Sorry to make you wait. Here’s more of the meeting on Monday.
ALTERNATE Amendment No. 20A
Page(s): Supplement p.91
Sponsors: Mayor Soglin
Add funding to hire an engineering consultant to assist with the biodigester project planning and with writing the Request for Proposals for the system.
ALTERNATE Amendment No. 20B
Agency: General Obligation Debt Service Summary / General Debt Reserves, Streets
Page(s): 10, Supplement p.91
Sponsors: Ald. Rhodes-Conway
Add funding to hire an engineering consultant to assist with the biodigester project planning and with writing the Requestfor Proposals for the system. Funding is to be derived by application of $150,000 of the remaining 2012 bond premium.
Motion to adopt 20B and place 20A on file.
Rhodes-Conway says this is a multi-year project, there was a successful pilot collection of organics and we are shipping the proceeds of that out of town, if we are going to do curbside composting and get serious about commercial composting, then we need to get serious about a place to process that. We could produce energy, compost and other nutrient materials that get sold, it might not be a money making venture, but it would reduce the costs. She says to make that happen we have to move it forward. She says this is a good use of one time funding, for a one-time project.
Clear asks if there is money in the budget for this already.
Rhodes-Conway says it was in the 2012 budget. Clear says its a re=authorization. Sort of they agree.
Bidar-Sielaff says she also makes her votes on priorities, she says that in a budget where people have tried to make false dicotomies about what is important to our cities, whether it is neighborhoods and poverty or arts, the biodigesters – actually paying $150,000 to a consultant to come up with a stack of paper, at this point in the budget, is not in her priorities, in the big scheme of this budget, think about what this means to our citizens.
Ellingson says that she read in the paper that it might be inappropriate to use the $500,000 in the operating budget.
Soglin says that unlike many other areas, this might be a toss up. He says capital budget items should be in the capital budget and that they should use borrowed money or the premium. He says the issue is if it should be a study or rolled into the cost of the project. He says that he leans toward the operating.
Rhodes-Conway says that she looks more at the source of funding. Capital is a one-time use of money. She says that long term projects, one time funding are the capital budget. On going costs and funding are operating. This time it crosses, a one time funding for a one-time cost.
Mayor says he doesn’t disagree with what she said.
Mayor can’t tell, so he does a roll call.
Aye: Rhodes-Conway, Solomon, Palm, Verveer
Couldn’t hear: Verveer, Bidar Sielaff
Amendment No. 21
Sponsors: Alds. Verveer, Resnick, Bidar-Sielaff, Schmidt, Cnare, Clear, Maniaci, Ellingson
Restore overtime funding for student move out in August.
Verveer moves to adopt, second.
Ellingson supports this. This is one of the most important thing we do, to pick up trash. This is one of the highest obligations and you absolutely must support this.
Resnick says that he has talked with many of the larger landlords who think that the city should not spend this money and that they should take responsibility for this. He says that he hasn’t talked to some of the smaller landlords who don’t have the same resources. He hasn’t talked about how to fund it with them, but he thinks it could be done through building inspections or streets.
Verveer says that it has been many years that we have been doing this. He remembers the old days and the downtown looked like a junkyard for many days. He appreciates what Resnick is saying, but he feels it is a top priority so it doesn’t look like a junkyard for a week. The streets department has this down to a science with military like precision. Larger landlords mostly don’t use streets services, they have private waste services. He appreicates times are tough but thinks it is a priority.
Seems to pass unanimously on a voice vote.
ALTERNATE Amendment No. 22A
Agency: Streets, Stormwater Utility
Page(s): 104, 91
Sponsors: Alds. Bidar-Sielaff, Schmidt, Clear, Resnick, Cnare, Maniaci, Ellingson
Restore overtime funding for leaf collection.
ALTERNATE Amendment No. 22B
Agency: Streets, Stormwater Utility
Page(s): 104, 91
Sponsors: Ald. Verveer
Restore overtime funding for leaf collection. Charge all costs to the Stormwater Utility.
Bidar-Sielaff moves to place A on file and support B.
Verveer says he supports B because leaf collection is another high priority item. He has a harder time putting this on the levy than the Stormwater Utility, the Stormwater Utility was started in 2002 and we have increased the charges for leaf collection to that fund over the years. It’s up to 50% and has been since 2009. If we adopt B it would be 52%. We are working on a study on how leaf collection affects the lakes. He says if we don’t get to them they end up in the lakes and that is why we should do this, not the aesthetics of the issue.
Mayor asks if the amendment is adopted, how much of stormwater costs will it be on the stormwater.
The mics aren’t picking up well – but the answer is $1,056,700 – half of the costs plus the overtime.
Mayor asks what happens if the study comes back and it shows no benefits of leaf collections on the lake.
Can’t hear the answer.
Amendment No. 23
Sponsors: Ald. Palm
Add $19,168 for the restoration of Sunday hours at self help drop off sites. Currently, the Streets Division operates three Self Help Sites in the City where Madison residents are able to drop off yard waste, refuse, recyclables, appliances, electronics, brush, large items, metals, batteries, cooking oil, plastic bags, textiles, shoes and rigid plastics for recycling and disposal. The Streets Division operates these sites seven days per week from 8:30am to 4:30pm with added hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays until 8:00 pm.
Moved and seconded.
Clausius says we should all support this, we should have Sunday hours. He says if we don’t support it we could all get recalled – plus we are up for election. He says that he was there yesterday and it was bumper to bumper.
Ellingson asks if we could add Sunday hours and take away Monday hours?
Chris Kelley says that Sunday is their slowest days. He says it will only be two sites, because they are closing south. It will be a $3,190 difference if they do the other cut.
Lots of talking – can’t hear.
Rhodes-Conway says that it seems like the streets sites that have public interaction basically operate at times when people can’t access them, that seems upside down. I understand that it used to be open more often – but we changed that. We aren’t looking at this from a customer point of view – we should provide the service when people needs it. Normal work hours should be at times when people can access the services – not to add overtime.
Palm makes the amend from 3 to 2 sites and takes out the $3,190.
Aye: Palm, Verveer, Clausius
No: Solomon, Bidar-Sielaff, Rhodes-Conway
Its tied, Mayor says it fails.
Amendment No. 24
Agency: Metro Transit
Sponsors: Alds. Rhodes-Conway, Solomon, Verveer
Provide funding sufficient to eliminate the fare increase and associated revenues that are included in the Executive Budget.
Rhodes-Conway says that we’ve been this before, but she thinks that it is unfair to ask the people who are most dependent on the Metro system to balance the budget. She says there is a feeling out there the increase is due to the Owl Creek service, that is not true. The bus fare increase was offered up to cut the budget by 5%, she says that Metro offered to increase revenues. The mayor then later added service to Owl Creek and they are two different things. She is not comfortable asking transit dependent riders to pay more for the service that already doesn’t serve them well. She isn’t comfortable asking seniors to have a higher percentage increase. If we want to be a city that has great services, the way to do that is not to nickle and dime the system and raise fares every two years, but to make a commitment to have a great transit system. She says we should do that on the levy, there are multiple benefits and she won’t go through them all. People may have different priorities, this one is hers.
Bidar-Sielaff says she supports rejecting a fare increase. She doesn’t feel prepared to vote on this item. She feels it is important to get input from TPC, she wishes this was brought up earlier so that it went through that process, a few years ago it was a spirited discussion. She would like to refer it, but if they vote she will abstain, but that doesn’t mean she would support a fare increase.
Solomon says we aren’t getting enough state support and that is the issue, but there is no excuse for us to continue raising fares. Our two biggest disasters are the environment and equal access and equal justice for our low income community. Public transit is both of those things. How we could encourage more people to get in their cars or not use public transit without even getting into the issues of equal justice is beyond him. We did it a few years ago, its too soon, we shouldn’t done it then. He says we talked about elasticity at the time, we have studies that show stunted growth, he has asked for numbers he hasn’t gotten and would like to see information on passes and cash fares. He says that many low income riders pay cash and don’t budget for monthly passes and he thinks the cash fares impact them the most. But we know that growth in the ridership has gone down and will go down again. He says that we shouldn’t do that. This is an investment in our streets, environment and lowincome riders and in the long run that will help everyone. The advantages are so many and we should continue to keep Metro as affordable as we can.
Clear asks Chuck Kamp about if there was a reserve fund increase with the last fare increase as anticipated.
Kamp says it fluxuates, and Wayne will answer that. He can’t remember, it goes up and down, mostly with the cost of diesel.
Clear asks them to have the numbers next time they discuss this. He asks about the costs to increase just route 2 and Owl Creek.
Wayne says route 2 is $108,000. Owl Creek on September 1st would be $63,000. He say route 18 would cost $47,000. He says it is September 1st for all three.
Rhodes-Conway says citizens have asked about the improvements that were promised, can you tell us if those items were implemented.
Kamp says there were service and security improvements. They were provided. For service there was reinstatement of route 10, improvements to route 18 and they can send info on the changes. Those services are in effect today. The security improvements were $100,000, that was cut back to $50,000 and now it is back to $75,000. There was also a commute card and something else he can’t remember that were the items improved.
Ellingson asks for an explanation of the improvements to route 2 and 18 and why.
Kamp says there were three guiding principles. One of the issues was overcrowding. The West Transfer Point to the square is one of their most over-crowded, that is route 2. They are doing 15 minute frequency during peak times. The Allied Drive improvements is to take route 16 from in a more direct route to Allied. He thinks that will help with the scheduling. He says the more direct is from the south transfer point.
Palm says it is a tough one, he can’t support it at this time, more needs to be done. The numbers on the screen are daunting and not changing enough. This is a big ticket item they have to look at more closely and they will have to negotiate which fare might be suitable. He thinks we should increase low-income fares. There was a discussion about a day pass that might be useful. He says he can’t support it at this time, but it will come to council.
Mayor says it fails for lack of majority and the chair can only vote in the event of a tie.
Mumbling and some waiting to see what that does to the numbers. Some confusion about something I can’t hear.
The mayor says that chair can vote to break a tie or crate one, he votes no. They will check to figure out what the proper process is to record that.
Amendment No. 25
Agency: Metro Transit
Sponsors: Alds. Maniaci, Bidar-Sielaff, Schmidt
Provide funding for additional service improvements for an East Isthmus bus shuttle for weekend service.(Note: There may be some potential for private contributions to help offset the costs of the service.)
Motion, second, no discussion. Motion fails on a voice vote that seemed unanimous.
Amendment No. 26
Agency: Metro Transit
Sponsors: Alds. Verveer, Rhodes-Conway
Add the following budget Highlight: “By March 31, 2013, the Transit and Parking Commission and the Common Council will consider a comprehensive bus advertising policy for implementation by Metro Transit.”
Motion, second, mayor says this is a language amendment, no discussion. Motion carries on a voice vote.
Amendment No. 27
Agency: Metro Transit
Sponsors: Alds. Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Move up the implementation date for the Owl Creek service from September, 2013, to June, 2013 (to be effective at the end of the school year).
Bidar-Sielaff also abstaining but thinks they should do service earlier.
They do a roll call and I think everyone voted aye and then one abstention. Motion carries.
Amendment No. 28
Agency: Metro Transit
Sponsors: Ald. Palm
1)Incorporate the current Senior/Disabled 31-daybuspass into the Low-Income Bus Program, such that Low-Income passes are available for qualifying Seniors, and re allocate the estimated savings of $55,000 to fund an estimated 1,700 additional Low-Income Bus Passes. There is no net budgetary impact. 2) Increase funding for Low-Income Bus Passes by 25%, or an estimated $27,000 (net) which will support an additional 900 Low-Income Bus Passes. Note this provision is contingent upon enactment of the proposed Bus Fare rate increase.
Motion and second. No discussion. Only one aye which is Palm, motion fails.
Amendment No. 29
Agency: Office of the Director of Planning, Community and Economic Development
Sponsors: Alds. Maniaci, Bidar-Sielaff
Provide funding for a Marketing Specialist. (It is intended that the funding for this position is offset by proposed reductions in Room Tax expenditures for Civic Promotion and Madison Music City as included in previous Amendments.)
Motion to adopt, second, no discussion. Fails unanimously.
Amendment No. 30
Agency: Planning Division
Sponsors: Alds. Resnick, Bidar-Sielaff , Verveer
Many of the indicators found on the neighborhood indicators website can be found through public data streams. Remove all funding for the project ($51,500) and reallocate $5,500 to support the posting of available data streams on the City’s open data portal.
Motion to approve, second.
Verveer has a substitute amendment on behalf of Resnick. The new language is: Many of the indicators found on the Neighborhood Indicators website can be found through public data streams, in 2013 city ataff will work with non-city data providers to secure the continuation of data availability by 2013 and any data sources not publicly available with be shifted to the citys’ open data portal and staff will work towards reducing the use of outside contractors to collect this data” And all funding would be restored so there would be no fiscal impact on the executive budget, no savings.
That is seconded.
They vote on the amendment to the amendment (even tho Verveer said it was a substitute).
I think it was all aye’s but not sure.
Mayor says they are voting on the amendment as amended.
Resnick says that of the 47 indicators we collect 39 can be found readily on line, the last 8 are difficult to collect, particularly from the schools system. 6 of them can maybe be made available through our open data portal. In future years you should be able to see a savings, not just yet.
Motion passes. Palm abstains, one no.
Amendment No. 31
Agency: Planning Division
Sponsors: Alds. Ellingson, Bidar-Sielaff
Remove funding for a Neighborhood Conference in 2013 and instead hold such a conference every other year starting in 2014.
Ellingson went to the neighborhood conference and she thought it was awesome, she learned a lot, she just doesn’t think they need to do it every year. That is her only reason behind this.
Palm disagrees and he thinks we need to strengthen neighborhood planning and he thought it was great, but not neighborhood focused, it was a lot of city planning. We should have a cycle of larger citywide thinking and then a year of neighborhood focus, there were fewer opportunities to have neighborhood residents interact with other neighborhoods on issues of running a neighborhood.
Amendment No. 32
Agency: General Obligation Debt Service Summary / General Debt Reserves
Misc. Appropriations / Direct Appropriation to Capital; Planning Division / Transfer to Overture
Page(s): 10, 12, 128
Sponsors: Alds. Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Clear, Resnick, Cnare, Maniaci, Phair, Weier, Ellingson, King,
Bruer, Clausius, Subeck
Restore $900,000 in funding for the Overture Center to be funded by applying $400,000 of the remaining 2012 premium and reducing Direct Appropriation to Capital for the Olbrich Garden new roof. (See BOE capital budget am. No. 14. A capital budget amendment will be needed to replace the Direct Appropriation funding with G.O. Borrowing.)
Motion and second. They ask for an update from the Finance Department.
Schmiedicke says that the amendments adopted so far are still over the levy limit by $12,607 and the premium has not changed, it is $122,000 more than what has been used in the premium is out there.
Clear clarifies that the $12,000 presumes the rest of the amendments pass. They agree.
Bidar-Sielaff says that in the scheme of priorities this is something she feels very strongly about it. She says that first she would like to address our fiduciary responsibilities and structural debt and articles that we should read. She had a discussion with Schmiedicke about the use of the premium and she would not choose to use one-time money. There are other examples of this in the budget such as the use of the general fund to 15% which is the traditional limit, contingency funds were used. There was no wiggle room to use anything but the premium. It may seem like one time money but we do our budget every year and there are moving parts that are different every year and we need to manage that. On Overture, we made a commitment, she made a promise to city employees and it is disingenuous to enter into that agreement in good faith and then not honor it. This isn’t just about Overture, it is about the economic impact to the local economy and we need that money to invest in social service programming that she feels very strongly about. To ensure a good quality of life for our residents. She is disappointed by the false dichotomy being promoted by many people, including members of this body. It is a public relation move that is not grounded in reality to say that our top choices are between street construction, building inspection, public heath, police and fire, community services and the arts. Our top priority is balancing all those things because they contribute to the quality of life in the city. So simplifying it to two choices is not fair to many of us, it is more complex than that. We have to balance all the needs and pitting people against each other is a divide and conquer strategy that splits residents and creates conflict and divides community. She says Overture is integral to her fight for social justice and equal access in our city. She thinks she earned her stripes working in the community on hands on activities. The kids you saw here to day would have no opportunity to take advantage of being downtown without Overture instead of just being at the neighborhood programming. She gets tired about how we talk about social justice, we talk about it as things that are isolated to their neighborhood, but social justice is about equal access to all the great things in the city. She says the arts are part and parcel of them growing up in Madison. She knows what difference going to Overture has had in kids lives and we need to talk about this from all angles and not talk about it as disadvantages and problems we have to solve, but also look at the assets and make sure that they can take advantage of what we have to offer. Exposure to the arts and the beautiful building is something we can do instead of just programming in the neighborhood.
Rhodes-Conway says she respects and agrees with most of what Bidar Sielaff said, but here is what she is hearing. How can you support, what they perceive Overture to be, and I quote “a multi-million dollar operation catering to the white upper-middle class” how can I support that while black kids are being shot in the streets. That is what she is hearing. What the kids in her neighborhood want is a safe place to do their homework, not to go downtown. They want to have activities and programming in their neighborhood. They want to get safely from point A to point B on the bus. She doesn’t disagree about all the good things Overture does for the community. It isn’t a choice between Overture or bus fares, or neighborhood centers. But it is a choice. She says she doesn’t see mulitple-hundreds of thousands of cuts. So, without those amendments, that is the choice. Or someone has to make an amendment to make it about a choice between Overture and something else. She wants to see them and lets talk about them on the council floor. She would like it to be about something else. She can’t vote – even tho in the past she stood on the council floor and said “give us bread, but give us roses too”, she can’t vote to spend money on Overture and look in the eyes of the kid who came and talked about not being able to get a summer job because they can’t get to the damn job. She can’t go back to folks in Brentwood and say I can’t fight for a youth worker and a neighborhood center because I”m fighting for Overture. There is a lot of talk about moral obligation and promises made and she has a moral obligation to house the homeless, feed the hungry and to take care of young people in this city.
Verveer says that the issue of Overture is personal to him. When he was first elected long ago Mayor Soglin appointed him to the Civic Center Board and he has served on the successive boards. As Alder Rhodes-Conway talked about the interests of her neighborhood, he will talk about the interests of his district. He says he knows many people who moved downtown because of the Overture Center – that is not an exaggeration. It is overwhelming that so many people moved here in part because of the Overture Center. Some attend, but also volunteer and donate. It has a huge impact on the quality of life of the people who live downtown. There is also the issue of the economic impact. The the last GSSBA (State St. Businesses) meeting, it was a no-brainer for them. He says in the last 17 years of being involved, the current administration and board is the most competent and they have exceeded expectations and met commitments. By every yard stick, they have reached everything asked of them and exceeded them. Overture is in excellent hands. The amendment before us tonight, he doesn’t want to get into a debate about the source of funding for this, he would be on the losing end of the debate with professor Soglin. He says that they have a number of handouts about it. As it relates to the amendment, this doesn’t restore the funding. It is a $100,000 cut. It is far short of the moral obligation that we made 2 years ago. Some would argue there is a legal obligation and we might be losing sight of. We made that decision and we are not keeping our end of the bargain but they have kept theirs. He understands Rhodes-Conways enlargements and he gets the emails too. He says from where he sits, the Overture Center for the Arts has exceeded our expectations and we can’t put them on the hook for the $1M, the mayor did an excellent job on the budget, and he had no layoffs, but here we are asking the Overture to layoff. He says that he bets every school kid in the region has attended events there. He urges support, knows it is a tough decision.
Clear says that he agrees with the excellent remarks of Bidar-Sielaff and he doesn’t want to detract from those comments about who we are as a city. But he wants to respond to the situation Rhodes-Conway describes. He says with all due respect you were set up to be in that situation. If the mayor had not made the cut in the budget you wouldn’t have to do that. It is up to the council to take a different route.
Solomon says he abstaining because his partner is the city arts administrator and because of the size of the budget amendment and he does not feel it is a real conflict of interest. He says that he would encourage us to think about this between now and when we vote at the council. He doesn’t think we should talk about the commitment we made, I didn’t think we should have made it at the time. He was concerned about it then, we can’t make long term commitments and we do a budget every year to address the issues. He hopes we can get off the commitment issue. We should make our priorities each year. We also can’t overstate the importance of Overture, it is in the top two or three things that helped revitalize downtown, we should let that go. If anyone votes not to support Overture it is not a statement about that – its about tough choices. He also says that we have few dollars that go to arts in the city. The vast majority of those dollars goes to the Overture and he is not sure if that is good or bad. We have to realize we have limited budget dollars. The Overture is a large part of our reality, but it also isn’t the only thing.
Clausius says the bottom line is we made a commitment, they held up their end and he’s surprised at how success they were and they need to honor their commitment. He wants to see it succeed and continue.
Palm says that generally speaking his decisions don’t come easy, this is one of the hardest. Overture Center is for the downtown, the rgion and the state and they should enjoy in revel in that and celebrate the economic diversity and racial diversity of the people who enjoy it. She applauds the staff for their hard work. He can’t even think about this large of a number without knowing what else it impacts. We can blame all kinds of people, but at the end of the day, we can’t spend all the dollars we want. He cannot support this amount of money at this time and he might be able to discuss a different amount later.
Mayor says there is a city attorney opinion that says you need a majority of those present to adopt an item. So if there are six and the mayor present, it would take 4 votes to adopt. 3 ayes with 7 present is not a majority of the body. He didn’t vote on the last item and he will see what happens on this item.
Resnick says his question is about the premium. He says in the past they spent 47$, 100% and 86% on operating expenses and this was an accepted practice. Last year it was 38%, aroudn $4.2M if he understands the numbers. Without Overture, its at 20%. He says if there is an adopted policy or best practice, he would like to hear those arguments, he wasn’t here when the agreement was made. He understands the value of Overture, but he wants to know why this was accepted in the past as a practice and where did we go wrong.
Mayor says he has a lot to say about Overture, the agreement and arguments made about the benefits of Overture, he will limit his comments in those areas to specifics. He says the city attorney repeatedly said during the course of the agreement that what was adopted did not bind future councils. Say what you will about the agreement, but make it clear that everyone present heard the city attorney repeatedly making it clear that the agreement did not bind future councils. Second, no one has to impress upon me the importance of arts on the community. He’ll save all the rest of his comments for debate in November, but really the issue that Resnick and Rhodes-Conway have raised are the issues. In 1994 Orange County went bankrupt speculating on which way interest rates would go. He says he had comptroller Riley call the state at the time because we were in a similar situation. In January when we made the inquiry, the answer was no, later we got a report along with everyone in the state showing they lost $6M in speculating, when it was all said and done it was $800M and the mayor says that they did check but a few weeks later some 26 year old cowboy made a decision and when he made a mistake he doubled up and continued to lose. It also happened to Miami. There are some school districts in Wisconsin that borrowed money and then lost. History repeats itself because people do dumb things. They don’t learn from the mistakes of others. There is no way to make rules to stop that behavior from happening. There are communities all over that use borrowing to fund operating budget. He has heard predictions that every year there is a crisis and it isn’t really there, and we can get away with it. Let me make it clear that we are in the crisis. Just because there were no layoffs, no service cuts and we completely funded community services means there is no crisis. Look at what we are not doing, there are 4 major road projects, zoning code enforcements they don’t have staff for, any hope you have of spending money for quiet zones are gone, Judge Doyle Square and Public market can be planned but there is no way to fund them given the present circumstances. He says this is the result of a series of decisions that started in 2006 that is using premium money, which is borrowing, there is no other way to describe it, it is borrowed money to fund the budget. He said last year there were risky things we were doing and we couldn’t continue them. Every dollar spent on debt service is not available for the operating budget. If we kept our debt service at 12%, we would have $3M available now, that is Overture, neighborhood center, labor agreements. That is all the things in the budget including the bus fares. The future is here, we can’t do anything unless we are solvent. We might be able to get away with it for a few years. What a cruel irony, the reason we don’t have money for Overture is this practice, and here we are doing it again. We are barely denting the line in the neck of the dragon. We have to have a capital budget at 30% of what we are doing will take 6 years to get us back to our goals. He doesn’t enjoy being criticized on one side for hating the arts and the other side for hating the homeless people. He presented a budget that will get us corrected as we come into this decade so we can do these things in the future. Do you know what it is like to be mayor and not be able to do anything that you would like to do for the city. All I feel like is a caretaker, all the dreams and all the hopes are put on hold. Why, because of this borrowing situation and indebtedness and it was made worse by the events of March and April last year, its a whole new world out there with Act 10. You want to give the money to Overture? It is not a false dicotomy, it is not an artificially created. You want me to come in with an amendment to cut $1M out of this budget, I will. Don’t take a million dollars out of the premium, it is all borrowed money.
Jill Johnson says she is a big fan of what he has done with the budget. He’s done a good job with it. As she looks at the budget there are the basic services like garbage and streets and police and fire they all can agree on and then you get into the social programming and arts and it is all up for grabs. In a perfect world we all would want all of it. It bothers her that they are demonizing each other or grandstanding on the issues and everyone on the council has a big heart and wants to do it all – it is a sense of our priorities. It is ok to say no, it doesn’t mean it can’t be restored. She says it was like when she got divorced with 4 kids, they were in private school and assumed that I would pay for them going to college and I had to sit them down. She was pleased to hear him talk about debt because as a private investor the difference in if a company does well in a downturn is their debt and cash position on operating revenue. Because when there is a downturn that can kill you. We are paying the price for bad decisions made in the past. She thinks that when they look at the choices she hopes you keep in mind not everyone lives downtown. She loves Overture too, she is sure it enhances downtown and Madison, she thinks that her constituents want more services. She thinks the people who use it should pay for it. She thinks that they should print the full price of the ticket on them. And then ask for donations to fully subsidize the service.
Palm appreciates the opinions expressed and he wants to stand up for the borrower. He hasn’t voted for every budget, but we have borrowed money for good reasons. Libraries, police stations, goodman pool, community centers – but when we borrow, it costs us more. But hopefully we see cost savings later. There is a fine line, we do get the benefit, but sometimes we have to pay the piper. We did get something for that borrowing. Compares it to buying a car.
2 nos and an abstention, motion fails.
One hour left . . . will do that tomorrow morning . . .
Amendment No. 33
Agency: Economic Development Division
Sponsors: Ald. Solomon
Restore and provide full-year funding for a 1.0 FTE Job Development Specialist to focus on job creation for low income individuals. The position will help ensure that City policies and economic development activities promote income generating opportunities for low income / low skill individuals in the City.
Amendment No. 34
Agency: Community Development Division
Sponsors: Ald. Rhodes-Conway
Provide funding for a new 0.50 FTE Outreach Worker position for the Brentwood/Northport Corridor Neighborhood Resource Team area.
Agency: Community Development Division
Sponsors: Ald. Rhodes-Conway
Provide funding to lease and operate a shared, common space for a number of City agencies, neighborhood groups, and social service agencies to coordinate services provided to the Northside of the City. This funding is for one-year only. Funding is to be derived by application of $72,000 of the remaining 2012 bond premium.
Amendment No. 36
Agency: Community Development Division
Sponsors: Alds. Schmidt, Phair, Subeck, Bidar-Sielaff, Clear, Rhodes-Conway, Verveer
Provide funding for the Committee on Aging’s highest priority B-list recommendations, which restores three A-list programs to their 2012 levels. All other A-list programs in the “Aging” goal are a were provided their 2012 allocation by the Committee on Aging. With the growing population of seniors in Madison, these services remain a priority. A total of $38,378 shall be allocated to the programs as listed below.
Amendment No. 37
Sponsors: Ald. Palm
Provide funding to expand youth/teen services by adding two middle/high school floater librarians. This expansion allows the branch libraries to better serve underserved youth in middle and high school, reduce behavior incidents in the branch libraries with frequent unsupervised youth/teen use, and increase programming in branch libraries and neighborhoods.These floating positions would be allocated based upon need in the afternoon, evening and weekend branch hours.
Amendment No. 38
Sponsors: Ald. Palm
Provide funding to expand Meadowridge Library. In light of recent public discussions about the expansion of the Meadowridge Library, this amendment is proposed to cover the expected additional costs. Without these funds, it would not be likely to open an expanded branch library in 2013. Even with additional funding, the Library Board has an established branch location/expansion policy that would need to be followed prior to expending any funds. A capital budget amendment will be needed to provide funding for facility improvements. The additional estimated cost for the facility operating costs only (excluding the additional staff) is estimated at $713,566 for the ten year period 2014-2023.
Categories: | Madison | Media