It's that time of year again: city budget season. It's like Thanksgiving, Independence Day and New Year's Eve all rolled into one for local government geeks, and I'll be bringing you the play by play with a live blog of the proceedings.

Public hearing is scheduled for Day 1, with advocates (or opponents) for everything from the Edgewater Hotel and Central Library to WYOU and city trees coming out to have their say. At last year's proceedings, the City Council made it through the entire capital budget on Day 1, but with the Edgewater Hotel TIF and Central Library on this year's agenda, that seems less likely. 

Unlike last year, I will be keeping my updates in chronological order rather than reverse chronological order, so check the bottom of the entry for updates as the night goes on. I forgot to add these in earlier, but the amendments proposed (that most speakers are commenting on), can be found here for the capital budget and here for the operating budget.

I'm also going to try something new this year and link to the discussion on each amendment, with sort of a table of contents at the beginning.

Where to find council discussion on amendments discussed at Tuesday's meeting.

Capital Budget Amendment 1 (a few technical adjustments to budgeted projects) here

Capital Budget Amendment 2 (originally, requiring that the city secure New Market Tax Credits and $4 million in private fundraising before going forward on a new Central Library -- later amended to just the first half) here

Capital Budget Amendment 3 (asking city staff to study the feasibility of a rooftop community garden for the new Central Library) here

Capital Budget Amendment 4 (removing nearly $2 million in TIF funding for Capitol Square improvements) here

Capital Budget Amendment 5 (removing $11,000 from a project to improve the security of the City Council office) here

Capital Budget Amendment 6 (removing nearly $1 million in funding for a Central Park) here

Capital Budget Amendment 7 (removing $320,000, mostly in private donations and park impact fees, for various park improvements) here

Capital Budget Amendment 8 (adding $1.2 million in funds for improvements to James Madison Park and other parkland from the long-term lease of historic properties in James Madison Park) here

Capital Budget Amendment 9 (removing $30,000 in TIF funds for tree planting) here

Capital Budget Amendment 10 (removing $40,000 in TIF funds for improvements to Breese Stevens Field) here

5:30 p.m.: The mayor just walked in and seems to be settling in, but most City Council members are still milling around, so it's hard to tell if there's quorum. The crowd waiting to testify seems a bit more sparse than last year, when raising bus fares was on the table, but the seats are still mostly full and many are standing.

5:40 p.m.: They're calling the roll and the movement in the room has slowed down as people find seats (or a good view for standing). Ald. Tim Bruer moves an honoring resolution for Veteran's Day, the only non-budget related item for the day. Mayor Dave Cieslewicz reads the resolution, and it's unanimously approved.

Ald. Bridget Maniaci makes a motion to suspend the rules to allow questions of speakers after every 10 speakers, similar to how the County Board operates. Ald. Mark Clear says despite the number in the room, there are probably fewer speakers than expected and it may not be necessary. Cieslewicz says there's a double-edged sword to doing that -- people at the beginning don't have to stay for the entire hearing, but people at the end have to wait longer to speak. Ald. Steve King says it may be better for debate, as alders can more easily remember questions to ask speakers.

There's a roll call vote, which is 18-0 with two passes.

5:50 p.m.: Bruer recommends that those answering questions be sensitive to time, as there may be speakers waiting to have their say. Cieslewicz reminds

Tom Koslowski is the first speaker, who is not present. An auspicious start to the evening.

Jerome Knepp is next, and he is also not present. The third speaker is not present, and the fourth is frequent political candidate Will Sandstrom. Sandstrom brings in a rodent wheel to illustrate his point -- that politicians are in a rut of spending and taxes, fines and fees increasing. He adds that the taxes and fees are like "nuts and cookies" being thrown into the wheel that politicians can nibble on, but taxpayers can't. He mentions a several-hundred dollar fine that was a big "nut in the wheel." Sandstrom suggests furloughs like the state, adding that the governor had the "cojones" to save the money. He suggests that the city doesn't need building inspectors in these tough economic times (I'm just writing/paraphrasing what he says, to clarify). He goes into a rendition of his personal history, then says he's done -- he just wants "furlough, furlough, furlough," and tells the mayor to give himself a pink slip.

Cieslewicz challenges remaining speakers to be as "engaging" as Sandstrom.

The next speaker is Steven Flotilla, who wants to speak on an amendment to add $50,000 for homeless prevention. He says many people are here on behalf of the homeless population -- including some homeless people or representatives from organizations that help the homeless. He adds that he was once homeless, and he was treated poorly, and cautions the City Council to try to put themselves in the place of homeless . He says some homeless have made mistakes, others have disabilities that prevent them from working, and asks the City Council to think about asking for help from friends and family they may or may not need, and how that makes them feel and what the likelihood is that they would get that help.

Tom Landgraf, a member of the city's Alcohol License Review Committee, is here to speak for himself on the issue of the Central Library and part of the financing plan -- the $6 million in federal New Market Tax Credits. He says in the current marketplace as it exists for financing and tax credits, "there's a real opportunity" now for using credits, citing legislation from Congress that added an extra allocation of tax credits to the market for this year as well as additional ones for next year. A year or more from now, those credits will likely be much harder to obtain, he says, as the market may be closer to normal. He adds that banks are not lending as much, which puts the city in a good position to be the one taking on this debt. He cautions the city not to do anything to delay the Central Library because of these conditions.

Mary Carbine of the Central Business Improvement District is speaking on behalf of 200 commercial property owners and 370 businesses in the State Street area. She is speaking in opposition to the first operating budget amendment, which is to dissolve the Capital Revolving Fund and facade improvement grant program. The BID opposes dissolving these funds because they help "leverage private funds" to improve the appearance ans safety of the city. She also speaks in favor of an operating budget amendment to add $50,000 for homeless prevention.

Mike O'Brien, who represents a union (I didn't catch which one), is here to speak on operating budget amendments 5 and 6 that would restore some city positions that were cut -- though Streets Dvision positions were not listed, he suggested adding the two positions cut from that division back in, as the city continues to grow and there continues to be work for them to do, from large-item and leave collection to plowing the growing number of city streets.

Scott Thornton, president of the Marquette Neighborhood Association, is speaking in opposition to amendment 1, which would remove funding for facade improvement grants, because it would hurt economic development. The association also supports operating budget amendment 8, which directs the Parks Divsion to allocate forestry staff to the preservation of terrace trees during street reconstruction, but Thornton says it does not go far enough. He suggests adding staff to make sure that city trees are protected during construction. The association is also in support operating budget amendment 10.

Eric Allen is speaking in favor of adding $30,000 to the operating budget for WYOU -- he's the technical director there, and he jokes that he's been the director for as long as he can remember, or four years. When he started at the station, he said it was a hole in the wall with a lot of issues, but since then, it has really "become something," become more efficient and become something the city should be proud of. WYOU is providing a service to teach citizens about how to use video for their own purposes, something no one else is doing. While a lot of things are going online, Allen says it's even more important for Madison to be well-represented on the world stage of the Internet and WYOU can help with that. He adds that PEG stands for something -- not just government access, but public access to media. 

Natalie Hinckley is speaking in favor of adding funds for WYOU. She's on the board of WYOU and spoke in support of it at last week's council meeting, but says tonight she's going to speak on how WYOU helps the underrepresented. After a talk with her alder, she said she found out that the impression of WYOU is that it's a "bunch of hippies." WYOU's annual budget is about $140,000, or less than half of the City Channel's budget and less than the cost of about an hour of regular TV -- so in that sense, she says, "I guess we are a bunch of granola-crunching hippies" to make that work. Hinckley says WYOU helps underprsented voices, shown by its donations of years of master tapes of "Ntohing to Hide," a long-running show on LGBT issues, as well as many of its current shows. She says the station is aware of its perception and has been working hard to change it -- fundraising has gone from nothing to $30,000, and other efforts are underway. She closes by again saying that WYOU represents public access to media.

Joe Dean, the owner of University Audio Shop, is speaking in support of addign funds for WYOU. He says he has donated about $10,000 to the station and thinks it would be "represehensible" for the council to reduce its funding by half. He says WYOU helps not only give public access to media, but teaches the public how to best use it. WYOU's main purpose isn't fundraising, although he understands it's important in today's economic environment. If the city cuts the funds this year, though, WYOU will not be able to do as much, which will make fundraising harder -- essentially, it will "strangle" WYOU and push it out of business.

Rick (I missed his last name) is speaking in favor of adding funds to the city budget for community service organizations that help people help themselves. Right now, he says most people's favorite radio station is WIFM -- What's in it for me? -- but that maturation of society will hopefully lead to WIFU (What's in it for us?) and WIFE (What's in it for everyone?) From his life and work experience, he says it's important to invest in the people who are working to help everyone, and that there isn't enough money for the government to not spend it on those people.

Annelise Anderson asks the city to add funding back in for WYOU, saying it would be a tragic loss for free speech for the city to lose WYOU. TV has become the source of news and information for most people, but without public access, it's entirely controlled by corporate interests, providing on "infotainment" and commercials. WYOU helps give everyone a voice and shed light on things that may not be covered by the mainstream media -- asking people who have been hit the hardest by the economy to fundraise for WYOU is a mistake.

Wesley Marone is speaking in favor of adding $50,000 to the operating budget for homeless prevention. He says "the world revolves around money," and these services are needed to help people get back on their feet. 

Gary Peterson is a city planner and wants to speak in favor of adding funds in the budget for sending city planners to conferences. We need to be able to get planners out to see new horizons, experience workshops and see things that they're not getting to that they need to. The city is restricting the planners unnecessarily. He cites a conference that he attended in Chicago years ago that helped provide planners a few outlandish ideas, but also incredibly valuable ones -- creating a Chicago parks system, making sure the shore of Lake Michigan are public (all but two miles now are). Planners need to be exposed to that kind of vision to give them inspiration for how the city should look in 20 or 50 years.

Susan Schmitz of Downtown Madison, Inc. is speaking first as chair of Madison Parks Foundation to support amendments 6 and 8 in the operating budget -- we can never take for granted the city's parks system. For DMI, she's speaking in favor of adding $50,000 for homeless prevention, which is something that DMI has supported for many years. DMI is also "extremely opposed" to removing money for facade improvement grants.

6:40 p.m.: Lori Kief of AFSCME Local 60 is speaking in favor of amendments to add city staff positions back into the budget. She says she wants to put some faces to the positions being cut. Lynn Francois, who has worked for the city since 1999, will be cut to half-time, but the work isn't going away. None of the people will likely lose their jobs, but they could be "bumped" into positions that they don't want to be in. Another worker, Jim, who staffs the Street Use Staff Committee, helps with beloved Madison events like Taste of Madison. Jim Young is a long-time city worker and park ranger whose position is being reduced despite year-round work. He has helped staff concessions for the Tenney Park Ice Rink, helping the city bring in $19,000 from skate rentals, as well as the lake access program.

Amy Mondloch, who is president of the Grassroots Leadership College, is speaking on an amendment to add more than $300,000 to the community services budget. This is a crucial time for funding of these services -- many have seen no increases or cuts recently despite serving more people than ever before. This City Council has the opportunity to set a new legacy by beginning to restore cuts these agencies have seen.

Rick Richards, chair of the WYOU board, is speaking in support of adding funds back into the budget for WYOU. Other speakers have been eloquent on this issue, so he just wants to deal with a few issues that have been raised in previous discussions. First, that there was a "deal" between the mayor's office and WYOU that funding would be cut by half this year after full funding last year -- WYOU asked at the time for the possibility to revisit this, as they were not sure what could be fundraised and brought on a new director shortly after last year's budget conversation. WYOU has made a lot of changes since February 2008, which is when changes to state law signaled the end to PEG funds, and losing half their city funding next year would hurt the progress of those changes and the work toward being self-sufficient. He adds that the channel change for WYOU to 95 and 991 has also hurt WYOU's quest to get new viewers and raise funds. He jokes that WYOU has been told that they were being cut this year to help prepare them 

Tanya Anderson is the assistant program director for City Channel whose position is being cut -- she's speaking in favor of an amendment to restore it. Anderson is a graphic designer by trade who helps people get their announcements on the Community Bulletin Board, which is the only thing on the "award-winning City Channel" that has won an award in the last three years. Though the Community Bulletin Board will not be cut, but the duties will be reassigned to a supervisor who already has a full workload, and the quality will suffer. While Anderson can move into other city jobs, none of the open positions are suitable to her skills as a graphic designer.

Sheryl Cato of the Rainbow Project, which serves children that have been through trauma and stress. She's here in unity with other community service providers to support an amendment to increase funding for community services -- community service providers help prevent future crime and protect future safety of the city, particularly by helping children who might otherwise get into criminal activity.

Susan Scott is speaking in favor of adding funds back into the budget for WYOU, highlighting the many local events that WYOU covers and multicultural programming it provides. She's looking forward to helping out in the future with WYOU by filming or helping out in other ways at the station.

Linda Ketchum of Madison Area Urban Ministry is speaking in favor of adding funds to the community services budget. She thanks the mayor for preserving community service funding this year and the alders who proposed the increase. While the Urban Ministry's funding has not been affected much, but the ministry relies on many other community service agencies that are struggling and funding for them is important. The organizations are stressed and the security net is becoming frayed. The ministry's position on the funding amendment is that it goes first for a cost of living increase to currently funded agencies, then toward new services, and that it becomes part of the base budget rather than a one-time measure.

Craig Meyer, who is on the Board of Directors for WYOU, is speaking in favor of adding funds back into the budget for WYOU. He thanks the community for the support they have given WYOU so far in donations and letters/e-mails to the City Council in favor of the amendment. He also encourages those who are on the fence for the amendment to consider voting in favor of it because WYOU is important. For the members who are not on board with WYOU, he suggest coming down to the station for a tour and getting a membership for themselves and someone they know. He urges the council members to give a gift of creativity to someone -- it's only $40, which is what many people spend on a meal and lasts much longer.

7:05 p.m.: The number of operating budget speakers seemed to keep growing -- the mayor said he would allow questions after the operating budget speakers, which was 13 at one point. Finally, it's time for questions.

Ald. Marsha Rummel asks Mike O'Brien what the cost of adding two streets positions back in is, and how that would work with the budget calling for moving from weekly to bi-weekly large-item pick-up, which requires less staff. O'Brien says the committee looking into large-item pick-up did not recommend moving to bi-weekly pick-up, but that the streets division has plenty to do regardless. The operating positions being limited are the "lynchpins" of what streets does -- they can do multiple duties, making them very valuable to the division. The mayor says the net cost of adding the positions back in would b about $200,000.

Ald. Lauren Cnare asks Rick Richards of WYOU if his organization would be amenable to applying for funds through the community services budget process, which also funds media like the Simpson Street Free Press. Richards says it's the goal of WYOU not to need to do that, as lots of organizations are hurting and need funding, but they have been applying for funding that typically goes to community services while they work on other measures to bring in revenue.

Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway asks Lori Kief if there was anything else she wanted to add (her time ran out while speaking). Kief adds that they support adding the City Channel position back in, and that for people losing positions, their work isn't going away. Rhodes-Conway asks if ity employees are having trouble using compensatory time because there's too much work -- Kief says that is a problem in the Parks Division and the Water Utility right now, and that losing positions would not help that. Rhdoes-Conway asks more about the "bumping" process for union employees to move from cut positions to open positions or positions filled by people with less seniority. Kief says the open positions are often not the best use of the current staffer -- such as Anderson, who is a trained graphic designer likely to move into typist position -- and that moving into new positions can be very "disruptive" if the cut staffer wants to move into a position filled by someone with less seniority (it can have a ripple effect).

7:15 p.m. There are 56 speakers on the capital budget, which is starting now. The first speaker is Greg Markle, who sits on the Madison Public Library Board. Markle is speaking against amendment 2, which would prevent the city from going forward on a new Central Library until certain fundraising objectives are met, because it would have a chilling effect on fundraising. He understands the concerns of alders proposing it, but fundraisers often want to know when the groundbreaking is and other concrete details, and this amendment limits the ability for the city to answer those questions. Any contingency on the Central Library makes it "not quite a project" for donors, and so he doesn't support it. The Madison Children's Museum is in the midst of a $10 million cpaital campaign started in 2007, and they're at $8.2 million because they started building while fundraising and gave donors something concrete.

Bill Kunkler, vice president of the Fiore Companies (the company whose plan for Central Library was selected), is speaking against amendment 2. As Tom Landgraf mentioned earlier, this is a really outstanding time to be seeking New Market Tax Credits and he knows there will be a high level of interest in the Central Library. Additional delays to the project schedule, however, could put those credits as well as potential construction savings at risk -- ultimately, it could lead to a substantially higher cost of the library. It has been a long year for those working on the Central Library, but they are looking forward to moving ahead on this project.

Tripp Widder, president of the Madison Public Library Board and former president of the Madison Public Library Foundation, is speaking against amendment 2. Widder, who is chair of the Central Library capital campaign, wants to address the implication that not fundraising $10 million in private money will mean more tax money in the Central Library. First, he says the foundation is "firmly committed" to raising $10 million and will seek out the consultants necessary to organize a campaign of that level. He says libraries are special -- despite a tough economy, nobody has said "no" to the South Madison library, which is two-thirds of the way there in terms of fundraising. Also, he says the private fundraising is planned to be the last piece of the library -- going for interior decorations that will be undertaken about two years from now. As that private fundraising goes on, the city can gauge where the foundation is at on fundraising and adjust the interior costs as necessary -- by using some supplies from the old Central Library or waiting to open a floor until enough funds are raised.

Second, he says the delay on the library will hurt the New Market Tax Credits and make fundraising harder. (He ran out of time, so comments were probably briefer than expected).

Scott Vaughn of the Building and Construction union is speaking against amendments that eliminate TIF for Edgewater and restrict the Central Library. He calls on the people in the audience belonging to trade unions who support the Edgewater Hotel and Central Library to stand up -- about two or three dozen people, or about half or two-thirds of the total audience at this point do so. He says now is the time for the city to help providing hundreds of family-supporting jobs while saving money on projects like the Central Library -- the South Madison Library came in 18 percent lower than expected, and the Sequoya Library came in 29 percent lower than expected. The competitive climate for construction will not last forever, making building now important. WIth regard to Edgewater TIF, he says he won't say much about it, but he wants to explain that a recent mailing as well as radio and TV ads in favor of the project did not get any funds from the Edgewater developers and the developers had no say in those advertising.

Allen Arnsten is speaking against the Edgewater and Central Library amendments. Both of the buildings are going to make Madison proud -- it's important to invest in aging downtowns, and the public process for each has already improved the projects. But, he says, don't make it harder for these projects -- the public process will continue without any "unnecessary roadblocks," which will send a bad message

Eric Cobb, who is a union painter, is speaking against the Edgewater and Central Library amendments. Why are these projects so important? Many union employees have been laid off for most of this year. While Madison may have weathered the storm well so far, the economic hard times have hit Madison, and this year and next year are going to be tough for those in trade unions. Madison is known for its community spirit, and he asks the council to support members of the community get back to work in the trades.

Maurice (I missed his last name) is a carpenter who has been laid off for most of this year. Madison needs the jobs that the Edgewater Hotel and the Central Library would provide -- his family needs the money and health insurance that they would help provide.

7:40 p.m.: Scott Watson of Carpenters 314 Union is speaking against the Edgewater and Central Library amendments. About a quarter of the trade union employees are currently laid off and need the work, but he adds that it's also the right time to move forward on big projects -- the construction is cheaper and would provide up to 800 construction jobs for the next two years.

Pete Ostlind (who is a member of Capitol Neighborhoods, but speaking for himself) is speaking against the Central Library amendment. Not only is now a good time to building, he says the current Central Library is a "ticking time bomb" that could go off and any time and require very expensive maintenance just to keep itself running. Ostlind is also speaking against amendments that would remove capital funds for several downtown and parks projects.

Ostlind is also speaking in favor of the Edgewater Hotel amendment. While he emphasizes with the need for jobs -- he's worked in construction and knows several people who will not have a job after their current construction projects -- but construction jobs last a year and a half, and a building should last at least 70 years. It's not the right project right now and should not be in the budget.

Susan Schmitz of DMI is speaking against amendments to remove funds for downtown improvements as well as the Central Library and Edgewater amendments. The DMI Board has gone on record supporting both projects. She says DMI talks to a lot of people about what they want to do to improve the downtown, from improving parks and bike paths and public transit and community services for the many homeless people who live downtown. To do all those things, though, the city needs private investment like these projects to get the property taxes for these improvements -- these amendments would not only hurt the current proposals, but potentially deter further investment downtown.

Rick Chandler of the Madison Public Library Foundation is speaking against the Central Library amendment. He explains that waiting for $4 million in private fundraising could delay the project up to two years -- the foundation would likely spend about six months planning the campaign, then another year or more in a "quiet phase" where the foundation speaks with large donors. Delaying the project that long could hurt fundraising and the cost of the project, and it would be hard to rearrange that fundraising process to be shorter.

I missed the next speaker's name, but he is speaking against the Central Library and Edgewater amendments. He cites the state Capitol building as one example of architecture that require public investment, but has had enormous public benefit in terms of jobs and beautifying the city -- the library and Edgewater are visionary projects that could have a similar effect.

Stu Levitan is speaking against the Central Library amendment as well as an amendment to remove funds for land-banking. While other talk about the future, he's here to talk about the past. More than 100 years ago, predecessors on the council created the Madison Free Library, the first in the state. In 1874, a year after the economic recession of 1873, the council said "yes" to that library -- and another council in 1902 voted to create a beautiful Elizabethan Gothic building downtown for an improved library that lasted until the current structure was building in the 1960s. The current City Council has an opportunity to make a similar effort -- for more than 100 years, Madison City Councils have said yes. "If you honor the past, the future will honor you." (Applause from the audience -- the mayor reminds them that demonstrations are forbidden, even if they are "well-deserved.")

Arhcitect Kenton Peters (who has proposed an alternative library plan) is speaking in favor of the Central Library amendment, which he says is "not a good deal" for the city because it's expensive and involves buying "air rights" on a new site for the Central Library. He adds that city will make no financial gain on the new library unless the developer creates something on the current library site, which is not guaranteed, and that the proposed plan is a bad deal in the meantime. Also, Peters says that libraries that are independent and freestanding are going away and that his proposal is more comprehensive -- it capitalizes on the power of the library to stimulate and gather around it other activity and development. He adds that the current plan is on a site that's too far away from pedestrian pathways (such as State Street, I assume).

Pat Maniaci is speaking against the Central Library and Edgewater amendments. When she saw the condition of the Central Library, she was appalled -- she is a librarian by trade, but she was shocked as a citizen by the condition of the building, with buckets to collect leaks. This is a highly educated population, and people would be appalled by its condition. The amendment is a stall tactic. In terms of the Edgewater Hotel, she remembers growing up with the Edgewater as an outstanding hotel and hears the trade unions talk about the need for construction jobs. Monona Terrace also needs more hotel rooms for conventions. The City Council needs to be visionary -- the city doesn't get these opportunities often, and the council should vote for what's in the best interest for the city in the future. The community will follow the council, but they often wonder what the council is doing by putting in road blocks like these for projects.

8:05 p.m.: Questions for the past 10 (or so) speakers. Ald. Marsha Rummel asks Bill Kunkler of Fiore Companies what's need for the Central Library to get federal tax credits. Kunkler says he hasn't done a project with tax credits, but his understanding is that it's kind of like TIF (tax increment financing) with the city in that there needs to be a concrete proposal with a budget to prove that the tax credits are needed. Kunkler says if the Central Library is approved, they will fast-track finalizing interior details and have an application in by June or July.

Rummel asks whether Fiore looks at hiring unionized construction workers. Kunkler says Fiore's partner, Findorff Construction, is one of the highest-quality companies.

Ald. Lauren Cnare asks Scott Vaughn how the city ensures that the workers on the Central Library come from Madison and not areas like Appleton and Rockford that are hurting just as much if not more right now. Vaughn points to the Allied Drive redevelopment, where the city required in its contract for the construction to employ Allied Drive residents to work on the project, and that something similar could be done. There's no absolute guarantees, but Vaughn says he's comfortable with Findorff's track record (they're headquartered in Madison) on hiring local people. City attorney Michael May clarifies that the city encouraged in its contract that the construction company hired for Allied Drive's redevelopment hire people from that neighborhood and that the encouraging language worked, but that there may be some legal issues with requiring something like that.

Ald. Michael Schumacher asks Tripp Widder if it would hurt fundraising if he removed the requirement on fundraising from the Central Library amendment, but kept the requirement on acquiring New Market Tax Credits for the project to go forward. Widder defers to city comptroller Dean Brasser, who says as a practical matter, the city wouldn't move forward on a project this large without financing in place, and tax credits are part of that financing plan. The city can move forward on securing other parts of the project, but they are still contingent on that financing plan. Brasser said he spoke with Tom Landgraf (who spoke earlier) about the tax credits, and Landgraf said it would be possible to apply for tax credits without necessarily all of the construction and other contracts in place, and that having the project in the budget would be proof enough that the city was serious about moving forward.

8:20 p.m.: Next, the city will hear speakers on amendment 3, which would have the city look at the potential for a community garden on the roof of the new Central Library.

Jane Anne Morris, who is a member of the Downtown Community Gardens Group, is speaking in favor of the amendment. Morris thanks several people who have been involved in downtown community gardens in general and getting this amendment on the table. She gives a short history of the group, which started earlier this year generally supporting community gardens downtown, but eventually heard so much support for one on the Central Library's roof that they directed their efforts for that. She jokes about one person named Dave (whose last name was illegible, but it's clear from the reaction in the room that last name may well be "Cieslewicz") who went on the group's tour of potential sites and checked "maybe" for whether he supported one on the roof of the Central Library -- the group is hoping to nudge that over to a "yes." 

Sue Rose, another member of the downtown community gardens group, is speaking in favor of the amendment. She says she will read some of the benefits of a rooftop community garden at the Central Library as well as talk about how it's not a crazy, futuristic idea, but one that already fits in with Madison's goals as a green city. For benefits, she says community gardens bring together people from all walks of life, promote fresh produce, reduce crime and aggression, improve air quality and reduce urban runoff, among other benefits. As for how the gardens currently fit into the city, she points to the neighborhood roundtables last weekend, which showed strong support all over the city for community gardens. She also points to the mayor's aggressive promotion of Madison as a national model for green development with plans like the Northeast Neighborhoods Plan and use of the Natural Step program. The city's draft new zoning code also supports urban agriculture, she says. To close, she says a rooftop community garden is "totally in sync" with Madison's efforts to strengthen neighborhoods and promote green development.

Alex Richter, another member of the downtown community gardens group, speaks in support of the amendment to look into that for Central Library's roof. She says urban agriculture is not futuristic, but here and now -- Vancouver's rooftop gardens even have apple trees. She adds that urban agriculture can provide significant amounts of produce for the 18 percent of people living in poverty, which would reduce stress on government and community service programs. In Chicago, they recently put a rooftop garden on their city hall, and Milwaukee and Kansas City both recently added rooftop gardens to their libraries.

Mickey Bule is speaking against the Central Library amendment (and for the Central Library) -- he says of all the recent government projects he's seen, this is one of the best. Through his work experience, he's learned there's really good government spending and really bad government spending -- this project strikes him as one of the best government spending project. One, "the timing could not be better" with construction savings and potential federal tax credits, and two, it's a public investment in a public good that will serve the city for decades and decades to come. He's a school principal, and he thinks libraries may only be second to schools in terms of the direct public good they provide.

Rick Brooks is the co-founder of the Madison Home Garden project and Madison Food and Community Gardening Network, and he's speaking in favor of a rooftop community garden for the Central Library. The library is more than a "box full of books" -- it's a gathering place for people to visualize the future and honor the past. A garden on the roof of the library helps us think about the whole person that comes to the library.

Kevin Cheeser (name spelling may be off) greets the council in Russian, saying he learned it to impress his Russian neighbor with a garden. He's speaking in favor of the amendment to consider a rooftop community garden for the Central Library. He emphasizes that it's budget-neutral -- all they're asking for is that the option be considered. He reiterates the benefits of a rooftop garden, saying it's like a hat. In the summer, it's like a baseball hat that provides shade and cooling, and in the winter, it's like a woolen hat that provide insulation, which can lead to significant energy savings. Rooftop gardens also helps reduce urban runoff, so to be environmentally responsible, Madison should consider putting one of the Central Library. He adds that Madison only has one community garden downtown right now, which forces downtown residents out of their neighborhoods and onto waiting lists in other areas. Lastly, he says community gardens can help raise property values.

8:45 p.m.: There are no questions of the community gardens speakers, so Cieslewicz moves on to speakers for amendments 4,6 and 7.

Mary Carbine speaks against amendment 4, which would remove TIF funds for capital streetscaping, explaining the importance of the downtown's appearance for visitors, and thus for the downtown economy.

Ruth Shelly of the Madison Children's Museum also speaks against the amendment, saying that the TIF funds expire next year, so they are "use it or lose it." She adds that the streetscaping would benefit the street outside the museum, which is currently in a major rebuilding project, so the spending is a good example of a public-private partnership to improve the downtown.

Scott Thornton speaks again on behalf of the Marquette Neighborhood Association, this time against removing funds for Central Park, which he says would provide jobs as well as park space in a deficient area. He adds that he personally opposes amendment 4 (removing TIF funds for the downtown streetscaping) and 10 (which would remove funding for Breese Stevens field improvements). In particular, he says Breese Stevens is hard to find and "could be a prison" for all people know -- some new signage is important. Thornton also speaks on the Edgewater amendment, saying he doesn't know how he feels about the project, but that he and his neighbors are concerned about what happens in Mansion Hill and what that means for historic structures in their neighborhood, and that putting TIF in the budget looks like a rubber stamp.

Bill Barker, who is president of the Board of Park Commissioners and is on the Central Park committee, is speaking in opposition to removing funds for Central Park (amendment 6 -- and he also opposes amendments 7, 9 and 10, which remove funding for park improvements). He says Madison almost always makes the list of best places to live, and parks is a big part of that. He reads from a list of seven ways that parks help a community economically, from tourism to clean air -- saying the makers of the list (which I missed) calculated the economic effect of each benefit of parks. Speaking specifically of Central Park, he says there is a strong coalition of people who feel the park should be built, and the committee has tried to do so in a very fiscally responsible way (such as by deciding not to support moving the railroad tracks in the park). They will also be setting up a nonprofit similar to the Olbrich Botanical Society to create a similar public-private partnership for the maintenance of Central Park. Lastly, Central Park will be the centerpiece of the area near the rail line and be the "chum in the water" to promote development on the East Isthmus.

Susan Schmitz, putting on her Madison Parks Foundation hat, adds that she is also opposed to amendment 6, 7, 9 and 10, which would remove capital funds for park projects.

Curt Brink speaks against removing funding for Central Park, saying there was a lot of work that was done on that and it's not a proper time to get rid of that funding. He also speaks against removing TIF from the budget for Edgewater Hotel, saying it's also not the right time for that.

Steven Schaefer, president of the Camp Randall Rowing Club, is speaking against amendment 7, which would remove funding for improvements to the Brittingham Boat House. The amendment is a challenge grant that would help continuing the wonderful public-private partnership between the city and the Camp Randall Rowing Club that originally helped get the boat house renovated (it's now the oldest city parks building in use). He says the rowing club has greatly expanded its programs, and on most days of the week, there are 100 people using the park, which is a strain on the port-a-potties in the park.

Kelsey Wallner is speaking in favor of the Brittingham Boat House improvements (or against amendment 7). She's the co-captain of the Camp Randall Rowing Club's girls team and a senior at West High School -- she says the rowing club (founded in 2004) has helped several high schoolers get scholarships to rowing teams in college, and adds that it personally has helped empower her. She adds that the rowing club goes far beyond its junior programs, though -- it also works with female cancer survivors and middle schoolers -- and that the current building is a challenge for users without running water and that it does not support the needs of the growing program.

Charles Benedict is speaking against amendment 7 to remove funding for the Brittingham Boat House. He speaks at length about the efforts that the Camp Randall Rowing Club takes to remove invasive species from their boats after traveling to regattas in other lakes, but that the best way to do that would be to have running water in the boat house to rinse them down. He adds that the matching grant means it's not a "free ride" for the Camp Randall Rowing Club, and that the heavy use of the boat house means the current facility is "grossly inadequate, and I mean grossly inadequate."

Ald. Mark Clear moves for a five-minute recess, and the council agrees by a voice vote.

9:30 p.m.: Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, acknowledging the five-minute break morphed into more like a 15-minute break, brings the council back in session.

Cieslewicz says there's a late registration on the operating budget, and asks the council to reopon the public hearing.

Melissa Miller is speaking in favor of amendment 11, which would add $50,000 to homeless prevention efforts. Miller says the amount may seem small to major charities, but it's very large for grassroots groups that can help fill in the gaps in current efforts.

Cieslewicz again moves back to the capital budget public hearing, starting with amendment 12 (which would remove TIF for the Edgewater Hotel).

The first speaker, Ryan Olaf jokes for the record that he also likes nuts and candy (a reference to Will Sandstrom's testimony at the beginning of the evening). Olaf is speaking against amendment 12, which would remove TIF for Edgewater Hotel in the budget. He speaks to the importance of the project for jobs, asking the council to consider the effect of that project on trade union workers.

Darren Chicks is also speaking against amendment 12, citing the ability of the project to provide lakefront access (I missed a bit here).

Tom Ziarnik of the Doubletree Hotel is speaking in favor of amendment 12, saying the Edgewater Hotel is currently blighted because its owners have not taken care of the building, and that the TIF request has not been reduced despite the project being significantly reduced.

Robert Dunn of the Hammes Company, speaking against amendment 12, says they locked into the term "unprecedented" for the project for a number of reasons. First, the city is facing high unemployment not seen since the Great Depression, and that the economy is in a downward spiral in seeing its tax base erode. He's often asked why the city should invest in this project -- the tax base related to construction is one-fourth what is was a few years ago, and the project could jump-start the economy. The second question is what does the public get? Dunn says the public get lake access, the public terrace and additional parking, among other benefits. The third thing he's asked is what is the city's return on investment -- the city gets a layered benefit of property taxes, sales taxes and hotel taxes, and much of that comes from people outside the city. What's better than to improve the city using funds from out-of-town guests? The fourth question he's asked is how public is the terrace? Dunn says it's no different from Monona Terrace. All he is asking is for a chance to demonstrate how this project This is not where this project should end. With the dire circumstances around employment in the city, it would be an awful precedent to stop this project without hearing what its full benefit could be.

Sarah Carpenter of the Hammes Company is speaking against amendment 12. Carpenter, the "PR machine" for the project, says the company has reached out to so many people in the city because they recognized early on the importance of the project for the city as a whole, and goes into further detail on those efforts.

Ledell Zellers of the Mansion Hill Neighborhood is speaking in favor of amendment 12. She's lived downtown since 2001 and has been active ever since -- this project is not her only interest downtown, and she's seen other developments go through the city process smoothly. She says the tactics that the Hammes Company have used in proposing the project, such as taking potential supporters to box seats at a Packer game, are not illegal, but generally untoward compared to what Madison usually sees. What is the city getting for $16 million in TIF? There is only one application currently into city committees, and the Urban Design Commission referred it because there was not enough information in it. Even if the TIF is a placeholder, the public benefits are murky and it would be the largest earmark ever put in the city budget. Putting it in the budget is not raising the bar, but rather lowering it -- other projects have gotten TIF approval with supermajority votes from the council before, and it's a "prudent" hurdle for this project. She urges the council to take the time to be prudent and to vote in favor of amendment 12.

Steve Tumbush of the Murphy Desmond law firm is speaking against amendment 12. He reveals that Murphy Desmond has represented Hammes Company, though not for this project. While he says any major building project would create jobs, he says the Edgewater Hotel redesign is a unique design that would benefit Madison.

Bill Wellman, general manager of Campus Inn, is speaking in favor of amendment 12. He's absolutely against setting a precedent of using public dollars for private businesses (considering how long TIF has been around, it seems a bit late for that...) because it creates an unfair playing field for businesses that can't get public dollars for their improvements or new construction.

Fred Mohs is speaking in support of amendment 12. He urges the council to take a look at the Mansion Hill Historic District, no matter how disinterested some people are in it. It's the first historic district in Madison and has over half of the city's historic buildings. When he talks about appreciating it, he means appreciating the national appeal of the district for history enthusiasts -- it's a remarkable area. While some people are saying there is no historic building right next to the Edgewater Hotel, the hotel is in the middle of the historic district. The historic district is not just the historic buildings, but recreating the feeling of Madison as it was when the buildings first existed. There are a couple of intrusions, like the National Guardian Life building, but there's a really good concentration of historic building. He asks the city to be more sophisticated in looking at the historic district -- we should plan, we should know what this property means in terms of what else could happen in the district. If the city doesn't know where it's going, it could really wreck this district.

James Tye is speaking against amendment 12, saying the Edgewater Hotel provides a unique opportunity for Madison. If you look down the street ends from the capital, you see a lot of buildings -- this could provide a public space and improved access to the lake. By not doing this, it would definitely be a missed opportunity. He hopes the City Council does not vote to put a hindrance on this project.

10:05 p.m.: John Martens is speaking in support of amendment 12. He says he sent an e-mail to alders earlier today with some graphics that will help explain his point. He says he doesn't live in the Mansion Hill neighborhood and has no interest in the project itself -- just the future of the city. He's seen a lot of development projects go through the city and shepherded through a few of his own, but hasn't been moved to come before the council before now. He says this project is the most egregious disregard for city planning he's ever seen, adding the Edgewater proposal lacks information and also provides renderings that may be deceiving and/or distorted (i.e., showing a grand staircase that's much wider than the described width). There's a lot of talk about the vision for the city -- we have a vision, and it's the current city planning and zoning that this project would shatter. There is a lot of merit to the project, but it has not been properly vetted. We would like to vet it to the point where everyone can be happy with it rather than end up with a project that's rushed through. As voiced by the Urban Design Committee last week, the project is not ready for prime time, much less pre-approved TIF. The only reason the project has gotten as far as it has is the unprecedented marketing and politics by the developers and their supporters. Voting to delay TIF would not make the project go away -- it will just make it better.

I missed a speaker here -- I'll try to fill it in later.

Paul Shaynaman is speaking in favor of amendment 12. In 1971, Madison sold the Wisconsin Avenue street end to the Edgewater Hotel for $1 to build the Edgewater Hotel's "infamous" 1970s addition. At the time, the hotel had promised to build a rooftop terrace, and they instead built a helicopter pad with various heating and cooling equipment. The hotel also promised access to the lake, and the city got a hard-to-find staircase that's dangerous in winter. Basically, the city's being asked for buy back part of that street end with $16 million in TIF. 

Mark Hoffman of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 159 is speaking against amendment 12, reiterating the need for both the Central Library and the Edgewater Hotel to provide jobs during unprecedented economic times, and he says he knows it will be local people working on them. Taking the TIF away from the Edgewater tonight would be very detrimental to the city's future -- he asks the council not to sink this project tonight.

Joe Lusson is speaking in favor of amendment 12. He's opposed to the current design of the project and opposed to the premature use of TIF for it. Blatantly violating historic district requirements is bad for the whole city -- those seeking to buy historic properties need predictability to ensure that their investment is protected, just like developers ask for predictability. He empathizes with the unions' need for jobs and says there will be plenty if the developer comes up with a better design for the hotel, but the need for jobs is no reason to jettison city zoning restrictions for the project.

Paul Cuta, a local architect, is speaking against amendment 12. He's been through the city process, and he knows there are a lot of precautions built into them to ensure a good design. The council's actions tonight, though, could potentially derail that project. He also spoke to the need for density downtown and the importance of that site for providing lakefront access, which is rare in the city.

Craig Argle is speaking against amendment 12. He says the Edgewater Hotel is a beloved place, but it's tired and needs a makeover. The current proposal is a dream makeover, and he urges the council not to let it slip away.

Richard Baker says he's lived two blocks from the Edgewater Hotel for many years, and as a photographer whose shot many weddings there. The city needs a strong hotel there, and he's personally excited by the design. As far as he's concerned, the Edgewater Hotel has been a great neighbor in the Mansion Hill neighborhood.

That's the end of public testimony, so the council will move onto the amendment for the capital budget.

10:35 p.m.: The City Council quickly passes amendment 1, a largely technical amendment, by a voice vote. They skip amendment 2 briefly and go onto amendment 3, which would urge the city to look at putting a community garden on the new Central Library's rooftop. Ald. Mike Verveer thanks the downtown community gardens group for bringing it to the City Council and says the idea should not have been lost in planning for the library. He also credits the Fiore Companies for bringing up the potential for a green roof early on in the planning, and says this would be a spectacular opportunity if the city can take it. He doesn't know that the city can because of the cost, but the amendment calls for a thorough examination of that possibility.

Ald. Judy Compton asks if there has been an estimate for what the potential cost would be if the city is taking about putting trees and enough dirt to grow vegetables on the roof. Bill Kunkler says a simple green roof would be about $200,000, but he couldn't estimate what an intensive roof with community gardens could cost -- they would have to evaluate what it means for the structure, but it could be up to several million dollars. He says he doesn't know if the structure could even support a community garden. Compton says this is a big concern -- having a potential number in the millions out there is very scary. 

Ald. Larry Palm jokes his first instinct was to modify this to say Edgewater Hotel. He says more seriously that the amendment doesn't do very much -- it just asks the city to look into this -- but he doesn't want to penalize the operations of the new library and the fundraising for interior decorating. If it comes down to spending money on this or the library itself, he'll vote against the garden.

Ald. Brian Solomon says the local food movement is exciting and he hopes the city can find a way to say "yes" to this. Obviously it won't stand in the way of the project, but it could be one more thing that adds to the legacy of the Central Library if its found to be feasible. He adds that he hopes the study will try to find a way to get to "yes," rather than find a way to get to "no" -- let's go into this thinking we can try to do this.

10:45 p.m.: Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele says she has a few questions because the idea is so new -- she asks Bill Kunkler if he's aware that in Minneapolis, the roof is always leaking? There's a lot of equipment oftentimes on roofs -- could the design even support a garden? It could be a nightmare to try to have a community garden on the roof with Wisconsin's weather. 

Kunkler says he's aware of other rooftop gardens in the country and is sensitive to the fact that waterproofing becomes more complicated. But, they haven't done the research yet, and that's what the amendment is -- looking with city staff as to what this really means.

Verveer stresses again that this is a budget-neutral amendment -- all it's asking is to look into this issue. He won't support a garden if the study reveals it's not operationally feasible.

Ald. Paul Skidmore says he has no trouble supporting this, as it's just a feasibility study.

The motion passes by voice vote, with Pham-Remmele the only audible "no."

The city jumps back to amendment 2, which Schumacher amended to read "The City will not commence any significant portion of the construction of its portion of the (Central Library) project until it has receive assurance that the federal New Market Tax Credits are available." Though he says he's lost a few pounds, he is not the Grim Reaper and was not trying to kill the Central Library project, but rather not be too free with other people's money. As a compromise to keep the project moving forward, he removed the requirement on raising $4 million in private fundraising, but still wants to provide comfort to taxpayers that the city is being cautious on this project.

Schumacher asks Tripp Widder to weigh in, who says the amendment will not have any impact on the ability to fundraise for the project (unlike the first draft of the amendment).

Ald. Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks city comptroller Dean Brasser what the point of this amendment if the city usually does this -- is it just to feel good? Brasser says it's a good business practice, and it would be something he would encourage regardless of the amendment.

Ald. Lauren Cnare asks whether the amendment should read that the tax credits are "awarded," versus "available"? Brasser says it's a question of semantics -- awarded is a stronger term, and it depends on how strong the council wants the language to be.

Cnare asks Schumacher if it would be friendly to change the language, and Schumacher says he would prefer it stay the same. Cnare does not make a motion.

Compton makes the motion instead to change "are available" to "have been awarded." It's not a friendly amendment, so the council votes on that change in particular. The change fails 4-16.

It goes back to the main amendment. Before the vote, Verveer says he wants to make a few of his "trademark thank yous," as this project has been years in the making. He can't speak to the history of the Madison library like Stu Levitan, but this is a momentous evening and he thanks the mayor for including the Central Library in a difficult budget. He had doubts about it getting in the budget, but the Fiore team and city staff have made it work, which is remarkable. He has been sitting on the council voting for millions in improvements for branch libraries, and every year Central Library had to wait its turn. While the public parts of the Central Library are bad, the back of the house operations area have been even worse, and it's a testament to library director Barb Dimick that they have made that facility work for employees. He says his neighborhood is thrilled about the project -- he's heard no opposition, and they are also excited about the jobs it would provide. He thanks the development team, Ald. Palm and the rest of the Madison Public Library Board, among others.

Ald. Larry Palm, whose been on the library board since 1996, says he thinks they talked about a new Central Library at his first meeting, and he also wants to thank several people. The library board has done a tremendous job of working through all the proposals, Barb Dimick has done an extraordinary job as library director and he's excited to expand library services downtown. People say libraries will be less useful in the future, but he couldn't disagree more -- he thinks libraries will be even more important for deciphering the vast amount of information on the Internet (like this blog entry, for instance). He's looking forward to the groundbreaking of it.

Ald. Tim Bruer also thanks the council, both those who supported it and those who had questions and concerns. The amount of time and energy and research that went into vetting this proposal is important, and Schumacher's amendment, while it seems less important to informed council members, will provide comfort to those on the periphery of the city who may have concerns.

Ald. Brian Solomon, whose Monroe Street Branch Library was potentially on the budget chopping block last year, adds that it's important as the city moves forward on this project to keep the balance between spending on Central Library and the branch libraries.

Compton says the amendment is not meaningless, but good business sense, and that she supports it, but she cannot vote for this project downtown with the needs being so great on the east side (there are proposed branches in very early stages for the northeast and far-east portions of the city for several years down the road). $37 million in this time is difficult for her to swallow -- while she admires everything about the plan, she won't be voting to spend the money downtown when the city has turned its back on the east side.

Ald. Julia Kerr says she hopes this amendment will pass and wants to thank Tripp Widder and the other library board members for their significant unpaid work on this project.

Ald. Bryon Eagon says he came to Madison in 2006, but sadly only got a library card a few months ago (to general boos from the council). He says this is "walking the walk" in terms of Madison's image of supporting knowledge and education, that we invest in structures as well as ideas.

Schumacher quips that this amendment takes a cue from Verveer by "memorializing" (a favorite Verveer term) the high financial standards that most city projects face. While almost no one is against libraries, some citizens need this assurance that the funding will be in place before the city begins building the project.

Ald. Marsha Rummel, who served on the committee studying a new Central Library, says one of the smartest things the committee did was look at the potential for other locations. While she supported looking closer at a renovation option, the current proposal has the potential to energize the whole block.

Ald. Joe Clausius says he has the most deficient district in terms of libraries (he represents the north/far east part of the city) and that his constituents were against this project at first. However, after he got an amendment in the capital budget at the Board of Estimates that ensures his district will be well served in the future, and he supports the Central Library now.

Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele says she has heard from a lot of her constituents about this, and she hopes that a library project for the Meadowridge Library in her district is in the budget soon like it was promised earlier. It seems like everything goes downtown here -- think about the current residents who are living here as well as the vision for the future city. Pham-Remmele says she has a hard time with the high price tag of the new building, asking why the Central Library wasn't better maintained, and says that renovating the building would also provide a lot of union jobs. People are worried about their mortages, and the City Council is looking at pies in the sky. She's not against the library -- without the library, she wouldn't have the knowledge she has today -- but think of equity, think of the city as a family. The rest keep waiting as the city spends a lot now on one library/kid. She's not trying to stand in anyone's way, but this is a hard decision for her.

Palm says it "warms his heart" to see such passionate talk about libraries and clarifies that Meadowridge Library was taken out of the queue for funding because the area could not come to an agreement on the library's design. For anyone else on the council who feels their area is underserved, he says it's their job to advocate for those improvements as members of the council.

11:30 p.m.: Ald. Shiva Bidar-Sielaff says she doesn't support the amendment because it doesn't actually do very much, although she does support the new Central Library.

The amendment passes on a voice vote.

11:35 p.m.: Ald. Jed Sanborn explains his sponsorship of amendment 4, which reverses a Board of Estimates decision to use $2 million in surplus TIF funds to make improvements to the Capitol Square.

Verveer says he understands why his original move would alarm a fiscal conservative like Sanborn, but notes that Sanborn's amendment actually adds to the levy because the city originally planned to use $108,000 in general obligation for improvements rather than make use of the TIF funds in a district that's about to close. When Verveer heard about the surplus TIF funds, his immediate thought was to use them to finish the beautification work the city has been making piecemeal to the Capitol Square, which includes tree replacement, bench replacement, new plantings and other improvements. To the business community, the aesthetics of the city are important, and it's their tax money that has gone into this district and will go to

Sanborn says the levy impact being positive is somewhat misleading because if the TIF district closes next year, the funds go back to the general tax levy and provide property tax relief. He adds that it's a bad precedent for the city to spend the funds in TIF districts as if they are free money.

The motion fails on a voice vote.

11:40 p.m.: Amendment 5, which removes some funding for City Council office improvements, passes quickly on a voice vote.

As the council takes up amendment 6 (removing funds for Central Park), Sanborn says he wants to explain all of his amendments. City comptroller Dean Brasser has shown a graph of city borrowing expenses going up in recent years, and Sanborn did some calculations as to what that means. The city has generally spent about $18 to $21 million in the operating budget for debt service, but it’s projected to go way up.

While there a number of things that could affect the budget positively to mitigate that increase in debt service, from TIF districts closing to increasing growth in the tax base, Sanborn says there are also many potential negative effects that could make a bad situation worse (decreasing state aid, increasing interest rates, cost overruns on big projects, etc.) He’s not trying to say this is Armageddon, but the city should be more cautious. The city is funding everything, and he’s sure his amendments will fail tonight, but this problem is very real. The Central Park is a good example of this – it would be nice, but the city has to make priorities. From ice rinks to mowing, there are issues with maintaining the parks we have, much less a new one. Things may end up better than his projections, and if they are, the city can spend the money then.

Pham-Remmele says she’s happy to support these amendments, saying she’s married to a “bean-counter.” She and her husband don’t want to owe anything to anyone, and she wants the city to have that freedom, too. I missed a lot of this, but she ends by asking the council to think of everyone in Madison, not just one special group or a special project in their district, and how spending like this affects them.

Ald. Larry Palm says the discussion has moved pretty far from Central Park, but since this may be the only discussion on the issue of debt service, he wants to add his two cents. Lots of the projects in the capital budget go to improvements -- improvements that if they were budgeted for the Central Library years earlier may have prevented a large expenditure now. The current administration has done a good job with making these investments and improvements now, and he's sure the mayor's office is aware of the potential impact of debt service.

But, to get back to Central Park, Palm says it's a good question as to whether the city should be spending for this project now -- at some point, the city may have to make some decisions about expanding services or spending to maintain current ones.

Ald. Marsha Rummel says she appreciates Sanborn's lessons in debt service, but that she opposes his amendment. She also makes a pointed comment about the amount of borrowing that goes toward road improvements and expansions, which she targeted in last year's budget. This project will energize the rail corridor and make an industrial area green and resilient -- the Central Park will pay the city back more than what the city is spending. She also notes the public-private partnership mentioned earlier and its importance in maintaining the park. 

Ald. Joe Clausius, who served on the Central Park committee, says he opposes Sanborn's amendment. The committee had 32 meetings as well as four large public hearings, and has worked hard to create a concept that works with the community. He adds that privately funded portions of the park, such as a skate park, can't go forward without the city.

Ald. Lauren Cnare says she's not as tied to this project as many on the council, but she's impressed by all the work that has gone into this project, and it's gone too far down that planning road to say "no" now. This is the kind of project that cities are supposed to do -- she urges the council to keep it in the budget.

Amendment 6 fails on a voice vote.

12:05 a.m.: The council takes up amendment 7, which would remove several projects for parks (including the Brittingham Boat House that had a lot of speakers) using park impact fees (which come from development projects).

Ald. Jed Sanborn says he objects to using park impact fees for “earmarks” and that these project should go through the normal budget process.

Ald. Bridget Maniaci says she opposes the amendment and adds that park impact fees are already dedicated to particular neighborhoods by virtue of where the development occurs. She asks for clarification on that process.

City Comptroller Dean Brasser says these projects should have been in the budget earlier, and that the Board of Estimates amendment to add them in was an effort to be more transparent with how park impact fees are used.

Verveer gave a small speech that I missed some of, but he concludes by saying all of these projects are priorities for the Parks Division, and there's no controversy by them being in the budget. To speak "parochially," he compliments the Camp Randall Rowing Club and say it's "criminal" that they don't have running water at the Brittingham Boat House (who would be charged for that?) He urges his colleagues to defeat the amendment.

Bidar-Sielaff says she won't repeat what Verveer said (although she could, since I missed half of it), but she urges city staff to work on the process for this so the use of park impact fees is more transparent. There is a lot of money in the bank from park impact fees right now, and the city is being quite conservative with them.

Kerr clarifies that the Brittingham Boat House has been talked about for years, and adds that the Camp Randall Rowing Club's presence at Brittingham Park has helped contribute to its safety and helped increase its overall use. We ask for neighbors to come out and use these parks, but then we question when they ask for basic things like running water?

Sanborn makes one more comment, and then amendment 7 fails on a voice vote.

12:25 p.m.: Ald. Bridget Maniaci explains amendment 8, which makes provisions for park improvements to James Madison Park and other city from the long-term lease of historic buildings in that park. She says she and the neighborhood understand that leasing the buildings may not happen next year, but they want to be prepared if they do get leased. After a few technical clarifications, the amendment passes on a voice vote.

Sanborn moves amendment 9 and 10 together, which remove TIF allocations for tree plantings and improvements to Breese Stevens Field. Sanborn says these projects should go through the regular funding priority process and be funded with general obligation debt, not TIF money.

Maniaci urges the council not to support these amendments and asks for city staff to explain how improvements to Breese Stevens benefit the Capitol Gateway plan.

Mark Olinger of city planning says Breese Stevens was one of a few historic structures targeted for preservation on East Washington Avenue, and that these funds would support the improvement of the entire area by improving one of its key areas.

Verveer also speaks against the amendment, and it fails on a voice vote.

12:30 a.m.: Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway says given the hour and the importance of the next amendments (particularly the Edgewater amendment) and new information received tonight, that the council recess until 5:30 p.m. today (Wednesday). The vote is disturbingly close, and a roll call ends up 13-7 in favor of pausing the meeting until later today, so I'll see you then.

(Wednesday afternoon update: My "disturbingly close" comment was meant in jest because of the late hour of the meeting, but I would have happily continued to blog had the council decided to push forward).

Add or View Comment

Login to post your comment. If you don't have an account, you may register for one.