Don't watch government, become the government!

I'm a lazy blogger today, so I just stole this off Alder Satya Rhodes-Conway's post to EINPC and I'm grateful to her for putting this together.

One of the things that makes our city government go is the dedicated citizens that serve on city committees and commissions. More information is here: http://www.cityofmadison.com/mayor/mycommit.html. If you're interested, you can fill out an application here: http://www.cityofmadison.com/mayor/pdfs/commappt.pdf . A list of vacancies is here: http://www.cityofmadison.com/mayor/vacancy.html. Right now, there are vacancies on the following committees:

Affirmative Action Commission
Commission on People with Disabilities
Downtown Coordinating Committee
Economic Development Commission
Equal Opportunities Commission
Housing Committee
Humanitarian Award Committee
Parking Council for People with Disabilities
Board of Public Works
Senior Center Board of Directors
Vending Oversight Committee

And speaking of "watching" the government. I have a post I've written about PEG funding for local access channels like Channel 12, but I have a few facts to check before I post it, so check back later today to see how you can help make sure that the community has access to this service.
Read more!

Board of Estimates Budget meeting! Part II: Operating Budget

To read in chronological order, you'll want to read the post below about the Board of Estimates Capital Budget amendments first. After taking a pizza break, a few minutes after 9:00, four and a half hours into the meeting, they started the Operating Budget Amendments.

A few notes before I start. I didn't cut and paste the language, so you'll need to look at the link above to see the exact language. Also "place on file" is our way of saying that we withdraw the amendment from consideration. Additionally, these were voice votes and some of them were hard to tell who voted which way, if there are numbers listed, that means that the mayor announced the vote and there was no dispute about the vote tally. And I should apologize in advance if there are any mistakes, please let me know.

Amendment #1 - State Budget Amendments
Sponsor: Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: ($488,264)
These are the adjustments from the state budget estimates. We ended up with an additional $488,264 for our bottom line. This passed unanimously.

Amendment #2 - Fund Balance/Reduction in Taxes Raised
Sponsor: Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $200,000
This was an amendment that took the savings from amendment 1 and reduced the amount of taxes we'd have to raise. Zach made an amendment to apply the entire $488,264 to the amount of taxes that would be reduced instead of the Mayor's proposed $200,000. The motion tied 3 -3 with the Mayor voting with Bruer, Rhodes-Conway and Verveer to defeat the motion. The original motion with the $200,000 then passed unanimously.

Amendment #3 - Sister Cities
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: ($10,000)
This annual amendment to cut $10,000 from the Sister Cities failed 4 - 2, yet again. Alders Brandon and Sanborn voting in favor.

Amendment #4 - Collaboration Council Reporting
Sponsors: Rhodes-Conway, Konkel, Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This amendment required reporting from the REDE (Regional Economic Development Group) on their goals and objectives by March 1, 2008 and an annual report by September 1, 2008. The amendment passed unaimously, tho I wonder if it would have if some of the Alders knew I wrote the amendment. The Mayor didn't sponsor for that reason, even tho he offered to "work with anyone" on the amendment.

Amendment #5 - Cutting the Emerging Neighborhood Funding
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: $200,000
This amendment would have cut all of the funding for the Emerging Neighborhood Funding. Brandon made a substitute motion to only cut $100,000 and then add amendment #6. That motion was separated and they voted on the language in amendment #6 which passed. Then they voted on the $100,000 cut and that failed 4 - 2 with Brandon and Sanborn being the two. Then they finally voted on the $200,000 cut and that cut failed 4 - 2 (Brandon, Sanborn).

Amendment #6 - Process for Emerging Neighborhood Funding
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Konkel, Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This language was passed with Amendment 5 above. Again, I wrote it and there was no discussion and passed unanimously. The language was as follows:
The Emerging Neighborhoods funding shall be determined by a bi-monthly process where applications are due the 15th of the month prior to decisions being made by a committee of up to four City Staff members, a member of the Community Services Commission, a member of the Early Education and Child Care Board, a member of the Community Development Block Grant Commission, a Mayoral representative and the Common Council president or their designee. Meetings shall be held in January, March, May, July, September and November or until funds are spent for the year. The Mayor shall make appointments by November 20th for approval by the Common Council on December 4th 2007. Staff shall prepare the application for approval by the Common Council at their December 4th, 2007 meeting and the first application date shall be December 15th, 2007.

Amendment #7 - Dissolving the Capital Revolving Fund
Sponsor: Sanborn
Placed on file because Capital Budget amendment #14 failed.

Amendment #8 - Funding Inclusionary Zoning
Sponsor: Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This amendment authorizes the funding from the Inclusionary Zoning program as provided for in the resolution we passed about the fund. The Mayor "forgot" to fund the program and now we need this "technical amendment" to fix the failure to authorize the funding for incentives to developers and money to have offers to purchase and to buy homes if they are sold.

Amendment #9 - Fire Radios
Sponsor: Verveer, Konkel
Total and Levy Impact: ($70,000)
This was placed on file since Capital Budget Amendment #2 was placed on file.

Amendments #10, 11 & 12 - Police
Sponsor: Clear
Total and Levy Impact ($148,500) + $47,800 + $35,000
These were all placed on file at the request of the sponsor.

Amendment 13 - Adding a Crime Analyst if grant funding provided.
Sponsor: Verveer, Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $0
Passed unanimously.

Amendment #14 - Delete funding for Downtown Safety Initiative
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: ($100,000)
This would have cut the entire budget for police for "Downtown Safety" which includes money for cell phones (2.400), a computer server for downtown cameras ($25,500), leasing horses ($5,000) and overtime ($52,630) and benefits ($14,470). Ald. Brandon made a motion to only fund the phone, server, horses and $9325 in overtime and $2565 in benefits. That motion failed 4 - 2 (Brandon, Sanborn.). Then the motion to place the cut on file passed unanimously.

Amendment #15 - Changes to the reporting the police have to do.
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway
Total and Levy Impact: $0
You'll have to look at the formatted language to see the changes. This was referred to the Common Council meeting so that the police chief could talk with the sponsor to make sure he understood the changes.

Amendment #16 - Requires reporting in #15 to be done by police sector.
Sponsor: Clear, Kerr, Bruer, Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This was placed on file since #15 was referred.

Amendment #17 - Adding .5 FTR Management Information Specialist to support the Regional Management System project in the police department.
Sponsor: Verveer, Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This position would be funded by other local government sources and it passed unanimously.

Amendment #18 - Upgrading a police officer to lietenant and two police officers to sergeants.
Sponsor: Verveer, Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $33,300
It passed with Brandon voting no.

Amendment #19 - Cut the Fit City Coordinator and add the WIC Program Nutritionist
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Konkel
Total and Levy Impact: $368
Passed unanimously. However, there was a question about if we could do it because the intergovernmental agreement for the health department says that there will be no lay-offs.

Amendment #20 - Cutting the Fit City Coordinator
Sponsor: Sanborn
Total and Levy Impact: ($13,086)
This amendment was placed on file cuz #19 passed.

At this point it was around 10:00.

Amendment #21 - Reducing Alder accounts
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: ($7,714)
Brandon asked that it be placed on file.

Amendment #22 - Eliminating the Alcohol Policy Coordinator
Sponsor: Sanborn
Total and Levy Impact: ($34,648)
This amendment failed 4 - 2 (Brandon, Sanborn)

Amendment #23 - Language about why the Mayor cut $30,000 for the Fair Housing Center
Sponsor: Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This was tabled until the other amendment about fair housing testing was taken up.

Amendment #24 - Changes to structure and positions in the Assessors Office
Sponsor: Mayor, Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $50,043
Passed 4 - 1 (Sanborn), Brandon out of the room.

At this point, the room is hot and sticky and smells like a locker room.

Amendment #25 - Cutting money to print the Common Council packets.
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway
Total and Levy Impact: ($9,026)
This generated alot of discussion about how people do their work. We all have laptops and could stop killing the trees. Also, it was noted that about half this cost is copies for the Mayor's office, not the Council office. This one was eventually placed on file in favor of #26.

Amendment #26 - Cutting money to print the Common Council packets.
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: ($5,000)
Apparently, we're easing into this one. This passed unimously.

Amendment #27 - Funding for Gypsy Moth Spraying
Sponsor: Verveer, Webber, Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: ($25,000)
This passed unanimously. It was abundantly clear after Marla Eddy's excellent testimony at the last meeting why this was needed.

Amendment #28 – Cutting the hiring two additional park rangers.
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway
Total and Levy Impact: (15,000)
This was amended to leave the park rangers in the budget and then requiring them to go to training on AODA and homelessness issues and what resources are available. This amendment passed and I believe it was unanimous. However, I have to say that it is pretty appalling that Jim Morgan seemed to indicate that an afternoon of training would be enough for them to run across someone in the park a few times a week and then say to them "You gotta be better than this and here's where you go." There's so much wrong there I need to write a separate blog on it. The biggest issue being that he assumes there are resources to send someone to.

Amendment #29 - Changing language about moving Forestry to streets division and privatizing forestry services.
Sponsor: Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $0
You'll have to look at the language on the other page, but it passed unanimously.

Amendment #30 - Moving the expense of the barge to help clean the lakes from our budget to the Stormwater Utility.
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: ($20,000)
Passed unanimously.

Amendment #31 - Added a Mall Concourse Maintenane Worker for State St.
Sponsor: Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This will be paid for by the businesses in the area. Passed unanimously.

Amendment #32 - Removing language that would privatize the pool concession stands as the Mayor put in his budget.
Sponsor: Clear, Kerr, Bruer, Verveer, Rhodes-Conway
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This was a silly idea promoted by the Wisconsin State Journal because they didn't like it that we paid a living wage to the workers. Ironically, the concession stands made $12,199 this year, so we're making money on them and privatizing them still doesn't exempt them from the Living Wage. The vote was 5 - 1 (Sanborn) and the language to privatize the concession stands was removed.

Amendment #33 - Privatizing all of the Municipal Pool operations.
Sponsor: Sanborn
Total and Levy Impact: $0
Jed requested that this be placed on file.

Amendment #34 - Moving recycling carts to the capital budget.
Sponsor: Verveer, Konkel
Total and Levy Impact: ($60,000)
No longer needed since we have more room in the levy so it was placed on file.

Amendment #35 - Moving costs to the Stormwater Utility from Streets
Sponsor: Verveer, Rhodes-Conway, Konkel, Webber
Total and Levy Impact: (223,981)
There was a substitute to put 50% of the leaf pick up costs on the Stormwater Utility. Verveer then asked to table it while they discussed phasing it in over a few more years. Currently 35% of the costs are paid for by the Stormwater Utility. This was tabled.

Amendment #36 - Paying for advertising costs of Madison Metro for the Bus Pass Pool with Parking Utility money
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This was placed on file because it wasn't legal.

Amendment #37 - Cutting adding more full-wrapped busses.
Sponsor: Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $50,000
There was discussion about how we were in the middle of a pilot and the middle of a contract and we shouldn't change it now in the budget, but we did anyways. Also, there were safety concerns raised about being able to see into and out of the busses with an ironic note that at the same time we are adding cameras for safety, there are several busses that you wouldn't be able to see into if there were any safety issues. Failed 2 (Verveer, Rhodes-Conway) - 4

Amendment #38 - Increasing pavement markings in school safety crosswalks.
Sponsor: Clear, Kerr, Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $25,000
Apparently we're getting crosswalk paintings like the Beatles album. Zach voted no. I'm quite certain Jed did as well. Passed 4 - 2.

Amendment #39 - Bike racks as recommended by the Platimum Bicycle City Planning Committee
Sponsor: Clear, Compton
Total and Levy Impact: $10,000
Passed with the Mayor breaking the tie and voting with Clear, Rhodes-Conway and Verveer.

Amendment #40 - Buying media time ofr bike safety ads.
Sponsor: Clear, Compton
Total and Levy Impact: $2,500
Passed with the Mayor breaking the tie and voting with Clear, Rhodes-Conway and Verveer.

Amendment #41 - Removing funding for Transportation Demand Management Program
Sponsor: Sanborn
Total and Levy Impact: 31,000
Sanborn requested it be placed on file.

Amendment #42 - Funding for $40,000 for the UW Applied Population Lab to provide us with "Neighborhood Indicators" to measure if a neighborhood is well.
Sponsor: Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This passed unanimously.

Amendment #43 - $50,000 slush fund for Economic Development
Sponsor: Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $50,000
Mayor asked that it be placed on file.

It was now about 11:20.

Amendment #44 - $15,000 for a market study for the Northside
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Schumacher, Mayor
Total and Levy Impact: $15,000
Passed with a 3-3 tie and the Mayor voting with Bruer, Rhodes-Conway and Verveer.

Amendment #45 - Cutting "Jobs with a Future" funding
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: ($5,000)
This passed unanimously since we haven't been funding it for a year and "no one missed it."

Amendment #46 - Re-organizing the re-organization of the Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development (Splitting the Bill Clingan job into an Economic Development position and a Community Development position)
Sponsor: Mayor, Bruer, Brandon, Clear, Sanborn
Total and Levy Impact: $26,742
This one was confusing. Apparently the Mayor, Bruer, Brandon and Clear had a meeting and if they voted on this at Board of Estimates, then the meeting would be illegal. So, Verveer, Rhodes-Conway and Sanborn were the only ones who could do anything at the meeting. Verveer moved to refer it to a special meeting of the Board of Estimates (where presumable, 2 of the 4 who had the potentially illegal meeting couldn't show up). Rhodes-Conway seconded it, and then they voted, but since Brandon, Clear and Bruer abstained, then they didn't have enough votes to do anything and the vote was 3 - 0 with 7 people on the committee. The Mayor originally ruled that the motion passed. Then at the end of the meeting the Mayor asked for reconsideration because the Mayor checked with two city attorney's who gave different information to the Mayor's staff. Michael May's ruling that they didn't have the votes to pass made the Mayor overturn his ruling and then there was no action on the table and nothing happened and we will discuss this at the Council meeting. Anyways . . . after all that, the Mayor seemed unabashedly determined to find a way to make his illegal meeting ok. Alder Brandon pulled him back a bit and he prevailed in convincing them to just do this at the council to avoid the illegal meeting issue. Once again, Brandon and I agree!

Amendment #47 - Adding back the Admin Clerk 2 and cutting the Tenant Services Aide in Housing Operations
Sponsor: Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This was a technical amendment to reverse something we apparently couldn't do. I think. Passed unanimously.

Amendment #48 - Using money designated for the Section 8 program in the Public Housing Program.
Sponsor: Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $0
This passed unimously.

Amendment #49 - Restoring money for fair housing testing and moving it to CDBG
Sponsor: Verveer
Total and Levy Impact: $30,000
This says there will be an competitive process for organizations to apply for this funding. It passed 4 - 2 (Brandon, Sanborn)

At this point they went back to the obnoxious amendment #23 about the Fair Housing Center and removed that language and the previous language from the budget in its entirety.

Amendment #50 - Cutting the 2.4% COLA increase for Community Development Block Grant
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: (17,846)
This motion generated some of the same old discussion. Again. The motion failed 4 - 2 (Brandon, Sanborn)

Amendment #51 - Cutting funding for the Building Trades program in Allied Drive for the START program.
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: (21,299)
This passed 6 - 0, but not until after the Mayor asked the question we all wanted to know, what's going on here, an agency comes and thanks us for cutting their funding AND says that they're still going to do the program. If they can do all that, then why did they get funding in the first place? There were no real answers.

Amendment #52 - Cutting the 2.4 COLA increase for the Office of Community Services
Sponsor: Brandon
Total and Levy Impact: (85,547)
This was voted on with #50 with the same discussion and same result. Failed 4 - 2 (Brandon, Sanborn)

Amendment #53 - $20,000 for stabilization funds for childcare.
Sponsor: Verveer, Konkel
Total and Levy Impact: $20,000
Passed. The voice vote was confusing but I believe Brandon and Sanborn voted against.

At this point is was about 12:10 and things started to get a littly wacky, if it wasn't already wacky enough. We got the first in a series of rants from Alder Brandon about how this is the time of the night where people "hit their stride" and we "just start approving things" and we don't cut anything. There were several more speeches interspersed throughout the next amendments where Alder Brandon harangued the committee about not having enough cuts and they did was add, etc. etc. He was correct about the "structural deficit" or as I say "not sustainable" budget, but he didn't offer many real solutions except to not approve any more expenditures, which were a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the budget. However, he pleaded with the Board of Estimates to stop using the phrase "but it's only $xxx" since it all adds up.

Amendment #54 - Adding a half-time Child Care Specialist position formerly funded by a Federal Grant.
Sponsor: Verveer, Konkel
Total and Levy Impact: $37,992
This passed 4 - 2 (Brandon, Sanborn)

Amendment #55 - Funding the 4th Quarter Weed and Seed Coordinator position as well as the programs that position supports.
Sponsor: Clear, Rhodes-Conway, Verveer, Cnare
Total and Levy Impact: $28,464
This failed 3 - 3 with the Mayor breaking the tie. I couldn't tell who the 3 - 3 was, but I think it was Clear, Rhodes-Conway and Verveer voting in favor. And the Mayor voting with Brandon, Bruer and Sanborn. I'd love to hear the Mayor's reasoning on this one. It's such a small amount of money with a huge impact.

Amendment #56 - Cut one police officer, add Weed and Seed programs that failed in #55 and the Childcare Specialist in #54
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Clear
Total and Levy Impact: (589)
This amendment was amended since #54 passed and so it was cut an officer, keep the savings and fund the Weed and Seed Coordinator and the programs. This motion started the "cops vs. human services" debate that many of the speakers talked about. The motion failed with 4 votes, but I wasn't clear if it was 4 - 2 (Rhodes-Conway, Verveer) or if the Mayor broke a 3 - 3 tie by voting with Bruer, Sanborn and Brandon.

Amendment #57 - Cut one police officer, add $20,000 for child care assistance (same as amendment #53) and the $26,985 for the 4C's Latino Child Care program.
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Clear
Total and Levy Impact: ($2,515)
This was modified to remove the duplication from amendment #53. It was a 3-3 tie this time with the Mayor voting with Bruer, Rhodes-Conway and Verveer.

The next two amendments were what send Brandon and Sanborn off the deep end. They are the reason Sanborn voted against the budget and I believe the reason Zach left the meeting before it was over.

Amendment #58 - Cut 1 police officer, add $65,000 in youth services for the SW side and transportation for kids that live in Darbo.
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Clear
Total and Levy Impact: ($2,045)
This passed with the Mayor breaking the 3 - 3 tie and voting with Verveer, Bruer and Rhodes-Conway. However, the amendment ended up not cutting the police and adding the programs. Brandon launched into a speech about how we have huge increases in spending for Human Services and that we are under-funding the Police. I couldn't help pointing out that even the police say that for youth gang strategies, you have to have a four pronged approach of suppression, but also prevention, intervention and re-entry back into the community. And I also pointed out that the police have $54M budget, while Human Services is more around $5M. Clear chimed in with some "tough choices" language and he ended up voting against the amendment.

Amendment #59 - Cut 1 police officer for $65,000 of afterschool and summer programming for elementary, middle and high school programs.
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Clear
Total and Levy Impact: (2,045)
Same discussion as above and they were voted on together so had the same results.

Amendment #60 - Additional funding for Vera Court afterschool programs
Sponsor: Clear, Rhodes-Conway, Schumacher
Total and Levy Impact: $7,010
This was actually amended to be $11,272 so 15 more kids could participate in the summer program. There was a huge increase in kids in this neighborhood in this fall due to higher enrollment in kindergarten classes. The motion passed 4 - 2 (Brandon, Sanborn)

Amendment #61 - Additional funding for hotel vouchers for homeless victims of domestic violence.
Sponsor: Clear
Total and Levy Impact: $5,682
Same old, same old 4 - 2 (Brandon, Clear)

Amendment #62 - More money for the highly successful MAP (jobs) program in Allied Drive
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway, Solomon
Total and Levy Impact: $50,000
This failed, mostly because Solomon wasn't there to help argue for the program and there seemed to be some missing information, but then again it was nearly 1:00 and I think folks were starting to lose it. The only one voting in favor was Rhodes-Conway.

Amendment #63 - Deleting funding for the Westside Planning Council.
Sponsor: Brandon, Clear
Total and Levy Impact: (33,791)
Failed 4 - 2 (Rhodes-Conway, Verveer)

Amendment #64 - Cut Westside Planning Council but add programs to help community organizing on the SW side of Madison
Sponsor: Rhodes-Conway
Total and Levy Impact: (500)
Placed on file at the request of Rhodes-Conway.

Amendment #65 - Reviewing feasibility of another Eastside Library.
Sponsor: Bruer, Clausius
Total and Levy Impact: $0

And that's it. I wonder how much of this we get to "do-over" when the Council introduces their amendments for the meetings on the 13th, 14th and 15th of November and what kind of feedback we will hear from the public on November 6th. The final vote of the Board of Estimates was 4 -1 (Sanborn) with Brandon being absent. Overall, they decreased expenses by $203,428 and revenues by $163,566 so they decreased the levy by $39,862. We have $364,000 that can be added to the budget before we hit the expenditure restraint limit.

More to come on the 2008 budget to be sure.
Read more!

Board of Estimates Budget meeting! (Capital Budget Amendments)

At this point - there is only one word for this, and the word is "clusterfuck". Probably not a good word for a politician to use so publicly, but it really is the perfect word. Last night's eight and a half hour Board of Estimates meeting was truly amazing. It included the revelation that the Mayor, Bruer, Brandon and Clear had an illegal meeting, an alder stomping off before the meeting was over and many other entertaining moments. However, it gets the "clusterfuck" title for the following reasons:

1. The amendments were not really available to the public until Monday at some point, unless they knew an "insider" or were able to figure out how to get them out of legistar without the agenda. The agenda for the Board of Estimates was not really

2. I find myself sitting on the floor, again, but at least I'm inside the very packed and warm room. Joining me on the floor this time are city staff, mayor's staff, alders, a lobbyist and citizens.

3. Eli Judge actually got locked out of the meeting. That's right, by 6:00, you couldn't get in the building from the Carroll St. side of the building.

4. The meeting wasn't televised. It was recorded to be played at a later date due to the elevator not working in the Municipal Building (Where is a good facilities manager when you need one?) and the meeting (and alot others) being moved and they can't live broadcast from GR 27.

Ok - done complaining about the government that I play a role in, haven't quite figured out how to get folks making these decisions to make better decisions and usually they are a done deal by the time I see them - but I'll try to figure something else out to try to fix these types of screw ups. Now, on to the meeting!

*****************************
I can't say for sure which alders were or were not there since it was crowded for the first few hours and I think I may have missed a few but beyond the Board of Estimates members (Mayor Dave, Ald. Zach Brandon, Ald. Mark Clear, Ald. Jed Sanborn, Ald. Mike Verveer, Ald. Tim Bruer and Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway.) the alders I saw were Alders Marsha Rummel, Robbie Webber, Eli Judge and Lauren Cnare - my apologies to other alders who may have been present in the room or standing in the hallway and unable to get into the meeting. Others who showed up include Ald. Michael Schumacher and Ald. Julia Kerr. I think Schumacher and I were the only non-Board of Estimate members to make it to the end.

Testimony lasted for about a half hour on the Capital Budget and then the Operating Budget lasted another hour or so. After questions, I think the discussion on the 80 plus amendments started around 6:30. There were still over 40 people jammed into the room with people still standing and sitting on the floor.

CAPITAL BUDGET
Amendment No. 1 - Library / Project #9 - New Northeast Branch Library
Sponsor(s): Alds. Bruer, Clausius

Move $500,000 of funding for site acquisition for a new northeast branch from 2001 CIP to the 2009 CIP.

General Obligation Debt $0, Other Funding $0, Total $0
Levy Impact: $ 0

Passed unanimously.

Amendment No. 2 - Fire / Project #8 - Communications Equipment
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer, Konkel

Add funding for radios (Note: This amendment is a companion to Operating Budget Amendment No. 9)

General Obligation Debt $70,000 Other Funding $0 Total $70,000
Levy Impact: $ 9,065

Some of these amendments were made when we only had $109,000 before we hit the levy limit, however now that the state passed their budget we have a little more room, so it was moved that this pass now and we revisit at the end of the meeting. A substitute motion was made to place on file the vote was 3 - 3 so the mayor voted "aye" and the motion was placed on file (failed).

Amendment No. 3 - Police / Project #1 - Taser Deployment Plan
Sponsor(s): Ald. Rhodes-Conway

Remove funding for Tasers.

General Obligation Debt ($35,000), Other Funding $0, Total ($35,000)
Levy Impact: $ (4,533)

This failed 1 - 5. Rhodes-Conway was the only one voting in favor.

Amendment No. 4 - Information Technology / Project #7 - Computer Training Center
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway, Konkel

Move funding of $160,000 for the Computer Training Center from the 2008 budget to the 2009 CIP. Require Information Technology to work with the Library to establish a joint-use agreement, such that library patrons will be able to access the training center machines when not being used by Information Technology.

General Obligation Debt ($160,000), Other Funding 0, Total ($160,000)
Levy Impact: $ (20,721)

This amendment also ended up 3 - 3. The mayor voting "no" with Rhodes-Conway, Brandon and Sanborn to break the tie.

Amendment No 5 - Facilities Management / Project #3 - Development Services Center
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer, Konkel

Move funding of $1,600,000 for the Development Services Center from the 2008 budget to the 2009 CIP.

General Obligation Debt ($1,600,000), Other Funding 0 Total ($1,600,000)
Levy Impact: $ (207,207)

This motion was withdrawn for further work. The "one stop shop" is part of the reorganization that we are re-examining so they don't really know who is moving where or even what unit they might be in. We will revisit this at the Council meeting when we know if the Economic and Community Development Unit is split in two and so that we make sure that the new units are all together in the same place.

Amendment No. 6 - Engineering - Major Streets / Project #14 CTH M (CTH PD Area), Engineering - Major Streets / Project #15 CTH M (Mid Town Road Area), Engineering - Major Streets / Project #16 CTH M (Valley View Road Area), Engineering - Major Streets / Project #17 CTH M, Engineering - Major Streets / Project #18 CTH M (CTH S Intersection)
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway, Webber

Remove funding for all components of County Trunk Highway M projects for 2008 through 2013. Future years' funding will be contingent upon the development of favorable cost sharing arrangements with Dane County.

General Obligation Debt ($1,050,000), Other Funding 0, Total ($1,050,000)
Levy Impact: $ (135,980)

This rather large cut was defeated. It was a 3 - 3 tie with the Mayor voting with Brandon, Bruer and Verveer to spend the money.

At this point it was around 7:20 and the Mayor asked the room who wanted to order pizza. 30 people raised their hand that they would pitch in $5 for pizza. Obviously, someone was a little off on their math and someone made a profit on that!

Amendment No. 7 - Engineering - Major Streets / Project #46 - Pleasant View Road
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway, Webber

Delay funding for all components of Pleasant View Road project by one year. (This amendment moves $2,900,000 from 2008 to 2009, and $4,340,000 from 2009 to 2010.)

General Obligation Debt ($2,900,000), Other Funding 0, Total ($2,900,000)
Levy Impact: $ (375,563)

This amendment would have saved us money and allowed us to follow our neighborhood plans and not re-prioritize projects out of order. However, the motion failed with only Rhodes-Conway and Verveer voting in favor.

Amendment No. 8 - Parks / Project #11 - Park Paving
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Alds. Sanborn, Cnare

Replace two tennis courts at Norman Clayton Park ($50,000) and two tennis courts at Heritage Heights Park ($50,000). These projects are part of a major multi-year program to repair and replace deteriorated paved areas throughout the City's park system.

General Obligation Debt $100,000, Other Funding 0, Total $100,000
Levy Impact: $ 12,950

This was the first amendment to pass which impacted the budget. Ald. Brandon voted no and the rest voted in favor. Alder Sanborn was the first one to add money back to the budget.

Amendment No. 9 - Parks / Project #16 - Tenney Park Shelter/Parking/Shoreline
Sponsor(s): Mayor Cieslewicz, Ald. Verveer

Add funding of $500,000 of General Obligation Debt to year 2009 of the Capital Improvement Program. There is no impact upon the 2008 Capital or Operating Budgets. Average debt service in future years is estimated at $64,752 per year.

General Obligation Debt $0, Other Funding 0, Total $0
Levy Impact: $ -

The Mayor had promised to but $695,000 in this year's budget. He forgot. The neighbors reminded him of this promise, so he put $500,000 in for 2009. And somehow, they are happy with that. There was a problem with this amendment that no one added in the "other funding" of $700,000 in private fundraising that would also be put into the project. This passed unanimously.

Amendment No. 10 - Parks / Project (New) - James Madison Park
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer, Konkel

Reauthorize 2007 other funding of $200,000 for the James Madison Park Project. Funding is to consist of proceeds from land sales.

General Obligation Debt $0, Other Funding - Land Sales 200,000, Total $200,000
Levy Impact: $ -

This was "unintentionally left out" according to the Mayor. This also needs to be fixed in that there should be additional revenue from land sales in the operating budget. There was a motion to place this on file and it failed 4 - 2 with Brandon and Sanborn voting for it. Then there was a motion to approve, it passed 4 - 2 with Brandon and Sanborn voting against.

Amendment No. 11 - Streets / Project #4 - Replacement Recycling Carts, Streets / Project #5 - Replacement Refuse Carts
Sponsor(s): Alds. Verveer, Konkel

Add $30,000 of funding for replacement recycling carts and $30,000 for replacement refuse carts. (Note: This amendment is a companion to Operating Budget Amendment No. 34.)

General Obligation Debt $60,000, Other Funding 0, Total $60,000
Levy Impact: $ 7,770

Placed on file unanimously since it was no longer needed since we have more room before we hit the levy limit.

Amendment No. 12 - Planning and Community and Economic Development /Project #13 - TID 29-Allied Terrace
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway, Verveer, Konkel

Change the $3,000,000 in "Other" funding (from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund) to General Obligation borrowing. (Note: If this amendment is adopted, the change will be reflected on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund statement incuded in the Operating Budget.)

General Obligation Debt $3,000,000, Other Funding (3,000,000), Total $0
Levy Impact: $ 388,514

This was the amendment where the they use $3,000,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to fund the Allied Drive demolition and road building. Despite the fact that the Mayor has admitted and there is a memo stating that we need to change the ordinance in order to do this and the Mayor hasn't revealed how that will be done, it failed 2 - 4. Rhodes-Conway and Verveer voting in favor.

Amendment No. 13 - Planning and Community and Economic Development /Project #13 - TID 29-Allied Terrace
Sponsor(s): Ald. Clear

Reduce the $3,000,000 in "other" funding (from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund) to $1,500,00 and add $1,500,000 in General Obligation borrowing. (Note: If this amendment is adopted, the change will be reflected on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund statement included in the Operating Budget.)

General Obligation Debt $1,500,000
Other Funding (1,500,000)
Total $0 Levy Impact: $ 194,257

This amendment was the "Clear Compromise" that got ZERO votes.

Amendment No. 14 - Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project #5 -Capital Revolving Fund, Project #25 -Façade Improvement Grants
Sponsor(s): Ald. Sanborn

Dissolve the Capital Revolving Fund and the Facade Improvements Grnat program and transfer the proceeds to the General Fund (Note: This amendment is a companion to Operating Budget No. 7)

General Obligation Debt $0
Other Funding 1,125,000
Total $1,125,000 Levy Impact: $ -

Alder Brandon noted that moves like this just add to the structural deficit that we are creating and would just be a one-time gain that we could not sustain. Alder Sanborn argued that the City should not be "venture capitalists". This motion failed 1 - 5 with only Ald. Sanborn voting for it.

Amendment No. 15 - Planning and Community and Economic Development / Project #27-TIF 10%
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway, Konkel, Verveer

Add funding of $200,000 in General Obligation borrowing.

General Obligation Debt $200,000, Other Funding 0, Total $200,000
Levy Impact: $ 25,901

This was the second amendment to pass that impacted the bottom line of the budget. This is the "catch-22" amendment. In the past we had projects that were approved but didn't have authority in the budget to spend the money. Here we are funding a program with no projects. It's a ridiculous amendment we fight about almost every year. It passed 5 - 1. Brandon voting against.

Amendment No. 16 - Water Utility / Project #9 - Operations Center Renovation
Sponsor(s): Alds. Rhodes-Conway, Rummel

Move funding of $2,900,000 for the renovation of the Water Utility field operations center from the 2008 budget to the 2009 CIP to allow the new Water Utility General Manager to have input in the process.

General Obligation Debt $0, Other Funding (2,900,000), Total ($2,900,000)
Levy Impact: $ -

This was the third amendment that passed that had a fiscal impact, even though it did not impact the levy.

These amendments were then added to the amendments that they passed last time. (Sorry, I don't know what they are or exactly where to find them at the moment but will hunt them down.) All in all, the reduced the capital budget by $2.1M and had a levy impact of $2.1 Million if I understood the comptrollers announcement correctly.

Will try to get the operating budget amendments done in the next two hours before my doctor's appointment. Then to work for a 10 hour day.
Read more!

Budget - Wouldn't you like to know!

Late Friday, many of us "insiders" got a copy of the 16 Capital and 65 Operating Budget amendments that will be discussed and voted on today at 4:30 at the Board of Estimates (Room GR 27 in the City-County Building - 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.). The public had a much harder time getting the information. The Board of Estimates agenda and its attachments were not available on line due to upgrades to the Legistar program that we use. In fact, most people couldn't get the information unless they were on the EINPC list serve, or looked at the Progressive Dane website or otherwise knew someone who had the information. In fact, I was out of town a chunk of the weekend, but did do two informational sessions on Saturday at 10 am and Sunday at 6pm, and many people were very grateful for the information. And my inbox is filling up with requests for the information from people who were unable to make the sessions.

My biggest concern is if people who will be impacted by these amendments were informed by the folks cutting their budgets. There are several annual cuts like Sister Cities and then cutting the 2.4% increases to the Office of Community Services and Community Development Block Grant organizations. In some ways, its not that surprising, but in many ways, one has to ask, was there fair warning to the people who will be affected? Or to any member of the public who is interested in these issues?

If you're looking for the amendments, they are on the Progressive Dane website for both the Capital Budget and Operating Budget. The full budget is here. Enjoy!
Read more!

Fun for a Cause. Help the Tenant Resource Center!

Tonight, you have an opportunity to have a little fun, good food and help out the Tenant Resource Center. THe Tenant Resource Center will be having its 12th annual fall fundraiser tonight from 5 - 7 at the Brink Lounge (701 E Washington Ave.) This event usually raises $10,000. This year we need to raise over twice that due to recent funding losses if we want to keep our statewide toll-free phone line and the staff to answer those phone calls. Without it, we will not be able to serve thousands of tenants throughout Wisconsin each year with problems with repairs, evictions, getting security deposits returned and fairly breaking their leases when they need to move for work, school or other reasons plus a whole lot more.

Our funding problems started last year when the UW Finance Committee did not find the Tenant Resource Center eligible for funding for this school year because we were not 100% student controlled. We lost $55,000 in funding with that decision and then just a few weeks ago we found out that HUD would no longer be funding the toll-free line and it would be another $41,000 loss in funding. These two losses have a big impact on our formerly $350,000 budget and strike at our core services for the agency.

While we will not be closing our doors, we will have to substantially change the way we do our services and cut back on various services unless we can raise and additional $60,000 per year through various methods. While we will continue to seek grants for this funding, we know that it is harder and harder to get funding for these types of services as finding gets scarcer and scarcer and we need to get help from the community to keep these services, and we have created a plan to raise that money, but it starts with YOU!

So, one of our first steps is to make sure tonight is a great success. Please join us at the Brink Lounge for good food, a silent auction and good company. While we suggest $20 donation, we understand not everyone can afford that and ask you to donate within your means. And please, thank our sponsors as well as the food and silent auction donors. We appreciate the tremendous response we have gotten from the community and now we'd like you to come help us have some fun and meet our fundraising goals.

If you can't make it tonight, here's some other ways you can help:

• Donate on-line or send a check to: Tenant Resource Center, 1202 Williamson Street Suite A, Madison, WI 53703.
• Tell your friends, neighbors, co-workers and acquaintances that they can donate on-line or by writing a check.
• Volunteer to be a housing counselor or office assistant. We'll train you and ask for a year commitment of 2 -4 hours per week.
• Consider becoming a "sustaining member" of the Tenant Resource Center.
• Donate through your workplace giving campaign through Community Shares of Wisconsin.
• Thank our food and silent auction donors and especially our sponsors:
  

FOOD AND SILENT AUCTION DONORS
Bahn Thai
Bandung
Glass Nickel Pizza
Noodles & Co. on University Avenue
Ian's Pizza
Great Dane
Fazoli's
Monty's Blue Plate Diner
Barb Sherkow
Buddy Squirrel
Budget Bicycle
Burrito Drive
Chocolate Shoppe Ice Cream
Community Pharmacy
The Exclusive Company
Four Star Video Heaven
The Harmony Bar
MoCo Market
Monkey Bar Gymnasium
Morgan's Shoes
A Room of One's Own
Rufus DuMonde Pet Salon
Trader Joe's
Weary Traveler
Willy Street Co-op

SPONSORS
MG&E
Jesse Kaysen
Amy Westra
Joann Brown
Fair Housing Center of Greater Madison
Sheila Guilfoyle
Stuart Levitan & Terese Berceau
Renaissance Property Group
Bill White & Kathie Nichols
Mike & Pam Barrett
Michael & Sarah Basford
Carousel Bayrd & Tim Sobota
Brian Benford
Carol Carstensen
Yogesh Chawla
Joe Clausius
Bill Clingan
Tom & Kia Conrad
Ilse & Rudy Hecht
Steve Herrick
Herrick & Kasdorf LLP
Elisa Kaplan
Pete Karas
Julia Kerr
Heidi Konkel & Clint Otto
Annette Larie
Norm Littlejohn
Dean Loumos
Madison Area Community
Land Trust
Madison Infoshop
Alice Malacara
Marsha Mansfield &
Steve Schooler
Rita Meuer
Satya Rhodes-Conway
Harry Richardson
Juscha Robinson
Marsha Rummel
Alex Saloutos
Vicky Selkowe
Sheila Spear
Echnaton Vedder
Robbie Webber
Susan Webster
Carol Weidel
Ledell Zellers
Alfonso Zepeda-Capistran
Dace Zeps
Bert Zipperer & Laurie Frank

Plus all the donors who contributed after our deadline, fortunately that list is long and we are still compiling it -- we appreciate EVERYONE'S tremendous generosity and support!


Read more!

The "Boys Club" Grows

Another top position in the City of Madison is given to a man. It's hardly news any more that we seem to only hire men for top level positions in the City of Madison and it has essentially just become routine.

Mayor Dave Cieslewicz today named Gerald Pace as the new City Treasurer.

Currently, the City Treasurer position is "vacant". However, the position has been open for a few years and a woman has been filling that role on an "interim" basis.

Read more!

Lottery for Low-Income Housing

Just as Dane County Housing Authority opened their Section 8 waiting list (now closed since October 12, 2007) for the first time in 5 years, now the CDA is doing the same thing. Here's their announcement.

Community Development Authority for the City of Madison will accept entries to its Housing Choice Voucher Program, (Section8) Application Lottery beginning Monday, October 29, 2007. Lottery entry forms and instructions will be available at any Madison Public Library and many social service agencies. Entries may also be submitted via the Internet at: http://www.cityofmadison.com/housing. You must be 18 or older to enter. You must be a U.S. Citizen or an eligible immigrant. Only one lottery entry per household. Lottery entries will be accepted until Friday, November 30, 2007. Selected entries will receive a regular application form for the Section 8 program. Entries not selected in the drawing will also be notified by mail. Regular applications will be entered to the waiting list and will be ranked by return date. Applications from elderly or disabled households and households with minor children will be ranked ahead of non-disabled, non-elderly adults. Households living or working in the City of Madison will receive priority over non-residents.

Here's a little more info that you might find helpful about this list opening:

• Starting MONDAY 10/29, people can sign up for a LOTTERY by sending in a postcard or filling out a form online.
  
• CDA prefers people do this online.
  
• If people sign up online, when they are finished the form will allow you to print a "receipt" from the browser in case people want a receipt.
  
• People will have to provide name, SSN and address.
• It is a lottery, meaning that everyone who signs up will be entered in to a random drawing to occur in the beginning of December.
  
• The people whose names are drawn in the lottery will then receive the full written application form.
  
• People will be placed on the list in order of when their actual completed applications are received. (However, some people may actually receive a voucher faster than others based on priority/preference. This is no different than if the list were continually open. Some people will get to the front of the line faster than others.)
• As long as you sign up online or postmark your card by 11/30, you will have an equal chance of receiving a full application, so there is no need to camp out or rush to the office or anything like that.
• IF you are drawn in the lottery and receive an application, though, it *is* important to get that application in very quickly at that time, in December.
• The current waiting list is down to about 150 and will not be purged this time around.
  
• NEXT TIME (in about 2 years) the entire list will be dumped and it will be another lottery system, starting from scratch.
  
• Anyone who is not sure whether they are already on the list should find out before signing up again.
  

So, there you have it. We now have a lottery for low-income housing in the City of Madison.

To add to the confusion, the elevator woes in the Municipal Building ("Post Office Building") at 215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. have made it so that many of our meetings need to move and some of our services are unaccessible. One of the services that has been effected is the CDA services. Here's the information they sent out:

Hello,

I am writing to notify you that CDA Housing Reception is now located in Room 130 at the Madison Municipal Building. We have been experiencing intermittent elevator failures here, so in the interest of safety, and to accomodate our customers, we ask that you please bring your business to Room 130 on the main level at 215 Martin Luther King Jr., Blvd, (same building, different floor and room #) rather than to 3rd floor as you and your customers have done in the past. Please pass this information on to any of your customers who utilize our services.
Thank you.
Sally Jo

Sally Jo Spaeni
Eligibility Coordinator
City of Madison Housing Operations

Read more!

Budget, Budget, Budget

The first round of operating budget and the second round of capital budget amendments are due at noon today. The public and the alders will get to see the total list on Friday around noon.

I'll be doing two budget briefings on Saturday morning at 10am and Sunday night at 6pm at the Social Justice Center (1202 Williamson St, Suite A). Public is welcome. Then, the public can weigh in on the amendments Monday at 4:30 at the Board of Estimates meeting. (This meeting is usually held in room 260 of the Municipal Building (Post Office Building) - 215 Martin Luther King Junior Blvd. - but I believe it will be held in GR 27 of the City County Building (Old Jail/Old Court House) - 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. - because the elevator is not working in the other building.)

The Mayor's promise of 30 police officers is making this year's budget difficult. So, these should be some interesting discussions.
Read more!

No Room . . . Little Notice . . . Bad Government

Today is a bad example of good/open government.

Right now, I am sitting on the floor in the hallway outside of Room LL-130 in the Municipal Building. [Side note: The elevator is broken and the doors on the lower level were locked when I got here. Luckily, I walked around the building and down the steps to the meeting, however, not everyone is able to do that.] I am joined by two city staff and County Board Supervisor John Hendrick in the hallway and we are listening to presentations about the differences between the East Washington BUILD plan, the Tenney Lapham Plan, the East Rail Corridor Plan and the Yahara River Parkway plan. The room is packed with about 30 people and after about an hour, several people are waiting who haven't even been able to speak yet and I and Ald. Rummel have to leave without hearing what they came to say.

I should be leaving any minute now to go to Allied Drive to hear a presentation to the tenants of several buildings out there that may or may not be losing their housing. The notice for that meeting went out on Friday. It's almost as if the notice was given in a manner so that people wouldn't get enough notice to show up.

Something is wrong with this picture. Can't we do better? We should.
Read more!

City Wages: Disturbing Trend

I guess when you ask for a study, you kind of want it to show what you thought it would. However, in this case, I think I wish I had been wrong.

Here's the average wages of men vs. women and non-minorities and minorities in the City of Madison.

2003
Men $65,403
Women $62,344

Non-minority $64,367
Minority $61,282

2004
Men $67,022
Women $62,315

Non-minority $65,231
Minority $60,849

2005
Men $67,806
Women $63,821

Non-minority $66,173
Minority $62,467

2006
Men $71,282
Women $67,104

Non-minority $69,378
Minority $67,159

Additionally, when you just look at the average and median wages of Agency Heads and how men and women compare, here's what you find:

2007 Average
Men - $110,836
Women - $95,073

2007 Median
Men - $120,267
Women - $96,541

When you combine the information about salaries with the fact that in 2003 there were
31% women in these positions and in 2006 there were 21% I find these trends more and more disturbing.

Read more!

Unbelievable: Where have our ethics gone?

Sometimes, I bumble into something that is too good not to share.

On Tuesday I introduced a resolution about the City's objection to a variance on the University Square project for the way it built it's balconies. The issue is if there should be a ramp on the inside of the apartment to get to the balcony because they want to build a lip you need to step over in the doorway to prevent rain and snow from blowing into the apartment. This could have, and likely should have, been solved in another manned, by dropping the balcony down 4 inches at which point a decking could have been placed on top of the balcony to allow the wheelchair to smoothly roll onto the balcony. Oddly enough, this same decking would also be required for the ramped version as well.

The Housing Affordability Committee had this on their agenda at our last meeting and they asked me to write the resolution. In working on writing that resolution, I found a very curious conflict of interest.

Dan Murray, the guy who reviewed the case for the State appears to be the same guy that was hired by Potter Lawson to work on the project and these plans. In the information I have, it certainly appears that he is consulting with Potter Lawson regarding this matter.

Wow.
Read more!

Common Council Recap: 10/16/2007

It was short.

We approved closing the two TIDS to give money to the city and school district. We gave the cops $100,000 despite the fact that they didn't follow through on much of anything that they said they were going to do. So, we don't really know what they are going to do with that money. We referred eliminating the ordinance that automatically approved mayoral appointments after 20 days after getting a letter from Bill Clingan that he waived his rights to enforce that ordinance.

There were several other things that we did on the agenda, but no one wanted to talk about much so we passed the agenda in one sweeping motion with the exception of the two things noted above. As a result of our one motion, building inspection can now give tickets for construction noise, if you have more than 4 garbage carts the City will charge you extra, we settled with the Building Trades, approved more money for architects to design improvements for the Municipal and City-County Buildings, approved the BID plan, rejected a plat and several more things that I'm sure were really important to people throughout the City.

I didn't note the time, but we were out of there in less than an hour. Then we went to Paisan's. Well, at least some of us did. (Bruer, Clausius, Schumacher, Clear, Solomon, Kerr, Webber, Verveer, Judge, Rummel and our two friendly, tho sometimes antagonistic, tag alongs.)
Read more!

You can't refuse to rent/sell to students!

The Wisconsin State Journal has an article about something that really kind of bothers me. It's an attitude about, and indeed discrimination against, students. It's something that I hear from time to time about buildings being built in the downtown. Often a developer will refer to a project and say something like "we won't be renting to students". It's often an upscale nicer building and they say that to get approval from some of the downtown neighbors.

I continuously remind people to be careful about what they are saying and remind them that students are a protected class both in the Madison General Ordinances and the Dane County Ordinance. It usually doesn't change what they say, and its very frustrating.

Here's the language from the ordinance:

(jj) Student means a person who is enrolled in a public or private high school, college, university, technical college, accredited trade school, or apprenticeship program.

and

(4) Housing . It shall be an unfair discrimination practice and unlawful and hereby prohibited for any person having the right of ownership or possession or the right of transfer, sale, rental or lease of any housing, or the agent of any such person:

(a) To refuse to transfer, sell, rent or lease, to refuse to negotiate for the sale, lease, or rental or otherwise to make unavailable, deny or withhold from any person such housing because of sex, race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry, age, handicap/disability, marital status, source of income, including receipt of rental assistance under 24 Code of Federal Regulations Subtitle B, Chapter VIII [the "Section 8" housing program], arrest record or conviction record, less than honorable discharge, physical appearance, sexual orientation, familial status, political beliefs, or the fact that such person is a student as defined herein, the fact that a person declines to disclose their Social Security Number when such disclosure is not compelled by state or federal law; or the fact that such a person is a member of a domestic partnership as defined herein; or (Am. by Ord. 13,708, 10-12-04; ORD-07-00016, 2-22-07; ORD-07-00029, 3-15-07)

and

(c) To falsely represent that a dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental because of discrimination because of sex, race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry, age, handicap/disability, marital status, source of income, arrest record or conviction record, less than honorable discharge, political beliefs, physical appearance, sexual orientation, familial status, or the fact that a person is a student as defined herein; the fact that such a person is a member of a domestic partnership asdefined herein; or other tenants in such a manner as to diminish their enjoyment of the premises by adversely affecting their health, safety and welfare. A person who has received written notice from the Madison Police Department that a drug nuisance under Sec. 823.113, Wis. Stats., exists on property for which the person is responsible as owner may take action to eliminate the nuisance, including but not limited to, eviction of residents, provided such action is not a subterfuge to evade the provisions ofthis ordinance. (Am. by ORD-07-00029, 3-15-07

Read more!

Tenant Resource Center - As bad as it gets.

The Tenant Resource Center is making some big decisions on November 1st. Should we shut down services and lay off staff? If so, how much and how many?

BACKGROUND AND FACTS
I've been involved with the Tenant Resource Center since 1995. There have been ups and downs and twists and turns and challenges, but this is probably as bad as it gets. Last year we lost $55,000 from UW Student Government and that cut in funding after more than 10 years of support took effect July 1st of this year. Two weeks ago we found out that HUD would no longer be funding us as well, starting October 1st we lost $41,000 in funding. (I just got the official notice in the mail yesterday and found out by reading it on their website even tho the funding stopped two weeks ago.) Our budget at its height was $350,000 and its now around $250,000. This would be funny if it weren't so serious as this year we were also named "Best of Madison" and given the Editor's Choice Award from Madison Magazine and the Isthmus named us one of the 150 Best Things about Madison.

In the past few years, we have suffered from the same fate as many non-profit organizations as public funding stays the same or decreases and costs go up. So far, we have eliminated 4 jobs, 3 part-time and 1 full-time. We no longer have 2 part-time housing counselors, a part-time mediation program coordinator and a full-time Assistant Program Director that helped us with special projects and fundraising/grantwriting. Now, we are looking at laying off one or two more people. So much for the "economic development" and "job creation" that these programs supported.

[Note: Before you jump on that "bloated non-profit feeding-off-the-system bandwagon" just let me say that after working as Executive Director since 1995 I only make about $40,000 and have no retirement. My full-time housing counselors start at the equivalent of about $12.50 per hour or $26,000 per year. Barely enough to pay for their own apartments if they have a family. Our rent actually goes down, not up due to us helping create the Social Justice Center. We run about a lean as it gets and there really is no where left to cut. We were already subsidizing our programs through fundraising and income from seminars ($20,000/year) and sales of books.]

Here's some examples of our funding in the past few years:

CDBG Funding (Community Development Block Grant funding for mediation program.)
2004 - $10,000
2005 - $10,149
2006 - $9,651
2007 - $10,514

ESG Funding (Emergency Shelter Grant money that comes through the CDBG office from state funds and is spent for mediation at small claims court on Tuesday for evictions.)
2004 - 2005 $12,250
2005 - 2006 $12,000
2006 - 2007 $11,000
2007 - 2008 $9,200

Office of Community Services (Funds housing counseling Monday - Friday and outreach and education efforts including community presentations, press contacts and public service announcements, tabling at events and other outreach efforts)
2004 - $40,012
2005 - $40,972
2006 - $42,037
2007 - $43,550

[Note: I should disclose that I am an Alderperson and the three funding sources above come from or through the City of Madison. I do not vote on those budget and other TRC staff deal directly with City staff on these contracts. Our Board of Directors makes all decisions about these funding sources and signs the contracts.]

Dane County (Funds the Housing Help Desk and housing counseling, outreach and education and mediation outside the City of Madison as well as a housing vacancy list.)
2004 - $100,613
2005 - $100,613
2006 - $100,613
2007 - $101,623

[Note: During this time period, in addition to getting basically stagnant funding, they have added $10,400 in direct costs that they previously have paid for to our budget. So this is essentially a cut by that amount in addition to lack of cost of living increases.]

University of Wisconsin - SSFC Funding (Student Fees) (This funded housing counseling and outreach and education on the UW Campus)
2004 - 2005 $59,984
2005 - 2006 $53,202
2006 - 2007 $56,523
2007 - 2008 $0

HUD - (This funded the toll free hotline for housing counseling and follow up for those people outside Dane County. We had a toll-free number 10 years ago so this is the second time we have had to cut this service, which is absurd given the start up costs for programs like these.)
2004 - 2005 - $62,310
2005 - 2006 - $55,727
2006 - 2007 - $41,017
2007 - 2008 - $0

It's truly a death by a thousand cuts. Unfortunately, these funding decisions have nothing to do with outcomes or meeting goals, which we almost always exceed in pretty good numbers. Most of these funding decisions are made based on other budgets that are being stretched as far as they can or changes rules and priorities. And, I have to say, that there are plenty other non-profits out there in the community suffering from the same issues.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
What this means for the Tenant Resource Center is that we are cutting services and will not be able to help the people that we serve throughout the state and here in Dane County. Our toll-free number that we ran for that last few years that helped thousands of people is shut down. We stopped answering emails and we cut the hours we are open. We used to be open Monday - Friday 9 - 6 but now until the end of the year we will be closing at 4:00 except on Wednesday where we will be open until 6.

The largest numbers of calls that we get are about evictions, repairs, return of security deposit and breaking a lease. 90% of the people we help are tenants and 10% are smaller landlords. All of these folks will be able to look at our website for information, but we won't be able to help them beyond that unless they call from a local number.

In 2006, we served the following people:

• 6,724 people called or stopped by to get assistance with housing counseling, information or referral.
• 1,480 calls came in statewide through our 800 number and received follow up assistance.
• 634 people attended our local workshops or presentations
• 106,940 people visited our website
• 1,084 people received in depth assistance from the Housing Help Desk, with an additional 6,732 people stopping by to get "quick" information
• 205 families were able to avoid eviction through assistance from our Housing Crisis Fund
• 787 people resolved their rental housing disputes through 645 mediations

We're going to try to continue to meet these needs, plus the needs of the many people who are just finding out about our services, but we do need your help!

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

• Donate on-line.
• Tell your friends, neighbors, co-workers, acquaintances to donate on-line.
• Attend our fundraiser on October 26th from 5 - 7 at the Brink Lounge at 701 E Washington Ave. (suggested donation $20 but all encouraged to attend, regardless of size of donation) and participate in the silent auction.
• Volunteer to be a housing counselor or office assistant.
  
• Consider becoming a "sustaining member" of the Tenant Resource Center.
• Donate through workplace giving campaigns through Community Shares of Wisconsin.
  

WHAT WILL WE DO?

• Write grants to replace the lost funding.
• Continue to run as lean as we can without completely exploiting our workers.
• Continue to serve as many people as we can within the limits of our funding issues.
• Set up a "sustaining membership" program.
• Continue to make money through the sales of our books and seminars and other services to fill the gaps to support the programs.
• Do our best to deal with the increase in phone calls from people with housing problems that will likely result from this additional publicity.
  
• Whatever it takes to serve the people who need our help as long as its legal and ethical.
  

Read more!

The Chamber of Commerce thinks human workers are house-elves

This is just too good not to share, the politics of Harry Potter.

This is from a friend of mine, who I think wants to remain anonymous!

I didn't know how political the Harry Potter series could get, and I'm still a little embarrassed to admit I've gotten into them. Here's the gem I just read, from the fourth book:

"There are house-elves here?" [Hermione] said, staring, horror-struck, at Nearly Headless Nick. "Here at Hogwarts?"

"Certainly," said Nearly Headless Nick, looking surprised at her reaction. "The largest number in any dwelling in Britain, I believe. Over a hundred."

"I've never seen one!" said Hermione.

"Well, they hardly ever leave the kitchen by day, do they?" said Nearly Headless Nick. "They come out at night to do a bit of cleaning . . . see to the fires and so on . . . I mean, you're not supposed to see them, are you? That's the mark of a good house-elf, isn't it, that you don't know it's there?"

Hermione stared at him.

"But they get paid?" she said. "They get holidays, don't they? And -- and sick leave, and pensions, and everything?"

Nearly Headless Nick chortled so much that his ruff slipped and his head flopped off, dangling on the inch or so of ghostly skin and muscle that still attached it to his neck.

"Sick leave and pensions?" he said, pushing his head back onto his shoulders and securing it once more with his ruff. "House-elves don't want sick leave and pensions!"

Just thought I'd share this with you. It's from page 182 of the 4th book (paperback version). I really feel like photocopying it and sending it to the Council, and writing a letter to those Muggles at the Chamber telling them off.

If you read it and substitute "low income workers/renters" or "latinos" for "house-elves" its really quite sad.
Read more!

Meetings Regarding Neighborhood Developments

James Madison Park District Neighborhood Meeting
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
6:00 – 7:00 pm
First United Methodist Church Chapel
203 Wisconsin Avenue

For review of Neighborhood Advisory Statement regarding Fisher properties proposal to build a 4-story apartment building at 119, 123 & 125 Butler Street involving the demolition of 2 houses and moving of 1 of them and demolishing 3 garages and incorporating advisory comments regarding relocation of the house at 119 North Butler Street to the corner of Johnson and Blair Streets.

This meeting will be immediately followed by a steering committee meeting on the Pinkus McBride project.

No need to be a member to attend these meetings, however, joining the neighborhood association is, of course, encouraged.
Read more!

2007 Budget - Sick Leave Not Implemented, And More

Wouldn't you assume that when something gets put into the budget and it gets the votes on the council, that it would get implemented. Not so.

I'm not one for press releases for many reasons, but here it is nonetheless . . . .

Konkel Raises Serious Concerns About Integrity
of City Budget Process
Review Reveals Items Funded as Part of
2007 City Budget Not Implemented

Madison – Madison Alder Brenda Konkel (2nd District), released today a list of items that the Common Council approved as part of last year’s city budget deliberations, but which were never implemented by the City. The review by Konkel came in the wake of a meeting last week by the city’s budget committee (Board of Estimates) where Mayor Cieslewicz and City Comptroller Dean Brasser as well as other City staff, in response to questions by Konkel, acknowledged several failures to implement budget directives from the approved 2007 City Budget.

“What became clear when I started looking into items we had adopted last year is that the Council’s priorities have been overlooked or flat out disregarded in several areas,” said Konkel.

The list of items approved but not implemented includes:

• $63,000 in funding to provide paid sick days to City employees who did not have this benefit, was unanimously approved by the Council on a voice vote but never implemented (2006 Operating Budget Amendment #1);
• Funding of $300,000 for the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) 10% set-aside that was approved by the Council but never spent;
• $50,000 for neighborhood planning grants, approved on a voice vote by the Council but never distributed to neighborhood associations conducting or updating their neighborhood plans; (Operating Budget Amendment #26);
• Funding to hire a neighborhood planner (Planner 3) was approved by the Council but a planner was never hired; and
• Further study on the role of and priorities for neighborhoods as part of the reorganization of the Department of Planning and Development. The Council required that this study and a report be delivered to the Council by mid-October; no study has been conducted and no report provided. (Operating Budget Amendment #25, modified by Council resolution in March)
  

“Learning that several budget items approved by the Council as our funding priorities have not in fact been implemented raises tremendous concerns as we look ahead to the Council’s deliberations and votes next month on the 2008 budget,” said Konkel.

Konkel added, “The Common Council trusts the Mayor and City departments to fully implement the approved budget, or at least to let us know if there are problems in doing so. This list puts that trust and integrity of our budget process in jeopardy.”

In response to these failures to act and a history of funds not being spent in the capital budget, Konkel will introduce a resolution at the Tuesday, October 16th City Council meeting requiring quarterly budget updates to the Common Council and specifying that each year’s annual executive proposal shall include a report on which areas have been over or under-spent by more than 5%, along with explanations of these spending discrepancies from the approved budget.

Read more!

How much does one police officer cost?

It depends.

The first 18 officers the Mayor added to the budget would start on May 27th and would cost the city $49,500 per officer for the first year they work for the City. That cost includes salaries, benefits, overtime, supplies, uniforms and equipment. These officers would not be on the street until February 2009.

The second 12 officers that the Mayor added to the budget would start on February 25 and could cost the city $67,045 per officer for the first year. These officers would be available June 2008 because we are hiring experienced officers that will be going through an accelerated academy.

However, the costs of these same officers in 2009 will be $71,025 regardless of whether the officer is hired in February or hired in May. This cost is calculated as if the officer was hired at the first of the year, but excludes all one-time equipment purchases.

So, while we can (barely) afford these officers the first year (as long as the rest of the City sacrifices things that are needed in departments across the City), it is not clear that we will be able to sustain this budget over time. This year's budget is tight, next year and the following year will be even worse when there are additional costs for these officers and no TIF windfalls to fill the holes in our budgets. In short, this decision is short-sighted and simply not sustainable.
Read more!

City Can Recycle More Plastics

The City of Madison has a new recycling program. Madison residents can now bring many previously unrecycled plastic items to the City’s two full service drop off sites for recycling. These items, called Mixed Rigid Plastics include;

Empty garbage cans
Plastic Toys
Plastic buckets
Plastic milk/soda crates
Plastic laundry baskets
Plastic lawn furniture
Plastic landscape trays
Plastic totes
Plastic drums
Plastic pet carriers
Plastic pallets
Plastic coolers
Plastic shelving
Plastic closet organizers
Plastic dish drainers
Plastic flower pots
Plastic traffic signs
5-gallon water bottles

These plastics cannot go in the green recycling carts.

The drop off locations that will accept the rigid plastic for recycling are;
East 4602 Sycamore Av.
West 1501 W. Badger Rd.

The sites are currently open seven days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. They are also open on Tuesday and Thursday evenings until 8 p.m. These hours will remain in effect through Sunday December 2nd.

You will need to remove all metal axles, handles, and wires from plastic items before bringing them in for recycling. Batteries should also be removed from any plastic toys.

There are some plastic items that cannot be recycled in this program including;

PVC Pipe/Tubing
Vinyl Siding
Plastic Film (Grocery bags & Stretch film)
Styrofoam
Water Hoses
Hazardous Material
Medical Waste
Chemical and Petroleum Barrels
Pesticide and Herbicide Containers

The program is only for City of Madison residents. Complete information on program is on the Streets Division’s web site www.cityofmadison.com/streets. Residents with questions can contact the recycling office at 267-2626.
Read more!

CDA & the City: Just ignore the Contract!

The CDA, or Community Development Authority, is in the news for wanting to be the developer for Allied Drive and some hiring and contracting issues. Technically, it is its own legal entity but it is also considered by many to be another arm of the City and has a contract with the City. We have a contract in place with the CDA. Sorting out the role it should play in Allied Drive prompted me to ask some questions, which in turn have raised many other questions:

1. Where is it's budget? Or at least some accounting of its expenses beyond the Housing Operations unit? (See #5 below.)

2. How much staff time is spent on CDA activities, and spent not getting City work done?

3. Why isn't the CDA charged for city staff time? (See #4 below.)

4. Shouldn't they be following City contracting rules? Including paying the living wage? (See contract language #1 and #3 below.)

5. Where is the annual workplan? (See #7 below.)

6. Why aren't we following the terms of the contract that we do have? (See language below.)

BACKGROUND

• The CDA was created by Madison General Ordinances in 1979.
  
• The CDA has independent abilities to make decisions without approval of the Common Council.
  
• The CDA is allowed to call upon any department, board, commission or agency of the City for assistance and cooperation in the performance of its duties and functions.
  
• The Director of the Department of Planning, Community and Economic Development is also the Executive Director/Secretary of the CDA (Mark Olinger).
  
• The CDA is supposed to pay the City for any staff time used to perform CDA services.
  
• The CDA is supposed to do projects for the City at their request.
  

CONTRACT LANGUAGE: Here's some excerpted language.

1. When architectural, engineering or management consultants are to be utilitzed on AUTHORITY projects, they must be recruited and selected in accordance with CITY, state and federal requirements and approved by the AUTHORITY.
   
2. The CITY reserves the right and discretion to determine funding and staffing levels of City employees to be made available to the AUTHORITY pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as requireing the CITY to budget funds or retain employees to provide said services.
   
3. In addition, the AUTHORITY may employ technical experts and such other officers, agents and employees, permanent and temporary, as it may require from time to time in the performance of its duties and functions within the limits of the funds available for this purpose.
   
4. The AUTHORITY agrees to reimburse the CITY for performing services and providing the space, material, supplies and equipment to carry out the activities and operations described under this agreement. The CITY shall be reimbursed for all costs of providing said services in accordance with the following:
   
• C. The AUTHORITY agrees to reimburse the City for the cost of support services provided by the CITY departments as they relate to the performance of the services rendered under this Agreement, provided that all inter-agency charges are approved by the AUTHORITY or its designees prior to reimbursement of the CITY.
  
• D. The AUTHORITY agrees to reimburse the CITY for the actual cost of construction and modernization contracts and architectural, engineering and management consultant contracts that are entered into with the approval of the AUTHORITY, provided that disbursements are approved by the AUTHORITY or its designess prior to payment by the CITY.
  
5. The City Comptroller shall prepare a periodic basis, a summary of expenditures made by the CITY on behalf of the AUTHROITY as provided in Article II Section C of this agreement. (Brenda's Note: That's the language in C above.) This reimbursement summary shall be submitted to the AUTHORITY or its designee for approval. The AUTHORITY shall reimburse the CITY on a timely basis.
   
6. The approval by the AUTHORITY or its designee of all contract disbursements as provided in Article II, Section D (Brenda's Note: That is the language in D above.) of this agreement shall constitute the necessary approval for the reimbursement of those costs.
7. The AUTHORITY and the Mayor agree to develop an Annual Work Plan prior to the preparation of the City's Executive Budget.

The contract was signed by Mayor Paul Soglin, Andre Blum (City Clerk), Terese Berceau (Chair of the CDA), George Austin (Secretary of the CDA) and Henry Gempler (City Attorney).

This is like the third time in the past two weeks where it has come up that the City/Mayor have ignored our laws and contracts. What's going on here?
Read more!

More Budget Tidbits: BOE Amendments due in 2 weeks

So, night two of a the public forum to ask the staff questions. Here's some items of interest we heard last night:

Office of the Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development

• The CDA does not have a budget for the development side of things, they do, however have an extensive budget for the $14M Housing Operations side of things.
• The City does not charge the CDA for City Staff time spent on development project, but they do in Housing Operations.
• The City does not even know how many hours are spent doing CDA development work, but they do in Housing Operations.
• The Department does not have a work plan. The council used to approve the workplan for the department on an annual basis.
• Much of the work done for the CDA is charged against TIF districts.
• The CDA does have about $100,000 in cash reserves.
• Mark Olinger, who is the Director of the PCED and the CDA Executive Director, thinks that the CDA responds to the needs of the City. However, lately, the CDA is bringing proposals to the City (Allied, Villager, Truax).
• Despite the $400,000 budget, they have no "Madison Measures"
  
• More to come on this issue.
  

Planning

• They do have a work plan - an extensive one with 68 large items they are working on.
• Now someone, not necessarily the staff of this unit, are in a hurry to form the Office of Neighborhood Support and they want to short circuit the resolution the Council passed last March and change the process.
• They never hired the Planner 3 that we put in the budget last year to work on the Office of Neighborhood Support and Neighborhood Services
• There will not be the report on the Office of Neighborhood Support that we asked for last year so that we could make good decisions this year at budget time.
  
• The budget does include the 2nd year of the Zoning Code rewrite.
• The way they prioritize what neighborhoods get planning services is a combination of council resolutions, who gets neighborhood planning grants, where the CDBG neighborhood planning money goes, who gets BUILD grants and the areas designated in the comp plan that are likely to be developed on the periphery and the annexations that we do.
  

Neighborhood Preservation and Inspection

• This department "feels like they won the lottery"
• The new inspectors will help them decrease the amount of time that the do systematic inspections and increase the areas where they do systematic inspections, as opposed to complaint based inspections.
• They were not funded $15,000 for mileage reimbursement. This is not an optional payment for them. They will just overspend in that line item, regardless of what we budget.
  

Economic and Community Development

• 7 people in the real estate department have 374 projects they are working on
• The Office of Business Resources has two things they are working on for the next year. Completing the 3-5 year Economic Development Plan and a Marketing Plan for the Southeast area of Madison.
• The housing loan programs are humming along and have goals.

Housing Operations

• Their reserves have slowly decreased over the years. They are down to $170,000 in reserves but a healthy organization would have a reserves of $1M.
• Last year they made $18,000 or essentially broke even.
• While they only get $50,000 from the City, this is a $14M operation.
  

Community Development Block Grant

• For those who watched the grilling of the Office of Community Services, Hickory Hurie made a completely thorough presentation of the extensive process they go through to decide who gets money, to avoid being equally grilled. Zach Brandon had left by that point, however, there wasn't much to say after he got done. Too bad the Office of Community Services hadn't had fair warning and couldn't have had the opportunity to do the same thing.
• The "Framework" or goals for CDBG are approved by the Common Council every year. The same is true for the Office of Community Services and I handed out the resolution we passed in 2006 at the beginning of the meeting.
• All groups funded have two reports, one program and one finance, that need to be turned in before they get checks.
• There is a "B" list of programs that we need in the City that are currently unfunded.
• There was more discussion of the jobs program in Allied that the Building Trades are doing. While the goal is for 32 people to get an apprenticeship, only 1 has. Only 2 people have gotten jobs and I believe the goal is 20.

Department of Civil Rights

• It seems to me that the Department decided that the Fair Housing Council was not a good fit for them, not necessarily that there were performance problems. They were just concerned about the appearance of being neutral if they are funding testing.
  
• The problems that they do have is that reporting is hampered by privacy issues.
• The number of housing complaints has nearly doubled. There were 19 so far this year and 17 last year. In the past the number hovered around 10 or 12.
• While they claim to be able to do the "intake" that the Fair Housing Center, it is a very different service than what the Fair Housing Center does.
• There is one more town hall meeting to hear about issues in the community scheduled for November 5th.
• 200-300 people apply for AASPIRE internships and there are only 8 - 10 slots.

Madison City Channel & Public, Educational and Government (PEG) Access Funding

• They too have dipped into the "trust fund" year after year and are putting less and less money aside for big purchases of equipment in the future.

Public-Health- Madison and Dane County

• No too much comment.
  

Public Works and Transportation

• No comments
  

Fleet Service

• Brief update on the fuel contracts. Our fuel contracts are based on numbers of gallons, not a specific period of time
  

Metro Transit

• They are buying 48 - 55 new cameras in the Capital budget (or perhaps enough to equip 48 - 55 buses which would make more sense than my notes.)
  
• 1/3 of the buses will have cameras
• There was discussion about why we'd be adding more bus wraps to the pilot program before the pilot program was over. Apparently, if we put it in the budget, it would come back to the council for changes to the program.
  

Traffic Engineering

• Sorry - I was busy doing something else and not paying attention, but I don't think they discussed much.
  

Parking Utility

• The ads in the parking ramps were supposed to fund transportation demand management programs and only about half the money is going for that purpose.
• The ads in the parking ramps are not making as much money as we thought they would.
• The advertising company has actually removed some of their signs and so likely our revenues will go down.
• They have alot of credit card transactions and the fees have doubled from $100,000 to $200,000.
  

Parks

• Marla Eddy impressed us all on her knowledge of bugs. Gypsy Moths. Emerald Ash Borers and all kinds of gross stuff. Thank goodness she's on top of all of these issues.
  
• While we are adding two more park rangers, they really don't have the skills to address issues of alcohol in the park. These are college kids that are more of a public service for people who rent shelters and patrol athletic fields, boat ramps and parks with big shelters.
• They have $155,000 in payout for retirements that are not optional that are not funded in this budget.
  

Municipal Pool

• Zach wasn't there, so there were no real questions.
  

Golf Enterprise

• Trends downward in usage continue but are likely to go back up soon with the boomers retiring.
  

Streets

• Depending upon what the State does, we may have more landfill tipping fees.
  

Water Utility

• There was a brief presentation on the new management structure for the water utility. It's a little less hierarchical and more of a sectional structure.
  

Engineering

• I don't have any notes
  

Sewer Utility

• No comments
  

Stormwater Utility

• There are some plans laid out for Monona Bay. This is the largest density of storm sewers going into one area and the area where we are likely to see the most improvement.
  

Landfill, Comptroller, Common Council, Mayor

• No comments
  

Miscellaneous Appropriations

• I asked where all the communication was that we were promised from the Collaboration Council. The Mayor agreed with me that he didn't think we were getting some of what we asked for and said that an amendment to ask for a report from them about how our $18,000 was being spent would be a good idea and he'd work with anyone who wanted to make such an amendment.
• I asked if there was a way to make the Emerging Neighborhood Grants more flexible. The Mayor also said he'd work with anyone who wanted to make an amendment to make the process more flexible while remaining accountable. Two for two.
• I asked why the paid sick leave for hourly employees wasn't funded again. It seems they didn't implement the program in 2007.

Debt Service

• We're around 10 or 11% and our goal is 12%
  

General Fund Revenues

• While we're adding police, we didn't increase revenues for tickets.
  
• Cable franchise fees were likely underestimated
• There were several other questions that were answered by staff
  

Capital Revolving Fund

• Good flexible program to work when not in a TIF district
• Tomo Therapy loan was never given out, after all that.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund

• Bomb shell of the evening. Ooops, it appears we would need to change the ordinance in order to use the money for Allied Drive. Imagine that. How? They didn't have any details.
  
• Also revealed, the CDA would get a loan, not a grant from the Trust Fund. It is unclear if they will pay it back with interest. The source of the pay back of the loans is the TIF district.
• The trust fund wasn't funded by the Mayor because it's "not a priority".
• I asked where, with all the talk of policing and also doing things to help address the core issues of poverty, where was the commitment to the second piece. Mayor said he gave OCS and CDBG 2.4% COLA increases. I explained that is really a cut as 2.4% COLA doesn't cover real expenses. He shrugged it off.
  

Inclusionary Zoning Special Revenue Fund

• Major oooops. The Mayor forgot to budget for incentives for developers and money to buy back homes for the program. He promised to take a look at it.
  

City Insurance Fund & City Workers Compensation Fund

• I was out of the room.
  

While the Mayor has worked on the budget for more than 3 months and gives us very limited information it seems very unfair that for the last two evenings he was so vocally and visibly irritated when we ask questions. We've only had the budget for one week and the amendments for Board of Estimates are due in 2 weeks. Apparently, they think the 20 alders should just ask all these questions off-line on our own time. However, they forget, we have full time jobs and staff aren't really available when we are. We got into it a little bit when he inappropriately cut me off. I'm sorry, but this is the time when all the staff are there to answer our questions.

Next Steps: Board of Estimates amendments are due on the 24th at noon. They will vote on the amendments on October 29th. Public input is allowed at that meeting.

Read more!

Budget Tidbits: The first half of the first hearings

Last night, the Board of Estimates started the annual questioning of staff about the Operating Budget. Here's some of the things I learned or heard and some observations:

General Overview

• There is a 6% increase in the budget over last year. History is that typically we have a 4 - 7% increase, so we are on the higher end of things.
• The 3.9M in TIF funds that we put into the budget is not dedicazted to any one program or service, but goes into the general fund. So, next year we will hae some more money to put in, but in two years, we will be short $3.9 in the general fund. It's rather short-sighted and not sustainable.
• The Council can only add $109,000 before we go over our state limits and lose state funds.

Municipal Court

• Is concerned about the impact that 30 new police officers will have on their workload.

Attorney

• Is concerned about the impact that 30 new police officers will have on their workload.
  

Assessor

• They need another manager position in their office that was not funded. As is, staff have unequal workloads and we have one person who oversees both Residential and Commercial assessments.
  

Clerk

• They still aren't filling a vacancy in their office, so all the things they told the Council they would get to as soon as they filled that position will be further delayed.
  
• They spend $10,000 printing Council Packets for some of the Council members and various City staff and the Mayor's office. Psssst. There's this thing called the internet, you don't need to print all that paper!
  

Treasurer

• Credit card transactions cost us alot of money, a little under 2% of every transaction.
• This year there will be a "convenience fee" for those who pay their taxes with a credit card. However, if you pay by check by phone, there will be no fee.
  

Information Technology

• In the age of technology, we have ZERO wireless accounts in the City. They asked for 100, but only 1/3 or so got funded and the police will likely get them. Others who could use them in their field work and the Common Council will have to wait. (Some of us don't have the City pay for a wireless connection due to ethics issues that we couldn't find a work around.)
  

Human Resources

• Leave the new guy alone. He doesn't know. He didn't write this budget.
  

Overture Center

• The amount of money we give them is given under contract and we can't effect it very much.
  

Monona Terrace

• They're still very excited and getting extra business because they are the first convention center in the United States that is LEED certified. It took 22 month and 1500 staff hours to make this happen.
  

Room Tax Fund

• Last year we raised the room tax from 8% to 9% and there doesn't seem to be an efffect on the hotel industry, even tho that was the concern at the time.
• Um . . . . we signed a 5 year contract with the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau but it never went through the Council process. Why?
• Hotels don't seem to be suffering much in this economy. The biggest issue is competition from other areas.
  

Library

• Despite the fact that low-income neighborhoods have higher demands on library use, especially for internet access, they are some of the libraries that have the lowest number of hours of service. The South Madison and Hawthorne Library are only open 45 hours while others are open 58 hours per week. The request to have those libraries open longer hours was not put into the Mayor's budget.
  

Fire

• There were some curious non-answers. Chief Amesqua basically just nodded her head and said yes, this is what the Mayor wanted in the budget. As if she couldn't contradict the Mayor and tell us what she really needed.
• The Fire Department doesn't have contracted overtime like the police department does. The police department staff get paid 15 minutes of overtime everytime they show up for work.
• They didn't get their medical supplies for the ambulances funded in the amount they need. Again.
• The Mayor cut their AASPIRE intern.
  

Police

• Again, just like the first department, some curious non-answers. And didn't want to contradict the Mayor in public, especially regarding the annual report that they didn't have input into.
  
• They are coming up with some benchmarks to measure their success with 30 new officers, but they don't know if they want us to put them in the budget and hold them to it.
• 1.9 officers per 1000 is not a generally accepted standard in policing, however, it seems that they didn't use that number to determine how many officers they needed. It just happened to work out to be about that amount. Hmmmm . .. . .
  
• They have looked at going to 10 hour shifts and there are some plusses and minuses to that more flexible scheduling.
  

Senior Center

• No silly coffee urn debate this year. (That made Zach's face turn red!)
  
• They are celebrating their 25th anniversary in 2008.
  

Community Services

• How very interesting. We talked to them for about an hour about outcomes and measurements, however, no other departments were asked about outcomes and measurements.
• There is a complete and total misunderstanding about the priority setting process that the committees go through every year.
• It seems while alders want them to have more flexibility, they also don't want to give them discretion.
• There is a complete and total misunderstanding about what it means to cut a program and the impacts it has on an organization. Some think it is ok if they just go out of business. This fails to realize how hard it would be to find another organization to provide similar services and the start up costs.
  
• There is a complete and total misunderstanding about COLA increases and why they are important.
• Alders are framing the discussion to imply that there is something wrong, so that they can merge the CDBG and Office of Community Services offices.
• It's ok to pick on new people when they work in Community Services.
  
• This is a whole other blog, as the discussion lasted nearly an hour and the comments were staggering.
  

The process where we call in all the department and division heads to answer questions for the Board of Estimates is not a good process for the Council. Many alders, while they showed up, left without asking any questions. This was likely because there weren't enough chairs at the table and there wasn't a clear process for non-BOE alders to ask questions. Also, I don't think some of them realized that the past tradition is that you just come up to the table and sit there. This Mayor introduced a practice of calling on all the BOE people first, then the other alders could ask questions. So its not a very inviting atmosphere to ask questions. Additionally, we've had the budget for just under a week and I don't think many alders read it or even figured out what their questions were. Clearly, this meeting is kind of early in the process.

And finally, Mayor gets cranky and starts cutting people off when he doesn't get his dinner. As someone else said to me "Dude, bring a granola bar."

We ended at 9:00 and didn't get through everything scheduled for last night. We will resume questions this evening at 4:30 in room 260 of the Municipal Building and you can see it on channel 12.

p.s. Over the weekend, I did six other posts you might want to check out. They involve

• Incusionary Zoning Updates
  
• An interesting CDBG commission meeting and their principled recommendation regarding Bill Clingan for the position of Economic and Community Development Unit Director
  
• Using Affordable Housing Trust Fund money to build a road? Maybe. It's not clear.
  
• Is the Westside "crackdown" an effective way to do things? Or counterproductive?
  
• The Mayor's "war on housing" in the budget.
  
• The Mayor ignoring Madison General Ordinances.

Read more!

Is the Mayor above the Law?

Can he just ignore Madison General Ordinances because he thinks he has a better idea? If so, why not just eliminate the Common Council and the Citizen Committees altogether? No, this isn't about personnel ordinances, this is a blog about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Here's another process issue, passed in an ordinance, the Mayor has chosen to ignore:

(4) Trust Fund Distributions.
(a) The Trust Fund is to function as an endowment fund to fund loans and grants in accordance with this Section. The Trust Fund program shall be administered by the Grants Supervisor. No disbursements may be made from the Trust Fund Account without the prior recommendation of the Commission and authorization by the Common Council. Unless authorized by a vote of the Common Council, for any year that the Trust Fund Account balance is less than $10 million, the total disbursements from the Trust Fund Account shall be limited to twenty-five percent (25%) of all revenue sources deposited into the Trust Fund Account in the previous fiscal year, except loan repayments. For any year that the Trust Fund Account is greater than $10 million, the total disbursements from the Trust Fund Account shall be limited to:
1. The total interest accrued on the Trust Fund Account from the previous fiscal year, plus
2. Any unexpended amount from the allowable disbursements from the previous fiscal year.

The proposal to use the Affordable Housing Trust Fund money never went through the CDBG Commission. In fact, they were never even asked about it and found out about it when I told staff that it was in the Capital Budget.

Additionally, the ordinance we passed has requirements about the type of affordable housing that the money is allowed to be used for. Do you think they intend to comply with all of the following requirements?

(b) Disbursements from the Trust Fund Account shall be made as loans or grants to assist Recipients in the creation of Assisted Units. Recipients may use the funds to pay for: capital costs, including but not limited to the actual costs of rehabilitating or constructing Assisted Units; preserving affordable units; demolishing or converting existing non-residential buildings to create new Assisted Units; real property acquisition costs; and professional service costs, including but not limited to, those costs incurred for architectural, engineering, planning and legal services which are attributable to the creation of Assisted Units.
(c) Trust Fund moneys may not be used for operating expenses of any program, or supporting services such as childcare or any other social program.
(d) At least 60% of the funds eligible for disbursement annually shall be used to create Assisted Units for Very Low Income households. ADDED: "Very Low Income" means gross household income adjusted for family size that is at or below fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income.
(e) Rental Assisted Units shall be available only to households whose gross income, adjusted for family size, is at or below fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income.
(f) Owner-occupied Assisted Units shall be available only to households who are Low Income or Very Low Income.
(g) The Commission shall periodically review the terms of assistance, and structure these terms to encourage the longest period of affordability possible.
(h) Loans or grants from the Trust Fund shall be used to develop Assisted Units within a project. The Trust Fund may assist up to one hundred percent (100%) of the units within a building or development of one (1) to nine (9) total units, up to fifty percent (50%) of the units within a building or development of ten (10) to fifteen (15) units, and up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the units within a building or development of sixteen (16) or more units.
(i) Assisted Units shall be distributed throughout the building or development so as to avoid a disproportionate concentration in any one area.
(j) The Commission shall give preference to projects not located in any Tax Incremental District whose project expenditure period has not expired.
(k) Notwithstanding the stated purpose in subsection (1) herein to create the Fund as a continually renewable source of revenue, the Commission may, in its discretion, recommend that disbursements from the Trust Fund Account may be made as grants at any time that the Trust Fund Account balance exceeds $10 million.
(l) At least fifty percent (50%) of funds available in any calendar year shall be reserved for commitments to nonprofit corporations until October 1st, after which these reserved funds may be disbursed to any Recipient or carried over to the following year. Exceptions to this provision may be approved by the Common Council.

(6) Term of Affordability.
(a) The minimum term of affordability for any Assisted Unit shall be thirty (30) years. The Commission shall give preference to those projects that ensure that the Assisted Units remain Affordable for the longer period possible.
(b) Assisted Units shall be deed restricted to ensure long term affordability.
(c) In those cases where an Assisted Unit is sold or transferred, or where an Assisted Unit is no longer Affordable, the initial Recipient of assistance from the Trust Fund shall be obligated to repay to the City the original loan amount, plus a pro-rated percentage of the appreciated value of the Assisted Unit as determined by the Commission. If an Assisted Unit has remained Affordable for more than fifty (50) years, the Commission may waive the obligation of the Recipient to pay the pro-rated appreciated value.

(7) Building Standards.

The Commission shall encourage a set of building standards or initial improvements that lead to lower, long-term utility costs for occupants of Assisted Units. The specific set of these standards and improvements shall include the following:
(a) Compliance with such health and safety standards such as direct vent hot water units when individual hot water heating units are provided within the Assisted Unit;
(b) Protection from radon gas;
(c) A passive solar-slab ventilation system when sub-grade areas are exposed during construction or rehabilitation; and
(d) Within the Assisted Unit, features that help achieve a performance standard of energy conservation equal to 115% of the performance required by state building codes.

(8) Accessibility. The Commission shall establish a program-wide goal of helping to create at least one (1) accessible unit out of every five (5) it assists. An accessible unit shall have accessible features as defined by the applicable sections of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters COMM 61-65, and include one curb-less shower and a step-free entry into the Assisted Unit.

Laws, schmaws. I guess the Mayor doesn't need them.
Read more!

Housing & Homelessness: Cuts plus no new City funding.

In a year when we have heard all about adding 30 police officers to our City budget and the police department budget went from $50 to $53 Million, and we have also heard vague promises about trying to address the root causes of crime and poverty, seems odd that Housing Issues have been cut and there are no new programs. Even the programs that have been funded, with the small COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) increases agencies get, the agencies are losing out as the COLA increases don't cover the real costs that agencies have. So, in addition to losses through the so called COLA, here are some of the other housing issues that didn't get funded.

Fair Housing Center
This is the oddest one of them all. The Fair Housing Center got cut. However, I've never seen a budget note that seems as mean spirited and untruthful as this one.

Elimination of funds for a contract with the Fair Housing Center of Greater Madison for fair housing testing ($30,000). Performance under the contract was not up to expectation. DCR will continue to incorporate other elements of the contract such as complaint intake and investigation, information and referral, technical assistance,
dissemination of information, and educational programming into existing outreach efforts of the Equal Opportunities Division.

The alleged issues were not discussed with the staff at the Fair Housing Center, according to the conversations I've had with a couple of their staff people. This note seems nearly mean spirited. And I have to say, I'm not sure the City Staff at the EOD can do the same type of outreach efforts as a community organization can do.

10% TIF set aside program
(It looks like the link has been removed from the Planning and Community and Economic Development website.)

This program was approved during the Bauman administration and has been undermined ever since. It took forever to get a process in place to make decisions and then when projects were approved through the process, they were informed that in fact, the money was not set aside and so we'd have to get it into the Capital Budget. This year, we got it into the Capital Budget through an amendment but unlike other programs that are usually reauthorized, the Mayor zeroed out this program in his budget. Here's the budget description from the Capital Budget (project 27)

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. Funding in 2008 would reauthorize the 2007 amounts and provide financing to developers for the construction or conversion of housing that meets the TIF 10% set-aside guidelines.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund
The Affordable Housing Trust Fund took two hits in the budget. Once in the Capital Budget (project 13) and once in the Operating Budget.

The Capital Budget ignores MGO 4.22 and takes $3M of the $3.9M from the Affordable Housing Trust fund, to pay for a road. Well, at least that is what it appears to do, the details are a little fuzzy.

The Operating Budget (see pages 9 & 17) for the first time since 2002, fails to add any money to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Typically, this fund recieved $300,000 to $500,000 per year, but this Mayor has slowly eroded this support.

Homeless Proposals
We have a plan to help end homelessness in 10 years. I think it was required that we do this by HUD. So, we created a plan. The only way this is going to happen is if we fund it. (More info on homelessness in the 2006 Annual Report) Here's some of the things they asked for in a letter sent to the Mayor's office, asking to be include programs in this years budget.

Double the total annual commitment to eviction prevention and housing stabilization programs through funding from the city and the county. We request that the City of Madison provide an additional $103,500 to the ESG/THP/HPP budget in CDBG.

$65,000 to fund half of the operation of a year-round overflow family shelter.

$80,000 in order to triple the funding of the Transit for Jobs program, and allow bus tickets provided through this program to be used for housing purposes and other travel to access services.

$30,000 for the operation of a storage facility that will allow homeless individuals to store personal belongings.

$35,000 to pay for at least 100 motel vouchers that can be used as emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence.

$2,000,000 of its operating budget this year and every year into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

For 10% of what the police department got (ignoring the trust fund issue), this funding could make a huge difference in this community. However, check out the Mayor's quote about their request in this article.

Clearly, housing and ending homelessness are a part of the solution for our community. People need good jobs, safe and quality affordable housing, affordable childcare, affordable healthcare and decent affordable transportation in order to live in this City. No one of these issues can be addressed by themselves. They are all part of the solution to making sure that this City creates a high quality of life for everyone who lives here. It seems of obvious. However, apparently, not to this Mayor.

At the last Affordable Housing Action Alliance Meeting, even before we got the rest of the bad news, someone asked if we had a process to un-endorse the Mayor. I think he can pretty much assume he has lost our support, but perhaps we'll make it official.

Read more!

Westside Crackdown - Help or Harm?

In an effort to think more about policing, I've been reading various materials. This one article, has stuck in my mind for various reasons. I am particularly, struck by the conclusion of the article which reads:

Conclusion

Poorly planned, ill-conceived, and improperly managed crackdowns, intended merely as a show of police force and resolve, can create more problems than they solve. But carefully planned crackdowns, well supported by prior problem analysis, implemented with other responses to ensure longer-term gains, and conducted in a way that maintains public support and safeguards civil rights, can be an important and effective part of police strategies regarding a range of crime and disorder problems.

My fear is, that with the Westside crackdown (crackdown defined in this article as: Sudden and dramatic increases in police officer presence, sanctions, and threats of apprehension either for specific offenses or for all offenses in specific places.), some of the elements that are necessary to make it successful are missing. The elements I am concerned about are as follows:

1. There was no prior problem analysis. There were meetings with the public, and anecdotal stories were collected, but a careful thoughtful analysis was never presented.

2. I haven't see the other responses that are going to take place to ensure longer-term gains.

3. I'm concerned that "public support" will not take into consideration all communities within Madison and that there are some serious race issues involved that are not being discussed.

In addition to these concerns, the article I read mentions many of the potential problems related to crackdowns, including:

• It has the potential to make things worse.
• It only has a short-term impact and any positive results dissipate quickly unless followed up with longer-term responses.
• It don't address any of the physical or social conditions that often contribute to crime and disorder.
• It may result in displacement of crime. (Something we do quite a bit in Madison.)
• It could impact the police-community relations in a negative way. In some places it has resulted in riots, having a disparate impact on the poor and people of color and can have long lasting negative impacts with youth in the community increasing their hostility towards police which impact carries forward to future generations.
• Potential for abuse of police authority. This can be either from overzealousness, doing so just to get overtime pay or when officers not familiar with the area are involved they may not be able to distinguish between the people who are part of the bigger problem and others. (Tho I have to say, isn't zero tolerance, zero tolerance?)
  
• Crackdowns are expensive. Not just in overtime, but in booking prisoners, processing arrest information, processing in the legal system and equipment and training costs.
• Increasing workload on court and corrections system.
• Opportunity costs due to diverted resources.
  

Finally, studies show that crackdowns have very mixed results.

• Of the 45 studies, 25 crackdowns were effective, 13 were not and 7 had mixed results.
• Of the 29 studies that looked at displacement 12 experienced displacement and 14 said they didn't, 3 were inconclusive.

One has to ask, is this really an effective policing effort and a cost-effective expense for the taxpayers?
Read more!

Allied Drive - No budget, contradication and a road with little detail.

Q: When is a road not a road?
A: When it involves the Allied Drive neighborhood and the Mayor.

So, hunting down the details of what is going to happen on Allied Drive is some strange magical mystery tour. Along the way I've learned many things, here's my top three favorites so far:

3. The Chair of the CDA, Stuart Levitan told the Housing Committee on Wednesday that the $3M from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is going to be grant. George Twigg from the Mayor's Office told the paper that it is going to be a loan. So which is it?

2. The CDA doesn't have a budget. Hasn't for years. I think, mostly, because they don't have any money, however, they do have a reserve of about $100,000.

1. And, last but not least. The Mayor told the CDBG Commission that the $3M is not about building a road. He even made a snarky comment about "I don't know where you heard that." I later informed the CDBG Commission that the Capital Budget has exactly one line (see project 13) about how the $3M will be spent and it reads as follows:

Funding in 2008 will be used for the redevelopment of City-owned properties in Allied and for property acquisition of a building and relocation of the tenant to extend Atticus Way from its present terminus through to Red Arrow Drive.

Does that sound like a road to you?

What has been explained at the Housing Committee is that the City needs to give the land to the CDA with enough money to clear of all the buildings and put the roads and infrastructure in place. If the $3M isn't going for roads, are we giving them even more besides the land and the $3M?

And, I guess it makes the point once again, that we simply do not get enough information in the budget to know what the money is really going to be used on.
Read more!

CDBG Commission Takes the High Road

The CDBG commission refused to take a position on the hiring of Bill Clingan for the Economic and Community Development Unit Director. Something which, to me, helps to diminish the value of our citizen committees. However, I suppose, they also made a good point, which I'm afraid will be lost on many.

First of all, the commission had no information on which to make a decision. They hadn't seen the applications or job description or even the vision statement. That did provide them with a dilemma, as it was difficult to make an informed decision that was meaningful. However, the commission did note that they had seen some of the emails and that they had faith in the hiring process. (I don't! But that's a different HUGE can of worms.) And so they wanted to just not vote.

I urged them to vote. By passing on the opportunity to weigh in on hiring Bill Clingan for the position of the Economic and Community Development Unit Director they were passing on a whole host of other policy issues that have gotten wrapped up in the decisions to hire him. This decision is likely more about what we see as a vision for Economic and Community Development. Is Economic development purely about recruiting businesses to Madison, or is it more than that. Is Community Development equally important to Economic Development, or is Economic Development the only thing that is important in this new unit? Are we going to go ahead with this position as it is, or should it really be broken up into two positions and was the reorganization plan flawed? Even worse, by passing on voting, it is likely to be interpreted that they don't care, or that Community Development isn't significantly important. Or that somehow the only thing that matters with Economic Development is business recruitment.

I also thought that when the council refers something to a body and they don't act, it kind of diminishes the value of the committee process. Something that I think is happening more and more as people are removed from committees for disagreeing with the Mayor and committees are skipped by the Common Council voting on an issue before the committee even has a chance. And, all you are likely to see in the paper is x number of committees voted "for" and x number of committees voted "against". And there wouldn't be any explanation of the finer points.

However, they did make a good point. Their point being, this isn't a good process. Citizen committees shouldn't be participating in a hiring process. The process should work on it's own and if there is something with the process, it should be fixed. But having personnel decisions made by committees isn't a good way to do business.

Here's the notes from their meeting:

Referred the issue of confirmation of the Director of Economic and Community Development back to the Council based on the conclusion that the CDBG Commission and other City commissions were essentially policy bodies, and not established to deal with issues of personnel. The Commission adopted the following statement in support of Mayoral discretion in the appointment of City managers:

We believe the issue of Mayoral hiring of the Economic and Community Development Unit Director is a matter of personnel, and not a matter of community development policy per se. We therefore respectfully return the referral to the Council and suggest that it act with dispatch on the confirmation of the mayoral nominee.

The rules for hiring of civil service personnel are established within the Human Resources Department. We support the discretion of the Mayor in selecting individuals for key management positions within the context of these rules and urge the Council to establish clear standards of accountability for Mayoral and Department performance. We believe the best way to accomplish this level of accountability is through the establishment of City objectives and a routine system of performance evaluation, rather than an extended nomination process.

As a Commission, we stand ready and eager to work with the new Unit Director on issues of policy related to community development, such as the refinement of long terms goals for the community development program or the specific terms of the developer agreement for the Allied neighborhood.

Ironically, at this same meeting, where they passed on a personnel issue, they also had a discussion about their (lack of a role) role in policy decisions for the Allied Drive area. They make a good point, the right things aren't being referred to the right committees.
Read more!

Inclusionary Zoning Updates

As the market slowed, so did the production of housing, including inclusionary zoning units, but we recently got an update that although there were 16 units at the end of 2006, we are now up to 44 units. Here's a few other numbers of interest:

• 19 IZ units that have closed and have people living in them.
  
• 25 IZ units that have accepted offers to purchase or reservations for units not yet built.
  
• 18 of these units were under the old ordinance when we still had that crazy Zach Brandon equity model and the easy way for the developers to get out of the program.
  
• 26 units are under the new ordinance.
  
• The program has helped people who have incomes as low as 30% AMI, even tho the program only requires the pricing to be at 70 & 80% AMI.
  

All in all, given

• how long it takes to get from approval to a build home,
  
• that so many of the units got out of the program under a loophole before they were even built and we were able to close that loophole,
  
• the rental piece was taken out of the ordinance and
  /li>
• with the housing market slowing down

this appears to be good news.

It's definitely 44 more affordable units than we would have had. However, its too bad that affordable housing, for people who work in this city, is so hard. I wonder how many people who work in this City who could have benefited from this program chose to move out of town to find cheaper housing during this same time?
Read more!

3 bands, 2 days, 4 shows

When and how did this happen? When I ask Rob "what are you doing tonight?" the answer is almost always "band practice". These days, I have to ask, "Which one?" Here's the shows he's got coming up tonight and over the weekend.

Thursday, October 4th - FIRST SHOW OF THE NIGHT
Benefit for Hurricane Felix Victims in Nicaragua
Where: The Crystal Corner, 1302 Willy St, Madison
When: Thursday, October 4 at 7:30 pm
Cost: Donation at the door ($5 suggested).
7 bands in 5 hours.

Rob will be playing with Gene Therapy

Please join the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, WORT
and Isthmus at a benefit concert for the 200,000 Nicaraguans
left homeless by the storm.

Thursday, October 4th - SECOND SHOW OF THE NIGHT
Baghdad Scuba Review CD Release Party
In the following order:
Minglewood (special reunion show!!)
Baghdad SCUBA Review
Run Side Down

High Nooon Saloon
701 E. Washington Ave

Cost: $5 at the door / $15 for admission + new CD
CD's, stickers and T-shirts will be available during and after the show
A free color poster of the album cover art is yours with your CD purchase

Click below to read reviews about TESTING THE WATERS (Courtesy of Madison's Isthmus Magazine):
REVIEW 1
REVIEW 2 (10 ^th paragraph down)

Saturday, October 6th
Rob will be playing with the Special Dank Midnights between shows at Harvestfest on Library Mall. He's also playing with Baghdad Scuba Review at 4:00.

37th Annual Midwest Marijuana Harvest Fest
Saturday Oct 6th - Library Mall

12:00 Logarhythm (rock)
1:00 Pistols at Dawn w/ Harissimo (surf rock)
2:00 Elf Lettuce (jam rock)
3:00 Tate and the 008 Band (blues)
4:00 Baghdad Scuba Review (progressive rock)
5:00 Nama Rupa (reggae, dub)

Between bands & speakers:
Special Dank Midnights (acoustic pot songs)

I'd particularly recommend the High Noon Saloon tonight! As the band has been saying for weeks now "10-4 Good Buddy"!

Read more!

Common Council Recap: October 2

There were only two or three items of discussion, but we were still there until 9:00 or so. There were a few other items of note.

The night started off will an honoring resolution for some Iraqi war Veterans and some routine business.

The first item we got to before the public hearings started at 7:45 was the $100,000 safety initiative. Even though they are already spending the money, they asked for referral while they backed up and decided to ask the alders in districts affected what they thought was needed in the area. Interesting. We'll be voting on that on the 16th of October.

The second item of interest was a contract to hire a consultant for the zoning code re-write project. This was also referred as the details were not complete and we weren't authorizing them to sign anything until after the budget was over. It was referred until the details are worked out and the budget it approved. We'll be voting on it on November 20th. At that point, hopefully we will have more details about the public participation plan.

Then we went back to the public hearings. The entry way to the hotel on W. Washington Avenue took over an hour. Even though the issue appeared to be resolved, it seems that it wasn't. The issue was should the area between the street and the building be used as a loading zone for customers. At issue as the 11 feet and 3 inches of space between the drop off area and the street and the 18 foot wide drop off area. The issue wasn't resolved, except to say that it would be decided at the time of the SIP and with the "privilege in streets" process.

We place the Madhatters liquor license "on file without prejudice" meaning that we didn't vote on it but said they can come back at a later date if they want to re-apply.

The next item was a re-write of a piece of our zoning code. This change would allow a conditional use for County uses in a Conservancy District. To me, it is not a good procedure to change laws for one project, but we do it all the time. In this case, I wanted to limit the "city and county uses" in Conservancy Districts to "existing" uses. In other words, no expansions into the Conservancy District. In addition to the bad practice of changing laws for one project, there was also the issue of having a Conservancy District apply the same to City and County uses as everyone else. This change would not have affected the project in question. Also, one plan commissioner tried to argue that the Council could always vote on conditional uses at a later date, however, conditional uses only go to the Plan Commission and the Council doesn't vote on them. The roll call vote was to preserve the Conservation Districts with Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel and Webber voting "aye". Voting "no" were Brandon, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton, Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Palm, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer. Absent: Thuy Pham-Remmele and Lauren Cnare.

We then voted on the "consent agenda" with everything else passing as noted on the agenda with two outstanding issues. One was where the Bill Clingan confirmation as Economic and Community Development Unit Director would be referred. Referrals, in addition to the Board of Estimates, were to CDBG, Community Services, Economic Development Commission, the Senior Citizen Advisory Committee, Senior Center Board of Directors, the TIF Ad Hoc committee and finally back to the Common Council on November 6th.

This brought up an issue in that we have a rule on the council that if we don't confirm the appointment of the Mayor within 20 days they are automatically approved. I was going to introduce a rule that we have already talked about, changing that to 60 days. I passed around an ordinance with that language on a piece of paper so it could be referred to our next meeting. Verveer, Webber and Rummel signed on, then when it got to Zach he changed it to be no automatic approval at all and then a bunch of people signed on to that, so we went with that. I introduced it at the end of the meeting with nearly every council member signed on as a sponsor.

That left the final item of the evening. It was an ordinance that would allow double damages, court costs and attorney fees if a landlord retaliate against tenants who join a neighborhood watch or neighborhood association. It should have been a no-brainer with all of the safety talk we've been doing. However, it took another hour at least. The issue was that the ordinance took the language from State Statute 704.45 and the Administrative Code from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection 134.09(5). At issue were three issues as far as I could tell:

1. The Apartment Association of South Central Wisconsin was threatening to sue. (They're the ones who sued over the rental piece of Inclusionary Zoning and won.) For what it is worth, the DATCP regulations allow local governments to pass additional Consumer Protections as long as they don't conflict with their regulations.
2. The Apartment Association of South Central Wisconsin and Lisa Subeck (trying to play lawyer) were arguing that the "renewal" language was going to cause problems in practice.
3. There was an issue about what the tenant got as damages at small claims court as the language used was from the Fair Housing Laws not Tenant/Landlord law.

The "renewal language" was taken directly from 704.45, but the Apartment Association was still opposed. The language from the Fair Housing Laws was removed. The vote, over if we should protect tenants from retaliation if the tenant joins a Neighborhood Watch or Neighborhood Association was as follows:

Aye: Brandon, Clear, Gruber, Judge, Kerr, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Solomon, Verveer, Webber
No: Clausius, Compton, Bruer, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore and Palm
Absent: Thuy Pham-Remmele and Lauren Cnare

Odd vote given the crime hysteria. You'd think we'd want to encourage tenants to join their neighborhood watch. Also interesting is one alder who voted for it asked me "why's Dave against this?", so the Mayor must have been opposed as well and lobbying against the ordinance. He apparently didn't say why and didn't speak up even though he was out of the chair for most of the discussion.

The others then went to the Magnus. I went home as I've been sick, so sorry, no report on that.

Read more!

City Operating Budget: What's in? What's out?

Here's the run down. A quick overview of the information that we got today:

(links are to the sections of the budgets for each of the departments)

Fire
1. The goal of maintaining a minimum staffing level of 68. The staffing level assumes both the continuation of creative staffing methods developed by labor and management to optimize personnel resources and an absence level based on future projections and past experience. Salary savings is set at a level that in the past has provided sufficient funds for the Fire Department to conduct a Fall recruit class without an additional appropriation.
2. Funding to staff Station No. 12, which is scheduled to open in December 2008. This includes 9 Firefighters, 5 Lieutenants, and 4 Apparatus Engineers.
3. Funding for a Spring recruit class of 14.
4. Funding to conduct at least one promotional process.
5. Funding of $10,000 to start a new firefighter hiring process in the last quarter of 2008.
6. Additional funding of $100,000 to begin a replacement program for protective gear.
7. Funding of $70,000 for communications equipment, which was requested in the Capital Budget but is more appropriately included in the Operating Budget.
8. Upon a vacancy occurring, any Fire Inspector position may be deleted and a non-commissioned Code Enforcement Officer 3 may be created.

The agency submitted $2,678,105 in supplemental budget requests, of which $826,974 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:
$40,000 requested for additional staff
$366,714 for fall recruit class of 16.
$411,554 to add 9 paramedics
$100,000 for 50 sets of replacement protective gear (50 funded)
$16,832 to increase medical supplies by 10%
$221,129 2 new Captain positions (training and EMS supervision)
$59,551 1 new admin clerk
$85,156 1 new Fire Information Systems Coordinator 2 position
$59,551 1 new admin clerk for Investigation Unit
$10,000 Fire Protection Engineer intern
$97,096 1 Fire Investigator position
$5,000 Consultant for marketing plan for citywide training facility
$78,361 .5 Emergency Management Coordinator, AASPIRE inter, consultant, training, supplies and equipment for Emergency Management Program
$78,280 1 civilian Human Resource position
$221,342 3 civilian Training Specialist position sand reassign 3 commissioned training officers to fire stations

Police
1. Adding a total of 30 new Police Officers. Some of the officers will begin an accelerated training academy in February and be available for assignment in late June of 2008. The remaining officers will attend the annual pre-service training academy beginning in May and be available for service in February 2009.
2. Funding the Court Services Supervisor position, which was authorized by resolution in August 2007. This allows a Sergeant to be assigned to fieldwork.
3. Upgrading one Lieutenant position to Captain, one Police Officer position to Investigator, and one Police Officer position to Detective.
4. Adding a Management Information Specialist position in September 2008 to perform work functions currently performed by a Lieutenant.
5. Adding a Crime Analyst position in July 2008.
6. Purchasing three vehicles for Detectives, four fully-equipped marked squad cars, and two fully equipped unmarked squads.
7. Continued funding of $100,000 for the Downtown Safety Initiative.
8. By July 1 of 2008 and every subsequent year, the department shall prepare an annual report for the Mayor and members of the Common Council that includes, but is not limited to, the following summaries:
a. Number and disposition of Part 1 offenses known to police for each of the previous eight years;
b. Results of community surveys to assess satisfaction with police services and perceptions of safety;
c. Clearance rates by Part 1 offense for each of the two previous years;
d. Calls for service, both citywide and by district, for each of the two previous years;
e. Average response times and number of dropped calls, both citywide and by district and for emergency and non-emergency calls, for each of the two previous years;
f. Persons arrested, both adults and juveniles and male and female, by classification of offense during each of the two previous years;
g. Age of persons arrested during the previous year;
h. City ordinance citation arrests by violation, for both adults and juveniles, for each of the two previous years;
i. Traffic enforcement activity by hazardous and non-hazardous violation for each of the two previous years;
j. Crashes at ten key intersections throughout the City for each of the five previous years;
k. Value of stolen and recovered property by type of property for each of the two previous years.

The agency submitted $2,934,580 in supplemental budget requests, of which $2,152,130 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$35,055 MIS 2 position
$51,225 Account Clerk
$31,600 Upgrade 2 police officers to Lieutenant
$3,700 Upgrade parking enforcement to Lead Worker
$19,200 Add 3 officers for May training
$5,000 Funding to assess training facility needs
$171,170 Increase in overtime funding
$465,500 Fund vacation convert-to-pay costs

Public Health-Madison and Dane County
1. The 2008 Operating Budget represents the first annual budget for Public Health-Madison and Dane County, the new entity resulting from the merger of the Dane County Division of Public Health and the Madison Department of Public Health. Beginning in January 2008, the merger will be largely complete and most of the last components put into place. Most programs are already functionally merged, with County and City staff working side-by-side. This operating budget is one of the last steps in completing the merger.
2. Joint net costs total $8,987,315. This amount will be allocated to the County and City on a 55.229% / 44.771% basis.
3. Some additional resources are provided in the Health Budget, to be entirely funded by either the County or City. In addition to Community Agency costs funded jointly ($188,500), Dane County will support certain contract costs as follows: Access Community Health Center ($8,000), Safe Communities Coalition ($5,100), AIDS Network ($99,516), and AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin ($17,700) for a total of $130,316. The City of Madison in like fashion will fully support an additional $188,000 for Access Community Health Center, $20,000 for the Safe Communities Coalition, $26,000 for the AIDS Network, and $62,000 for Harambee, for a total of $296,000. In addition, the City will fully support net costs for the laboratory, totaling $176,451.
4. Funding for a new half-time Dietetic Specialist, to be fully supported by increased WIC revenues. Since the two WIC programs were consolidated in May 2007, there has been an increase of 300 cases. The WIC caseload has steadily increased each year.
5. Reduction of the Fit City Coordinator position to half-time.
6. An additional $18,000 over requested levels for dental services for children in communities outside of Madison, and a further $53,500 for dental services for uninsured Dane County adults and children.
7. Integration of the Dane County Humane officers into the Public Health agency.
8. Uniform licensing for high-risk food items and establishments, and uniform standards across the County for commercial swimming pools, including monthly water testing.

The agency submitted $539,595 in supplemental budget requests, of which $176,888 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$33,103 Dietetic Specialist for WIC program
$29,514 Half time Fit City Madison Program
$38,534 replace 2 hourly Humane Officers with one full-time
$13,368 Web Content Editor
$70,000 Computer replacement??
$19,450 reclassification of Dane Co Dir. of Environmental Health on Jan 1 instead of March 1
$48,356 Full time nurse to work on communicable disease on Jan 1 instead of July 1
$36,603 new Sanitarian position for food and swimming pool oversight on Jan 1 instead of July 1
$29,329 Clerk Typist for full year instead of half
$28,250 mileage
$12,000 training for Public Health staff
$4,200 training for Board of Health

Common Council
1. Funding for a continuation of services.

The agency submitted a supplemental budget request of $7,714, all of which is included in the Executive Budget.

Mayor
1. Funding for a continuation of services.
2. An inter-agency billing of $120,658 to the Office of Community Services (OCS) for salary and benefits of a Mayoral Assistant who will serve as interim OCS manager in 2008.
3. A reclassification of two Mayoral Assistants 1 to Mayoral Assistants 2.

The agency submitted $37,640 in supplemental funding requests, of which $37,640 is included in the Executive Budget.

Municipal Court
1. Funding for a continuation of existing services.
2. Note: As in previous years, the Municipal Court is authorized to charge the General Fund a $5.00 per case filed processing fee, if necessary to meet the 2008 Operating Budget.

The agency submitted no supplemental budget requests.

Department of Civil Rights
1. Reduction of a 1.0 FTE Clerk Typist position to .75 FTE.
2. Elimination of funds for a contract with the Fair Housing Center of Greater Madison for fair housing testing ($30,000). Performance under the contract was not up to expectation. DCR will continue to incorporate other elements of the contract such as complaint intake and investigation, information and referral, technical assistance, dissemination of information, and educational programming into existing outreach efforts of the Equal Opportunities Division.

The agency submitted $10,724 in supplemental funding requests, of which $0 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$10,724 Hourly Aide for Disability Rights on-site reviews

Attorney
1. Continuation of the current level of service.
The agency submitted a supplemental budget request of $105,484, which is included in the Executive Budget.

Assessor
1. Funding of $49,333 to restore an Administrative Clerk I position. The primary responsibilities of this position are data entry of residential property information, front line customer service including answering the telephone, scheduling inspection appointments, answering office policies inquiries, walk in assessment information, and work on special projects during peak periods.

The agency submitted $162,009 of supplemental budget requests, of which $49,333 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$112,676 Reorganize the Assessors Office

Clerk
1. Additional funding for the four elections to be held in 2008, including a presidential election. The largest expense is for the wages of election officials, for which an additional $323,015 is provided.
2. Elimination of funding for the vacant Clerk's Office Coordinator position, for savings of $61,556.
3. Restoration of $10,000 for the printing of paper copies of Common Council packets.
4. Note: Actual 2006 numbers are contained in the Clerk/Treasurer budget.

The agency submitted $71,556 of supplemental budget requests, of which $10,000 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$61,556 Clerk's Office Coordinator

Treasurer
1. Additional funding of $30,000 for credit card fees, to better reflect actual charges. With the convenience of online payments for consumers, these fees have increased substantially.
2. An additional $18,000 for postage costs. With the new US Postal Service fee structure, costs for mailing tax bills, accounts payables, and animal licenses have increased significantly.
3. Note: Actual 2006 costs are contained in the Clerk/Treasurer budget.

The agency submitted $48,000 of supplemental budget requests, of which $48,000 is included in the Executive Budget.

Madison City Channel
1. Funding for a continuation of services.
The agency submitted $37,519 in supplemental budget requests, of which $0 is included in the Executive Budget

Not included is funding for:

$27,519 .50 FTE Producer/Director position
$10,000 Closed Captioning program (says this is "in, no levy funding")

Comptroller
1. Salary savings budgeted at 2.9%, which will be achieved by managing vacancies as they occur.
2. The transfer of the position of Safety Coordinator from the Human Resources Department to the Comptroller's Office. Expenditures for this position are included in the Risk Management service.
3. A new inter-agency billing to the Department of Public Health - Madison and Dane County in the amount of $30,700 to provide services from the Administrative Support Team and Document Services.
4. Funding of $87,500 for a collection agency contract for delinquent ambulance bills, estimated to yield $350,000 in General Fund revenue.

The agency submitted supplemental budget requests totaling $95,000 with offsetting General Fund revenue of $350,000, all of which is included in the Executive Budget.

Information Technology
1. Funding to annualize two Management Information Specialist 2 positions (2.0 FTE) approved for partial year funding in the 2007 Operating Budget.
2. Revenue from a State of Wisconsin TRACS grant in the amount of $26,470, to be used to improve data transfer between the Madison Police Department, Madison Municipal Court and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
3. Funding for a continuation of services.

The agency submitted supplemental budget requests totaling $232,590, of which $216,840 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$15,750 100 wireless accounts with MadCityBroadband

Human Resources
1. Transfer of Safety Coordinator (1.0 FTE) to the Comptroller's Office.
2. Funding for a continuation of services.

The agency submitted $70,169 in supplemental budget requests, of which $48,159 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$7,976 Personnel Analyst 2 to .80 FTE
$14,034 increase Personnel Analyst 2 to 1.0 FTE

Overture Center
1. The City's subsidy for the Overture Center, as determined by the Operation and Cooperation Agreement between the City and the Madison Cultural Arts District. The amount is adjusted annually by the inflation factor used for the Expenditure Restraint Program (ERP). The inflation factor for 2008 is estimated at 2.3%, resulting in a subsidy of $1,720,185. A transfer of $350,000 from the Room Tax Fund to the General Fund offsets a portion of the subsidy.
2. A Payment in Lieu of Taxes in the amount of $477,383. This amount is specified in the Operation and Cooperation Agreement and is adjusted by the inflation factor used for ERP.
3. Continued support for arts education programs. OnStage Programming, for example, will provide approximately 50 performances for school age children with anticipated attendance of 50,000 students, teachers and parents from public, private and home schools throughout south-central Wisconsin.
4. Continued support for community outreach at Overture Center including free and low-cost performances and events such as Kids in the Rotunda, Children's Art Festival, Musical Memories, Overture after Work, Artist Workshops, Take 10 Program, Meet the Artist, Duck Soup Cinema, and the International Festival. In addition, Overture provides free galleries for Dane County artists. These programs and concerts are further supported through grants and sponsorships by local foundations and corporations.
5. The Madison Cultural Arts District may transfer funds between accounts as necessary to keep the City subsidy at the authorized level and/or to accommodate actual revenues and expenditures while maintaining the authorized City subsidy level.

The agency submitted no supplemental budget requests.

Monona Terrace
1. Funding the net operating expense (subsidy) of Monona Terrace derived from the Room Tax. (See separate "Room Tax Fund" page in the Summary section of the budget.) The subsidy provided for in the Executive Budget is $2,812,862, which includes a Payment in Lieu of Tax (PILOT) of $291,000 and debt service of $34,740 related to the WRS Prior Service Obligation Loan.
2. Continued support of community outreach efforts at Monona Terrace including approximately 77 free community programs. Programs include free use of the Hall of Fame room by Dane County non-profit organizations and quality community concerts and events supported through grants and sponsorships by local foundations and corporations.
3. Funding of $126,690 for the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB) for direct marketing of Monona Terrace. In 2008, it is estimated that the GMCVB will book approximately $700,000 in convention and conference contract revenues from their direct marketing efforts on behalf of Monona Terrace.
4. Establishing the authorized level of City subsidy for Monona Terrace Community and Convention Center in 2008 and establishing the authorized permanent staff positions as adopted. All other amounts, except permanent salary and debt service, are provided as informational in order to determine the authorized subsidy level and may, in the course of the year, be adjusted by the City Comptroller to reflect income generated by Monona Terrace, if such adjustments do not increase the authorized level of subsidy or increase debt service.

The agency submitted no supplemental budget requests.

Public Works & Transportation
1. Continuation of the additional incremental salary and benefits of the City Engineer for service as the Director of Public Works and Transportation.

The agency submitted no supplemental budget requests.

Engineering
1. Addition of one Street and Sewer Machine Operator 1 to perform work related to the cleaning, maintenance, repair, and construction of the City's storm and sanitary sewer systems. Costs of $48,390 will be supported by the Sewer and Stormwater Utilities.
2. Addition of $24,489 of overtime and related benefits to allow for the completion of some larger or more complex Facilities Services tasks, such as floor waxing, boiler maintenance, and carpet replacement.
3. Provision of $2,500 for membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). This organization provides technical consulting, training, and information services to build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level.
4. Additional permanent salary and benefit funding to support the annual compensation of four new Civil Engineer positions created in 2007.
5. An increase of $81,566 in the landscaping budget to reflect cost increases and the addition of native plantings on John Nolen Drive and East Washington Avenue.
6. Note: As part of the Adopted Budget Process, a budget neutral adjustment will be made balancing revenues of the Engineering Facilities Services service with the charges budgeted by various user agencies.

Sewer Utility
1. The Executive Budget represents a placeholder until the year 2008 sewer treatment expense estimate is received from the Madison Metropolitan Sewer District. A set of budget neutral adjustments will be made at the time of the Adopted Budget, reflecting the latest projections.

The agency submitted no supplemental requests.

Stormwater Utility
1. An additional $141,920 in added payments to the Streets Division for increased costs of street sweeping and 35% of leaf collection costs. (The 35% apportionment is the same as for 2007.)
2. Funding of $97,250 related to supporting increased efforts to improve water quality in Monona Bay. Funding will support a trash collection contract ($9,000), sediment removal ($10,000), water quality testing and investigation ($10,000), purchase of absorbent material ($31,500), and annual maintenance of absorbent material ($36,750).
Funds will be used for the following:
- A contract to collect trash equal or greater than a 1-inch square on both the water and land sides of the shoreline on a monthly basis and within 72 hours of a major storm event;
- An investigation of sediment cores at Brittingham Park stormwater outfall (Murray street storm sewer) to determine levels of heavy metals including mercury;
- A regular program for removal of sediment at stormwater outfalls in conformance with WDNR regulations necessary to improve navigation and water quality;
- The purchase, installation, and maintenance of material to absorb oil and vehicle fluids in the stormwater inlets of arterial streets in the Monona Bay Watershed; and
- A budget for additional water quality testing, which would be expended in collaboration with the Friends of Monona Bay and the WDNR.

The agency submitted no supplemental requests.

Landfill
1. Presentation of the Landfill budget for the first time in the Operating Budget, as opposed to previous inclusion in the Capital Budget. Most anticipated major remediation projects have been completed, and the agency is now primarily engaged in monitoring and maintaining existing landfills.
2. A total of $111,500 for landscaping to improve surface drainage at various landfills.
3. Funding of $180,000 for testing services from the Public Health agency as well as outside laboratories.
4. Revenues of $1,500,000 derived from remediation fees, $224,752 of reserves generated, and $36,000 of interest on investments.

The agency submitted no supplemental requests.

Parks
1. Addition of $391,800 of permanent salaries and related benefits to the Requested Budget, thereby restoring six Public Maintenance Worker positions and one Equipment Operator 2. Restoration of these positions will allow for basic parks services to be provided to the public, such as well maintained parks with clean restrooms. A further $49,111 is added to restore a Clerk Typist 2 position at Warner Park Committee Recreation Center.
2. Restoration of $208,462 of hourly wages and related benefits. This funding restores a very cost efficient semi-skilled labor resource used for such basic services as mowing and trimming.
3. Addition of two more hourly Park Rangers, at a total cost of $15,000, to help control alcohol related and other problems in parks.
4. Restoration of $107,100 of purchased services, $22,900 of supplies, $48,800 of capital assets, and $12,067 in overtime pay and related benefits, to support basic parks operations.
5. Elimination of a Clerk 2 position (anticipated retirement) at Forest Hills Cemetery, and replacement with a half-time position.
6. A study of alternatives to improve maintenance of the City's urban forest. A staff team assigned by the Mayor with members from the Forestry Section, Parks Division, Streets Division, Human Resources, Common Council, Comptroller's Office, the relevant union
representatives and Mayor's Office will be responsible for exploring alternatives to improve stump grubbing, district pruning cycles and preparedness for the emerald ash borer. Alternatives to be analyzed include, but are not limited to, transferring the Forestry Section
from the Parks Division to the Streets Division, goal setting for the stump grubbing program, contracting for additional services from private vendors, and sharing additional workload among agencies. The team's findings and recommendations will be outlined in a report to be submitted to the Mayor and members of the Common Council by July 1, 2008.
7. Partnering with Dane County to improve the cleanliness of area lakes, beaches, and shoreland. The City of Madison and Dane County will be partnering in 2008 to provide additional cleanup as part of a collaborative effort to enhance the water and shoreline of the area's lakes. Dane County will be purchasing a barge and crane for approximately $80,000 and the City of Madison will contribute $20,000 to fund the crew necessary to operate the barge and crane. It is expected that the City of Madison investment of $20,000 will provide adequate staffing for the entire 2008 season. The City of Madison and Dane County will make the new equipment and crew available to other municipalities subject to availability and upon the receipt of additional funds to cover employee costs.

The agency submitted $845,758 of supplemental budget requests, of which $504,100 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$155,848 Payouts for retirements $48,153 for comp time, $107,695 for sick leave payout)
$25,000 Gypsy Moth Suppression program
$107,810 2 Arborists
$35,000 Consultant for tree inventory
$18,000 Tree Asset Management Computerized System

Municipal Pool
1. Modest enhancements in revenues generating a total of $19,000, as follows:
Red Cross Lifeguard Training - $4,000
Swim Team - $6,000
Additional Revenue (Facility) - $5,000
New Lessons - $4,000
2. Parks management will develop a Request for Proposal for the commercial operation of the concession service. Provided a qualified vendor is retained and terms of the contract are favorable to the City, this service will be commercially operated beginning with the 2008 season.
3. Note: It is anticipated that the Adopted Parks 2008 Capital Budget will contain $40,000 for the installation of an ultraviolet water treatment system for the pool. This system will allow for the provision of cleaner, safer water for swimmers.

The agency submitted no supplemental budget requests.

Golf Enterprise
1. Elimination of a vacant Public Works Maintenance Worker 1 position.
2. Restoration of funding for a currently filled Public Works Maintenance Worker 2 position.
3. Provision of $2,277,631 of revenues from all sources. This amount is slightly higher ($36,894, or 1.6%) than the $2,240,737 of revenues actually earned in 2006.
4. Generation of $100,000 of reserves to begin rebuilding a positive Enterprise fund balance.
5. Note: Actual "Inter-Agency Billings" of $2,436,285 displayed for the year 2006 include a $195,551 transfer to cover an operating deficit. It is anticipated that the Enterprise will experience a smaller deficit in 2007, and return to financial viability in 2008.

The agency submitted no supplemental budget requests.

Streets
1. Restoration of funding for maintenance of current standards (three inch accumulation) for general snow plowing ($158,473).
2. Funding to continue the litter collection route ($47,957).
3. Restoration of funding for sealcoating of streets ($210,000).
4. Funding for post midnight sanding operations on side streets ($88,239).
5. Restoration of overtime funding for the clearing of snow and ice from cross walks ($52,280).
6. Funding for the EnAct Program ($10,000) and Community Adolescence Program ($25,000).
7. Addition of a new graffiti eradication team ($59,457).
8. Provision of $60,000 for additional and replacement refuse and recycling carts.
9. A study of alternatives to improve maintenance of the City's urban forest. A staff team assigned by the Mayor with members from the Forestry Section, Parks Division, Streets Division, Human Resources, Common Council, Comptroller's Office, the relevant union representatives and Mayor's Office will be responsible for exploring alternatives to improve stump grubbing, district pruning cycles and preparedness for the emerald ash borer.
Alternatives to be analyzed include, but are not limited to, transferring the Forestry Section from the Parks Division to the Streets Division, goal setting for the stump grubbing program, contracting for additional services from private vendors, and sharing additional workload among agencies. The team's findings and recommendations will be outlined in a report to be submitted to the Mayor and members of the Common Council by July 1, 2008.

The agency submitted supplemental budget requests for $766,652 of expenditure authority, of which $653,406 is included in the Executive Budget. The agency also submitted a supplement for the establishment of a new Environmental Services Fee, including net revenues of $1,050,000, which is not included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$25,000 Public Education budget
$50,000 consultant to study solid waste stream
$38,256 2 street and sewer maintenance positions to remove weeds form concrete islands and medians
($1,050,000) New Environmental Services Fee of $20 per customer per year

Water Utility
1. Funding for continuation of existing services.
2. Funding for an additional Administrative Clerk 1 for the Water Quality Section.
3. Increased funding for the unidirectional flushing program to $400,000. This is an increase of $180,000 from the 2007 budgeted amount.
4. A revenue bond issue of approximately $20,000,000 is anticipated in the fall of 2007 and another of approximately $12,000,000 is expected in the summer of 2008. The Utility's last bond issue was in June of 2006.
5. The Utility will be filing a formal rate case with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin in 2008 and the revenue figures in the 2008 operating budget request include an estimated 8% rate increase. The rate increase is projected to be phased in beginning with the August 2008 billing and the full 8% increase will be effective with the February 2009 billing. The last full rate increase was granted in August of 2007 and averaged 16%. The Utility will begin phasing in this rate increase with the October 2007 billing and it will be fully implemented with the April 2008
bills.

The agency submitted supplemental budget requests of $400,476, of which $49,961 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for: (So, I'm not sure if these things are in or out, because everything in this budget is $0)

$124,852 2 additional Cross Connection Control Inspectors
$40,000 vehicles for 2 new positions
$56,490 Engineering Aide 2
$49,961 Admin Clerk for Water Quality section
$129,173 2 additional Engineer 3

Metro Transit
1. No general fare increase and a continuation of service.
2. Funding to lease additional office space to alleviate overcrowding that is occurring with the occupation of the current Maintenance and Administrative building for office employees.
3. A reduction in heating costs due to the installation of a garage door system in the Maintenance facility between the maintenance service area and the bus storage facility as part of the City's Natural Step program.
4. $50,000 in additional advertising revenue from the anticipated addition of 5 vehicles to the total number of buses that are authorized to participate in the two year full-wrap advertising pilot project.

The agency submitted $750,036 in supplemental budget requests, of which $694,689 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$55,347 1 FTE Transit Information Systems Specialist

Traffic Engineering
1. Funding for a continuation of services.
2. $10,000 for funding of maintenance and support of the Intelligent Transportation System. This system uses electronic message signs and traffic condition cameras to reduce traffic congestion and increase safety. Traffic Engineering pays the State per contract for the annual operation of this system.

The agency submitted $108,178 in supplemental funding requests, of which $0 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$54,948 1 Traffic Signal Maintenance Worker (on call)
$53,230 1 Traffic Control Maintenance Worker (bikes, graffiti)

Parking Utility
1. Funds to advertise with the purpose of promoting the redistribution of demand between over-utilized and underutilized parking facilities and help to market the downtown area.
2. Reauthorization of $500,000 to improve interior and exterior parking wayfinding signage.
3. Increased expenditures for credit card usage fees, which have increased from about $100,000 in 2004 to $207,000 in 2008.
4. Funding of $31,000 for Transportation Demand Management planning.
5. Payment of PILOT will be over $1 million and a payment of $191,900 to the City for usage of on-street parking stalls.

The agency submitted no supplemental budget requests.

Fleet Service
1. An additional $575,219 for debt service (principal and interest).
2. Additional funding of $300,000 for diesel fuel and gasoline.
3. Funding of $113,000 for the adjustment of two Fleet Technician positions to full year status in 2008.
4. Note: As part of the Adopted Budget process, the levy support of $786,701 shown for Fleet Service will be distributed to customer agencies. This adjustment will be budget-neutral, and will return the Fleet Service subsidy line to zero.

The agency submitted $114,000 in supplemental budget requests, of which $0 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$114,000 2 Fleet Technicians eliminated in 2006

Office of the Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
1. The move of the Office of Business Resources to the Economic and Community Development Division as part of the remaining elements of the reorganization of the Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development.
2. Funding for a continuation of services.

The agency submitted no supplemental budget requests.

Planning
1. A reduction of funding for Neighborhood Grants from $223,000 to $143,000. The Council approved grant awards totaling $102,745 in 2006 and $115,107 in 2007.
2. Funding of $40,000 in consultant expense to support a "Neighborhood Indicators" pilot project to help develop indicators and collect data to gauge the overall wellness of a neighborhood.
3. A contribution from Dane County of $25,000 toward the support of a transportation planner position, whose work encompasses regional transportation issues.
4. Establishing the Office of Neighborhood Support. The budget again includes funds for a Planner 3 devoted to neighborhood planning efforts. In order to more quickly establish the Office of Neighborhood Support, Planning Division staff will develop a position description and Human Resources will begin recruitment. An advisory body comprised of citizens, neighborhood association members, an alder, a planning council member, a Plan commissioner, a CDBG commissioner, a Community Services commissioner, a Mayoral staffer, and a CDA
member will be created to assist the Planner 3 as that individual begins his or her position.

The agency submitted $185,885 in supplemental funding requests, of which $40,000 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$13,700 reclassifications of 3 positions
$62,185 Neighborhood Planner
$60,000 funding for Neighborhood Grants
$10,000 consulting service for Neighborhood Wellness Indicators

Neighborhood Preservation and Inspection Division
1. Three new positions: a 1.0 FTE Zoning Code Officer 1; a 1.0 FTE Code Enforcement Officer 1, Housing Inspector; and, a 1.0 FTE Property Maintenance Inspector. These additional resources will greatly enhance the City's efforts to improve housing facilities throughout the City, and especially in challenged neighborhoods.
2. The transfer of the Vending Coordinator to the Office of Business Resources in the Economic and Community Development Division as part of the remaining elements of the reorganization of the Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development.

The agency submitted $254,546 in supplemental budget requests, of which $239,546 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$15,000 milage reimbursement

Economic and Community Development Division
1.Budget service and staff changes as part of the remaining elements of the reorganization of the Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development:
a)The transfer of the Office of Business Resources from the Office of the Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development to the Economic and Community Development Division; and,
b)The transfer of the City's Street Vending Coordinator from Neighborhood Preservation and Inspection Office of Business Resources service. The agency submitted $45,816 in supplemental budget requests, of which $5,000 is included in the Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$40,816 sick leave payout for potential retirements

Housing Operations
1. Net elimination of 1.0 FTE. The reductions are a Tenant Services Aide (1.0 FTE), an Information Clerk (1.0 FTE), and an Administrative Clerk (1.0 FTE). The Tenant Services Aide and Information Clerk positions are vacant. Elimination of the Administrative Clerk position will result in a layoff. The increases are a Painter (1.0 FTE) and a Construction Project Coordinator (1.0 FTE).

The agency submitted a supplemental budget request of $25,000, of which $0 is included the
Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:
$25,000 expanded operations of the East Madison Community Center at Truax (note says "in, no levy funding")

Community Development Block Grant
1. A City subsidy increase of 2.4% as a cost of living increase for City-subsidized programs.
2. Authorization to allocate reprogrammed and other HUD-approved funds for continuing CDBG, ESG, and HOME funded projects for the first two quarters of 2008, through revisions to previously approved Action Plans, and allocate later-approved funds to those or to new projects during the latter part of the year, provided the total budgeted amount per project does not exceed the amount approved by the Common Council upon adoption of this budget.
3. A transfer of $75,000 from the Inclusionary Zoning fund to support administration of the program.

The agency submitted $21,299 in supplemental budget requests, of which $21,299 is included in the Executive budget.

Community Services
1. An increase in funding of $40,000 for Child Care grants, for a total funding level of $79,000. This represents an increase of more than 100% in this funding.
2. Total funding of $3,520,633 for Community Resources Contracts, which includes a 2.4% cost of living increase for all continuing programs.
3. An inter-agency payment of $120,658, representing the salary and benefits budget of the OCS manager, for the cost of a Mayoral Assistant who will serve as interim OCS manager in 2008.
4. The elimination of funding for a .5 FTE Child Care Specialist who has been supported with grant funds from the Federal Child Care Development Initiative. It is anticipated that grant funding will not be available in 2008.

The agency submitted $588,339 in supplemental budget requests, of which $255,793 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

$20,000 Child Care Stabilization Funds
$16,164 Weed & Seed Coordinator
$52,755 Restore?increase funding for Community Resources programs
$224,500 Social Services pilot program
$6,827 Training, purchased services and supplies
$12,300 Weed & Seed programs

Senior Center
1. Funding for basic operations of the Madison Senior Center. The City of Madison pays for building expenses, staff salaries/benefits and related supplies. Rental income from the use of the building by community groups and the public offsets the costs of basic operations.
2. Approximately $50,000 is raised annually by the Board of Directors for programs and activities. Generated by participant fees, community gifts, donations, fundraising and grants, and since 2006, by the Senior Center Foundation, these funds are not included in this budget.
3. A grant funded hourly position from the National Council on Aging, RespectAbility Program, received in March 2007.
4. Funding for an Intergenerational Coordinator hourly position, which has been grant funded through December 2007.

The agency submitted supplemental budget requests of $17,135, all of which is included in the Executive Budget.

Library
1. Continuation of the current level of service, including maintenance of the 2007 funding level for books and other library materials.

The agency submitted $629,563 in supplemental budget requests, of which $413,568 is included in the Executive Budget.

Not included is funding for:

97,603 Increase hours at South Madison Branch Library
$118,392 Increase hours at Hawthorne Branch Library

Something seem funny to you? Where's all the cuts to pay for the 30 new officers? Either the answer lies in here or the summaries are missing some information, or maybe, some people exaggerate the dire circumstances the City is in when it comes to budgeting.
Read more!

Sick and Tired.

No, really. I'm sick. And tired.

Sorry for my lack of blogging the week ahead, the council preview and other things things. I was sick enough to stay home from work yesterday and at least part of, if not all of, today. Tomorrow I should have the Council recap and where to see Rob playing 4 times in 3 or 4 days in 3 different bands. Now, back to bed.
Read more!

Hiring Problems: 4 in the last two years.

Did something go wrong in the hiring of Bill Clingan? Are there similarities to other hires I've been critical of? The answer for me is that I still don't know and I won't until I get the information that I requested from Human Resources (still waiting!). In the cases where I thought Jeanne Hoffman, and Enis Ragland were unqualified for their jobs, there were clearer reasons why. And in the case of the Clerk/Treasurer the process was clearly flawed.

In the case of the Clerk/Treasurer, we advertised for a Clerk/Treasurer. There were certain people who were "certified" as being qualified. However, it became clear that the position was not one which you could find someone with both sets of skills. The Mayor then recommended that we hire a Clerk and re-advertise for the Treasurer. This was unfair as people who looked at the job description and decided that they didn't have the Treasurer experience likely did not apply. The Council ultimately made the Mayor go back and re-advertise both positions and while we hired a Clerk, the Treasurer position still remains open.

In the case of Jeanne Hoffman being hired for the Facilities Manager she had no facilities management experience. And, in that case, the job description called for a certain college degree in a technical area and abilities like CAD drawing experience. The issue here, again, is that we simply didn't advertise for the qualifications that we ultimately hired for. And again, people who may have the same qualifications as the person hired, were likely turned away when they saw they didn't have the right degree or experience. This case was similar to what happened when the Mayor advertised for a Clerk/Treasurer and then just hired a Clerk. The issue was false advertising of positions.

In the case of hiring Enis Ragland to head up the Office of Community Services, he has no experience in early childhood development or non-profit contract administration. In fact, some might argue, that he is almost openly hostile about the amount of money the City puts into non-profit agencies and into certain neighborhoods through the non-profit agencies. It's hard for me to see that he has the best interests of that office at heart. Luckily, this is a position that only last for one year.

In the case of Bill Clingan, I think we have quite a different problem. Here, I think the argument is over if he has the right kind of Economic Development experience. Again, I need to review all the documents to find out if there is some critical skill or degree that is missing as in the cases above. However, I agree, this whole hiring process was botched, but I think the "botching" here that is most obvious is more political. Here are the issues I see at the moment pending review of additional information.

1. The job description.
Like the Clerk/Treasurer position, this is a position that is very difficult to find someone with two different sets of skills. The person hired has to know Economic Development and Community Development. Yes, the two go hand in hand, but if the business community is expecting someone who can go out there and proactively bring in high tech businesses to Madison, the likelihood that they will also have experience in Community Development issues faced by the Senior Center, CDBG office and Office of Community Services is unlikely. Someone who has experience with Community Development is likely to have a different philosophy about what Economic Development entails.

2. What is Economic Development?
The business community folks who are upset by this hiring are upset because the candidates' background in Economic Development is not the background they want to see. Which leads to a question I've been asking for a couple years now. What do we mean when we say Economic Development? What are our goals? How will we create jobs in this community? What kinds of jobs will they be? One could argue, that the chosen candidate has Economic Development skills, depending on your definition of Economic Development.

3. The Mayor's promises.
The biggest problem here, is the expectations that the Mayor set up. He held several press conferences and told nearly everyone that this new person was going to be an Economic Development czar. He told people he was elevating the position to a "cabinet" level position in his office to elevate the importance of Economic Development. (Which begs the question, who is on the current the "cabinet"? And what exactly does that mean in local governement?) He included the business community in the process of writing the job description, the questions asked and included them in the interview panel, presumably, because he wanted to make sure that he hired someone that they were confident in having the Economic Development skills they were looking for.

I'm guessing that, in this case, as in the Hoffman case, the process was followed. The issue is, were the people certified actually qualified? In the Hoffman case, I'd say not. The question in this newer case is, was the Economic and Community Development job description one which advertised one set of skills and we hired another set of skills. Unfortunately, in this case, I think there are going to be differences of opinion based on your definition of Economic Development.

Hopefully, all those open records requests that were filed will be filled soon and the answers will become more clear.

Read more!