Three hours, some good discussion, some maddening . . . yes, I ended up all mad again (second time this week and it was only Tuesday!), so mad I registered on an item and wanted to speak, but, uh . . . I’m out of practice and filled out the form wrong, so you’ll have to find out what they pissed me off about this time . . .
ROLL CALL
Pham-Remmele, Verveer absent, Verveer excused
SUSPENSION OF THE RULES
No objections, rules suspended.
EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
Mark Bugher, University Research Park testifies on the plat and rezoning. Spent 5 years working with staff. State of the Art extraordinary plan, includes significant Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and TDM Association, requires occupants of Research Park II to fulfill obligations. Current park is well known, this will be more dense, user friendly with both pedestrian walkways and bikeways as well as the TDM and significant environmental corridors. 7,000 new workers, 200 new companies, opportunity for UW Madison to take notion of science and technology employment and expand and grow it. Current Research park has 4,000 jobs that make an average of 60K per year, which is double the per capita income for Wisconsin. This is significantly higher quality jobs then other economic development.
No questions or comments and they move on.
[Early public comment was intended for those who had childcare issues or health issues that might make it so they couldn’t stay all evening – at one point someone with an oxygen tank sat there for 4 or 5 hours to speak to the council. It was also to be for people with disabilities that had scheduled a ride home. I don’t think it was ever intended for high paid executives to testify at their convenience. Way to abuse the system, dude.]
HONORING HARRY WHITEHORSE
#92 Mayor reads the resolution.
Whitehorse speaks briefly says he is honored and thanks them.
Rummel talks about the sculpture dedication – how lucky she is to represent a cool district with things like effigy mound, thanks the staff and neighbors who made it happen – proud to represent 6th district
Pham-Remmele saunters in 6:45 . . . I can’t tell if she just likes to make an entrance or is just that disrespectful.
CONSENT AGENDA
Everything passes with the recommendations as posted on the agenda except for the public hearing agenda items and the items with the following changes or that were separated out.
#48 was a mistake and shouldn’t have been on the agenda so it was placed on file. The item was about an agreement to sell some of the City-County Building to the City.
#16 was appointments needing a 2/3 vote because people outside of Madison were being being appointed. There was no objection to recording a unanimous vote.
#71 prohibiting sales of alcohol to habitually intoxicated persons. Rhodes-Conway added CDBG, EOC and PSRC as additional referrals. Cnare added Board of Health.
Items separated for discussion were:
#1 – Vending by schools.
#13 – More appointments.
#15 – Monona Terrace appointments.
#19 – Goodwill Industries HOME money
#50 – Northeast Neighborhoods Development Plan
#55 – Chronic Nuisance Ordinance
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
#3 – Capital Budget – no registrations, no discussion, they vote.
#4 – Maximum Parking Standards- Rhodes-Conway adds her name as a sponsor and refers to Zoning Code Re-write and Plan Commission
Compton interrupts in the middle of another motion and wonders about #3 – Compton wants to make sure they did not just adopt the Capital budget. The don’t vote to reconsider, just make a new motion to refer the Capital Budget to Nov 10 council meeting. Their little do-over passes and then they go back to the motion that was on the table.
Item 4 passes on a voice vote, unanimously.
#5 – State St/Mall special assessments – no discussion, passes voice vote
#6 – 9 – Report of ALRC – adopted voice vote, no discussion.
#10 – Operating Budget – no discussion or registrants, recess and refer to BOE – passes on a voice vote.
#11 – Accept grant for police department. Passed on a voice vote no discussion.
[I think they are supposed to have a public hearing, that they usually don’t advertise and hold at a bad time and wonder why no one shows up.]
#12 – they move adoption of substitute on University Research Park, passes with no discussion.
VENDING BY SCHOOLS
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
James Davis – One of the vendors, is opposed, said it was a health issue, he is probably helping students out, get back to school quickly, not cross street to go the mall, oppose trying prevent them, not a health issue.
Jeff Okafo – opposition – from Jin’s Chicken and Fish – late night vendor. The City has changed so many rules to have a place to vend at night on campus so they are trying to find other places to vend, making up from loss of late night vending. Now they are making up another city ordinance to prevent them from doing business – can they come up with some sort of discussion about where they can vend, trying to make an honest living – hard to do that when a new ordinance pops up every time. Says on campus they put them in a dark alley where no one is there – library mall with no foot traffic, trying to find other ways to do his business. He’s paying a lot for license sand insurance and should be able to make a living and manage his business. Moved three times in three years. Needs help to figure out where they can vend without new rules being placed on them.
Rosemary Lee – not debating the issue for this proposal, unconscionable not to refer to the Vending oversight committee and school liaison committee. Needs to be vetted by committees, doesn’t hit her as a fair thing to do to the vendors. Says the library mall is a very popular spot and she has been there at 1:00 in the morning and it is a popular place. Please refer.
Eric Kass – representing Madison School District and available to answer questions.
QUESTIONS OF PEOPLE WHO TESTIFY
Rhodes-Conway asks what the safety issue is. Kass says these people have been great to work with and have been gracious in working with us. What it is turning into is a safety hazard – this is happening at East as well where other vendors are starting to show up as well. 2,000 kids that can access this at Gammon Road – waiting for food and mingling, not a safe environment for that amount of kids to be gathering.
Rhodes-Conway says it is unusual to adopt on night it is introduced, why can’t we talk about it? Are there other things you can do short term to address the safety issues? Kass says they want it to move forward because of the safety issue. Not a good situation to have congregation of students on Gammon Road and when you expand that at East it is a safety concern. If one kid hurt, if no action taken, would be looked upon poorly if they don’t do anything. Gammon Rd is not a safe place to be standing around, can push and shove playfully and accidents can happen.
Rummel asks Okafo about vending at East. Okafo says he vends at Memorial not East – set up to be in front of the school, not that close to the street as described. J.D. comes up to talk about safety efforts and set up. It’s on city property in front of the school. Kids cross the street every day, if necessary we can put a rope up but doesn’t see problem with them walking out in front of school and turn around and go back.
Skidmore asks what do the principal and staff think? Kass says they are working with him to disallow this to happen, they id’d the safety issue. Worked with MPD to rule it was unsafe for kids to congregate there, and then found out it can’t be a determination by the police and that is how we got here. Bruce has asked to disallow the practice from happening.
Solomon asks Kass how many kids go to West Towne Mall where they have to congregate or walk across Gammon and Mineral Point? Kass says the City put in stoplights the school district was special assessed for. He says they aren’t congregating where the traffic might be blocked from their sight by a vending cart. Solomon asks if they gather at points as well? Kass says it does happen but not in these numbers, its more like 4 or 5 students and there is lots of land at the school where staff can try to push them to congregate in these other areas. Solomon asks if they have made other efforts to get them not to do that. Kass says they haven’t addressed that yet.
Cnare asks if they could have their own vending area. Kass says it is a valuable and good idea that they will try to address.
Compton asks if there is one vendor that is sitting out there, how much space do they need? Kass says that he is worried about more vendors showing up that is a concern. They are all different sizes and take different amounts of space.
Bidar-Sielaff asks how long they have been vending at East High. Kass says just the last week and three separate days and now it was there again yesterday, but its sporadic. Bidar Sielaff asks if they have explored other areas around Memorial that would be better. To Cnare’s point would be to put it on Memorial’s property. Kass says he thinks it is something they can explore. Haven’t explored it, trying to address the issue. Bidar-Sielaff asks if the school board has a position on this. Kass says they had no chance to discuss the issue, but they are in support of his actions here this evening. [Ahem, sounds like a open meetings violation to me, if they haven’t met and discussed, how does he know they have a position?
Schumacher asks a question I didn’t quite hear. May explains that school district property and right of way is where we regulate and it should be easy to figure out what this is. At some point they have the right to be in the public right of way.
Schumacher says he was at East High this week and asks Kass about PDQ and issues around how many kids are there. What if they go one block away and are still creating a safety issue? Kass says they need to look at the choices they are offering within the school so they don’t leave. We can’t prevent them from leaving during open campus lunch periods. Some businesses have limits on backpacks and number of kids. In other cases, they are a concrete facility and they are not right next to the school. Schumacher says that it is interesting that the cafeteria is too small cuz don’t have space even with a rotational system at East. In some ways the schools are set up to promote purchasing outside the school and yet saying they want to prevent it. Kass says that they want to limit it when it is unsafe. Almost all high schools were set up the same way, built long time ago for less students. Just wants it to be safe – not safe to congregate along Gammon Road – if not along busy street might be a different conversation – all of the schools are problematic except Lafollette. Schumacher says if had ample room to serve students it might be ok, but they won’t do that, why not try to have teachers help with the orderly purchasing of food? Kass says they don’t have a budget to do that. He says that along a busy road not the best thing for kids. Schumacher says they have no capacity to provide the food, security or teacher supervision, so in some ways, we don’t have the resources yet jumping to conclusion that it is the vendors problem – if collaborate. Kass says they do have the capacity to serve the kids, kids don’t always go to the cafeteria. Doesn’t want to say that the school district can’t serve the kids – it’s not about not collaborating, it’s about safety. This guy is becoming a broken record and less and less believable by the moment . . .
Clear asks the vendors how long ago did you start? They say last week. He says they contacted the school principal ahead of time, he said it was a good idea, but he had to call another guy and he said he’d call him back. The vendor called him every day with no response and then they decided to go set up and that is when the principal came out with a different idea, the police came, and they asked him to hold off and talk to the captain. He held off and talked to the captain and he said they were in compliance and nothing they can do. He says 20 – 30 students in each lunch period eat at his cart. A lot of students go to the mall. Clear asks about the principal coming out – the vendor didn’t even open up and principal said it wasn’t a good idea and talked to police captain who said it wasn’t a good idea 0 he’s trying to clarify. The vendor says the Captain said it was a brilliant idea. Principal said one thing and then he changed his mind. Clear asked if they looked at other locations? Vendor says they did and the principal didn’t have any suggestions, the vendor was open to looking at different locations, but he didn’t make any suggestions. Where are the other locations would be for it to still be legal. He said that the city property in those other locations aren’t big enough, not enough space for the cart. If this were to pass it would prevent him from vending.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Rhodes-Conway asks Matt Mikolojewski to briefly describe the street vending permit program. He says that vendors can vend on any street right of way as long as they follow the rules about how long to park, follow parking and traffic regulations and health department rules – then they can vend anywhere in city on public property. In downtown Mall Concourse special area – have to apply and have assigned spot. Also higher vending fees. Similar situation by Camp Randall. [And I think there are restrictions about vending in parks and in other places s well . . .]
Rhodes Conway asks May to confirm this is about the terrace on both sides of street around the schools. He agrees. Rhodes-Conway says on the ordinance they can pass it or defeat or refer. Could we call a time out and allow ourselves some time to discuss it? She says she understands serious issue right now, yet reluctant to make a complex policy decision without getting to discuss it. Wants to discuss safety issue. May says if refer, then sales can go on. If adopt it, you could discuss it and report back on better option and come up with a new proposal or adopt it with a sunset. Ask committees to come back in some period of time. He says 6 months or 9 months or we can sit down and start drafting right now. [I don’t think he tried very hard to come up with a solution to the problem – not very creative. And I think he has a bias towards passing the ordinance since he was suggesting such a long delay. Perhaps he has a bias against this vendor? Not clear what is going on, but it seems like he’s making policy again through his legal advice. I don’t see why they couldn’t have suspended vending and referred within the same motion. I think they were presented with a false choice due to bad advice. They are, after all, the policy makers. And Robert’s Rules aren’t supposed to be there to create these types of hurdles.] Rhodes-Conway asks from a practical point of view, even if we passed it, how soon could it be in effect. Could be a week or a couple weeks. [My understanding from the clerk that disappeared after the Bruer incident was that it was about 15 days, so I’m not sure it could be done in a week.]
Rhodes-Conway wants to speak to the motion, but asks if others have questions. Mayor asks if others have questions, no one does so they move to discussion.
DISCUSSION
Rhodes-Conway says she would like to move referral to Vending Oversight and City-Council/School Board Liaison committee with return in 45 days. Extremely sympathetic to safety issues, at East High is new, but problems with students going across the street is not a new problem. Also smoking cigarettes across the street. And large numbers walking across E Wash to catch the bus. If end vending won’t fix problem of students crossing the streets. Need more discussion with the school board. But not comfortable saying this is the correct solution to the problem. Would encourage the vendors to have a conversation and work with each other to make it safe while the city has a brief discussion about the best policy solution. May want to create an area where we limit the number or ban the carts or something we haven’t thought of. Given discussion tonight it merits the conversation. We should do this right, support referral and not revisit multiple time.
OH WAIT, PHAM-REMMELE NOT PAYING ATTENTION AND NOW WANTS TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF
[What the hell, was she not in the room just a few moments ago when the Mayor was asking if anyone else had questions of staff? She just seems oblivious that she is even out of order – or just too arrogant, I can’t tell which.]
Pham – Remmele – she says she is on the Vending Oversight Committee (VOC) and this came as a surprise to her. Questions for staff – is this the first time ever you have vendor selling near or by a school. Mikolojewski says that this is new, in the past there were not vendors on a regular basis in front of schools. Pham-Remmele asks if this is this within the regulation of the VOC? The VOC did suspend the license last year. Why? Please share violations. [You’d have to be living under a rock if you didn’t know that there were problems with Jin’s Chicken and Fish – she seems to be asking just to embarrass them.] Mikolojewski says there are parking violations. Pham-Remmele asks if there are just parking violations? Nothing else? Altercation with police officer? How is this vendor and his staff set up the vending situations? Are they following regulations? Is he following city restrictions, has he been law abiding? Mikolowjewski says that earlier this year the cart was on private property where it wasn’t legal, but it was moved. Pham-Remmele asks if this is the Francis St issue and if that is solved. Mikolowjewski says yes that was the issue and it is resolved. Pham-Remmele says the VOC did receive complaints from residents and parking people. Mikolojewski says not this year, was last year, we have relocated it to library mall. Pham-Remmele says this vendor has not been exemplary in following regulations. Mikolojewski says there are a number of street vendors that will have a violation and wouldn’t characterize this as the only street vendor to have issues.
BACK TO DISCUSSION
Maniaci amends to send to Ped Bike Motor Vehicle Committee and Public Safety Reviw Committee. She wants to vote down and say go back to the drawing board. They have a right to be here, needs to be a dialog, this is new situation and asking to take this up right away and doesn’t merit suspending right to vend at this point. Has a ton of questions about school events and fundraisers and wonders what other implications this might have and this is a small handful of vendors at this point and should restrict these vendors because is is new and this is the easiest solution. Thinks there is good work to be done with this.
Schumacher asks why Ped, Bike Motor Vehicle Commission?
Maniaici says that as an alder as an alternate – the deal with pedestrian issues around the schools. I missed part of what she says . . . I was laughing too hard at a text message . . .
Schumacher says ok won’t vote against it based on this referral.
Rummel says the rope is a good idea, noticed carts before and thinks it is a lot longer they have been at East and almost stopped herself. She notes there is a fence at East and maybe that is a solution and wishes East had representatives here to ask questions of.
Bidar-Sielaff supports referral to have the larger discussion and as a member of the liaison committee they have been left out of the situation – school board may have been kept up to speed but liaison committee was not. Also worried about safety issues and wants to maybe suspend the vending while discussion. Not fully vetted and thought through and not in depth conversation. Could push vendors further into the neighborhood. Could create other issues for surrounding neighborhood.
Skidmore says that he appreciates and supports what Bidar-Sielaff said about suspending vending during the discussion. Clear traffic problem, not a health problem, it is about safety, not what kind of food he serves. Traffic goes 40 – 50 even though posted at 35. Very easy to get to, its congregation point, whether 20 or 200 students are there its still a problem with pushing and shoving and people traveling on Gammon Rd – and people stopping illegally to buy food. [Hmm, that’s another issue.] He says he was approached by Lengfeld to let him know and see if he could do anything – he sasy he contacted school district and May. Attempted to create a solution to an immediate traffic hazard. Refer and have vending stop for 45 or 60 days. Doesn’t think there will be any change, closes a loophole someone found. [I find that an interesting characterization.] Within 6 inches of the curb is where they park. Serious traffic issues, police and school district and high school oppose it. Luis Yudice wants to keep kids safe. 4 kids died in that area on Skidmore’s watch and he doesn’t want it to happen again.
Clausius says that the vendors have a right to be there, would like to see school, police and vendors to find a temporary location – perhaps a nearby parking lot. Not interested in forcing these people out of business for 45 or 60 days, thinks referral is appropriate.
Compton asks May – can we amend? May says they need to vote on referral, if that fails then can amend. Compton agrees with Bidar-Sielaff to stop the sales while we decide. Young girl just killed on Gammon, not from jostling around, just trying to cross the road. These kids are horsing around and fall off the curb and they could get hit by a car. Agrees with referral with cessation of sales for 45 or 60 (she likes 60 better). Says one child’s life is not worth getting offended cuz didn’t go through proper channels. Don’t want to lose a child cuz let vendors do their job. Will vote against referral.
Rhodes-Conway says that safe routes to school program and dealing with traffic issues around schools is even more important after this discussion and notes they will get a presentation on that at the November meeting of the School Board liaison committee and invites others to join them. Clear it is an important issue. For their info 4 referrals, they meeting between and it would come back December 1st. Possible to deal with it expediently. We’re not able to make a decision and refer it at the same time. Although everyone wants to. Either make a decision or find something else to talk about. She prefers the later. Out action tonight is not the only thing to be done to make the situation safer, we have other things we can do and she thinks that the parties involved are willing to do that.
Pham-Remmele in opposition to referral not only as an alder, but as a teacher, there is a safety issue. There is so much time in the day of a student, we have cafeterias, we provide adequate healthy meals for students and snacks and so to have this distracting kids is bad, 25% truancy in some schools, lunch is only a certain period. Kids would like to have snacks, pizza and what not, what she sees as a nightmare, class starts and kids not there and when have food vending cart, there will be people lining up and cuing in the street and that is what happened with night vending. Thinks school came up with a good solution. We don’t need a kid to hit by the car – nothing about the food, but with the experience at Francis Street it is enough of a nuisance, doesn’t see anything . . . missed something . . . understands needs to make money, but kids have limited money for lunch. Don’t refer, needs immediate action, if we are responsible as parents and as people who want to keep kids in school and stay focused on that – this is a distraction. She agrees that this is a gap that when we set the ordinance we did not prepare for this. We want to give everyone a fair chance, no need to discuss again. Doesn’t want to put any child at risk. A child at school may run after a ball and could get hit – that is why we slow down the speed limit. Please, maybe she’s not a very nice person but for the sake of the students, the sake of the staff, this is a safety issue and they have enough work on their hands, they need our help.[Sometimes I have a hard time following her and trying to make it make sense for you and sometimes I just give up. I hope it accurately reflects what she said.]
Clear says if we ask for referral then they can keep vending. Whether they will be is unsure, but anyone else could set up tomorrow. Reject referral and make an amended motion with sunset. As district alder and Memorial parent he asks that they solve the safety issue tonight.
Cnare asks what would it take to put up temporary no parking signs in the area. They explain that won’t work to prevent the vending.
Schumacher agrees with referral, would like to see the moratorium – can’t support referral.
Kerr calls the question. Solomon only one left to speak and passes, they don’t vote on the calling the question as no one is still wanting to speak.
They have a voice vote where the nos clearly were louder, Mayor says he can’t make the call and asks for a roll call:
AYE: Kerr, Maniaci, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Sanborn, Solomon, Clausius
NO: King, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Verveer
Bidar Sielaff offers and amendment to have a sunset on Dec 10 2009 and still wants to refer to all those committees. They tell her she can’t do that.
Clear says can adopt with sunset, someone need to introduce removal of sunset. [I didn’t understand that, if it sunsets, it just goes away without a positive action of some other kind. Those who think this is a temporary fix wouldn’t want to introduce the removal of the sunset and make it permanent, they’d want to repeal the whole thing.]
Rummel says this isn’t fair, it impacts other schools. She says this is something she was taught that good policy makers should never do, you don’t fix one probelm in a global way. They have a right to do this, they offered to fix some safety things and work with the school district.
Solomon agrees with Rummel, can’t believe we are going to do this, obviously we all care about safety, we have worked with school district and have a school district that hasn’t even looked at alternatives – likely this will pass, but we need to think about this, this is the wrong vote to make.
Bidar-Sielaff – she doesn’t think this was good policy either. Has confidence that they will come back on December 10th and come up with a good solution. Appropriate business to have – not a long term policy – this is a short term gap fix – this is not a good way to deal with policy – trying to make lemonade out of what we had, this isn’t her position long term.
Clear disagrees – thinks this is exactly the right action to take. He says Rhodes-Conway wants a time out – like a temporary restraining order, this is an urgent public safety issue, stop the bleeding and then assess what the correct action is to take. 6 weeks is all we are waiting, and we are removing the urgent issues.
Schumacher supports the referral and compromise, [I wonder if the the vendors feel like this is a compromise?] err on side of safety, but if the school district owns part of the solution – the only solution not to have vendors there – wants to see some other solutions.
Solomon says that school district acknowledged they haven’t tried anything else to solve the problem and they already have problems, there is no reason they couldn’t do the same thing here and just try to get the students to behave differently. A time out is good for a five year old, but a small business means it could be the end.
ROLL CALL VOTE
AYE: King, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clear, Cnare, Compton
NO: Kerr, Maniaci, Rummel, Sanborn, Solomon, Clausius, Eagon.
ABESENT/EXCUSED: Verveer
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
APPOINTMENTS
#13 – I missed what the motion was, but I think they accepted the appointments for the Sustainability Committees . .
HOME FUNDS FOR GOODWILL
#15 – Goodwill project – Rhdes-Conway has no objection to Goodwill proposals or accommodating them off the Truman Olson site, but does have an objection to using HOME funds to make the accommodation. We have to recognize the funds are limited, many proposals could be worthy and frankly, if we are making the accommodation for Goodwill the money should come from the entity that will be responsible for the redevelopment, from the CDA. Doesn’t have option to vote for that tonight, so voting against it. Not good use of HOME funds.
Clausius says in support and asks Mikolojewski if he would weigh in. This money is out there and if Goodwill doesn’t apply it could go somewhere else. He thinks Goodwill is a good fit.
Mikolojewski says the funds are available. It is correct they could be used for other eligible projects.
Kerr says that this is a joint project between a bunch of districts, Truman Olson is in her district and understands need to have discussion about use of HOME funds, but suspects that no matter where the projects go, there will be a gap that needs HOME funds and it is eligible. Her main concern is to get the housing built in a relatively quick way. Great need for this type of housing in the city.
Bruer says that it doesn’t matter what district it is in. He says there was always criticism that CDA and CDBG don’t work well together, this is a way they can work together. [Sure, it works out well for CDA, I wonder how CDBG feels about it? Is this collaboration or more of a taking?] Puts serious teeth into our commitment to this population. Says something about land banking. Acute housing need, viable org with strong track record. Heard this is very much competitive and in line with priorities for HOME funds, and we have an unmet need. So hope not CDA or CDBG but collaborative effort, putting real resources towards unmet need in the community.
Voice vote passes with Rhodes-Conway is the only no vote.
NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
#50 – Rhodes-Conway appreciates the work done, not perfect like any plan – one thing discussed at multiple committees that tried to get into the plan and not yet successful. Moves and amendment to have city gather data from utilities, water utility and MPO regarding energy, water and traffic counts to track our progress in the neighborhoods. Says there is an extensive process to evaluate the progress, once there are 1,000 units built, but that could take a decade to get to that point. We should know before that if we are headed in the right direction. She says we would access data we already have access to. We already have it and people are willing to share it. It simply is taking what we have and looking at it once a year.
Bruer has a question for staff, why can’t they do this? Murphy says that there was a concern that staff might not be able to collect the data. Plan Commission split the vote and rejected a similar motion. One of concerns was ability to obtain the information and thought the recommendation would occur when 10% of the neighborhood built out. Some of this could obtained earlier. But staff thought the recommendations were adequate.
Kerr says that she has an amendment but Bruer wants to know what she thinks. She says Murphy said what needed to be said. 3-4 vote and there was a sense that this was overly burdensome and difficult to track and not necessary. She has other issues.
Cnare says she is of two minds, she was one of the people that worried about the staff burden. Sympathetic to need for staff to do extra work, but in the spirit of compromise willing to vote for it tonight. Encourage staff to pull readily available data. This does not make or break the plan, but will support it.
Rhodes-Conway clarifies that the language should says “and if available” before the utility information.
Kerr wants to remove language about marketing and promotion of the neighborhood – withdraws – out of order.
Rummel supports it, if we’re going to tout it as a green neighborhod we need measurements. They are important and we should do it.
Compton asks something I didn’t understand and Rhodes-Conway answered it. Compton asks if a year is reasonable? She says that is a short period of time, that we should make it a longer period of time. Every 1,000 units and every 1,000 employees is when they were going to measure it. Murphy says that staff could work on the annual report, not sure how much development would occur in the first few years. Won’t be a lot of development so the data collections will be minimal. We won’t see a whole lot of information until it builds out.
Compton says sales are likely to be slow, says it would be difficult, could we put a date certain on when to begin. Rhodes-Conway says if nothing there, no data to collect.
Compton asks staff the cost, in the early years, not much at all. As more development occurs, it will be collecting the same data over and over and as more development occurs it will take longer. They will give it a shot and try it. Common council can make adjustments if this becomes a burden on the staff.
Compton asks Rhodes-Conway if they could have a time period, or do it forever and ever.
Rhodes-Conway asks if current reporting process every 1,000 employees or households had an end time. Statz says its a 30 year development plan so it would be 30 years. Rhodes-Conway says a 30 year sunset on the report would be friendly.
Compton says that covenants and restrictions expire after 20 or 25 years, since this is a restriction on the property, would we cross the state statute if we pass this? May says this is just a direction to staff, so she makes the amendment. No objection, it is friendly.
Clear clarifies what has already been said.
Kerr getting cranky . . . they vote on Rhodes-Conway’s amendment, its unanimous voice vote.
Kerr makes motion to remove language about promotion and marketing of the neighborhood. #8, page 22. Cnare seconds. She says she is frustrated that so much of the time spent at the plan commission is for plans in the outlying area, yet she can’t get a conservation district, and it took 4 years for Greenbush to pass their neighborhood plan and neighbors did the work and this plan took 6 staff people to do this. Everyone likes to rally around this green neighborhood but most sustainable neighborhoods already exist and we should pay attention to that. City has no business marketing any neighborhoods. If the city is going to get into the business of marketing neighborhoods, it should do it but not do it because this is someone’s project. Should have a policy to decide when we market neighborhoods.
Cnare says it was a split vote at Plan. Those who supported it said it was responsibility of the developer – they will do the work. Unanimous voice vote.
No discussion – plan passes voice on a voice vote.
CHRONIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE
Move approval of substitute
PUBLIC TESTIMONEY
Nancy Jensen left – AASCW in support of repeal of sunset.
Rosemary Lee left.
DISCUSSION
Solomon moves the alternate. Mayor asks what it is and doesn’t realize it exists even tho it was discussed at various committees and it is in legistar and has been for weeks.
Solomon explains it is similar to the proposal he sponsored 6 or 7 months ago, not expecting a big change in votes, he says it has 6 big changes, which he briefly explains:
– Requires charges to be filed instead of just a search warrant, he says this is a higher standard – talking about eviction of residents, we need a higher standard.
– Charges not arrest, higher standard, same reasons.
– “Considering” vs. “implementing” alternatives to evictions, why would anyone be against it – why not do alternatives if they exist
– Domestic violence should not be a nuisance – domestic abuse advocates were not in favor of this as originally reported.
– Anti-retaliation language for members of the household, not just the tenant
– Failure to renew lease if not in violation.
This is a good policy, voted for it, these are small changes to make it fair and equitable and make sure it doesn’t have negative impacts on our city. EOC in drafting this version talked about impact of evictions on minorities, they asked about that information. He talks about example 5 months ago, shots fired on Allied, concerned neighbors, talked to police and landlord and landlord association – some concerns in the building, so the city sent a letter about chronic nuisance and it never went to chronic nuisance. He talks about letter from Balles to Chief Wray, 100 drug nuisance letters sent out, what happened was most tenants got evicted. [Ok, this is where I start to lose it, I made an open records request two weeks ago for this information that Solomon is holding in his hands and I start to wonder why I never got it.] We have data on the 8 places, we have no data on the hundreds places. Before they make it permanent and consider it a success, think about the repercussions. He says the alternate is to wait one more year. A year from now we can eliminate it – we don’t know enough yet.
Maniaci says she’s on the Housing Committee and they voted 14 to 0 with one person excused to go forward with this as is. Just lifting the sunset. This has worked really well, some points we could tinker with, open to that, would rather just lift the sunset. Apartment Association had issues with the proposal . . . and I stopped listening. [I stopped listening because I wanted to see the list that Brian had and at some point I went to register to speak, but filled out the form incorrectly and the Mayor didn’t realize I wanted to speak.]
Clausius says that the police department has serious reservations about the changes. Asks police department to weigh in.
Wray says they don’t support the changes, don’t see the ordinance as broken. Why would we need to go through a number of safeguards and checks and balances when the ordinance has been used safely and cautiously. They have methodically gone through the concerns expressed in the past. He asks Zilavy to respond. [Hmmm, is Wray a member of the council now? I think everyone is aware of Zilavy’s positions.]
Zilavy says they have no control over what DA does. May have executed a search warrant and got no response from DAs office. She talked a lot, I’ve heard it too many times to have been paying attention. [Plus I was watching the City Attorney and May looking at my registration slip and looking up ordinances to try to figure out if I’m violating a law that restricts me from representing anyone before a city committee or council for one year after I’m out of office.]
She says that they already do one of the changes and that landlords don’t want to evict, they want the money and if they can avoid eviction they will try to take that route. She says regarding the Domestic Abuse provision, 2 years ago they did have domestic violence people meet and they were comfortable with a review of the ordinance at a later date. On the other changes . . . not necessarily have issues with changes.
She says that Balles’ report needs to be clarified, the 100 nuisance letters include a majority of drug nuisance letters which is different. She says those letters informs them of state statute, can evict if you so choose, you have to abate it. The majority are drug nuisance letters, not chronic nuisance letters.
[At this point, I’m just pissed. I see the letter she is referring to was dated September 29. I made my open records request on October 6th when she discussed the list at the CCOC meeting. It was now the 20th and I got no response. They were essentially sitting on the information. What really makes me mad is that they say they have no way of getting the information about how many people were evicted. However, I have a database in my office, which many in the city know about, that I could have checked those 100 addresses and see how many people were filed against in small claims court. That is what I would have said. I would have said the eviction info was readily available and they could have just asked. I personally would have just given them the info as it is a public record. In short, they didn’t even try to comply with the ordinance requirement that they submit a report indicating among other things: “3. How many evictions were directly associated with a Premises being declared a Chronic Nuisance Premises”. What I would have testified about was that I made that open records request to gather the information they say they cannot access. Folks in the back of the room wanted me to file a lawsuit about this and welcomed me to being part of the media and getting ignored. I informed them that this happened even when I was an alder and this is classic police department behavior. If I could have testified, I would have told the council about my ignored open records request and requested that they wait to get the eviction info which the police couldn’t seem to figure out and which I could have for them in 24 hours.]
Bruer says blah blah blah . . . for a long time . . . I was distracted . . . .
Schumacher says Bruer asked him not to speak, in support of removing the sunset, reject EOC version.
Bidar Sielaff – notes there were some changes at CCOC and that they would continue to have some oversight.
Bruer says that CCOC chief says that it would be part of his annual report.
Kerr – says that she started out skeptical, talks about problems in her neighborhood, there are issues and the neighbors are upset, and she asks alot if we have enough to do a chronic nuisance on this. So hard for people to live near the house, a lot of calls about police calls, and fights and knives and guns and looks to chronic nuisance as a life saver.
Pham-Remmele says she comes to council meeting with many, many, many messages from constituents who strongly support making it permanent. She says they are aware of situation in her district, many residents who have put up with negative activities and they don’t have a choice. This will help neighborhood watches, get people to work together to take back the neighborhood. Work together and make it a better place to for everybody – this isn’t discriminating to any particular group of people. For last two plus years has been effective. Please make it permanent.
Rummel asks Chief what will be in the annual report? Will they get info on domestic violence? He says that the issues discussed at CCOC will be what is in his report. His report will include what properties were declared chronic nuisance, how many abated and length of time to abate. The one questions was how many evictions were directly impacted, hard to get at the information. The drug abatement or nuisance abatement, captains are not trained to focus on evicting people, focused on abating. Those were the things discussed at CCOC. Absent the eviction information.
Rummel asks what they will see in the report. He is really snotty and asks her if she got the report. She says that she is asking for the public. He talks about Balles report. He only has what is proposed by CCOC.
The alternate fails on a voice vote.
Motion to adopt 55. Voice vote passed unanimously.
CONCLUSION
Bruer says nothing else on the docket.
Rhodes Conway introduced by title only to repeal sunset on vending by schools. Refer to vending oversight committee, Ped Bike, School Board Liaison and PSRC. 2/3 vote needed because by title only, passes unanimously.
Move to adjourn.
