Happy Anniversary!

"This side of town . . . " is one year old today.

Yup, that's right. I've been blogging for a full year. Dane101, Shane Wealti and Kristian Knutson and others got me started. I dabbled with the madison.com site for a while, but the forum took too much time and I just felt icky contributing to the Wisconsin State Journal site. My own blog, here, started one year ago when I wanted a place to record my lobbyist contacts, but I only kept that up for a few months. I've posted over 200 posts, about 20,000 people have visited my site (according to sitemeter) and they've read my posts over 40,000 times. I also managed to start two other blogs, one for Inclusionary Zoning and one for the residents of the district I represent on the City of Madison City Council in district 2.

I know many folks don't understand why I do this. Or where I find the time. And truth of the matter is, sometimes I don't find the time. But generally speaking, I have found it to be worth my effort to provide information to the public and to have a forum to say what I want to say.

I know some folks don't like it when I blow off steam and get a little snarky. Apparently, they forgot to give the me the elected officials where it says we're not allowed to be snarky. Either that, or I'm not good at following the rules.

Beyond the snark, I also have heard a ton of positive feedback about many of my blogs that provide information to the public. My Inclusionary Zoning blog was very popular for those who were interested and I was able to provide information quicker than they could get it from the City. My recent blogs on the City budget were also very popular because the information was not available in other places. This blog provides a good venue to point back to when people ask me many of the same questions, I don't need to repeat myself.

So, some good, some bad, but generally worth my time and effort.

Sorry about the brief hiatus I've taken for the past two weeks, I had vacation from work and spent some time doing a ton of personal chores around the house, but next week, I'll be back to work and back at plan commission, common council and a ton of other meetings and plenty of blogging to catch up on. So keep checking in, and I'll keep blogging.
Read more!

This guy just will not stop . . .

Three of them today . . . from the voice of the guy who says he represents the taxpayer . . .

From Wednesday

From: [email removed]
Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 7:11 PM
To: taxpayersvoice@comment.com
Subject: When

Happy Thanksgiving to All,
Have you discontinued same sex or any other forms of partner benefits yet?
Taxpayers have spoken. Your agenda's are of little matter. You will do what we taxpayers deem appropriate.
Thanks
And by the way. That idiot who tried to contact me by my work email. DON'T DO IT AGAIN. Or I will file a legal action against you. CLEAR?

From Thursday

From: [email removed]
Sent: Thu 11/23/2006 6:17 PM
To: mykidhasapenusandhastodie@whynotthevagina.com
Subject: Sel ServCould someone tell me why females do not have to sign up for the selective service, but males do. What ever happened to equal rights. I guess, that only matters when it is a positive for females. I earn more because my life risk is higher. Sorry, I could not be more kind, but my panties are still in the wash.
Thanks

From Today

From: [email removed]
Sent: Mon 11/20/2006 8:07 PM
To: council; county_board_recipients@co.dane.wi.us; comments@madison.k12.wi.us
Subject: Nickels and Dimes - Silver and Gold

Merry Xmas to all. Well not everyone.
The people on fixed incomes in this god forsaken rectum of the universe will have to struggle with 200.00+ more dollars each year. Don't worry though, they can cut their pills into quarters to make ends meet. The county, city and MMSD all increase taxes to pay for their inefficiency. You people are good, very good. You break the news up over several weeks and months so that the not so bright cannot put the links together. 12 bucks here, 60 bucks there, 45 bucks where ever and waaalaaaa. 200.00 bucks gone to pay for over priced administrators, managers and fluff. Human Services in the county paying out all of our money for illegal pukes, the city giving low cost home loans to the pukes and the MMSD crowding the classrooms with the puke. I don't mean to pick on the illegal pukes, but it sets the example that you people don't give one darn rip about your tax paying citizens. The majority of the US legal pop. wants our boarders secure and the illegal's out. If you want to save the world, start in our own streets. Just go down to the square on a Sunday morning and look at all of the poor people that had to sit out in the rain and cold all night while little illegal Pedro sucked down his cheerios on our dime. Not fair, not fair at all. You people stink. Happy thanksgiving. Maybe you can drop one of those 24 lb birds off with all of the homeless in Madison. hypocrites. And by the way, for the idiots who sent my messages to the media. Thanks. You did not hurt me at all. You made me stronger. We will always be different. I have a long backbone and balls. All you have is a pack of puke that you used to get elected.

Paul
Please distribute freely. Drink responsibly and while you drink and eat and f, just remember all of the people that are in the gutters of each and every city in the god forsaken land that we call freedom.

Read more!

City Budget: Where it's at . . . (Part III: Operating Budget)

All that, for $1.03 increase over the Mayor's budget (with changes made at the Board of Estimates) on the average homeowner's tax bill . . . have mercy on my grammar etc today . . . I'm a little tired, but here it is . . . .

The first motion of the evening was to place the following items on file:

• Amendment #7 - cutting $100,000 for the downtown safety initiative
• Amendment #8 - cutting $300,000 from the affordable housing trust fund
• Amendment #9 - cutting $200,000 from the affordable housing trust fund
• Amendment #10 - adding $200,000 to the affordable housing trust fund (Ald. King added that in there as a show of good will)
  
• Amendment #12 - cutting funding for the police department Management Information Specialist and adding money for overtime actually added $4,250
• Amendment #14 - cutting $4,579 from the Common Council budget
• Amendment #15 - cutting $10,013 from the Mayor's budget
• Amendment #18 - requiring us to to zero-based budgeting
• Amendment #19 - cutting $8,008 for an Occupational Accommodations Specialist
• Amendment #32 - cutting $37,531 from various afterschool and summer youth programs and childcare
• Amendment #33 - cutting $89,200 from the agency that would replace the Women's Transit Authority
• Amendment #34 - cutting $44,375 for the ARC Community Services/Respect program (prostitute rehabilitation)
• Amendment #37 - cutting funding to existing planning councils by dividing their money among 4 planning councils instead of three

Ald. Brandon, knowing he didn't have the votes, offered to essentially withdraw those items from consideration. Needless to say, it was unanimous. And we all appreciate Ald. Brandon's decision to do that and the good nature in which he took the bit of teasing we gave to him. That couldn't have been easy.

Amendment #11 - A substitute motion was made to do the following:

Increase General Fund Room Tax Revenue by $350,000 from $683,200 to $1,033,200 and provide Room Tax Funding of $350,000 to decrease the General Fund subsidy to the Overture Center.

This effectively uses 1/2 of the additional revenue generated by increasing the Room Tax rate from 8% to 9% to reduce the property tax levy. This amendment also results in a decrease of $350,000 in the projected balance available in the Room Tax Fund at the end of 2007.

This amendment included a "Footnote to council members: Those voting "YES" last year...Konkel, Cnare, Verveer, Webber, Olson, Brandon, King, Golden, Benford, Palm (Gruber excused). And he's right, last year, I made essentially the same motion(s).

Amendment #10 - Agency/Service: Room Tax Fund/Estimated Total Room Tax Receipts - Page(s): 16
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, King

Raise the Room tax by .5 percent (from 8 percent to 8.5 percent).

Room Tax Receipts (Increase) $ (430,000)
Total $ (430,000) Levy Impact: $ -
(Note: Funding is in the Room Tax Fund; therefore, there is no impact on the levy.)
Amendment No. 11

Agency/Service: Room Tax Fund/Transfer to Overture Center
Page(s): 16, 78; Supplement page 73
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, King

Provide Room Tax funding of $430,000 to decrease the General Fund subsidy to the Overture Center.

Room Tax Uses/Other $ 4 30,000
Overture/Trf. From Room Tax (new) $ (430,000)
Total $ - Levy Impact: $(430,000)

This year, the votes were as follows:
Yes - Webber, Benford, Brandon, Cnare, Golden, Gruber, King, Konkel, Palm, Sanborn, Skidmore
No - Bruer, Compton, Knox, Olson, Radomski, Rosas, Thomas, VanRooy, Verveer

Interesting set of flip-flops.

Amendment #13 - The original amendment would have made the 10 new police officers neighborhood officers. After asking the police chief some questions about previous police staffing committees and the plan for how they were spending the $50,000 for a staffing study, I offered the following substitute:

A police staffing subcommittee shall be established by the Common Council to review the police staffing report funded in the 2007 budget, if completed, and shall make recommendations to the Common Council and Police Chief which shall include, but not be limited to recommendations regarding the number of neighborhood officers, the staffing levels for Community Policing Teams and other community policing initiatives. This committee shall report back to the Common Council by October 1, 2007.

There were several amendments and friendly amendments to this and we voted on if the language should just say:

A committee shall be established by the Common Council to provide input in the creation of a the police staffing report funded in the 2007 budget.

That motion failed on a voice vote.

Then we went back to the substitute language above. At issue was whether the Council gets input into major policing philosophy changes or if we just hire the police cheif and let him make the decisions. I was hoping we could have a community discussion about what community policing means to us. However, that motion failed. Votes were as follows:
Yes - Webber, Benford, King, Konkel, Olson, Sanborn, Skidmore, Verveer
No - Brandon, Bruer, Cnare, Compton, Gruber, Knox, Palm, Radomski, Rosas, Thomas, VanRooy
Present: Golden (this essentially means they don't cast a vote in favor or against)

Amendment #16 - $19,371 for AASPIRE interns - passed on a voice vote

Amendment #17 - $10,000 for sign language interpreters - passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #20 - There was a substitute motion that add 2 arborists instead of the 6 that were originally proposed. I'll have to find that motion and come back and fill in the details. The motion passed on a voice vote

Amendment #22 - Raised admission prices for the pool. $.25 for children, $.50 for adults and $10 for seasonal passes. The motion passed.
Yes: Benford, Brandon, Bruer, Cnare, Compton, Golden, Knox, Olson, Palm, Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas, VanRooy, Verveer
No: Webber, Gruber, King, Konkel, Rosas

Amendment #23 - This amendment was originally in the motion to place on file by Ald. Brandon, but Ald. King pulled it out of that motion. It would have saved $15,000 and then spent $500 for the fans. It would have had no impact on the taxpayer as the saved money would have gone into a reserve for the Pool. The motion would have denied air conditioning to the concession stands at the swimming pool and instead, put in fans. The discussion was about if we owed it to our hot sweaty employees to provide air conditioning in a place that was often over 100 degrees and air condition the outdoors, or if we should save money and have unhappy, uncomfortable employees working in miserable conditions. It was a tough one for many. Alders Webber and Golden voted present/abstained. The motion failed.
Yes: Brandon, Cnare, Compton, King, Palm, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas
No: Benford, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, Knox, Konkel, Olson, Radomski, VanRooy, Verveer

Amendment #24 - $5,000 for AASPIRE intern for the Office of the Director of Planning and Development. Passed on a voice vote without comment.

Amendment #25 - There was a substitute to the proposed amendment that would have referred the reorganization of the Department of Planning and Development to the Common Council Organizational Committee. That amendment read as follows:

Department of Planning and Development Reorganization:

1. The Budget is intended to make the necessary financial changes to allow the Department of Planning and Development reorganization to go forward.

2. Implementation of the department and unit name changes and the creation of the proposed Economic Development Unit to be made up of the Office of Business Resources, the current Community and Economic Development Unit, Real Estate, Community Development Block Grant Office, Office of Community Services and the Senior Center shall be subject to further approval of the Common Council by majority vote. These issues will be taken up when the Common Council considers ordinance #04859. Ordinance #04859 is hereby additionally referred to the Plan Commission. Rejection or alterations of the ordinance shall be accomplished by a simple majority vote. Rejection or alterations will not require a budget amendment.

3. The issue of Neighborhood Services shall be further studied by a joint committee of two (2) plan commissioners, two (2) Community Development Block Grant commissioners, two (2) members of the Office of Community Services commissioners and 1 mayoral appointment. This group shall study services to neighborhoods and, after consulting with planning councils and neighborhood associations, report their recommendations to the Common Council by June 1, 2007 for consideration in the 2008 budget. This committee shall be staffed by the Director of Planning and Development and/or his designee.

This passed without comment on a voice vote.

Amendment #26 - $50,000 for neighborhood planning grants. Passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #27 - $5,000 for "Jobs with a Future". Passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #28 - $41,280 for a "Neighborhood Ombudsman. This was placed on file because of Amendment #25 in hopes that the committee in #3 can discuss this and make a recommendation.

Amendment #29 - $18,920 in savings because it will take time to hire the new Neighborhood Planner. Passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #30 - $25,000 for the Salvation Army for the warming shelter. Passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #31 - $30,000 for the Wisconsin Youth Company for running a neighborhood center and afterschool child care programming. Passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #35 - $21,000 to TlJ. Brokerage Firm to provide 12-week life skills training program for low-income or disadvantaged adults. Passed on a voice vote.

Amendment # 36 - $33,000 for the Westside Planning Council. Alot of discussion on this one. Mostly the issue was whether they were ready and/or if there was enough support. Motion passed.
Yes: Webber, Benford, Bruer, Gruber, King, Knox, Konkel, Olson, Rosas, VanRooy, Verveer
No: Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Golden, Palm, Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas

Amendment #38 - $23,000 for the Neighborhood House for a half-time program assistant. This was a long and tortured discussion that had more to do with how we decide what to fund than the needs of the over-worked staff at the Neighborhood House. Most bizarre comment of the evening to me was when Ald. Cindy Thomas, after getting $30,000 for her neighborhood center in her district, launched into a tirade about how we can't fund things outside of the CDBG and Office of Community Services process. Motion passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #40 - $10,000 for adult and children's programming at the Library.
Yes: Webber, Benford, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, King, Knox, Konkel, Olson, Rosas, Verveer
No: Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Palm, Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas, VanRooy

Amendment #41 - This one was introduced from the floor by Ald. Cnare and Olson. Passed on a voice vote.

Allocate $43,000 from the former Women's Transit Authority ride service 2006 unused money to support start-up costs for the transportation service provider that will be selected after a formal RFP process. The allocation must be matched by donations of cash or materials/supplies secured by the selected provider. In the event no provider is selected, the City's $43,000 will revert to the General Fund.

Amendment #42 - This one was introduced from the floor by Ald. King. The following motion passed on a voice vote. The following people added their names as a co-sponsors - Mayor Cieslewicz, Golden, Benford, Bruer, Golden, Knox, Konkel, Rosas, VanRooy, Verveer, Webber.

Final vote on the budget.
Yes: Webber, Benford, Bruer, Cnare, Golden, Gruber, King, Knox, Konkel, Olson, Palm, Radomski, Rosas, Sanborn, VanRooy, Verveer
No: Brandon, Compton, Skidmore, Thomas

And what did all of this get us . . .
We increased spending by $471,000.
We increased revenues by $350,000
So, we increased the amount we need to tax by $121,784
This is a total 5.1% total increase
The mill rate is at 7.2138
The taxes on the average home (about 239,500) is $1727 for the City's portion
The council actions increased the mayor's budget by .022% or increased the taxes on the average home by $1.03.

More to come, after I get some sleep . . . .


Read more!

City Budget: Where it's at . . . (Part II: Operating Budget)

At 10:30 last night, we started the Operating Budget, here's the run down . . .

Amendment #1 - $66,000 for paid sick leave for City employees. Passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Amendment #2 & #3 - Cutting $10,000 in funding for the Sister City Program or in the alternative adding $10,000 so there was $20,000 total, but taking the additional $10,000 from the Room Tax funds. Ald. Brandon first moved his proposal to cut the $10,000 entirely. Ald. King then moved his proposal to give the Sister City Program $20,000 but taking $10,000 from the Room Tax funds designated to go to the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB). Ald. Brandon then amended that to reduce the funding to $10,000 and take it from the Room Tax reserves. So, here's the votes . . .

Giving the Sister Cities $10,000 but taking it from the Room Tax Reserves (by the way - Ald. Brandon said if this motion passed, he'd never bring another motion to cut the Sister Cities program) - Yes votes included Webber, Benford, Brandon, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, Knox, Konkel, Olson, Palm. No votes included Cnare, Compton, King, Radomski, Rosas, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas, Verveer. VanRooy absent.

So then we voted on Alder King's original amendment, amendment #3. This would have given the Sister Cities $20,000 and taken it from the GMCVB. Yes votes included Webber, Benford, Gruber, King, Konkel, Olson, Verveer. No votes included Brandon, Bruer, Cnare, Compton, Golden, Knox, Palm, Radomski, Rosas, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas. VanRooy absent.

So, then we voted on cutting the $10,000 and that failed. Voting to cut the $10,000 were Brandon, Cnare, Palm, Skidmore, Sanborn, Thomas. Voting to continue funding Sister Cities were Webber, Benford, Bruer, Compton, Golden, Gruber, King, Knox, Konkel, Olson, Radomski, Rosas, Verveer. VanRooy absent.

Amendment #4 - Cutting $5,000 from the Mayor's fund for various miscellaneous activities such as sponsorships and community meetings. Funny, no one called roll call on this one! Motion failed on a voice vote.

Amendment #5 - Cutting $18,000 from the Collaboration Council. This was Ken Golden's amendment. He made the point that we scrutinize all the CDBG and Office of Community Service and non-profit groups and yet we give money to the business community without asking them what they're going to do with the money or what goals they have and we don't ask for a report back on their successes. After discussion about how the running theme of the "we need to have a discussion" crowd was inconsistent with this funding, the motion was made to "place on file" and it passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #6 - This would have cut $100,000 from the Emerging Neighborhoods Funds, because there wasn't a plan. Alder Cnare had a substitute motion to modify a footnote in the budget that would state:

This funding is for childcare, tuition assistance, housing, neighborhood revitalization, early childhood education and other programs to enhance the quality of life in the City's emerging neighborhoods. These funds will be spent in the Allied Drive, Bridge Lake Point, Northside, Southwest area, and Southside neighborhoods. The allocation of the funds will be determined by a workgroup consisting of staff from the Mayor's Office, Community Services, CDBG and the Common Council President and will be approved by the Mayor an Common Council.

Several friendly amendments were made. They added the Planning Unit to the workgroup. They allowed the Council President to appoint a "designee" and the eliminated the sentence that says which neighborhoods the funds would be spent in, ironically, because now, it was too specific.

At this point it was about 11:20 and we tried to find some quick, easy amendments we could take care of so that we would not make those staff come back the following evening, so we took up two more items.

Amendment #21 - Adding $14,175 for funding for notification of neighbors when they are spraying for gypsy moths. Passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Amendment #39 - The damn coffee urn. They tried to cut $2,500 for a commercial grade, restaurant style coffee system. Once many of the sponsors saw a picture of what we were talking about, I think they rather sheepishly decided that it was money well spent. The motion failed on a voice vote.

And that's as far as we got. We continue tonight at 7:00 in Room 260 of the Municipal Building.

Read more!

City Budget: Where its at . . . (Part II, Capital Budget)

Here's my run down of day 2 of the City Council Budget deliberations:

Last Night we dealt with amendments 7 - 13, plus an added #14 on the Capital Budget and passed the Capital Budget. We started the Operating Budget and dealt with amendments 1 - 6, 21 & 39. So, we've handled 23 of 55 amendments plus a little over 3 hours of public testimony. We have 32 amendments left to consider tonight. Here's a brief summary of what we passed.

CAPITAL BUDGET

Amendment #7 - Santiago Rosas moved reconsideration of the improvements to James Madison Park. He had asked the Comptroller Dean Brasser to provide us with a memo about his thoughts on how it was a bad budgeting practice to use a one time influx of money to offset the Operating Budget. The comptroller's comments were as follows:

It is the Operating Budget impact that I find troubling. My concerns are twofold:

1) The $1,200,000 land sales revenue is a very speculative revenue source. I will always argue that we should build our Operating Budget using revenue sources that are predictable and assured, and I do not believe the proposed land sales revenue meets that test. Typically, our revenue estimates are based on solid past trend data and known fees and rates. Without a known buyer or a consensus to sell the properties in question, we cannot say with any confidence that the budgeted revenue will materialize. And if the City does not receive payment for these properties within the calendar year, we will face a substantial hole in the 2007 Operating Budget.

2) The proposal to see land in the vicinity of James Madison Park is a fairly unique opportunity. Essentially, this is a one-time revenue source that is being used to fund ongoing operating costs. It is unlikely that such a revenue stream can be expected in future years, unless the City adopts a policy of selling parkland or other property on a consistent annual basis. In the absence of such a policy, the City will face a $1,200,000 Operating Budget hole in 2008, even if the James Madison Park land is sold in 2007.

As I tried to describe last night, the City has historically deposited property sales proceeds, when received, in the General Land Acquisition Fund. Then, through the Capital Budget process or mid-year budget amendments, the known and available funds were used by the council to purchase specific parcels of land for park expansion, or undeveloped land on the periphery for future City use. This policy of "banking" property sales process was used effectively to purchase desirable lands when rare opportunities occurred.

The motion to reconsider passed. I offered a substitute that would spend $200,000 in 2007 and $1M in 2008 on park improvements. Ald. Brandon proposed a substitute which Ald. Golden amended. The issue was tabled to work on it further and we eventually passed an amendment that read as follows:

Reduce other funding to $200,000.

Replace current language with the following:
The project provides for improvements at James Madison Park and development of a detailed master plan for the park. Expenditures will not occur until funds from the sale of related properties are reviewed by the City. Other funding consists of land and property sales revenue.

All the proceeds from property sales will be deposited in the General Land Acquisition Fund Account #810347.

This amendment essentially does what I proposed, with a slight twist/dirty trick by Ald. Brandon. It may prohibit us using excess land sales proceeds for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as allowed in MGO 4.22. I attempted to make an amendment that would have allowed making this an 11 vote item at a later date. Alders Webber, Benford, Bruer, Cnare, Konkel, Olson, Sanborn, Thomas and Verveer voted to do this. Alder Brandon, Compton, Golden, Gruber, Knox, Radomski, Rosas and Skidmore voted against. Ald. King was out of the room. Ald. Palm "wasn't paying attention" and abstained. Ald. VanRooy was absent. I'm not sure how many Alders actually understood the issues, but the motion failed (the Common Council requires 11 votes for anything to pass regardless of how many people are present). So, it was a bittersweet victory for me, excellent news for James Madison Park, but it may end up costing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund a million dollars, so not so good news for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The amendment ended up passing on a voice vote, with me being the sole "no" because of the "dirty trick".

Amendment #8 -Removing $3,000,000 for funding for the Mid-State St. Parking Ramp. This amendment would have no effect on the taxpayers bills because it is funded out of the Parking Utility. This is similar to our discussion last year when Alder Webber and I wanted to remove this funding.

02392 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT # 7 - Parking Utility / Mid-State Street Ramp, Project No. 5, p. 114
A motion was made by Ald. Konkel, seconded by Ald. Webber, to Adopt. The
motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Konkel, Palm and Webber (3)
No: Benford, Sanborn, Brandon, Bruer, Cnare, Compton, Golden, King,
Gruber, Olson, Knox, Jr., Rosas, Skidmore, Thomas, Van Rooy, Verveer
and Radomski (17)
Non Voting: Cieslewicz (1)

This year the amendment to do this was sponsored by Brandon, Sanborn, Cnare, Skidmore, Knox, Palm, Compton, VanRooy, Radomski, Thomas. Verveer made a substitute motion that would:

Replace the project narrative with the following:
This project would provide funding for the land acquisition, plan preparation, site preparation and construction of approximately 200 public parking stalls in the Mid-State Street area. Initiation of the project is dependent upon demonstrated support and promotion from the Downtown Business Improvement District, the Greater State Street Business Association, Downtown Madison Incorporated, the neighborhood and other related agencies and individuals for locating such a facility. The Buckeye surface lot has been chosen as the proposed site. This lot currently produces approximately $150,000 in parking revenues. Common Council approval is necessary before any funds may be expended.

This substitute passed on a voice vote.

Amendment #9 - To remove borrowing of $500,000 in borrowing for the project. This amendment would have saved the taxpayer $64,752. After a brief statement, Ald. Brandon acknowledged he didn't have the votes and the item was "placed on file".

Amendment #10 - Removing $70,000 in borrowing for the East Isthmus Arts Incubator. This would have saved the taxpayers $9,065. I wish I had the notes but Ald. Olson listed off the many jobs created and businesses started in other incubators around the City. These incubators have a tremendous economic impact, and yet, several champions of economic development sponsored and voted to remove this funding. This motion failed and the Arts Incubator will be funded. Voting to remove funding were Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Palm, Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas. Voting to keep the funding were Webber, Benford, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, King, Knox, Konkel, Olson, Rosas, Verveer. VanRooy absent.

Amendment #11 - Removing $300,000 in borrowing for the TIF 10% set aside program that provides affordable housing. This may or may not have had a $38,851 impact on the budget. If the funds were available in the TIF district, the borrowing may not need to occur. The borrowing is necessary because in the past, developers have come forward with projects approved by the neighborhood and the funding was not available. Voting to keep the funding were Webber, Benford, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, King, Konkel, Olson, Rosas, Verveer. Voting to remove the funding were Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Knox, Palm, Radomski, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas.

Amendment #12 - Removing $1.7M in borrowing for the Badger-Ann-Park and Todd Dr-Beltline project. This would have saved the taxpayers $220,158 in the operating budget. This item had alot of discussion but was "placed on file" with voice vote that contained a few persistent "no" votes.

Amendment #13a & b - These were competing ideas about how to handle the excessive manganese in well #29. Neither of the amendments would impact the taxpayer. Ald. Cnare's (amendment a) proposal allowed the Water Utility to look at re-siting the well at the same time as they did a pilot test on a filter. Ald. Brandon's version would have only looked at the re-siting of the well. And if that didn't work, we could be back in the same place we are now. Since we need to get the well up and running by 2008, it became apparent that plan a was more reasonable. Plan a passed on a voice vote, plan b was placed on file.

Amendment 14 - This was introduced from the floor by Ald. Gruber. It was borrowing of $404,000 for the Automated Collection Equipment Project. Funding was from the Fleet Service Reserves and therefore had no impact to the taxpayer. This motion passed on a unanimous vote.

Capital Budget Final Vote - Ok - here's where it got nutty. Before voting on the budget, Ald. Gruber moved for a 5 minute recess at around 9:40. When we returned from break, Ald. Gruber explained that there were several projects on the periphery that he could have cut, but that he didn't. This started a discussion about our budget process, the Council's role in the budget, micromanagement, periphery vs downtown voting, etc etc etc. It's the subject of a whole other blog for another day. Around 10:30, we finally voted. The following people voted against the operating budget: Brandon, Compton, Gruber, Sanborn. VanRooy was absent. The remaining people voted for the budget.

Whew! Check back here a little later this morning for updates on the amendments to the Operating Budget.

Read more!

City Budget: Where it's at . . .

Ok - due to popular demand, here's the run down on what happened last night . . .

We heard excellent public testimony from 6:30 - 9:45 or so last night. Thanks to everyone who came and tried to figure out how to be most effective. Obviously, we have some work to do on our process. 5 minutes to talk about 54 budget amendments with only a few days notice isn't a good way to do things. But I digress . . .

Around 9:45 we started plowing through the Capital Budget amendments. And we didn't get very far.

Amendment 1 - $319,759 in borrowing (costs the taxpayers $41,410 in the operating budget) to move design and engineering services for a new Far West Fire station from 2008 to 2007 passed on a unanimous voice vote. We have a site and own it and we are very likely to start this work in 2007.

Amendment 2 - $58,866 in borrowing (costs the taxpayers $7,623 in the operating budget) to purchase a new ambulance passed on a voice vote. There is some lingering concern about if it is the city's role to provide extra ambulances on football saturday or if the University should start hiring a private ambulance service for this function.

Amendment 3 - $70,000 to remove funding for the bus shelter replacement for the bus shelter in front of Walgreens on the square. This would have no impact on the taxpayers in that it is TIF funds that are used for this shelter. Despite the difficulty getting answers out of staff about how much money goes for the actual shelter and how much is for the demolition, electrical work for the lighting and plumbing for a water source for the folks who maintain the capital square, the motion to remove this funding failed. Votes to remove the funding were: Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Knox, Palm, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas, VanRooy (9). Votes to replace the bus shelter were: Webber, Benford, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, King, Konkel, Olson, Radomski, Rosas, Verveer (11).

Amendment 4 - This would have removed Capital Square and State Street upgrades. Ald. Brandon knew he didn't have the votes and moved to place this item on file. ("Place on file" in City speak basically means to remove from consideration.)

Amendment 5 - $75,000 in borrowing (costs the taxpayers $9,713 in the operating budget) to upgrade electronics at the railroad crossing at Johnson and Fordem Ave. These upgrades could make it so that there is a quiet zone in this area and the trains will not blow their horns (waking up the neighbors many times a night) unless there is a safety reason to do so. This passed 15 - 5. Voting against were: Brandon, Compton, Knox, Palm, Skidmore. Voting in favor were: Webber, Benford, Bruer, Cnare, Golden, Gruber, King, Konkel, Olson, Radomski, Rosas, Sanborn, Thomas, Van Rooy, Verveer

Amendment 6 - Removing $900,000 in funding for quiet zones around Union Corners. Would have saved the taxpayers $116,554 in the operating budget. This failed 12 to 8. Voting for removing the funding were: Brandon, Cnare, Compton, Knox, Sanborn, Skidmore, Thomas, Van Rooy. Voting for the quiet zone upgrades were: Webber, Benford, Bruer, Golden, Gruber, King, Konkel, Olson, Palm, Radomski, Rosas, Verveer.

Amendment 7 - Removing $1.2 million for upgrades to James Madison Park. This was a bit of a complicated discussion given that it was more about how we budget than the improvements to the park. At this point, the funding is removed, but I think we can expect an amendment from the floor to modify this. The funding for the improvments is tied to the sales of property involving the land under Lincoln School, the Collins House and two other houses in James Madison Park. Stay tuned on this one, I don't think it's over.

At this point, it was a little after 11:30 and we adjourned for the evening.

Tonight we start at 7:00 and we will be in room 260 in the Municipal Building (215 Martin Luther King). There is some confusion by several folks who I have talked to who wanted to show up tonight to testify. If many folks do show up, I may try to suspend the rules to allow them to testify. I'm not sure that my colleagues will go along with that, but it seems several people thought they could show up on any budget night.
Read more!

Madison Neighborhoods, Inc. - What is it?

With all of the budget talks about if there should be a Westside Planning Council and our annual attack on the funding for the Planning Councils in general, I couldn't help thinking about the high profile of a group I'd never heard of at the recent Neighborhood Conference. What exactly is Madison Neighborhoods, Inc.?

I asked several people involved in Neighborhood Associations, no one seems to know. No one seems to have heard of the organization until the Neighborhood Conference. Not good for an organization that "operates as a forum for the sharing of experiences and knowledge towards cooperative working relationships among citizens, staff members and elected officials for the strenghtening of our city through the promotion of neighborhoods." I gotta ask, what do they do? And why did the City decide to give them a "Neighborhood Leadership grant" in 2004? How much did we give them?

Their "newsletter" sheds very little light on who they are or what they do. About all I know is their post office box number and that their board of directors has 1/3 of the 6 seats vacant, including the seat that represents the Southside and Westside. Members include Daine Calhous (Eastside), Dorothy Borchardt (Northside), Mike Kohn (Business Associations) and Bob Gibbons (At-Large).

How does a group like this get such a high profile in a Neighborhood Conference? And what do they do? Will we hear from them again?
Read more!

Who gets our TIF dollars? Who decides and how?

Today, on the longest Board of Estimates agenda of the year, the mayor has placed it on the agenda as item number 45. This is the TIF policy that we've been working on since early in 2004. The Mayor has been stalling on getting the policies that we recommended in June 2005 passed. So much so I had to introduce my own resolution last March.

Recent efforts to speak to the mayor about this issue have been fruitless. I couldn't get a meeting with him until I invited folks from the business community to meet with us. Then he scheduled the meeting and then cancelled the meeting without explanation. When the meeting was rescheduled, he sent his staff.

Friday, we finally were able to get his written thoughts on what his issues with TIF are. (See memo dated "10-30-06" that came out with the Board of Estimates agenda and is actually dated November 13.)

Instead of following our recommendations for having a process where the Common Council sets priorities, asks for a competitive application process and then chooses the best projects, according to his staff, the mayor wants to just make the decisions on his own in his budget. (Before you panic, we do allow for projects to come in "off cycle" when something comes up, it just requires a 15 vote item, just like it does now if your project isn't in the Mayor's budget.)

So, what do we want for the City, clear priorities, a transparent process and a competitive process for our tax dollars? Or do we want the same old, same old? If you're interested in this, please come to the Board of Estimates and voice your opinion. They meet at 4:30 today in room 260 of the Municipal Building (215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.)
Read more!

Salvation Army has no shame.

Unbelievable.

I recently sponsored a $25,000 amendment to the City Budget to match the amendment Sup. Scott McDonell made to the county budget to give the Salvation Army $25,000. That's $50,000 to run their current $31,000 program and expand it. You'd think that would be worth a mention, wouldn't you?

This year, we've been told the shelter won't open until December 1. Can you imagine sleeping in your car with your kids with some of the weather we've already had this year? Or Thanksgiving evening? Funding this program would prevent families from having to do that. This is a good program, despite multiple issues with the Salvation Army in general and its unethical fundraising efforts.
Read more!

More from anti-domestic partnership benefits dude . . .

I don't think this dude understands what open records laws are . . . I removed his email and name to prevent him from being identified, but once you're emailed public officials, those records are open to the public under many circumstances.

From: [removed]
Sent: Thu 11/9/2006 5:21 PM
To: council; county_board_recipients@co.dane.wi.us
Cc: gov.nat.rules@tech.roget.org
Subject: Fwd: Partner Benefits

You can choose to not reply, however I must advise that you are subjecting your offices and taxpayer funded operations to legal remedy.
Thank you. And thank god for the citizens of Wisconsin for showing this obscene island of Dane County what the majority really thinks.
Paul

--
This message is the property of Paul [removed] and/or his representative(s). It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message.

Don't taxpayers have the right to know if someone is threatening legal action? If he doesn't want these messages repeated, perhaps he shouldn't send them to elected officials.
Read more!

Operating Budget Impacts

Here's the list of proposed cuts in the Operating Budget and how much they can save you on your tax bill. Again, looking at the programs and how they add to the quality of life in Madison, I have to ask, is it worth it?

Here's what the following cuts will save the taxpayer:

• Sister City Programs $10,000.00 or $.12 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Planning Resources $5,000.00 or $.06 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Emerging Nieghborhoods $100,000.00 or $1.22 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Downtown Public Safety $100,000.00 or $1.22 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Affordable Housing Trust Fund $300,000.00 or $3.67 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Room Tax Reserves $350,000.00 or $4.28 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Cuts Police Dept Info Specialist and but provides more overtime so adds $4,250.00 or $.05 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Common Council Budget $4,579.00 or $.06 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Mayor's Office Budget $10,013.00 or $.12 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Occupational Accommodations Specialist $8,008.00 or $.10 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Bridge Lake Point Waunona Center $13,500.00 or $.16 on the tax bill for the average home.
• East Madison Community Center Children Development Services $3,079.00 or $.04 on the tax bill for the average home.
• East Madison Community Center Summer Youth Program $1,022.00 or $0.01 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Kennedy Heights Neighborhood Center Early Childhood Program $2,286.00 or $0.03 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Kennedy Heights Neighborhood Center Children’s Program $6,335.00 or $.08 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Neighborhood House Summer Children’s Program $6,309.00 or $.08 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Vera Court Neighborhood Center $5,000.00 or $.06 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Women's Transit Authority Replacement $89,200.00 or $1.09 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Project Respect $44,374.00 or $.54 on the tax bill for the average home.
• Senior Center Coffee Urn $2,500.00 or $.03 on the tax bill for the average home.
  

Plus they are raising admission price for swimming pool and if the Westside Planning Council passes, all Planning Councils will get a funding decrease because the funding will be split 4 ways instead of three.

These cuts result in a reduction of $1,256.955 or $15.36 for the owner of an average priced home.

One has to ask is $15.36 worth it for an increased quality of life for so many? And how many of these cuts now, will lead to more expenses down the line?



Read more!

Capital Budget Amendment Impacts

Below are the specifics of some of the proposed cuts to the Capital budget and how much it would save you as a taxpayer. The question is, is it worth it?

The numbers below are based on the savings on the average price of a Madison home which is up $16,521 from $222,928 last year. This year the average price of a home is $239,449.

Amendment #3. Bus Shelter - Won't save anything on your tax bill but will save $70,000.00 in TIF funds

The Capitol Concourse Bus Shelter Replacement project involves replacement of the seven existing bus shelters around the Capitol Concourse with five new shelters. Four shelters were budgeted for in 2006. This project funds the fifth shelter. Funding is from TID 25.

These costs include demolition, electrical and plumbing work in addition to labor and materials for building a new shelter

Amendment #4. State St. Streetscape - We already authorized borrowing $150,000.00 in 2006 however, the project was not completed in 2006. Additionally, the $150,000 we borrow will be leveraged by $525,000 in funding from TIF. This project total cost is $675,000. Cutting this will prevent us from spending $675,000 but will only save $19,426.00 per year for the next 10 year, or $.24 on the average home.

The Capitol Square Streetscape Updates project involves the replacement of built-in benches with benches of the same style being installed on State Street, the completion of granite curbing around planter areas, the replacement of brick pavers with exposed aggregate concrete, the replacement of existing kiosks, and other streetscape amenities. It also includes a test area in 2007 for the replacement of pedestrian lighting with the State Street style lights, and streetlights with the West Washington Avenue style lights. Funding sources include $175,000 from TID #23, $175,000 from TID #25, and $175,000 from TID #28. General Obligation borrowing of $150,000 is reauthorized from 2006.

Amendment #6. Railroad Crossings - This would save $900,000 in borrowing or $116,554 in the operating budget or $1.42 on the average home. However, this money is reimbursable by TIF.

This project will repair deteriorated railroad crossings by funding crossing repair outside of the railroads area of responsibility. The project will also fund upgrades to increase motor vehicle safety at railroad crossings. Funds in 2007 will be used to upgrade at-grade railroad crossings on the near east side located within TID # 37. Those crossings include Winnebago Street, Division St, Second St, and Fourth St. Funds in 2008 include Cory St, Waubesa St and S Fair Oaks Ave. G.O. funding of $900,000 is reimbursable from TID #37.

Amendment #7. James Madison Park Improvements - This money would only be spent if houses and/or land are sold in James Madison Park. This cuts $1,200,000.00 in improvements in the prk. This would then be applied the operating budget and would save $14.66 on the average for one year.

This project provides for improvements at James Madison Park. A detailed master plan will be developed for the park, and may include many of the following components: grading and restoration of house sites ($55,000); garden, terrace and accessible paths ($170,000); parking, lighting, and public art ($300,000); lakeshore pier ($35,000); lakeshore staircase and gazebo ($150,000); playground and shelter furnishings ($55,000); irrigation, signage, bocce, horseshoe, and exercise areas ($210,000); relocation of basketball courts ($100,000); and major shelter renovation for restaurant-concession ($150,000). Costs of $1,200,000 are to be entirely offset by land and property sales at the park. Other funding consists of land and property sales revenue.

Amendment #8. State St. Ramp - This saves $300,000.00 in borrowing out of the Parking Utility, however, since it is Parking Utility money, it saves you nothing on your tax bill.

$3 million in funding is for a scaled back project to provide an affordable, simple two-story ramp. This will almost double the capacity of the current lot, responding to a decades-long concern for State Street businesses while improving the aesthetics of the site. However, if a mixed-use plan is brought forward that could be developed without creating the need for a parking rate increase, and within City TIF policy guidelines, these funds could be used for that project instead.

Amendment #9. Allied Terrace - Saves $500,000.00 in borrowing so impacts the operating budget by $64,752.00. This will save $0.79 on the average home.

Reauthorization of a project to eliminate blighting influences, promote housing
redevelopment, stimulate desired land uses, upgrade public improvements and revitalize the area, generally bounded by the West Beltline Highway, former Illinois Central RR (now WI DOT) right-of-way, the former Chicago & Northwestern RR (now the Union Pacific) right-ofway, the City limits of Madison and Fitchburg and a property line 150 feet west of and parallel to Helene Parkway. Funding in 2007 will be used for the redevelopment of City-owned properties in Allied. Funding in 2008 will be used for property acquisition of a building and relocation of the tenant to extend Atticus Way from its present terminus through to Red Arrow Drive.

Amendment #10. East Isthmus Arts Incubator - This saves borrowing of $70,000.00 and impacts the operating budget by $9,065.00. This will save $0.11 on the average home.
This money is reauthorized from 2006.

Reauthorization of projects approved in the 2006 budget. These projects provide long-term deferred payment loans to non-profit agencies to acquire, construct, or renovate facilities that will serve as public resources and generate positive neighborhood effects in those neighborhoods that address the Mayor's neighborhood or economic development goals. Funding includes $300,000 in reauthorized General Obligation debt and $300,000 in Federal funds for the second phase of the Wexford Neighborhood Center project, and $70,000 in reauthorized GO debt for the East Isthmus Arts Incubator project. Funding of $650,000 in 2008 is for the renovation of the Atwood/Kupfer Ironworks for a neighborhood center and
adjacent gymnasium.

Amendment #11. TIF 10% set aside - This funding is for possible TIF projects that want to include affordable housing. In the past, projects have come forward, but we haven't had a budget for them. This would save $300,000.00 in borrowing and save $38,851.00 in the operating budget, or $0.47 on the average home.

The Council adopted a method to promote affordable housing within TIF districts that reserves 10% of the estimated increment for projects selected through a separate decision process which includes neighborhood representation and Council oversight.

Amendment # 12. Badger-Ann-Park & Todd Dr - This saves $1,700,000.00 in borrowing and saves $220,158.00 in the operating budget. This saves the taxpayer $2.69.

The project is for the implementation of a variety of community, economic, development, and housing activities in the Bader-Ann-Park and Todd-Beltline areas in conjunction with the Park Street planning effort and South Madison neighborhood plan. Priority projects will be or have been identified by the Badger-Ann-Park Street Redevelopment Committee.

TOTAL:
Saves $3,990,000 in borrowing.
Saves $1,668,806 in the operating budget
Saves the taxpayer $20.39.
Read more!

Budget Amendments! Oh My!

My head is still spinning from reading the 54 amendments we got on Friday at noon and I've been at the Neighborhood Conference all day . . . so I still can't tell you what I think and can't begin to figure out how to prioritize it . . . but I'm working on it. Meanwhile, here's some links to the information:

Capital Budget Amendments
Operating Budget Amendments
Full Budget

The short list that I think people are interested in are as follows:

Removing funding for
- Train Whistle Quiet Zones
- Improvement to State Street
- Improvements to James Madison Park
- Allied Drive
- East Isthmus Arts Incubator
- Affordable Housing
- Sister Cities Programs
- Emerging Neighborhoods Program
- Downtown Public Safety
- After School and Summer Programs for Kids
- Program to replace Women’s Transit Authority
- Program to help rehabilitate prostitutes
- Planning Councils

Adding funding for
- Arborists to improve Tree maintenance Schedule
- Neighborhood Grants Program
- Neighborhood Ombudsman
- Warming Shelter for the Homeless
- Southwest Neighborhood Center and Youth Programming
- Westside Planning Council
- Neighborhood House
- Adult and Children’s programming at Libraries

Increases admission prices for the new pool

Plus, a decision on Reorganizing the Department of Planning and Development

If you have feedback, please don't hesitate to get involved:

Email the Alders:
allalders@cityofmadison.com

Come to the Council meeting on Tuesday November 14
6:30 Room 201 City County Building
Register and Speak if you can (most effective!)
Otherwise, just come and register your support or opposition
Read more!

Budget Amendments Come Out Today

So, today we find out what we are voting on this Tuesday. I hear there will be plenty for folks to be upset about. Here's what I know so far . . .

I've sponsored the following:

• Add $75,000 for improvements to the Railroad Crossing at Johnson and Fordem. (Konkel, Olson)
• Add $25,000 for the warming shelter at Salvation Army that allows people who would be turned away to sleep on a mattress on the floor instead. (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Add $50,000 additional money for neighborhood grants (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Remove the conditions placed on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund at the Board of Estimates (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Add $10,000 for the sign language interpreters that we are required to provide. (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Add $5,000 to the Office of the Director of Planning and Development for an AASPIRE intern (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Add $19,371 for AASPIRE interns in other departments (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Require the 10 new cops to be neighborhood police officers in 2008 (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Add $63,000 to have 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked for our employees working more than 18 hours of week (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Add $10,000 in funding for libraries for adult and children's programs (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Add $5,000 for the Jobs with a Future program (Konkel, Benford, King)
• Add $41,280 for a Neighborhood Ombudsman (Konkel, Benford, King)
• And I submitted a placeholder amendment on the Planning and Development Reorganization that would refer all of the rearranging of departments to the Common Council Organizaitonal Committee to make recommendations regarding the reorganization. This amendment provides for some savings through truth in budgeting as well. (Konkel, Golden)
  

I also signed on to a few amendments that other folks had

• Add $10,000 for Sister Cities and remove $10,000 from the Greater Madison Convention and Vistors Bureau Funding (King)
• Add about $40,000 for Westside Neighborhood Center functions (Thomas, Sanborn)
• Remove the $18,000 for the Collaboration Council (Golden)
  

I heard from Ald. Zach Brandon about a few amendments that will likely be of interest to some folks including removing the funding for improvements to James Madison Park and removing money for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

We'll get the rest of them around noon and I'll share them as soon as I can but I have several meetings this afternoon. If they come out soon enough, I'll post others and my reactions prior to those meetings.

Sounds like this year isn't going to be the smooth sailing many of us were hoping for.

Note: For more info, see the Wisconsin State Journal today (which I should have read before posting, but I don't really read that paper any more . . . . only when someone points articles out to me . . .)
Read more!

Get these folks some training!

As a person deeply involved in local government, I take open meetings and public records laws rather seriously. I hold them in high regard. Transparency is so key to good government. Which is why the Economic Development Commission (EDC) in particular, and several other city committees, drive me nuts from time to time.

The most recent incident . . . Last night at the EDC there was an agenda item on their agenda that read as follows:

7. 3 - 5 YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Discussion of draft outline
04898 3 - 5 Year Economic Development Strategy Implementation Plan
Attachments: EcoDevStrategyPlan100406.doc

Normally, in Legistar, you can click on the item number, in this case 04898 and get to the item. And then you'd be able to see the Attachment that they refer to. By getting this information, that's how the public is able to read what they are discussing and decide if they'd like to show up and testify.

In this case, you can't click on the link. I couldn't figure out why and I asked our Council staff to look at it and she informed me:

That's because they kept in draft format and thus it can't be accessed
through the web.  Luckily you have me!

Yes, luckily, I can get the information. However, the public, can't.

I have three drafts of this plan in my folder. The latest one is dated Oct. 4, 2006. I also have one dated Sept. 19, 2006 and one that is not dated. I'm pretty sure I have those copies because I showed up to a meeting where if you were there, you could get a copy.

On October 4th, this item appeared on their agenda

6. 3 - 5 YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Discussion of draft outline

No links in legistar.

On September 6th, this item appeared on their agenda

8. UPDATE ON ED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY PLAN
SUBCOMMITTEE
Discussion only

No links in legistar.

I know I've been to many meetings where I show up and something is handed out and it doesn't appear in legistar. And I think we're working towards fixing some of these problems. But, I am particularly appalled because with the EDC, this remains a running theme. In this case, one of the members who worked on the document actually said that "its still a draft and I don't want that out there for the public". I'm positive she didn't realize what she was saying or that this isn't the way open government works. However, this isn't the first time these members have run afoul of rules on how government works. Remember their Economic Development report they kept under lock and key until the press release? Or their non-public hearing, public hearing on paid sick leave?

Honestly, we have an Economic Development plan that hasn't been updated since 1980. I tried to put money in the budget last year to update the plan, but oddly enough, that motion failed. Now, they are developing an outline of what the plan is, and yet the public is really allowed to participate fully in a discussion of what we should be looking at in regards to Economic Development. And this is all the more important because in the Planning and Development reorganization, we are putting Community Development in the Economic Development Unit and some people think Economic Development includes only job creation, others have a wider view. If you had the document, you'd see that EDC has taken the wider view of Economic Development, but it is certainly not unaimous with all of the committee members.

Anyways, and I'm serious about this, the Mayor's office is in charge of committee training, I really think they need to get someone from the City Attorney's office over there to explain that this is government and there are rules. Private businesses might not have to follow these rules, but when you are doing the business of the citizens of this fine City, you do have to follow these rules. I know these rules aren't always intuitive and counter to the way many businesses are run, but they're more than rules, they are laws. And they are important for good government.
Read more!

And so the attack on domestic partner benefits begins . . .

The City Council and County Board members got this email about an hour after the polls closed in Dane County . . . .

From: [email deleted ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 9:08 PM
To: county_board_recipients@co.dane.wi.us
Cc: council
Subject: Partner Benefits

It appears that the marriage amendment will pass. If my early understanding is incorrect please disregard. However, as it appears the marriage amendment will pass, I want to take the first opportunity as a taxpayer to order the county board and city council to suspend all partner benefits at the earliest possible opportunity in accordance with Wisconsin law. Thank you and good night.
Paul

I'm speechless.

Read more!

Back to the drawing board . . .

Yesterday, we received news that the Supreme Court refused to hear our case on our Inclusionary Zoning appeal.

So, the question remains, how are we going to provide affordable housing in our community for those most in need? Homeowners at 70 - 80% Area Median Income (AMI) are still provided additional affordable housing, but what about those with the greatest needs for affordable housing? How are we in this community going to make sure that there is housing available for people who make 50% of the AMI or less:

Household Size	2006 Area Median Income (100% Median)	90% Median	"Low and Moderate Income" (or "LMI") Individuals or households whose annual income does not exceed 80% of the area median income.
			80% Median*	70% Median	60% Median*	50% Median*	40% Median	30% Median*
1 person	$51,200	$46,080	$41,000	$35,840	$30,720	$25,600	$20,480	$15,350
2 persons	$58,600	$52,740	$46,850	$41,020	$35,160	$29,300	$23,440	$17,550
3 persons	$65,900	$59,310	$52,700	$46,130	$39,540	$32,950	$26,360	$19,750
4 persons	$73,200	$65,880	$58,550	$51,240	$43,920	$36,600	$29,280	$21,950
5 persons	$79,100	$71,190	$63,250	$55,370	$47,460	$39,550	$31,640	$23,700
6 persons	$84,900	$76,410	$67,900	$59,430	$50,940	$42,450	$33,960	$25,450
7 persons	$90,800	$81,720	$72,600	$63,560	$54,480	$45,400	$36,320	$27,250
8 persons	$96,600	$86,940	$77,300	$67,620	$57,960	$48,300	$38,640	$29,000

(sorry, haven't figured out how to fix that chart!)

The federal government is cutting back funding, there are less Section 8 vouchers available in our community, we can't pass an inclusionary zoning law that applies to rental . . . our choices are increasingly limited while working people are spending more and more on their rent and childcare costs and are going to fall further and further behind.

Unless we come up with something new, it seems as we will need to rely on chasing the almighty dollar and working with those few for profit and few over-worked non-profits who are willing to and smart enough to work with multiple layers of multi-stringed funding. Or, finding the political will and pouring local taxpayer dollars into the solution. Or, even worse, just letting lower income families continue to struggle.

Meantime, we have a new problem. We need to find a way to plug the new loopholes driven through the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. When developers build buildings they can say they will be rental, and then convert them to condos after they are built and we currently have no way to make sure that those conversions are affordable housing.

So . . . the struggle for economic and social justice continues. We need to find a way to make this community one where everyone is welcome and can afford to live. We need to find a way to make sure our lower-income workers can live in this community close to where they work and where their kids go to school. Back to the drawing board . . . we may have had a set back, but we can't give up!


Read more!

City Council 11/6/2006: Full of Surprises!

Three of them!

First, it was only 20 minutes long. Yup. 20 minutes. That's the shortest meeting I've attended in my nearly 6 years on the council.

Second, right before the meeting, Ald. Larry Palm walks up and hands me a "local purchasing ordinance" that he said he was going to introduce at the end of the council meeting and says "I know how you don't like surprises." Wow. Here I was trying to be collaborative and work together with a committee by requesting a report and having a public discussion. If I knew this is what we were going to do, I could have introduced my own ordinance last July. Needless to say, I was surprised. (Sorry, no link yet.)

Third, I referred the ordinance that would do part of the Department of Planning and Development Reorganization to the Community Development Block Grant Commission, the Community Services Commission and the Economic Development Commission. From the look the Mayor gave me, I guess he was surprised. And displeased.
Read more!

Vote! Today!

Seems like I shouldn't have to remind anyone reading this blog . . . but for the record . . . .

Vote!! Vote!! Vote!!

If you're wondering what I care about on the is ballot . . . here goes.

Vote Green. Vote Green often. It felt particularly good to vote for Rae Vogeler, I really admire her efforts in this race. If you fear being a spoiler (which I stopped doing a long time ago and is a blog onto itself), stop believing the hype and start trying to fix the system by fighting to have instant runoff voting. Third parties are needed now more than ever, send a message.

Oh, but (there's always a but. . . ) I'm always happy to vote for Tammy.

Amending the constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman: No
Advisory death penalty question: No
ATC power line study: Yes
Schools: Yes

I had forgotten about the health care question. Seemed like a no-brainer.

Wish I could have voted for paid sick leave and the Dane County referendum on the war, but those didn't make it to the ballot for fear of confusing the voters with a "yes" vote. (Yet another blog topic!)

I was voter number 121 around 8:00 which is about 4 times as many people as usually are at my polling place. Hopefully this trend continues today and is similar where you vote. Keep the poll workers busy; it is good for democracy . . . VOTE!!!! Even if you don't agree with me, go vote. Don't forget. Don't delay. Really . . . back away from the keyboard and go vote now.
Read more!

Citizens Input cut out of Planning and Development Reorganization

First the boards, committees and commissions were cut out of the process . . . and now, public comment will be taken . . . after the core decisions have been made.

Last spring when we first started talking about the Planning and Development Reorganization, the Mayor's office sent out a timeline. That timeline (see page 6) said that boards, committees and commissions that were connected to various Planning and Development activities would have a role in the process. It was proposed that the following activities would take place:

• May - "Questions drafted for boards, committees and commissions attached to the Department of Planning and Development"
• May to early June - "Boards, committees and commissions hold hearings and discussions on goals and report back to staff teams and Staff Steering Group"
• Fall - "Alder and public input received through budget debate"

So far, none of this has happened.

Budget amendments are due on Wednesday at noon. The Council Discussion on the Department of Planning and Development Reorganization won't happen until Thursday, when it's too late make any amendments.

Even worse, the public is invited to a public hearing on the 28th of November to give input on what they think about the reorganization. However, by that point, the council will have already voted on the budget and the following things will already be done:

I. Recommendations that can be implemented administratively

• Purchase the enterprise permitting software in 2006 with an initial investment of $675,000 from recently completed land sales. (A budget amendment would be required if a supplement from the 2006 contingent reserve is necessary to purchase the software.)
• Open a physical “One Stop Shop” in 2007 on a temporary basis, with permanent implementation in 2008. Implement a virtual “One Stop Shop” through implementation of the enterprise software and upgrading of the web site. (With the exception noted above, this change can be accomplished administratively.)
• Revamp the way we provide services to neighborhoods: enhance web site, improve points of contact, synchronize grants, establish neighborhood benchmarks and early warning system, publish an annual “State of the Neighborhoods Report,” improve coordination and tracking of neighborhood plan recommendations.
• Create and implement a pilot project that coordinates the way the City and other entities provide social services. (The study of the pilot can be done administratively. Further action will likely be necessary to implement it, depending on whether appropriations or MOUs with outside entities are recommended.)
  

II. Recommendations that can be implemented upon budget adoption

• Move the Office of Business Resources (OBR), the CDBG Office, the Office of Community Services and the Senior Center to the new Economic Development Unit. (Ordinances would still need to be revised to reflect these changes. Mike May is working on language that would make these changes in the budget contingent upon Common Council approval of the necessary resolutions.)
• Move the Street Vendor Inspector and related part-time support staff from Inspection to OBR and change the name to reflect the shift from enforcement to assistance. (Same as above.)
• Move architectural, maintenance and custodial staff from the Inspection Unit to Engineering. (Same as above)
• Upgrade and fill the new Economic Development Director position as of 1/1/07. (If the position is reclassified due to the new responsibilities added to the unit, a resolution and ordinance change would be required to implement the upgrade.)
• Add a full-time Neighborhood Planner 3 as of 1/1/07 to help implement the recommendations of the Neighborhood Staff Team. (If the position is reclassified due to the new responsibilities added to the unit, a resolution and ordinance change would be required to implement the upgrade.)
• Increase the part-time Economic Development Technician position to a full-time position as of 7/1/07.
• Appropriate $50,000 in 2007 to develop a 3- to 5-year economic development plan for the City. (If a consultant is hired, a resolution would be needed to approve the contract.)
• Appropriate $18,000 in 2007 for the Collaboration Council. (Same as above.)
• Appropriate $100,000 in the 2007 capital budget to prepare a detailed master plan for the downtown. (Same as above.)
  

What would be the purpose of a public hearing after the decisions have essentially been made?
Read more!

The City's Pest Control Program

In 2004, the City of Madison revised our policy regarding Pest Management on City properties in an effort to eliminate or further reduce pesticide use to the greatest possible extent. These reductions were sought for environmental as well as public health reasons. So, how is the City doing?

Some departments are doing well and have gotten good comments from the Pest Management Advisory Committee. Particularly, they state:

The committee recommends that Madison Metro be recognized by the Mayor's office for their improvement in adhering to the City's Pest Management Policy. The change in pest control vendors to address past problems appears to be a positive move in meeting the goals of the policy.

For other departments such as Motor Equipment ("have improved" and "active in complying"), Parks ("report and plan are very thorough") and Police ("change in pest control vendors has remedied past problems"and "good use of physical controls") the Oversight Committee didn't have any concerns. They only has minor concerns with Public Health and the Senior Center.

On the other hand, for the second year in a row, the following departments did not submit the required reports or plans:

• Monona Terrace
• Community and Economic Development (Real Estate Dept.)
  

Additionally, this year we had the following problems:

• Fire - No reports or plans submitted
• Housing Operations - No reports or plans submitted
• Streets, West - No reports or plans submitted
• Streets, East - No reports or plans submitted
• Building Inspection - No 2006 plan submitted
• Engineering - No specific data provided on types and amounts of pesticides used in 2005
• Streets, Transfer Station - Needs to list active ingredients on chemical pesticides used
• Parking Utility - Round-Up use at Sayle St may not be in compliance with the policy
  

I appreciate the efforts of the oversight committee, but these citizens really need some support so that they can do their jobs. One of their findings was that:

The Mayor's office needs to be involved in requiring non-compliant agencies to submit complete reports on time.

I couldn't agree more, we need these reports and we need them on time. Given the problems and the numbers of people potentially affected, I hope this is given a high priority.
Read more!

We're committed to Affordable Housing . . . kind of . . . .sort of . . . .

. . . if we don't need the money for anything else . . .

Under the Mayor's plan for affordable housing ($300,000 per year), its going to take 24 years to fund the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to the point where we have a fund that operates the way it is intended. Ald. Austin King and Ald. Brian Benford thought this was unacceptable, and attempted to add another $200,000 at the Board of Estimates. I asked Austin not to do this because we end up fighting about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund every year at budget time and every year we put ridiculous strings on it. The strings usually have some political implications and cause us to fight about the same money for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund two or three more times during the year. And for the past two years, we don't end up with any additional money.

This year, we're headed down the same path. Austin's motion was amended . . . so that we have strings again! The $200,000 will only be put in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund if there is money left in the contingent reserve at the end of the year. What kind of a priority is that? Affordable Housing is important . . . if we don't have anything else we need the money for.

And while we did get $100,000 in 2004 under this type of plan, we didn't get any extra money in 2005 and we won't get any in 2006 due to the strings that were attached. So, these votes let people look like they support affordable housing and yet allow voters to forget the result of the vote - did we actually get money for affordable housing? In short, based on the last two years of experience, its a waste of everyone's time.

Funny thing is, Ald. Zach Brandon and I were the ones to argue against this type of budgeting at the Board of Estimates meeting. We agree that we should either fund it or not, but not put these (usually politically motivated) strings on the funding. (2005 strings were so that we wouldn't use the contingent reserve for other needs. 2006 was to get us to agree to sell properties in James Madison Park.) Unfortunately, Zach agreed that while we agree this budgeting is not the way to do things, he also made it pretty clear he wouldn't vote for the funds.

All of this just doesn't make sense. Our goal is to get to $10M in the fund so that we can make a sufficient amount of interest on the money so that we spend only the interest and use the $10M to generate interest. At this rate, at $300,000 a year, it will take 24 years to get to full funding. At $500,000 a year, it will take 14 years to get to full funding. Meanwhile, we're not creating affordable housing and our money isn't working as hard as it should. Funding this program now can help us make more interest sooner to create affordable housing, instead of sitting there making a more modest amount of money while we wait another 14 - 24 years before we can start creating a more substantial amount of affordable housing.
Read more!