Monona Drive and Thuy Alert! she can't understand 25 cents to pay on line is better than driving downtown to pay in person or paying 44 cents for a stamp and thinks somehow Madisonians are vindictive and will mail in their payments just to get even! Part I is here.
CROSSING GUARDS
This item number 25 was reconsidered because there were several registrants, but none wanted to speak, all were in support and it passes on a voice vote without discussion.
MONONA DRIVE
Public Testimony
Marty Richards lives on the city side of Monona Drive, opposed to widening of the drive, spoke here two weeks ago, not naive, they were well aware this was heading our way, but as people who live near lakeshore know and are acutely aware of lake Monona challenges as development takes place, healthy mature trees are gone and there is more asphalt, at this point, perhaps have plenty of cause to say oh well what can we do, powers hat be have deemed it so, some say its too late, this is a done deal, do it anyways, and sometimes seems downright hopeless. Despite all the voices of protest have been consistent and loud, this project still moves forward, we can see the specter of barrenness creeping toward us – I have here to tell you tonight we still have hope, this is an enlightened city, we respect natural resources, Mayor Cieslewicz is a green mayor, there is not an economic savings or majestically convenient way to leave town at the cost of trees on Mo Drive, that is what we call it, this is our home. This hits us where we live, so to the planners and engineers flexibility, they should look like innovative green things and look forward to future residents, Mo drive can be improved without destroying what is beautiful about it.
Questions
Julia Kerr asks staff about the speakers mention of loss of trees, can you discuss?
Rob Phillips, City Engineer, says issue is geometry on Monona Drive, its a 4 lane undivided roadway today, proposed plan would add bike lanes to Monona Drive, so that work is requiring the widening, 25 – 27 trees affected.
Kerr asks if the widening is attributed just to the bike lanes?
Phillips says true except maybe at Cottage Grove where there is widening just for intersection configuration – could be some trees there but he's not sure.
Christy Bachman, also from City Engineering says all trees are due to bike lanes, no trees at Cottage Grove intersection.
Kerr asks if forestry has done an inventory.
Bachmann says yes. She says its a mixed bunch, maple, ash, birch, elm, lindens most in good condition, a few in poor condition, they looked at it, did a landscaping plan for replacement, there is a 4 foot terrace with smaller ornamental trees in some areas and some larger canopy trees.
Kerr says most in good condition, of 25 trees, how many in poor condition and will be removed in next couple years.
Bachmann says 3 are poor, 3 or 4 listed as fair, the rest are good, most in good condition.
Kerr says 20%.
Larry Palm asks Bachmann if 25 trees are removed on City of Madison side, does that calculation include Board of Public Works changes.
Bachmann says it may save a few, but shifting things a foot or two might save 2, but its questionable.
Palm asks to clarify what Board of Public Works did.
Bachman or Phillips said Monona changed to a 5 foot sidewalk from 8 feet, Madison was originally helping purchase land for the width, Board of Public Works asked them to shift back centerline so they do not share in burden of 8 foot sidewalk, they asked them to contact property owners about terrace with, allow them to have narrower width and not allow trees and keep sidewalk away from their homes,
Palm asks since Monona already approved something else, how will they reconcile?
Bachman says advisory committee will meet Thursday, they are first to take up issue and then Monona will have to decide how to proceed, acquire land or reconsideration of sidewalk at Monona council.
Kerr asks Dryer if with the bike lanes is there a gap, any other way to serve them not on Monona?
David Dryer, Traffic Engineer says this is a missing link, currently bikes ride on the sidewalk, it does fulfill a need.
Ker asks how many miles?
Dryer doesn’t know.
Bachman guesses half a mile – for half a mile gap and ride on sidewalk on Monona Drive. She says currently no bike lanes Monona Drive to Broadway – there is some reconstruction planned.
Compton says that she is on Ped Bike committee, long term plan involves Broadway, pier 37(?), to Cottage Grove Rd, just under 2 miles this plan involves a new urbanistic thinking which is going to get people out of cars and walking through village concept type development, it comes to within 250 ft of Pflaum and next phase is the section here, need to look at entire project, it’s been 15 or 20 years in concept plan, at least 12, can’t start adjusting plan without thinking about engineering hours, there have been recommendations from neighborhoods, alders neighborhood meetings, Monona is taking the lead, keep in mind this project not about one speaker one night, its about years, she is going to support it, hates to lose trees, trusts Christy and their department will try to do it – please support it to move forward.
Palm says you might notice he is not a sponsor and in his district and he's on Board of Public Works, the original proposal project was not worthy of our consideration, happy that those changes were made, one of the recommendations he made was to review every tree, there was a big inventtory taken, tried many configurations to make it work without destruction of trees, but with addition of bike lanes, one can argue that they should swing it over to the Monona side, but like Dane County, when dealing with other governments it doesn’t always go well, what proposed here, which should solve more issues, is better than originally available and expectation that they will have their own comments – not going to say no to it, it is a plan they have worked on, not saying yes either, biggest concern is after tonight’s vote, still some work to reach agreement with Monona, first or 2nd or 20th step in negotiation.
Vote
The Mayor calls for the vote, a man stands up and says that he submitted a letter and asked if they were going to consider it. The mayor says they are in the middle of a vote. [Its too bad another person is going to walk away from the council meeting feeling like their input is not going to be heard. I wish the mayor would have explained that the alders had it and had hopefully read it.]
The mayor says the ayes have it, Kerr, Pham-Remmele and Palm all ask to be recorded as voting no.
TWENTY FIVE CENT FEES FOR ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS TO CITY AND VINDICTIVE MADISONIANS
[Thuy Alert!]
Pham-Remmele says she knows people think she is wasting time at the council, although constituents have raised concern about this, she would like to have questions answered here by staff so people at home understand clearly, this was moved on very fast just proposed in February and March and its up for decision and if she had not excluded it, there would be no chance to understand it – question is, for staff, if I am correct is it now when citizen of Madison pay fees, or taxes, they have the choice of coming to clerk office and pay in person, right? she wants to hear what current procedure for resident of Madison to pay fees and taxes, how are options that they can take.
Dave Gawenda, City Treasurer says taxes are different, but for most part any fees, water, parking etc, three options, trip downtown amd pay in 107 or mail or on-line.
Pham-Remmele says she thought that was what was allowed, so when propose when pay by electronic way, proposing to charge 25 minimally and can increase it as necessary?
Gawenda says that was discussed at Board of Estimates and Board of Estimates amended it so that made it clear that increase come back to common council, so all they are talking about is 25 cents.[If she had read her packet or looked on line, she would have seen the substitute where that language was crossed out.]
Pham-Remmele asks what intention for having this, cuz estimate will collect $25K for city budget by exercising this.
Gawenda says last June when put 2010 budget together, it was the fastest growing expense in his budget, banking is not done at no cost, if we deposit a check, depending on what bank written on, it is 1 to 4 cents, electronic payments we get charged 24 cents, fastest growing item in budget, it stuck out as far as potential to recoup our a fee.
Pham Remmele asks if they drive, park and come in person, then have someone stand behind counter to take care of business – if it is check or cash has to go to counselor, make sure it is accurate, give receipt, what is brief estimate to cost the city position to do that and resource to do that – just an estimate – if we are thinking of charging 24 cents then recoup by making payer, if the customer has choice, how much time and resource city has to cover to handle one transaction?
Gawenda says depends on volume, if that is all they do is do one check it would be alot, when look at total operation and staff time and compare it to electronic it is more efficient. Even if all transaction electronic, still need staff to process that, in this day and age, still cheaper to do it the old fashioned way – but it will cross over – staff time and salaries still needed to greet and certify payment, still do that cheaply, good at it doing it and as long as electronic transaction is new enough they are charging more than they will in 10 or 20 year.
Pham Remmele says debit and credit card charge so we have to pay that, but what about direct transfer from their account to city account?
Gawenda says transaction fee is regardless so fee for check, credit or debit credit card could be another 50 cents to 2 dollars, but by contract can’t recoup those costs.
Pham-Remmele says she will not argue with professional, but her constituents are upset, we are working in 21st century and many financial and businesses encourage to use e-payment and we go backward – penalty if a customer uses it, should be making it efficient for everyone – is this the way you do business? Citizens are held hostage by city – is this how we treat customers?
Gawenda says not unusually, he has heard similar statements, he chose 25 cents cuz considerably cheaper than 44 cent stamp or driving down and paying a parking meter, while unfortunate, better deal for citizen than stamp an pay in person.
Pham-Remmele says if cash, our people are fast or efficient, if a check bounce or money not corrected and have to be recorded and balanced and I have to study up on that, Madison people are vindictive, if they are going to get stuck down through, they will be smart and use stamps, if send in check, but open envelope, what is the ultimate purpose for doing this, does it mean that city send message that we prefer the old way, prefer send in stamps and mail payment, cuz if that is the intention, I understand, and this is just a way to get some money and going against progress, many people out there are waiting for this answer, what is the city intention, create ill will or try to send message that rather put paying in check and send in mail, if do electronically we want people to pay you.
Gawenda says he thinks the message is that in this current economic times they have to minimize increases in budget, Gawenda says that item growing so fast and choice in asking for increase in tax levy, have to pay one way or other and pass on 25 cents, 25 cents was better way to go, one thing he wants to point out, of the anticipated $25k this could realize, over $20K would be through parking tickets, that by far number one item is parking tickets, maybe more careful where park and not pay ticket. [Ha! He must have been watching the debate about increasing parking fines. Good one1]
Pham-Remmele says that is $100K in payments if they pay 25 cents, not even mentioned how many jobs it creates, thank you, cannot vote in support.
It passes on a voice vote with Pham-Remmele being the only no.
HOUSEKEEPING
It's now 9:00, 2.5 hours into the meeting, 2 hours left to go.
Number 37 – no discussion – passes.
Number 77 – no discussion, passes.
Mark Clear attempts to call a recess, the Mayor obviously thinks that is a bad idea.
Read more!
Showing posts with label Common Council meeting recap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Council meeting recap. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Surprisingly long Council Recap (Part I - Final)
It was a 4.5 hour meeting, part one is filled with discussions of roundabouts and who pays for them (hint: the county doesn't pay, blame Kathleen Falk), small discussion on CDA debacle in condemning south side properties, non-profit property tax exemption issues remain, a bizarre appearance from David Blaska and more.
GETTING STARTED
They got started only 5 minutes late, perhaps that is why Cnare, Compton, Kerr, Maniaci and Pham-Remmele were all absent at the start of the meeting. They all arrived within 10 minutes of starting the meeting. [What's up ladies?]
HONORING DR ANTHONY BROWN
The Mayor asks for a moment of silence and says there will be an honoring resolution at the next meeting.
SHOUT OUT FOR GOOGLE FIBER
Mayor says he and Satya Rhodes Conway are wearing their Google Fiber pins. [Apparently he was paying no attention because more than half the council was wearing them or had them on their desks, microphones, etc. In fact, a whole bad of the pins was passed around on the council floor.]
HOUSEKEEPING
They suspend the rules.
There are no petitions or communications.
They pass the consent agenda.
15 (Terry Family Foundation taxation issue) is refered to the April 13th Common Council meeting.
They record a unanimous vote on items 20, 25, and 31
40 (concessions at Vilas and Wingra Park) is referred to the Common Council meeting of April 13th
91 (consultant contract) is referred back to the Water Utility Board
125 (MSCR at Warner Park) on the addendum is adopted.
Items separated are 34 (25 cent charge for electronic payments), 37 (boat docking in parks), 77 (EOC, AA and CPD being able to introduce items) and 80 (Downtown Safety Initiative).
Jed Sanborn votes no on 32 (TIF for Wingra)
All the rest of the items are passed with the recommendations on the agenda, with the exception of the public hearing items.
[Note: They are going to have to reconsider 4 items because they moved too quickly and there were registrants on several of the items.]
It's only 6:40 so they suspend the rules by unanimous consent and start the public hearings 5 minutes early.
The Mayor notes that they have new confusing sign in forms, but after some prodding notes they aren't confusing if you just read them.
1 - Items one has a registrant, Brandon Ripp in support and available for questions. No questions or discussion. The items is adopted on a voice vote.
2 – Assessment for University Avenue and Campus Drive have no registrants.
ROUNDABOUTS AND WHO PAYS FOR THEM (NOT THE COUNTY)
Public Testimony
Buck Sweeney is a lobbyist for Theis Farms says he is in favor of the project, but says there is an unfair assessment issue, roundabout assigned to the area, the Theis' have a family farm, they have no concerns about the road assessment, only have issues with the roundabout and the way it is charged. They are only concerned with the city funding, the support the federal stimulus money, that saved money for everyone, issue is inequity in county area by county residents and city residents, county is putting in no dollars at all in the project, city share calculated trips to and from the property and they appreciate changes staff made, but cost associated with city and county share is too low. [Thuy is the last alder to arrive and she walks in at the same time as David Blaska] There are not many trips in farming – that is what they base the assessment on – tractors don't use the roundabout and try to figure out how to get off it, they should eliminate the amount assessed or get relief in interest rate until they are using the property differently. The final is paying an extravagant amount, when assessments for speedway interchange are made they should keep that in mind and don’t assess more later.
Laverne Theis says the assessment is $120,000 on 143 acres, at this point there are three houses and 6 cars and it will be many years before that changes and the road is needed by city and county and for county to wash hands and not pay makes no sense. $127K assess is is for the roundabouts, assessments on road over property is $537K, but it is not due til 10 years, but they pay 3.5% interest, they are paying $22K interest a year to pay for something they don’t need. City has done homework, but they should be leaning on county, these are both county roads, there are 12,000 trips on S and 30,000 trips on M, that is justifying these roundabout with no development from them, he will pay interest for 5 to 10 years – some of his property is a half mile from roundabout, it will be a long time before it develops, $535K will do us good in the future, roundabout don’t help them now or in future.
Randy Theis – roundabouts are city assessed as an improvement, roundabouts aren’t popular with public, can’t think of one person who thought it was good to put it there, might save money on electric and stop and go lights but the ones in Mount Horeb have damage to curbs from semis and snow plows, this is far enough along it will happen, but there will be other costs down road, hopes those will not be assessed to property owners, state law gives you right to charge whatever you want – he asked a friend in Ozaukee county who is on the county board there and it seems like an abuse of the law that Madison and County are taking it to full extreme, in all honesty, law should be reconsidered down the road, in the rural areas when see road improvement or repaving, they have no idea they could be charged an assessment, but legally municipality can charge – he says Buck and his brother covered the rest of it, on 40 acres which he purchases for $40K in 70s he is now being assessed over $100K, but this assessment for roundabout alone is $58K for the property, you wouldn’t want a bill that is as much as paid for house in 70s, needs to be reconsidered, main part of road is an improvement, roundabouts are not.
Housekeeping
They close the public hearing on that item. Open and close public hearings on items 4 and 5, Bruer moves adoption of items 2 - 5.
Questions of Staff on Item 3
Larry Palm ask Rob Phillips, the City Engineer to clarify how roundabouts are assessed on item 3. The Mayor calls on "Alder" Phillips, and then wryly says, that's supposed to be a compliment, clearly not meaning it. Rob Phillips says that Brian Smith is also here, he says roundabouts are really a substitute for a traffic signal, when look at control for an intersection, they decide if a they will do a traffic signal or roundabout, they accomplish the same thing, assessing roundabouts like traffic signal on area basis, based on trip generation and based on future development potential of property being assessed and in accordance with adopted plan, they folks own a large tract of land, University Research Park also has a large chunk of properties, assessed on area basis based on neighborhood development plan and trip generation from the plan. He also notes they should look at schedule of assessment by traffic engineering, there is a small revision, move that as part of motion on item 3.
Paul Skidmore supports the project, says it solves a lot of problem, appreciates speakers coming in to talk about their issue, county should participate, we do not have that conversation now, he would ask city attorney if we could force the county to participate but he can see him laughing, he says unless the cows get out these farmers are not going to generate a whole lot of trips, this is a successful farming operation – wonder who to direct question to, can interest on this or assessment could be deferred, he believes them and knows Laverne doesn’t get out much, neither does Randy, he agrees this is a good project, but talking about the funding of it.
Phillips says as proposed it will be deferred for 10 years with interest at 3.5% and then installment plan for 8 years after 10 years.
Skidmore asks about if they can get the interest deferred too, no trips, can we defer until movement.
Dean Brasser, City Comptroller, says interest is deferred too, no payment required for 10 years, 3.5% is at the city's borrowing rate, low interest, it’s the cost to city to defer interest and principal, no out of pocket costs until installment is due when more likely property will be developing.
Marsha Rummel says if Skimore won't ask, she will, she asks why county won’t pay and what we will do. Why is this a county road with no county participation?
Phillips says the question is better directed at the county. He can say that the requested it every year for participation, requested it every year for last couple years and they have not determined that they can fund it. That is what he knows.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz says this is a topic of conversation between him and County Exec from time to time with no resolutions.
Lauren Cnare asks if after 10 years they can reassess based on if the is development or cattle and corn can they renegotiate at that time?
Phillips says that process for deferring is in the ordinance, it is well laid out, council adopted a revised assessment ordinance recently, that is laid out, if something were to occur, if they plat, that would trigger payment of assessments or if develop, that is also spelled out in ordinance.
Cnare says no re-negotiation at 10 years?
Phillips says none.
Jed Sanborn asks Brasser if the interest is deferred, does interest accrue?
Brasser says no payments are made for 10 years, cost of assessment goes up 3.5% each year, no payment is due.
Sanborn says that is Skidmore’s question, do we ever exempt that.
Phillips says no, ordinance doesn’t provide for it.
Skidmore, says the Mayor was diplomatic about County Exec, he says there is an ongoing discussion and what he has seen is that some of county supervisors in the area, Hesselbein and Hampton worked hard to help fund part of it, would love to get them to pay more, not sure what can do legally, in terms of Sanborn's question – can we not allow the interest to accrue while the land is not developed, I know what ordinance says, can we change the ordinance or do a supermajority vote?
Michael May, City Attorney says the language says "shall" – if want it changed anyone can come to my office and request it.
Skidmore says "you’re on it".
Palm asks if county ever contributed to roundabout before?
Phillips says he's not sure, maybe at intersection of Thompson and highway 30.
David Dryer, Traffic Engineer says they did.
Palm asks if the county did participate, how would that impact the assessment? Federal money is not going to the roundabout, right?
Phillips says federal money is going to the roundabout.
Palm asks how the would apply county money?
Phillips says the assessments would be reduced if county participated – reduced for city and property owner.
Palm asks about if this is same ordinance for all districts and projects?
Phillips says yes.
Palm says change in ordinance couldn’t go back and change it, be retroactive? We have projects now under this policy, would those people be in the same situation?
Phillips says yes, there are many projects where assessments are deferred.
Discussion
Judy Compton says projects in the City of Madison should not be assessed but we have done it for a long time and over years she has been told not fair to do it any other way, she would not support an ordinance change, they should either get rid of assessments completely or leave them the way they are – there are people in her district paying for curb gutter and sidewalk and they can’t afford it and she has listened and understood and heard property owners who have come in as just plain farmers, but they were aware the projects were on their way, if they can’t take burden off backs of people on Camden, can’t take it off backs of Theis', they should have planned for it.
Rummel asks to be recorded as voting no on 3, county should pay their fair share in roads if we expand roads.
Skidmore moves the substitute for the new information in front of them.
Bruer says it is friendly.
Bridget Maniaci asks to be recorded as voting no on 3 as well.
Thuy Pham-Remmele asks to be recorded as no on 3 as well
Michael Schumacher asks to be recorded as no on 3 as well he says we should find things we won’t pay the county for in the next budget.
Housingkeeping
They vote on 2, 4 and 5 separately, they pass.
More questions from Compton
[You thought they were going to vote, didn't you. Oh, no, they're squirrelly tonight.]
Compton asks if they have approached county to pay and if they agree assessments should be reduced?
Phillips says he's happy to do it, and if they would participate they could reduce payments, but he doubts they will.
Compton asks about other things in her district where they partnered with the county – Sprecher Road to 12 & 18, county payed their part, have they given us the money.
Philips says county paid for park land and city for public right of way, Sprecher road not a county highway.
More discussion
[Yeah, they're still not ready to vote, their going to talk this one to death - warning, its a sign of what is to come for the rest of the night]
Steve King says that if you are going to vote no, remember this is part of larger scheme of projects that we fought a long time for, reconstruction of these intersections is sequenced to get this done in 5 year span, this is a political issue about county and their fair share, but this is not the place to make the "no" call, I urge you to let this go forward.
Palm seconds King comments, he been through all these public works meetings where this was discussed over the years, every once in a while, at every meeting someone’s says assessment policy is wrong, there is a a reason why I don’t fit that definition, and we have to be fair to everyone, its unfair that County of Dane is not participating, there are lots of cases where they do not see eye to eye. This road has been designed, programmed, received federal funding, the future of west side requires the road and put forward to talk about tonight and request is about assessments, don’t see how can do anything about assessments, it would push back construction of road for county already approved the budget, if it gets pushed off for a year. He tried asking Brasser what eliminating special assessments would cost the average household, because everyone would pay the Madison share, he can’t come up with a number right now, everyone would pay every year and clearly set up a special assessment for people who live on the road, if Veridian or new developer, you would pay 100% and this is no different.
Skidmore says this is a good project, they have been working on it longer than he has been on the council and we’ve id’d the need, there will be a huge amount of development, this is a regional facility, county should participate but political reality is they aren’t going to, don’t want to hold it up and deny people coming in and out to do commerce and get from where they to to where they work, they will continue dialog with county, now supervisors are talking with County Exec, we know where the problem is, he appreciates the mayor’s leadership, they have been working on this for long time it's gone to the MPO, LRTPC and Ped Bike committiee and they all approved it in the last 6 years, keep a good project moving forward, this is a detail.
Cnare says she's sympathetic to the Theis farm, we are thinking way far ahead, part of it is tied up in if roundabouts are good, traffic light would be different, county isn’t going to pay, the real answer is to approve it, we are thinking about transportation planning for our future – if we knew roundabout were good 50 years ago we would have done it – we should look at the ordinance, we should treat ag land differently, the county is not paying their fair share, reality is 50 or 60 years there will be development and we will need the roundabout for safety – would like Skidmore to look at ordinance in regard to farmland.
Schumacher says this is not about the project, issue is with county, he would ask mayor’s staff and start saying we won’t pay to the county, it all comes from same pot, the taxpayer, but something he discovered, county always says no money, you take care of it, this may be the time to say enough is enough, it might be symbolic, but its about time we speak up against it – you should go line by line and he'd love to find places they are mandated to do something not pay and they still have to do it if we don’t pay so they feel like us.
Solomon agrees with Cnare, comes down to for him – need to look at rural issue, tonight is not the night to do it, also need to look at county issue, also not the night, the issue is the amount we are investing in roads, there is a proposal before us for RTA and increased investment and we all have constituents and friends and neighbors that are concerned about cost of that while we move forward with non-stop subsidies for road building and tonight is not the night, but do think that as council, he has no answer, but we need to figure out concerns before there is a project in our face, we're never able to address issues we care about piece by piece, he sincerely hopes we will deal with rural issue and county issue and investment in roads that we fight about every budget year, tonight is not the night.
Pham-Remmele says road construction is very important and city has a lot to push forward, not time to just keep moving and doing things without consideration for residents and taxpayers, who are asked to pay up every chance, ask for roll call, we should cast a vote, it does matter how it is counted, you represent the people, people are shocked that no one has questions to ask and suddenly vote aye and it is passed faster than you can bat an eye so please, these are serious things, many difficult situations if you represent people you represent, weigh carefully, casting the vote, no reason to not have a roll call and be clear,[Hmmm, wasn't she one of the people pissed at me at budget time when I asked for roll calls?] schools need money, tax trying to stick with all kinds of money we can ask for, speaking for a lot of people in Madison love it and want to stay and make better but at what cost, is it the time, do what you want or what you need, when look at assessment might be small number, everyone is pinching pennies, she asks for a roll call again.
The Mayor points out that someone else already asked for a roll call. [He's right, I didn't note it, I didn't hear who did it.]
Palm says there is a bigger plan than a roundabout, the rest of project will grind to a halt, why build road without connector? UW Research Park west which will be an economic generator, support more jobs and schools and move forward, we are all wearing Google Fiber pins to move our community forward and then cut off road at this intersection, unfortunate where property owner with large property which in future could be sold for a lot more than now and that is the basis of assessment, on the future trip generation of a very large piece of property – cows and tractors now, but UW Research moves in and tax base stronger to build schools to support libraries, polices stations, officers, human services, remember what we fight about at budget time, this is the last piece and leaving it out, other stuff doesn’t get done, stimulus will be gone, still comes out of someone’s pocket, our community. Can have discussion again about assessments and can move through this, don’t use some argument about a roundabout without looking at larger project.
Maniaci – is happy with all points, this is a fun and complicated issue with county, someone somewhere on this committee has to put their foot down, not going to take it any more from the county, step up when comes to county and not let emotions get best of us, sign on bottom line, we are enabling county to not step up because they know city will cover it – we should ask city elected people on county board to step up and represent city, a lot of concerns they hear, we are bankrolling expansion of Fitchburg, Sun Prairie and Oregon and Middleton, esp. on expanding roads, its an infrastructure to leave town quickly, they don’t pay tax base here, this is a simple thing, we are going roundabout on roundabouts here.
Skidmore want to speak.
Mayor says he thinks this is the third time.
Julia Kerr says its the 4th.
Skidmore asks how many times he has spoken in the last year.
Mayor says that's not how it works, but if there is no objections, he'll let him speak. There are none.
Skdmore says he'll be brief, they have been going through this for years, debated the project, $50M in improvements and help west side and enhance the region, Pioneer and Elderberry neighborhood will be increasing dramatically, this will be economic development, create tax base, get people in from Dodgewille and Mineral Point, this is a small piece of a large project, we are not going to not force County Exec to do something, have some great county supervisors working on our behalf, not alone out there, he calls the question. [Why is it the always the one who does a lot of talking that then calls to stifle further debate?]
Mayor says there are people left to speak, but lights are going off and no one else wants to speak.
Roll call
AYE: Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Claussius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Sanborn and Schmidt
NO: Maniaci, Pham-Remmele, Rummel, Schumacher
[Check out who voted no together, very odd. Rummel voted cuz of the road expansino issue, Schumacher and Manaici to stick it to the county, Pham-Remmel, not sure why. Odd bedfellows.]
CDA DEBACLE - REZONING LAND WITHOUT A PLAN
Housekeeping
No registrants on item 6.
Public Testimony
Dan Newman says he's not speaking for or against rezoning, he wants to give perspective from person who lives there and what is happening now. He lives at 830 W badger and has for for 8 years, that is where the CDA has a redevelopment project, the first he heard about it, the majority of people were surprised, he was blindsided, and he thinks he was the the most vocal of tenants dealing with the redevelopment, he fought for landlords to make sure the best was done to them and now in process of fighting for myself, he's one of the last tenants and they have given me until May to get out and he has yet to find a comparable dwelling that fits the needs in relocation guide and state statute, they say they cannot force anyone to move until there is a comparable place available, they are in process of forcing us out by that date, some people at the city have been helpful and encouraging, scary to look at deadline and not know where moving within financial means and means to live, not against project, great for neighborhood, full support to improve south side of Madison, but concern for himself and others not get hurt in the process.
Questions
Marsha Rummel ask why they are rezoning in advance of a project, is this a typical thing, usually do PUDs not rezoning help me understand.
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director says they are doing it to have consistent zoning across all CDA owned property so when they apply for tax credits they have a consistent density, which allows the number of units proposed in their development,
Rummel asks about council role in the future process.
Murphy says it would be a conditional use in for the proposed development as well as development agreement for approval. [Note, conditional uses only get approved by the Plan Commission and watch what Olinger says about the development agreement, it may not be coming back.]
Satya Rhodes-Conway asks about the future role, how did we get to where we are, some of us heard about this in various electronic media, but this is the first time before the council, what is the history and roles of players.
Mark Olinger, who didn't get his contract renewed but still works for the city [?] says as he ages, dates fade.
Rhodes-Conway says dates not important.
Olinger says the council saw it, approved the redevelopment district, at least 2 years ago, council has seen it, what often happens is between creation of district and project, time lapses, on the matter of timing of notices, we have been consistent and applied to letter of law, [Interesting he brings this up, as no one mentioned it. A tad too defensive?] worked with city attorney’s office, having been more personally involved in Allied, understand relocation issues, consistent in efforts to relocate, no undue pressure on them to find replacement housing.
Rhodes-Conway says she was asking about the redevelopment district, district in relation to project – where the land is coming from, role of CDA, role of council.
Olinger says that in addition to creating the district, in 2009 budget they had $3M set aside for the project, as a part of capital budget, redevelopment plan in place for the block, was adopted, housing plan adopted in September of last year, so process where project worked way through system.[I actually made an amendment in 2009 to try to get a better public process as we knew at the time, or maybe it was just me, this was going to be problematic, and it was. I remember at the time getting the "just trust me" speech from Bruer and him being all up in arms for me messing in his district.]
Rhodes-Conway [for the third time]asks about CDA vs. city.
Olinger says CDA does acquisitions on behalf of city in redevelopment district, we acquired them.
Rhodes-Conway [tries again] this is a decision made by CDA and council does not vote?
Olinger says there was a plan approved by council, redevelopment plan confirmed by council, the budget for acquisitions approved, probably a resolution transferring property to the council, probably a handful of points in the process where actions of CDA came before council.
Rhodes-Conway asks where acquire properties from [Cuz Olinger doesn't seem inclined to give anything up unless someone drags it out of him]
Olinger says there were a variety of owners, they reached agreement on 6 of 7 owners, they are in title on all, but they were served today with papers contesting that right on one of the properties.
Rhodes-Conway is [not buying the bullshit and presses on] what do you mean "reached agreement".
Olinger says they closed on most of the deals, there was some back an forth over fair and just compensation, but when all was said and done, reached agreement with all property owners. [Yeah, nothing to see here folks, just move along. No mention of condemnation, no mention of the african american landlords and the issues that were raised. He must be forgetting more than dates these days.]
Rhodes-Conway asks if there were any willing sellers?
Olinger says no, they were all approached by us as part of a redevelopment.
Rhodes-Conway asks how many residents they are displacing.
Olinger doesn't know. "40 seems to stick in my head". He says they worked with all residents to find new place, less than 12 left.
Rhodes-Conway asks when the project is finished how many people can they accommodate there?
Olinger says its senior housing, they are applying for low income tax credits in April and there will be 54 – 60 units of senior housing, depending upon residents, could have 60 – 120 residents on the property.
Rhodes-Conway asks who is developer?
Olinger says they did an RFP (request for proposals) for developer interested, CDA agreed to work with Horizon, they were the preferred developer in the selection process, continue to work with Horizon to get tax credit app. in for April
Palm asks when were property owners and residents appraised of the plans? [Part of what was required in the 2009 budget was about the public process]
Tim Bruer jumps in and asks if he can answer the question. [That's not the way Robert's Rules work, but the Mayor does nothing, I wish McDonell was chairing this meeting, it would have been an hour shorter.] He points out this has been over 15 years in the making, interestingly enough a number of property owners indicated they were well aware that this has been around for 5 or 2 years, they were aware we were planning on moving forward, property owners not confused about how proceeding several were in the press saying they will believe it when see it. He has had an opportunity to meet with the speaker, they had 14 meetings, 3 or 4 in last year with neighborhood association, [The intent of the 2009 budget amendment was to meet witht eh broader community, no just the neighborhood association - note, he doesn't say he did that.] he applauds work of staff, understand that 30 some residents have found housing in immediate area, pleases us greatly, 7 individuals that are left. Last but not least, this was before council in different forms numerous times in last 2 years, part of challenge is that annexed into the city, interesting how you have to deal with inconsistent zoning, this was a measure to get uniformity and consistency. [I recall that several times when it was before the council, we were discouraged from asking questions and details were coming and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about what Bruer is up to. It seems like it is always too early or too late to ask questions about the CDA and Bruer. Well, and on many other things the city does.]
Rhodes-Conway [still trying to get answers to questions she has asked] asks about future approvals, since working with not CDA, but another developer, is there a development agreement?
Olinger says no, they are working on it.
Rhodes-Conway asks if it will come back to council or just CDA?
Olinger says generally speaking, CDA and developer enter into the agreement, but he doesn't know the answer. [And there you have it folks, can you tell me why the Mayor and others are not up in arms about unelected committee members that don't just make recommendations, but make decisions with the City's money and have no oversight from the elected officials. What's up with that?]
The motion passes on a voice vote, I heard no "no" votes.
HOUSEKEEPING
Then need to reconsider items 9 (Blaska Blather), 18 (Ecumenical Housing issue), 25 (School Crossing Guards) and 76 (Monona Drive) because there are speakers.
BLASKA BLATHER
[I'll admit it, I don't have any idea what his point was. So, I'm not sure how helpful this will be.]
Public Testimony
David Blaska in opposition on item number 9. He says he lives in Orchard Ridge on the Southwest side of Madison. He expresses condolences for Anthony Brown, says he worked with Anthony's wife Brenda when she was the Deputy Director of Health and Human services. He says he does a blog and he's the distinguished squire of the stately Blaska Manor. He says his blog is the only one to be recognized by both the Isthmus and Madison.com. He is here to offer his services an his years of experience, as a member of Equal Opportunities Commission. He says he has nothing against the folks before you, except none of them are me, no one can the bring diversity of thought I would bring. He says you should vote down the appointments until they appoint more diverse members. Why appoint the same people with same political philosophy, why not someonewhite right– he is opposed to depriving persons of color of their property, like the item you just had on your agenda, do we need senior housing and do we need to condemn property? He thinks he would be a threat to historic notions. [He sort of lost me?] He's talks about people crying racism in crowded theater when ask for youth curfew, he's here to ask small government to look at city committees, commissions and boards. He says he's as rare as a Capital Times reader at tea party, he says he is underrepresented on powerful commissions, when he was on the county board, all of these things ran through county board, he says lots of republicans walk among you, business people do better job of controlling taxes – low taxes create affordable housing, a strong police department is a strong social program, he wants to be the ying to Stuart Levitan's yang, he's not picky, you can appoint him to anything.
Questions of speaker
Pham-Remmele says she is surprised, she thought he you had left town.
Blaska says he's still a resident, just did a little snow birding.
Pham-Remmele says you are my constitute too.
Blaska says he's "more than that".
Pham-Remmele says I haven’t seen you and it was a surprise, what do you want to happen with coming here?
Blaska says that he was here to throw a conservative to the wolves, there has been a lot of movement politically in the world, impression is that there are one or two yeah or nay votes, no conservatives on commissions and committees, know a lot of people and none of them are on the commissions.
Pham-Remmele asks if he applied.
Blaska says yes he did, and waged a campaign on his blog to get appointed, he says it was somewhat humorous but sincere, some things defy common sense, they need someone there on commission to think about something else, sometimes people use power and money for things we like and think are good, but it could get done without taxes and powers of government, don’t know if my sell by date is gone, but here I am.
Pham-Remmele thanks him for coming and not quitting.
Blaska says that he just spent some time down south looking for Al Gore.
Mayor quips "I always liked your brother" as Blaska sits down.
[Man, I had to check the date, I thought maybe it was April Fools day.]
The appointments pass with no "no" votes.
NON-PROFIT HOUSING TAX EXEMPT ISSUE NOT OVER YET
Public Testimony
Dan Rolfs is in opposition – representing Ecumenical Housing Corporation - he says his day job is across the street working for you, but his work hat is safely ensconced in his office, he is here representing EHC, he's president of the board of trustees, this is nonprofit safe affordable housing, has been for 30 years, reason here is that if may recall legal decision by Wisconsin court system, tax exempt properties in Madison were affected, the city helped to fix it and the legislature crafted a fix retroactive to beginning of 2009, long and short is that by making change retroactive, those what would have been tax exempt were on tax rolls for 1 year, EHC got caught, there was no way to maintain tax exempt status in 2009, they have to pay taxes for 2009 and tax exempt in 2010, here asking you that hopefully recognize tax exempt and allow us to remain so and eliminate the burden for group that does senior housing, he usually sits on the other side of the podium, knows there are policies city needs to follow. If there is no relief, in opposing this, if some other way to get relief for the tax burden, they exist solely on revenues from rentals, no other revenue thorough grants or loans, $60K tax bill that they never had to pay before is a jarring sort of occurrence, while recognize city has policy, if there are other opportunities or avenues to get funding back appreciate it.
Rev Charles Wolf, Ecumenical Housing Corp – Charles Wolf is the pastor at Plymouth Congregational since 1987, 30 years ago before he came here EHC was founded by a group of 12 congregations on east side cuz virtually no relatively cheap senior housing, we at Plymouth have an interest and concern for social justice issues in housing and homelessness for more than 20 years they have served meals at Grace, helped shape and support Transitional Housing Inc, now Porchlight and helped fund their eviction prevention program, several thousand each year to prevent people from being evicted when hospitalized, lose work time and can’t pay rent – better for whole community if they are not homeless and then find housing agin, worked with MUM to help prisoners at Huber to find housing and jobs to create a healthier transition, congregation gave $10K over 5 years to The Road Home for apartment housing for families with supervision from case managers, also provide shelter through The Road Home program. EHC is part of the same ministry, to those in community who need safe, affordable housing, many of their residents can’t live at Attic Angels or Oakwood, none of those facilities have to pay taxes, for 10 year on EHC budget has been tight.
Mayor [Was paying attention . . . ]interrupts and tell him to wrap it up, three minutes are over.
Pastor Wolf says that they were forced to encourage well heeled people who lived in their housing to find housing in the market so others could stay. He says a grant to offset taxes would be appreciated.
Julia Kerr attempts to ask Attorney May a question but before she can ask it he says he refers the question to Mike Kurth (City Assessors Office) and Jamie Stafferoni (City Attorney's Office) Julia asks why he did that preemptively. No answer.
Kerr says that for other unlawful taxation items there is a report from your office, didn’t see anything for EHC, so wanted to have them fill us in on that. She says I’m sure there is a good reason report not there, but what is your side of the story?
Stafferoni says it was an error it was not attached, fixed later, nonetheless, basically with this property, there was a change in the law in 2009 basically for this property would not have had an exempt status cuz of how use income, decision in 2008 Future Madison case defined maintenance, they said this entity was not using income toward maintenance or construction debt.
Kerr says we know that part, she should have been more specific, what in the law changed, why didn’t this get picked up in that.
Stafferoni says low income housing retro fix to 2009 and that legislation required certain % of low income people to live there, they didn’t qualify under % amount in 2009, another piece was passed that is applicable for 2010 and they may qualify in 2010 but for this year that is where they are at.
Kerr asks Hansen, in 2009 what was their percentage of low income residents?
Kurth says had to have 75% or more, didn’t meet it, doesn’t remember what % it was, too many high income people in the units.
Bruer in is in the chair.
Rhodes-Conway says speakers mentioned other housing providers what had higher income tenants and qualify, did they have some other exemption?
Stafferoni doesn’t know.
Rhodes-Conway asks how else they would qualify?
Stafferoni says that they could qualify cuz of change in 2009 and 2010, if using leasehold income as maintenance would qualify, if 2009, and in 2010 homes for aged.
Rhodes-Conway asks if 2009 crux of mater was use of income?
Stafferoni says yes, didn’t qualify in future Madison and didn’t meet percentages and no retroactive date for retired housing.
Rhodes-Conway asks how this is different from item 20 where there was a settlement. Why is htis different, why settling with them as opposed to these folk?
Stafferoni says Greentree Glen did meet % requirements under benevolent low income housing, they had an issue in 2008 for maintenance issue – given it was one year of precedent they thought that this litigation would set reasonable to settle.
Rhodes-Conway says she understands and agrees with desire to treat it as a one year oops – and not fight about a changed law, but why not same thing in this situation if we expect them to be compliant win 2010?
Stafferoni says there was no litigation – so no settlement negotiation.
Rhodes-Conway says that if people have resources to sue we will settle but if they don't they have to pay.
Stafferoni says she doesn't want to speculate.
Eagon asks city attorney if there are other non-profits that may have been in the bubble that didn’t ask for exemption and got caught.
Staffaroni defers to Mike Kurth.
Kurth isn't paying attention and needs the question repeated. [Really, you come to one council meeting once a year and can't pay attention on the one item you are here for?]
Kurth asks Eagon to repeat the question. He says that there are others, but some have some partial assessments, Green Tree Glen was a 2008 issue, other 2009 entities were partially assessed for that year and then filing as benevolent retirement home for 2010, but in 2009 EHC did not qualify for one project – another project they have did where all but three are exempt and would qualify in 2010 on remaining 3 units, in 2010 there are a few with a one year gap but most qualified as low income housing project under 2009 law.
Eagon asks if organizations ended up paying for that one year – maybe not senior but other?
Kurth all paying except in this situation.
First vote
They vote and Tim Bruer is in the chair and rules that the No votes have it. So the denial is denied and there's lots of confusion. I'm shocked no one called roll call, cuz that wasn't what it sounded like.
Michael May explains that if the vote is no, they need another motion.
More questions
Kerr asks if the motion only applies to EHC.
May indicates yes.
Compton verified the amount they out, $53K. If we agreed to give the money back, where does the money come from?
Brasser says that comes from general fund, taxes we budgeted to receive but not recieve.
Compton asks if the taxes are currently paid.
May says yes, its a condition of filing for a tax refund, will have to take money from somewhere.
Motion
Rhodes-Conway makes a substitute to refer back to the city attorney to meet with them and discuss settlement. There are several seconds.
Question
Cnare asks how we pick a number, if reach a settlement, it will come back in same form, correct?
May says yes
Discussion
Kerr speaks against, she tells them to remember the vigorous discussion we had a year ago on this issue which she felt very strongly about that precipitated us in being instrumental in changing the law to allow us not to tax low income housing providers in the city – this seems like an instance of moving the goal post, we got the fix that we could in state legislature, they didn’t fall into it, addressed the policy issue foremost in their minds to preserve affordable housing base, agrees with Compton, that not fair to exempt them, our basis for taxation, similarly situated treated the same, if make exception, you are doing a disservice to every other tax payer. Urge you not to vote for settlement, unfortunately didn’t fall into fix, taxes are due and hopefully rectified in the future, can’t make a fairness argument to make an exception for them.
Schmidt this is making me ill, state law, no way to get around it, great to find a way, suspect they can’t – so we made a mistake in saying no to report we should vote down and reconsider. [Even the City Attorney isn't taking that hard line. He's willing to sit down and talk.]
Schumacher has questions now
Schumacher asks if it is typical to negotiate?
May says they read the law and make a recommendation – they do make a different recommendation rightly or wrongly if they are in court.
Schumacher asks Cooley about the work they are doing identifying percentage of properties off tax base, at this point, rough idea where at with that – is there a number finding out is emerging?
Tim Cooley, Economic Development Director says that its 50%.
Schumacher asks what that translates into.
Cooley says 50%.
Palm asks city attorney, says he is not asking you to make a deal, just consider it, so what would you do if it passes?
May says that "we would do what you told us to do", try to settle and come back with a recommendation.
Palm asks if you do not come to agreement, then bring Mayor in for discussion on this, cuz no legal basis for making a decision?
Giggles – Larry says to strike that. [Not struck from this blog!]
May says in two weeks, same resolution in front of us if no resolution or didn’t think appropriate.
Palm says no harm no foul.
Back to discussion
Eagon agrees with Kerr and Schmidt – a property in his district was trapped and paying one year assessment, making year payment, deadline expired, so would caution supporting the referral and potential overturn of $53K, other groups caught in that year already paid or looking at this as case to exemplify, could be slippery slope for unintended consequences – great work they do but issue of fairness to others who paid.
Maniaci asks May if they would be litigated against in this case, will it go to court?
May does not know
Cnare says none of this precludes then from going to court, if deny, can go to court, if grant then they are happy. Cnare says maybe go to court.
Bruer [Who can't seem to avoid putting his foot in his mouth when talking with, to, about women] makes a joke about how Julia Kerr is flashing now. [He seems to think its funny.]
Kerr says that she felt strongly and still does and say by giving the refund we are saying to state legislature we came and explained and worked with you and it wasn’t good enough and that is not a position she wants to be in, respects alder Rhodes-Conway's motion and those who support, but we got the legislative fix we were able to get, sorry EHC didn’t fall into it, not fair for other properties and taxpayers who expect we will treat people evenly – vote against referral and in favor of underlying
Mayor back in chair - just a bit too late.
Compton has more questions now
Compton asks how many non-profits were unhappy with loss of status when this happened?
Mayor says happiness subjective, Compton says no happiness is eternal, or internal not sure what she said.
Compton asks how many?
Kurth says majority went from taxable to exempt – assuming their happiness, small amount were partial exempt instead of fully assessed and they were happy, some that were caught in the one year or - half a dozen and most - ended up qualifying in analysis, a few that had more than the allowed number of certain level of income tenants and those ones were the major ones with EHC were only one of a few solely back on roll – no major properties back on roll, Pres House has to wait another year to recognize what kind of exemption they have.
Compton asks about window how much money are we talking about if return all the money?
Kurth has no idea – no guess.
Compton asks if anyone has the knowledge – Dean doesn’t know.
[Sound of crickets chirping.]
Palm asks city attorney, if settlement is a legal determination, would this set precedent we would be accountable to?
May says he paused, obviously, council is not bound by prior decisions it makes, rule of uniformity of taxation is in place and to extent start making exceptions for certain properties others will say entitled to be treated the same way, no precedent, but do have issues.
Palm asks how settlement with Greentree would affect it?
May says legally different status when settling a suit in court, any number of things to take into account, use of resources to defend suit and consider that a different legal situation than coming before council to ask for tax refund
Cnare asks how different than object to tax bill, procedurally?
May says procedure is same, they pay tax, file claim, assessor looks at it, city attorney looks at it, if basis for it, on one the assessor thought it has a valid basis then bring to council to approve or deny.
Cnare asks if it is always called unlawful?
May says it would say "excessive" because they challenge the amount
Bidar-Sielaff understands where Kerr comes from but strikes me as promoting process that involves litigation to settle, so she has a hard time sending that message – if you go that route you can get a settlement but if do that without additional expenses to city and nonprofit no settlement, hope to see something in two weeks, it strikes me as a very law-based litigation process that is not helpful to either party, city or non-profit.
Roll call:
Aye: Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Canre, King, Maniaci, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
No: Skidmore, Bruer, Claussius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schmidt, Schumacher.
That motion fails 9 to 11.
Then, they vote to deny on a voice vote, again a questionable voice vote, but the mayor rules the ayes have it.
NEXT UP
Next up . . . Monona Drive, Thuy Alert! on 25 cent fee for electronic payments and that nasty civil rights issue that the council is so afraid of . . .
Read more!
GETTING STARTED
They got started only 5 minutes late, perhaps that is why Cnare, Compton, Kerr, Maniaci and Pham-Remmele were all absent at the start of the meeting. They all arrived within 10 minutes of starting the meeting. [What's up ladies?]
HONORING DR ANTHONY BROWN
The Mayor asks for a moment of silence and says there will be an honoring resolution at the next meeting.
SHOUT OUT FOR GOOGLE FIBER
Mayor says he and Satya Rhodes Conway are wearing their Google Fiber pins. [Apparently he was paying no attention because more than half the council was wearing them or had them on their desks, microphones, etc. In fact, a whole bad of the pins was passed around on the council floor.]
HOUSEKEEPING
They suspend the rules.
There are no petitions or communications.
They pass the consent agenda.
15 (Terry Family Foundation taxation issue) is refered to the April 13th Common Council meeting.
They record a unanimous vote on items 20, 25, and 31
40 (concessions at Vilas and Wingra Park) is referred to the Common Council meeting of April 13th
91 (consultant contract) is referred back to the Water Utility Board
125 (MSCR at Warner Park) on the addendum is adopted.
Items separated are 34 (25 cent charge for electronic payments), 37 (boat docking in parks), 77 (EOC, AA and CPD being able to introduce items) and 80 (Downtown Safety Initiative).
Jed Sanborn votes no on 32 (TIF for Wingra)
All the rest of the items are passed with the recommendations on the agenda, with the exception of the public hearing items.
[Note: They are going to have to reconsider 4 items because they moved too quickly and there were registrants on several of the items.]
It's only 6:40 so they suspend the rules by unanimous consent and start the public hearings 5 minutes early.
The Mayor notes that they have new confusing sign in forms, but after some prodding notes they aren't confusing if you just read them.
1 - Items one has a registrant, Brandon Ripp in support and available for questions. No questions or discussion. The items is adopted on a voice vote.
2 – Assessment for University Avenue and Campus Drive have no registrants.
ROUNDABOUTS AND WHO PAYS FOR THEM (NOT THE COUNTY)
Public Testimony
Buck Sweeney is a lobbyist for Theis Farms says he is in favor of the project, but says there is an unfair assessment issue, roundabout assigned to the area, the Theis' have a family farm, they have no concerns about the road assessment, only have issues with the roundabout and the way it is charged. They are only concerned with the city funding, the support the federal stimulus money, that saved money for everyone, issue is inequity in county area by county residents and city residents, county is putting in no dollars at all in the project, city share calculated trips to and from the property and they appreciate changes staff made, but cost associated with city and county share is too low. [Thuy is the last alder to arrive and she walks in at the same time as David Blaska] There are not many trips in farming – that is what they base the assessment on – tractors don't use the roundabout and try to figure out how to get off it, they should eliminate the amount assessed or get relief in interest rate until they are using the property differently. The final is paying an extravagant amount, when assessments for speedway interchange are made they should keep that in mind and don’t assess more later.
Laverne Theis says the assessment is $120,000 on 143 acres, at this point there are three houses and 6 cars and it will be many years before that changes and the road is needed by city and county and for county to wash hands and not pay makes no sense. $127K assess is is for the roundabouts, assessments on road over property is $537K, but it is not due til 10 years, but they pay 3.5% interest, they are paying $22K interest a year to pay for something they don’t need. City has done homework, but they should be leaning on county, these are both county roads, there are 12,000 trips on S and 30,000 trips on M, that is justifying these roundabout with no development from them, he will pay interest for 5 to 10 years – some of his property is a half mile from roundabout, it will be a long time before it develops, $535K will do us good in the future, roundabout don’t help them now or in future.
Randy Theis – roundabouts are city assessed as an improvement, roundabouts aren’t popular with public, can’t think of one person who thought it was good to put it there, might save money on electric and stop and go lights but the ones in Mount Horeb have damage to curbs from semis and snow plows, this is far enough along it will happen, but there will be other costs down road, hopes those will not be assessed to property owners, state law gives you right to charge whatever you want – he asked a friend in Ozaukee county who is on the county board there and it seems like an abuse of the law that Madison and County are taking it to full extreme, in all honesty, law should be reconsidered down the road, in the rural areas when see road improvement or repaving, they have no idea they could be charged an assessment, but legally municipality can charge – he says Buck and his brother covered the rest of it, on 40 acres which he purchases for $40K in 70s he is now being assessed over $100K, but this assessment for roundabout alone is $58K for the property, you wouldn’t want a bill that is as much as paid for house in 70s, needs to be reconsidered, main part of road is an improvement, roundabouts are not.
Housekeeping
They close the public hearing on that item. Open and close public hearings on items 4 and 5, Bruer moves adoption of items 2 - 5.
Questions of Staff on Item 3
Larry Palm ask Rob Phillips, the City Engineer to clarify how roundabouts are assessed on item 3. The Mayor calls on "Alder" Phillips, and then wryly says, that's supposed to be a compliment, clearly not meaning it. Rob Phillips says that Brian Smith is also here, he says roundabouts are really a substitute for a traffic signal, when look at control for an intersection, they decide if a they will do a traffic signal or roundabout, they accomplish the same thing, assessing roundabouts like traffic signal on area basis, based on trip generation and based on future development potential of property being assessed and in accordance with adopted plan, they folks own a large tract of land, University Research Park also has a large chunk of properties, assessed on area basis based on neighborhood development plan and trip generation from the plan. He also notes they should look at schedule of assessment by traffic engineering, there is a small revision, move that as part of motion on item 3.
Paul Skidmore supports the project, says it solves a lot of problem, appreciates speakers coming in to talk about their issue, county should participate, we do not have that conversation now, he would ask city attorney if we could force the county to participate but he can see him laughing, he says unless the cows get out these farmers are not going to generate a whole lot of trips, this is a successful farming operation – wonder who to direct question to, can interest on this or assessment could be deferred, he believes them and knows Laverne doesn’t get out much, neither does Randy, he agrees this is a good project, but talking about the funding of it.
Phillips says as proposed it will be deferred for 10 years with interest at 3.5% and then installment plan for 8 years after 10 years.
Skidmore asks about if they can get the interest deferred too, no trips, can we defer until movement.
Dean Brasser, City Comptroller, says interest is deferred too, no payment required for 10 years, 3.5% is at the city's borrowing rate, low interest, it’s the cost to city to defer interest and principal, no out of pocket costs until installment is due when more likely property will be developing.
Marsha Rummel says if Skimore won't ask, she will, she asks why county won’t pay and what we will do. Why is this a county road with no county participation?
Phillips says the question is better directed at the county. He can say that the requested it every year for participation, requested it every year for last couple years and they have not determined that they can fund it. That is what he knows.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz says this is a topic of conversation between him and County Exec from time to time with no resolutions.
Lauren Cnare asks if after 10 years they can reassess based on if the is development or cattle and corn can they renegotiate at that time?
Phillips says that process for deferring is in the ordinance, it is well laid out, council adopted a revised assessment ordinance recently, that is laid out, if something were to occur, if they plat, that would trigger payment of assessments or if develop, that is also spelled out in ordinance.
Cnare says no re-negotiation at 10 years?
Phillips says none.
Jed Sanborn asks Brasser if the interest is deferred, does interest accrue?
Brasser says no payments are made for 10 years, cost of assessment goes up 3.5% each year, no payment is due.
Sanborn says that is Skidmore’s question, do we ever exempt that.
Phillips says no, ordinance doesn’t provide for it.
Skidmore, says the Mayor was diplomatic about County Exec, he says there is an ongoing discussion and what he has seen is that some of county supervisors in the area, Hesselbein and Hampton worked hard to help fund part of it, would love to get them to pay more, not sure what can do legally, in terms of Sanborn's question – can we not allow the interest to accrue while the land is not developed, I know what ordinance says, can we change the ordinance or do a supermajority vote?
Michael May, City Attorney says the language says "shall" – if want it changed anyone can come to my office and request it.
Skidmore says "you’re on it".
Palm asks if county ever contributed to roundabout before?
Phillips says he's not sure, maybe at intersection of Thompson and highway 30.
David Dryer, Traffic Engineer says they did.
Palm asks if the county did participate, how would that impact the assessment? Federal money is not going to the roundabout, right?
Phillips says federal money is going to the roundabout.
Palm asks how the would apply county money?
Phillips says the assessments would be reduced if county participated – reduced for city and property owner.
Palm asks about if this is same ordinance for all districts and projects?
Phillips says yes.
Palm says change in ordinance couldn’t go back and change it, be retroactive? We have projects now under this policy, would those people be in the same situation?
Phillips says yes, there are many projects where assessments are deferred.
Discussion
Judy Compton says projects in the City of Madison should not be assessed but we have done it for a long time and over years she has been told not fair to do it any other way, she would not support an ordinance change, they should either get rid of assessments completely or leave them the way they are – there are people in her district paying for curb gutter and sidewalk and they can’t afford it and she has listened and understood and heard property owners who have come in as just plain farmers, but they were aware the projects were on their way, if they can’t take burden off backs of people on Camden, can’t take it off backs of Theis', they should have planned for it.
Rummel asks to be recorded as voting no on 3, county should pay their fair share in roads if we expand roads.
Skidmore moves the substitute for the new information in front of them.
Bruer says it is friendly.
Bridget Maniaci asks to be recorded as voting no on 3 as well.
Thuy Pham-Remmele asks to be recorded as no on 3 as well
Michael Schumacher asks to be recorded as no on 3 as well he says we should find things we won’t pay the county for in the next budget.
Housingkeeping
They vote on 2, 4 and 5 separately, they pass.
More questions from Compton
[You thought they were going to vote, didn't you. Oh, no, they're squirrelly tonight.]
Compton asks if they have approached county to pay and if they agree assessments should be reduced?
Phillips says he's happy to do it, and if they would participate they could reduce payments, but he doubts they will.
Compton asks about other things in her district where they partnered with the county – Sprecher Road to 12 & 18, county payed their part, have they given us the money.
Philips says county paid for park land and city for public right of way, Sprecher road not a county highway.
More discussion
[Yeah, they're still not ready to vote, their going to talk this one to death - warning, its a sign of what is to come for the rest of the night]
Steve King says that if you are going to vote no, remember this is part of larger scheme of projects that we fought a long time for, reconstruction of these intersections is sequenced to get this done in 5 year span, this is a political issue about county and their fair share, but this is not the place to make the "no" call, I urge you to let this go forward.
Palm seconds King comments, he been through all these public works meetings where this was discussed over the years, every once in a while, at every meeting someone’s says assessment policy is wrong, there is a a reason why I don’t fit that definition, and we have to be fair to everyone, its unfair that County of Dane is not participating, there are lots of cases where they do not see eye to eye. This road has been designed, programmed, received federal funding, the future of west side requires the road and put forward to talk about tonight and request is about assessments, don’t see how can do anything about assessments, it would push back construction of road for county already approved the budget, if it gets pushed off for a year. He tried asking Brasser what eliminating special assessments would cost the average household, because everyone would pay the Madison share, he can’t come up with a number right now, everyone would pay every year and clearly set up a special assessment for people who live on the road, if Veridian or new developer, you would pay 100% and this is no different.
Skidmore says this is a good project, they have been working on it longer than he has been on the council and we’ve id’d the need, there will be a huge amount of development, this is a regional facility, county should participate but political reality is they aren’t going to, don’t want to hold it up and deny people coming in and out to do commerce and get from where they to to where they work, they will continue dialog with county, now supervisors are talking with County Exec, we know where the problem is, he appreciates the mayor’s leadership, they have been working on this for long time it's gone to the MPO, LRTPC and Ped Bike committiee and they all approved it in the last 6 years, keep a good project moving forward, this is a detail.
Cnare says she's sympathetic to the Theis farm, we are thinking way far ahead, part of it is tied up in if roundabouts are good, traffic light would be different, county isn’t going to pay, the real answer is to approve it, we are thinking about transportation planning for our future – if we knew roundabout were good 50 years ago we would have done it – we should look at the ordinance, we should treat ag land differently, the county is not paying their fair share, reality is 50 or 60 years there will be development and we will need the roundabout for safety – would like Skidmore to look at ordinance in regard to farmland.
Schumacher says this is not about the project, issue is with county, he would ask mayor’s staff and start saying we won’t pay to the county, it all comes from same pot, the taxpayer, but something he discovered, county always says no money, you take care of it, this may be the time to say enough is enough, it might be symbolic, but its about time we speak up against it – you should go line by line and he'd love to find places they are mandated to do something not pay and they still have to do it if we don’t pay so they feel like us.
Solomon agrees with Cnare, comes down to for him – need to look at rural issue, tonight is not the night to do it, also need to look at county issue, also not the night, the issue is the amount we are investing in roads, there is a proposal before us for RTA and increased investment and we all have constituents and friends and neighbors that are concerned about cost of that while we move forward with non-stop subsidies for road building and tonight is not the night, but do think that as council, he has no answer, but we need to figure out concerns before there is a project in our face, we're never able to address issues we care about piece by piece, he sincerely hopes we will deal with rural issue and county issue and investment in roads that we fight about every budget year, tonight is not the night.
Pham-Remmele says road construction is very important and city has a lot to push forward, not time to just keep moving and doing things without consideration for residents and taxpayers, who are asked to pay up every chance, ask for roll call, we should cast a vote, it does matter how it is counted, you represent the people, people are shocked that no one has questions to ask and suddenly vote aye and it is passed faster than you can bat an eye so please, these are serious things, many difficult situations if you represent people you represent, weigh carefully, casting the vote, no reason to not have a roll call and be clear,[Hmmm, wasn't she one of the people pissed at me at budget time when I asked for roll calls?] schools need money, tax trying to stick with all kinds of money we can ask for, speaking for a lot of people in Madison love it and want to stay and make better but at what cost, is it the time, do what you want or what you need, when look at assessment might be small number, everyone is pinching pennies, she asks for a roll call again.
The Mayor points out that someone else already asked for a roll call. [He's right, I didn't note it, I didn't hear who did it.]
Palm says there is a bigger plan than a roundabout, the rest of project will grind to a halt, why build road without connector? UW Research Park west which will be an economic generator, support more jobs and schools and move forward, we are all wearing Google Fiber pins to move our community forward and then cut off road at this intersection, unfortunate where property owner with large property which in future could be sold for a lot more than now and that is the basis of assessment, on the future trip generation of a very large piece of property – cows and tractors now, but UW Research moves in and tax base stronger to build schools to support libraries, polices stations, officers, human services, remember what we fight about at budget time, this is the last piece and leaving it out, other stuff doesn’t get done, stimulus will be gone, still comes out of someone’s pocket, our community. Can have discussion again about assessments and can move through this, don’t use some argument about a roundabout without looking at larger project.
Maniaci – is happy with all points, this is a fun and complicated issue with county, someone somewhere on this committee has to put their foot down, not going to take it any more from the county, step up when comes to county and not let emotions get best of us, sign on bottom line, we are enabling county to not step up because they know city will cover it – we should ask city elected people on county board to step up and represent city, a lot of concerns they hear, we are bankrolling expansion of Fitchburg, Sun Prairie and Oregon and Middleton, esp. on expanding roads, its an infrastructure to leave town quickly, they don’t pay tax base here, this is a simple thing, we are going roundabout on roundabouts here.
Skidmore want to speak.
Mayor says he thinks this is the third time.
Julia Kerr says its the 4th.
Skidmore asks how many times he has spoken in the last year.
Mayor says that's not how it works, but if there is no objections, he'll let him speak. There are none.
Skdmore says he'll be brief, they have been going through this for years, debated the project, $50M in improvements and help west side and enhance the region, Pioneer and Elderberry neighborhood will be increasing dramatically, this will be economic development, create tax base, get people in from Dodgewille and Mineral Point, this is a small piece of a large project, we are not going to not force County Exec to do something, have some great county supervisors working on our behalf, not alone out there, he calls the question. [Why is it the always the one who does a lot of talking that then calls to stifle further debate?]
Mayor says there are people left to speak, but lights are going off and no one else wants to speak.
Roll call
AYE: Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Claussius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Sanborn and Schmidt
NO: Maniaci, Pham-Remmele, Rummel, Schumacher
[Check out who voted no together, very odd. Rummel voted cuz of the road expansino issue, Schumacher and Manaici to stick it to the county, Pham-Remmel, not sure why. Odd bedfellows.]
CDA DEBACLE - REZONING LAND WITHOUT A PLAN
Housekeeping
No registrants on item 6.
Public Testimony
Dan Newman says he's not speaking for or against rezoning, he wants to give perspective from person who lives there and what is happening now. He lives at 830 W badger and has for for 8 years, that is where the CDA has a redevelopment project, the first he heard about it, the majority of people were surprised, he was blindsided, and he thinks he was the the most vocal of tenants dealing with the redevelopment, he fought for landlords to make sure the best was done to them and now in process of fighting for myself, he's one of the last tenants and they have given me until May to get out and he has yet to find a comparable dwelling that fits the needs in relocation guide and state statute, they say they cannot force anyone to move until there is a comparable place available, they are in process of forcing us out by that date, some people at the city have been helpful and encouraging, scary to look at deadline and not know where moving within financial means and means to live, not against project, great for neighborhood, full support to improve south side of Madison, but concern for himself and others not get hurt in the process.
Questions
Marsha Rummel ask why they are rezoning in advance of a project, is this a typical thing, usually do PUDs not rezoning help me understand.
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director says they are doing it to have consistent zoning across all CDA owned property so when they apply for tax credits they have a consistent density, which allows the number of units proposed in their development,
Rummel asks about council role in the future process.
Murphy says it would be a conditional use in for the proposed development as well as development agreement for approval. [Note, conditional uses only get approved by the Plan Commission and watch what Olinger says about the development agreement, it may not be coming back.]
Satya Rhodes-Conway asks about the future role, how did we get to where we are, some of us heard about this in various electronic media, but this is the first time before the council, what is the history and roles of players.
Mark Olinger, who didn't get his contract renewed but still works for the city [?] says as he ages, dates fade.
Rhodes-Conway says dates not important.
Olinger says the council saw it, approved the redevelopment district, at least 2 years ago, council has seen it, what often happens is between creation of district and project, time lapses, on the matter of timing of notices, we have been consistent and applied to letter of law, [Interesting he brings this up, as no one mentioned it. A tad too defensive?] worked with city attorney’s office, having been more personally involved in Allied, understand relocation issues, consistent in efforts to relocate, no undue pressure on them to find replacement housing.
Rhodes-Conway says she was asking about the redevelopment district, district in relation to project – where the land is coming from, role of CDA, role of council.
Olinger says that in addition to creating the district, in 2009 budget they had $3M set aside for the project, as a part of capital budget, redevelopment plan in place for the block, was adopted, housing plan adopted in September of last year, so process where project worked way through system.[I actually made an amendment in 2009 to try to get a better public process as we knew at the time, or maybe it was just me, this was going to be problematic, and it was. I remember at the time getting the "just trust me" speech from Bruer and him being all up in arms for me messing in his district.]
Rhodes-Conway [for the third time]asks about CDA vs. city.
Olinger says CDA does acquisitions on behalf of city in redevelopment district, we acquired them.
Rhodes-Conway [tries again] this is a decision made by CDA and council does not vote?
Olinger says there was a plan approved by council, redevelopment plan confirmed by council, the budget for acquisitions approved, probably a resolution transferring property to the council, probably a handful of points in the process where actions of CDA came before council.
Rhodes-Conway asks where acquire properties from [Cuz Olinger doesn't seem inclined to give anything up unless someone drags it out of him]
Olinger says there were a variety of owners, they reached agreement on 6 of 7 owners, they are in title on all, but they were served today with papers contesting that right on one of the properties.
Rhodes-Conway is [not buying the bullshit and presses on] what do you mean "reached agreement".
Olinger says they closed on most of the deals, there was some back an forth over fair and just compensation, but when all was said and done, reached agreement with all property owners. [Yeah, nothing to see here folks, just move along. No mention of condemnation, no mention of the african american landlords and the issues that were raised. He must be forgetting more than dates these days.]
Rhodes-Conway asks if there were any willing sellers?
Olinger says no, they were all approached by us as part of a redevelopment.
Rhodes-Conway asks how many residents they are displacing.
Olinger doesn't know. "40 seems to stick in my head". He says they worked with all residents to find new place, less than 12 left.
Rhodes-Conway asks when the project is finished how many people can they accommodate there?
Olinger says its senior housing, they are applying for low income tax credits in April and there will be 54 – 60 units of senior housing, depending upon residents, could have 60 – 120 residents on the property.
Rhodes-Conway asks who is developer?
Olinger says they did an RFP (request for proposals) for developer interested, CDA agreed to work with Horizon, they were the preferred developer in the selection process, continue to work with Horizon to get tax credit app. in for April
Palm asks when were property owners and residents appraised of the plans? [Part of what was required in the 2009 budget was about the public process]
Tim Bruer jumps in and asks if he can answer the question. [That's not the way Robert's Rules work, but the Mayor does nothing, I wish McDonell was chairing this meeting, it would have been an hour shorter.] He points out this has been over 15 years in the making, interestingly enough a number of property owners indicated they were well aware that this has been around for 5 or 2 years, they were aware we were planning on moving forward, property owners not confused about how proceeding several were in the press saying they will believe it when see it. He has had an opportunity to meet with the speaker, they had 14 meetings, 3 or 4 in last year with neighborhood association, [The intent of the 2009 budget amendment was to meet witht eh broader community, no just the neighborhood association - note, he doesn't say he did that.] he applauds work of staff, understand that 30 some residents have found housing in immediate area, pleases us greatly, 7 individuals that are left. Last but not least, this was before council in different forms numerous times in last 2 years, part of challenge is that annexed into the city, interesting how you have to deal with inconsistent zoning, this was a measure to get uniformity and consistency. [I recall that several times when it was before the council, we were discouraged from asking questions and details were coming and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about what Bruer is up to. It seems like it is always too early or too late to ask questions about the CDA and Bruer. Well, and on many other things the city does.]
Rhodes-Conway [still trying to get answers to questions she has asked] asks about future approvals, since working with not CDA, but another developer, is there a development agreement?
Olinger says no, they are working on it.
Rhodes-Conway asks if it will come back to council or just CDA?
Olinger says generally speaking, CDA and developer enter into the agreement, but he doesn't know the answer. [And there you have it folks, can you tell me why the Mayor and others are not up in arms about unelected committee members that don't just make recommendations, but make decisions with the City's money and have no oversight from the elected officials. What's up with that?]
The motion passes on a voice vote, I heard no "no" votes.
HOUSEKEEPING
Then need to reconsider items 9 (Blaska Blather), 18 (Ecumenical Housing issue), 25 (School Crossing Guards) and 76 (Monona Drive) because there are speakers.
BLASKA BLATHER
[I'll admit it, I don't have any idea what his point was. So, I'm not sure how helpful this will be.]
Public Testimony
David Blaska in opposition on item number 9. He says he lives in Orchard Ridge on the Southwest side of Madison. He expresses condolences for Anthony Brown, says he worked with Anthony's wife Brenda when she was the Deputy Director of Health and Human services. He says he does a blog and he's the distinguished squire of the stately Blaska Manor. He says his blog is the only one to be recognized by both the Isthmus and Madison.com. He is here to offer his services an his years of experience, as a member of Equal Opportunities Commission. He says he has nothing against the folks before you, except none of them are me, no one can the bring diversity of thought I would bring. He says you should vote down the appointments until they appoint more diverse members. Why appoint the same people with same political philosophy, why not someone
Questions of speaker
Pham-Remmele says she is surprised, she thought he you had left town.
Blaska says he's still a resident, just did a little snow birding.
Pham-Remmele says you are my constitute too.
Blaska says he's "more than that".
Pham-Remmele says I haven’t seen you and it was a surprise, what do you want to happen with coming here?
Blaska says that he was here to throw a conservative to the wolves, there has been a lot of movement politically in the world, impression is that there are one or two yeah or nay votes, no conservatives on commissions and committees, know a lot of people and none of them are on the commissions.
Pham-Remmele asks if he applied.
Blaska says yes he did, and waged a campaign on his blog to get appointed, he says it was somewhat humorous but sincere, some things defy common sense, they need someone there on commission to think about something else, sometimes people use power and money for things we like and think are good, but it could get done without taxes and powers of government, don’t know if my sell by date is gone, but here I am.
Pham-Remmele thanks him for coming and not quitting.
Blaska says that he just spent some time down south looking for Al Gore.
Mayor quips "I always liked your brother" as Blaska sits down.
[Man, I had to check the date, I thought maybe it was April Fools day.]
The appointments pass with no "no" votes.
NON-PROFIT HOUSING TAX EXEMPT ISSUE NOT OVER YET
Public Testimony
Dan Rolfs is in opposition – representing Ecumenical Housing Corporation - he says his day job is across the street working for you, but his work hat is safely ensconced in his office, he is here representing EHC, he's president of the board of trustees, this is nonprofit safe affordable housing, has been for 30 years, reason here is that if may recall legal decision by Wisconsin court system, tax exempt properties in Madison were affected, the city helped to fix it and the legislature crafted a fix retroactive to beginning of 2009, long and short is that by making change retroactive, those what would have been tax exempt were on tax rolls for 1 year, EHC got caught, there was no way to maintain tax exempt status in 2009, they have to pay taxes for 2009 and tax exempt in 2010, here asking you that hopefully recognize tax exempt and allow us to remain so and eliminate the burden for group that does senior housing, he usually sits on the other side of the podium, knows there are policies city needs to follow. If there is no relief, in opposing this, if some other way to get relief for the tax burden, they exist solely on revenues from rentals, no other revenue thorough grants or loans, $60K tax bill that they never had to pay before is a jarring sort of occurrence, while recognize city has policy, if there are other opportunities or avenues to get funding back appreciate it.
Rev Charles Wolf, Ecumenical Housing Corp – Charles Wolf is the pastor at Plymouth Congregational since 1987, 30 years ago before he came here EHC was founded by a group of 12 congregations on east side cuz virtually no relatively cheap senior housing, we at Plymouth have an interest and concern for social justice issues in housing and homelessness for more than 20 years they have served meals at Grace, helped shape and support Transitional Housing Inc, now Porchlight and helped fund their eviction prevention program, several thousand each year to prevent people from being evicted when hospitalized, lose work time and can’t pay rent – better for whole community if they are not homeless and then find housing agin, worked with MUM to help prisoners at Huber to find housing and jobs to create a healthier transition, congregation gave $10K over 5 years to The Road Home for apartment housing for families with supervision from case managers, also provide shelter through The Road Home program. EHC is part of the same ministry, to those in community who need safe, affordable housing, many of their residents can’t live at Attic Angels or Oakwood, none of those facilities have to pay taxes, for 10 year on EHC budget has been tight.
Mayor [Was paying attention . . . ]interrupts and tell him to wrap it up, three minutes are over.
Pastor Wolf says that they were forced to encourage well heeled people who lived in their housing to find housing in the market so others could stay. He says a grant to offset taxes would be appreciated.
Julia Kerr attempts to ask Attorney May a question but before she can ask it he says he refers the question to Mike Kurth (City Assessors Office) and Jamie Stafferoni (City Attorney's Office) Julia asks why he did that preemptively. No answer.
Kerr says that for other unlawful taxation items there is a report from your office, didn’t see anything for EHC, so wanted to have them fill us in on that. She says I’m sure there is a good reason report not there, but what is your side of the story?
Stafferoni says it was an error it was not attached, fixed later, nonetheless, basically with this property, there was a change in the law in 2009 basically for this property would not have had an exempt status cuz of how use income, decision in 2008 Future Madison case defined maintenance, they said this entity was not using income toward maintenance or construction debt.
Kerr says we know that part, she should have been more specific, what in the law changed, why didn’t this get picked up in that.
Stafferoni says low income housing retro fix to 2009 and that legislation required certain % of low income people to live there, they didn’t qualify under % amount in 2009, another piece was passed that is applicable for 2010 and they may qualify in 2010 but for this year that is where they are at.
Kerr asks Hansen, in 2009 what was their percentage of low income residents?
Kurth says had to have 75% or more, didn’t meet it, doesn’t remember what % it was, too many high income people in the units.
Bruer in is in the chair.
Rhodes-Conway says speakers mentioned other housing providers what had higher income tenants and qualify, did they have some other exemption?
Stafferoni doesn’t know.
Rhodes-Conway asks how else they would qualify?
Stafferoni says that they could qualify cuz of change in 2009 and 2010, if using leasehold income as maintenance would qualify, if 2009, and in 2010 homes for aged.
Rhodes-Conway asks if 2009 crux of mater was use of income?
Stafferoni says yes, didn’t qualify in future Madison and didn’t meet percentages and no retroactive date for retired housing.
Rhodes-Conway asks how this is different from item 20 where there was a settlement. Why is htis different, why settling with them as opposed to these folk?
Stafferoni says Greentree Glen did meet % requirements under benevolent low income housing, they had an issue in 2008 for maintenance issue – given it was one year of precedent they thought that this litigation would set reasonable to settle.
Rhodes-Conway says she understands and agrees with desire to treat it as a one year oops – and not fight about a changed law, but why not same thing in this situation if we expect them to be compliant win 2010?
Stafferoni says there was no litigation – so no settlement negotiation.
Rhodes-Conway says that if people have resources to sue we will settle but if they don't they have to pay.
Stafferoni says she doesn't want to speculate.
Eagon asks city attorney if there are other non-profits that may have been in the bubble that didn’t ask for exemption and got caught.
Staffaroni defers to Mike Kurth.
Kurth isn't paying attention and needs the question repeated. [Really, you come to one council meeting once a year and can't pay attention on the one item you are here for?]
Kurth asks Eagon to repeat the question. He says that there are others, but some have some partial assessments, Green Tree Glen was a 2008 issue, other 2009 entities were partially assessed for that year and then filing as benevolent retirement home for 2010, but in 2009 EHC did not qualify for one project – another project they have did where all but three are exempt and would qualify in 2010 on remaining 3 units, in 2010 there are a few with a one year gap but most qualified as low income housing project under 2009 law.
Eagon asks if organizations ended up paying for that one year – maybe not senior but other?
Kurth all paying except in this situation.
First vote
They vote and Tim Bruer is in the chair and rules that the No votes have it. So the denial is denied and there's lots of confusion. I'm shocked no one called roll call, cuz that wasn't what it sounded like.
Michael May explains that if the vote is no, they need another motion.
More questions
Kerr asks if the motion only applies to EHC.
May indicates yes.
Compton verified the amount they out, $53K. If we agreed to give the money back, where does the money come from?
Brasser says that comes from general fund, taxes we budgeted to receive but not recieve.
Compton asks if the taxes are currently paid.
May says yes, its a condition of filing for a tax refund, will have to take money from somewhere.
Motion
Rhodes-Conway makes a substitute to refer back to the city attorney to meet with them and discuss settlement. There are several seconds.
Question
Cnare asks how we pick a number, if reach a settlement, it will come back in same form, correct?
May says yes
Discussion
Kerr speaks against, she tells them to remember the vigorous discussion we had a year ago on this issue which she felt very strongly about that precipitated us in being instrumental in changing the law to allow us not to tax low income housing providers in the city – this seems like an instance of moving the goal post, we got the fix that we could in state legislature, they didn’t fall into it, addressed the policy issue foremost in their minds to preserve affordable housing base, agrees with Compton, that not fair to exempt them, our basis for taxation, similarly situated treated the same, if make exception, you are doing a disservice to every other tax payer. Urge you not to vote for settlement, unfortunately didn’t fall into fix, taxes are due and hopefully rectified in the future, can’t make a fairness argument to make an exception for them.
Schmidt this is making me ill, state law, no way to get around it, great to find a way, suspect they can’t – so we made a mistake in saying no to report we should vote down and reconsider. [Even the City Attorney isn't taking that hard line. He's willing to sit down and talk.]
Schumacher has questions now
Schumacher asks if it is typical to negotiate?
May says they read the law and make a recommendation – they do make a different recommendation rightly or wrongly if they are in court.
Schumacher asks Cooley about the work they are doing identifying percentage of properties off tax base, at this point, rough idea where at with that – is there a number finding out is emerging?
Tim Cooley, Economic Development Director says that its 50%.
Schumacher asks what that translates into.
Cooley says 50%.
Palm asks city attorney, says he is not asking you to make a deal, just consider it, so what would you do if it passes?
May says that "we would do what you told us to do", try to settle and come back with a recommendation.
Palm asks if you do not come to agreement, then bring Mayor in for discussion on this, cuz no legal basis for making a decision?
Giggles – Larry says to strike that. [Not struck from this blog!]
May says in two weeks, same resolution in front of us if no resolution or didn’t think appropriate.
Palm says no harm no foul.
Back to discussion
Eagon agrees with Kerr and Schmidt – a property in his district was trapped and paying one year assessment, making year payment, deadline expired, so would caution supporting the referral and potential overturn of $53K, other groups caught in that year already paid or looking at this as case to exemplify, could be slippery slope for unintended consequences – great work they do but issue of fairness to others who paid.
Maniaci asks May if they would be litigated against in this case, will it go to court?
May does not know
Cnare says none of this precludes then from going to court, if deny, can go to court, if grant then they are happy. Cnare says maybe go to court.
Bruer [Who can't seem to avoid putting his foot in his mouth when talking with, to, about women] makes a joke about how Julia Kerr is flashing now. [He seems to think its funny.]
Kerr says that she felt strongly and still does and say by giving the refund we are saying to state legislature we came and explained and worked with you and it wasn’t good enough and that is not a position she wants to be in, respects alder Rhodes-Conway's motion and those who support, but we got the legislative fix we were able to get, sorry EHC didn’t fall into it, not fair for other properties and taxpayers who expect we will treat people evenly – vote against referral and in favor of underlying
Mayor back in chair - just a bit too late.
Compton has more questions now
Compton asks how many non-profits were unhappy with loss of status when this happened?
Mayor says happiness subjective, Compton says no happiness is eternal, or internal not sure what she said.
Compton asks how many?
Kurth says majority went from taxable to exempt – assuming their happiness, small amount were partial exempt instead of fully assessed and they were happy, some that were caught in the one year or - half a dozen and most - ended up qualifying in analysis, a few that had more than the allowed number of certain level of income tenants and those ones were the major ones with EHC were only one of a few solely back on roll – no major properties back on roll, Pres House has to wait another year to recognize what kind of exemption they have.
Compton asks about window how much money are we talking about if return all the money?
Kurth has no idea – no guess.
Compton asks if anyone has the knowledge – Dean doesn’t know.
[Sound of crickets chirping.]
Palm asks city attorney, if settlement is a legal determination, would this set precedent we would be accountable to?
May says he paused, obviously, council is not bound by prior decisions it makes, rule of uniformity of taxation is in place and to extent start making exceptions for certain properties others will say entitled to be treated the same way, no precedent, but do have issues.
Palm asks how settlement with Greentree would affect it?
May says legally different status when settling a suit in court, any number of things to take into account, use of resources to defend suit and consider that a different legal situation than coming before council to ask for tax refund
Cnare asks how different than object to tax bill, procedurally?
May says procedure is same, they pay tax, file claim, assessor looks at it, city attorney looks at it, if basis for it, on one the assessor thought it has a valid basis then bring to council to approve or deny.
Cnare asks if it is always called unlawful?
May says it would say "excessive" because they challenge the amount
Bidar-Sielaff understands where Kerr comes from but strikes me as promoting process that involves litigation to settle, so she has a hard time sending that message – if you go that route you can get a settlement but if do that without additional expenses to city and nonprofit no settlement, hope to see something in two weeks, it strikes me as a very law-based litigation process that is not helpful to either party, city or non-profit.
Roll call:
Aye: Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Canre, King, Maniaci, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
No: Skidmore, Bruer, Claussius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schmidt, Schumacher.
That motion fails 9 to 11.
Then, they vote to deny on a voice vote, again a questionable voice vote, but the mayor rules the ayes have it.
NEXT UP
Next up . . . Monona Drive, Thuy Alert! on 25 cent fee for electronic payments and that nasty civil rights issue that the council is so afraid of . . .
Read more!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
18 Minute Common Council Recap
One reporter described it as feeling like we were in the eye of the storm.
GETTING STARTED
They started on time!!!! Taking at least Verveer and Cnare by surprise as they were absent for roll call, but in the chambers within minutes after the meeting started.
Bruer suspends the usual rules to allow items to be taken out of order and get introduced from the floor.
WILCO
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz call on Satya Rhodes-Conway who moves adoption. Mayor reads the resolution and asks her to comment. Rhodes-Conway says that if they do this tonight, they will do it before Chicago. Passes on a voice vote, with no audible no votes.
CONSENT AGENDA
There were no items separated for discussion. Here's what Bruer attempted to say:
16. Legislative File No. 17644 – Report of Mayor recommending reinstatement of committee members who have filed "Statement of Interests" form. (2/3 vote required to reinstate member to Low-Income Bus Pass Program Committee) - Bruer announces they will record a unanimous vote if no one objects.
45. Legislative File NO. 17440 - Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Apply For And Accept A DNR Lake Planning Grant To Provide Virtual Discharge Gauge Information in Real-Time for Lower Mud Lake. (Various ADs) (Report of BPW – Corrected Recommendation: RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT not RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO PLACE ON FILE WITHOUT PREJUDICE) 101.
101. Legislative File NO. 17576 Supporting the city of Madison's application for Google Fiber for Communities (Introduced from floor 2/23/10 - Ald. Mark Clear, D. 19 - for purposes of referring to the Common Council meeting of 3/16/10).
He notes this includes #103 on the addendum which reinstates a few more people to committee.
The entire agenda except the public hearing items was voted on by the council by 6:35, which was about the time Verveer walks in the room.
OOOOPS, THERE WAS A REGISTRANT ON ITEM NUMBER 1 WHO WANTS THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Colin Bowden is neither in support or opposition. He says his point is that saw item honoring Wilco and but is concerned that if anyone caught themselves up on racial disparities in the criminal justice system, Dane County and Madison are not totally just. Within Madison alone, people of color are arrested more than white people, even tho there are many less black people, they are a smaller percentage. He says black people are 100 times more likely to get a drug sentence the first time. The fact that the Council is not making a statement on that, a large municipality in Dane County, strikes me as a form of injustice and would like personally to see some brainstorming and statements in favor of equity and how Madison impacts the Criminal Justice System. The council should work on it.[This is ironic given the discussion at the CCOC (Common Council Organizational Committee) just an hour before the meeting. That will be a separate blog post this morning and I'll try to remember to link it here.]
There are no comments from the council.
MOVING ON, PUBLIC HEARINGS
They aren't supposed to take this up until 6:45 but there is nothing left on their agenda, so they start to take it up 6 minutes early.
OOOPS, RECONSIDERATION
Mike Verveer request to move reconsideration of the consent agenda since in he walked in in the middle of it. Verveer explains that he was at a neighborhood association meeting and he told them he could stay a moment longer because the council never starts on time and he walked in in the middle of the consent agenda. He requests reconsideration on #18, there was a request from and ALRC (Alcohol License Review Committee) colleague to refer it back to ALRC so they can reconsider. He says he intended to request this before the meeting, but they started on time.
There is no objection to reconsidering. Then they vote to refer 18 to ALRC and re-adopt the consent agenda.
STILL NOT 6:45 BUT ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
No one is there to register except on Target. All the other items are passed or recessed as noted on the agenda. So item 2 (Board of Public Works Broom St.) passes, 3 - 9 (liquor licenses) passes, 10 & 11 (Board of Public Works Edgewood and N 3rd St assessment districts) all pass. #12 public hearing opened and recessed but no vote.
TARGET
Registrant
Jackie Bell representing Target in support. She says she is very excited about the proposal, unique proposal for Target, unique property, 50 ft of grade change, opportunity to put underground parking and sale floor on top level, a lot of great input form citizens, number of emails and phone calls and input from citizens, thanks Schmidt and the neighborhood groups for their questions and concerns – staff did great working with us, this is a cohesive development, works well with mall, with further approvals, would like to get under construction this spring and open summer 2011, she is willing to answer questions and take comments.
Mayor notes the entire design team is here for questions.
Questions of Registrants
None.
Questions of Staff
None.
Discussion
Chris Schmidt moves adoption of 13 & 14 – Schmidt thanks Target for working with us through our process, very good to work with, very receptive to public input, that is reflected in strong support for the project, not universal, but some people would not agree the sky is blue, they'd call it azure. This went through a large public meeting, city committees, can’t speak highly enough of work they have done and staff.
Marsha Rummel is also very appreciative, nothing more to add, but would like to be noted in opposition to 14 which takes a parking lot that was part of the residential portion to put into parking for the development, she understands why, but thinks green space is important, wanted to make the council aware. She repeates they were great to work with, she says this is a model of how the system is not broken.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz mumbles that "I'd disagree about that"
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff as an alder in the area thanks Schmidt and says she looks forward to using Hilldale and happy to have a new place to shop, says they made it easy on rest of us and she appreciates it. [Judy Compton made sure to tease her after the council meeting for being the new Cindy Thomas on the council, because "Cindy Thomas knows shopping!"]
Mark Clear says he is the other alder in the area and appreciates the Target team, he says he was only peripherally involved, thanks Alder Schmidt for his leadership with the Neighborhood Association.
Brian Solomon rings in to note that he is also an adjacent alder. He slaps Schmidt on the back and thanks him as well.
The council kind of erupts into side comments. The mayor advises them to settle down and says the need some decorum.[Wow. When the Mayor wants to get out of there, he suddenly has standards for the meeting. Wish he'd do that more often, especially when there is a long meeting.]
Motion passes on a voice vote.
WRAPPING IT UP
They have a public hearing on #102, no one registered. Passes.
Verveer points out they didn't vote on number 12, so they do and they re-refer it. Mayor apologizes, says he was so excited that they were almost done.
INTRODUCTION OF ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
Tim Bruer introduces something about Olin Park which is referred to the Parks Department.
Julia Kerr introduces a TIF resolution for Wingra LLC for 62 units of Senior Housing. Refers to 3/8 Board of Estimates meeting.
Bridget Maniaci introduces, by title only, an amendment for noise permits. Referred to Housing and PSRC (Public Safety Review Committee). [I think this is to allow permits to have a band in your backyard for a party, but it was unclear, and its by title only, even tho its an issue that is a year and a half old. No reason to introduce by title only, unless she is trying to get it done by Mifflin Street, which would be unfortunate, because it shouldn't be about Mifflin but for the other 364 days a year. But, for the record, if I'm surmising correctly, I fully support the concept.]
Judy Compton asks to be added as a sponsor on 101.
Bruer moves adjournment.
Clear fails to wish Happy Birthday to Marsha Rummel (today), which he has done at the end of several council meetings for several other alders.
FINAL NOTE
The council has taken breaks that have lasted longer than this meeting.
Read more!
GETTING STARTED
They started on time!!!! Taking at least Verveer and Cnare by surprise as they were absent for roll call, but in the chambers within minutes after the meeting started.
Bruer suspends the usual rules to allow items to be taken out of order and get introduced from the floor.
WILCO
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz call on Satya Rhodes-Conway who moves adoption. Mayor reads the resolution and asks her to comment. Rhodes-Conway says that if they do this tonight, they will do it before Chicago. Passes on a voice vote, with no audible no votes.
CONSENT AGENDA
There were no items separated for discussion. Here's what Bruer attempted to say:
16. Legislative File No. 17644 – Report of Mayor recommending reinstatement of committee members who have filed "Statement of Interests" form. (2/3 vote required to reinstate member to Low-Income Bus Pass Program Committee) - Bruer announces they will record a unanimous vote if no one objects.
45. Legislative File NO. 17440 - Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Apply For And Accept A DNR Lake Planning Grant To Provide Virtual Discharge Gauge Information in Real-Time for Lower Mud Lake. (Various ADs) (Report of BPW – Corrected Recommendation: RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT not RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO PLACE ON FILE WITHOUT PREJUDICE) 101.
101. Legislative File NO. 17576 Supporting the city of Madison's application for Google Fiber for Communities (Introduced from floor 2/23/10 - Ald. Mark Clear, D. 19 - for purposes of referring to the Common Council meeting of 3/16/10).
He notes this includes #103 on the addendum which reinstates a few more people to committee.
The entire agenda except the public hearing items was voted on by the council by 6:35, which was about the time Verveer walks in the room.
OOOOPS, THERE WAS A REGISTRANT ON ITEM NUMBER 1 WHO WANTS THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Colin Bowden is neither in support or opposition. He says his point is that saw item honoring Wilco and but is concerned that if anyone caught themselves up on racial disparities in the criminal justice system, Dane County and Madison are not totally just. Within Madison alone, people of color are arrested more than white people, even tho there are many less black people, they are a smaller percentage. He says black people are 100 times more likely to get a drug sentence the first time. The fact that the Council is not making a statement on that, a large municipality in Dane County, strikes me as a form of injustice and would like personally to see some brainstorming and statements in favor of equity and how Madison impacts the Criminal Justice System. The council should work on it.[This is ironic given the discussion at the CCOC (Common Council Organizational Committee) just an hour before the meeting. That will be a separate blog post this morning and I'll try to remember to link it here.]
There are no comments from the council.
MOVING ON, PUBLIC HEARINGS
They aren't supposed to take this up until 6:45 but there is nothing left on their agenda, so they start to take it up 6 minutes early.
OOOPS, RECONSIDERATION
Mike Verveer request to move reconsideration of the consent agenda since in he walked in in the middle of it. Verveer explains that he was at a neighborhood association meeting and he told them he could stay a moment longer because the council never starts on time and he walked in in the middle of the consent agenda. He requests reconsideration on #18, there was a request from and ALRC (Alcohol License Review Committee) colleague to refer it back to ALRC so they can reconsider. He says he intended to request this before the meeting, but they started on time.
There is no objection to reconsidering. Then they vote to refer 18 to ALRC and re-adopt the consent agenda.
STILL NOT 6:45 BUT ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
No one is there to register except on Target. All the other items are passed or recessed as noted on the agenda. So item 2 (Board of Public Works Broom St.) passes, 3 - 9 (liquor licenses) passes, 10 & 11 (Board of Public Works Edgewood and N 3rd St assessment districts) all pass. #12 public hearing opened and recessed but no vote.
TARGET
Registrant
Jackie Bell representing Target in support. She says she is very excited about the proposal, unique proposal for Target, unique property, 50 ft of grade change, opportunity to put underground parking and sale floor on top level, a lot of great input form citizens, number of emails and phone calls and input from citizens, thanks Schmidt and the neighborhood groups for their questions and concerns – staff did great working with us, this is a cohesive development, works well with mall, with further approvals, would like to get under construction this spring and open summer 2011, she is willing to answer questions and take comments.
Mayor notes the entire design team is here for questions.
Questions of Registrants
None.
Questions of Staff
None.
Discussion
Chris Schmidt moves adoption of 13 & 14 – Schmidt thanks Target for working with us through our process, very good to work with, very receptive to public input, that is reflected in strong support for the project, not universal, but some people would not agree the sky is blue, they'd call it azure. This went through a large public meeting, city committees, can’t speak highly enough of work they have done and staff.
Marsha Rummel is also very appreciative, nothing more to add, but would like to be noted in opposition to 14 which takes a parking lot that was part of the residential portion to put into parking for the development, she understands why, but thinks green space is important, wanted to make the council aware. She repeates they were great to work with, she says this is a model of how the system is not broken.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz mumbles that "I'd disagree about that"
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff as an alder in the area thanks Schmidt and says she looks forward to using Hilldale and happy to have a new place to shop, says they made it easy on rest of us and she appreciates it. [Judy Compton made sure to tease her after the council meeting for being the new Cindy Thomas on the council, because "Cindy Thomas knows shopping!"]
Mark Clear says he is the other alder in the area and appreciates the Target team, he says he was only peripherally involved, thanks Alder Schmidt for his leadership with the Neighborhood Association.
Brian Solomon rings in to note that he is also an adjacent alder. He slaps Schmidt on the back and thanks him as well.
The council kind of erupts into side comments. The mayor advises them to settle down and says the need some decorum.[Wow. When the Mayor wants to get out of there, he suddenly has standards for the meeting. Wish he'd do that more often, especially when there is a long meeting.]
Motion passes on a voice vote.
WRAPPING IT UP
They have a public hearing on #102, no one registered. Passes.
Verveer points out they didn't vote on number 12, so they do and they re-refer it. Mayor apologizes, says he was so excited that they were almost done.
INTRODUCTION OF ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
Tim Bruer introduces something about Olin Park which is referred to the Parks Department.
Julia Kerr introduces a TIF resolution for Wingra LLC for 62 units of Senior Housing. Refers to 3/8 Board of Estimates meeting.
Bridget Maniaci introduces, by title only, an amendment for noise permits. Referred to Housing and PSRC (Public Safety Review Committee). [I think this is to allow permits to have a band in your backyard for a party, but it was unclear, and its by title only, even tho its an issue that is a year and a half old. No reason to introduce by title only, unless she is trying to get it done by Mifflin Street, which would be unfortunate, because it shouldn't be about Mifflin but for the other 364 days a year. But, for the record, if I'm surmising correctly, I fully support the concept.]
Judy Compton asks to be added as a sponsor on 101.
Bruer moves adjournment.
Clear fails to wish Happy Birthday to Marsha Rummel (today), which he has done at the end of several council meetings for several other alders.
FINAL NOTE
The council has taken breaks that have lasted longer than this meeting.
Read more!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Edgewater Lite Common Council Recap (Final)
I'm getting spoiled, the meeting was only a little over two hours . . . Sorry this is a little late, I was playing with some recording equipment last night, to see if I could take breaks and talk to people and still not miss what is going on, it looks (sounds) like it worked, now, I just need to get more proficient at using it.
GETTING STARTED
They start 12 minutes late. I don't know why it is so hard to get started on time.
There is a group of kids here from Glendale School and there are lots of people milling around. It was fun to hear the principal Mickey Buhl explain the Edgewater project to the kids and have Compton explain what city government does.
Eventually, when they get the meeting started, the clerk takes the roll call and everyone is here.
Mayor announces that Santiago David Mendoza was born this morning. (Mario Mendoza is a member of the Mayor's staff.
Tim Bruer moves to suspend the rules so they can take items out of order and introduce items from the floor.
HONORING GLENDALE SCHOOL KIDS
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz reads the resolution.
Mickey Buhl says thanks, happy to get the kids here to see this, the machinery of democracy you might take for granted, he thanks the staff at Glendale (librarian and art teacher) and James Wautrous Gallery at Overture. Says the art teacher found out about the project the first week she was there. Pat Dillon here also. He says he was thrilled because if you went in the classroom when kids were working, you'd see the excitement you’d want to see each and every day. He says he wants to say publicly that Glendale is the best school he’s ever worked for.
The Council watches a short video on the project.
MOVING ON
That took nearly 25 minutes with the delayed start and honoring the kids.
There are no communications or petitions.
CONSENT AGENDA
(sorry, no links this morning, will need to look here if you want to see the links)
Tim Bruer reads off the changes first.
Item 59 (Bike Path Improvements on Verona Road by Cub Foods) needs an editorial change, should read district 10.
67 (1965 Ordinance Change for Edgewater) will be re-referred.
79 (Standard Specifications for Public Works Projects) is for adoption
80 (Grant for Dane County Parent Council) is withdrawn
9 (Removing someone from Allied Drive Task Force due to lack of attendance) & 26 (Grant for wildlife habitat restoration at Olin-Turville Park) they will record a unanimous vote unless there are objections, also 123 (Authorizing the Mayor to continue legal proceedings against Dane County over the 911 Center) on the addendum says Bruer.
They separate items 20 (MadiSun Grant), 72 (Appeal of Landmarks decision on the Edgewater)
Marsha Rummel takes off item 79 (Public Works Contract language)
Mark Clear says 72 does not need to be separated, just re-refer. There are no objections to that.
Thuy Pham-Remmele removes item 65 (Cannonball Run bikepath contract adjustments) for questions.
Mayor says number 123 (Dane County lawsuit) doesn't need a 2/3 vote.
Clear says 123 does need a extra-majority vote because it is a late item.
There are no objections to recording an unanimous vote on 9, 26 and 123.
[Really people, not a single comment or discussion on the spat between Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and County Executive Kathleen Falk? You authorized the continued lawsuit without a question. I wonder if they knew what they were voting on since it was a late item. It's also funny that the late information they received didn't mention that it was an item on the agenda for that evening. I wonder if anyone had time to even review the information?]
Pham-Remmele abstains on items 7 & 8 (committee appointments).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item 2 (Edgewater PUD) is recessed and referred to a future meeting, which wasn't indicated which one.
Item 3 – North and South Broom St resurfacing – Bruer moves adoption, and someone seconded.
Mike Verveer has a substitute, to recess and refer, says that there was an issue with the mailing to some condo owners, Board of Public Works had 2 public hearings and second meeting notice said the council meeting was the March 2nd meeting – he and city engineer recommend referral. That passes on a unanimous voice vote.
WATERFRONT SETBACK ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR EDGEWATER
Public Testimony
[Note, as far as I know, not one single person has appeared in support of this ordinance change. Makes sense, who's going to show up and say, yes, we need dirtier lakes! Build more and closer to the lakes!]
Pete Ostlind is in opposition, speaking on his own behalf. He says he has spoken to plan commission before, but this change is bad public policy to separate commercial and residential. Some of the details of the proposed changes are also problematic. He says the ordinance is not based on zoning, but principal use. He says that it could be residentially zoned and have commercial uses. He also pointed out that this would apply to properties beyond commercial uses. He also says that the definition of zoning lot is problematic, there could be a series of parcels that are added on to. He says this ordinance was supposed to be about a few properties, but with the text, those properties could be expanded as Edgewater has done, he says there is a broader impact than initially conceived. He also says that lots can have more than one principal buildings on a lot, that could also could be a problem. He says the definition of a building is also a problem because they could be two buildings if portions of a structure are separated by a firewall. With that definition, the Edgewater tower is a separate building, and there are two buildings now, and if connected to parking garage and connected to NGL (National Guardian Life), there could be 5 buildings connected and one is principal buildings, NGL could be expanded to lakefront. Not clear that was the intention even if they wanted to only impact one site. Wording is open to problematic use. Suggests they look closely at wording and make sure only does what is intended instead of something broader. [Wow, that was a lot of issues and I hadn't heard most of them before.]
Ledell Zellers representing only herself, in opposition. Wants to emphasize what Pete Ostlind said, is this really doing what you want it to do? Additionally it does impact on the lakes, this is a long standing ordinance you are attempting to change, it is limited to developments on the waterfront. The Edgewater tower is built quite close to lake. In the rest of Wisconsin, the minimum is 75 feet in cities if annexed after 1982, this was part of the city prior to that law. It does matter how close to bodies of water development occurs, disappointed that Madison is not environmentally forward thinking and not following best practices. The state says how close you build to lake is important cuz the impacts operate on a cumulative level. Laws are in place to protect lake water quality, aquatic habitat and beauty. She understands that there is mitigation that can take place and will help, but increase of buildings over time will negatively impact the lakes. This change is better than originally introduced, but will still put development pressure on the property to change residential to commercial. Nothing will preclude this ordinance from kicking in on residentially zoned properties, the National Guardian Life property is for sale, all that needs to happen is that it could be connected by underground parking or a walkway and they can build an addition, unless the firewall language is accurate and then this ordinance will not impact the Edgewater tower. She says that given this land is likely to be sold to Hammes Company if this all goes through, the value of land will be greatly increased if the ordinance goes through, and its inevitable that it will encroach on the lake. Some say conditional use will control development close to lakes, but that is not nearly as effective as is a clearly required setback, please protect quality of lakes and beauty of shoreline.
Charles Dykeman lives in Monona and wants to share with you the City of Monona experience. He is speaking only for himself, he's on the board of Yahara Lakes Association and Wisconsin Association of Lake, he is on the legislative committee on both organizaitnos and is fortunate to understand benefits of the shoreline zoning and the science behind benefits of aquatic (missed it ??). In Monona has discovered once you allow it, there is no going back, without using eminent domain. Peter McKeever (an alder) decided that the meander line they were using to determine the setback was arbitrary because it had no relation to the shore, he proposed an amendment to use shoreline as starting point. Plan Commission heard the proposal and concluded that while their current process was arbitrary and required variances, the proposed change was worse, it moved the de facto building line that offers protections of view. Their Zoning Board of Appeals committee allowed changes it if it did not block views of the neighbors, the gave right them a right as a matter of law. McKeever asked for it to be shelved, still has its de facto building line. He says this ordinance will start a process of creep and it will be a matter of right and it will bock neighbors view and they will have to add on or construct new. There are several ways to achieved result you want, he heard them says there were several ways for the project to process, you should have an amendment that applies only to project at hand and then decide if Edgewater meets goals of City of Madison.
Fred Mohs says last night he watched Target, there were no negative appearances by neighborhood. It was a long process, this is how the process should work said Schmidt, long and the project is better cuz of neighborhood. He is envious, they were able to work with the developer. We are estranged from the developer and are as surprised as sanyone when a new project shows up at the last minute at Urban Design Commission. Can’t we sit down in good faith and try to reach consensus with some supervision by the planning department. There is no logic for difference in setback requirements between residential and commercial, creep is correct, inevitable results is increase in value of commercial properties. Is this a good idea? No, but if you could reach consensus on what this project doing, a lot of this would be easier. You could pass it and repeal it, name the property specifically or spot zone it. He is not saying there is no way that we could support modifying what is the lakefront setback for this property with the right project, that is not out of the question. Normally that is done through teh Zoning Board of Appeals. He says that like Target, once they agree on some things, it gets easy, we should work harder there. This isn’t the right approach, he admires Cnare for trying, but this doesn’t work well, but at least you tried. He is inviting the developer and plan to sit down and put some hard work in and with a lot of issues stirring up lately – this is hard to do.
Gene Devitt – very short (two or three sentences), missed it, I was playing with my recorder, sorry.
Martens not in favor of the Edgwater project in its current form, trying to separate that for now and speak to the issue. This would loosen lakefront setbacks instead of tighten it at a time when the lakes are in trouble with utrification, sedimentation. The DNR recognized it and is tightening up standards in our state. They have recognized that the urban lakes are in the worst trouble and yet we are loosening the standards for this project. I appears this is about one proterty and if it is, this is worse than spot zoning, this is spot legislation. The ordinance as crafted, grants more than necessary for the one property what we know this is not about. That property only needs 25 or 30 setback, this allows 16, by decreasing cutting down potential for bike paths, walkways and overall shoreline protection. The shoreline is the most sensitive part of the project and this encroaches on that worst part. This applies to all districts other than residential, the property this is not about is commercial. He says that they should limit the zoning classifications that it applies to. As Ostlind pointed out, ordinance as written is loosely crafted and has lots of loop holes. He is an architect and has played the role of developer and when in that role you are trying to maximize your own gains, you look hard for loopholes, they are always there somewhere or another and it would appear this ordinance crafted in haste and would allow loopholes, lets tighten it up somehow even if for just one property, would recommend referral, run it through zoning experts and ZCRAC (Zoning Code Rewrite Advisory Committee), perhaps already has been but not look like it in current form.
Scott Thornton – president of Marquette Neighborhood Assocaiton, not a whole lot to add about the environmental impact of this broad change to the zoning code as it relates to the shoreline setback. Primarily that is the concern of his neighborhood association. What would it mean in their neighborhood? They have commercial properties on Lake Monona that could be affected. Properties could be creeping into residential and historic districe. And know what some people think of historic districts, and that won’t save these properties so if you allow commercial properties to build randomly close, without looking at it closely, parcel by parcel, project by project setting bad percent for city, that is the neighborhoods concerns.
Fae Dremock (I missed a bit of the beginning) - We have a problem in this area, our lakes are not well protected. The surface water is not well protected, the aquifer is not well protected. And we are looking at a regressive change to allow for commercial development. This should not be done without environmental impact studies. But over and above that, the discussion at plan commission was to allow the Edgewater to develop up to 16 feet of the shoreline. The change in the ordinance, creep was not discussed, but supported by sponsor, this has implications beyond that and should be further discussed.
Eric Sundquist – neither in support or opposition – says he's a plan commission member, wants to bring the perspective of one member. Some of what he will say is objective facts some opinion, he says that issue of the existing ordinance was that it clearly has some problems. In the zoning rewrite process has gotten to point where there is a hole in it for non-residential setback, they were not doing away with it, just not addressed. This project created an urgency, problem is that setbacks are random in non-residential areas, if you average it out and come up with number there is an issue of creep if average over time. The average goes down and gets more development over time – not noticeable in commercial, but they see it in residential areas. Another issue is that the ordinance addressed principal structures, not pavement and impermeable surfaces, that is what they were looking at at the zoning rewrite committee and they wanted to address lot coverage and vegetation, that is where they were, but not ready yet. There is a lot of work to be done, but the hotel project came and we had to deal with it. Some plan commissioners thought they should stick with the current regime, not change for one project, majority or himself thought it was reasonable if address irrationality in current system and be at least as protective of lakes as now, that is what their version did but it needed some work. It drew a line in the sand for existing buildings, drew a line but couldn’t go further, those with deep setback couldn’t move up until ZRAC was done. He supported it, but he has an issue with new version cuz it gives the weaker of two standards, existing or average whatever is last. Doesn’t meet his second reason for supporting the ordinance, not as protective as it is now, might be fine to amend the ordinance, they need a line in the sand to avoid creep and give a nod toward where going with ZCRAC with protection along the lake, maybe 75 feet should be the line. Should also have limit on size, perhaps 20% of linear lakefront, he is neither for or against, just some thoughts for you to consider. Thank you.
38 registrants in support, 1 in opposition
[Labor was here, the guys were busy telling dirty jokes as I was getting money out of the ATM in the lobby, they were instructed to just stay a little while and they could be out of there by 6:45. By the time the issue came up, there may have been 3 or 4 supporters left. I'd be interested to see the registration forms. Amy Supple was also there an left, I'm guessing they had people from Hammes register as well, but not stick around. As I said earlier, if there is so much support, why does no one actually come forward and speak about why they support it?]
Motion/Substitute Motion
Clear moves adoption, it's seconded.
Lauren Cnare says she has a second substitute. She says hers is not a creepy ordinance. Thanks last speaker for helping fix this on an interim basis, like lapping of water, this comes and goes and covers and uncovers. Her amendment is as follows in 1 b) is should read "For all other zoning lots, the applicant shall choose, for the location of any additions, alterations or expansions of an existing building, a setback from the water that is not less than 75 feet or the setback of
existing building that is being added to altered or expanded. Several people second it.
Cnare says she recognized the creep factor, it was a close vote at plan, for existing buildings they did not want to punish them if just adding to or renovating the building, they are already there. Also, they are still subject to the conditional use, that is very important, this is not the only choice, not the final decision, it sets the mark to begin discussion. Planning staff recognize that setting this could hamper future development – thanks Sundquist for helping her. Not sure what is the right number, what is the line in the sand, 75 is a line, 75 is for smaller lots and not urban, she is comfortable with it, not a line in the sand for her, could debate it. She is not comfortable to do this for one property, if do that they could just go to Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a start for the ZCRAC discussion, something to work with, its protective and flexible, it recognizes we are urban with little commercial properties and opportunities for further development.
Clear supports and thanks Sundquist and Cnare, he is sensitive to creep factor experiences in own district and for the record, he's anti-creep
Mayor says "as are we all".
Rummel asks about why if they only need 25 feet are we allowing them 16. Rummel pauses to make sure it time to ask questions of staff.
Questions of Speakers
None.
Questions of Staff
Rummel asks again about Martens comments that what came out of previous substitute was 16 foot setback, how get to 16 when they only need 25 feet.
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director says he can try to answer that, he says it doesn’t set it at 35 feet, it establishes a minimum and that is the existing building, if that is 16 currently, then that is the minimum, through conditional use and through PUD it can be set further back than the minimum and given plans submitted for Edgewater, they would have a greater setback for large portions of the addition.
Rummel asks Kitty Noonan, Assistant City Attorney, about Ostlind's comments about the definition of "building" in the zoning law, he suggested not separate building but firewall would determine if it was a separate building and we could have up to 5 buildings connected, with this be separate buildings or one?
Noonan says she was not there when he spoke,[One of our top 20 paid employees in the city and she can't manage to do her job, great. I really need a some sort of symbol to let you all know when I'm rolling my eyes!] concern is about whether connected and put a number of buildings on the lake.
Rummel says that separation by firewall would be separate building according to Ostlind, would a new tower be a new building since all connections underground woudl be protected by firewalls, will the ordinance as written do what intended to do?
Noonan says she will let Tucker talk about what a building is.[You know, she should just go home, she's not adding much here so far.]
Matt Tucker, the Zoning Administrator, says that it is very complex, the law is written with flexibility to have separate occupancies for separate uses, can be connected but separate spaces, lots can be assembled for one development, very technical question and needs technical answer, flexibility is there to enable these types of projects to have an end result of a single larger plan for the site.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks about last 10 years, how many time apply has this ordinance applied to non-residential properties.
Tucker says that they talked about it several times with Murphy and they can’t recall any in last 10 years, water front in non-residential property.
Bidar-Sielaff asks how many properties this would affect.
Tucker says he did a quick analysis of city and generated some statistics, tho he says they can be misleading because he counts individual properties like home site that are 50 – 200 feet wide and university as well as one single lot from park to village of Shorewood. For institutional properties there are 13, but UW and state Mendota Mental Health are two large sites. For commercial, 12 lots, and of that, they are about 4/10 of lakeshore mileage. For parks and open spaces and conservancy, there are 70 lots or 22.5 miles of frontage. There are also 6 undeveloped properties, they think they are residential, but vacant. That's about 1/100th of lake frontage. [That's quite a bit of mileage of lakeshore that will be impacted, later they say there are 35 miles of lakeshore, so this ordinance change will impact at least 60% of the lakeshore footage.]
Bidar-Sielaff asks about fear that ordinance will increase commercial development on the lake – what does it take to convert and does this change that process at all
Murphy says that process to convert a residential property to non-residential zoning or use not allowed in current zoning would not change, in order to rezone, the Common Council needs to approve zoning ordinance, zoning map amendments, after plan commission recommendation, where they need to consider standards and have to look at adopted plans including comprehensive plan, the common council would decide based on those same standards and plans. Adoption of this ordinance would not impact that process. [I don't think anyone ever thought that it would, so I don't understand why that question was asked, the real question, is the part that he didn't answer, the part where we need to know if this will encourage more conversions. And I don't think we know, which is likely why he didn't answer. Only someone with a crystal ball that works can answer that other important question.]
Discussion/Motion to Refer
Verveer says that moves a substitute to re-refer the Commission on the Environment (COE) [It's actually the Committee on the Environment, that was one of the recent changes as Rhodes-Conway later points out in passing.] and Plan Commission. Seconded by Rhodes-Conway and Solomon.
Verveer says he appreciates Cnare's second substitute and thinks it is a big improvement over original version as introduced, his concern is that process of how they got there. For the committees that we attempted to send this to 2 of 4 were inappropriate according to city attorney. [Sorry, I have to editorialize here, I have never seen that happen before. I've never seen the Common Council ask for a recommendation from a committee and have the City Attorney tell them they can't get that opinion. Thereby essentially ruling them out of order out of the meeting process which he has NO AUTHORITY to do. This is just crazy. If the Council wants an opinion from a committee and they all agree, then they should be able to get it. This is a very, very, very bad precedent and gives the city attorney authority that he shouldn't have.]. They do have the input of the COE who unanimously voted to reject. They had concerns for the environment, but they also looked at the original, not the second substitute. He is hard pressed to support something as meaningful as this in scope when expert committee says unanimously that this is a mistake. Plan commission grappled with it, and they had a difficult time despite expertise and experience, it was a split vote, tie breaking vote by chair. The proposal that we got over the weekend as emailed is different than plan commission looked at and here we have another amendment at the 11th hour, its last minute, and could be a tremendous improvement but he is not there yet. Given the gravity of situation, the unanswered questions about harm beyond Edgewater and what it will do for lakes and environment, and given Judge Dykeman's testimony about Monona, he is concerns about does this do as intended, he would prefer, since there is no rush, he would prefer they have one more crack at it, as well as ZCRAC. Again, he believes that before reopen zoning code and potentially weaken environmental standards, they should not rush to judgment. He reads the statement of purpose from 28.04(19) that says:
Larry Palm appreciates the referral to COE, he was not there,[If Palm had been there and if he was appropriately doing his job, the Commission on the Environment could have had a fuller more complete discussion.] was not able to express his concerns, as a representative of the Captial Area Regional Planning Commission, they have denied many projects based on the distance from water and his concern is that City of Madison would be modifying its ordinance with quick action. Appreciates opportunity to talk to the committee to see if they can mitigate this, everyone can agree that most of what we do, any construction along lakes will have a negative impact the environment, that’s how it works. They will try, there are engineering solutions to mitigate our construction and development impact on lake quality. He is supportive of Edgewater as a whole, but does not want to set precedence that we can avoid, appreciates another opportunity for committee to review especially with potential changes and plan commission has some good ideas too.
Clear says that cannot support referral yet again. [Um, this ordinance was acted on in one meeting by all committees and sent back due to the deadline of the 23rd, it hasn't been re-referred once.] He says what Palm and Verveer are saying is a case against us ever amending anything. [My tolerance for pain is quickly eroding here, what the hell is he talking about? Referral is a case against amending ordinances? My head hurts every time this guy starts twisting logic.] We get the big bucks to make the decisions to move it forward, changes are good and proposal does not need yet another round of committees to make the changes. We are not losing the conditional use process, plan commission is still in place and can set appropriate setback. Second this is a temporary change, there will be a new zoning code and what the commercial setback will be we don’t know yet, even tho that was silent, and none of people who spoke tonight weighed in on that until suddenly the Edgewater propelled this before us.[Oh my aching head. I don't know anyone who is happy with the zoning code rewrite process, its been hard to follow, the committee hasn't gotten to discuss issues they wanted to discuss, the consultant is doing most of the work with little consultation with the committee, there are many changes and its hard to get your arms around and now ZCRAC isn't even meeting. Who the hell would have know when to show up and what to testify about, the committee members and plan commission members didn't even notice this issue at the time it came up. It's a terrible sign of things to come, I'm afraid we will be reliving this scenario many times with the Zoning Code Rewrite unless something different happens.] Time for us to vote on this and decide on if this is good policy.
Judy Compton not opposed to referral when something to refer, we can throw around words like protect the environment and wildlife, if argue against something we can throw as many words as we can throw. The current building on his site is detrimental to the environment, we have an old standard, the runoff pis bad now, through design we can correct the drainage, protect the water table and deal with waterfront issues, these have been left undealt with since 1900 [She's being really hard to follow, I didn't type what she said so much as what I think she meant, kinda.] Even properties on lakefront now, I listened to man from Monona, we had a lot of problems with dead fish and environmental issue with Lake Monona that had nothing to do with waterfront property, had to do with drainage, this property we can start to improve environment - neaten it up – actually do what we know how to do in 2010 whether building is improved or not, as far as zoning issues, bandied about for several years, this isn’t a last minute quick fix.[Head. Hurting. Again. What the hell is her basis for saying that? The plan commission decided soemthing on the 15th, the new language was sent on the 19th, and new language presented again on the 23rd. That sounds last minute to me and hasn't been vetted by any committee.] They are looking at one property, zoning code is changing, this won’t affect every property built on waterfront, we have a wise plan commission and UDC and people who are guardians of that are there and if they feel Edgewater doesn’t meet guidelines it won’t pass it. Clear was thoughtful,[Except that both is first ordinance change, and the second were both shot down because they didn't work.] Cnare did a good job to amend to take care of concerns of committee[That, I'll agree with] – don’t refer, move forward and deal with Edgewater.
Brian Solomon thanks Cnare, feels it is an improvement, closer to comfort, agrees with Verveer, torn does feel like if we are really doing this as a single issue for one project, we don’t know what broader implications and if not, what is the hurry? We have a Plan Commission that deadlocked and COE was unanimous against, it is up to us to decide on Edgewater and he's ok with overturning commission and not abide by every decision, but with a a deadlocked Plan Commission and a unanimous COE it is enough to say hold off, what’s the rush, referral makes sense. Significant difference in what looking at now, would give us more comfort but wants to hear from the committees and hear that it won’t create long term damages for one of our most vital resources. If you had asked me what the most significant issue in city was when I ran, on where the vast majority of resident agrees but we are all almost powerless to effect it is the quality of the lakes and if even there is even the slightest change to have a negative impact wouldn’t we want to get it right.[No kidding.]
Cnare says that she has a questions, but prefaces it with a statement that she'd like to be able to say she is new [I think that might have been a dig at a particular alder, you think? There was audible laughter from a few of the alders] but she doesn't know how the COE works, she asks if one of the alders on the committee could tell her, do they have standards, would they do research or a study that would help her decide what they need to do – she says she doesn’t know what they do.
Palm says he is the only alder and that they are not experts despite what Verveer said. They are citizens and have cross appointments with the Water Utility, Solid Waste and Board of Public Works. They look at issues, in his many years on the committee haven’t dealt with land use issues, prior to this they were working on the plastic bag ordinance, road salt, air quality due to coal plants. When you talk about expert notions, could ask for a more assistance from Plan Commission. If they did a report, that could be a time issue, he doesn’t want to hold back the project from moving forward, 3/15 is next meeting, timeline would be for us to come back quickly, just a discussion and staff or consultant input – not provide true assessment of issues in short time not able to be done.
Bidar-Sielaff says that she was on COE for Public Health when she was a citizen committee member, says that during her time there, no discussion of land use and zoning and she was not an expert. There are a variety of members on the committee – went to the meeting as attended most, and very little discussion about the item, did not foresee a referral will get much feedback, not a clear discussion about whether this impacts the lakes , not in depth discussion of the ordinance, they just said why fix something not broken. [Here's where and alder doing their job would step in and tell the commission what the issues are even giving the pros and the cons so that the committee can make an informed decision. Staff could do the same thing.] She says that Sundquist just said ordinance is not good, he is an expert, [Wow. Plan Commission = experts. Committee on Environment = schmucks?]
has flaws that could create more issues if more non-residential development comes forth. [Sorry, I don't understand my notes, so I missed some here, she was making sense, my notes do not.] She says it is not unusual to figure out when something comes up that we have problems, that is how we see problems with the ordinance and then fix them. Issue are very varied, towing, what we had in place was not meeting reality of our environment. There is an opportunity for number of kicks at cat to see what the proposal would look like, thanks Cnare and not foresee much change in discussion if refer again. Could seek more input, but having listened to discussion doesn’t see much change in the discussion, doesn’t see much value in that.
Compton asks Tucker how many feet do we have on our lakes that is commercial.
Tucker takes a moment, .4 miles of lake frontage, currently commercial.
Compton asks how many miles?
Tucker says 35 miles.
Compton says that a lot of people want to protect and beautify historic homes but every time it rains asbestos and lead flows into our lakes, can we do anything to change that? [Oh, wow. Seriously? I'm pretty sure my 1910 house isn't washing lead and asbestos into the lake. Is yours?]
They could say that every house on lake has to be pristine pure, they are destroying our environment, if their roof pitches are not correct and lawn not manicured,[Oh dear, does she realize what she is saying?] they are jeopardizing our environment and lakes with property that isn't new. Again going to say it, we have the ability to set guidelines on development of the building that will ensure that the property for generations to come will protect environment, enhance it, not continue to run sludge and ? to our lakes. If it (Edgewater) is too tall, too short, whatever, pass it and go on so intelligent committees have something to work with, will vote for it, will go forward wants to see it move and make something positive out of it.
Steve King says that this is another referral, they discredited idea that this should go back to COE. Plan Commission is very busy, language is superior to what Sundquist voted for and like them to dedicate time to Edgewater project itself, already deliberated this for a long time, this issue at hand is better, move this part forward and move on to project.
Rummel says that this is either about Edgewater or not, if its about Edgewater then might work, if not about Edgewater then of the 12 commercial props 2 are in district 6, Elks and Machinery Row is right at the lake, so right away, one could be in play any time, it worries her, can see why a bigger issue. We are moving positively on Edgewater and let this one go, I understand need to say moving, we are moving and hope that you realize that this existing setback isn’t the answer, this is answer for Edgewater, not policy, her Neighborhood Association is against it, people who didn't care about the Edgewater were alarmed when they heard about htis, this has awakened other people who care about our lakes, Edgewater is not on the table now, why not refer, put it all in one package.
Satya Rhodes-Conway says that her strongest preference is to refer to ZCRAC where it belongs, and she says she will not give you the full version of the rant about how upset she is that they did not discuss this, and they won’t reconvene and they will never discuss this issue, but honestly we are talking about rewrite our zoning code, they committee was appointed to do that cuz they are knowledgeable and not letting them talk about it is horrifying. COE can talk about more, Plan Commission can and we can, note is who should be talking about it, that is outside of where we should be talking about it, she is upset about it, she has no options to vote the way she wants to, supports referral generally, but important for committee to deal with rewrite issues get to talk about zoning rewrite issues. [She should have given them the full rant, this is absurd. The committee was appointed to advise the council, they should let them do their jobs and the chair should call a meeting. At this point, alders, neighborhoods and developers are all unhappy with the process.]
Cnare offers amendment, she wants it just referred to the Plan Commission.
Verveer says that is friendly and there are no objections.
Michael Schumacher says as a plan commission member, we had a debate, it was a split vote, it was more a discussion of politics than substance, taking back to plan commission will not add more value, this has to end up with this body and be decided by this body.
Mayor getting briefing on Roberts Rules and procedure from the City Attorney. He announces the first vote is just to only refer to plan commission.
Clear says the timing issue is that UDC and Plan want the Council to determine the setback for the project and this ordinance amendment would do that and get them out of the round robin of referral to referrals.
The motion passes unanimously to only refer to plan.
Then they do a roll call on that:
AYE: Solomon, Verveer, Kerr, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Cnare
NO: Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, King, Maniaci, Sanborn
Fails, 12-8.
Back to Cnare Substitute Motion
Kerr says that given the last vote, she has a feeling not on prevailing side of the next one, feels strongly about this, voted against at Plan Commission and some of you have a couple motivations to support this, one is that belief that we need to make some decision in some dimension of the decision making process, understands that, others may also feel this is an improvement from environmental perspective, she respects that, she is not an environmental expert, but dhe doesn't believe she has enough info to make that judgement, won’t support it. This is a work around, it is tailored to allow the Edgewater to avoid review by the Zoning Board of Appeals that would have been required under existing laws to that apply to all properties. This establishes a two tier development process along the lake, allows Edgewater to circumvent our laws, creates a dynamic to make our develop processes even less predictable, that is what we get criticized for. If a developer came in with 10 acres and wanted to do a shopping center and its just an ordinary run of mill project and the Wisconsin State Journal is not editorializing about it, it just a regular project and they go to plan staff and they say it is a problem cuz it needs a change to the comprehensive plan, it doesn’t have heat of the Edgewater. What happens when the developer turns to you and says you did for Edgewater and why are they special, we are setting ourselves up for that, she urges you to vote it down, our minds are made up coming in I know but feels strongly about it. She also feels strongly that this is not fair, people in her district who apply for variances and sometimes get turned down, they are good neighbors who pay taxes, volunteers in community and got turned down. We want to govern by applying laws even handedly from my neighbor to biggest developer in town with biggest project. She knows Edgewater has merit, wants good to come out of it, you are saying to mine and maybe your constituents that they are treated differently than Edgewater and that is unsustainable and wrong way to go, she's not trying to put people on the spot, but she feels as strongly about this as anything. [Julia gets an A!!!! I'm not kidding, I'd hate to be a plan commissioner or alder with alot of development after this, everyone will be expecting laws to change to fit their project. It's going to be awful.]
Clear explains genesis of the change was bringing forward change in new zoning code, they thought it would pass before the Edgewater came forward [No one in their right mind thought that!]and he says there was alot of discussion about timetable that zoning code was on and if it would be approved before this came before us and make the zoning appeal a moot point and when became apparent wouldn’t that is when he moved it forward, not a double standard, was going to be and could have been the law we would all be operating under, the new zoning code has different residential and commercial rules.
Mayor asks Cnare to repeat her amendment.
Rummel, asks Tucker about what Clear said, says she has heard both sides, were they going to address this or not in the zoning code, is what Clear said correct, or was it not discussed.[Good for Rummel for not letting that go, staff has been clear that CLEAR is wrong.]
Tucker says ZCRAC did not spend time talking bout commercial or non-residential development, they spent time on residential.
Rummel says that under the ZCRAC version they would still have to go to ZBA right?
Tucker says yes.
Compton asks what DNR recommended set back is?
Murphy says in unincorporated areas and lands annexed after 1982 its 75. For those annexed prior there is not a DNR defined setback, municipality has to determine mechanism to determine waht it should be.
Compton says less that 75 allowed?
Murphy says yes.
Compton says that if they don't have the will or intelligence to turn down development or ask for more than asked from more before us, sorry to hear it, this is an intelligent body, we will look at every proposal independently, if you have a kid and they say "but you let so and so do somethign" you explain to them why this is different if you have to say no. They won’t say yes to every proposals just cuz doing what doing tonight, we need more credit than that.
Bidar-Sielaff agrees that on ZCRAC comment of Rhodes-Conway. Clarifies the amendment of Cnare, Cnare clarifies for her.
Roll call
AYE: Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, King, Maniaci, Sanborn.
NO: Solomon, Verveer, Kerr, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
THE REST OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
#5 – Maple Grove development, they recess the public hearing until March 3rd.
Confirmation hearing of Rob Philips - no questions, vote voice unanimous.
Ooops, wait, there was not motion, Bruer makes the motion, someone seconds, it passes.
RECONSIDERATION OF #73, BOOTING PEOPLE OFF COMMITTEES
Someone moves reconsideration, someone seconds, it passes.
Mayor explains that removes people from committees and commissioners, David Tolmie of TPC did file paper work.
Move to adopt, no discussion passes.
ALDERS LEAVE
After the Edgewater, Palm and Maniaci leave.
MADISUN
Bruer moves adoption.
Jed Sanborn thinks this is irresponsible spending of money by federal government and city. Its solar power, already has billions in direct subsidies and more tax credits for business and individutals. $250,000 of our money in capital budget, $431,000 from feds at time when they face fiscal crisis, irresponsible, say no thank you to federal government.
Motion passes without further debate.
CANNONBALL BIKE PATH, PHASE 3
Pham-Remmele excluded to ask questions when read that, says that we agree to pay additional higher cost for the project, so would Phillips explain why lower and now 25K more.
Phillips says that they had a change in scope cuz traffic report required by DOT not required or newly required at time contract was out for RFP, resolution is here so they are transparent, initial project was $130,000, not $170,000 could have been done with an amendment to contract, but chose to to this route to get new contract, might have concerns but his belief is that the cost is extremely reasonable, budget for bridge is 3.2M for construction of bridge, would not be uncommon for project of this magnitude in 10% design so $320,000 so they were surprised it came in as low as it did and the price of $170,000 is in his opinion a very reasonable.
Pham-Remmele says appreciates that, but surprised, when May 21 2009 it was $130,000 and now accelerate design and pay extra, adding on, is it now we are within he $170K or will they be more hidden costs later, she wonders if $25K suddenly, have to find local funds to pay and $25K is a big amount of money yes when talking $1M for bridges, but the way she looks at the budget, 25K more since May and comfortable we just pay that, she feels uncomfortable.
Phillips appreciates that, consultant would not do it with the scope changes we id’d and he’s not pleased with the process either or time that has transpired but again, its $170K and that’s a fair price to complete the work. Scope changes occur and the way they approach it they define scope best they can and anticipate potential items that might come about and they are complex and occasionally there are changes of scope, can’t guarantee no changes, that happens form time to time but comfortable because it is a very reasonable price to complete these design services.
Pham Remm asks were 25K is found, where does it come from?
Phillips says that he needs to look.
Pham Remmele says saw it and has to ask, 25k here and there and it adds up and many times things like this on consent and people not even aware of that, not opposing it, knows good work, but wants some clarification and some kind of thinking about this so it doesn’t happen again in the future.
Phillips says funds available.
Pham-Remmele aks how the funds are suddenly available, if not needed for this what happened to that?
Phillips says the funds are in the in bike path account, not earmarked for a particular location.
Pham-Remmele says hard to determine how money is allocated, a few measly thousand dollars for district took her 3 years to get.
Bruer interrups and asks if the money was unanticipated because of state requirements which expanded the scope?
Phillips says yes, changes in scope – change is for state and federal funds that required more cost to the project.
Bruer says dollars in bike path account and budget line item and not taking away from other projects, additional funds from the bike path account approved by the council, right?
Phillips says yes
Pham-Remmele says mystery to her, how much re we putting in bike path account as of now?
Phillips doesn't understand her question.
Pham-Remmele asks how much money in bike path account, what was currently in the account?
Bruer tries to interpret for her, tells her Rob is looking, tells Rob what her qeustion is.
Philips says $830,000 for cannonball, some for the construction of the path.
Phillips say that Eng other budget is $5.9M but includes sidewalks and some other miscellaneous items, would take him a minute to total it up.
Pham-Remmele asks if this is tax money or stimulus money.
Phillips says combination of funding sources.
Pham-Remmele says she will wait for exact number.
Mayor suggests they get it to her in an email
Brasser says bikeways are $610,000 borrowed and separate line for Cannonball bike trail of $830,000 of that $680,000 is borrowed and rest is from water utility for utility work on the project.
Pham-Remmele asks if that could be sent to her on email, would like to look at it and appreciates it much.
Schumacher says welcome to Phillips. Asks Brasser and Phillips if Pham-Remmele contacted you before the meeting about this?
They both say no.
Motion to adopt passes.
STANDARD PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS CONTRACT LANGUAGE - FOR THE TREES!
79 – Rummel wants alders to know that this includes the tree preservation policy. Says Skidmore and Palm might know that, but wants others to know. Thanks Phillips and Parks staff. Now forester and engineering will review trees on street construction and assess what trees impact will be, contractor will have to sign that they understand new policy, forester will oversee root cutting, better notification to property owners and fines if trees are damaged, soon will be another ordinance to deal with other issues. She is excited about this.
Verveer also thanks Rummel for leadership and advocacy, both Rummel and he have districts that were victims of street reconstructions with catastrophic tree losses, supports and thanks staff in engineering and parks and says this is a first step to avoid catastrophes we have experienced with reconstructions.
INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Rhodes-Conway introduces the Wilco resolution, "because the Mayor dropped the ball".
Clear intorduces a resolution to apply for Google Fiber. Asks who wants to sponsor, everyone does, and because there were no objections everyone is a sponsor.
And with that, at 8:45, they adjourn.
Clear wishes Schmidt happy birthday on Friday.
Read more!
GETTING STARTED
They start 12 minutes late. I don't know why it is so hard to get started on time.
There is a group of kids here from Glendale School and there are lots of people milling around. It was fun to hear the principal Mickey Buhl explain the Edgewater project to the kids and have Compton explain what city government does.
Eventually, when they get the meeting started, the clerk takes the roll call and everyone is here.
Mayor announces that Santiago David Mendoza was born this morning. (Mario Mendoza is a member of the Mayor's staff.
Tim Bruer moves to suspend the rules so they can take items out of order and introduce items from the floor.
HONORING GLENDALE SCHOOL KIDS
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz reads the resolution.
Mickey Buhl says thanks, happy to get the kids here to see this, the machinery of democracy you might take for granted, he thanks the staff at Glendale (librarian and art teacher) and James Wautrous Gallery at Overture. Says the art teacher found out about the project the first week she was there. Pat Dillon here also. He says he was thrilled because if you went in the classroom when kids were working, you'd see the excitement you’d want to see each and every day. He says he wants to say publicly that Glendale is the best school he’s ever worked for.
The Council watches a short video on the project.
MOVING ON
That took nearly 25 minutes with the delayed start and honoring the kids.
There are no communications or petitions.
CONSENT AGENDA
(sorry, no links this morning, will need to look here if you want to see the links)
Tim Bruer reads off the changes first.
Item 59 (Bike Path Improvements on Verona Road by Cub Foods) needs an editorial change, should read district 10.
67 (1965 Ordinance Change for Edgewater) will be re-referred.
79 (Standard Specifications for Public Works Projects) is for adoption
80 (Grant for Dane County Parent Council) is withdrawn
9 (Removing someone from Allied Drive Task Force due to lack of attendance) & 26 (Grant for wildlife habitat restoration at Olin-Turville Park) they will record a unanimous vote unless there are objections, also 123 (Authorizing the Mayor to continue legal proceedings against Dane County over the 911 Center) on the addendum says Bruer.
They separate items 20 (MadiSun Grant), 72 (Appeal of Landmarks decision on the Edgewater)
Marsha Rummel takes off item 79 (Public Works Contract language)
Mark Clear says 72 does not need to be separated, just re-refer. There are no objections to that.
Thuy Pham-Remmele removes item 65 (Cannonball Run bikepath contract adjustments) for questions.
Mayor says number 123 (Dane County lawsuit) doesn't need a 2/3 vote.
Clear says 123 does need a extra-majority vote because it is a late item.
There are no objections to recording an unanimous vote on 9, 26 and 123.
[Really people, not a single comment or discussion on the spat between Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and County Executive Kathleen Falk? You authorized the continued lawsuit without a question. I wonder if they knew what they were voting on since it was a late item. It's also funny that the late information they received didn't mention that it was an item on the agenda for that evening. I wonder if anyone had time to even review the information?]
Pham-Remmele abstains on items 7 & 8 (committee appointments).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item 2 (Edgewater PUD) is recessed and referred to a future meeting, which wasn't indicated which one.
Item 3 – North and South Broom St resurfacing – Bruer moves adoption, and someone seconded.
Mike Verveer has a substitute, to recess and refer, says that there was an issue with the mailing to some condo owners, Board of Public Works had 2 public hearings and second meeting notice said the council meeting was the March 2nd meeting – he and city engineer recommend referral. That passes on a unanimous voice vote.
WATERFRONT SETBACK ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR EDGEWATER
Public Testimony
[Note, as far as I know, not one single person has appeared in support of this ordinance change. Makes sense, who's going to show up and say, yes, we need dirtier lakes! Build more and closer to the lakes!]
Pete Ostlind is in opposition, speaking on his own behalf. He says he has spoken to plan commission before, but this change is bad public policy to separate commercial and residential. Some of the details of the proposed changes are also problematic. He says the ordinance is not based on zoning, but principal use. He says that it could be residentially zoned and have commercial uses. He also pointed out that this would apply to properties beyond commercial uses. He also says that the definition of zoning lot is problematic, there could be a series of parcels that are added on to. He says this ordinance was supposed to be about a few properties, but with the text, those properties could be expanded as Edgewater has done, he says there is a broader impact than initially conceived. He also says that lots can have more than one principal buildings on a lot, that could also could be a problem. He says the definition of a building is also a problem because they could be two buildings if portions of a structure are separated by a firewall. With that definition, the Edgewater tower is a separate building, and there are two buildings now, and if connected to parking garage and connected to NGL (National Guardian Life), there could be 5 buildings connected and one is principal buildings, NGL could be expanded to lakefront. Not clear that was the intention even if they wanted to only impact one site. Wording is open to problematic use. Suggests they look closely at wording and make sure only does what is intended instead of something broader. [Wow, that was a lot of issues and I hadn't heard most of them before.]
Ledell Zellers representing only herself, in opposition. Wants to emphasize what Pete Ostlind said, is this really doing what you want it to do? Additionally it does impact on the lakes, this is a long standing ordinance you are attempting to change, it is limited to developments on the waterfront. The Edgewater tower is built quite close to lake. In the rest of Wisconsin, the minimum is 75 feet in cities if annexed after 1982, this was part of the city prior to that law. It does matter how close to bodies of water development occurs, disappointed that Madison is not environmentally forward thinking and not following best practices. The state says how close you build to lake is important cuz the impacts operate on a cumulative level. Laws are in place to protect lake water quality, aquatic habitat and beauty. She understands that there is mitigation that can take place and will help, but increase of buildings over time will negatively impact the lakes. This change is better than originally introduced, but will still put development pressure on the property to change residential to commercial. Nothing will preclude this ordinance from kicking in on residentially zoned properties, the National Guardian Life property is for sale, all that needs to happen is that it could be connected by underground parking or a walkway and they can build an addition, unless the firewall language is accurate and then this ordinance will not impact the Edgewater tower. She says that given this land is likely to be sold to Hammes Company if this all goes through, the value of land will be greatly increased if the ordinance goes through, and its inevitable that it will encroach on the lake. Some say conditional use will control development close to lakes, but that is not nearly as effective as is a clearly required setback, please protect quality of lakes and beauty of shoreline.
Charles Dykeman lives in Monona and wants to share with you the City of Monona experience. He is speaking only for himself, he's on the board of Yahara Lakes Association and Wisconsin Association of Lake, he is on the legislative committee on both organizaitnos and is fortunate to understand benefits of the shoreline zoning and the science behind benefits of aquatic (missed it ??). In Monona has discovered once you allow it, there is no going back, without using eminent domain. Peter McKeever (an alder) decided that the meander line they were using to determine the setback was arbitrary because it had no relation to the shore, he proposed an amendment to use shoreline as starting point. Plan Commission heard the proposal and concluded that while their current process was arbitrary and required variances, the proposed change was worse, it moved the de facto building line that offers protections of view. Their Zoning Board of Appeals committee allowed changes it if it did not block views of the neighbors, the gave right them a right as a matter of law. McKeever asked for it to be shelved, still has its de facto building line. He says this ordinance will start a process of creep and it will be a matter of right and it will bock neighbors view and they will have to add on or construct new. There are several ways to achieved result you want, he heard them says there were several ways for the project to process, you should have an amendment that applies only to project at hand and then decide if Edgewater meets goals of City of Madison.
Fred Mohs says last night he watched Target, there were no negative appearances by neighborhood. It was a long process, this is how the process should work said Schmidt, long and the project is better cuz of neighborhood. He is envious, they were able to work with the developer. We are estranged from the developer and are as surprised as sanyone when a new project shows up at the last minute at Urban Design Commission. Can’t we sit down in good faith and try to reach consensus with some supervision by the planning department. There is no logic for difference in setback requirements between residential and commercial, creep is correct, inevitable results is increase in value of commercial properties. Is this a good idea? No, but if you could reach consensus on what this project doing, a lot of this would be easier. You could pass it and repeal it, name the property specifically or spot zone it. He is not saying there is no way that we could support modifying what is the lakefront setback for this property with the right project, that is not out of the question. Normally that is done through teh Zoning Board of Appeals. He says that like Target, once they agree on some things, it gets easy, we should work harder there. This isn’t the right approach, he admires Cnare for trying, but this doesn’t work well, but at least you tried. He is inviting the developer and plan to sit down and put some hard work in and with a lot of issues stirring up lately – this is hard to do.
Gene Devitt – very short (two or three sentences), missed it, I was playing with my recorder, sorry.
Martens not in favor of the Edgwater project in its current form, trying to separate that for now and speak to the issue. This would loosen lakefront setbacks instead of tighten it at a time when the lakes are in trouble with utrification, sedimentation. The DNR recognized it and is tightening up standards in our state. They have recognized that the urban lakes are in the worst trouble and yet we are loosening the standards for this project. I appears this is about one proterty and if it is, this is worse than spot zoning, this is spot legislation. The ordinance as crafted, grants more than necessary for the one property what we know this is not about. That property only needs 25 or 30 setback, this allows 16, by decreasing cutting down potential for bike paths, walkways and overall shoreline protection. The shoreline is the most sensitive part of the project and this encroaches on that worst part. This applies to all districts other than residential, the property this is not about is commercial. He says that they should limit the zoning classifications that it applies to. As Ostlind pointed out, ordinance as written is loosely crafted and has lots of loop holes. He is an architect and has played the role of developer and when in that role you are trying to maximize your own gains, you look hard for loopholes, they are always there somewhere or another and it would appear this ordinance crafted in haste and would allow loopholes, lets tighten it up somehow even if for just one property, would recommend referral, run it through zoning experts and ZCRAC (Zoning Code Rewrite Advisory Committee), perhaps already has been but not look like it in current form.
Scott Thornton – president of Marquette Neighborhood Assocaiton, not a whole lot to add about the environmental impact of this broad change to the zoning code as it relates to the shoreline setback. Primarily that is the concern of his neighborhood association. What would it mean in their neighborhood? They have commercial properties on Lake Monona that could be affected. Properties could be creeping into residential and historic districe. And know what some people think of historic districts, and that won’t save these properties so if you allow commercial properties to build randomly close, without looking at it closely, parcel by parcel, project by project setting bad percent for city, that is the neighborhoods concerns.
Fae Dremock (I missed a bit of the beginning) - We have a problem in this area, our lakes are not well protected. The surface water is not well protected, the aquifer is not well protected. And we are looking at a regressive change to allow for commercial development. This should not be done without environmental impact studies. But over and above that, the discussion at plan commission was to allow the Edgewater to develop up to 16 feet of the shoreline. The change in the ordinance, creep was not discussed, but supported by sponsor, this has implications beyond that and should be further discussed.
Eric Sundquist – neither in support or opposition – says he's a plan commission member, wants to bring the perspective of one member. Some of what he will say is objective facts some opinion, he says that issue of the existing ordinance was that it clearly has some problems. In the zoning rewrite process has gotten to point where there is a hole in it for non-residential setback, they were not doing away with it, just not addressed. This project created an urgency, problem is that setbacks are random in non-residential areas, if you average it out and come up with number there is an issue of creep if average over time. The average goes down and gets more development over time – not noticeable in commercial, but they see it in residential areas. Another issue is that the ordinance addressed principal structures, not pavement and impermeable surfaces, that is what they were looking at at the zoning rewrite committee and they wanted to address lot coverage and vegetation, that is where they were, but not ready yet. There is a lot of work to be done, but the hotel project came and we had to deal with it. Some plan commissioners thought they should stick with the current regime, not change for one project, majority or himself thought it was reasonable if address irrationality in current system and be at least as protective of lakes as now, that is what their version did but it needed some work. It drew a line in the sand for existing buildings, drew a line but couldn’t go further, those with deep setback couldn’t move up until ZRAC was done. He supported it, but he has an issue with new version cuz it gives the weaker of two standards, existing or average whatever is last. Doesn’t meet his second reason for supporting the ordinance, not as protective as it is now, might be fine to amend the ordinance, they need a line in the sand to avoid creep and give a nod toward where going with ZCRAC with protection along the lake, maybe 75 feet should be the line. Should also have limit on size, perhaps 20% of linear lakefront, he is neither for or against, just some thoughts for you to consider. Thank you.
38 registrants in support, 1 in opposition
[Labor was here, the guys were busy telling dirty jokes as I was getting money out of the ATM in the lobby, they were instructed to just stay a little while and they could be out of there by 6:45. By the time the issue came up, there may have been 3 or 4 supporters left. I'd be interested to see the registration forms. Amy Supple was also there an left, I'm guessing they had people from Hammes register as well, but not stick around. As I said earlier, if there is so much support, why does no one actually come forward and speak about why they support it?]
Motion/Substitute Motion
Clear moves adoption, it's seconded.
Lauren Cnare says she has a second substitute. She says hers is not a creepy ordinance. Thanks last speaker for helping fix this on an interim basis, like lapping of water, this comes and goes and covers and uncovers. Her amendment is as follows in 1 b) is should read "For all other zoning lots, the applicant shall choose, for the location of any additions, alterations or expansions of an existing building, a setback from the water that is not less than 75 feet or the setback of
existing building that is being added to altered or expanded. Several people second it.
Cnare says she recognized the creep factor, it was a close vote at plan, for existing buildings they did not want to punish them if just adding to or renovating the building, they are already there. Also, they are still subject to the conditional use, that is very important, this is not the only choice, not the final decision, it sets the mark to begin discussion. Planning staff recognize that setting this could hamper future development – thanks Sundquist for helping her. Not sure what is the right number, what is the line in the sand, 75 is a line, 75 is for smaller lots and not urban, she is comfortable with it, not a line in the sand for her, could debate it. She is not comfortable to do this for one property, if do that they could just go to Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a start for the ZCRAC discussion, something to work with, its protective and flexible, it recognizes we are urban with little commercial properties and opportunities for further development.
Clear supports and thanks Sundquist and Cnare, he is sensitive to creep factor experiences in own district and for the record, he's anti-creep
Mayor says "as are we all".
Rummel asks about why if they only need 25 feet are we allowing them 16. Rummel pauses to make sure it time to ask questions of staff.
Questions of Speakers
None.
Questions of Staff
Rummel asks again about Martens comments that what came out of previous substitute was 16 foot setback, how get to 16 when they only need 25 feet.
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director says he can try to answer that, he says it doesn’t set it at 35 feet, it establishes a minimum and that is the existing building, if that is 16 currently, then that is the minimum, through conditional use and through PUD it can be set further back than the minimum and given plans submitted for Edgewater, they would have a greater setback for large portions of the addition.
Rummel asks Kitty Noonan, Assistant City Attorney, about Ostlind's comments about the definition of "building" in the zoning law, he suggested not separate building but firewall would determine if it was a separate building and we could have up to 5 buildings connected, with this be separate buildings or one?
Noonan says she was not there when he spoke,[One of our top 20 paid employees in the city and she can't manage to do her job, great. I really need a some sort of symbol to let you all know when I'm rolling my eyes!] concern is about whether connected and put a number of buildings on the lake.
Rummel says that separation by firewall would be separate building according to Ostlind, would a new tower be a new building since all connections underground woudl be protected by firewalls, will the ordinance as written do what intended to do?
Noonan says she will let Tucker talk about what a building is.[You know, she should just go home, she's not adding much here so far.]
Matt Tucker, the Zoning Administrator, says that it is very complex, the law is written with flexibility to have separate occupancies for separate uses, can be connected but separate spaces, lots can be assembled for one development, very technical question and needs technical answer, flexibility is there to enable these types of projects to have an end result of a single larger plan for the site.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks about last 10 years, how many time apply has this ordinance applied to non-residential properties.
Tucker says that they talked about it several times with Murphy and they can’t recall any in last 10 years, water front in non-residential property.
Bidar-Sielaff asks how many properties this would affect.
Tucker says he did a quick analysis of city and generated some statistics, tho he says they can be misleading because he counts individual properties like home site that are 50 – 200 feet wide and university as well as one single lot from park to village of Shorewood. For institutional properties there are 13, but UW and state Mendota Mental Health are two large sites. For commercial, 12 lots, and of that, they are about 4/10 of lakeshore mileage. For parks and open spaces and conservancy, there are 70 lots or 22.5 miles of frontage. There are also 6 undeveloped properties, they think they are residential, but vacant. That's about 1/100th of lake frontage. [That's quite a bit of mileage of lakeshore that will be impacted, later they say there are 35 miles of lakeshore, so this ordinance change will impact at least 60% of the lakeshore footage.]
Bidar-Sielaff asks about fear that ordinance will increase commercial development on the lake – what does it take to convert and does this change that process at all
Murphy says that process to convert a residential property to non-residential zoning or use not allowed in current zoning would not change, in order to rezone, the Common Council needs to approve zoning ordinance, zoning map amendments, after plan commission recommendation, where they need to consider standards and have to look at adopted plans including comprehensive plan, the common council would decide based on those same standards and plans. Adoption of this ordinance would not impact that process. [I don't think anyone ever thought that it would, so I don't understand why that question was asked, the real question, is the part that he didn't answer, the part where we need to know if this will encourage more conversions. And I don't think we know, which is likely why he didn't answer. Only someone with a crystal ball that works can answer that other important question.]
Discussion/Motion to Refer
Verveer says that moves a substitute to re-refer the Commission on the Environment (COE) [It's actually the Committee on the Environment, that was one of the recent changes as Rhodes-Conway later points out in passing.] and Plan Commission. Seconded by Rhodes-Conway and Solomon.
Verveer says he appreciates Cnare's second substitute and thinks it is a big improvement over original version as introduced, his concern is that process of how they got there. For the committees that we attempted to send this to 2 of 4 were inappropriate according to city attorney. [Sorry, I have to editorialize here, I have never seen that happen before. I've never seen the Common Council ask for a recommendation from a committee and have the City Attorney tell them they can't get that opinion. Thereby essentially ruling them out of order out of the meeting process which he has NO AUTHORITY to do. This is just crazy. If the Council wants an opinion from a committee and they all agree, then they should be able to get it. This is a very, very, very bad precedent and gives the city attorney authority that he shouldn't have.]. They do have the input of the COE who unanimously voted to reject. They had concerns for the environment, but they also looked at the original, not the second substitute. He is hard pressed to support something as meaningful as this in scope when expert committee says unanimously that this is a mistake. Plan commission grappled with it, and they had a difficult time despite expertise and experience, it was a split vote, tie breaking vote by chair. The proposal that we got over the weekend as emailed is different than plan commission looked at and here we have another amendment at the 11th hour, its last minute, and could be a tremendous improvement but he is not there yet. Given the gravity of situation, the unanswered questions about harm beyond Edgewater and what it will do for lakes and environment, and given Judge Dykeman's testimony about Monona, he is concerns about does this do as intended, he would prefer, since there is no rush, he would prefer they have one more crack at it, as well as ZCRAC. Again, he believes that before reopen zoning code and potentially weaken environmental standards, they should not rush to judgment. He reads the statement of purpose from 28.04(19) that says:
This subsection is established to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions, prevent and control water pollution, protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life by controlling building sites, the placement of structures and land users and reserving shore cover and natural beauty for all waterfront and shoreland development.He says it sounds like a big deal to him, I realize really want to give Hammes something to show moving forward, the sponsors have been very up front, especially Clear, this is about keeping them from going to the Zoning Board of Appeals, they are worried about the legal standards and it being appealable to circuit court, and he appreciates the transparency, but given the very positive movement of late for the Edgewater proposal especially in the last several days, there is a new timeline with new PUD GDP SIP process due to the new footprint, and given new timeline that puts the council meeting in April, why not ask Plan Commission and COE to take one more look. It won’t delay the Edgewater, urges them to let expert committees take another look, would feel more comfortable if COE says it will not do undue harm, support referral, it'll come back in the near future. [I admire the way Verveer can say things that I would say, but when he says them, they sound so nice. I love that he thanks Clear for being transparent about his motives to help the Edgewater project and avoid ZBA and the courts as it is hardly admirable what is going on here.]
Larry Palm appreciates the referral to COE, he was not there,[If Palm had been there and if he was appropriately doing his job, the Commission on the Environment could have had a fuller more complete discussion.] was not able to express his concerns, as a representative of the Captial Area Regional Planning Commission, they have denied many projects based on the distance from water and his concern is that City of Madison would be modifying its ordinance with quick action. Appreciates opportunity to talk to the committee to see if they can mitigate this, everyone can agree that most of what we do, any construction along lakes will have a negative impact the environment, that’s how it works. They will try, there are engineering solutions to mitigate our construction and development impact on lake quality. He is supportive of Edgewater as a whole, but does not want to set precedence that we can avoid, appreciates another opportunity for committee to review especially with potential changes and plan commission has some good ideas too.
Clear says that cannot support referral yet again. [Um, this ordinance was acted on in one meeting by all committees and sent back due to the deadline of the 23rd, it hasn't been re-referred once.] He says what Palm and Verveer are saying is a case against us ever amending anything. [My tolerance for pain is quickly eroding here, what the hell is he talking about? Referral is a case against amending ordinances? My head hurts every time this guy starts twisting logic.] We get the big bucks to make the decisions to move it forward, changes are good and proposal does not need yet another round of committees to make the changes. We are not losing the conditional use process, plan commission is still in place and can set appropriate setback. Second this is a temporary change, there will be a new zoning code and what the commercial setback will be we don’t know yet, even tho that was silent, and none of people who spoke tonight weighed in on that until suddenly the Edgewater propelled this before us.[Oh my aching head. I don't know anyone who is happy with the zoning code rewrite process, its been hard to follow, the committee hasn't gotten to discuss issues they wanted to discuss, the consultant is doing most of the work with little consultation with the committee, there are many changes and its hard to get your arms around and now ZCRAC isn't even meeting. Who the hell would have know when to show up and what to testify about, the committee members and plan commission members didn't even notice this issue at the time it came up. It's a terrible sign of things to come, I'm afraid we will be reliving this scenario many times with the Zoning Code Rewrite unless something different happens.] Time for us to vote on this and decide on if this is good policy.
Judy Compton not opposed to referral when something to refer, we can throw around words like protect the environment and wildlife, if argue against something we can throw as many words as we can throw. The current building on his site is detrimental to the environment, we have an old standard, the runoff pis bad now, through design we can correct the drainage, protect the water table and deal with waterfront issues, these have been left undealt with since 1900 [She's being really hard to follow, I didn't type what she said so much as what I think she meant, kinda.] Even properties on lakefront now, I listened to man from Monona, we had a lot of problems with dead fish and environmental issue with Lake Monona that had nothing to do with waterfront property, had to do with drainage, this property we can start to improve environment - neaten it up – actually do what we know how to do in 2010 whether building is improved or not, as far as zoning issues, bandied about for several years, this isn’t a last minute quick fix.[Head. Hurting. Again. What the hell is her basis for saying that? The plan commission decided soemthing on the 15th, the new language was sent on the 19th, and new language presented again on the 23rd. That sounds last minute to me and hasn't been vetted by any committee.] They are looking at one property, zoning code is changing, this won’t affect every property built on waterfront, we have a wise plan commission and UDC and people who are guardians of that are there and if they feel Edgewater doesn’t meet guidelines it won’t pass it. Clear was thoughtful,[Except that both is first ordinance change, and the second were both shot down because they didn't work.] Cnare did a good job to amend to take care of concerns of committee[That, I'll agree with] – don’t refer, move forward and deal with Edgewater.
Brian Solomon thanks Cnare, feels it is an improvement, closer to comfort, agrees with Verveer, torn does feel like if we are really doing this as a single issue for one project, we don’t know what broader implications and if not, what is the hurry? We have a Plan Commission that deadlocked and COE was unanimous against, it is up to us to decide on Edgewater and he's ok with overturning commission and not abide by every decision, but with a a deadlocked Plan Commission and a unanimous COE it is enough to say hold off, what’s the rush, referral makes sense. Significant difference in what looking at now, would give us more comfort but wants to hear from the committees and hear that it won’t create long term damages for one of our most vital resources. If you had asked me what the most significant issue in city was when I ran, on where the vast majority of resident agrees but we are all almost powerless to effect it is the quality of the lakes and if even there is even the slightest change to have a negative impact wouldn’t we want to get it right.[No kidding.]
Cnare says that she has a questions, but prefaces it with a statement that she'd like to be able to say she is new [I think that might have been a dig at a particular alder, you think? There was audible laughter from a few of the alders] but she doesn't know how the COE works, she asks if one of the alders on the committee could tell her, do they have standards, would they do research or a study that would help her decide what they need to do – she says she doesn’t know what they do.
Palm says he is the only alder and that they are not experts despite what Verveer said. They are citizens and have cross appointments with the Water Utility, Solid Waste and Board of Public Works. They look at issues, in his many years on the committee haven’t dealt with land use issues, prior to this they were working on the plastic bag ordinance, road salt, air quality due to coal plants. When you talk about expert notions, could ask for a more assistance from Plan Commission. If they did a report, that could be a time issue, he doesn’t want to hold back the project from moving forward, 3/15 is next meeting, timeline would be for us to come back quickly, just a discussion and staff or consultant input – not provide true assessment of issues in short time not able to be done.
Bidar-Sielaff says that she was on COE for Public Health when she was a citizen committee member, says that during her time there, no discussion of land use and zoning and she was not an expert. There are a variety of members on the committee – went to the meeting as attended most, and very little discussion about the item, did not foresee a referral will get much feedback, not a clear discussion about whether this impacts the lakes , not in depth discussion of the ordinance, they just said why fix something not broken. [Here's where and alder doing their job would step in and tell the commission what the issues are even giving the pros and the cons so that the committee can make an informed decision. Staff could do the same thing.] She says that Sundquist just said ordinance is not good, he is an expert, [Wow. Plan Commission = experts. Committee on Environment = schmucks?]
has flaws that could create more issues if more non-residential development comes forth. [Sorry, I don't understand my notes, so I missed some here, she was making sense, my notes do not.] She says it is not unusual to figure out when something comes up that we have problems, that is how we see problems with the ordinance and then fix them. Issue are very varied, towing, what we had in place was not meeting reality of our environment. There is an opportunity for number of kicks at cat to see what the proposal would look like, thanks Cnare and not foresee much change in discussion if refer again. Could seek more input, but having listened to discussion doesn’t see much change in the discussion, doesn’t see much value in that.
Compton asks Tucker how many feet do we have on our lakes that is commercial.
Tucker takes a moment, .4 miles of lake frontage, currently commercial.
Compton asks how many miles?
Tucker says 35 miles.
Compton says that a lot of people want to protect and beautify historic homes but every time it rains asbestos and lead flows into our lakes, can we do anything to change that? [Oh, wow. Seriously? I'm pretty sure my 1910 house isn't washing lead and asbestos into the lake. Is yours?]
They could say that every house on lake has to be pristine pure, they are destroying our environment, if their roof pitches are not correct and lawn not manicured,[Oh dear, does she realize what she is saying?] they are jeopardizing our environment and lakes with property that isn't new. Again going to say it, we have the ability to set guidelines on development of the building that will ensure that the property for generations to come will protect environment, enhance it, not continue to run sludge and ? to our lakes. If it (Edgewater) is too tall, too short, whatever, pass it and go on so intelligent committees have something to work with, will vote for it, will go forward wants to see it move and make something positive out of it.
Steve King says that this is another referral, they discredited idea that this should go back to COE. Plan Commission is very busy, language is superior to what Sundquist voted for and like them to dedicate time to Edgewater project itself, already deliberated this for a long time, this issue at hand is better, move this part forward and move on to project.
Rummel says that this is either about Edgewater or not, if its about Edgewater then might work, if not about Edgewater then of the 12 commercial props 2 are in district 6, Elks and Machinery Row is right at the lake, so right away, one could be in play any time, it worries her, can see why a bigger issue. We are moving positively on Edgewater and let this one go, I understand need to say moving, we are moving and hope that you realize that this existing setback isn’t the answer, this is answer for Edgewater, not policy, her Neighborhood Association is against it, people who didn't care about the Edgewater were alarmed when they heard about htis, this has awakened other people who care about our lakes, Edgewater is not on the table now, why not refer, put it all in one package.
Satya Rhodes-Conway says that her strongest preference is to refer to ZCRAC where it belongs, and she says she will not give you the full version of the rant about how upset she is that they did not discuss this, and they won’t reconvene and they will never discuss this issue, but honestly we are talking about rewrite our zoning code, they committee was appointed to do that cuz they are knowledgeable and not letting them talk about it is horrifying. COE can talk about more, Plan Commission can and we can, note is who should be talking about it, that is outside of where we should be talking about it, she is upset about it, she has no options to vote the way she wants to, supports referral generally, but important for committee to deal with rewrite issues get to talk about zoning rewrite issues. [She should have given them the full rant, this is absurd. The committee was appointed to advise the council, they should let them do their jobs and the chair should call a meeting. At this point, alders, neighborhoods and developers are all unhappy with the process.]
Cnare offers amendment, she wants it just referred to the Plan Commission.
Verveer says that is friendly and there are no objections.
Michael Schumacher says as a plan commission member, we had a debate, it was a split vote, it was more a discussion of politics than substance, taking back to plan commission will not add more value, this has to end up with this body and be decided by this body.
Mayor getting briefing on Roberts Rules and procedure from the City Attorney. He announces the first vote is just to only refer to plan commission.
Clear says the timing issue is that UDC and Plan want the Council to determine the setback for the project and this ordinance amendment would do that and get them out of the round robin of referral to referrals.
The motion passes unanimously to only refer to plan.
Then they do a roll call on that:
AYE: Solomon, Verveer, Kerr, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Cnare
NO: Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, King, Maniaci, Sanborn
Fails, 12-8.
Back to Cnare Substitute Motion
Kerr says that given the last vote, she has a feeling not on prevailing side of the next one, feels strongly about this, voted against at Plan Commission and some of you have a couple motivations to support this, one is that belief that we need to make some decision in some dimension of the decision making process, understands that, others may also feel this is an improvement from environmental perspective, she respects that, she is not an environmental expert, but dhe doesn't believe she has enough info to make that judgement, won’t support it. This is a work around, it is tailored to allow the Edgewater to avoid review by the Zoning Board of Appeals that would have been required under existing laws to that apply to all properties. This establishes a two tier development process along the lake, allows Edgewater to circumvent our laws, creates a dynamic to make our develop processes even less predictable, that is what we get criticized for. If a developer came in with 10 acres and wanted to do a shopping center and its just an ordinary run of mill project and the Wisconsin State Journal is not editorializing about it, it just a regular project and they go to plan staff and they say it is a problem cuz it needs a change to the comprehensive plan, it doesn’t have heat of the Edgewater. What happens when the developer turns to you and says you did for Edgewater and why are they special, we are setting ourselves up for that, she urges you to vote it down, our minds are made up coming in I know but feels strongly about it. She also feels strongly that this is not fair, people in her district who apply for variances and sometimes get turned down, they are good neighbors who pay taxes, volunteers in community and got turned down. We want to govern by applying laws even handedly from my neighbor to biggest developer in town with biggest project. She knows Edgewater has merit, wants good to come out of it, you are saying to mine and maybe your constituents that they are treated differently than Edgewater and that is unsustainable and wrong way to go, she's not trying to put people on the spot, but she feels as strongly about this as anything. [Julia gets an A!!!! I'm not kidding, I'd hate to be a plan commissioner or alder with alot of development after this, everyone will be expecting laws to change to fit their project. It's going to be awful.]
Clear explains genesis of the change was bringing forward change in new zoning code, they thought it would pass before the Edgewater came forward [No one in their right mind thought that!]and he says there was alot of discussion about timetable that zoning code was on and if it would be approved before this came before us and make the zoning appeal a moot point and when became apparent wouldn’t that is when he moved it forward, not a double standard, was going to be and could have been the law we would all be operating under, the new zoning code has different residential and commercial rules.
Mayor asks Cnare to repeat her amendment.
Rummel, asks Tucker about what Clear said, says she has heard both sides, were they going to address this or not in the zoning code, is what Clear said correct, or was it not discussed.[Good for Rummel for not letting that go, staff has been clear that CLEAR is wrong.]
Tucker says ZCRAC did not spend time talking bout commercial or non-residential development, they spent time on residential.
Rummel says that under the ZCRAC version they would still have to go to ZBA right?
Tucker says yes.
Compton asks what DNR recommended set back is?
Murphy says in unincorporated areas and lands annexed after 1982 its 75. For those annexed prior there is not a DNR defined setback, municipality has to determine mechanism to determine waht it should be.
Compton says less that 75 allowed?
Murphy says yes.
Compton says that if they don't have the will or intelligence to turn down development or ask for more than asked from more before us, sorry to hear it, this is an intelligent body, we will look at every proposal independently, if you have a kid and they say "but you let so and so do somethign" you explain to them why this is different if you have to say no. They won’t say yes to every proposals just cuz doing what doing tonight, we need more credit than that.
Bidar-Sielaff agrees that on ZCRAC comment of Rhodes-Conway. Clarifies the amendment of Cnare, Cnare clarifies for her.
Roll call
AYE: Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, King, Maniaci, Sanborn.
NO: Solomon, Verveer, Kerr, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
THE REST OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
#5 – Maple Grove development, they recess the public hearing until March 3rd.
Confirmation hearing of Rob Philips - no questions, vote voice unanimous.
Ooops, wait, there was not motion, Bruer makes the motion, someone seconds, it passes.
RECONSIDERATION OF #73, BOOTING PEOPLE OFF COMMITTEES
Someone moves reconsideration, someone seconds, it passes.
Mayor explains that removes people from committees and commissioners, David Tolmie of TPC did file paper work.
Move to adopt, no discussion passes.
ALDERS LEAVE
After the Edgewater, Palm and Maniaci leave.
MADISUN
Bruer moves adoption.
Jed Sanborn thinks this is irresponsible spending of money by federal government and city. Its solar power, already has billions in direct subsidies and more tax credits for business and individutals. $250,000 of our money in capital budget, $431,000 from feds at time when they face fiscal crisis, irresponsible, say no thank you to federal government.
Motion passes without further debate.
CANNONBALL BIKE PATH, PHASE 3
Pham-Remmele excluded to ask questions when read that, says that we agree to pay additional higher cost for the project, so would Phillips explain why lower and now 25K more.
Phillips says that they had a change in scope cuz traffic report required by DOT not required or newly required at time contract was out for RFP, resolution is here so they are transparent, initial project was $130,000, not $170,000 could have been done with an amendment to contract, but chose to to this route to get new contract, might have concerns but his belief is that the cost is extremely reasonable, budget for bridge is 3.2M for construction of bridge, would not be uncommon for project of this magnitude in 10% design so $320,000 so they were surprised it came in as low as it did and the price of $170,000 is in his opinion a very reasonable.
Pham-Remmele says appreciates that, but surprised, when May 21 2009 it was $130,000 and now accelerate design and pay extra, adding on, is it now we are within he $170K or will they be more hidden costs later, she wonders if $25K suddenly, have to find local funds to pay and $25K is a big amount of money yes when talking $1M for bridges, but the way she looks at the budget, 25K more since May and comfortable we just pay that, she feels uncomfortable.
Phillips appreciates that, consultant would not do it with the scope changes we id’d and he’s not pleased with the process either or time that has transpired but again, its $170K and that’s a fair price to complete the work. Scope changes occur and the way they approach it they define scope best they can and anticipate potential items that might come about and they are complex and occasionally there are changes of scope, can’t guarantee no changes, that happens form time to time but comfortable because it is a very reasonable price to complete these design services.
Pham Remm asks were 25K is found, where does it come from?
Phillips says that he needs to look.
Pham Remmele says saw it and has to ask, 25k here and there and it adds up and many times things like this on consent and people not even aware of that, not opposing it, knows good work, but wants some clarification and some kind of thinking about this so it doesn’t happen again in the future.
Phillips says funds available.
Pham-Remmele aks how the funds are suddenly available, if not needed for this what happened to that?
Phillips says the funds are in the in bike path account, not earmarked for a particular location.
Pham-Remmele says hard to determine how money is allocated, a few measly thousand dollars for district took her 3 years to get.
Bruer interrups and asks if the money was unanticipated because of state requirements which expanded the scope?
Phillips says yes, changes in scope – change is for state and federal funds that required more cost to the project.
Bruer says dollars in bike path account and budget line item and not taking away from other projects, additional funds from the bike path account approved by the council, right?
Phillips says yes
Pham-Remmele says mystery to her, how much re we putting in bike path account as of now?
Phillips doesn't understand her question.
Pham-Remmele asks how much money in bike path account, what was currently in the account?
Bruer tries to interpret for her, tells her Rob is looking, tells Rob what her qeustion is.
Philips says $830,000 for cannonball, some for the construction of the path.
Phillips say that Eng other budget is $5.9M but includes sidewalks and some other miscellaneous items, would take him a minute to total it up.
Pham-Remmele asks if this is tax money or stimulus money.
Phillips says combination of funding sources.
Pham-Remmele says she will wait for exact number.
Mayor suggests they get it to her in an email
Brasser says bikeways are $610,000 borrowed and separate line for Cannonball bike trail of $830,000 of that $680,000 is borrowed and rest is from water utility for utility work on the project.
Pham-Remmele asks if that could be sent to her on email, would like to look at it and appreciates it much.
Schumacher says welcome to Phillips. Asks Brasser and Phillips if Pham-Remmele contacted you before the meeting about this?
They both say no.
Motion to adopt passes.
STANDARD PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS CONTRACT LANGUAGE - FOR THE TREES!
79 – Rummel wants alders to know that this includes the tree preservation policy. Says Skidmore and Palm might know that, but wants others to know. Thanks Phillips and Parks staff. Now forester and engineering will review trees on street construction and assess what trees impact will be, contractor will have to sign that they understand new policy, forester will oversee root cutting, better notification to property owners and fines if trees are damaged, soon will be another ordinance to deal with other issues. She is excited about this.
Verveer also thanks Rummel for leadership and advocacy, both Rummel and he have districts that were victims of street reconstructions with catastrophic tree losses, supports and thanks staff in engineering and parks and says this is a first step to avoid catastrophes we have experienced with reconstructions.
INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Rhodes-Conway introduces the Wilco resolution, "because the Mayor dropped the ball".
Clear intorduces a resolution to apply for Google Fiber. Asks who wants to sponsor, everyone does, and because there were no objections everyone is a sponsor.
And with that, at 8:45, they adjourn.
Clear wishes Schmidt happy birthday on Friday.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)