What a bizarre meeting. No alder/sponsor of the changes was present to speak to the issue. The super important can’t live without Mayor’s Staff to work on the Edgewater m.i.a. Staff received new information they didn’t previously know and there was some strange (vague? misleading?) descriptions of things by staff. And a conflict of interest issue. I felt kind of sorry for the board members, I think it would have been really hard to make a decision with the information they had and the background they were provided. And while a couple tried to bring up some issues, it kind of fell flat.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST VIOLATION
Let’s start with this. Scott Vaughn is a paid lobbyist (2009 1, http://www.cityofmadison.com/clerk/documents/VaughnSBldgConsttructionTradesCouncil1-10Exp.pdf) for the Building Trades and he sits on the Board of Public Works. The Building Trades and Scott Vaughn have been actively lobbying on the Edgewater. Our ethics code says:
3. Limitations on Actions. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 4, no incumbent may:
a. Take any official action affecting, directly or indirectly, a matter in which she or he, a member of her or his immediate family, or an organization with which she or he is associated has a financial or personal interest;
and it further says that:
2. Any other incumbent who has or whose immediate family member has a financial or personal interest in a matter coming before the Common Council or any board, committee, commission, sub-committee or ad hoc committee, and who participates in discussions with or gives an official opinion to such body, shall disclose on the records of such body the nature and extent of such interest. This provision shall not apply if the incumbent disqualifies herself or himself from participating in discussion of the matter and from voting on it.
Scott Vaughn didn’t recuse himself. He didn’t abstain. He didn’t disclose. He voted aye to change the 1965 ordinance governing the Edgewater property when they took the roll call vote.
When Erika Fox Gehrig who sits on the Landmarks Commission was told by staff and the city attorney that she had to abstain because she was volunteer on the Board of the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation and they had taken a position on the Edgewater she went with the disclosure route to disclose her personal interest in the project.
Dick Wagner, who sits on the Urban Design Commission and is a volunteer on the board of Downtown Madison Inc (and serves as the chair of the Government Relations Committee) which took a position on the Edgewater has not disclosed this at any meetings I have attended and based on my conversation with another Urban Design member this morning, never has disclosed at any meetings, that he may have a personal interest in the project.
But Scott Vaughn is actually being paid to lobby on the very issue he voted on, without disclosing that interest. He doesn’t just have a personal interest, he has a financial interest. I think that’s pretty bad. I’m shocked someone on city staff didn’t tell him he should abstain. It seemed fairly obvious.
STAFF FRAMING OF ISSUE
Anne Zellhofer from the city attorney’s office says the City gave the lake end of Wisconsin Avenue to the Edgewater for their private use, in exchange things were guaranteed by ordinance. There is a map of the street attached so they can see what was given away. She says there is a memo that says what needs to change and why. She explains that they need this to allow for TIF funding, to remove the set back requirement to make it consistent with current PUD standards and to allow condos. (The consistent with PUD standards was the strange explanation) This amendment would allow that.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Ledell Zellers says that back in 1965 the city exchanged the end of the street but guaranteed a view of lake, this amendment allows narrowing the view by changing the setback. Second requires rooftop to be open to the public and for there to be public access in perpetuity without cost to city. National Guardian Life and the Faulkners didn’t execute in good faith, and now to add insult to injury to they are asking for TIF to get what was already promised. She reads from an article form the 70s where they talk about having a roof top areas for entertainment and great views and lake access. Now we are going to pay for it again. This is outrageous and to dismiss it as being ok because it will be paid back from the increment, that is not true because it will be paid back by University Square. No public dollars should go to pay for what was guaranteed in 1965, ordinance amendment should be defeated, this is a betrayal to citizens of Madison and people who helped provide for the ordinance.
Fred Mohs says he was an adjacent property owner in 1969 when this ordinance when the vacation started, in order for the land to be vacated he had to waive his rights to a verified petition. He was talked into doing it because of the parking problems caused by the Edgewater and the benefits that were going to be given to neighborhood. Feels betrayed. Vacated property guaranteed perpetual easement over the property, and the view from Langdon and Wisconsin Ave provided for a panoramic view was guaranteed forever for the general public. Then the hotel had to be designed, the first one went right in front of the view. Augie Faulkner says he paid for it and could do what he wants. He says that they got 50 cents from Faulkner and 50 cents from National Guardian Life. They finally agreed upon how to deal with the issues. 4 stories down to the bottom of that sill would be what they see. Shocked when built and steel went up higher, they tried to find out what’s happening. Joe Flad was the architect, decided needed more height in ballroom and for the HVAC system. He says they lost more views than they thought, should have been more careful and learned that people would not follow ordinances without good teeth in them, so they had to live with it. Building that now exists is done by the same people who vacated the street and did the ordinance, that building is 8 to 9 feet too tall, but that is what preservation of the view means. What you are being asked to do is to build a tower on that building, it will be in the view, it is exactly what the ordinance says it was not supposed to do. This is not bringing us into compliance with current PUD ordinance. There is no honor in doing business with the city, no permanent benefit, anyone who does a deal with the city is stupid, makes ordinance meaningless, need to be wary of city cuz don’t keep their word. Who would vacate a street with conditions if that can be wiped out. Asking on behalf of public now and in the future not to go along with this.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Paul Skidmore asks Anne Zellhoefer if future council can undo something that a previous council did.
Zellhoefer says yes, this ordinance has been amended several times.
Russell Pietz clarifies that they are changing 8, 10 and 12. Then asks what about public access that is in part 2, wants to clarify what is meant.
Zellhoefer says that this allows financial assistance.
Pietz wants to make sure that nothing in other sections is changed.
Laura Hewitt asks about 2 where it talks about the visual outlook, how does that work?
Zellhoefer says this will enhance the outlook, remove from top of 1970s building, lowered so view will be better, grand stair and rooftop open to the public. [She said this with a certainty that was a little disconcerting, especially given the conversation at UCD a few hours later.] She says she went up there last night, stones and HVAC and not accessible and not pleasant. Roof top not a garden roof. (Others are commenting and adding in) Zellhoefer says a portion of the National Guardian Life property is going to be purchased and tower will be located on a portion of that, the new tower will not be on the vacated area.
Larry Palm asks about detail about what was and was not permitted. I would be angry if outside of council approval they did something else, why is there not language that would be more specific about he views and visual outlook? Why wasn’t that changed?
Zellhoefer says that Plan Commission will take care of that later. View shed and design and other features will be addressed by UDC, Plan and Council later this month. [I’m concerned that no one committee can ask questions about things that others will decide and this decision making process does not really provide a way to have a reasonable discussion about the project as a whole.]
Palm asks if they could put some guarantee in the approval?
Zellhoefer says there will be future easements put in place, there is another set of easements that go with this, access to lake through stairwell on eastern side, that access will be replaced by the grand stair, access along lakeshore not altered and then a maintenance agreement, will set our new requirements.
Palm says not talking about building envelope.
Zellhoefer says Plan and UDC will address that.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Doug Duran doesn’t question past history, concerned that what we are asked to do is to use a broader stroke to allow a certain openness for the developer and realize not same developer as the previous one, but maybe thinking about something bigger than Board of Public Works, but that is his concern. Not sure how to address it.
They point out there is no motion at this point.
Palm says that from Board of Public Works point of view we vacated property for specific uses and from our perspective what is the benefit to change that? Agrees there is very little gained from the Board of Public Works perspective.
Rob Phillips, the city engineer says he appreciates the comments from Mr. Mohs that is more info than he had, it helps him understand how some of these feelings were arrived at over the years. Access to the lake is not ideal today. Roof viewing area is unpleasant, the only way to improve that is to approve to fix it, and this is one really small step in this project. That is the only way to take a small step to do that. Council and Plan get a kick at the design where they will consider the merits of the project.
Pietz reiterates, what we are asked to do is very narrow changes, not voting on any project, a lot of ways these issues could be fixed, we’re not approving a project here, so he moves approval.
Scott Vaughn seconds the motion.
Duran says that what he didn’t hear is what people want. They are asking us to say no and be in the way of the project and he doesn’t know how that would be dealt with after this and I understand that this is really narrow decision, some of this is history I hadn’t heard before, hate to be a part of voting yes for something that later on turns out to be not what it is, but agrees with Rob only way to fix this is to have a new project, we’re not going to change the current Edgewater, so doesn’t know how to deal with it. He has to put his trust in the rest of the city to make sure this project does honor the word of the city. [This is where I just felt bad for the committee members, they were put in a tough spot, with few choices and it just felt kind of yucky.]
Skidmore says that we are going to have a long meeting on 23rd and they will be talking policy. He says he talked to the mayor about this, he said teh Common Council bats last, Mayor bats clean up and we will be talking about a lot of issues that night, Board of Public works body is advisory, he will be voting for it and there are a lot of things going into it, a lot of politicking and calls being made. A lot of history and council and the reason he asked Anne is that he has been soundly reminded that we can do whatever we want but it won’t bind future councils. This will not set a precedent, need to keep moving forward and deal with on it on the 23rd.
Larry says that he isn’t on other committees dealing with land use and he is trying to view them from the prism of the committee he sits on. What does the city get out of this at Board of Public Works, and at the Common Council he will look at what the whole city gets out of it. When looks at details, saying what does city get out of changing the easement, we get all the things they promised but didn’t deliver. He doesn’t care about some of these things, this allows but doesn’t obligate them to give them money. Troubled by notion of setback, changes our operational lines of the city and concerned about the intent. We don’t bind our future councils, but the notion of decorum is important and having faith in developers doing what they put forward is important. Tonight isn’t an indication of how he will vote on the project as a whole. This is not advantageous to us or engineering of Board of Public Works.
Lucas Dailey says that Edgewater and current easement is terrible, been down the scary stair to the lake front and as an architect he is fully confident this will be an improvement for the public, view from that intersection won’t be enhanced but access to lakefront will be better. On the incrementalism, our purview is limited, seems that we are mostly showing confidence in other city agencies, and feel like specific enough that not setting precedent but addressing specific scenario. Again, it kind of sucks to have to just vote and put your faith in others to do the right thing.]
Skidmore says as a landscape architect, he has no problem with the project, won’t block view, he looks at it like an engineer, from a very narrow point of view, from that scope this is fine, every committee has to look at it this way. Other committees are going to look at it and opine and weigh and council will have to deal with it, comfortable with it.
Hewitt says she trusts public engagement will hold the body accountable to those standards.[Sigh, if only that were true.]
Palm asks Zellhofer, in 1965 changes done at that time, where today can we make those same requirements so that doesn’t happen today? Palm says that sounds like the citizen action to prevent additional height to building didn’t make any difference.
Zellhoefer says she can’t speak to 60s and 70s, city tried to keep control over following proposals, PUD conditions in consent letter, conditions need to be met before they can pull the permit. [That doesn’t answer the question, what happens after the permit is pulled is the problem.]
Palm asks about Union Transfer where they built an extra story on the floor and the fine that was issued.
Phillips says didn’t build it according to the plan. Not the same, we don’t know that they won’t build what they say. They could have had them tear it down or did what we did, but different situation. We should assume plan that gets approved is what gets built, shouldn’t base decision on developer that didn’t build to the plan.
Palm says fair enough.
They vote.
AYES: Hewitt, Pietz, Vaughn, Skidmore, Dailey
NO: Palm, Duran
