and Office of Community Services? (sorry, that was a horribly long sentence)
3. In all of the neighborhood services that are being proposed, where are the services that help neighborhood associations be effective? Where is the liaison relationship that will assist neighborhoods in working their way through the city bureaucracy? Where are the training and resources that help the neighborhood associations be more effective?
4. In asking what the "temporary One-Stop Shop" was going to be, we discovered that it is nothing more than some extra meetings set up with the developers as they propose projects.
5. I raised concerns that the new process to make conditional uses into permitted uses would lead to problems with neighborhoods if the process did not work with their monthly meeting schedules.
6. I raised concerns that the combination of the Community Services Commission, Community Development Block Grant Commission plus the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee and the Early Childhood Care and Education Board would be waaaaaaay too much of a workload for any alder or citizen volunteer.
These concerns and questions came from reading the Mayor's memo and I have to admit I have not read the full 108-page report. In general, it looks like good progress is being made, but this doesn't look like its ready for prime-time. There hasn't been adequate time for public process and there certainly are alot of details missing. Perhaps we will learn more over the next month before we pass the budget, but I have a hard time seeing the council passing this in its current state.
Read more!
I left the house to go to the two hour Board of Estimates discussion on the reorganization of the Planning and Development Department. This is a tough one for me. There are some good things in the reorganization proposal, but most of them can stand alone, without the "reorganization". And I'm having a hard time understanding what the "reorganization" part of the proposal achieves.
In general, I got out of my sickbed to ask the following questions or raise concerns:
1. Where is the public process that was promised? Originally, the proposal for reorganization was supposed to go to all of the affected committees so that there would be ample input. Now, we are expected to vote on this and then there will be resolutions in the future that will implement portions of the proposal. When I tried to ask about this in more detail, we were interrupted by Ald. Bruer and I'm not sure the Mayor's office got to adequately answer the process questions.
2. When they combine the Community and Economic Development Unit with the Office of Business Resources, CDBG Office, Office of Community Services and Senior Center under the Economic Development Director, and the Director is directed to "analyze these sections to find better ways of targeting and coordinating the City's economic development resources" and "he/she may choose to combine or reorganize these sections or change the way they interact." with "the end game will be a better-coordinated set of economic development tools, with a units mission and philosophy working twoard shared priorities" what is to happen to the non-economic development goals of the existing departments such as the CDBG office and Office of Community Services? (sorry, that was a horribly long sentence)
3. In all of the neighborhood services that are being proposed, where are the services that help neighborhood associations be effective? Where is the liaison relationship that will assist neighborhoods in working their way through the city bureaucracy? Where are the training and resources that help the neighborhood associations be more effective?
4. In asking what the "temporary One-Stop Shop" was going to be, we discovered that it is nothing more than some extra meetings set up with the developers as they propose projects.
5. I raised concerns that the new process to make conditional uses into permitted uses would lead to problems with neighborhoods if the process did not work with their monthly meeting schedules.
6. I raised concerns that the combination of the Community Services Commission, Community Development Block Grant Commission plus the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee and the Early Childhood Care and Education Board would be waaaaaaay too much of a workload for any alder or citizen volunteer.
These concerns and questions came from reading the Mayor's memo and I have to admit I have not read the full 108-page report. In general, it looks like good progress is being made, but this doesn't look like its ready for prime-time. There hasn't been adequate time for public process and there certainly are alot of details missing. Perhaps we will learn more over the next month before we pass the budget, but I have a hard time seeing the council passing this in its current state.
Read more!
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Only at the EDC (Economic Development Conmission)
Sometimes, you hear the strangest things . . .
When we have a City Committee that is supposed to be:
Responsible for preparation and periodic updating of the city's economic development plan and strategy for recommendation to the mayor and Common Council; evaluating economic conditions in the community; identifies economic problem areas; recommends specific policies, programs and projects; recommends items for inclusion in capital and operating budgets in support of the development strategy.
Why do you hear certain members saying things like:
- A purchasing preference for local businesses could prevent local businesses from competing in the global economy.
- That the lead alder isn't sure if he will vote for the $50,000 for an economic development plan for the city, even after the EDC subcommittee has come up with a proposal for what should be in it.
- Members of the commission arguing against spending $100,000 of room tax money for downtown safety shouldn't be allowed, even when the Innkeepers who are requesting an increase in the room tax agree that should be an allowable expense, so they can sell a safe downtown to their customers.
- When asked to help develop a proposal to help shape it, they prefer to wait for the Common Council (which many members believe don't know anything about business) to come up with a proposal and then they will react to it instead of help develop it.
I'm beginning to think that the problem with Economic Development in Madison starts with this committee and its leadership - I don't think they want things to improve and they certainly don't seem motivated to be a part of the solution.
Read more!
When we have a City Committee that is supposed to be:
Responsible for preparation and periodic updating of the city's economic development plan and strategy for recommendation to the mayor and Common Council; evaluating economic conditions in the community; identifies economic problem areas; recommends specific policies, programs and projects; recommends items for inclusion in capital and operating budgets in support of the development strategy.
Why do you hear certain members saying things like:
- A purchasing preference for local businesses could prevent local businesses from competing in the global economy.
- That the lead alder isn't sure if he will vote for the $50,000 for an economic development plan for the city, even after the EDC subcommittee has come up with a proposal for what should be in it.
- Members of the commission arguing against spending $100,000 of room tax money for downtown safety shouldn't be allowed, even when the Innkeepers who are requesting an increase in the room tax agree that should be an allowable expense, so they can sell a safe downtown to their customers.
- When asked to help develop a proposal to help shape it, they prefer to wait for the Common Council (which many members believe don't know anything about business) to come up with a proposal and then they will react to it instead of help develop it.
I'm beginning to think that the problem with Economic Development in Madison starts with this committee and its leadership - I don't think they want things to improve and they certainly don't seem motivated to be a part of the solution.
Read more!
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Emergency Contraception - Anti-business!!
So, its funny what we consider anti-business and what somehow is deemed not to be anti-business. Take the recent proposal on emergency contraception. (Sorry, no link in legistar yet.) We are mandating that a sign be posted to direct customers to the competition if the pharmacy doesn't carry over-the-counter emergency contraception. Isn't that anti-business? And yet, here it is supported by our economic development champion Alder and a downtown business or two . . . hmmmmm . . .
So I wonder how some people are deciding when is it ok to be "anti-business" and when isn't it ok?
And I wonder what the fiscal note on this is? Will it require us to raise taxes so the Health Department can develop brochures and that there can be enforcement? So, I also wonder, when is it ok to raise taxes for something that isn't a "basic city service" such as garbage pick-up and street plowing and grass cutting?
Now, don't get me wrong, this is a great idea! I signed on as a co-sponsor as did a majority of the council. This should easily pass and hopefully be strengthened . . . but meantime, I just had to ask . . . isn't this a bit of a double standard? And go against all the recent "mandate" and "basic city services" and "no new taxes" type talking points of the moderates and conservatives on the council?
Ccould it be that they realize that sometimes it is ok for the council to go beyond "basic services" and raise taxes to do the right thing?
Read more!
So I wonder how some people are deciding when is it ok to be "anti-business" and when isn't it ok?
And I wonder what the fiscal note on this is? Will it require us to raise taxes so the Health Department can develop brochures and that there can be enforcement? So, I also wonder, when is it ok to raise taxes for something that isn't a "basic city service" such as garbage pick-up and street plowing and grass cutting?
Now, don't get me wrong, this is a great idea! I signed on as a co-sponsor as did a majority of the council. This should easily pass and hopefully be strengthened . . . but meantime, I just had to ask . . . isn't this a bit of a double standard? And go against all the recent "mandate" and "basic city services" and "no new taxes" type talking points of the moderates and conservatives on the council?
Ccould it be that they realize that sometimes it is ok for the council to go beyond "basic services" and raise taxes to do the right thing?
Read more!
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Moratorium on Downtown Alcohol Licenses doesn't add up.
In the blur of the last month, there are a few things that I haven't paid enough attention to. I was reminded of one of them when I was reading tha agenda for tonight's Council meeting. I have to say, I really don't understand the proposed moratorium on downtown alcohol licenses, even after reading the 5 page draft from September 20th. (This isn't on the agenda tonight, but several downtown alcohol licenses are.)
The proposal is based on the premise that "The density of alcohol-licensed establishments has been shown to direcly affect the volume and severity of alcohol-related problems within a specific area." Well, of course., that makes alot of sense. However, I am curious, are they measuring the density of the alcohol-licensed establishments with the density of the surrounding population? And if so, how are they measuring that "surrounding population"?
I am also curious why we would limit the number of licenses, why aren't we looking at capacity? I mean, fewer licenses with bigger establishments seem to be a bigger problem than more licenses with lower capacity. With a lower capacity you can have a more watchful eye on what is going on inside the bar and you don't build up that critical mob mass at the end of the night that tends to become a problem. Also, the bartenders can also keep a better eye on the people they are serving.
If the "police officers, firefighters and apramedics routinely report that they spend between 50%, and in some cases, 100% of their time responding to alcohol-related incidents after midnight on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays", perhaps the problem is over-serving in establishments and there can be some behavior modification achieved by holding people who are drinking in these establishments to a little higher standard of accountability before they are served another drink.
I also haven't yet heard a good explanation about why or how having less drinking establishments is really going to decrease the consumption of alcohol in the downtown area. I mean, the houseparty is an art form of many in the downtown areas and if the bars are crowded downtown, call me crazy but, I don't think people are going to stop drinking . . . and if they don't do it in their homes and can't walk to the bars, I think we would be encouraging other bad behaviors like drinking and driving, slamming drinks at home prior to going to the bars and the noisy houseparty where IDs are not checked. As I said, I really don't see how this will reduce drinking that causes the resources needed in our dense downtown on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
A few other theories to support this plan are that
1) "Bona fide restaurants [50% food sales] do not impose as significant a burden on public resources." The theory is that "This is due in part to their focus on food sales and in part to the fact that they generally are not open until the state-permitted bar time."
2) If the supply of alcohol goes down in relation to the supply, the price will go up and then people will drink less.
Ahem . . . it's been a while since I"ve been in college but . . . when the drinks are expensive, most college kids who want to get drunk figure out to go buy hard liquor at the store and drink that before going out . . . encouraging the binge drinking type activities that I believe, we are trying to avoid. Also when the restaurant/bar is closing early, it also tends to encourage people to drink more, faster, before the place closes.
I think the better option is to provide alternative activities . . . as an aside, a co-worker came in my office and asked what I'd recommend to do if you had two friends coming to town, one of which was very pregnant and the other very broke. So, drinking was out and so was shopping. Hmmmmm . . . good question. A bike ride around the lake was likely also out . . . ok - back on topic.
I understand the problems in the downtown and find the police resources unacceptable, but I think there are other ways to crack this nut. Just off the top of my head, with very little thought we could:
- Require longer times between last call and closing time to prevent that last minute slamming of drinks.
- Encourage more entertainment venues where there is something to do besides drink.
- Lower capacity and have smaller drinking venues.
- Hold bars responsible for overserving.
- Require more bartenders on staff in relation to capacity.
I'm sure there are numerous other suggestions that could be explored before we jump on this one idea which seems to be a great anti-competition law for existing bars and probably won't help bring more retail downtown and "provide opportunities in the downtown area for businesses not associated with the sale of alcohol".
Read more!
The proposal is based on the premise that "The density of alcohol-licensed establishments has been shown to direcly affect the volume and severity of alcohol-related problems within a specific area." Well, of course., that makes alot of sense. However, I am curious, are they measuring the density of the alcohol-licensed establishments with the density of the surrounding population? And if so, how are they measuring that "surrounding population"?
I am also curious why we would limit the number of licenses, why aren't we looking at capacity? I mean, fewer licenses with bigger establishments seem to be a bigger problem than more licenses with lower capacity. With a lower capacity you can have a more watchful eye on what is going on inside the bar and you don't build up that critical mob mass at the end of the night that tends to become a problem. Also, the bartenders can also keep a better eye on the people they are serving.
If the "police officers, firefighters and apramedics routinely report that they spend between 50%, and in some cases, 100% of their time responding to alcohol-related incidents after midnight on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays", perhaps the problem is over-serving in establishments and there can be some behavior modification achieved by holding people who are drinking in these establishments to a little higher standard of accountability before they are served another drink.
I also haven't yet heard a good explanation about why or how having less drinking establishments is really going to decrease the consumption of alcohol in the downtown area. I mean, the houseparty is an art form of many in the downtown areas and if the bars are crowded downtown, call me crazy but, I don't think people are going to stop drinking . . . and if they don't do it in their homes and can't walk to the bars, I think we would be encouraging other bad behaviors like drinking and driving, slamming drinks at home prior to going to the bars and the noisy houseparty where IDs are not checked. As I said, I really don't see how this will reduce drinking that causes the resources needed in our dense downtown on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
A few other theories to support this plan are that
1) "Bona fide restaurants [50% food sales] do not impose as significant a burden on public resources." The theory is that "This is due in part to their focus on food sales and in part to the fact that they generally are not open until the state-permitted bar time."
2) If the supply of alcohol goes down in relation to the supply, the price will go up and then people will drink less.
Ahem . . . it's been a while since I"ve been in college but . . . when the drinks are expensive, most college kids who want to get drunk figure out to go buy hard liquor at the store and drink that before going out . . . encouraging the binge drinking type activities that I believe, we are trying to avoid. Also when the restaurant/bar is closing early, it also tends to encourage people to drink more, faster, before the place closes.
I think the better option is to provide alternative activities . . . as an aside, a co-worker came in my office and asked what I'd recommend to do if you had two friends coming to town, one of which was very pregnant and the other very broke. So, drinking was out and so was shopping. Hmmmmm . . . good question. A bike ride around the lake was likely also out . . . ok - back on topic.
I understand the problems in the downtown and find the police resources unacceptable, but I think there are other ways to crack this nut. Just off the top of my head, with very little thought we could:
- Require longer times between last call and closing time to prevent that last minute slamming of drinks.
- Encourage more entertainment venues where there is something to do besides drink.
- Lower capacity and have smaller drinking venues.
- Hold bars responsible for overserving.
- Require more bartenders on staff in relation to capacity.
I'm sure there are numerous other suggestions that could be explored before we jump on this one idea which seems to be a great anti-competition law for existing bars and probably won't help bring more retail downtown and "provide opportunities in the downtown area for businesses not associated with the sale of alcohol".
Read more!
Monday, October 2, 2006
Brenda the Bad Blogger
September sucked.
A bad combination of lost days at work due to Labor Day, my boyfriend's mom dying, a Friday wedding, another funeral; plus some weekends spent with family during Mary Jo's last days and the funeral and its aftermath and continuing to help my mom clean up after the tornado; plus recent staff turnover at both Progressive Dane and the Tenant Resource Center; and some extra things at work this month like teaching a full-day seminar, strategic planning for the Tenant Resrouce Center board of directors and planning a fundraiser; and some extra things in the community like the Allied Charrette, Build your own Budget meetings, Section 8 at the County Board; and some extra tasks like chairing the Progressive Dane General Membership Meeting and extra city meetings due to capital budget plus the routine tasks of having a full-time job and supervising 9 staff, being co-chair of a political party and a local elected official, just didn't leave any time for blogging (or sanity) last month.
This month has to get better! And I hope I find time to blog more than 5 times!
So, hopefully, starting today, I should be back to my nearly daily blogging activities . . . I hope! But if you don't hear from me as much as usual, I still have some extra work to do this month like be in Oshkosh, Stevens Point, Waukesha and LaCrosse this month to teach full day seminars; and there will be two days of hiring interviews for positions at TRC; plus the fundraiser at the end of the month; and continuing strategic planning; and planning the orientation for new PD steering committee members; and then there's the city budget . . . and hopefully I have time to clean up my yard and plant some bulbs for the spring and play with my new ipod . . . and I'm sure there is more that is sure to come up . . . . but I'll do my best . . . .
Read more!
A bad combination of lost days at work due to Labor Day, my boyfriend's mom dying, a Friday wedding, another funeral; plus some weekends spent with family during Mary Jo's last days and the funeral and its aftermath and continuing to help my mom clean up after the tornado; plus recent staff turnover at both Progressive Dane and the Tenant Resource Center; and some extra things at work this month like teaching a full-day seminar, strategic planning for the Tenant Resrouce Center board of directors and planning a fundraiser; and some extra things in the community like the Allied Charrette, Build your own Budget meetings, Section 8 at the County Board; and some extra tasks like chairing the Progressive Dane General Membership Meeting and extra city meetings due to capital budget plus the routine tasks of having a full-time job and supervising 9 staff, being co-chair of a political party and a local elected official, just didn't leave any time for blogging (or sanity) last month.
This month has to get better! And I hope I find time to blog more than 5 times!
So, hopefully, starting today, I should be back to my nearly daily blogging activities . . . I hope! But if you don't hear from me as much as usual, I still have some extra work to do this month like be in Oshkosh, Stevens Point, Waukesha and LaCrosse this month to teach full day seminars; and there will be two days of hiring interviews for positions at TRC; plus the fundraiser at the end of the month; and continuing strategic planning; and planning the orientation for new PD steering committee members; and then there's the city budget . . . and hopefully I have time to clean up my yard and plant some bulbs for the spring and play with my new ipod . . . and I'm sure there is more that is sure to come up . . . . but I'll do my best . . . .
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
