[4:03] That's it.

[7:30] Just testing my audio for a second.

[7:37] Can anybody hear me? >> All right. Thank you.

[7:41] » Yes, we can hear you.

[11:12] » [snorts] >> The hour of 6:30 having come and gone, I

[11:15] will call to order the common council meeting of Tuesday, September 8th, 2026,

[11:21] and ask the clerk to please call the role. Thank you. Alder mayor

[11:25] » here. >> Alder mayor is present. Alder O'Brien.

[11:28] » Alder O'Brien is present. Alovichovich

[11:37] » present. >> Alderovich is present. Alder Pritchette.

[11:42] » Alder Pritch is present. Alder Tishler. >> I'm I'm here.

[11:46] » Alder Tishler is present. Alder >> here.

[11:48] » Alder is present. Alder Vidver >> here. Vidder is present. Alder Jang

[11:53] » here. >> Alder Jang is present. Alder Evers

[11:55] » here. >> Alder is present. Alderfield

[11:59] » here. >> Field is present. Alder Fugal Cole

[12:01] » here. >> Alder Fuger Cole is present. Alder Glenn

[12:04] » here. Alder Glenn is present. Alder Ugar >> here.

[12:06] » Alder Ugar is present. Alder Harrington McKenna.

[12:11] Back. Alder Linkella >> here.

[12:12] » Alder Kell is present. Alder Lieberman >> here.

[12:15] » Alder Lieberman is present. Alder Madison

[12:17] » here. >> Alder Madison is present. Alder Martinez

[12:18] Rutherford >> present.

[12:20] » Alder Martinez Rutherford is present. Alder Matthews

[12:22] » here. >> Alder Matthews is present. Madame Mayor

[12:24] will quorum. >> Thank you.

[12:28] Our first order of business is a special order of business and that is item one,

[12:33] an appointing resolution, legisar 94145. And forgive me about to be alder. Tell

[12:41] me how to pronounce your last name.

[12:46] » Say that again. >> Enzu.

[12:48] » Enzu. appointing Divine and Zeu as Alder for district 1 to serve until the spring

[12:54] 2027 election. On item one, can I have a motion, please?

[13:01] » Moved and seconded to adopt item one. Are there questions?

[13:06] Is there discussion? Seeing none of either, is there any

[13:10] objection to recording a unanimous vote in favor of our new colleague? Seeing no

[13:16] objections, we'll record a unanimous vote in favor. Congratulations, Alder.

[13:23] [applause]

[13:27] And now we will swear in the new alder.

[13:34] » Repeat after me.

[13:39] » Turn it. >> Yeah, it's on.

[13:40] » It is on. Okay. Thank you.

[13:45] All right. >> Okay.

[13:47] » I state your name. I, Divine and Ziggbu, >> do so do solemnly affirm

[13:52] » do solemnly affirm >> that I will support the Constitution of

[13:55] the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of

[13:58] the United States >> the Constitution of the State of

[14:00] Wisconsin >> the Constitution of the State of

[14:02] Wisconsin >> and the Charter of the City of Madison

[14:04] » and the Charter of the City of Madison >> and will perform the duties

[14:07] » and will perform the duties >> of the Madison Common Council

[14:10] » of the Madison Common Council >> in and for the Alder of District 1

[14:14] » in and forth the Alder of District 1, >> City of Madison,

[14:16] » City of Madison >> to the best of my ability

[14:18] » to the best of my ability. >> Congratulations.

[14:20] » Thank you. [applause]

[14:29] » Congratulations, Alder. Um I will ask all of you to um have

[14:36] patience. We may move a little slower because we have a new colleague who's

[14:40] learning the ropes here. Um, one uh of those ropes, however, that we all have

[14:46] to learn tonight is that we have a new microphone system. I trust you all have

[14:51] the instructions and you have perused them. I saw some of you testing out the

[14:55] system earlier. Um, so I think it will go smoothly, but just to make folks

[15:02] aware. Um, and uh feel free to ask questions if you don't understand

[15:09] emotion. And certainly your colleagues can help you, but you can also ask for a

[15:12] point of information um if you need something that we're going through

[15:17] explained. And everybody here needed something. So don't hesitate. Um all

[15:23] right. And then uh as usual, I will just say um that we're here to do the

[15:28] business of the people of the city of Madison. And I ask so that we do with

[15:32] grace and kindness and respect. and that all concerned who are speaking tonight

[15:37] refrain from using profanity in your remarks and to um treat the business of

[15:42] the council with the respect that it deserves. Um I will also say that

[15:47] everyone who speaks does have a time limit. Um whether that's people who are

[15:52] here for public comment or alders on the floor, you should not feel the need to

[15:56] use all of your time, particularly alders who have a 10-minute time limit.

[16:01] um is it's not necessary to use that much time. Um I do expect that we will

[16:07] have a long evening and I ask again that folks just be patient with each other um

[16:13] as we work through the agenda. All right.

[16:17] So our next order of business is honoring resolutions uh which is item

[16:21] two legisar 94589 for claiming September 2026 to be

[16:26] national recovery month. We do not have anyone here to receive this

[16:31] proclamation. So I would ask for a motion, please.

[16:36] » Moved and seconded to adopt item two. Is there any objection to recording a

[16:42] unanimous vote in favor?

[16:46] Seeing no objection. Oh, I'm sorry. We do have one person who wished to speak

[16:53] um on item two. Do we have Barbie Jackson of Dylan Drive

[16:59] with us?

[17:07] Doesn't look like it. >> Yes, this is Barbie. I am here.

[17:11] » Um I'm sorry. I thought we were going to the next agenda item. I have to get out

[17:14] of the kitchen and back to my where I can read this. Um are we ready?

[17:20] » Yes. Please go ahead. >> Thank you. Good evening, President

[17:23] Madison and Alders. My name is Barbie Jackson. I'm a 59-year resident of

[17:27] Madison, a member of Moses and Orchard Ridge United Church of Christ, which is

[17:32] one of 21 congregational and nonprofit organizational members of Moses.

[17:38] I am grounded in these affiliations, but tonight I am speaking to you as a

[17:41] private citizen, not on behalf of either organization.

[17:46] I am registered in support of agenda items 2 and 60, which I will address

[17:50] later. Item two, sponsored by all members of this body, proclaims this

[17:55] month as National Recovery Month. From the SAMs website, this week's theme is

[18:00] reducing stigma through storytelling. The second point within this theme is

[18:05] that authentic storytelling in community spaces,

[18:10] police precincts, city councils, and public forums can shift how policies are

[18:15] written, how resources are allocated, and how people in recovery are treated.

[18:20] So, let me tell you a true story, although secondhand.

[18:24] I know a man who suffered for 15 years with severe mental health issues at the

[18:28] end of the last century. Toward the end of these struggles while living in

[18:32] Texas, he saw a bright light in the night. He heard a voice tell him to walk

[18:36] into the light. So, trusting this inner voice, he did so, only to encounter

[18:42] police dealing with a serious matter. The priest police wrestled him to the

[18:47] ground to keep him from interfering. And while he struggled to get free, he was

[18:51] roughed up and injured before they were able to handcuff him and take him to

[18:55] prison. He was ultimately released without charges. And a few years later,

[19:01] after self-admitting into a mental institution at least one more time in

[19:04] his life, he finally recovered and has lived a productive and happy life for

[19:09] the past 30 years. He recalls that one officer had a shotgun, but he tossed it

[19:14] into the police car before helping rec to restrain him. Thankfully, no shots

[19:19] were fired. I want to ask each member of the common council to reflect on this

[19:23] story and to think about any personal life experiences they may have had with

[19:27] people suffering from mental health challenges. Were they moderate or

[19:31] severe? Did they include hallucinations or other forms of disconnection with

[19:36] ordinary reality? Was adequate mental health treatment and other services

[19:40] provided? Was the individual housed? Did the person turn to street drugs as a way

[19:45] to cope with depression or some other feelings?

[19:47] » About 30 seconds left. >> As we honor National Recovery Month,

[19:53] let's honor people with mental health and substance use issues as they strive

[19:57] to live their lives. And let's remember that Corey Ruiz

[20:01] struggled mightily as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for

[20:07] the registrant on this item? Seeing none,

[20:13] then is there any discussion of item two?

[20:17] Seeing none, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any objection to

[20:20] recording unanimous vote in favor? Seeing no objection, recording unanimous

[20:25] vote in favor of item two. That brings us to disclosures and recusals. Are

[20:30] there any disclosures or recusals on items on tonight's agenda? And let me

[20:35] just pause and explain that um if you have either a um financial interest or

[20:42] any kind of organizational relationship with any of the items on the agenda, now

[20:45] would be the time that you would say, for example, I work for the University

[20:51] of Wisconsin and there's an item, you know, item 33 is about the university,

[20:57] but that's not going to affect my vote because it's a different department or

[21:00] whatever. Um or if your family had a liquor license on the agenda, you might

[21:06] recuse yourself from that because it would be in your family's financial best

[21:10] interest to to have it go one way or the other. So that said, are there any

[21:15] disclosures or recusals on today's agenda? Alder Harrington McKenna.

[21:19] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um item 112 94609.

[21:26] I'd like to recuse myself. >> Thank you, Alder.

[21:30] Are there any other disclosures or recusals on tonight's agenda?

[21:36] Seeing none, and we'll go to the presentation of the consent agenda.

[21:41] President Madison, >> uh, thanks, Mayor. A consent agenda is

[21:45] moved. Can you hear me now? >> Bring them. They're very directional,

[21:50] apparently, these mics. >> Now,

[21:56] better. Do I have to be like all up? Okay. All right. So, a consent agenda is

[22:01] moved with a recommendation action listed for each item on the agenda,

[22:06] including public hearings, except one, items which have registrants wishing to

[22:09] speak, two items which have separated out for discussion uh and or debate

[22:15] purposes. This document lists super majority items, agenda items with

[22:19] recommendations different from the agenda, items for exclusion, items

[22:23] introduced from the floor, and agenda items with corrections. Agenda items

[22:28] that are supermajority items. Please note, supermajority vote items will be

[22:32] recorded as unanimous votes unless a roll call or exclusion is requested.

[22:38] Agenda item 48, legislative file number 94633,

[22:43] amending the 2026 adopted parking division capital budget to transfer

[22:48] existing budget from the single space meter replacement project to the overure

[22:54] garage led/ele electrical upgrade district 4

[22:59] um report of engineering division 14 votes required to adopt under suspension

[23:03] of MGO 2.055 055. 15 votes are required to amend the budget. Agenda item 59,

[23:11] legislative file number 94250, a substitute amending the 2026 Economic

[23:18] Development Division ED operating budget by transferring 75,000 from the other

[23:23] agency budgets to EDDD and authorizing intra departmental transfers within ED

[23:29] approving program materials and authorizing the economic development

[23:33] division to administer a Williamson Street business stabilization program.

[23:37] District six, report of finance committee, 15 votes required. Agenda

[23:42] items with recommendations different from the agenda. There are no items in

[23:45] this section. Agenda items excluded by one, request of

[23:50] alders or two speakers by noon on September 8th. Agenda item four, which

[23:55] is legislative file number 93802, appeal of the landmarks commission's

[24:01] approval of a land division at 113 Eli Place in the University Heights Historic

[24:07] District, legislative file ID 93071. Uh, agenda item number nine, legislative

[24:14] file number 93894, approving a landmark nomination of the

[24:20] property located at 222 East Oland Avenue as the Wonder Bar in District 14.

[24:26] Agenda item number 14, legislative file number 94183, which is a substitute

[24:32] creating section 28.022 022 00759 of the Madison General ordinances

[24:38] to change the zoning property located at 8302 McDow Drive at the northeastern

[24:45] corner of Midtown Road and South Pleasant View Road from temporary

[24:49] Agricultural District to TR-UT

[24:53] which is traditional residential- urban 2 uh district and creating section

[24:59] 28.02200760 02200760 of the Madison General ordinances to

[25:04] change the zoning of property located at 8302 McDow Drive from temporary A uh

[25:10] district and creating section 28.022-00819

[25:16] of the Madison general ordinances to change the zoning of property located at

[25:21] 8302 McDow Drive from temporary A district 1. Okay. Agenda item 15. And

[25:29] I'm going to move around this and not have all of these little extra things,

[25:32] y'all. So, but you have the papers orders. So, agenda item 15, legislative

[25:37] file number 94184, uh, creating section 28.022-0057

[25:42] 022-0000757

[25:46] of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning of property located at

[25:51] 10001 Wisconsin place from PD district to amended PD uh district and creating

[25:57] section 28.022-00758

[26:01] to approve a specific implementation plan in district 2. Agenda item 59,

[26:07] legislative file number 94250, a substitute amending the 2026 economic

[26:13] development division EDDD operating budget by transferring 75,000 from the

[26:18] other agency budgets to a EDDD and authorizing intra departmental transfers

[26:24] within ED. approving a pro approving program materials and authorizing the

[26:29] economic development division to administer a Williamson Street business

[26:32] stabilization support program for district 6

[26:36] or um agenda item 60 which is legislative file number 94261

[26:41] amending the 2026 adopted operating budget by transferring 28,500

[26:47] from the contingent reserve to the office of the independent monitor for

[26:51] additional staffing and service costs and directing staff to provide a full

[26:55] accounting of costs associated with the city's critical incident response

[26:59] between July 22nd, 2026 and September 8th, 2026. Um, agenda item 68, which is

[27:07] legislative file number 94196, authorizing the mayor and the city clerk

[27:13] to execute a contract between the city of Madison and

[27:17] for planning, engineering, and public engagement services for East Washington

[27:22] Avenue. um and Shrader Road uh which is

[27:27] districts. This covers districts 3, 12, 17, 19, and 20. Items introduced from

[27:33] the floor. Legislative file number 94616 authorizing the finance director to

[27:38] execute a contract amendment with Clear Gov, Inc. to add software modules for

[27:43] capital budgeting and financial reporting. uh from finance committee 94

[27:48] or so I'm sorry finance committee September 14 2026 back to council

[27:53] September 22nd 2026 legislative legisar file number 94641

[27:59] directing the chief of police to report on the status of the recommendations

[28:02] regarding the policies and procedures of the Madison Police Department Alder

[28:05] Glenn uh police civilian oversight board September 16th 2026 common council

[28:10] September 22nd 2026 agenda items with corrections there are no items in that

[28:15] section

[28:18] Thank you, President Madison. I'd like to note that uh the registrant on item

[28:23] 15 withdrew but is available for questions. So, we will not be separating

[28:28] item 15 unless an alder requests that. Um, are there other items that members

[28:36] of the body would like to see excluded from the consent agenda at this time?

[28:44] Seeing none, uh, explanatory, comma, for our new

[28:49] alder, the consent agenda is we're passing basically everything on our

[28:54] agenda except for the items that the council president just read. So, we

[28:59] won't work through each and every item on the list. We'll just skip to the ones

[29:04] that that are pulled off. Um, and everything else um will be passed on

[29:09] consent. Seeing no additional items, let me just go over that one more time. So

[29:16] noting that on item 48, 14 votes are required. We will be separating items 4,

[29:23] 9, 14, 59, 60, and 68. We have two

[29:30] introductions from the floor.

[29:35] All right. Anything else on the consent agenda? Seeing none, then President

[29:41] Madison, a motion, please. >> Motion to adopt.

[29:43] » Second. >> Moved and seconded to adopt the consent

[29:46] agenda. Is there any objection to recording

[29:51] unanimous vote in favor of the consent agenda?

[29:55] Seeing no objection, we'll record a unanimous vote in favor of the consent

[29:58] agenda. And that will take us to public comment.

[30:06] So, our first item for public comment is agenda item number

[30:13] four, the appeal of the landmarks commission's approval of a land division

[30:17] at 113 Eli Place in the University Heights Historic District. Our first

[30:23] registrant wishing to speak is Laura Collier of District 5 to be followed by

[30:28] Aaron Garry to be followed by Robbie Canana. Do we have Laura?

[30:35] Yes, I am here. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

[30:40] » Go ahead. >> So, I am writing to urge you or I am

[30:43] speaking to urge you to reverse the landmarks commission approval of the

[30:46] land division at 113 Elie Place. [gasps] I concur with the concerns outlined in

[30:52] the June 2022 appeal submitted by my neighbor who will also be speaking,

[30:57] Aaron Gary. Those who attended the landmarks commission, myself included,

[31:02] witnessed um what I would describe as confusing information presented by staff

[31:07] to the commission. And I feel that decisions of this significance should be

[31:11] based on clear, accurate, and complete information. Yet, I personally feel that

[31:15] that was not the case during the June 8th hearing. I would also like to

[31:20] highlight an additional concern um that while the June 22nd appeal references a

[31:25] lot size of approximately 401 square feet. Um the survey map that was

[31:30] submitted by the owner clearly shows that this figure includes a narrow

[31:34] panhandle portion that connects the lot to Summit Avenue which is not buildable.

[31:39] And so therefore, the buildable area of the lot appears closer to be 3,500

[31:44] square f feet, which would make it approximately half the size of the

[31:48] smallest adjacent lot. So this important fact was not clearly presented to the

[31:52] landmarks commission when when describing um its size and the size of

[31:56] adjacent lots. And so therefore, I feel that the U. Landmarks Commission members

[32:02] were not uh therefore left without an accurate understanding of the lot's true

[32:07] buildable area and its relationship to surrounding properties. So I

[32:12] respectfully ask that the common council reverse the approval and ensure that any

[32:16] future consideration of this proposal is based on complete and accurate

[32:20] presentation of the facts. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak.

[32:25] » Thank you. Our next registrant is Aaron Garary of District 5 to be followed by

[32:30] Robbie Canana to be followed by Ruth Kurley. We have Aaron.

[32:35] » Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I have

[32:38] » Erin, I'm going to ask that you only speak into the mic because we have

[32:41] people on Zoom that can't hear you otherwise.

[32:59] Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. This is an

[33:02] appeal of a landmarks commission decision approving a land division in

[33:06] University Heights. Madison ordinances require the lot created in a land

[33:12] division to be compatible in size with adjacent lots. 17 neighbors appealed the

[33:18] landmarks commission decision because this standard was not satisfied and the

[33:24] landmarks uh commission used an erroneous legal standard. So what

[33:30] property are we talking about? 113 Ele

[33:35] is this property right here. It's kind of an L-shaped. This map was generated

[33:42] by the landmarks commission. I added the blue markings to identify the salient

[33:48] features. The existing property 113 Ele is this L-shaped. I have marked the new

[33:54] lot with an X. It says 4,01 square ft. What does that lot look like? It looks

[34:00] like this. It's a dense green space. It's an urban forest. It's been vacant

[34:06] for 130 years. There are multiple trees on it that are more than a hundred years

[34:12] old. The application for land division proposes to make it a buildable lot. If

[34:19] a house is built here, it will be more than a million dollars. That is not

[34:23] affordable housing. That does not contribute to solving Madison's housing

[34:28] affordability issues. So, this map right here, as I said, generated by the

[34:34] landmarks commission, this address is 167 North Prospect. This address is 1806

[34:42] Summit. This address is 101 Elely Place. Those are the only three adjacent lots

[34:49] to the proposed new lot. These figures, 12,000 square ft for 167 North Prospect,

[34:59] more than three times bigger than the proposed new lot. the others 9,500

[35:06] 7,000 those are almost almost twice as big and more than two about two and a

[35:13] half times as big. You can see in the bar chart right here that the new lot in

[35:18] red is much smaller than the adjacent lots. Um finally what I would like to

[35:24] highlight is that what you see here in the figures the the the properties

[35:29] identified that's the property described in the register of deeds records. You

[35:34] have about 30 seconds left. >> Pardon me.

[35:36] » You about 30 seconds. >> That is what a lot means. The property

[35:40] described depicted right here, the landmarks

[35:45] commission aired by relying on invisible historic plat lines. Instead of looking

[35:51] at the lots as described in the register of deeds records, which is the

[35:57] definition of lot under MGO 41.02, please reverse the landmarks commission.

[36:03] your time. Thank you. >> Our next registrant is Robbie Quintana

[36:09] of District 5 to be followed by Ruth Kurley to be followed by Chairman Leu.

[36:14] Do we have Robbie?

[36:20] » Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Robbie Kintana. I am the owner of 113

[36:25] Elite Place. Um I wear a lot of hats. I'm a grad student, PhD student here at

[36:30] UW. I'm a business owner and I'm a faculty at Madison College. One thing I

[36:35] am not is a land developer. So I want to address the reason for doing the slot

[36:40] split is to get market value of my lot and my land is not at this time to

[36:44] develop any kind of housing properties or destroy any trees. Um so I just

[36:50] wanted to raise two things briefly and then I'll get out of here. Um one thing

[36:54] the appeal itself doesn't address is that they argue adjacent means

[36:58] immediately joining lots. But under that exact standard, my own existing lot that

[37:03] directly borders the new lot isn't included in these math in this math or

[37:07] these averages. So, um, so they're so using their own preferred definition

[37:14] correctly applied, their own math is incomplete when they're doing these

[37:16] averages. Um, the appeal also argues lot must be read as the same as parcel

[37:22] everywhere in the code. The city's attorney memo, which was just uploaded

[37:26] to this file this um morning, says the opposite is true here specifically. Uh

[37:32] my property's parcel already contains multiple historical plats. Lot and

[37:36] parcel aren't interchangeable at this address. And this is from an objective

[37:39] source on the matter, not me, someone who has a vested interest, and not my

[37:43] neighbors who also have their own interests. So I'd ask I'd ask you to

[37:47] weigh this against the reading of the professionals with no personal stake in

[37:51] this outcome. the landmarks commission, the city attorney um interpreting their

[37:56] job is to interpret the ordinance, not mine or my neighbors. That's all I have

[38:00] to say. Thank you. Thank you. Our next registrant is Ruth

[38:04] Kurley of District 5 to be followed by Chairman Leu. Do we have Ruth?

[38:14] I don't see Ruth in the room. Ruth should have permission to speak

[38:21] online.

[38:24] » Ruth, you should be able to >> Can you hear me?

[38:29] » Yes. Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh my um my husband and I, Shimon

[38:36] Louu, and I support the appeal of the June 8th landmarks decision. In our

[38:41] written submission to all alders earlier today, we focused on key fallacies that

[38:47] led to the approval of the proposed lot subdivision. Um, could Mr. Gary please

[38:52] display the bar chart. The red bar, which shows the size of the

[38:58] proposed lot, is not compatible in size with the three blue bars, which show the

[39:03] adjacent lot sizes. But it took the commission nearly 58 minutes to

[39:08] determine the opposite. To reach such a conclusion, one would

[39:13] need to argue A that the blue bars don't represent lots or B that those lots

[39:20] aren't the only adjacent lots or both. First, are they lots? At the June 8th

[39:27] landmarks meeting, staff did not define lot, yet its definition is key to the

[39:32] decision. Um, it has rectified that omission for

[39:36] this evening's hearing. Staff argued then and in its submission

[39:41] for this evening that these are parcels and not lots.

[39:46] But council in enacting MGO41.02 defined a lot in this way. Quote, "Lot

[39:53] means attractive land designated by meets and bounds, land survey, minor

[39:59] land division, or platt recorded with the Dayne County Register of Deeds." End

[40:05] quote. You can go to the Dayne County Register of Deeds as Mr. Gary has done

[40:10] and verify that these tracks or parcels or properties are duly registered. They

[40:17] may be other things too like parcels, but at the very least they are therefore

[40:22] lots unambiguously per MGO41.02.

[40:29] Um my husband Shimon Louu will continue when his turn is available. Thank you.

[40:37] » Thank you. And our final registrant wishing to speak is Shimone Louu of

[40:42] District 5.

[40:53] I believe he's in the registrant list online.

[40:57] There you go. You should be able to unmute

[41:03] and you should be able to speak. >> I'm speaking.

[41:07] » Yep. We can hear you now.

[41:13] » Go ahead. >> Uh, okay. Sorry for the

[41:21] Sorry, sorry for the glitch here. Um so I just wanted to continue what my

[41:28] wife uh began. So the second question is whether these lots are adjacent

[41:36] and in plain English as well as historical precedent in these very

[41:40] chambers adjacent means having a common border. Uh could Mr. Gary please display

[41:46] the map showing the proposed lot and the lots adjacent to it?

[41:51] Um, these three are the only lots having a

[41:57] common border with the proposed lot. Uh, of course, Mr. Quantana points out that

[42:03] his lot also does. His his other lot does. Um, it's also larger as I recall.

[42:11] Uh,

[42:14] so staff led commissioners through a variety of observations. We're talking

[42:20] about the June 8th Landmarks Commission meeting through a variety of

[42:24] observations unrelated to adjacency. These are quotes. Quote, "We've got the

[42:31] swoopiness that happens here in the heart of University Heights." Close

[42:36] quote. Quote, "There would not even be the

[42:40] these would not even be the smallest lots on the block." Close quote. Now, it

[42:44] so happens that our lot, Ruths and Mine, uh are the small is the smallest lot on

[42:50] the block, but it is by no means adjacent. Another quote, quote, "The lot

[42:56] configurations in University Heights are messy." Close quote. None of these

[43:02] observations have to do with adjacency. Staff's observations, these observations

[43:09] obscure the simple fact of adjacency clearly shown on Mr. car's map.

[43:15] In conclusion, I hope you can see why 17 households, including ours, have

[43:20] petitioned to appeal the June 8th decision. We ask you to anchor your

[43:24] decision in the plain language of MGO 41.18

[43:28] PN 4 and MGO 41.02, grant the appeal, and overturn the

[43:36] landmark's decision. Thank you very much for your time.

[43:41] » Thank you. We have no other registrants wishing to speak on item four. Are there

[43:46] questions for any other registrants on item four?

[43:52] Seeing none and we'll go on.

[44:00] Uh the next item that we have registrants wishing to speak on is item

[44:05] nine. Item nine is approving a landmark

[44:08] nomination of the property located at 222 East Olan Avenue as the Wonderb Bar

[44:14] in District 14. We have two regents wishing to speak. Uh first is Dan

[44:21] Canelli of District 13 to be followed by Alex Saludos. Dan.

[44:34] All right. Um, yeah. Good evening, mayor. Good evening, members of the

[44:38] council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Uh, I do want to

[44:42] particularly thank Alders Lieberman and Alder Evers for all their time and

[44:46] attention on this matter over the last few months. Uh, I'm Dan Canelli with

[44:50] Range Hill Partners. We're the prospective developer of the property.

[44:55] Um, I'm also a resident of the neighborhood. I live about four blocks

[44:58] from this site. I've lived there for 18 years. So, um, not just a developer

[45:04] seeking to develop this site. This is also my neighborhood, uh, which I care

[45:08] about very much. Uh, I'm here to ask you to agree with the recommendation from

[45:13] the landmarks commission and the preservation planner to deny the request

[45:17] to landmark the wonderbar. Um, I'm not an expert on historic preservation. Uh,

[45:22] but the landmarks commission is, the city's historic preservation planner

[45:25] definitely is, and they reached the right conclusion here. Um the Wonderb

[45:29] Bar really does not rise to the level where it should be designated a landmark

[45:33] for a couple of reasons. One, um you know, a lot of the stories about this

[45:38] building are really myths. And myths and folklore can be meaningful. They can

[45:42] have a place in a neighborhood's history, but when it comes to the city

[45:45] using its power to designate a landmark, there really should [clears throat] be

[45:49] more historical evidence behind that. Uh second, a lot of the purported history

[45:54] of this building is really about its connections to organized crime. uh and

[45:59] violence and exploitation and we shouldn't sweep that history under the

[46:03] rug, but I think it's problematic to really try to elevate it with a landmark

[46:07] building. And then third, there's just a practical reality that this building is

[46:12] obsolete. It's small. It's past its useful life. Um there's no viable

[46:17] economic way to repurpose this building. Um there's, you know, been conversations

[46:21] about keep the building on site and build something next to it. Uh previous

[46:25] developer looked at that. that if it worked, it would have been built by now.

[46:28] Uh we took a close look at it. There's just a variety of reasons why why that

[46:31] approach doesn't work. So ultimately, this is a decision about community

[46:35] priorities. Uh we're working on a plan for redeveloping this rare regional

[46:41] mixeduse site for a really highquality mixeduse building on this gateway

[46:45] location. Um and the alternative if the building becomes a landmark is the most

[46:49] likely outcome without buyin from the owner is it will uh just continue to sit

[46:54] vacant. So again, um really ask you to uh affirm the recommendation from your

[46:59] subject matter expert experts on the landmarks commission and vote against uh

[47:04] and vote against this nomination. Um if you have any questions for me, uh happy

[47:09] to answer uh anything you have. Thanks for your service and thanks very much

[47:13] again. >> Thank you. Our la next and final

[47:18] registrant on this item is Alex Sudos of District 5.

[47:34] Thank you, mayor.

[47:38] Um, I'm one of the four sponsors uh of the

[47:42] Wonderbar nomination. Um,

[47:46] the council must refer this nomination back to the landmarks commission with

[47:49] instructions. the ordinance and your own city

[47:52] attorney's advice require it. Our written comments include a suggested

[47:57] motion. Uh five reasons for this. First, the

[48:02] staff report recommends denial on a standard that is not in the ordinance.

[48:07] It says, quote, "Not a history that the city of Madison should promote or

[48:12] celebrate." Unquote. MGO 41072 lists five standards. None

[48:18] asked that. MGO41076

[48:23] requires that you vote quote based on the standards under sub two.

[48:31] Those five and no uh no others. The commission's own policy manual states

[48:37] where decision-making standards are listed in the ordinances, the commission

[48:42] must follow them. The city attorney's office told this

[48:46] council in 23 that their vote on a nomination is quote based on the

[48:51] standards set forth in 41072.

[48:56] Second, the report states two material facts with no evidence and staff has

[49:00] refused to pro produce it. It says the property quote deliberately aligned

[49:06] itself with the racist movie unquote. It says other businesses renamed themselves

[49:11] after the film. The commission's vote was based on these claims.

[49:17] I asked for the evidence of these claims three times. On Friday, the preservation

[49:22] planner wrote that she would not provide it. Third, a vote to deny tonight makes

[49:28] this new standard the city's rule without this council ever voting on it.

[49:33] If you want to use this standard, amend chapter 41.

[49:38] Fourth, in 21, the preservation planner documented the building's history. The

[49:42] commission plan commission and landmarks commission found it historically

[49:46] historically significant and the plan commission denied a demolition permit on

[49:51] that basis. Nothing has changed since.

[49:55] Fifth, the commission adopted no findings and named no ordinance

[49:58] standard. Its own staff told it to. Its own manual requires it.

[50:02] » Recording stopped. >> I'm sorry.

[50:08] Go ahead. I think we're having trouble with the Zoom.

[50:11] » Okay. Uh, I'm just about done. A referral does not overrule the

[50:15] commission. >> Recording in progress.

[50:18] » Sorry. Go ahead. >> Um, okay. I'll restart here. Uh,

[50:23] referral does not overrule the commission. It sends the nomination back

[50:26] to be decided on the ordinance standards. You have two choices

[50:30] consistent with chapter 41. Apply MGO41072

[50:34] as written or amend it. A vote tonight to deny landmark designation does

[50:39] neither. [snorts] Uh finally, uh um about the myths, the crime, and the

[50:46] violence Mr. Kennley referenced, none of them are in the nomination.

[50:51] » Another 10 seconds. >> They're a myth and they have nothing to

[50:54] do with the nomination. Thank you.

[50:58] » Thank you. Uh that's our last registrant on item

[51:03] nine. Are there questions for either of the registrants?

[51:09] Seeing none, then we'll go on to our next item.

[51:20] » Sounds like we're muted for the Zoom.

[51:35] I do not seem to have the ability to unmute.

[51:55] I don't know if the tech staff can hear me, but

[52:00] I'm don't think I can give myself the the CCB 2011

[52:07] the ability to unmute

[52:18] you teams then please. Thank you. We're going to stand in formal while we figure

[52:23] out this technical issue. Thank you, Alder, for alerting us.

[52:34] Alder, you can't hear us.

[52:38] Nope.

[52:58] Can you hear us now?

[53:04] Can anyone who's on Zoom hear us? Yes.

[53:09] » Yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate

[53:13] it. >> All right.

[53:17] So, let's try that again. Those are the registers we have on item

[53:22] nine. Are there questions for either of the registrants? [snorts]

[53:29] Seeing none, then we will move on.

[53:41] And the next item that we have someone

[53:45] wishing to speak on is agenda item

[53:52] 14, [sighs] which is a substitute creating sections

[53:57] of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning of a property located

[54:01] at located at 8302 McDow drive um from

[54:09] uh temporary A agricultural district to TRU2

[54:14] and creating sections of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning

[54:19] of that same property uh to CCT which is commercial corridor

[54:25] transitional and also to TRU1.

[54:31] On item 14, uh, the only registrant we have wishing

[54:36] to speak is Bonnie Wendorf of District 1 representing the Tyberon Condominium

[54:42] Homeowners Association. Do we have Bonnie?

[54:45] » Yes, you do. >> Go ahead, please. Yes, go ahead.

[54:50] » I'm Bonnie Wendorf. I am the president of the Tibbron Condominium Homeowners

[54:54] Association. Um and we are not necessarily opposed to this particular

[55:00] item. Um if we're talking about the development itself, you know, we'd

[55:05] rather leave it a farm field. But since uh it's not going to happen that way, um

[55:10] we are certainly in favor of the proposal to the extent that it it uh

[55:14] reduces the density on several of the lots in the uh development and makes it

[55:19] a little bit more palatable for our owners who some of whom have been there

[55:23] many years and who are used to having un uh limited views to the west and now

[55:29] they're going to have uh a lot of large buildings in their way. And so in that

[55:34] to that extent that the density has been reduced, I don't think anybody would

[55:37] oppose it. Um we have certain concerns that we just want to reiterate again

[55:42] with regard to this development. One is traffic and the devel and the opening of

[55:46] Mayo Drive. Mayo Drive is going to be the only looks like the only east west

[55:51] um path through this particular subdivision. And um from the perspective

[55:56] of Mayo Drive, Mayo Drive is not built to handle uh large amounts of traffic

[56:01] and it it is narrow as it passes our our building and u there's a there's a kind

[56:08] of an odd intersection with star grass. We have some concerns about that and we

[56:12] just want to register that again so that the city takes a very hard look at that

[56:17] and make sure that that traffic flow is being handled correctly. Um we we have

[56:22] some concerns for the character of the neighborhood. Some of the um proposed um

[56:27] zoning changes have addressed some of those in in that they are going to ease

[56:32] the um the density in the three lots immediately adjacent to the uh the

[56:39] neighbors in Midtown Commons. And we um I think we we we we like the

[56:45] reasonzoning to the extent that it reduces the number of uh units on each

[56:50] of those lots to 58 instead of 100 and whatever it was. Um, and but I noticed

[56:55] in the notes that they talk about a a height a height allowance of like five

[57:00] stories, which would for us be really a a hard hit because right now there's no

[57:05] building on our on that side on our side of the the the the lot line. That would

[57:10] be above about three stories. So that would be a change. I don't know how much

[57:15] easing that would be to put fivetory buildings uh on the lots closest to us.

[57:20] about. >> Oh, okay. All right. And I will also

[57:24] just mention um setbacks. We have the line of trees. I know there's a tree

[57:29] preservation plan in place, but I think that we would like to see uh some

[57:33] consideration for setbacks uh that would preserve the trees and provide some

[57:38] green space in between us and these buildings that they're going to put in.

[57:41] And that's really all I have to say. Thank you.

[57:44] » Thank you. Are there any questions for the registrant on item 14?

[57:52] Seeing none, then we'll move on to

[58:04] item 59. Item 59 is a substitute amending the 2026 Economic Development

[58:11] Division operating budget by transferring funds from other agency

[58:14] budgets and authorizing intra departmental transfers, approving

[58:19] program materials, and authorizing the economic development division to

[58:23] administer a Williamson Street business stabilization support program in

[58:27] district 6. On item 59, we have one registrant wishing to speak, Chip Cruz

[58:33] of District 6 representing WMBA. Do we have Chip?

[58:49] » Chip, you should be able to unmute yourself.

[58:54] » Hello, Mayor Sadia. >> Go ahead.

[58:56] » Go ahead. I'd like to thank you for the

[58:59] opportunity to speak tonight. I am speaking as the president of Womba right

[59:04] now. Uh and I appreciate you giving us this time to [clears throat] advocate

[59:09] for the businesses in our district. Um I'm just going to be real with

[59:15] everybody. The businesses are in dire need of your help. And it's because of

[59:20] the actions that have been taken in large part by the city um for over a

[59:25] month and a half. And

[59:30] what I need to say right now is that there are many businesses that are in

[59:34] danger of a going out of business, b losing employees, c not recovering

[59:41] whatsoever, and people who work here, in which case this

[59:46] stretch of businesses, 30 businesses, represent hundreds of of employees in

[59:50] our district. And right now we are failing them as businesses, as a

[59:56] community, as a city. And a large onus of responsibility has fallen upon us as

[1:00:03] a community to come together and literally help everybody out when we

[1:00:08] need it the most. Uh Womba on our behalf, we have literally tried to clean

[1:00:15] up these streets ourselves. We have with a lot of help raised over $50,000 that

[1:00:21] we were able to get out instantly. And we came to the city looking for help to

[1:00:26] help the citizens of our community. And it went from $300,000 down to $100,000,

[1:00:33] which if you split it up in the 30s is going to be about $3,000 a piece. And at

[1:00:38] the end of the day, it's just not enough. And and Mayor Satya, you and I

[1:00:42] had a very good conversation. And we talked about our fear of something if

[1:00:46] something something were to happen to Cafe Kota. Hana Taylor, one of the only

[1:00:50] blackowned businesses in this city, period, but one with the liquor license

[1:00:54] that he's in danger of going out of business. Marcos Apparaka, also another

[1:01:00] black male with a liquor license struggling to survive. These 30

[1:01:05] businesses represent the most diverse community of business owners and

[1:01:10] employee of any stretch of two blocks in this city. And the fact that if I ask

[1:01:15] anybody to defy that and tell me another two blocks, they can't. That's

[1:01:20] fundamentally a problem. And so I'm coming here today. We are asking for

[1:01:25] help because unless you've been in this neighborhood, which many of you in that

[1:01:29] room have never been to this neighborhood in the past month, I would

[1:01:33] know I'm there every day. >> You have about 20 seconds left. 20

[1:01:37] seconds left. >> That's great. Thank you. Because I'll

[1:01:40] tell you what, when I go to these businesses, when I talk to employees,

[1:01:43] when I talk to people on the streets, they're angry, they're upset, and

[1:01:47] they're scared, and they're looking for help. And so I invite any of you to come

[1:01:52] talk to me or come to our businesses because we need it. But I will take you

[1:01:55] on a tour and I will show you the pain and the suffering

[1:01:59] » everybody in this community is going through. Thank you.

[1:02:04] » That's our last registrant >> last registrant on item

[1:02:07] » 59. Are there any questions for any questions for the registrant?

[1:02:12] » Oh, they might talk.

[1:02:18] » Seeing none, then we'll go on.

[1:02:27] Our next item with registrants wishing to speak is item 60, amending the 2026

[1:02:32] adopted operating budget by transferring funds from the contingent reserve to the

[1:02:37] office of the independent monitor for additional staffing and services costs

[1:02:41] and directing staff to provide a full accounting of costs associated with the

[1:02:45] city's critical incident response between July 22nd, 2026 and September

[1:02:50] 8th, 2026. On item 60, our first registrant wishing to speak is Avi

[1:02:56] Ivatori of District 12 to be followed by Rachel Ravinski to be followed by

[1:03:01] Ameilia Royo Mau. Do we have Avi?

[1:03:12] Doesn't look like [snorts] we do.

[1:03:16] Then do we have Rachel Roinski of District 13 to be followed by Amelia

[1:03:21] Royo Mau to be followed by Jacob Lang.

[1:03:29] Rachel, you should be able to speak. >> Hello. Um, I'm speaking today in support

[1:03:34] of using uh the 28,000 something contingent reserve dollars of contingent

[1:03:40] reserve funding to fund the Office of the Independent Police Monitor. Um,

[1:03:46] community members have been saying for weeks now that the office of the

[1:03:51] independent police monitor needs to be fully funded in order to not only

[1:03:55] properly investigate Corey Ruiz's death, but all of the other

[1:04:01] um, misconduct that MPD does on a weekly basis. Um, I will say again that

[1:04:10] previously this item that was put forward by Alder Matthews and seconded

[1:04:14] by Alder Glenn had a provision to um fund the office with the amount

[1:04:23] accounted for for how much was spent on policing from July 22nd to September

[1:04:29] 8th. And from the finance committee meeting meeting, I understand that

[1:04:34] uh 2026 budget money must be used up in 2026. And so I would like to ask that

[1:04:41] um money in the 2027 budget may be allocated to the office of the

[1:04:46] independent police monitor as well. Thank you.

[1:04:50] » Thank you. Our next registrant is Amelia Reicho Mau of Arena, Wisconsin to be

[1:04:57] followed by Jacob Lang to be followed by Liz Light. Do we have Amelia?

[1:05:05] » You hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead.

[1:05:07] » Okay. Um, I want to thank uh, Vice President uh, Carmela Glenn for posting

[1:05:16] every day about the 177, which is now, I don't know, 300 something

[1:05:21] recommendations that were made to the police department and to the city in

[1:05:26] effort to avoid having uh, someone killed again and officers and

[1:05:33] communities and businesses and people and individuals and families totally

[1:05:38] traumatized to avoid having massive loss uh in confidence, to avoid traumatizing

[1:05:47] children, to avoid um massive lawsuits. I mean, this is an

[1:05:54] example of city attorney Michael Hass's risk management plan. What you're

[1:06:01] experiencing right now is just that another committee to talk about deadly

[1:06:08] force. I mean, I have a list of hundreds of people who contributed to the 177

[1:06:14] plus. If you weren't there, you had every opportunity to be there and give

[1:06:18] input, but now you got to have your stamp all over it. And it's just like

[1:06:22] people are dying. So I'm asking you, you have an alder

[1:06:28] who's leading very clearly on real risk management, sustainable risk management.

[1:06:36] That is Vice President Carmela Glenn. Not only is she leading in this arena,

[1:06:43] she has a background of criminal justice. You've got a police civilian

[1:06:49] oversight board. You have an office of the independent monitor that you are

[1:06:53] paying for. We all are. They are experts.

[1:06:58] Hundreds of people and organizations contributed to the 300 plus

[1:07:04] recommendations. The only problem right now is lack of political will, lack of

[1:07:10] political spine. Vengeance. It's literally like some

[1:07:17] adult version. Just call it mean women just seriously going after people as

[1:07:24] retaliation and making the whole city pay for it.

[1:07:29] Can we please stop? People are dying and being traumatized. You heard about all

[1:07:35] the businesses that could shut down. Is this

[1:07:38] » about 30 seconds left? >> About 30 seconds.

[1:07:40] Please support the tiny amount of contingency funds that are supposed to

[1:07:48] be used for emergencies being shifted to the office of the independent monitor.

[1:07:53] All of this is being recorded. It is a legacy that will follow everyone around

[1:07:57] like a shadow. Please stop obstructing and please

[1:08:04] shift funds in uh examining how much this whole debacle has cost thus far.

[1:08:11] » Thank you. That's your time. Our next registrant is Jacob Lang of District 12

[1:08:17] to be followed by Liz Light to be followed by Steve Verberg. Do we have

[1:08:21] Jacob?

[1:08:30] Doesn't look like we have Jacob in the room.

[1:08:34] » I don't see Jacob online. Mayor, >> thank you. Our next registrant is Liz

[1:08:39] Light of District 12 to be followed by Steve Verberg to be followed by Devin

[1:08:43] Snyder. >> Excellent. There you go.

[1:08:48] » Is this working? >> Yes.

[1:08:50] » Amazing. Thank you. Okay. Um, my name is Liz Light and I

[1:08:56] live and work in district 12 on the north side of Madison. I speak today in

[1:09:00] support of agenda item 60, Alder Matthews resolution to transfer the

[1:09:05] $28,500 from the contingency reserve fund to the

[1:09:08] office of the independent monitor and to direct staff to provide a full account

[1:09:12] of costs associated with the city's critical incident response between July

[1:09:16] 22nd and today. Personally, when I organize, gather and protest with my

[1:09:22] community, I believe we are communicating something to our fellow

[1:09:26] community members and to the people who have the power to move the needle. You

[1:09:30] all, we continue to tell you how to help us. Yes, we keep us safe and you can

[1:09:37] help keep all of us safe by supporting independent oversight of MPD.

[1:09:43] Some of you continue to respond to this request by vilifying protesters,

[1:09:48] repeatedly telling us what you cannot do, and then directing us to navigate

[1:09:52] what often feel like toothless channels. And these channels feel toothless

[1:09:57] because these are the channels you control. And so for you and so far, you

[1:10:02] have been unwilling to tell us what you can do in many cases and what you're

[1:10:07] willing to do. I keep thinking about the ask from the

[1:10:10] city leadership to respect the family in response to the protest and community

[1:10:14] organizing efforts. And I wonder how are you all respecting Corey Ruiz's family?

[1:10:20] Is it respectful to Corey Ruiz and his family to sick cops on people working to

[1:10:24] keep his case alive and tended to? Is it respectful to Corey Ruiz and his family

[1:10:29] to pay MPD to surveil the site where they executed him? Is it respectful to

[1:10:35] Corey Ruiz and his family to debase the oversight body that is their pathway to

[1:10:39] justice? I continue to wonder about the next

[1:10:43] family. If members of this body continue to justify state violence, minimize

[1:10:48] their own legitimate power, and blame unrest on the community seeking

[1:10:52] accountability, you are all but guaranteeing there will be a next

[1:10:56] family. Your votes, your attitudes towards your constituents, and your

[1:11:01] distortions of what is actually happening on the ground are all being

[1:11:04] noted. Justice for Tony Robinson, justice for Richard Lee Johnson, and

[1:11:09] justice for Corey Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you. Our next registrant is [applause]

[1:11:16] I'm going to ask folks in the gallery please not to applaud snapping. I'll let

[1:11:21] you get away with, but we need to keep going because there's a lot of people

[1:11:24] that want to talk tonight. Our next registrant is Steve Verberg of Wendy

[1:11:28] Lane to be followed by Devin Snyder to be followed by Adrien Mccclure. Do we

[1:11:33] have Steve?

[1:11:38] Doesn't look like we have Steve in the room.

[1:11:41] » Steve is not online. Mayor, >> thank you. Then our next registrant is

[1:11:44] Devin Snyder of District 4 to be followed by Adrien Mccclure to be

[1:11:49] followed by Miriam Hassan. Do we have Devon

[1:11:54] » here? Can you guys hear? >> Yes. Go ahead.

[1:11:57] » All right. Good evening, President, members of the common council, and

[1:12:01] members of our community. My name is Devin Snyder, and I'm proud to serve on

[1:12:05] the police civilian oversight board. Yet, I find myself here once again

[1:12:09] advocating for adequate funding for the Office of Independent Monitor.

[1:12:14] Independent police oversight is not optional. It is essential to building

[1:12:18] public trust, ensuring accountability, and promoting transparency. The PCOB and

[1:12:24] the OIM were recreated because our community recognized that accountability

[1:12:28] matters and that residents deserve confidence that policing is conducting

[1:12:32] fairly and partially and with integrity.

[1:12:38] Today, however, the OIM is operating with a debilitating shortage of

[1:12:42] resources while facing extraordinary demands. We cannot expect effective

[1:12:47] oversight without providing the personal and funding necessary to perform that

[1:12:51] work. That is why I strongly support Elder

[1:12:54] Matthews resolution to transfer 28,500 from the contingency reserve fund to the

[1:13:00] OIN. This funding is necessary to address urgent staffing and service

[1:13:05] needs and to ensure the office can continue carrying out its

[1:13:09] responsibilities. I also urge the council to direct staff

[1:13:14] to provide a full accounting of all costs associated with the city's

[1:13:18] critical incident response between July 22nd, 2026 and September 8th, 2026.

[1:13:25] Transparency must remain a guiding principle, especially when public

[1:13:29] resources are involved. Finally, and most importantly, I urge

[1:13:34] you to fully fund the Office of Independent Monitor in the 2027 budget.

[1:13:39] Earth is about more than dollars and cents. It is about whether we are

[1:13:43] willing to invest in an accountability, transparency, and public trust. The

[1:13:48] residents of this city have made it clear that independent oversight

[1:13:51] matters. Now, it is time for us to demonstrate that commitment through

[1:13:55] action. I re I respectfully ask you to support this resolution and ensure

[1:14:01] transparency regarding recent expenditures and provide full funding

[1:14:06] the office of independent monitoring 2027.

[1:14:09] Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.

[1:14:14] » Thank you. Our next registrant is Adrien McCclure of District 2 to be followed by

[1:14:19] Miriam Hassan to be followed by T. Banks. Do we have Adrien?

[1:14:29] I just want to look

[1:14:33] » very important >> breaking up on us

[1:14:36] » connection is bad but I will [snorts]

[1:14:46] important my social life [snorts] and celebrations

[1:14:54] of of violence especially know that

[1:15:00] we need >> Adrian we're getting about half of every

[1:15:04] word it we can't understand what you're saying

[1:15:08] » sorry with

[1:15:17] you all that the people are watching in house

[1:15:23] Okay, >> Adrian, I'm going to suggest that we

[1:15:26] come back to you and you see if you can get to a better connection. Um, I'll

[1:15:32] » keep you on the list and come back. >> So, let's go then to Miriam Hassan of

[1:15:37] District 15 to be followed by T. Banks to be followed by Autumn Jarcus.

[1:15:47] I think [snorts] my foot's asleep. Um, I'm Miriam Hassan. I'm a resident of

[1:15:52] Madison. Um, I don't know my district number, but I'm in Dina Nina's district.

[1:15:56] Um, I'm writing to I'm actually here speaking to you to ask for your support

[1:16:01] for the transfer of the 28 grand uh emergency funds to bring up staffing at

[1:16:07] the office of the independent monitor for the rest of the year. Um, this is an

[1:16:12] emergency stop gap measure to get through the rest of this extraordinary

[1:16:16] time. Um, please think about the people who have just learned about the

[1:16:19] monitor's office and have submitted complaints about MPD. Uh, those

[1:16:23] residents put their trust in the office to look at their complaints, do factf

[1:16:28] finding, identify trends, assess them to identify policy recommendations, and

[1:16:34] report on them so that the findings can be part of the public record. That's a

[1:16:38] really important step towards accountability. That trust was earned.

[1:16:42] Uh, please do not betray it. It's obvious from the tension and angst

[1:16:47] around the monitor that there are some values or personality conflicts going

[1:16:51] on. Um, and I'd like to just con uh put forward for your consideration that um

[1:16:57] their duties require a somewhat adversarial posture and maybe that rubs

[1:17:01] people the wrong way. Um, but in any case, it looks to me like the office is

[1:17:05] under the microscope with very scant resources. Um, and in 2027, I'd love to

[1:17:11] see this office be able to do their best work with truly adequate resources.

[1:17:15] Um, finally, um, I'm wondering I'm wondering, um, if there's anywhere I

[1:17:21] can see what the city's expenditures to date, um, were associated with the

[1:17:25] memorial for Corey Ruiz. Um, I believe the mayor said it was estimated to cost

[1:17:30] hundreds of thousands of dollars in a news interview. So, I'm very curious

[1:17:34] about the line item costs and how the city found those funds, if there was a

[1:17:38] proposal to spend contingent reserve funds or what. Um, I'm guessing some

[1:17:42] overtime was paid out to some city workers and it seems to me like we get

[1:17:46] more for our dollar uh bringing up a part-time position to 1.0 FTE uh than by

[1:17:52] paying overtime wages, other things being equal, which of course they

[1:17:56] aren't. Uh it seems to me like the 28 grand won't make much difference in

[1:18:01] whether the city can respond at the same level for the next crisis, especially

[1:18:05] when you factor in what the city will have to pay out to settle lawsuits um if

[1:18:10] MPD continues to carry on with impunity. Um please consider the complaintants and

[1:18:16] I thank you for listening. >> Thank you. Our next registrant is T.

[1:18:21] banks of district 14 and then we'll circle back and see if we have any of

[1:18:27] the folks that we missed. Avi Evore, Jacob Lang, Steve Verberg, or Adrien

[1:18:33] Mccclure. Do we have T Banks?

[1:18:38] Go ahead.

[1:18:41] banks did just 14 and

[1:18:47] I support to funding the

[1:18:54] dollar

[1:18:57] office for addition

[1:19:02] and service debilitating

[1:19:06] funds in the face of an emergency >> t you're also really breaking up on us.

[1:19:11] I don't know if you can move to some place with better signal

[1:19:21] » a little bit better. >> Oh, hold on just a minute. Can you pause

[1:19:25] the timer, please? >> Could you mayor, could you ask an aler

[1:19:30] to just try Could you ask an aler to try speaking who's online to see if it's us

[1:19:34] and not these speakers? Well, considering that some of the speakers

[1:19:39] have been able to be heard, >> right? Just because we had the

[1:19:42] disruption earlier where the Zoom dropped and all and Alder Ver has been

[1:19:46] frozen on the screen. It's just a just a suggestion.

[1:19:50] » Um, can can we have one of the alders who's online? Trust me,

[1:19:54] » I can talk. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:19:57] » Here on a connection. Okay. >> Thank you, Alder Tishler.

[1:20:01] All right. Let's um try again for te to see if we can hear you.

[1:20:08] » Okay. Can you hear him?

[1:20:12] » No, I think you're still breaking up. [snorts]

[1:20:20] » Okay, here. >> That's a little better.

[1:20:25] Um, and I actually

[1:20:30] [clears throat]

[1:20:35] get

[1:20:40] » Yeah, I'm sorry. You're You're really breaking up on us. I'm going to put you

[1:20:43] again to try again after Adrian and see if maybe you can um find a better signal

[1:20:50] before then. >> Thank you.

[1:20:53] » Sorry. All right. So then let's circle back. Do

[1:20:57] we and I'll ask our tech staff. Oh, excuse me, Alder Jang. Um, if after

[1:21:03] circling back once or more than once, um, if we can't hear what people have to

[1:21:09] say, I would suggest maybe if they could email us their comments. Yes, thank you,

[1:21:13] Alder. It's a good point. We do ask that if anybody is either not present when

[1:21:18] their name is called or can't be heard for some reason that you send an alder

[1:21:22] to excuse me an email to all alders at city ofmadison.com with your comments so

[1:21:29] the council can read them. Um and I think most alders if not all um have

[1:21:35] their laptops and can read their emails in real time. Um,

[1:21:41] all right. So then circling back, do we have Aviator,

[1:21:45] Jacob Lang, or Steve Verberg?

[1:21:53] » Mayor, I don't see them in attendance online.

[1:21:55] » Okay, thank you very much. And then let's try again with Adrien Mccclure.

[1:22:00] » Adrien >> of District 2.

[1:22:04] » Okay, can you hear me this time? >> Oh, that's so much better.

[1:22:07] » Okay. Yes. Well, I wanted to to speak in support of moving funding to the office

[1:22:12] of independent monitor. Uh the Williamson Street area is very important

[1:22:17] to me. A lot of things that are important to my social life is there.

[1:22:19] It's been for me and I think for many other people a place of comfort and

[1:22:23] refuge. So, it was disturbing to see it become a place of violence, especially

[1:22:27] knowing that there was another police shooting of a young black man not very

[1:22:30] long ago. And uh that we I want to and many other people want to find ways to

[1:22:36] keep this from happening. We're all grieving over this and some kind of

[1:22:39] action needs to be taken. And I'd like to remind you all that the people of

[1:22:44] Madison are watching you and will remember how you respond to this moment.

[1:22:47] That's all. >> Thank you. All right, let's try again

[1:22:51] for T. Banks of District 14.

[1:23:02] » It's a little better. Let's try it. Okay. Um, my name is T

[1:23:09] district support

[1:23:18] the reserve. >> I'm I'm sorry. The the council's shaking

[1:23:23] their heads at me. They can't hear you sufficiently.

[1:23:27] Um, but that did seem a little better. So, let's try a few more registrants and

[1:23:32] um I'll circle back again. All right. So, let's try then for Autumn

[1:23:37] Jarcus of District 6 to be followed by Ariel Habber Faucet to be followed by

[1:23:43] Tessa Jade Price. Do we have Autumn?

[1:23:51] Doesn't look like Autumn's in the room. Uh, Autumn, you should be able to unmute

[1:23:57] yourself.

[1:24:01] You should have a pro. There you go. Okay, you can hear me?

[1:24:06] » Yes, please go ahead. >> Okay.

[1:24:08] » Uh, so my name is Autumn Yotsis. Um, I am speaking in support of item 60. Um,

[1:24:18] I spoke a lot last meeting. Um, if anyone might remember, um, but just

[1:24:23] echoing what I've heard, uh, many people say today, um,

[1:24:28] this action item has been defanged. there was uh more money requested for

[1:24:37] this, but you've put it down at 28,000. Um like I heard someone speak a few

[1:24:42] speakers ago, um this is really a stop gap. Um, I just wanted to say that I

[1:24:50] feel strongly that police oversight needs to be um,

[1:24:56] a actual oversight, well staffed um, regardless of who is actually in the

[1:25:02] office and the position. The office itself should be staffed to counteract a

[1:25:07] police budget that has an really fat fat budget. Um, I think that it's pretty

[1:25:13] cheesy that this is coming from the emergency city emergency funds. Um, in a

[1:25:19] time when everybody is hurting financially, um, maybe including city

[1:25:24] workers, um, including other areas that that could be addressed. I think it's

[1:25:29] ridiculous that this money didn't come from our police budget. Um, I personally

[1:25:34] want police oversight because I've witnessed too much harassment uh from

[1:25:40] police to civilians. Um, I think that that's all I just want to say. I seed my

[1:25:47] time. >> Thank you. Our next registrant is Ariel

[1:25:52] Haber Faucet of District 6 to be followed by Tessa Jade Price to be

[1:25:57] followed by Tara Wood Taylor. Do we have Ariel?

[1:26:08] Okay. Uh, it doesn't look like we have Ariel in the room.

[1:26:12] » Ariel's not online. Mayor, >> thank you. So then, uh, Tessa Jade Price

[1:26:17] of District 12 to be followed by Tara Wood Taylor

[1:26:21] to be followed by Gregory Galiac. Do we have Tessa?

[1:26:27] » Sure do. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead.

[1:26:30] Okay, cool. Um, I'm here to urge you all to support agenda item number 60 to fund

[1:26:34] the OIM 28.5,000 uh 28.5K

[1:26:39] of over 1.5 million reported in the 2026 contingency fund from the finance

[1:26:44] committee. I would also like to thank VP Glenn Alder Matthews and Monitor Glass

[1:26:49] for doing your jobs and fighting for the people. Um, the city of Madison has the

[1:26:53] blood of Cory Ruiz on its hands. The least you can do is to fund the

[1:26:57] accountability process. We cannot close our eyes to the

[1:27:02] disparities if we do not have someone analyzing the data demonstrating the

[1:27:05] disparities. We can't fix them. For instance, uh this is a lovely little law

[1:27:11] statute whatever uh obtained from the data analyst. Um it's 62.09

[1:27:18] parentheses 13A. And this says the chief of police, it's not written in there,

[1:27:24] but it's by context. shall obey all lawful written orders of the mayor or

[1:27:29] common counsel. And I would urge you uh both the mayor or and or the common

[1:27:33] council to direct the chief of police to suspend Keel Badinger Peterson

[1:27:37] indefinitely. That is a power that you appear to have and that seems like

[1:27:42] something that you should be doing. Um, I watched the violent response to the

[1:27:45] civil disobedience by police raiding the memorial and it was brutal and it was

[1:27:49] nasty and it was um, frankly, you declared war on a peaceful protest and

[1:27:55] the people will never forget that and um, to hear the mayor clutching her

[1:28:00] pearls at curse words is frankly ridiculous. Um, I debated whether or not

[1:28:05] to read you George Carlin's seven words you can't see on TV, but I'll spare you

[1:28:08] the um, the Thanks. Thank you. Our next registrant is Tara

[1:28:16] Wood Taylor of district 12 to be followed by Gregory Gambia to be

[1:28:20] followed by Sadika Dishaser. Do we have Tara?

[1:28:27] Doesn't look like Tara's in the room.

[1:28:33] Ah, Tara, you should be able to unmute. Hello. Yes, I was just unmuted. Thank

[1:28:39] you. Hello. Uh, my name is Tara Wood Taylor and I am from Madison. I actually

[1:28:45] live in your district, mayor. I am incredibly disappointed in all of our

[1:28:52] protectors of our Madison killer cops. Our Madison alers voted no to uh the

[1:28:59] contingency funds to fund the office of the independent monitor. I am looking at

[1:29:04] you. Sabrina Madison, Shaun O'Brien, Tag Evers, Bandry Lella, Michael Vervier,

[1:29:11] and Regina Vitav. Apologies if I've gotten any of your names wrong. People

[1:29:16] mispronounced my name my entire life. Corey's family still has no justice. You

[1:29:24] have yet a reminder. You have yet to arrest the officer, Kil Peterson, who

[1:29:31] completely executed a man in broad daylight. We all know what we saw.

[1:29:38] Refusing to fund your police accountability

[1:29:42] is protecting your cops, your killer cops. I support Alder Matthews and

[1:29:48] Glenn's resolution to transfer only $28,500

[1:29:55] which is mere pennies [snorts] from the 100 whatever what was it or a million

[1:30:01] dollar of police force that was unnecessary that we all know could go to

[1:30:05] our beautiful Madison parks and protecting our lakes and our ismas

[1:30:09] that's just gorgeous that we live on but instead you have chosen to fund police

[1:30:13] who kill our citizens. I don't feel safe when I see an officer. But what I did do

[1:30:19] is I felt safe for the two weeks that we had a memorial for Corey. And I had no

[1:30:27] problems. I left my purse out. I was able to leave my personal belongings

[1:30:32] out. I don't know about any of y'all. Maybe when you go to a coffee shop, you

[1:30:36] can do that. But when I was there for two weeks, I felt safe. I do not feel

[1:30:40] safe with our Madison police. I do not feel safe knowing there is still

[1:30:45] Peterson out there being able to go on a nice vacation wherever he is and the

[1:30:50] rest of those officers. So I implore you implore you please direct the staff to

[1:30:55] provide a coal a full accounting cost because we need it. This is critical and

[1:31:00] the longer you take the more this fire is going to continue to get bigger. Your

[1:31:08] citizens are waiting 30 seconds. They are waiting on you. We are waiting on

[1:31:13] you to have some accountability. Please stop with refusing to have any

[1:31:21] accountability. Thank you for your time and justice for Corey and justice for

[1:31:26] every other single person who has ever been brutally murdered by a police

[1:31:31] officer. >> Thank you folks. You really can't

[1:31:36] because we need to keep moving through. Snaps are okay. Our next registrant is

[1:31:41] Gregory Glmbiac of Second Street to be followed by Sadika Deaser to be followed

[1:31:46] by Alexander Wilburn. Greg >> Monitor Glass and I myself

[1:31:52] » Go ahead. >> What's that?

[1:31:54] » Ah, Monitor Glass and I myself are being defamed with an avalanche of falsehoods.

[1:31:58] I would like to start with Alder Ever's false statements attacking me at the

[1:32:01] finance committee. He referenced two Facebook posts I made. He said of the

[1:32:04] first that I posted a picture of a white police officer holding a gun to the head

[1:32:08] of a black resident. Except the reality is there were no residents or civilians

[1:32:11] in the picture. It's promotional picture from a film and all the figures in the

[1:32:14] picture are police officers and clearly identifiable as police officers in

[1:32:17] police uniforms. In the post I was writing about MPD being completely out

[1:32:21] of compliance with ordinance, acting lawlessly but not providing records to

[1:32:24] us even aside from records from the corer's case referencing a second

[1:32:27] Facebook post of mine. Ever said that things quote have not improved even end

[1:32:32] quote even after withdrawal of the ordinance amendments because according

[1:32:34] to Evers I post a criticism of the sponsoring alders after that point but

[1:32:38] the reference post was actually made on July 26 before the amendments have been

[1:32:42] withdrawn. Evers also said that I quote said it was a pernicious attempt in

[1:32:47] continuing with tags statement and pernitious I don't need to tell you

[1:32:50] means evil intent describing evil intent of the alders who are trying to do this

[1:32:54] end quote. Alder ever needs a dictionary. Pernicious actually means

[1:32:57] harmful. And I actually wrote, quote, "This is a post about those pernicious

[1:33:00] ordinance amendments." I didn't describe evil intent to alers, and I didn't use

[1:33:04] the word pernicious with respect to alders. I'm not going to say that Alder

[1:33:07] Evers lied about me because the lie requires intent to deceive. Rather, I

[1:33:11] believe that he was unfortunately so consumed with personal animosity, so

[1:33:14] biased and full of self-righteous ego that he couldn't tell fact from fictions

[1:33:18] that his mind concocted it. [snorts] I also wish to speak about the latest memo

[1:33:21] from Attorney Hos. Reading the memo is like reading a set of allegations from

[1:33:24] one of Trump's DOJ prosecutors without having any other information. Uses a

[1:33:28] combination of misrepresentation, some outright false, distorted one-sided

[1:33:31] claims, verbiage written to lead people to believe something untrue without

[1:33:34] technically making a false claim, etc. For example, H states, quote, the lack

[1:33:38] of time a timely notice being published or or regarding issues um related to

[1:33:43] close session discussion or other compliance with open meeting law. He

[1:33:46] doesn't, for example, actually say the PCB violated timely notice requirements

[1:33:50] of open meeting law because no such violation occurred. You're falsely led

[1:33:53] to think that such a violation occurred. The one recent violation opening law

[1:33:57] that I am aware of is at the August 5 um executive subcommittee meeting where at

[1:34:02] HOS's behest the first hour of a closed session noticed as quote independent

[1:34:06] monitor evaluation and quote was instead spent talking about city procedures for

[1:34:10] contracting attorneys or consultants. It's the usual pattern of the rules are

[1:34:14] for thee and not for me. Ha showed no compunction about having the PCB violate

[1:34:18] open meeting law under his lead when he wanted to instruct and lobby the PCB

[1:34:21] outside the public eye. >> You have about 30 seconds left.

[1:34:24] » What's that? >> You have about 30 seconds left.

[1:34:26] » I I'd like the speaking time to go through through the remainder of the

[1:34:29] items, but I I wish to note a slimming of fraudulent complaint that was filed

[1:34:33] against myself a month ago. It was a retaliatory complaint. It was fabricated

[1:34:36] from whole cloth. Falsely accused me of stalking, harassment, etc. There are

[1:34:40] three witnesses, video evidence, and written records conclusively showing

[1:34:42] that the complainant lied and made up pretty much everything in the complaint.

[1:34:45] For closing out the investigation, Mika has been waiting on one of the witness

[1:34:48] statements, but in Hass is right if you're falsely led to believe that

[1:34:51] there's an ongoing issue that Mika did something wrong and not completing the

[1:34:54] investigation yet. I'll conclude with a quote in a time of universal deceit

[1:34:57] telling the truth of the revolutionary act.

[1:34:59] » Thank you. We're going to circle back to T Banks

[1:35:03] and see if we can get them uh from district 14

[1:35:08] to be followed by Sadik Deser to be followed by Alexander Wilburn T.

[1:35:15] » Hello. Can you hear me now? >> Oh my god. Yes, that's so much better.

[1:35:19] Thank you. >> Thank you. My name is T. Banks and I am

[1:35:25] a resident of district 14 and I support Alder Matthews resolution to transfer

[1:35:32] funding of the $28,500 from the contingency reserve fund to the

[1:35:38] office of the independent monitor for additional staffing and service cost is

[1:35:43] they are operating with debilitating shortage in funds in the face of an

[1:35:48] emergency. an emergency that you all caused.

[1:35:54] How much in overtime was paid that was your fault for handling this crisis

[1:36:00] dangerously and violently? How much are businesses and staples to our community,

[1:36:06] how much are they suffering due to your negligence and the violence that you let

[1:36:11] occur? Arrest that killer cop killer kill

[1:36:15] Peterson. He needs to be in jail. He needs to be accountable

[1:36:21] for killing Corey Ruiz. The least that you could do is give these pennies so

[1:36:28] people could that so that people that are actually brave enough to hold the

[1:36:32] cops accountable cuz you won't like the office of the independent monitor have

[1:36:38] more funds. The least that you could do for having killer cops occupy our

[1:36:43] streets is for the staff to provide a full accounting of cost associated with

[1:36:48] the city's critical incident response between July 22nd, 2026 and September

[1:36:54] 8th, 2026. Because I bet those hundreds of thousands of dollars could go to the

[1:36:59] office of the independent monitor. I bet that they could fund the car's unit 247

[1:37:04] and make them have their own number. I bet all that money that the city has had

[1:37:08] to pay out to the past victims of police brutality could fund the true

[1:37:13] accountability and residents of Madison to intervene instead of armed police.

[1:37:19] Fully fund the office of independent monitor for the 2027 budget. That's the

[1:37:24] least you can do. I yield my time. >> Thank you and thanks for your

[1:37:30] persistence. Our next registrant is Sadika Deser of District 17 to be

[1:37:35] followed by Alexander Wilburn to be followed by Grace Mckowski. Do we have

[1:37:40] Sadika? >> Yes.

[1:37:43] » Go ahead. >> Uh good evening, mayor, elders, and

[1:37:47] fellow community members. Uh item 60 we should obviously fund. Um since before

[1:37:55] the murder of Cory Ruiz, I've asked for oversight from the city of Madison and

[1:37:59] boards and council. um that lead our municipality. Sadly, if

[1:38:04] this is the best we can offer, we must multiply and renew our efforts to

[1:38:09] address critical issues. Um currently, the community has broken trust, and lots

[1:38:14] of harm has happened. Currently, mayor, you have not held account for how you've

[1:38:20] moved. You have not held account for your anti-democratic processes such as

[1:38:25] not informing any of the alders about what you were going to do proceeding to

[1:38:29] sign the city up for what is likely to be millions just based on the past

[1:38:34] patterns of spending in followup to this police response. What is likely to be

[1:38:39] millions in the civil payout? While we are unlikely to hold the killer cop to

[1:38:46] account in a excuse me in a excuse me the legally we should hold them to

[1:38:52] account and will hold them to account civily. You will end up paying as you

[1:38:56] have in the past and we will continue to pay if we don't address these harms that

[1:39:01] are happening in our community. Um the police need oversight. An example I have

[1:39:06] from personal experience is working with the city in a partnership at the Macaba

[1:39:11] Gardens campground, the Madison Street Medicine Dairy Drive project. I'm not

[1:39:15] speaking on behalf of Madison Street Medicine, no longer work with them. The

[1:39:19] point that I'm getting at here is that when we asked for accountability from

[1:39:23] the police in incidents that happened on site, we were told by the city in

[1:39:27] meetings with Jim O'Keefe that everyone would be held to account, the police,

[1:39:31] the operators, everybody had actions that they needed to be accountable for.

[1:39:35] Yet, when looking at the police reports through a Freedom of Information Act, it

[1:39:40] was clear that he assured the police that we would be the ones talked to. So

[1:39:43] if this is the lack of accountability that we receive in a low stakes

[1:39:46] community partnership, what level of accountability can we expect when the

[1:39:49] stakes are lethal? This failure of accountability is so glaring that when

[1:39:53] the city brought in people to advise them as far as their independent board,

[1:39:58] excuse me, the office of the independent monitor went, it was pretty much

[1:40:02] advised, but the city needs mediation. I've heard alders continue to like

[1:40:05] hammer the office of the independent monitor on that like it's all their

[1:40:08] problem. Mediation takes two parties. I'm hearing a lot of alders who need to

[1:40:11] own their responses and take some accountability in that mediation.

[1:40:16] » You figure out and lead set of an example and how we should move as a

[1:40:22] community. You are in positions of leadership and you can't figure out a

[1:40:26] mediation. That's a damn shame. We've now had 60 people registered to support

[1:40:32] this funding measure and that was in the finance meeting.

[1:40:36] The committee unanimously voted to deny it. Where is the democracy? Where is the

[1:40:42] representation of the people? This city is fiscally irresponsible. Mayor, you

[1:40:45] should resign. We're going to spend billions of dollars on retroactive

[1:40:49] police. Refuse a baseline for accountability.

[1:40:53] » Our next registrant is Alexander Wilburn of Madison.

[1:40:59] Uh to be followed by Grace Mckowski to be followed by Barbie Jackson. Do we

[1:41:03] have Alexandra?

[1:41:12] Doesn't look like we have Alexandra in the room.

[1:41:15] » I don't see Alexander online. Mayor, >> thank you. Then our next registrant is

[1:41:19] Grace Mckowski of District 13 to be followed by Barbie Jackson to be

[1:41:24] followed by Kayla Riley. Do we have Grace?

[1:41:32] Doesn't look like we have Grace in the room.

[1:41:42] And I assume >> Grace, you should be able to unmute

[1:41:46] yourself.

[1:41:54] You should have a prompt to unmute yourself. It might be hidden under a

[1:41:57] window.

[1:42:04] Uh, it's the other Grace

[1:42:13] Tech staff. Can you There you go. Now you should be able to unmute yourself.

[1:42:20] » Hello. Uh, my name is Grace McClesy and I Can you hear me first of all?

[1:42:25] » Yes. >> Okay. Um, and I am a resident of

[1:42:28] district 13. I am speaking in support of agenda item number 60. Um, I would like

[1:42:35] to urge everyone to support Alder Matthews and Glenn's resolution to

[1:42:40] transfer funding of $28,500 from the contingency reserve fund to the

[1:42:45] Office of Independent Monitor for additional staffing and service costs um

[1:42:49] and to direct staff to provide full accounting of costs associated with the

[1:42:55] city's critical incident response between July 22nd, 2026 and September

[1:43:00] 8th, 2026. and to fully fund the office of

[1:43:05] independent monitor for the 2027 budget. Um I am also speaking as

[1:43:12] somebody who is utterly exhausted of seeing supposed leaders of this

[1:43:17] community um fail to listen to their constituents.

[1:43:23] Um also to dehumanize the most marginalize and vulnerable people in

[1:43:28] this community. um and to see community members step up

[1:43:33] time and time and time again um to urge people um to urge supposed leaders um to

[1:43:40] do their jobs. Um and this includes my alder of

[1:43:45] district 13, Tag Ivers. I am incredibly disgusted by the number of times almost

[1:43:52] immediately after the murder that he called the vigil a beautiful

[1:43:57] which was a beautiful space and a very safe space the homeless encampment in a

[1:44:02] derogatory way. And he did this on his blog post multiple times. And it is

[1:44:08] things like this that alders get away with and other leaders in this community

[1:44:12] get away with that is just so sickening. And you all are complicit in murders

[1:44:17] such as these. And you need to be the least you can do, like TBank said, is to

[1:44:23] is to move pennies, literally just pennies. This is a city that despite its

[1:44:31] deficit, millions of dollars of deficit, has such an inflated police budget. And

[1:44:36] I remember when the community made sure back in the spring that the flock um

[1:44:43] contract was not renewed um that multiple leaders all urgently

[1:44:50] » about 30 seconds left. all urgently made sure that this police department that we

[1:44:56] so trust and love did not lose their $80,000 that was originally supposed to

[1:45:01] be spent on the contract um to renew the renewed contract for Flock. And

[1:45:08] the least you can do is um find the um is to support this agenda item. I yield

[1:45:17] my time. >> Thank you. Our next registrition is

[1:45:21] Barbie Jackson of District 7 to be followed by Kayla Riley to followed by

[1:45:26] Elizabeth Warzonic. Do we have Barbie? >> Yes. Can you hear me?

[1:45:31] » Yes. Go ahead. >> Uh hello again. I hope the members of

[1:45:35] the common council will seriously consider voting in support of this

[1:45:39] operating budget amendment as well as directing staff to provide a full

[1:45:43] accounting of costs associated with this city's critical incident response. This

[1:45:49] item was presented to the finance committee on August 31st. I listened

[1:45:53] carefully to the lengthy comments as they debated this proposal and then

[1:45:57] unanimously voted no and recommended placing it on file. While some of that

[1:46:02] discussion directly pertained to the specific request and the availability of

[1:46:06] funds. More importantly from my perspective, most of the discussion was

[1:46:11] about various perspectives about the PCOB, the OIPM and independent monitor

[1:46:16] glass following the police killing of Corey Ruiz.

[1:46:23] I believe all commenters spoke from the heart and with considerable emotion

[1:46:28] while having widely divergent perspectives of the authority invested

[1:46:32] the in the OIPM and IM and widely divergent perspectives about the quote

[1:46:37] activist community which represents impacted people whether they be unhoused

[1:46:43] community, those grappling with mental health or

[1:46:46] substance issues, the black community, and simply those just struggling from

[1:46:51] day to day due to lack of sufficient resources for healthy and successful

[1:46:56] living. In view of these divergent comments, which by the way a few members

[1:47:00] of my church have expressed to me and other advocates for system systemic

[1:47:05] change, I realize it is natural to have different views based on various life

[1:47:10] experiences and awareness of other people's struggles. But this is why I

[1:47:14] asked in my previous testimony for each of you to reflect on your direct

[1:47:17] experience with mental health and substance use issues. Tonight, I

[1:47:22] specifically want to address a comment Alder Evers made at the close of his

[1:47:25] remarks in August in which he stated, quote,

[1:47:29] "If things don't change, I'll be voting no in November."

[1:47:33] While I've taken this out of the context he painted, much of the context was with

[1:47:38] reference to specific individuals remarks or behaviors. I find this to be

[1:47:43] deeply troubling. The OIPM and the PCOB are a critical component of the systemic

[1:47:49] change that must occur in Madison policing. While not speaking on behalf

[1:47:52] of Moses tonight, I will state that Moses fully supports both offices and

[1:47:57] full funding. I am thankful that President Madison and PCOB Chair Pearson

[1:48:02] were able to reach an agreement in July. about 30 seconds left.

[1:48:05] » To quote pursue restorative justice, to rebuild trust, and to create a stronger

[1:48:11] foundation for the important work of police oversight, end quote.

[1:48:16] I call on the full common council to respect a restorative process toward

[1:48:20] assurance that there will be no future efforts to interfere with the

[1:48:23] independence and authority of the OIPM and the PCO and to assure the ongoing

[1:48:28] funding of these offices in 2027. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Our

[1:48:35] next registrant is Kayla Riley of District 8 to be followed by Elizabeth

[1:48:39] Roszone to be followed by Sydney Zetler. Do we have Kayla?

[1:48:45] » Go ahead. Hi, my name is Kayla Riley. Uh, many of my comrades know me as Moon.

[1:48:49] Uh, 3 minutes here is not enough time to address and correct Satia's countless

[1:48:53] lies alone. Uh, certainly not enough time to say everything I'd like to. So,

[1:48:57] I could get up here and talk to you all about how out of touch with with reality

[1:49:01] most of you are out here. Uh, [sighs] I could talk about how deplorable your

[1:49:07] constant lies are. I could talk about the community birthed from tragedy, a

[1:49:11] community of beautiful people that alchemize their pain, love, anger, and

[1:49:15] rage into tangible action and community care. I could talk about the strangers

[1:49:19] I've come to love and trust more than some I've known a decade. I could talk

[1:49:23] about how most nights at Cory's memorial I felt safer to sleep on a mattress in

[1:49:27] the middle of that intersection than I did to drive home at night for fear of

[1:49:30] police pulling me over. Um, I could tell you about the times I've been followed

[1:49:36] by police since Cory's murder. Or I could talk about the night my comrades

[1:49:40] and I were stalked and verbally harassed by an officer outside a private business

[1:49:44] for a private event. I could talk about the countless times I've seen on house

[1:49:47] folks, our on- house neighbors, be harassed and arrested for no reason on

[1:49:51] Willie Street. oftentimes those of us stewarding that corner are the only ones

[1:49:56] to witness or record those events happening.

[1:49:59] Um, I did have a section here I was going to address uh, Council President

[1:50:03] Madison and your claims of harassment. I know your son personally, so maybe we

[1:50:08] could talk about that later since you blocked me. Uh, more examples of lies

[1:50:12] being upheld and lack of accountability. Um Satia, you've been telling us to take

[1:50:17] appropriate avenues for action and uh it seems to me that the M is that not one

[1:50:23] of those avenues that we're supposed to take? Maybe you should fund it then. Um

[1:50:28] yet here we are again begging for the bare minimum yet again. We've remained

[1:50:34] peaceful. We've played by your rules. The ones y'all are not even following.

[1:50:38] Even based on your own city policy, Cory's memorial should have been handled

[1:50:41] as a tier 2B encampment and given 24 to 72 hours to move. We were gas lit and

[1:50:47] lied to. You lied about a respectful transition. You lied and told us you

[1:50:52] would preserve memorial items and mutual aid. You didn't. You lied and told us

[1:50:56] the city would preserve that manhole in the street and you didn't. We protest

[1:51:01] genocide and war crimes. You send in police to beat and bloody us. We protest

[1:51:05] police brutality and you send in police to brutalize us. You have the money to

[1:51:11] fund the M. You have money for drones on us lighting candles.

[1:51:17] » I have police and riot gear. Y'all have money for the M. There's no reason why

[1:51:21] you all can't give this 28,000 to the Office of Independent Monitor. It's the

[1:51:25] bare minimum really. And we're done begging for the bare minimum. The people

[1:51:29] are out here. We're united. We will not be defeated. And we will not be

[1:51:33] silenced. Um, [clears throat] and next we'll come

[1:51:37] for we will take back our power and next we'll come for y'all's jobs that y'all

[1:51:41] don't seem to want to do. Um, I'd also like to end with reminding everyone you

[1:51:46] cannot be violent towards inanimate objects.

[1:51:48] » Your time. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:51:51] » Our next registrant is Elizabeth Warzone to be followed by Sydney Zetler and then

[1:51:57] we're going to circle back uh to the folks that we missed. Do we have

[1:52:01] Elizabeth? Hello.

[1:52:04] » Go ahead. >> Um,

[1:52:09] oh [clears throat] boy. Um, I was sitting down and writing a little blurb

[1:52:14] that I could share about my thoughts um on

[1:52:21] the budget for this year and next year and blah blah blah. And

[1:52:26] I'm just tired. I I'm tired. Um, friends of mine are tired. People are angry. Um,

[1:52:34] we've been going through this for at least six weeks

[1:52:40] as far as as Corey, but it's beyond that.

[1:52:50] And I don't know how much I can really give you to

[1:52:56] to just put it into the budget. um

[1:53:02] it's the reason why I find this so um

[1:53:09] puzzling is that um

[1:53:13] you know this actually would save quite a bit of money if we had an oversight an

[1:53:19] office and an independent um police monitor like that person would literally

[1:53:25] bring down the cost of police officers. That's the goal. So it doesn't it

[1:53:31] doesn't make sense that all these people are trying to say it over again in many

[1:53:35] different forms and try to make it clear that this is what they want because we

[1:53:41] are the people. I'm the person. you're the person,

[1:53:48] you know, like that's what we're here to do is to like finally try to get it

[1:53:52] through your head and, you know, mayor and, you know, all the like it doesn't

[1:53:59] make it makes me feel so angry and yet so

[1:54:03] I don't I don't even know what to say, but I will just try to say a couple

[1:54:07] blurs. Currently we pay two pe we take pay two people already as at the low

[1:54:13] amount and service costs as they're operating with low shortage in funds. If

[1:54:19] funded, OIM would bring incidents down and not as many police incidents is a

[1:54:27] smaller number um than the fewer and then fewer budget on police and more

[1:54:35] things like upgrade on more equipment or staff in the independent monitoring.

[1:54:41] » You have about 30 seconds left. ask for a ask for um accountability and if they

[1:54:47] don't have it then they are fired and someone else who's more qualified enters

[1:54:52] um and transfer funding from the two $28,000 from reverse line so I o can add

[1:55:01] additional staffing and service cost emergency cost funding for OIM so that

[1:55:07] they can you know investigate a case or more um it's an easy fix

[1:55:11] » thank Thank you. That's your time. Our next registrant is Sydney Zetler of

[1:55:16] Clark Street and then we'll try again for Ariel Haber Faucet and Alexander

[1:55:21] Wilburn. Do we have Sydney?

[1:55:27] Doesn't look like we have Sydney in the room.

[1:55:32] You should be able to unmute Sydney. Oh, yeah. You should be able to talk,

[1:55:35] Sydney. >> Hey there. Can you hear me?

[1:55:38] » Yes. Go ahead. >> All right. Uh, my name is Sydney and I'm

[1:55:41] here to urge the council to adopt all three parts of the resolution and agenda

[1:55:45] item 60. Madison's Office of the Independent Monitor is the only entity

[1:55:50] in the city empowered to independently investigate police conduct. I want to

[1:55:54] talk about some ways that it's already worked. Its work has already changed the

[1:55:58] official record on at least one death in police custody. Independent Glasses

[1:56:03] investigation into the death of Richard Lee Johnson found that Madison police

[1:56:07] officers caused Johnson's death through prone restraint, excessive force, and

[1:56:12] failure to render aid, and officers admitted key details about their use of

[1:56:16] force from official reports. The Dayne County Medical Examiner ruled the death

[1:56:21] an accidental cocaine overdose, but Glass's independently retained forensic

[1:56:25] pathologist found no active cocaine in Johnson's blood at the time of his death

[1:56:30] and concluded the actual cause was prone restraint cardiac arrest, a finding the

[1:56:34] medical examiner's own office had missed. That kind of scrutiny takes

[1:56:39] time, expertise, and money. Since July, the Office of the Independent Monitor

[1:56:44] has been at the center of the city's response to the officer involved death

[1:56:48] of Cory Ruiz, including a dispute over the office's authority to subpoena

[1:56:53] records from MPD and the Wisconsin Department of Justice during an active

[1:56:58] investigation, a controversy that has consumed staff time and resources. An

[1:57:03] office already operating at capacity cannot absorb a crisis of this scale.

[1:57:07] Cory Ruiz's death and the city's response without additional support. And

[1:57:12] asking it to do so with an empty tank does a disservice to every resident who

[1:57:17] has needed its support and may need its help next. That's why the 20 28,500

[1:57:24] contingency transfer matters now and not later. A full accounting of the costs

[1:57:28] the city has incurred responding to the critical incident. July 22nd through

[1:57:34] September 8th is a reasonable and necessary companion step. It gives the

[1:57:38] council and the public a clear picture of what this response actually cost

[1:57:42] before the 2027 budget is finalized rather than guessing.

[1:57:47] An independent monitor's office is one of few tools that a city has to hold its

[1:57:52] police department accountable to the residents most affected by that

[1:57:55] disparity. There's a disparity between how black and white people are policed

[1:57:59] in Madison, one of the worst in the country. Underfunding the Office of the

[1:58:04] Independent Monitor. Now, in the immediate aftermath of a death in

[1:58:08] custody, Cory Ruiz's death, an officer involved shooting, and a public,

[1:58:12] [clears throat] the office's own authority sends exactly

[1:58:15] the wrong message and signal about whether the city is serious about

[1:58:19] oversight when it's actually tested. Fully funding the office of the

[1:58:23] independent monitor in 2027. And now is how Madison backs up its stated

[1:58:28] commitment to equity and accountability with resources to make it real. Any

[1:58:32] action short of backing these three items and agenda item 60 is on the wrong

[1:58:38] side of history. >> Thank you. That's your time.

[1:58:42] All right. Let's see if we have Ariel Habber Faucet or Alexander Wilburn.

[1:58:51] Doesn't look like either of them are in the room.

[1:58:56] Mayor, they're both not online either. >> Thank you very much. [gasps]

[1:59:01] Then our next registrant is Shadira Kilfoy Flores of District 6 to be

[1:59:06] followed by Robert Michael Pett to be followed by Ashley Smiley. Shadira

[1:59:31] I can't express how disappointed I am to have to be here tonight,

[1:59:38] to have to beg for $28.5,000 for the office of the independent

[1:59:44] monitor to be able to do their important work.

[1:59:50] I'm really disappointed by some of our leadership's lack of response.

[1:59:57] Tomorrow will make six weeks since Corey Ruiz was killed. Have you offered

[2:00:02] condolences to his family, mayor?

[2:00:06] It's a very simple thing. It would mean a lot.

[2:00:11] I don't appreciate the fact that I've worked side by side with many of you and

[2:00:16] given some of you stories when you've asked for it and then in

[2:00:21] return I was lied to.

[2:00:27] Prior to the memorial, it wasn't just an encampment. It was a memorial where

[2:00:33] people came together to mourn because this continues to happen. We

[2:00:41] continue to have people killed by our police who are supposed to protect and

[2:00:46] serve us and then we're supposed to have leaders

[2:00:50] back us up as civilians. I want to say thank you to my alder Davy

[2:00:57] Mayor who's been showing up, who's been there in person, to Carmela Glenn who

[2:01:03] continues to show up. And where

[2:01:09] are some of the rest of you? I saw you, Alder Yanette, leave the room

[2:01:16] and not even listen to Chip Cruz, the only person that bothered to call in.

[2:01:21] You left the room and then when there were people talking, you talked right

[2:01:25] over them. What kind of leadership is that? You're here to listen because

[2:01:31] you're here. You've been appointed to lead.

[2:01:35] Make some difference. Make some change for the better.

[2:01:40] This alers's workg group. What a joke. There's a work group that's already been

[2:01:46] put in place to go through the officer, the MPD's policies and procedures. There

[2:01:52] was already an ad hoc committee. There was already an evaluation. And there is

[2:01:57] now the police civilian oversight board. Have

[2:02:00] » about 30 seconds left. >> You have a bunch of people who are out

[2:02:02] of touch on that group as opposed to using the

[2:02:07] police civilian oversight board where who are a bunch of people who have been

[2:02:12] chosen by the community. Why would you do that?

[2:02:16] To undermine the PCOB? Shame on you.

[2:02:24] Thank you. Our next registrant is Robert Michael Pets of District 6 to be

[2:02:28] followed by Ashley Smiley to be followed by Alex Saludos. Do we have Robert?

[2:02:39] Doesn't look like Robert's in the room.

[2:02:49] Uh, Robert Michael Pets, if that's you listed as Bobby, you should be able to

[2:02:54] unmute yourself.

[2:03:01] If it's not, you maybe unmute yourself and let us know that.

[2:03:13] Okay, we're going to move on and come back

[2:03:19] then. Uh,

[2:03:23] next is Ashley Smiley of District 12 to be followed by Alex Soludos to be

[2:03:28] followed by Erica Bach. Do we have Ashley?

[2:03:32] » Thank you, mayor. >> Go ahead.

[2:03:34] » Um, thank you. First of all, I would just like to say

[2:03:38] thank you uh to a few alders who have taken time to speak with me in the last

[2:03:42] few weeks. Um so thank you to Julia Matthews who's my alder, Carmela Glenn.

[2:03:49] Um and also to Tag Evers, Joanne Pritchette, and Sabrina Madison who all

[2:03:55] took time to speak with me uh within the last week or so.

[2:03:59] It is my impression that we are all on the same team effectively

[2:04:06] that as a community we would all like to see

[2:04:11] more funding in the office of the independent monitor and that the

[2:04:15] conflict is really when that funding will be administered whether it is in

[2:04:21] this budget year or next budget year and [snorts] how much money and what that

[2:04:27] money will effectively. support. [snorts] I am in the process of

[2:04:31] communicating with Nicole and the Quatron Center for the Fair

[2:04:35] Administration of Justice to get some recommendations on what adequate

[2:04:39] staffing costs would be and how many staff would be needed for a city of our

[2:04:44] size with a police force of our size to effectively run this office. So, you can

[2:04:49] expect my emails on that shortly. Um, in the meantime, I know we're all feeling

[2:04:54] really frustrated with where things are right now, and so I wanted to read um an

[2:05:00] excerpt really quick from a MPD document entitled One year later, Madison protest

[2:05:06] event review final. Um, under the header for recommendation

[2:05:12] five, it says MPD should collaborate with community representatives to

[2:05:17] identify and train a group of community dialogue representatives, individuals

[2:05:22] outside of MPD who can be briefed on protester and MPD expectations for the

[2:05:27] protest and who can identify the changing needs of the protesters to MPD

[2:05:32] in ways that will maximize the ability of MPD to facilitate peaceful protests

[2:05:36] and prioritize life over property while striving to protect both.

[2:05:41] In reply to this in this document, um MPD provided this update. MPD has added

[2:05:48] information and educational materials to the Madison Police and City Parks

[2:05:52] Department websites which can be viewed at below URL. I'm going skip ahead a

[2:05:56] little bit. Additionally, the community dialogue team that's part of MPD will

[2:06:01] help create a cadre of community dialogue representatives.

[2:06:06] left. >> If you're interested in being a

[2:06:09] community dialogue representative, please email Captain Ed Marshall of the

[2:06:13] East Precinct. He's very interested in talking to you. I'll see the rest of my

[2:06:18] time. >> Thank you. Our next registrant is Alex

[2:06:21] Saludos of District 5 to be followed by Erica Bach to be followed by Eric

[2:06:26] Howland. Alex,

[2:06:36] » I don't know who's luckier tonight to have me up here twice. Uh, I support the

[2:06:41] OIM's mission and goals. They're as important now as they were in 2020 when

[2:06:46] you created them. We have an excellent ordinance.

[2:06:51] It's not perfect. There's certainly room for improvement.

[2:06:54] I've listened to the impassioned and heartfelt comments by alders Glenn and

[2:06:58] Matthews who uh uh about this resolution at last week's finance committee and

[2:07:04] many more uh similar comments tonight. In the scheme of things, from my

[2:07:11] perspective, $28,000 is a small percentage of what the OIM needs to

[2:07:15] fulfill its mission. I understand if you vote no on this resolution given what

[2:07:20] you've seen and heard. Both sides have legitimate issues about

[2:07:25] the OIM's powers that need to be sorted out in a mutually respectful way.

[2:07:31] Here's my ask, which I know won't be popular with my neighbors and friends

[2:07:34] who support the OIM and PCO. I urge them to step back and ask you,

[2:07:41] the alders, the council, what does the IM and PCOB need to do to regain your

[2:07:47] trust and be funded appropriately so we can fulfill our mission that you gave

[2:07:52] us. I urge you, the alders, the council that

[2:07:57] created this agency and holds its purse strings to be frank and tell the PCO

[2:08:03] what they need to do to earn your trust. And if you don't support their mission

[2:08:08] and goals, then be transparent and say so.

[2:08:13] I urge the OIM PCOB and their supporters to listen with an open mind and use the

[2:08:19] feedback that you get to make changes. Without your trust, the council's trust,

[2:08:26] they're not going to get the funding that they need. Worst case, the OIM and

[2:08:30] PCO don't have the council's trust.

[2:08:35] their independence will be compromised if not eliminated. Let's fix the

[2:08:40] problems, not the blame. Let's focus on the issues, not the people. Thank you.

[2:08:48] » Thank you. Our next registrant is Erica Bach of Middleton to be followed by Eric

[2:08:53] Hullen to be followed by Bonnie Row. Do we have Erica?

[2:09:01] Erica, you should be able to unmute.

[2:09:06] Thank you all for your time here tonight. Although it is your job, I

[2:09:10] still appreciate you being present and hopefully with your listening ears. Um,

[2:09:15] many different sources including security.org have listed that the best

[2:09:19] police departments in this country are such because they have police oversight.

[2:09:25] The amount of money that we are talking about here in item number 60, $28,500.

[2:09:33] This is a soft lob for you all. This is an opportunity to show your

[2:09:38] constituents, both those who support the police department and those who are

[2:09:42] horrified by what they witnessed from our police department, in order to say

[2:09:46] that you are willing to support the urgent staffing solely through the end

[2:09:51] of 2026. It is a very bare minimum as your

[2:09:55] constituents have told you that all costs between July 22nd and today

[2:10:00] September 8th should be accounted for. From a purely financial standpoint,

[2:10:05] there's absolutely no reason why you all cannot use your police powers as

[2:10:10] dictated by statute and ordinance in order to ask your Madison Police

[2:10:15] Department how much money they are spending. on the Dane County uh side of

[2:10:21] things. I know that they need to have approval for anything over 10,000

[2:10:27] anywhere and scouring the internet find out what is the amount of money that the

[2:10:32] common council gets to approve as a like a pre-expenditure.

[2:10:37] So it one I think it needs to be very clear and transparent to your

[2:10:41] constituents. How much money can a department spend without common council

[2:10:45] approving that? And that should apply to the Madison Police Department. And the

[2:10:50] two that needs to be held to account. If there is a set amount of money that this

[2:10:55] council needs to approve from any of the other departments, HR can't spend over X

[2:11:00] number of dollars, how much can the Madison Police Department spend? And if

[2:11:04] it is any more than [clears throat] 28,500,

[2:11:07] this is very small to the OM. Things are getting extremely personal.

[2:11:16] » Oh, it looks like we lost Erica. How much time did they have left?

[2:11:23] Okay, if Erica laggs back on, we'll give her her last 50 seconds.

[2:11:29] Uh, so let's go on then to Eric Howland of District 13 to be followed by Bonnie

[2:11:34] Row to be followed by Indigo Erlin. Do we have Eric?

[2:11:40] Yes. Go ahead. Um, >> thank you, mayor, and and council for

[2:11:44] the chance to speak. Uh, my name is Eric Howland. I'm a member of Moses, but

[2:11:50] speaking for myself, um, I've spoken before about the value of the

[2:11:55] independent monitor, and I don't want to repeat myself. I can just say that I

[2:11:59] agree with the Moses cap times op-ed that itemized the benefits of the office

[2:12:04] of the independent monitor. um like a previous um speaker here did tonight. Um

[2:12:13] I'm going to make an argument about workload. Um almost everybody agrees

[2:12:18] that the police oversight is important regardless of their other uh opinions

[2:12:23] about how oversight should be accomplished. Additionally, it's clear

[2:12:28] that the workload for the office of the independent monitor increased relative

[2:12:33] to the events surrounding the death of Corey Ruez and also because of the

[2:12:39] increased requests for investigations resulting from the inc increased

[2:12:45] awareness that the office exists. Um the in the mayor's uh proposed 2026

[2:12:53] budget um uh I mean the the mayor's 2025 uh budget proposed cutting the uh office

[2:13:01] of the independent monitor by 46%. Um with a budget note given delays in

[2:13:08] staffing and setting up the office the 2025 budget was the first opportunity to

[2:13:13] rightsize uh the budget for ongoing operations.

[2:13:18] Fortunately, about half of those cuts were restored in 2025. Um, but it should

[2:13:24] but the budget for the office of the independent monitor was um has been

[2:13:30] significantly reduced relative to the um the initial estimates of what it was

[2:13:36] needed. Um this is not the moment that the office of the independent monitor

[2:13:42] will be right sized but it is a moment that the uh office of the independent

[2:13:48] monitor can be supported through the rest of the year um with this additional

[2:13:53] workload that seems like beneficial for everyone. I request that you support it.

[2:13:59] Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. It looks like we have Erica

[2:14:04] back. Can we um let her finish?

[2:14:09] » Thank you all. I appreciate that. I think I cut off when I was saying that

[2:14:12] this is getting extremely personal between elected officials and members of

[2:14:16] the public. And what I'd like to really ask you all to do is bring this back to

[2:14:20] the public trust. Some of the money being proposed tonight is specifically

[2:14:24] to attend Nicole building public trust through law enforcement accountability

[2:14:28] and transparency. There's absolutely no reason that as elected officials, you

[2:14:33] wouldn't want that public trust with your police department. Based on my

[2:14:38] personal experience at the memorial for Cory Ruiz, sometimes from 7:00 a.m. up

[2:14:42] until at times 3:00 a.m. and the days that follow.

[2:14:46] » 30 seconds left. >> Thank you. In the days that followed uh

[2:14:49] the tearing down or the destruction of the intersection, I was one of four

[2:14:53] individuals. There were eight officers and 14 different squad cars that drove

[2:14:57] through that intersection over a 40minute period. Each and every one of

[2:15:00] you should be questioning the amount of overtime that is getting paid so that we

[2:15:04] can right size that we can avoid the excessive use

[2:15:09] of deadly force followed and that we continue to build

[2:15:13] this public trust instead of these personal conflicts. Please authorize

[2:15:17] 20.5 and we'll continue the rest of the conversation.

[2:15:20] » That's your time. Thank you very much. All right, our next registrant is Bonnie

[2:15:25] Row of District 11 to be followed by Indigo Erlinborn to be followed by Sarah

[2:15:30] Loenberg. Do we have Bonnie? >> Yes. Good evening, Mayor and members of

[2:15:35] the common council. I was relieved to witness a unanimous no vote on this item

[2:15:39] at the finance committee meeting. There are many good reasons for that and I

[2:15:43] hope you will all stick with your vote despite intense political pressure. I

[2:15:48] believe I'm speaking for the majority of silent Msonians on this issue.

[2:15:53] those of us who want civilian oversight of police but who want a fair and

[2:15:57] objective oversight unlike what we've seen in this ongoing iteration of the

[2:16:02] office of the independent monitor. I strongly oppose any additional funding

[2:16:06] at this time. Social media rants and other public statements by the staff of

[2:16:11] this office demonstrate strong bias and a complete lack of professionalism and

[2:16:16] objectivity. outcomes are predetermined before even conducting an investigation.

[2:16:22] There's no way the staff of this office can fairly investigate anything having

[2:16:26] to do with the Madison Police Department. We need police oversight,

[2:16:30] but it needs to be legitimate. This office, by the statements and conduct of

[2:16:34] its staff, appears to have prejudged any and all matters before conducting an

[2:16:38] investigation. Many residents I have spoken with or

[2:16:42] seen on social media have lost confidence in this office. The office

[2:16:47] with its current staff is a huge liability for the city. It operates with

[2:16:51] complete disregard for city APMS and processes. They failed to adhere to

[2:16:56] budget instructions and attend an important budget meeting. They have

[2:17:00] hired at least one investigator without a legal contract. They've retained legal

[2:17:05] counsel with no scope of work, contract, invoice, or retainer. They have failed

[2:17:10] to adhere to city processes and procedures established as protections by

[2:17:14] the mayor and council, opening up the city to financial and reputational risk.

[2:17:20] The office appears to have violated the state's open meeting laws. The office is

[2:17:24] refusing to be represented and advised by the office of the city attorney.

[2:17:29] There have been compliance issues with Fair Labor Standards Act and ordinances

[2:17:33] on overtime. There are concerns that an employee in the office was working from

[2:17:38] another country without a valid teleawwork agreement on file. There have

[2:17:42] been allegations of stalking and coercive behavior by an OIM employee.

[2:17:47] There are many more issues. As you probably know, the city cannot afford

[2:17:52] this level of liability and risk. And why should an office that does not

[2:17:56] follow rules and procedures itself be paid more to give oversight to the

[2:18:00] police department and expect them to follow policies and procedures?

[2:18:05] » About 30 seconds left. >> All right. Thank you. Have a good

[2:18:08] evening. >> Thank you. Our next registrant is Indigo

[2:18:13] Erinborn of District 12 to be followed by Sarah Loenberg to be followed by

[2:18:18] Christina Tenuda. Do we have Indigo? >> Yes, we do.

[2:18:22] » Hello. >> Go ahead. Wonderful. Uh, my name is

[2:18:25] Indie, but you can call me Indigo. Um, I'm not going to speak to you

[2:18:30] ideologically or emotionally. Um, but I will spit facts from the heart. Instead,

[2:18:36] I'm going to speak in a language you do understand. Here are some things that

[2:18:39] you guys have spent money on from the Contingent Reserve in the past. In 2021,

[2:18:44] he spent $35,000, a little bit more than this, on outside

[2:18:49] private legal counsel in property tax litigation involving section 42.

[2:18:56] The Contingent Reserve regularly functions as a budget shock absorber for

[2:19:01] just random stuff and bad budgeting all the time. 1.9 million in 2023 was

[2:19:06] appropriated for misbudgeting. uh 2.1 million for projected agency shortfalls

[2:19:12] in 2025. Uh and what's my point? Okay, so this

[2:19:17] year uh you've used 70k for madcap, 100k for

[2:19:21] facility maintenance, and $400,000 for election uh deficits.

[2:19:29] But of the full $2.2 2 million contingent reserve. As of today, there

[2:19:37] is 1.58 million available. That means that 73.5%

[2:19:43] of it is unspent and there's only 31% of your fiscal year left. If you fund the

[2:19:51] OIM, it will take up 1.33% of the original reserve and 1.8% of the

[2:19:59] remaining reserve. In other words, you'll still have $1.55

[2:20:03] million to spend in 4 months. You will still have $72% of the reserve

[2:20:10] left instead of the current 73.5 that you have right now. Clutching your

[2:20:16] pearls about that is frankly embarrassing. The city of Madison

[2:20:19] budget, I will elaborate more beyond the contingent reserve is, wait for it,

[2:20:25] $452.7 million. We are requesting 0.0063%

[2:20:34] of the budget of the city of Madison, a whopping 0.029%

[2:20:39] of uh the police department's budget, which I know firsthand to be $98.3

[2:20:45] million as Chief Patterson answered me face to face when I asked him if it was

[2:20:49] $98.5 million at the end of the first press conference after Cory's murder.

[2:20:55] Perhaps you remember. We >> have about 30 seconds left.

[2:20:58] » [laughter]

[2:21:01] » which uh in other words [laughter] [gasps]

[2:21:05] we are asking you to devote 6,000 of 1% of the city budget in order to

[2:21:15] somehow monitor the recipients of 1if of the city budget. Over 20% goes to the

[2:21:22] police who walk around with guns, qualified immunity.

[2:21:26] » That's your time. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:21:30] » Our next registrant is Sarah Loenberg of District 6 to be followed by Christina

[2:21:35] Tenuda to be followed by Jana Thompson. Do we have Sarah?

[2:21:42] Doesn't look like we have Sarah in the room. Are you online? Yeah. Go ahead,

[2:21:45] Sarah. >> Okay. Um I am Sarah. Uh,

[2:21:52] honestly, I I am tired and I you guys have had the opportunity to hear the

[2:21:59] community over and over and over and you've chosen not to listen. Um, so I

[2:22:05] don't think that me um re reiterating or saying things differently is going to

[2:22:10] get through. Um, I implore you to act with integrity. I

[2:22:15] support um I support giving the money and allocating the funds to for police

[2:22:20] oversight. Um I'm not going to reiterate. I'll just say that I echo all

[2:22:27] of my community members before me and I do want to amplify the voices of my

[2:22:31] children. I have a 10-year-old, an 8-year-old, and a four-year-old. Um

[2:22:37] Mayor Satia, I did show my 10-year-old. Um, we as a family, we spent lots of

[2:22:43] time at the memorial and we were there nearly every day for several hours,

[2:22:47] including my children. I showed my 10-year-old your um, press release about

[2:22:52] the memorial and he looked at me in confusion. I did not preface it by

[2:22:57] saying anything. I just showed him the press release just to see what he

[2:23:01] thought of what you said. He looked at me with confusion and he said, "Did she

[2:23:06] ever go there? What is she talking about?

[2:23:11] I didn't see anything of that and he was very confused. And my kind of uh crass

[2:23:20] eight-year-old, who I joke is a 85year-old stuck in an 8-year-old butt

[2:23:24] spotty, just goes, "Nope, clearly she wasn't there."

[2:23:28] Um, so act with integrity. You say you support your community. You haven't

[2:23:32] since you were elected. you you speak out of one side of your mouth and you do

[2:23:35] not actually in tangible ways support the community when we are asking

[2:23:39] directly in many different ways. Do better like police oversight is should

[2:23:46] be a no-brainer. It should be a given. It should be something that everyone

[2:23:50] wants.

[2:23:56] » I yield my time. >> Thank you. Our next registrant is

[2:24:00] Christina Tonudo of District 6 to be followed by Jana Thompson and then we'll

[2:24:05] circle back for Robert Michael Pats. Do we have Christina?

[2:24:11] » Go ahead. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Christina Tonuda and I'm here to

[2:24:16] support Alder Matthews resolution number 60. I'm here to urge the council to

[2:24:21] allocate emergency funding to replenish the neglected office of the independent

[2:24:25] monitor so the office can properly investigate police killings. I'm asking

[2:24:30] the council to fully fund the office of independent monitor in the 2027 budget.

[2:24:35] I am a resident of district number six. I live two blocks from the intersection

[2:24:40] of William and Baldwin where Corey Ruiz was killed. I saw two things when I went

[2:24:46] there. First, I spent time at the intersection and witnessed the vigil and

[2:24:52] memorial for the life, the lost life of Corey Ruiz. It was a place of community,

[2:24:57] compassion, humanity, and healing. It was an

[2:25:01] exercise of civil disobedience. I saw something else. I also saw the

[2:25:06] intersection of Willian Baldwin on the morning that the vigil was destroyed. It

[2:25:11] was a forceful use of state violence. I turned the corner on two occasions and

[2:25:16] was met with a wall of police officers. This was a location where state violence

[2:25:23] forcibly took action against people, vulnerable people, unhoused people,

[2:25:28] mentally ill people, and hurting people. This is why oversight is needed and why

[2:25:33] this resolution should be passed. I urge the council to pass resolution 60. Thank

[2:25:39] you. I yield my time. >> Thank you. Our next registrant is Jana

[2:25:45] Thompson of District 17 to be followed by Robert Michael Patz. Do we have Jana?

[2:25:57] » Hello. So, for all of the reasons um all of these other community members have

[2:26:02] mentioned, I'm in support of the 28,000 that the Office of Independent

[2:26:07] Monitoring is asking for. But also I want to raise that we shouldn't be

[2:26:11] distracted by what's going on. Um we are right now currently in this meeting in a

[2:26:16] rat race for scraps. Um these are not the demands that community has been

[2:26:22] uplifting for over a month. Um we talked about strengthening the police civilian

[2:26:27] oversight board and office of independent monitoring. Um and we're

[2:26:31] talking about at least 2 to 5% of the police budget when we're talking about

[2:26:35] strengthening the board. Right. Um, these recommendations come from national

[2:26:39] committees that have policies on oversight. And in actuality, the the

[2:26:44] people of Madison, we want to go above that when we talk about empowering the

[2:26:48] police civilian oversight board and office of independent monitoring. Not

[2:26:52] just two to 5% um actually 5 to 10% and many at least 5% of that money coming

[2:26:58] coming from police pensions especially when misconduct occurs because time and

[2:27:03] time again it is the residents who are bearing the burden of police and state

[2:27:08] sanctioned violence in our communities. Another demand that we talked about was

[2:27:12] handing all the evidence over to the Office of Independent Monitoring so that

[2:27:16] they can can conduct complete and formal investigations into the misconducts of

[2:27:22] um the Madison police and instead of pouring millions into state sanctioned

[2:27:27] violence through occupying armies, investing in community uh community

[2:27:33] care and defunding the police. When we talk about victim services, when we talk

[2:27:38] about mutual aid, when we talk about community care, education, housing, all

[2:27:43] of those things that were occurring at the memorial site, those are

[2:27:46] alternatives to policing that community is looking for, not state state

[2:27:51] sanctioned violence with the mayor promotes. And so all of these different

[2:27:56] things, especially when we were here on April 21st talking about the ordinances

[2:28:00] and they were eventually deferred to the August 4th meeting, the day y'all so

[2:28:04] violently raided the memorial sites. Um, we talked, y'all had the opportunity to

[2:28:09] hear directly from community about the impacts of the Office of Independent

[2:28:15] Monitoring, of the impacts of the police civilian oversight board, what it looks

[2:28:19] like when victim services aren't funded, when state sanctioned violence is

[2:28:22] funded. instead. All of these things we predicted long before Corey Ruiz was

[2:28:28] murdered, long before Tony Robinson's was was murdered. So, I ask y'all, how

[2:28:33] many of our community residents have to die before y'all strongly consider that

[2:28:39] the decisions that you make are moral documentations. The budgets that you

[2:28:43] hold are moral documents and they matter more than your votes. They matter more

[2:28:48] than the press conferences that y'all do, the interviews that y'all do with

[2:28:52] media outlets instead of going to the memorial site and actually engaging with

[2:28:55] the people. All of those things. $28,000 is not enough and it will never be

[2:29:01] enough in a world where police and state sanctioned violence exists.

[2:29:07] » Thank you. I'm just going to check. I I see you Alder, but I'm just going to

[2:29:11] check one more time if we have Robert Michael Pets either in the room or

[2:29:16] online.

[2:29:20] Doesn't look >> I don't see Robert online.

[2:29:23] » Okay. Thank you very much. So that is the last register we have wishing to

[2:29:28] speak. Alder Harrington McKini. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I request a

[2:29:32] recess of five minute, 10 minutes. Uh, can we see if there are questions

[2:29:39] [snorts] first? >> Yes.

[2:29:42] » Let's let's just check, Alder. Thank you. Um, are there questions for any of

[2:29:47] the registrants on item 60?

[2:29:53] Seeing none, then Alder Harrington McKini moves a 10-minute recess. Is

[2:29:58] there a second? Moved and seconded for a 10-minute recess. Is there any objection

[2:30:02] to recording a unanimous vote in favor of a 10-minute recess? Seeing no

[2:30:08] objection, let's say we come back at 9:10

[2:43:16] All right, folks. 910 has arrived.

[2:43:21] If I can have the alders on Zoom come back and turn your cameras on.

[2:43:28] And the alders in the room, please take your seats again.

[2:43:35] [snorts]

[2:43:47] If I can have the elders in the room, please take their seats.

[2:43:56] Alder Vier, Alder Figureroa Cole,

[2:44:03] Alder Martinez Rutherford, Alder Pritchette.

[2:44:24] 6.

[2:44:30] The hour of 9:10 having come and gone by one minute, I will call the common

[2:44:36] council back to order and ask the clerk to please call the role.

[2:44:42] » Sorry, Alder Mayor is present. All in Zoo,

[2:44:50] » can you hear me now? >> All right.

[2:44:55] Thank you very much. Alden Zu >> present.

[2:45:00] » You say you're present. >> Just you can just say it. It's okay.

[2:45:05] » I'm present. >> Thank you. Alden Zu is present. Aldo

[2:45:07] O'Brien. Albrien is present. Alder Hovich. Aldovich is present. Alder

[2:45:12] Pritchette. [clears throat] Alder Pritchette is present. Alder Tishler.

[2:45:18] » Yep, I'm still here. >> Tishler is present. Alder Ver

[2:45:24] » here. >> Ver is present. Alder Jang

[2:45:27] » here. >> Je is present. Alder Evers

[2:45:29] » here. >> Alder is present. Alderfield

[2:45:31] » here. >> Field is present. Alder Fig

[2:45:33] » here. >> Figural is present. Alder Glenn

[2:45:36] » here. >> Alder Glenn is present. Alder Gar

[2:45:38] » here. >> Alder Gar is present. Alder Harrington

[2:45:40] McKenna. >> Alder Haring McKenna is present. Alder

[2:45:42] Linkella >> here. Ala is present. Alder Lieberman

[2:45:45] » here. >> Alder Lieberman is present. Alder

[2:45:46] Madison >> here. Alder Madison is present. Alder

[2:45:48] Martinez Rutherford. >> Alder Martinez Ruford is present. Alder

[2:45:52] Matthews >> here.

[2:45:53] » Matthews is present. Mayor Madame Mayor we have a quorum. [snorts]

[2:45:56] » Thank you. All right. Our

[2:46:01] » apologies. Alder River is present as well.

[2:46:03] » Thank [snorts] you. [laughter] Let the record reflect. Uh all right.

[2:46:08] Our first item then to take up is item four, which is legisar 93802,

[2:46:15] an appeal of the landmarks commission's approval of a land division at 113 Eli

[2:46:20] Place in the University Heights Historic District. Um, and on item four, we're

[2:46:25] going to start with an overview from our planning director. Um, and then we'll go

[2:46:29] to questions for staff. [gasps] Director Tuttle.

[2:46:32] » All right. Good evening, Alders. Um, I have the privilege of starting this item

[2:46:38] for you tonight and I get to start with all of the fun things about um, what are

[2:46:43] you doing with this item? Um, some of this may sound familiar because we've

[2:46:48] seen a couple of appeals in of various items at the council over the last

[2:46:53] several months. Um, and I know that we have a lot of discussion about how to

[2:46:58] help you navigate the specific standards of the ordinance that you'll be

[2:47:02] reviewing. So, I'm going to start with just a bit of an overview about that.

[2:47:06] So, for those of you that are may not be familiar, um this item relates to an

[2:47:12] appeal of the landmarks commission, specifically to an approval for a land

[2:47:17] division within a historic district. Throughout this presentation, we are

[2:47:22] probably going to refer to this application as a certificate of approval

[2:47:27] or a COA. This approval was issued by the

[2:47:32] landmarks commission to divide Eli Place into two lots.

[2:47:37] Um, this approval has been appealed by a neighboring property owner and when

[2:47:43] decisions of the landmarks commission are appealed, they come to the common

[2:47:47] council for a decision. In this process, the council will be

[2:47:51] acting as what we call a quasi jud judicial body. Um, that means that it's

[2:47:57] your job to review the Landmarks Commission's ordinance and specifically

[2:48:02] the standards that apply to the application that was made and decide if

[2:48:07] the the outcome of the Landmarks Commission's action was consistent with

[2:48:12] the standards that they needed to review. In this case, the standards that

[2:48:16] you will be looking at are under MGO 41.18

[2:48:22] subsection 4. This is for standards of approval for land divisions.

[2:48:28] The action tonight is not about making policy or deciding if we like or don't

[2:48:34] like what is proposed before us or speculating on what might happen on the

[2:48:39] property as a result of any action to look at this appeal. The council is

[2:48:45] really asked to look directly at the information about this land division

[2:48:49] that was submitted to the landmarks commission and make a determination on

[2:48:53] whether they consistently applied the standards of approval or not.

[2:48:59] Um the preservation planner, Heather Bailey, here in just a second will

[2:49:02] actually run through a couple of slides to just make sure that everyone is

[2:49:06] briefed on the issue that the landmarks commission reviewed as well as the

[2:49:11] standards that are used to make determinations about land divisions in

[2:49:16] historic districts. Uh we also have assistant city attorney

[2:49:20] Kate Smith here if you have any questions about about this ordinance

[2:49:24] about this process appeals and your role in it. She can help us with those.

[2:49:30] I also want to note that some of you maybe many of you have received

[2:49:34] communications from uh uh folks that have an interest in this appeal about

[2:49:41] other things that the property owner may wish to do with the property. um that is

[2:49:46] also not relevant to tonight's discussion. If there were to be any

[2:49:51] further uh development or alterations on either of these properties since they're

[2:49:56] in a historic district, they would be required to submit applications for that

[2:50:00] work and they would be reviewed under the standards that apply to whatever

[2:50:04] that work is at that time. We do also know that this applicant um has not

[2:50:10] submitted the formal application to divide this land under a different part

[2:50:15] of our ordinance. So, we're not making decisions on that tonight either. We're

[2:50:20] specifically looking at whether uh the land division can be approved from a

[2:50:23] historic district perspective. So, as um as I'm finishing up here, I'll

[2:50:30] just ask Heather to go ahead and pull up the slides that she's going to share

[2:50:33] with you. Um, after considering the appeal tonight, you can take any of the

[2:50:37] following actions and um, the council should state its findings related to a

[2:50:44] motion that it might make. One option that you can take is to deny this

[2:50:50] appeal. You would take this action if you find that the landmarks commission

[2:50:56] applied its standards of approval appropriately and that you agree with

[2:50:59] that that use of their standards. you could approve the appeal

[2:51:05] um and in approving it either reverse or somehow modify the landmarks

[2:51:10] commission's denial I uh uh action. This would be appropriate if you think

[2:51:16] that the landmarks commission errored in some way in applying its standards to

[2:51:21] this application. In this case, you should specifically

[2:51:26] site what you found was interpreted or applied incorrectly.

[2:51:31] And finally, you could also refer it back to the landmarks commission with

[2:51:36] specific direction on how they should re-evaluate the application and act. So

[2:51:41] Heather will outline more of the details about what was proposed here and we'll

[2:51:46] be available to answer any questions that you have.

[2:51:49] » Okay. U Thank you. Uh put it down over. Uh so I have a rather confusing drawing

[2:51:58] up here on the screen and I will talk through some of those details in an

[2:52:01] attempt to make it less confusing. Um so why we are here. So this is for what uh

[2:52:08] director tal already said an appeal of a certificate of approval that lame

[2:52:12] commission approved for a reconfiguration of this property. So,

[2:52:18] the property contained two platted lots and this little sliver of a third lot.

[2:52:24] Um, and so the final new configuration would still have two platted lots.

[2:52:31] Um, so what I have up here is on the left hand side we have the current

[2:52:36] configuration. Um, and so we have the outline of the

[2:52:42] property in question. um that's uh addressed as 113 uh Eli Place and um

[2:52:50] [clears throat] it already has that flag pole that uh

[2:52:54] comes down around another property. On the right hand side, uh we have [snorts]

[2:53:00] a a drawing that shows the reconfiguration

[2:53:04] would have all of the buildings on one lot and then the other lot would be

[2:53:10] vacant. And by vacant I mean it currently doesn't have any buildings on

[2:53:14] it. Um so right now for the property lines there are two platted lot lines

[2:53:21] that run through the garage and so you see that there on the left hand side

[2:53:24] there's a kind of faint out faint outline there of where the garage is

[2:53:29] that is behind the house. Um, so the proposal would move that lot line and

[2:53:35] get rid of the little smidgen of the other one and move it so that it is on

[2:53:39] the other side. So the garage and the house would be on one property and then

[2:53:43] the other property is currently undeveloped.

[2:53:47] » I'll just Thank you, mayor. I'll just briefly

[2:53:52] interject here to say that um the map on the left that you're looking at includes

[2:53:57] uh both parcels in the way that you might think about a parcel if you were

[2:54:01] buying a property um what you might see on your deed if you were to see a map of

[2:54:05] your property that you were purchasing. It also shows the orange lines that

[2:54:10] represent the way that neighborhoods were legally basically established. Um

[2:54:16] we call those old platted lines. And in the case of people applying to the city

[2:54:21] to change the boundaries of property, we look at both of these types of

[2:54:25] boundaries. And when folks are actually applying to us to change property

[2:54:31] boundaries, we look at opportunities to clean up those underlying legal lines

[2:54:36] and make modifications to them to make them more consistent with uh the

[2:54:40] broader, you know, property that they may see. So we do look at both of these

[2:54:44] in different city processes. And in the case of the landmarks commission's

[2:54:49] review of um land divisions and combinations, we do look at both of

[2:54:54] these patterns of lots in making a determination.

[2:55:00] Okay. So, uh I'll [laughter] director Tuttle um talked through the standards

[2:55:07] of approval. Um here they are up on the screen. And I want to say the the way

[2:55:12] the ordinance uh is written, it's in the affirmative and that the direction there

[2:55:17] is that the landmarks commission will approve land divisions and combinations

[2:55:23] unless so there needs to be something that would prevent the lands commission

[2:55:28] from doing the approval. And so for this particular uh property, we were looking

[2:55:33] at would it be incompatible with adjacent lot sizes and lammerous

[2:55:37] commission spent some time talking about um how you go about assessing what is

[2:55:42] compatible for the adjacent lots and adjacent lots uh would be those that

[2:55:48] share a property line. So how are we looking at the ways in which they would

[2:55:52] be compatible? Um and so with that part of the discussion was they were looking

[2:55:56] at okay so for those adjacent lots what are the sizes of the properties that are

[2:56:00] touching those lots and they use that as for looking at how they would judge what

[2:56:05] would be compatible for the adjacent lots also for that gets more fine

[2:56:10] grained and then we can step back for a larger perspective or fail to maintain

[2:56:14] the general lot size pattern of the historic district. So that's looking at

[2:56:18] the history of the development um in a given historic district and the

[2:56:25] uh history of development in University Heights has had a lot of changes over

[2:56:30] time.

[2:56:34] Um, one of the things that was brought up by the appellants was the definition

[2:56:38] of lot and looking at several different definitions and state statute in uh, MGO

[2:56:46] 16 and 28. But the definition that we have to use for land commission purposes

[2:56:53] is the definition that's in uh, chapter 41 which is the historic preservation

[2:56:57] ordinance. Um, so what uh uh Megan was talking about

[2:57:03] earlier that we have to look at the legally platted lots. Yes, there is the

[2:57:09] legal lot of record um which is what shows up on your property deed. Um but

[2:57:14] the language for this particular property says that it's got I think it's

[2:57:18] lots one and four and a portion of three of the rosé replat. Um so yes there is

[2:57:25] the parcel boundary which is the legal lot of record and then we also have to

[2:57:29] take in consideration I highlighted the ore up there the uh

[2:57:35] legally recorded plat and so for this particular property it was the rosé

[2:57:38] replat which was uh recorded a century ago. Um so I've outlined both of those

[2:57:44] there that we have both of those things that we have to take a look at

[2:57:50] um for the policy. I want to say the historic preservation ordinance is about

[2:57:55] sensitively incorporating redevelopment. It is not a tool for exclusionary

[2:58:00] zoning. Um it is the ways in which these places change and the divine design

[2:58:07] tools to look at making sure that these places are able to continue to convey

[2:58:12] their historic associations why they are significant. Um so all of the work that

[2:58:17] happens at Lammer's Commission is about reinvestment in these properties and

[2:58:21] redevelopment of these properties. It is how these places change. Um so with that

[2:58:27] any new construction that may or may not happen on the vacant area of this

[2:58:32] property would have to meet the standards for uh new construction for um

[2:58:37] infill in the historic district which is something that would be um reviewed and

[2:58:41] approved uh by the Lammer's commission and it's the same set of standards that

[2:58:45] are for everyone. Okay. So, for council actions, um

[2:58:52] Megan talked through the process, but it comes down to um you looking at and

[2:58:57] finding if the commission's decision is uh contrary to the standards for

[2:59:02] approval. Um so, this is straight from uh my staff

[2:59:08] report and sort of written out here for possible findings. That's just language

[2:59:13] out there for you. You of course are um the deciders on this and so um for any

[2:59:19] of the actions uh that you would take um you need to state your findings your

[2:59:26] reasons for why you are making this decision

[2:59:32] and I think that goes with oh I had here for that somebody had asked uh how many

[2:59:36] land divisions happen in the historic districts the rule for uh lands

[2:59:42] commission approving land divisions and combinations

[2:59:44] uh was added to the historic preservation ordinance in 2015. So the

[2:59:48] first year that we started tracking them was 2016. So you have uh those there of

[2:59:56] the well I will say that one in 2022 the one no ended up coming back in with a uh

[3:00:02] reconfiguration that landmarks commission approved. So one of those

[3:00:05] kind of gets uh double counted. Um, but this doesn't happen with great

[3:00:10] frequency, but it is something that happens nearly every year. Um, and since

[3:00:17] 2016, uh, we have had two appeals of, uh, land divisions and combinations in

[3:00:24] the historic districts. Okay,

[3:00:31] » I'm done. Okay, thank you both. Are there

[3:00:36] questions for staff? >> Alder Okovitz.

[3:00:41] » Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, uh, preservation planner Bailey. Um, I was

[3:00:45] wondering if you could talk a bit about, um, the landmark's discussion around

[3:00:50] compatibility. >> Sure.

[3:00:52] » Um, and what that means. >> Sure. Um, so the language in the

[3:00:57] preservation ordinance talks about if it is incompatible, but it doesn't define

[3:01:02] how you go about assessing compatibility. And that is because every

[3:01:07] property is different. Um and so you need to look at, pardon the phrase, the

[3:01:14] lay of the land. Um for a particular situation, um different blocks in all of

[3:01:21] our historic districts have developed in different ways. So what is compatible in

[3:01:26] this part of University Heights is going to be very different from so this area.

[3:01:32] Well, what I said at the meeting was there's a lot of swoopiness going on.

[3:01:35] You have more curve linear streets and very oddly shaped properties. Whereas

[3:01:40] there, if you get around to the edges of University Heights, it is much more of a

[3:01:44] traditional grid pattern. The way you would look at what is compatible in the

[3:01:48] more traditional grid pattern is going to be very different for how you're

[3:01:52] looking at compatible sizes um in this area that is very swoopy.

[3:01:59] » Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[3:02:02] Thank you, Alder. Alder Liberman,

[3:02:08] » don't don't press it once. >> I was just waiting for it. I actually

[3:02:12] I'm just look thinking about I think that answers my question as well.

[3:02:16] » Thank you, Alder. Uh Alder Vidver, >> thank you. Um Director Bailey, uh I'm

[3:02:24] going to ask you to one more time revisit the question of lot versus plat.

[3:02:29] I know you explain it and you explain it quite well, but I want you to um try to

[3:02:36] um help us through the the appalance argument and their concerns about the

[3:02:43] lot versus plat issue and how you have kind of helped to guide us in our

[3:02:50] decision-m about that. >> Let me reshare and get back to Oh, come

[3:02:57] on. the definition. Okay, so

[3:03:03] the lot, sorry, I'm going to read words that are up on a screen. I apologize.

[3:03:07] Um, lots mean a tract of land and so designated by meets and bounds, land

[3:03:11] survey, minor land division. Those are the things that are recorded in the

[3:03:16] property deed of and so what you are selling um and then what you own. But

[3:03:23] also these properties there is a legally recorded

[3:03:29] plat which is the layout of the properties um for an area. So uh to

[3:03:36] separate out uh about lots for something that would come to plan commission and

[3:03:40] that's plan works commission for let's say somebody is creating a new

[3:03:44] neighborhood you would plat out the neighborhood. That means you would

[3:03:49] establish what we call a certified survey map that would lay out the lots

[3:03:54] in a given neighborhood. But the thing is after that for how people deal with

[3:03:58] the lots, maybe they buy two right next to each other and they convey those as a

[3:04:04] single transaction. Um for if you were going to build something that would

[3:04:09] cross those lot lines, building uh code won't allow you to build a building that

[3:04:15] crosses a property line. So you would need to dissolve that. So you would need

[3:04:18] to come back in for legally dissolving that property line. All of these lines

[3:04:24] are imaginary. You don't see them um in person, but they are that's why we have

[3:04:29] these recorded maps and properties. Um so we have to look at both what is

[3:04:37] legally platted, planned out for the development and also what is the reality

[3:04:43] of the lands that are being transacted. Does that answer your question?

[3:04:50] » Yeah. Yes. I just was trying to get to um right the the confusion over lat and

[3:04:59] plat um and it is a confusion that is common

[3:05:03] and we heard it from the appalance and we heard it at the landmarks commission

[3:05:08] meeting as well. Um and I in fact I asked you there right are we talking

[3:05:13] about a lot or a plat and you said yes. >> Yes. Um, and so I think you've you've

[3:05:17] well described the challenges of these spaces and so I just wanted it to be

[3:05:22] reiterated um because not everybody may have

[3:05:27] been as involved in this as I have. >> Yes, ma'am. And uh for

[3:05:32] for the city's purposes well so I'm down in the basement of the MMB. So for

[3:05:37] planning and building division uh building inspection, we were talking

[3:05:40] about that this is an ongoing challenge. This is a challenge that uh the

[3:05:44] development planners face with where we talk about where these underlying uh

[3:05:48] unresolved lot lines and you know people aren't necessarily seeing that. It's

[3:05:53] also a difficulty for zoning where we talk about the well like you'll need to

[3:05:57] deal something with this underlying lot line. Um but we didn't have a way for

[3:06:02] people to see that. So the maps that are up here are actually from the new

[3:06:06] public's facing um GIS application for people to be able to see what is

[3:06:12] actually going on with their properties. And it was this project where I went to

[3:06:17] our GIS folks and said, "Can we make something that is available for the

[3:06:21] public to see?" So it's not just people show up and I say, "Take my word. There

[3:06:25] is this plat that you need to go find that here are these lines and I can see

[3:06:30] it on my side, but you can't see it on your side." That's not that is not the

[3:06:34] way to proceed. So, this is now available um up publicly so people can

[3:06:40] turn on the platted lot lines and so you can see the platted lot lines on your

[3:06:45] own and not go and do in-depth research at the register of deeds to find out uh

[3:06:53] what the platted lot lines are uh for your property

[3:06:57] or take uh staff giving you a screenshot of what they're showing from uh city

[3:07:02] internal GIS. us in an effort to try to provide a little

[3:07:08] bit more clarity for folks. >> Thank you, Alder Jean.

[3:07:16] » Oh, hold on. There you go.

[3:07:20] » Okay. Um, one of the speakers tonight mentioned that this area, the new

[3:07:27] smaller lot would has been undeveloped for a

[3:07:33] very long time. Um, [snorts] is what is the intent? Number one, what is the

[3:07:39] intent behind dividing it into two lots? >> So, that isn't something we can take

[3:07:45] into consideration. >> Okay.

[3:07:47] » Um, the what are you going to do with it? We we don't have that lamer

[3:07:52] commission doesn't have the right to ask that. Okay.

[3:07:55] » Um and even if that came in, our standards of approval are about the lot

[3:07:59] configurations. They're not about what are you going to use it for? Um for the

[3:08:05] what are you going to use it for? If they're going to construct something on

[3:08:09] this, then it would need to come in for a certificate of approval for whatever

[3:08:12] it is they're going to construct. Um but these are these are separated. The land

[3:08:20] reconfiguration is strictly about the standards for looking at the land

[3:08:23] configuration. >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:08:26] » You're welcome. >> Thank you. Alder Alder Pritchette.

[3:08:30] » Could you put the options up there again? The ones where we could either

[3:08:35] accept the appeal, deny the appeal, and or the third of which was to

[3:08:40] re-evaluate. >> Could you put those options up here?

[3:08:45] So the the options are that you can deny the appeal if you found that the

[3:08:49] landmarks commission complied with the standards of approval. You could approve

[3:08:54] the appeal if you thought that they um incorrectly interpreted those standards

[3:08:59] or incorrectly applied them somehow. Or you could refer it back to the landmarks

[3:09:04] commission with some kind of specific direction about how to re-evaluate.

[3:09:08] So my question is this. Is there a portion of number three that's embedded

[3:09:16] in number one?

[3:09:21] » No. Um I believe and and attorney Hos can weigh in here or assistant attorney

[3:09:27] Smith can weigh in here. Um I believe if you take action on number one um the

[3:09:33] appeal has been decided and the appellant's option at that point would

[3:09:37] be to appeal it to court. Um that would be considered a final action. So you

[3:09:43] can't do number three and number one together. I think if you had a concern

[3:09:48] that something had not been approve uh reviewed sufficiently, you would use

[3:09:54] option three and send it back to the landmarks commission with some direction

[3:09:58] about what you need them to look at again.

[3:10:01] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Alder. Alder Tishler.

[3:10:07] » Yeah, I I have a a question for uh for uh Heather [clears throat] Bailey. Um,

[3:10:12] do we know historically how we kind of got to this point with the parcel with

[3:10:17] the uh the configuration especially I'm thinking mainly that that kind of sliver

[3:10:21] that that hangs down >> to an adjacent street.

[3:10:25] » So that is from the Rosé replat. Um why rolatted

[3:10:31] it that way I I don't know. We don't have any language that says why he

[3:10:37] decided to configure uh those properties the way that he did. Um,

[3:10:42] so yeah, it's been that way for more than a century

[3:10:46] » or maybe a little less than a century about

[3:10:49] » Go ahead. >> So, so it was like a path there or

[3:10:52] something that somebody wanted to keep shortcut to get to their property.

[3:10:57] » Although that would be speculation on my part. I don't know.

[3:11:00] » Okay. I'm just it's just just curious looking back historically at the

[3:11:03] cultural landscape. But, um, my follow-up question then is regarding

[3:11:07] because it looks like a flag lot, which is which I understand is a relatively

[3:11:11] new zoning for the city, but but are there any other examples in the historic

[3:11:16] district of a flag lot? >> Um,

[3:11:20] not really. Um, let me get back up to because you can kind of see. Okay, so

[3:11:24] over on the far left side, if you go across Elely Place, you can see there's

[3:11:28] a little bit of a flag lot, but it's not a flag lot going out to the street. um

[3:11:34] it's going out towards the back and I believe that one's for uh connecting to

[3:11:38] a shared driveway because there's not an easy way to get to driveways. So,

[3:11:44] this particular historic district has very oddly shaped properties. Um there

[3:11:50] are no other ones in University Heights that have a flag lot that goes out to

[3:11:57] the street. Having said that, this land division would not create the flag lot.

[3:12:04] The flag lot is already there.

[3:12:12] » I guess last one is is within the is is it looking at the reading the report

[3:12:16] there is it is this this uh do if if divided is it less than 40% of the

[3:12:24] average size of the adjacent lots? Is that is that accurate?

[3:12:30] » So again, it depends on how you configure. Um because if we're looking

[3:12:34] at the platted lots, no. Um if we're looking at the legal lots of record, so

[3:12:39] what is the parcels? Then yes, there is um some variation in size there. But

[3:12:45] then looking at the >> okay so for the way landlords commission

[3:12:49] looked at the compatibility they looked at the properties that share a lot line

[3:12:55] with the proposed properties that we're talking about reconfiguring and so with

[3:13:01] that for what is compatible in terms of the size lammerous commission looked at

[3:13:06] okay well what are the properties that are touching these properties and

[3:13:11] looking at the configuration all around um you can see there's two tiny little

[3:13:16] postage stamp size lots over there on the far side of this uh block right on

[3:13:22] the opposite side of uh one of the adjacent there. There is a mix of sizes.

[3:13:27] Um the parcels that are on this half of the block

[3:13:35] tend to be larger, but we also have again the platted underlying lot lines.

[3:13:42] um that legally could be divided down. So

[3:13:48] we have to look at all of the configuration there.

[3:13:52] » But but in a previous slide you had language saying uh like parcel or

[3:13:59] » oh >> or lot. Oh yeah, there we go. Not not

[3:14:03] andor but I mean is it so when the landmarks commission was looking at this

[3:14:07] what which which were they looking at? >> They're looking at all of it. Hence the

[3:14:11] when when Alder Vidiver asked the question at Lammer's commission of are

[3:14:15] you looking at the uh plat or are you looking at uh the legal lot of record my

[3:14:20] answer was yes we are looking at both we have to

[3:14:24] » okay so so either either one of them can be correct or both of them be correct

[3:14:29] » we have to deal with both of them >> okay all right no further questions

[3:14:37] » thank you alder Alder Vidver I'm sorry. I'm going to belabor this a

[3:14:42] little bit more. Um, plat, parcel, lot.

[3:14:49] [snorts] Can you So, this says lot or plat. And so, where does parcel come in?

[3:14:56] So, it's not in there because um parcel is a tax designation. And it is

[3:15:02] something that um the assessor's office does and it may or may not relate to um

[3:15:09] what is included uh for the uh lots of record. It can be larger, it can be

[3:15:14] smaller and that can change through the assessor's process, but that

[3:15:21] for the parcel size and configuration that isn't governed by anything that the

[3:15:28] planning division handles that is handled by the assessor's office. So,

[3:15:32] the parcel tends to also be the legal lot of record

[3:15:38] for what is recorded at um in the Dane County register of deeds, but not

[3:15:43] always. And people can change the parcel configuration

[3:15:48] and it doesn't require any approvals from the planning division um from that

[3:15:54] side of the shop for the city. And then I'm going to go back and

[3:16:00] blabber the adjacent again. I'm sorry. Can you go back to the um maps and just

[3:16:07] show um so the adjacent lots I think I'm going to I'm very

[3:16:15] confused about lots and plats myself. [laughter]

[3:16:17] Um but the adjacent lots I believe um the one that is due north of what is the

[3:16:25] current garage at 113 Ele and the one that is due east of the proposed flag

[3:16:31] lot. >> How what is the size of those compared

[3:16:34] to the proposed new lot? >> Can you just remind us?

[3:16:39] » I do not remember off the top of my head. That was in my slide for Lammer's

[3:16:42] commission and I apologize I don't have that pulled up.

[3:16:46] » That's okay. Um, but like that I I believe that's what landmarks was

[3:16:52] looking at. Is that correct? That that that they found that those were they

[3:16:56] were adjacent and that they were compatible. Is that do I have the right

[3:17:01] recollection? >> That is correct.

[3:17:03] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:17:07] Thank you, Alder. I have no other alers in the Oh, Alder

[3:17:12] Figuro. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um,

[3:17:18] I forgot your name. >> Heather, thank you. Um, Heather Bailey,

[3:17:24] sorry. Um, so I I you answer all the questions that

[3:17:29] I I was going to ask. So thank you for the presentation. But can you repeat

[3:17:33] again what uh when you were talking about the

[3:17:38] 2015 work and how this work is our job is to make these not to be exclusionary

[3:17:44] on these on this um process but to actually promote the protection of the

[3:17:50] landmark as the as well as in field. Can you please repeat those words because I

[3:17:54] struggle with I struggle with the expectation that is

[3:17:59] out there about what these ordinances are about. Can you please repeat exactly

[3:18:04] what the work of that you guys did to um update the ordinances actually means

[3:18:11] when it comes to um line divisions such as this one? Sure. So

[3:18:19] the regulatory side of the work that Lammer's commission does is about

[3:18:23] conserving these resources for the general public. It is not just for

[3:18:32] the folks who own those properties. Um with the uh you're going to hear me say

[3:18:39] this again for the next project as well. with the uh historic preservation plan.

[3:18:43] We were looking at the state of the our historic preservation program after 50

[3:18:49] years and we found that it was not particularly equitable. We had been

[3:18:53] telling a very white male and wealthy story and that is not telling a complete

[3:18:58] history of the city of Madison. Um, so we are looking at how can we go about

[3:19:03] being more equitable in how we do historic preservation of the stuff that

[3:19:08] we already have designated. It is for all of the people of Madison, not just

[3:19:14] for those who live there. I super appreciate the people who live there and

[3:19:18] continue to invest in those properties. Um,

[3:19:22] but it is not a historic preservation is not a tool for exclusionary zoning. It

[3:19:27] is not a tool to stop development or keep development out. It is a tool for

[3:19:33] making sure that the ways in which we are changing these places that they are

[3:19:37] still able to convey their historic associations. And I talk about historic

[3:19:43] preservation not as a tool for placemaking. We talk a lot about well in

[3:19:47] plane division we like to do lots of placemaking activities. But historic

[3:19:50] preservation for me is a mechanism for place knowing. These stories are already

[3:19:56] there. That is our connection to the past. It is our connection to the

[3:20:00] present, for the stories that we tell, for the people who we are. And also, it

[3:20:05] is something that we as a city by uh putting a local historic designation on

[3:20:11] these places, we are conserving them for future generations of people um to again

[3:20:18] continue to tell the story of who we are as Madison. So with that, the standards

[3:20:23] that we have in place are meant to be fair and equitable for everybody and

[3:20:27] accessible for everybody. They are not tools for keeping people out of a

[3:20:30] neighborhood. >> Thank you. If you don't have anyone on

[3:20:34] the queue, I'll ready for a motion. >> Uh we do have one other question in the

[3:20:40] queue. Alder uh Alder Tishler,

[3:20:44] » just out of curiosity, the the the little sliver that's on the Summit

[3:20:47] Avenue, how how wide is that?

[3:20:52] Um, one of the one of the pieces of feedback that we

[3:20:56] gave them was that for uh when they come in for the certified survey map to plan

[3:21:00] commission, they need to show dimensions for um how wide it is all the way across

[3:21:05] for what the street frontage is. I want to say it's 15 feet.

[3:21:11] » It's closer to 10. >> Is it closer to 10? Um, but they need to

[3:21:15] show for the certified survey map. uh if and when that goes uh to plan

[3:21:19] commission, they need to show the dimension across that sliver that comes

[3:21:24] down the flag pole area.

[3:21:28] » Okay. So, we don't So, so Alder Vidir was was shaking down your head that it

[3:21:34] was closer to 10. So, so it's 10. So, okay.

[3:21:39] » So, just it just >> we're not creating that that's already

[3:21:42] there, >> right? Right. But if we're creating a

[3:21:44] space that So we're creating a space that that most likely will cannot be

[3:21:49] used for development. >> Right. So um

[3:21:53] » Okay. If if the uh appeal is denied tonight and this land division is

[3:22:00] allowed to proceed, the next thing that the applicant would need to do is to

[3:22:05] actually submit an application through what is called a certified survey map,

[3:22:09] which is our technical process that deals with land divisions. And that

[3:22:14] would include verifying that all of the requirements for how big this property

[3:22:19] needs to be to meet the zoning code, how wide parts of it need to be in,

[3:22:24] including in this case to meet the definition of that deep residential lot

[3:22:27] or flag lot of those specific requirements can be met, including the

[3:22:33] width of that section that meets the street.

[3:22:36] » Okay. And then Okay. All right. Thank you.

[3:22:40] » Thank you, Alder. I have no other

[3:22:45] alers in the queue for a motion. Other

[3:22:53] Figuro Cole, >> I move that we um

[3:23:02] Okay. Um

[3:23:06] Heather, I wrote the the line here, but can you please bring that up again?

[3:23:09] Thank you. I move that we deny the appeal based on

[3:23:14] the Landmarks Commission's decision complied with the standard of approvals

[3:23:18] for this property. Second motion and a second to deny the appeal.

[3:23:24] Uh Alder Figuro, do you wish to speak to it?

[3:23:28] » No, I think I I mean I don't know if anyone had the chance to to watch the

[3:23:33] um LM Mars Commission meeting, but I did and the discussion there was pretty

[3:23:39] robust. Um yeah, I don't I don't think under the

[3:23:44] current um ordinances we are we had the information of the validation to deny to

[3:23:52] um to not allow for the line to happen. So

[3:23:57] that's all I got. >> Thank you, Alder. Alder Okowitz.

[3:24:06] There you go. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um,

[3:24:10] yes, we talked about it a lot. It was talked about at Landmarks, but um, it

[3:24:14] seems like the lot, the new lot size is clearly compatible with the adjacent lot

[3:24:20] sizes, and it maintains the general lot size

[3:24:26] pattern of the historic district. I mean, there are lots of the same size

[3:24:29] all over. Uh as preservation planner Bailey mentioned, this is part of a

[3:24:34] pattern of University Heights having a lot of lot divisions and combinations.

[3:24:39] Um and when we consider not just the current lots but also the historic plats

[3:24:44] or the current plat um it still manages to maintain that uh general pattern. So

[3:24:51] thank you. >> Thank you Alder Alder Vidver.

[3:24:57] » Thank you. Um, so I want to say that I am deeply sympathetic to the neighbors

[3:25:04] who have stood up for their neighborhood. They love their

[3:25:07] neighborhood and they um want to see its histo preserved. Um, and many of their

[3:25:15] concerns are very much centered on what could be built on this site. Um, that is

[3:25:21] not the situation that is before us today. Um, I do have deep concerns about

[3:25:26] whether something can be built on this site should the uh applicant wish to try

[3:25:32] to build on the site. Um, and would make those concerns known at landmarks and

[3:25:38] other spaces. Um, but we are asking we are being asked to interpret the

[3:25:44] ordinance as it stands today. Um, and very frankly, I think the ordinance is

[3:25:50] in need of an update. And I am very much interested in working with our

[3:25:53] preservation planner and planning director on doing that because

[3:25:57] unfortunately these issues of what does compatible mean and what does lot or

[3:26:03] parcel or plot mean keep coming up. And so in my mind, I think it's incumbent

[3:26:09] upon us to work on making the ordinance clearer for everyone's sake. But that's

[3:26:15] not what we have right now. We have the ordinance in front of us right now. Um,

[3:26:19] and I do believe and I have I have appreciated the landmarks commission and

[3:26:24] their work. Um, and believe that they have made the correct decision again on

[3:26:29] just the lot division. It really will be a stretch I believe for anyone to build

[3:26:36] on this lot. Um, and again I will um be very involved in any conversations

[3:26:42] around that. But that is not what is before us today. It is it is simply the

[3:26:45] lot division. Thank you. >> Thank you Alder.

[3:26:51] I have no other alders in the queue wishing to speak. Um so the

[3:26:59] motion is to deny the appeal. It's been properly seconded.

[3:27:06] Is there objection to recording a unanimous vote

[3:27:12] in favor [snorts] of that emot of that motion? Alder Pritchette.

[3:27:17] » Yes. [snorts] >> All right. Thank you, Alder. Um, seeing

[3:27:21] that there's objection, Alder Tishler, I assume you're objecting as well. Uh, so

[3:27:25] we'll have a roll call vote. The motion is to deny the appeal of the landmarks

[3:27:33] decision. All those in favor of denial I. Those opposed to denial, no. As your

[3:27:42] name is called and the clerk will please call the role.

[3:27:44] » Thank you on the dial. Alder mayor. >> Alder mayor I. Alder Enzo.

[3:27:53] » Enzo stains. Alder O'Brien. >> I.

[3:27:56] » O'Brien. I Alder Ohich. >> Oh I. Alder Pritchette.

[3:28:02] » Alder Pritchette. No Alder Tishler. >> Uh, no

[3:28:06] » Alder Tishler. No Alder. >> Alder. I Alder Vidver.

[3:28:12] » I >> Alder Viver. I Alder Evers.

[3:28:15] » I >> Alder Evers. I Alder Field.

[3:28:18] » I >> Alder Field. I Alder Figuro Cole.

[3:28:20] » I figur I Alder Glenn. >> Hi.

[3:28:24] » Alder Glenn. I Alder Yugare. >> I Alder Harington McKenna.

[3:28:29] » Alder Harington McKenna. I ala >> Alder Kella. I Alder Lieberman.

[3:28:33] » I >> Alder Lieberman. I Alderman Madison.

[3:28:36] » I >> Alder Madison. I Alder Martinez

[3:28:38] Rutherford. >> Alder Martinez Rutherford. I Alder

[3:28:41] Matthews. >> Ilder Matthews. I 16 eyes. Two nos. One

[3:28:45] abstain. >> With 16 eyes. The appeal.

[3:28:48] » I apologize. I forgive me. Alder Jeang. I apologize.

[3:28:53] » I Jeang is I. That is 17 eyes. Two nos one abstain. But apologies. [laughter]

[3:29:01] Thank you. Uh with 17 eyes, uh the appeal is denied

[3:29:09] [snorts] and we will move on then

[3:29:18] to item nine.

[3:29:25] Item nine is legisar 93894 approving a landmark nomination of the

[3:29:30] property located at uh 222 East Olan Avenue as the Wonderbar in District 14.

[3:29:37] Uh on item nine this time we're going to start with the preservation planner

[3:29:43] uh for an overview. >> Okay.

[3:29:52] » Okay. Um so for the landmark designation process um let me whoop there we go. Um

[3:30:01] so the proposal came in for uh designating this property as a landmark.

[3:30:06] The way that process works is um so it's introduced as a resolution at common

[3:30:12] council. Common council then refers it to Landmarks Commission for their

[3:30:17] advisory recommendation on if the proposed nomination makes a successful

[3:30:23] case for significance for a property to be designated as a landmark. Landmarks

[3:30:30] Commission provides that recommendation to you to common counsel for you to take

[3:30:36] action on whether you will designate or not designate a property as a landmark.

[3:30:43] So, up here I've got um an aerial image that shows uh where the property in

[3:30:48] question is located. And then uh that's on the right. And then on the left there

[3:30:53] is a relatively recent uh picture that came from the nomination of uh the

[3:31:00] Wonderbar building. Um, so this has come in a couple of

[3:31:06] times and uh Megan and I were talking about that actually this is really the

[3:31:11] third time this uh same nomination has come in. Um but for the most recent

[3:31:16] stuff um this came in uh well there's two different things for

[3:31:22] all demolitions of principal structures that means you know uh a house or a

[3:31:28] business um they do they need to get officially an approval from plan

[3:31:33] commission with our updated demolition standards it most of those go to

[3:31:38] landmarks commission well they all go to lammers commission first but most of

[3:31:42] them that's where they do a historic value review. If Lammeris Commission

[3:31:47] finds there is no historic value, then it moves on for administrative review

[3:31:50] and approval of the demolition. The properties where Lamoris commission

[3:31:53] gives an advisory recommendation that hey, there's some uh historic value here

[3:31:57] that we want to slow down and take some consideration about, they give that

[3:32:01] recommendation to plan commission and then plan commission does their review

[3:32:05] for the demolition standards and decides whether or not they're going to approve

[3:32:08] a demolition. Um so both in 2021 and 2026 the landmark nomination came in as

[3:32:16] a reaction to a redevelopment proposal that um would have demolished the

[3:32:21] property uh demolished the building. So in 2021

[3:32:26] um lands commission did its historic value review um in uh April of that year

[3:32:35] and then plan commission approved the demolition. Now, for the demolition at

[3:32:39] that point, um it was a technical demolition uh because the development

[3:32:44] proposal had changed and they were talking about shifting it on the

[3:32:46] property. So, it was a technical demolition where they were going to pick

[3:32:49] it up and shove it over to a different corner. Um there was a draft landmark

[3:32:56] nomination that came in um but that was with drawn well it was uh there was a

[3:33:03] request for referral from the applicant. So, Mr. Soludos um at all

[3:33:08] for them to continue to negotiate uh with the developer. So there was no

[3:33:14] staff report um and there was no commission review of the draft landmark

[3:33:19] nomination and that was same with the previous round that it was submitted and

[3:33:23] it was withdrawn. So Lammer's commission had no consideration and took no action.

[3:33:27] So there's no there's no information there for uh the 2021 for the landmark

[3:33:33] nomination. But Lamer's commission said, "Yeah, there's some historic value

[3:33:37] here." Um, and cited previous historic surveys and the previous draft

[3:33:42] nomination that said that uh this was significant um due to uh it being a

[3:33:49] prohibition era roadhouse and for its association with um organized crime. Um

[3:33:55] so in 2026 uh both of these came in again. So, the landmark nomination came

[3:34:02] in again as a response for a new uh redevelopment proposal uh because the

[3:34:08] previous one didn't pan out. Um so, both of those happened to be on the Lamar

[3:34:14] Commission agenda at the same meeting and that was just the way that one

[3:34:18] worked out. It uh in 2021 they did not come in on the same track. Uh so

[3:34:24] Lammer's commission um first dealt with the draft landmark nomination and their

[3:34:31] recommendation was that uh this did not rise to the level of significance of

[3:34:36] being a Madison landmark. They then used that information for after a lengthy

[3:34:41] discussion for their historic value review and said okay there is some

[3:34:46] history here but we've already said that this does not rise to the level of being

[3:34:50] a landmark. And we're not doing our big finding of, hey, this is big-time

[3:34:54] historic value. They did what I call the middle of the road finding of there is

[3:34:59] history here, but the building in and of itself um is not historically

[3:35:04] significant, but there is a history here and we should talk about it. Um they did

[3:35:08] not do their finding of no known historic value.

[3:35:12] So for the landmark nomination, it proposed for two different uh areas. uh

[3:35:18] one would be it is associated with the broad patterns of cultural political

[3:35:22] economic or social history of the nation state and community. Um so in particular

[3:35:26] for its associations was prohib prohibition era and its ties to

[3:35:30] organized crime uh which uh ran this as a roadhouse. Um also about it defining

[3:35:38] uh its architecture saying that this is a rare remaining example in Madison of a

[3:35:43] prohibition era roadhouse. Uh we don't have a lot of buildings that look like

[3:35:48] this. For the applicable standards, um

[3:35:55] it has in here that the Lammer's Commission may designate or well that

[3:36:01] the city may designate a uh property. It doesn't say that it must designate. Um

[3:36:08] so I mean I'm a historian. I could write a history, a research story about pretty

[3:36:15] much every property in the city. Just because I can write a story about it and

[3:36:19] give you the history or the folklore or related

[3:36:23] to it, that doesn't mean that it is significant. And that is the role of the

[3:36:29] landmarks commission um for looking at the case that was made. Did it make a

[3:36:35] successful case for this is significant? is this is something that we want to

[3:36:40] conserve for future generations of Madison to tell our story. So for the

[3:36:46] standards there it may not have you written a documentation and therefore we

[3:36:52] must designate it because you wrote the history of it. Um so for the yeah so

[3:36:59] that's what that slide is. Um so after lengthy discussion, Lammer's

[3:37:06] commission uh did a recommendation that uh to common council that you deny uh

[3:37:15] this request to designate the property. Um

[3:37:20] and so you you your task tonight is to take Lammer's commission's

[3:37:25] recommendation um into account. LERs Commission is not expecting you to

[3:37:31] be a rubber stamp body. Um they are providing their analysis and

[3:37:37] recommendation to you. Um also consider the standards for historic designation

[3:37:41] which was on the previous slide for the criteria for um A and D about historic

[3:37:46] associations or architecture. And so you can vote to designate or decline to

[3:37:52] designate uh the property as a landmark. Um, and then I've also got up here for

[3:37:58] the motions and possible findings, but again, you can uh make your findings as

[3:38:05] you see fit.

[3:38:10] » I'm done. >> Thank you. Are there questions for staff

[3:38:14] on this item?

[3:38:19] Alder Figura Cole. Thank you. So again to confirm because I also did watch this

[3:38:25] meeting but for those who didn't um in fact I watched both meetings back in

[3:38:31] 2021. Um

[3:38:35] the demolition was approved for this for this particular thing for this

[3:38:38] particular building. For the current round the demolition has not been

[3:38:42] approved by the plan commission. Not yet. It is on an upcoming agenda but it

[3:38:48] is not plan plant commission has not issued an

[3:38:53] approval for demolition. So what happened to the first one?

[3:38:58] » Was that a different project? Is that what it was?

[3:39:00] » Yes. >> Okay. So the first project was approved

[3:39:03] with a condition. I remember that. But this one hasn't gotten there yet. Okay.

[3:39:06] Um yeah I don't have any other questions at

[3:39:10] this moment. Thank you. Thank you, Alder. Alder Pritchette,

[3:39:16] » one question you mentioned and the the the the gentleman here mentioned

[3:39:21] » you have to speak directly into these mics. It's different.

[3:39:24] » Thank you very much. I will speak directly into this object.

[3:39:30] Uh the question I have is this. You know, we have the state historical

[3:39:35] society and we have the landmark commission etc. And I know, you know,

[3:39:40] from a a lot of older buildings, you know, a lot of it is myth, [snorts]

[3:39:45] legend, and just weird stories that people have concocted about a structure.

[3:39:52] So, is there documentation, irrefutable documentation

[3:39:58] regarding the historical goodness of fit

[3:40:04] of the structure? So I I'm going to say no, not really. Um there is some

[3:40:10] documentation of crime happening at the property even after um the prohibition

[3:40:15] era ended, but there is a lot of circumstantial is it

[3:40:22] evidence about what may or may not happened there. But a lot of that was

[3:40:29] the stories and the tall tales were a part of promoting um this business and

[3:40:35] this property, the mystique of the white crime families that operated

[3:40:42] out of here. Um maybe so that is part of the story

[3:40:49] in terms of is are we able to accurately document? No. Then then then why not

[3:40:58] utilize um

[3:41:02] if you if you're saying to me you know that it's stories that people have told

[3:41:09] » and I know some of the stories can be myth etc.

[3:41:13] » Yes. Well, would it be possible to consider

[3:41:19] letting people know that it, you know, we don't have ironclad evidence that

[3:41:26] this happened. So, put that in the write up.

[3:41:30] Okay. And, you know, about [clears throat] the building itself

[3:41:34] because now I'm also hearing that this this structure is beyond repair.

[3:41:42] So why are we leaving it standing?

[3:41:47] » So whether it is beyond repair or not isn't something that Lamoris commission

[3:41:52] can take into consideration for the landmark nomination. That is something

[3:41:57] that plan commission will take into consideration related to the demolition.

[3:42:04] » Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[3:42:07] » Thank you. Alder Alder Tishler. >> Yeah. Just a quick question. Well, I

[3:42:12] mean, I know we're the Landmarks Commission did give it I forgot the

[3:42:15] exact language just like historic significance it had value um but not

[3:42:21] [clears throat] getting to the level of landmark but what can you just kind of

[3:42:25] uh walk us through what process or what already exists to

[3:42:29] kind of document you know photographs

[3:42:35] uh you know 3D renderings whatever it took to to preserve it once it's no

[3:42:40] longer once the building no longer ever exists.

[3:42:42] » Sure. So, um that will be so that's outside of the scope of the landmark

[3:42:47] nomination that will come in as part when plan commission reviews the

[3:42:50] proposal for demolition. Um but so for the uh advisory recommendation on

[3:42:56] historic value related to the demolition uh lame commission did advise plant

[3:43:00] commission to uh require if they're going to approve the demolition require

[3:43:05] um some documentation of the property. There's already photographs, exterior

[3:43:09] and interior photographs of the of the property. Um, we have done some

[3:43:15] documentation that aligns with what the state historic preservation office does

[3:43:18] uh for properties where they key photos to a map and there's um drawings of the

[3:43:26] building. Um, we have some options on that front. Um, I'm actually looking at

[3:43:32] something a little bit different, but we will see what the options are. I I think

[3:43:36] it is valid to go ahead and do some more documentation of this property. On the

[3:43:40] other hand, it has been through a couple of public processes um that document the

[3:43:46] history as it may or may not be and um we have interior and exterior

[3:43:51] photographs of the property.

[3:43:58] Thank you, Alder. I have no other alders in the queue

[3:44:04] with questions. Alder Lieberman. >> Um, I'd like to make a motion that we do

[3:44:10] not adopt landmark nomination. >> Second.

[3:44:14] » Um, >> that we deny. Is that the proper

[3:44:19] wording? >> I think the recommended motion would be

[3:44:23] to place the nomination on file. >> Okay. I would like to make a motion to

[3:44:28] place the nomination. >> I'm gonna let the preservation planner

[3:44:31] » I want to say you could do either of those things. You could deny, but you

[3:44:35] could also place it on file, which is a nice way of denying. Um, so you could

[3:44:40] deny, you could place it on file.

[3:44:45] » I I'll make a motion to place on file. >> Moved and seconded to place this item on

[3:44:52] file. Uh, Alder, would you like to speak to it?

[3:44:55] » Uh, yes. I want to again say, as I've said before, I recognize that a lot of

[3:45:01] people in my district and across the city have a personal connection uh to

[3:45:05] the Wonderb Bar, have memories that they have there. Um, I just want to say when

[3:45:09] it comes to being a landmark, in the last uh 13 years, the city of Madison

[3:45:14] has only added uh two landmarks uh to its registry here. Um, the Katherine

[3:45:22] Clarinbach family residence and the Benjamin and Amy Buts House. Uh both of

[3:45:26] those speak to a history of this city that uh conveys our roots in activism,

[3:45:33] in building community for women, for people of color. Um

[3:45:38] the Wonderbar is not um as as was stated, it has most of its history based

[3:45:46] in myth, and even that history is not something that I think rises to the

[3:45:50] level of being the sort of landmark that we want to preserve here. Um, so while I

[3:45:55] recognize the memories that people have and I hope that they can cherish and

[3:45:59] hold on to those, I don't see a reason for us to make this a landmark and hold

[3:46:03] on to the physical structure here uh past its usefulness.

[3:46:11] » Thank you, Alder. Alder Harrington McKenna, a excuse [clears throat] me, a

[3:46:15] clarifying question. If it's placed on file, does that mean that it can come

[3:46:20] before this body again? Uh, no. Alder, the the technical rule

[3:46:28] about placing something on file, and the city attorney will interrupt me if I go

[3:46:31] wrong. Um, is the item can't come back to this body for I think 90

[3:46:40] » 60 days. Um, if the and here the preservation

[3:46:45] planner can correct me if I'm wrong, but if the appeal is denied now,

[3:46:52] potentially somebody could make another nomination in the future, but in the

[3:46:59] intervening time, the plan commission is going to make a decision about

[3:47:02] demolition. So, in in either case, theoretically, it

[3:47:08] could come back. Um, but practically there's a time period that they would

[3:47:14] have to wait for to bring it back. >> I don't know if I'm clear on my

[3:47:19] question. Is that once I looked at So, is it proper for me to be in discussion

[3:47:25] or do I need to hold that? >> No, you're you're you are in order,

[3:47:29] Alder. >> All right. Thank you. Um,

[3:47:33] I went back and reviewed the history of the Wonderbar

[3:47:38] and one of the things that came to my attention was an article about Al Capone

[3:47:47] being arrested for tax evasion and all of that. Um

[3:47:53] and the thing that really stuck in my mind is is that

[3:48:00] um we have the highest con um um um the highest incarceration rate um in the in

[3:48:10] the country. And I don't want to elevate

[3:48:17] Al Capone. I'm [clears throat] sorry. I went back and I read some of the

[3:48:22] documentations and as the planner said that um some of

[3:48:28] the documentation was not supported evidence. Some of the documentation

[3:48:35] was not even guaranteeing that Al Capone even visited the space. But more

[3:48:42] importantly than that was when I heard we elevate

[3:48:49] for the future. And I do not want to vote. Will I

[3:48:55] support something that will elevate the wonder if it has a historical value

[3:49:02] that I hear about and I will not be and I can't vote for placing it on file. I

[3:49:10] do want to deny um and so I support the decision of the

[3:49:17] um uh restoration, but I will not be supporting it and I do not want to place

[3:49:23] it on file and my vote is against it and it would be an emphatic no.

[3:49:30] » Thank you, Alder. With the indulgence of the council, I believe that assistant

[3:49:35] attorney Smith wants to weigh in on the the question of the motion.

[3:49:43] Um, thank you, Madame Mayor. I obviously the council is within its purview to

[3:49:49] place an um an action on file that it comes before them. Um, it would be my

[3:49:53] recommendation to follow the two pathways outlined in the ordinance,

[3:49:58] which is either to designate it as a landmark based on the standards or to

[3:50:02] decline to designate it as a landmark based on um a explanation of how the

[3:50:09] standards are not met. Um, that would be if it is the will of the body, my

[3:50:14] recommendation would just be to be quite clear that you're doing one of the two

[3:50:19] pathways enumerated in the ordinance. Thank you.

[3:50:24] » Thank you, Attorney Smith. I'm going to turn to the maker of the motion, Alder

[3:50:30] Lieberman. Are you comfortable with adjusting the motion as

[3:50:36] » Thank you. I And thank you to Attorney Smith for clarifying there.

[3:50:41] » The the second is okay. It's is the body u in agreement?

[3:50:47] I'm not seeing objection. Does that address your concern, Alie McKenna?

[3:50:52] Thank you. Uh, all right. So, um,

[3:50:57] » I'm going to have the attorney repeat the words again, please, for the clerk.

[3:51:02] [laughter] [gasps]

[3:51:04] » Uh, yes. Thank you. So, underneath in um,

[3:51:10] hold on just a second. I'm going to get this citation.

[3:51:13] Um so pursuant to the council's authority in MGO 41.07

[3:51:22] subsection 6 um the action before the council I

[3:51:28] believe um was to decline to designate the property as a landmark.

[3:51:35] » Thank you. So the the motion is to decline to

[3:51:41] designate the property as a landmark. Uh unless I see objection, that will be

[3:51:47] the motion before us. That is the motion before us. The motion, and it's been

[3:51:52] seconded, is to decline to designate the property as a landmark. Uh is there

[3:51:57] further discussion, Alder Harrington McKenna?

[3:52:01] » No, that satisfies me because we don't want to elevate. Um so yes that

[3:52:06] satisfies my my concern. >> Thank you alder. Is there further

[3:52:11] discussion on this item?

[3:52:16] I have no other alders in the queue wishing to speak. So the motion before

[3:52:20] us is to decline to designate the property as a landmark.

[3:52:26] Is there objection to recording a unanimous vote in favor of denial?

[3:52:34] Seeing no objection, we'll record that vote

[3:52:38] and we will move on uh to

[3:52:45] item 14. Item 14 is legisar 94183.

[3:52:54] [sighs] This is a substitute creating sections

[3:52:57] of the Madison general ordinances to change the pro uh zoning of property at

[3:53:03] 8302 McDow Drive to from uh temp a agricultural to TRU2 which is

[3:53:11] traditional residential urban 2 and CCT commercial quarter transitional

[3:53:18] and TRU1 commercial quarter transitional. all of this in district 1.

[3:53:24] And to walk us through this one, we're going to turn back to our planning

[3:53:28] division director, Director Tuttle. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, I'll be brief on

[3:53:33] this one because I'm not sure if or what questions alders may have about this

[3:53:37] item tonight. This item is one of two items that were on your agenda tonight

[3:53:43] related to creating the Hawk Nest. Um, I'll call it a neighborhood for lack of

[3:53:49] a better word since we were just talking about plats and lots. Um, so this item

[3:53:53] specifically relates to creating or assigning the zoning districts to the

[3:53:59] future blocks that would be created by um, the Hawk Nest Plat that you approved

[3:54:05] earlier tonight. Um this creates a number of lots for future multifamily

[3:54:10] residential and lots that would be used for future mixeduse residential and um

[3:54:16] supports the kind of framework of a new neighborhood that was approved through

[3:54:20] the plat that establishes streets and other future infrastructure.

[3:54:25] Um, this item was reviewed by the plan commission and ultimately the item

[3:54:32] that's before you recommends a couple of changes from what was originally

[3:54:37] submitted to the city for approval. specifically that three of the lots

[3:54:42] along the eastern boundary uh adjacent to the neighborhood that you heard from

[3:54:47] tonight in public forum were recommended to be reszoned to a lower intensity

[3:54:52] zoning district uh the TRU1 zoning district from the original district that

[3:54:58] the applicants requested which is TRU2 a higher intensity district. Um ultimately

[3:55:04] what this approval will do is to create um the sort of regulatory framework for

[3:55:11] future development proposals to come into the city. So this is not approving

[3:55:15] all of the development that we would anticipate being phased over time, but

[3:55:20] really sets the rules in place for what um a specific development may be able to

[3:55:25] do when it is um when somebody applies for it in the future. I'm happy to

[3:55:31] answer specific questions if there are any from the council. Um, but I'll stop

[3:55:35] there. >> Thank you, Director Tuttle. Questions

[3:55:38] for staff? Alder Figuro Cole. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, one of the

[3:55:44] concerns is about um traffic and um

[3:55:51] it's my understanding I mean like you explained this is a creates the lots

[3:55:55] defines the zoning for this subdivision and then it will eventually become a

[3:56:00] neighborhood with the different entities like housing and businesses. Um, so at

[3:56:06] this point we're approving those two things and I think we're also approving

[3:56:11] the mapping or the request for the mapping for utilities and the road. Is

[3:56:18] that are those things then going to go be reviewed by other commissions like

[3:56:23] for example the transport the the um traffic congestion part will that be um

[3:56:29] reviewed by the transportation? Yeah, the transportation commission.

[3:56:34] » Yes. Um, so this item specifically is about assigning the zoning districts to

[3:56:41] this future neighborhood. Let's do it. >> Um, but as part of item 61 that was

[3:56:45] approved on your consent agenda to approve the preliminary plat that

[3:56:50] identifies future locations of roads and other infrastructure that we anticipate

[3:56:54] coming back and being reviewed by the city for further approval um in the

[3:56:59] future. When this was um approved, uh this

[3:57:05] preliminary, we call it the preliminary plat that creates the the foundation for

[3:57:10] this future neighborhood, it did include some conditions related to

[3:57:13] transportation uh that those future streets will need to meet when they come

[3:57:18] before the public works commission and ultimately transportation commission uh

[3:57:24] for approval. So, engineering was able to flag several things related to how

[3:57:30] the future street uh the extension of Mayo Drive that was referenced in public

[3:57:35] comment uh will meet some of the existing streets and um have put some

[3:57:40] limitations on things like turning movements and have already indicated

[3:57:44] that there will be land that will need to be dedicated to the city to make sure

[3:57:48] that we can create the right width and type of intersections as well as the

[3:57:53] right type of um and completed pathways for alternative transportation.

[3:57:58] Um, but ultimately those bodies will have another chance to review this when

[3:58:02] they come in to record their final plat, you know, to finalize the details of how

[3:58:07] those streets will be designed and ultimately developed. um when individual

[3:58:13] projects, so individual buildings come in for to request approval to be

[3:58:18] developed, we will also at that time look at the specifics of what we

[3:58:22] anticipate in terms of traffic volume um and how that will be accommodated on the

[3:58:28] in the neighborhood and on the specific properties that are being developed at

[3:58:31] that time. and any other conditions from those um either the plan commission, our

[3:58:37] city's traffic engineering team will be um included in the approval comments for

[3:58:42] those future phases. >> Thank you. So again, for the people that

[3:58:46] are concerned about those things, they will have an opportunity to have those

[3:58:49] discussions at a later time. Yes. Right now, we have a blank canvas and we're

[3:58:52] just creating the lines for the lots and then letting the developer know what can

[3:58:58] they build there by establishing the zoning codes. Yes, it it kind of

[3:59:02] establishes the sort of envelope of what can be done, but the specifics will need

[3:59:06] to come back in for approval. >> Yep. Thank you.

[3:59:10] » Thank you, Elder. Alder Tishler.

[3:59:14] » Yeah, I'm assuming we're, you know, the the the streets are going to have uh

[3:59:19] adequate space for sidewalks, but what about uh cutthroughs through some of the

[3:59:23] longer longer blocks? Is that [clears throat] something that's going

[3:59:26] to be we decided at a later point or is that

[3:59:31] » Do you mean um traffic cutthroughs from other like adjacent?

[3:59:35] » I'm thinking more of I'm thinking more of like cutthroughs for for uh for

[3:59:38] pedestrians and cyclists. >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Um yes, [snorts] I I

[3:59:43] believe in the plat there are some the foundation for some of the uh necessary

[3:59:49] infrastructure has been provided. Um but in those future reviews we will look at

[3:59:55] um the different circulation patterns for the buildings that will be proposed.

[4:00:00] » Okay.

[4:00:03] » Thank you Alder. Are there any other questions for staff?

[4:00:10] Seeing none. Thank you Director Tuttle. So uh I would entertain a motion on item

[4:00:19] 14. Uh, Alder Yugare. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'll move that uh

[4:00:25] common council adopt the substitute version of zoning. Um, I'm not sure if

[4:00:31] it's necessary to uh go through all of the details. I'm glad to do that if

[4:00:36] necessary. Um,

[4:00:41] » with all of the associated conditions. Uh so the motion is to adopt the

[4:00:45] substitute with conditions and Alder Figuro will second.

[4:00:51] Uh all right, Alder uh Yugger, did you wish to speak to it? And no, I'll just

[4:00:56] say that uh as you can tell from the uh planner uh plan division uh lead here

[4:01:06] that uh this got extensive discussion at the plan commission including a very

[4:01:11] close look at what we could tell at this point about uh uh the traffic concerns

[4:01:17] that came up from the uh [snorts] uh one registrant that we had here. uh I think

[4:01:22] there was uh general approval of the substitute versions for uh the

[4:01:28] differences uh on the specific parcels for uh different densities

[4:01:35] and uh

[4:01:39] again we we had a very thorough discussion and I think we covered all of

[4:01:43] the points of concern and looking at uh uh how this would be beneficial for the

[4:01:48] era for the future. Thank you. Thank you, Alder.

[4:01:53] I have no other alders in the queue wishing to speak on this item. So, the

[4:02:00] motion is to adopt the substitute with conditions.

[4:02:04] Is there any objection to recording unanimous vote in favor of adopting the

[4:02:09] substitute with conditions? Seeing no objection, we will record that

[4:02:14] vote

[4:02:18] and

[4:02:25] That will take us to item 59. Item 59. President Madison.

[4:02:33] » Oh, for this item, I'm just going to ask for a presentation from finance.

[4:02:37] » Let me get it. Let me get it in front of us first. I'll come right back to you.

[4:02:41] [gasps] >> Uh, okay. Uh item 59 is legisar 94250, a

[4:02:47] substitute amending the 2026 economic development division operating budget by

[4:02:52] transferring funds from other agency budgets and authorizing interdep

[4:02:56] departmental transfers, approving program materials, and authorizing the

[4:03:00] economic development division to administer a Williamson Street business

[4:03:04] stabilization support program. On item 59, uh, President Madison, did

[4:03:11] you want to get a motion on the floor or go right to questions for staff?

[4:03:16] » Go right to presentation of questions for staff.

[4:03:18] » Okay. So, we'll go to questions for staff. President Madison.

[4:03:21] » Uh, I would like for uh, Director Schmidiki to provide a brief

[4:03:25] presentation. >> Director Schmidiki.

[4:03:31] Uh, thank you, Mayor. Let me uh share [clears throat] my screen.

[4:03:43] Wait for that to All right. Um so this is the presentation that um we went

[4:03:49] through at the finance committee last week. It'll provide some um background

[4:03:54] on the contingent reserve and um an update on projections of uh general fund

[4:04:01] expenditures.

[4:04:04] Um we'll uh cover the midyear budget projection which was presented to the

[4:04:09] finance committee at the um uh the end of July which also also included the uh

[4:04:16] midyear um appropriation resolution. an update on expenditures, uh the status of

[4:04:23] the contingent reserve, a little bit of background on um

[4:04:28] transfers from the contingent reserve over the last 10 years, and then um just

[4:04:33] a a glossery of some of the terms that we refer to. [clears throat]

[4:04:39] Uh so we did go through a mid-year projection as we do um each year. Based

[4:04:44] on that, there was a resolution adopted by the council to make adjustments to

[4:04:49] agency budgets. Um that is a point in time analysis. So we're looking at the

[4:04:54] um uh the period of time um from January through May

[4:05:01] and um that was presented to the finance committee on July 27th. At that time,

[4:05:06] the general fund was projected to have a a surplus

[4:05:10] uh in terms of available budget authority of $4 million. Uh that's

[4:05:15] primarily from under spending and what we call centrally budgeted funds. Those

[4:05:19] include the contingent reserve and um uh benefits paid to employees uh at

[4:05:25] retirement. Um the the resolution was adopted,

[4:05:30] transferred funds within and between agencies and made other adjustments to

[4:05:35] capital and operating budgets. And um it did include a $500,000 transfer from the

[4:05:43] contingent reserve to the clerk's office and to the engineering division to cover

[4:05:48] um uh projected deficits based on that mid-year projection.

[4:05:53] And that transfer amount is accounted for in the $4 million I referenced uh

[4:05:58] above.

[4:06:03] [clears throat] So these are some of the highlights.

[4:06:06] Just drilling down a little bit further into the general fund expenditures.

[4:06:11] Um agencies are projected to overspend by about a million dollars. Uh much of

[4:06:17] that though is due to what we call um compensated absence payouts and those

[4:06:23] are centrally budgeted. So agencies being overbudget for that reason is um

[4:06:29] not out of the ordinary. Um and some agencies are not meeting their salary

[4:06:35] savings targets due to lower than um uh budgeted vacancy rates.

[4:06:42] Um there is some offset to that uh projected overspending on salaries and

[4:06:47] fringe benefits in the purchase services area that's due primarily to the timing

[4:06:52] of um multi-year software contracts as well as prepaid expenses. Uh, a majority

[4:06:59] of the unspending, as I mentioned before, is in centrally budgeted funds

[4:07:04] for the compensated absence escrow, um, which is budgeted at $3 million

[4:07:09] and, um, the contingent reserve, which is originally budgeted at a little over

[4:07:15] $2 million. Uh and so um at the time that the

[4:07:19] projections were made, the only draw on the contingent reserve had been the

[4:07:23] $70,000 adopted by the council to support MADCAP funding through the rest

[4:07:29] of the year. So when you add those two estimates together, projections

[4:07:33] together, the overspend within the agency budgets and then the um savings

[4:07:40] uh below budget amounts and direct appropriations that gets you to the $4

[4:07:44] million projected surplus at that time. Uh there was also um information

[4:07:51] presented at that meeting on the Metro Transit budget and the deficit expected

[4:07:56] there of a little over $4 million. The resolution adopted by the council um the

[4:08:02] midyear appropriation did make some adjustments terms of applying fund

[4:08:06] balance basically giving Metro um enough budget authority to get through um the

[4:08:14] rest of the year. There will be another projection made as with all agency for

[4:08:20] the year-end projection. Right now, there's no proposed increase in the

[4:08:24] general fund subsidy and that year-end projection for Metro. While I look at

[4:08:29] other possible options to address um uh the projected deficit and the overall

[4:08:34] size of that deficit,

[4:08:38] uh just a little bit of background on the um contingent reserve. Uh the city's

[4:08:44] had a policy for many years to set aside about a half a percent uh within its

[4:08:49] overall budget. Um, and this amount is budgeted in what we call direct

[4:08:54] appropriations. We call it the contingent reserve. And

[4:08:59] that half a percent for the 2026 budget, uh, the math works out to about 2.15

[4:09:05] million. transfers approved to date I've already mentioned include the um uh the

[4:09:11] madcap program as well as funding for um expected election expenses in the

[4:09:16] clerk's office and um facility maintenance needs in the engineering

[4:09:21] division. So with those approved um transfers, there's a little under $1.6 6

[4:09:28] million remaining in the contingent reserve.

[4:09:33] Um at the finance committee uh meeting last week, there were two resolutions

[4:09:39] before the committee um that day and um those included transfers from the

[4:09:45] contingent reserve. The total proposed amount was about $228,000.

[4:09:51] finance committee in terms of what it recommended would have no transfers out

[4:09:56] um from the contingent reserve. So that included the um Williamson Street uh

[4:10:01] business stabilization program 200,000 coming from the contingent reserve. The

[4:10:07] finance committee amended the resolution uh to only use funding um under spending

[4:10:13] in the planning, community, and economic development budgets. And then um a

[4:10:17] resolution on um uh $28,500 for the Office of the Independent Monitor for

[4:10:23] staffing and conference attendance costs and the finance committee recommended

[4:10:28] that those be placed on file. Um so the um updated projections uh we

[4:10:37] have looked at a few additional costs beyond the um

[4:10:43] uh what was in the midyear projection. and we'll do a um a much more

[4:10:46] comprehensive projection as we always do in October and that'll be presented to

[4:10:51] the finance committee in November. But as of August 31st, we have that $4

[4:10:56] million projected surplus as I mentioned. Um we do have some additional

[4:11:02] expenses related to prepaid information technology licensing costs, so software

[4:11:08] costs. um that prepay would help the budget starting in 2027 um saving about

[4:11:16] $200,000 a year compared to current cost to continue and save about $400,000 over

[4:11:22] the license term. So that prepaid does save future costs. Um, I'll go into this

[4:11:28] in a little more detail, but um, a million dollars in overtime expenses and

[4:11:32] costs related to the um, police department response and then um,

[4:11:38] $200,000 from the contingent reserve uh, which was the resolutions I I mentioned

[4:11:44] before. So, if all of that is to happen, that updated estimate would be um, $2

[4:11:49] million instead of a $4 million surplus. So, in terms of the response to July

[4:11:56] 22nd, um the estimate right now is the total cost would be about $1 million.

[4:12:03] Most of that would be um police department overtime costs. Uh we are

[4:12:08] tracking those expenses and we'll provide updates as data is available. We

[4:12:13] do have a lag because of payroll processing and other processing.

[4:12:18] um payroll through the payroll that ended August 15th, we have costs of

[4:12:24] about $663,000. You can see it broken out by department

[4:12:30] in the table on this slide with most of that being uh police department um

[4:12:35] overtime [snorts] uh as well as overtime, premium

[4:12:38] pay, and other benefits in um other agencies. in the community development

[4:12:43] division or CDD. Most of those expenses um uh are related to hotel, motel cost,

[4:12:49] food and non-personnel uh expenses.

[4:12:54] Um some of the additional considerations with the remainder remainder of this

[4:12:59] year and potential costs and and uh how that projected surplus could be um

[4:13:05] impacted. Uh at the moment when we did the projection um using data through May

[4:13:12] the streets division anticipated there will be uh sufficient funding for four

[4:13:18] general plows for the remainder of the year. So um talking the last probably

[4:13:23] couple months of 2026 that is built into the midyear budget projection. Uh we

[4:13:29] have seen in recent years that the cost of snow removal at the end of um the

[4:13:35] calendar year has been lower than budgeted and um at the moment barring

[4:13:40] any sort of extreme weather events uh the streets division budget should be

[4:13:44] able to cover normal levels of snowfall. Um the shelter endowment is um a

[4:13:52] situation where the city um uh committed to providing $2 million for an endowment

[4:14:00] uh to be set up to support operations for the Bartalon um shelter. Uh the uh

[4:14:07] year-end appropriation for 2025 included an appropriation of $1 million

[4:14:13] to fund um basically fund half of that commitment. The remaining million

[4:14:19] dollars could be paid this year partially or fully could be paid um next

[4:14:25] year. Again, the source of funding for that this year could be the contingent

[4:14:29] reserve or other unspending. Um that amount is not factored in the

[4:14:35] projections at the moment. Uh but it it could be considered in terms of um how

[4:14:41] much capacity uh should be kept in the contingent reserve at year end. Um other

[4:14:48] types of emergencies could arise. It's difficult to predict what those might

[4:14:52] be. We don't have any sort of cost estimates for those. One thing I will

[4:14:57] mention that's not listed here is we continue to monitor fuel costs. fuel

[4:15:01] continues to rise. Um diesel fuel particularly has increased um pretty

[4:15:08] dramatically in costs and um that could have some impact on uh year-end needs

[4:15:14] probably at at the most right now maybe um a half a million dollars but that's a

[4:15:20] very very preliminary estimate. Um the next two slides I won't go into a

[4:15:26] lot of detail. We'll share these slides, attach them to um legisar. They're also

[4:15:30] available um in on the finance committee agenda from last week. But this just

[4:15:36] gives a history of how the contingent reserve has been used over the last 10

[4:15:40] years and um uh it a lot of different reasons for for why it would be used. I

[4:15:48] mentioned the um the shelter endowment. Uh some of it was used to support um

[4:15:53] needs in metro as well as higher fleet costs. And um there we also in the year-

[4:16:00] end appropriations or in the mid-year appropriations have made appropriations

[4:16:05] from the general fund balance uh up to um uh the maximum allowable under what's

[4:16:13] called the state expenditure restraint incentive program. That's really a limit

[4:16:18] on the city's ability to spend. Um, and in return for staying below that limit,

[4:16:23] the city receives about $9 million of state aid.

[4:16:29] Um, in uh 2024, there was no sort of need to transfer the contingent reserve.

[4:16:35] There was no ERIP limit that year because of um sort of a uh hiatus in

[4:16:41] that program under state law. and um the remaining um what we call ARPA funding

[4:16:47] or uh American Rescue Plan Act funding from the federal government was

[4:16:51] utilized. Um in other years uh there have been um shortfalls in agency

[4:16:57] budgets that have been met. Um tax litigation costs uh other litigation

[4:17:02] costs have been provided. 2020 uh is a rather unique year obviously uh in terms

[4:17:09] of um the first year of the u uh pandemic and the u multiple impacts on

[4:17:16] the city budget as well as um uh federal funding provided and a lot of

[4:17:22] adjustments made to um address that year.

[4:17:27] Uh the remaining years are really to some extent covering police and fire

[4:17:32] department um costs and um other um smaller

[4:17:39] uh allocations made by the council. I will just emphasize that all of the

[4:17:44] transfers out of the contingent reserve require a resolution adopted by the

[4:17:49] council uh with um a 15 vote um requirement. Uh the last page here is

[4:17:57] just some of the terms um that we use such as budget transfers. Some transfers

[4:18:04] uh are allowed um administratively either um by the finance director or the

[4:18:09] mayor up to $50,000 but otherwise any other transfers above

[4:18:15] those amounts as I mentioned do require um action by the council through a

[4:18:20] supermajority approval. Uh, I mentioned the contingent reserve and direct

[4:18:24] appropriations, uh, the expenditure restraint incentive program. Uh, the

[4:18:29] general fund is what we really are talking about when we talk about the

[4:18:32] city's operating budget. And, uh, we'll spend a lot more time on that, um, over

[4:18:37] the next couple of months. Uh, the levy limit, you you all have heard about

[4:18:42] that. That is our limit on revenues, so the property tax um, as set up under uh,

[4:18:47] state law, and then um, the operating budget. So with that, I will stop

[4:18:52] sharing and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[4:18:57] » Thank you, Director Schmidiki. Questions for staff. Alder Okovitz.

[4:19:01] » Uh thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Director Schmidiki. Um could you explain

[4:19:06] how unspent uh contingent reserve funds affect calculations of next year's levy

[4:19:13] limit increases? uh there's really no connection between

[4:19:18] um the contingent reserve and the um the levy limit. So levy limit is established

[4:19:25] » through a formula that um looks at what we call um net new construction value in

[4:19:31] the city and um applies that factor to the amount that was levied in the prior

[4:19:37] year and that sets the maximum amount that we can levy in the subsequent year

[4:19:42] excluding um amounts levied to pay debt service.

[4:19:46] » Okay. So are unspent contingent reserve funds transferred to the general fund?

[4:19:50] » I'm sorry I couldn't hear. >> I'm sorry. are unspent contingent

[4:19:53] reserve funds transferred to the general fund.

[4:19:56] » So um at the end of the year uh it's really the difference between the amount

[4:20:02] of actual revenues we collect and the amount of funding we actually uh or the

[4:20:08] amount that we actually spend relative to budget. Uh and the difference between

[4:20:12] those two is what becomes that increase in fund balance. So obviously we have to

[4:20:17] stay under budget. Um, one element to that is the um, uh, how the contingent

[4:20:24] reserve may or may not have been used. It's basically there um, so that we stay

[4:20:31] in compliance with expenditure restraint and that we can meet certain emergencies

[4:20:36] that may arise during the year. >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:20:42] » Thank you, Alder. Alder

[4:20:46] Madison, >> thank you. I won't ask my 30 questions

[4:20:50] that I asked at finance, but I just have two quick quick ones. The first one is

[4:20:55] where are we at right now with E-RIP or how close are we?

[4:21:00] » Um, we are pretty much at the expenditure restraint limit right now.

[4:21:04] the budget was um constructed that way um the 2026 budget and we were I think

[4:21:10] pretty clear about that um when that budget was presented a year ago. Uh

[4:21:16] there's maybe a couple hundred,000 of room, but um uh we pretty much have

[4:21:24] appropriated up to that amount. So most of what we're doing uh now um is moving

[4:21:31] money within the approved budget. Gotcha. And then my and maybe two more,

[4:21:36] but my next question is for the shelter endowment. I asked this question before,

[4:21:41] but I know I had a um two conversations with alders about it earlier. Um a

[4:21:46] future council does not have to keep the commitment that this council has made to

[4:21:51] the endowment. Like they don't it's not a binding thing for future council. So

[4:21:55] if we so if um if we don't provide whatever's left for example in the

[4:22:01] contingent reserve to the shelter towards his endowment the next council

[4:22:06] can decide not to keep that commitment. Correct.

[4:22:10] » Can't bind future councils. So there's, you know, when I say commitment, it's

[4:22:16] it's an action by that council y that would have paid um or said that 2

[4:22:22] million will be paid over some period of time. If that's not fulfilled, [snorts]

[4:22:26] then obviously there are repercussions for those trying to address the shelter

[4:22:31] endowment. And then I think my last one is um

[4:22:38] you c if I understand correctly from our finance meeting and from this meeting

[4:22:42] you can't necessarily make any um estimates or projections about what we

[4:22:49] may need to have available to address emergencies technically because the

[4:22:53] emergency hasn't happened. I just want to be sure the reason we don't see any

[4:22:57] estimates for what we may need uh to respond to any emergencies is because

[4:23:02] that's not something that you can do without the emergency having h happened.

[4:23:05] I guess >> well I think as I mentioned you know our

[4:23:08] policy the city's policy has been to set aside a half percent and that has been

[4:23:13] sufficient for most emergencies. Obviously a global pandemic is an

[4:23:18] emergency for which a half a percent was not enough and um

[4:23:23] » and so but there were other responses um the federal government responded the

[4:23:29] state responded so funding was provided that way. There have been other um

[4:23:34] emergencies in the past uh particularly um very dramatic snow emergencies where

[4:23:42] um the the city may or the flooding in 2018 where the city may have received

[4:23:47] FEMA funding from the federal government to support that cost. Uh I think I

[4:23:52] mentioned at the finance committee meeting um the expenditure restraint

[4:23:56] limit does not apply if uh the governor declares an emergency

[4:24:03] uh for example. So if we were to have a dire snow emergency in the city and the

[4:24:08] governor were to declare an emergency then uh the expenditure restraint limit

[4:24:12] um does not apply nor does the um the levy limit in that situation.

[4:24:17] » Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Alder Yugare.

[4:24:23] » Thank you, Mayor uh Director Schmidiki. The city has uh made it clear that uh we

[4:24:31] do have some contingency contingency plans in the event that uh we had to

[4:24:37] defend uh our elections this year given that

[4:24:42] there have been numerous threats. Uh would I be correct in assuming that

[4:24:48] that is the kind of of emergency in which we might have to uh draw against

[4:24:54] the contingency reserve? >> Well, the council has already adopted a

[4:24:59] resolution that transferred $400,000 uh from the contingent reserve to the

[4:25:04] clerk's office to help fund um you know anticipated additional needs for the

[4:25:10] upcoming election. >> Thank you. You're welcome.

[4:25:16] Thank you, Alder Alder Matthews. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just want to ask

[4:25:24] so that I can make sure this is as clear as possible for mostly the public. Um,

[4:25:30] but when we say that we're very close to the expenditure restraint limit, that is

[4:25:36] within what we have approved in our regular budget. Um but

[4:25:43] we also have a $4 million um projected surplus.

[4:25:49] So right now we are really at $4 million and then an additional couple

[4:25:57] hundred,000 before we would hit the expenditure restraint limit. Is that

[4:26:01] understanding correct? So the expenditure restraint limit is

[4:26:07] based on the budget that's approved for the city. And so um in that sense,

[4:26:16] you're right. If if we don't need all of that budget, then we continue to remain

[4:26:22] under the expenditure restraint limit. It only comes into effect um if we need

[4:26:28] to appropriate more than what was originally budgeted which um that's I

[4:26:35] think what we're you know I'm trying to emphasize in terms of that expenditure

[4:26:38] restraint limit but you're correct in terms of at the moment we're projecting

[4:26:42] that the amount of that budget needed uh we're about 4 million below that but we

[4:26:47] did identify some other uh potential costs including the million dollars of

[4:26:52] response costs the um uh possible prepaid for um um IT software costs and

[4:27:00] then um the potential of that uh shelter endowment and then any other issues that

[4:27:07] that could arise. I did I did identify fuel as a possibility uh as in those

[4:27:14] costs. >> Um thank you. And then just one more

[4:27:18] thing. Um this I think was in the presentation but I know my eyes don't

[4:27:24] work very well. Uh so just to confirm the current budget already has enough

[4:27:31] budgeted for I think it's four regular snow plow events through the end of

[4:27:37] 2026. And then for like a big storm where

[4:27:41] there's a lot of need to um pick up uh you know fallen branches and things like

[4:27:49] that does that come out of the regular budget or is that something that is like

[4:27:54] covered under the forestry special charge?

[4:27:59] » So I think your question is two parts. There is the the uh projection that was

[4:28:04] made uh back in May working with the streets division is that um there was

[4:28:11] sufficient um budget authority in the streets

[4:28:14] budget to pay for four general plows for the remainder of this year. Um I think

[4:28:21] your second question is around if there's a specific event that involves

[4:28:27] um forestry related activities. Yes, those would uh uh depending on the type

[4:28:34] of you know related impacts those would

[4:28:38] probably be covered by the urban forestry special charge rather than the

[4:28:42] general fund. >> Thank you.

[4:28:47] » Thank you, Alder Alder Tishler.

[4:28:51] Yeah, you you uh Dave, you mentioned um fuel prices and I'm thinking um you know

[4:28:57] we pre you said we prepay for uh for for it, but I'm assuming we prepay for for

[4:29:03] fuel prices and I'm especially thinking of diesel prices right now. And I guess

[4:29:07] my question is, do you do you anticipate if the way things are kind of going in

[4:29:12] the world, we might be um having to dip into the contingency fund to pay for uh

[4:29:18] for diesel fuel? And also the a question on that also is do we pay yearly? Is

[4:29:23] that that does that start at the beginning of the of the uh uh calendar

[4:29:27] year? >> Uh thanks for that question, Alder.

[4:29:31] Regarding um fuel prices um we have had a practice over the last several years

[4:29:37] of um we have we have two major fuel budgets. One is in metro transit for the

[4:29:44] buses obviously the other is in fleet for the pretty much the remaining

[4:29:49] vehicles in the city. Um we have uh used what are called futures contracts for

[4:29:56] the metro fuel purchases so that there's stability in that price and for 2026

[4:30:03] um we we have futures contracts so that price is locked in for metro for 20 uh

[4:30:09] 26 when I'm talking about the impact of fuel prices this year that is on the

[4:30:13] fleet budget and for fleet we buy off the spot market so we're just buying um

[4:30:20] as we need it. We may be buying a, you know, one to two months in advance. Uh

[4:30:25] we're not we don't sort of buy a whole year's worth of um fuel, but um we buy

[4:30:31] it as we need it. So that's where we might see some pressure uh with the

[4:30:37] rising fuel costs is um is in the fleet budget and having sufficient amounts

[4:30:44] there. Now, for 2027, um we don't have futures contracts for

[4:30:49] Metro anymore just because of the volatility in um uh in fuel prices that

[4:30:55] we've seen over the last uh several months. Um there really

[4:31:00] hasn't been a good opportunity to do a futures contract for metro fuel prices.

[4:31:07] We have tried to account for that in the cost to continue estimates for 2027, but

[4:31:12] as I mentioned, we're it's a very volatile situation. We're trying to

[4:31:16] continue to monitor it and, you know, see what the sort of levels of

[4:31:20] confidence and estimates might be.

[4:31:27] » Thank you, Alder Alder Okovitz. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, this one's for

[4:31:33] uh Director Miklovski. Um for item six in the proposed process

[4:31:41] for the grant applications, it talks about

[4:31:46] considering proportionate share of loss, uh relative size, how the funding would

[4:31:51] be using or how the funding would be used by the business. Do city staff have

[4:31:57] experience administering a similar grant program? I I just ask because it seems

[4:32:02] like relatively complicated to try and estimate all of these variables and then

[4:32:08] come to a conclusion that is

[4:32:12] fair.

[4:32:19] » Uh thank you, Alder. Um we do have some experience. In 2020, we had a small

[4:32:24] business equity and recovery program that provided up to $10,000 for

[4:32:29] businesses that could show a revenue loss and also for covering PPE related

[4:32:35] expenses. And and so yes, for that particular program, we did have

[4:32:39] businesses submit tax returns and other financial information that we took look

[4:32:44] at to determine eligibility for that funding. Okay.

[4:32:47] » And what was the size of that program? uh total grant dollars to

[4:32:53] » total for an individual business was up to 10,000. The total program

[4:32:58] was I think we got over one and a half million total that we distributed. That

[4:33:04] was a combination of city dollars and also federal funding.

[4:33:07] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alder. I have no other alders

[4:33:13] in the queue with questions for staff. So, thank you, directors.

[4:33:20] [snorts] Um, President Madison, on number 59, a motion, please.

[4:33:26] » A motion to adopt >> the substitute.

[4:33:29] » Yes. Sorry. >> The motion is to adopt the substitute.

[4:33:33] Is there a second?

[4:33:37] Seconded by Alder Mayor. Uh, moved and seconded to adopt. Is there discussion

[4:33:42] on this item? Alder mayor.

[4:33:46] Thank you, mayor. Let me get some microphone practice. Is

[4:33:50] this about right? Okay. Uh, this resolution seeks to establish a program

[4:33:55] to help businesses impacted by the extended protest in the wake of the

[4:33:59] police killing of Cory Ruiz. The 29 businesses that would benefit are vital

[4:34:03] parts of the neighborhood. They are places people buy food, share meals with

[4:34:07] friends and family, gather to commune with neighbors, listen to live music,

[4:34:11] shop for clothes and sunundry items, and more. There are places that have given

[4:34:14] back to our community in countless ways, holding fundraisers, supporting our

[4:34:18] festivals, and sponsoring amateur sports teams. During that time in July and

[4:34:22] August, some businesses were completely closed, others open, but with

[4:34:25] drastically diminished foot traffic. And it's about more than just the businesses

[4:34:29] and business owners. We estimate that those 29 businesses that would be

[4:34:34] eligible for this program employ between 3 and 400 workers. These are retail

[4:34:39] workers, servers, stalkers, and cashiers. They're also rent payers,

[4:34:43] property taxpayers, and again neighbors. During that time, some were laid off,

[4:34:48] others had hours cut. A few were fortunate to be paid by these businesses

[4:34:52] when they couldn't work. Recovery in the neighborhood after the tragic police

[4:34:56] violence of July 22nd has taken and will continue to take many forms. This

[4:35:01] program addresses one of those recovery efforts by ensuring that these vital and

[4:35:04] cherished employers remain in our neighborhood.

[4:35:08] Partnering with the division of planning, community, and economic

[4:35:10] development, we initially requested $300,000.

[4:35:13] 100,000 from budgeted but unspent funds in the economic development division and

[4:35:17] other agencies and 200,000 from the contingent reserve. Finance chose to

[4:35:21] approve an alternate that would strike the portion from the contingent reserve.

[4:35:25] While I fully understand the risk aversion to drawing down the reserve and

[4:35:29] carefully consider any request to do so, I do feel that this situation is just a

[4:35:34] sort of contingency the reserve ought to be used for. However, counting the votes

[4:35:39] and needing to get to 15, I decided that the best way forward would be to fully

[4:35:43] pursue the remaining $100,000 in line with the finance committee's

[4:35:47] recommendation. That amount can still do a lot of good. A lot of good to address

[4:35:53] the concern of setting a precedent of aiding businesses. We already support

[4:35:56] businesses financially in many, many ways. We have a building facade

[4:36:00] improvement grant. We have graffiti removal programs. We support the bid, a

[4:36:05] public private partnership that supports businesses on State Street and around

[4:36:07] the capital. Our hotel room tax goes to promote tourism. Perhaps most

[4:36:12] significantly, we have a robust tax incremental financing program that helps

[4:36:15] all manner of construction projects get done. We invest millions in these

[4:36:19] projects because we know that successful housing starts and growing businesses

[4:36:23] generate economic activity that will allow the city to recoup that investment

[4:36:27] many times over. Now, here's a chance to help keep

[4:36:31] businesses open, struggling due to no failing of their own. It's a chance to

[4:36:35] keep workers employed and to keep Willie Street the vibrant place that it is.

[4:36:40] Lastly, you heard from the co-president of the Williamson Marquette Business

[4:36:43] Alliance that they have raised $50,000. Other fundraisers aimed at worker relief

[4:36:47] have been successful. Destination Madison is stepping in to help promote

[4:36:51] these businesses as well. And just last Sunday, I attended a benefit for the

[4:36:55] workers of Crystal Corner, graciously held by Mickey's Tavern. Because this is

[4:36:59] a tight-knit commu community, a tight-knit neighborhood that supports

[4:37:02] each other in tragedy and supports each other in recovery and healing. All these

[4:37:07] things along with $100,000 already budgeted but unspent will go a long way.

[4:37:11] I urge you to join me in voting yes. Thank you.

[4:37:15] » Thank you, Alder. Alder Harrington McKenna.

[4:37:19] » Thank you, Madame Mayor.

[4:37:23] When first elected in 2015, questions about policing, transparency,

[4:37:31] accountability, and community trust were already hard

[4:37:36] conversations here in Madison. I supported bodywn cameras then and now.

[4:37:44] I believe body warn cameras could provide one more tool for

[4:37:49] accountability. I never believed cameras were the answer

[4:37:54] to everything. A camera can record an encounter. It cannot provide independent

[4:38:01] civilian oversight. That is why Madison created the office

[4:38:06] of the independent monitor. If we create an office and give it serious

[4:38:12] responsibilities, we also have an obligation to provide

[4:38:17] reasonable resources for that work. That is why I support the pro the proposed

[4:38:25] transfer to address immediate staffing and service needs.

[4:38:30] » Alder, we're the item before us is the business support fund, not the office of

[4:38:35] the independent monitor. Well, I'm getting into that if you allow me.

[4:38:40] » As long as you get there, Alder. >> I I'm I've got a few minutes and I'll

[4:38:43] get there. >> And the reason I need to get there is

[4:38:48] that um I'm driving out of my lane and I just want to make sure people know why I

[4:38:53] drove out of my lane. That is why I support the proposed

[4:38:58] transfer to address immediate staffing and service needs. My support for this

[4:39:04] funding is not an endorsement of every decision

[4:39:10] nor the individual involved in the oversight process. Funding is not a

[4:39:16] blank check and oversight is not immunity from accountability.

[4:39:22] I have heard concerns and criticisms regarding both the independent monitor

[4:39:28] and the data analysts. Those concerns should not be brushed aside. But

[4:39:35] responsible governance means not governing based on personalities.

[4:39:42] It means asking whether the structure is sound, whether expectations are clear,

[4:39:48] whether professional standards are being met, and whether the office has the

[4:39:54] resources necessary to do the job we assign.

[4:40:00] We have asked hard questions of our police department. We should also ask

[4:40:06] hard questions of the independent monitor and the oversight system. This

[4:40:12] is not about choosing sides. It's about doing the job. After years of public

[4:40:19] service, I've learned that building a structure is much easier easier than

[4:40:26] sustaining the office that provides that structure. The test

[4:40:32] is whether we sustain it es especially when it is tested. My commitment is

[4:40:38] straightforward transparency, accountability, appropriate resources,

[4:40:44] and measurable performance. I support the institution but insist on

[4:40:50] accountability from it. And now I'll get to what's before us.

[4:40:57] As the common council considers items 59 and 60, I believe we should look

[4:41:03] carefully at the principles and consist consistency,

[4:41:09] precedent, and responsible governance. In 2020, following the murder of George

[4:41:16] Floyd and the destruction that occurred on State Street, the city of Madison

[4:41:21] recognized that extraordinary circumstances required an extraordinary

[4:41:28] response. At that time, the city considered a $250,000

[4:41:34] downtown recovery program. Although that specific appropriation was not

[4:41:41] ultimately adopted, Madison expanded existing economic development tools and

[4:41:47] later provided significant significant recovery assistance to small businesses

[4:41:54] through that program. The larger principle was clear. When businesses are

[4:42:02] harmed by extraordinary circumstances beyond their control, the city has a

[4:42:09] role in helping stabilization. Businesses in the Williamson Street and

[4:42:16] Bowwin Street area experienced significant disruption,

[4:42:21] financial loss during an extended period of protest and public safety response.

[4:42:29] The original proposal for item 15 provided $300,000

[4:42:35] in stabilization assistance, $200,000 from the city's contingent

[4:42:41] reserve, $100,000 from available department savings. The

[4:42:48] finance committee reduced that proposal to $100,000

[4:42:54] and removed the contingent reserve funding. I believe the council should

[4:42:59] reconsider that decision. The question I continue to ask is if this is not the

[4:43:06] type of unexpected circumstances for which we maintain a contingent reserve

[4:43:14] then what is a contingency fund exists? Because no city can predict every

[4:43:23] emergency, disruption, or unexpected expense when an annual budget is

[4:43:29] adopted. We should always be thought thoughtful and responsible about how

[4:43:36] those dollars are used, but protecting the fund should not become more

[4:43:42] important than using it for the purpose for which it was created. Item 60 raises

[4:43:49] an important question of consistency. Under item 60, the city is being asked

[4:43:56] to use contingent reserve funding for unexpected costs related to the office

[4:44:02] of the independent monitor and the city's response to this broader critical

[4:44:08] question. I support providing the independent monitor the resources

[4:44:13] necessary to perform the work the city created that office to do. But

[4:44:19] responsible government requires trans consistency.

[4:44:24] If we recognize that this incident created unexpected costs for city

[4:44:30] government, then we should also recognize that it created unexpected

[4:44:36] economic harm for for small neighborhood businesses and their employees.

[4:44:42] Businesses did not create the circumstances.

[4:44:46] Their employees did not create them. Yet they experience

[4:44:51] um Yet they experience lost customers, interrupted operations,

[4:44:59] payroll pressures, rent obligations, utilities, insurance costs, inventory

[4:45:06] losses, and uncertainty. Approximately $100,000

[4:45:12] spread among nearly 29 businesses does not go very far. That is why I believe

[4:45:19] the council should consider restoring meaningful funding from the contingent

[4:45:25] reserve. This should not be framed as business versus protesters.

[4:45:32] It should not be framed as economic recovery versus racial justice. And it

[4:45:38] should not be framed as supporting businesses instead of supporting police

[4:45:43] accountability and independent oversight. We can hold more than one

[4:45:48] responsibility at the same time. We can project the right for pe for peaceful

[4:45:55] protest. We can demand accountability and transparency. We can properly

[4:46:02] support the office of the independent monitor and we can make sure that small

[4:46:08] businesses are not left carrying the financial burden of a public crisis

[4:46:13] alone. That is inconsistency. That is respon that is responsible

[4:46:20] governance. As a member of this council and as the

[4:46:26] alder representing district 20, I believe our decision should be fair,

[4:46:32] consistent, and responsive to the people who depend on city government to act

[4:46:38] when extraordinary circumstances arise. The contingent reserve should be

[4:46:45] protected from unnecessary spending, but it should also be used when a genuine

[4:46:53] unanticipated need arises. This was one of those moments.

[4:47:03] And I read that because um um I do not want to have it

[4:47:11] considered is that I'm crossing the line. What I'm saying is is that

[4:47:17] the city has some responsibility as well. The question to be answered, what

[4:47:23] was expected, what happened, and what needs to change. A contingency fund is a

[4:47:32] dedicated tool of money, dedicated pool of money set

[4:47:39] aside to pay for unexpected expenses or financial emergencies.

[4:47:47] [snorts] Accountability does not end at the IM's

[4:47:52] office. It includes the mayor's office, common council leadership, and it

[4:47:59] includes the common council. So, ends my reading.

[4:48:06] » Thank you, Alder.

[4:48:09] » All right. Item 59 has been moved and seconded. Is there further discussion?

[4:48:14] Alderfield. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, I am sympathetic

[4:48:17] with the intent behind this motion out of love for this part of the city, which

[4:48:21] is near where I my husband and I live before we moved further east. This was

[4:48:25] one of several reasons why I oppose the street closure and its occupation.

[4:48:29] However, I can't get past my discomfort with the city using its extremely

[4:48:32] limited resources to backfill business revenues when there's so much more that

[4:48:36] we are asked to fund, but that the city cannot afford. If the council adopts

[4:48:40] this amendment, I don't know what we're supposed to tell businesses around the

[4:48:43] city who face revenue disruptions from the city's own streets reconstruction

[4:48:47] projects, which we just asked them to eat. The city is not in a financial

[4:48:52] position to do it all, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. I'm going

[4:48:55] to vote no. >> Thank you, Alder. Alder Jeang.

[4:49:03] » In the past month and a half, I have spent time along Williamson Street. I

[4:49:08] have been to the community circle at Demetrol Park and um have helped with

[4:49:14] item recovery at the church parking lot and I have also contributed context in

[4:49:21] conversations led by community members um to support the workers who have lost

[4:49:26] their working hours um and faced risks of meeting their own need or of not

[4:49:32] being able to meet their own needs while supporting other people in service of

[4:49:36] what society should look like um and yet at the same time governing

[4:49:43] is about responsibility and it's about our limits and so there are asks there

[4:49:48] have been asks made of us as Madison's decision makers that we would really

[4:49:55] greatly struggle to fulfill at any time. Um but in light of this concern, I had

[4:50:02] looked into where this [snorts] funding is coming from and in light of the fact

[4:50:07] that this is within the EDDD um and then within

[4:50:15] planning and from under spending within EDDD and also um planning and community

[4:50:21] and economic development. Um, it seems like this is a time where we have some

[4:50:27] leverage to be able to try to start and do something.

[4:50:32] And I guess to bring it back to an anecdote, um, while talking to an

[4:50:36] organizer, they said that if it was not for the positive memories at their

[4:50:42] favorite bar, Crystal Corner, um, they would not have been able to come back to

[4:50:46] this site of trauma. Um and so it really to me highlighted how these businesses

[4:50:55] these businesses are not only circulating money within um and for

[4:51:00] neighbors and Madison but also to provide positive grounding experiences

[4:51:06] for everyone um and can serve as reminders of what [snorts] is possible,

[4:51:14] what is positive and how to ground people.

[4:51:19] Thank you, Alder. I have no other alders in the queue

[4:51:26] wishing to speak. Right. So, item 59 has been moved and

[4:51:33] seconded, anticipating disagreement. All those in favor of the uh substitute,

[4:51:42] we'll have a roll call. Don't worry, Alder.

[4:51:44] Um, all those in favor of the substitute uh will say I. Those opposed, no. As

[4:51:53] your name is called and the clerk will please call the role.

[4:51:56] » Thank you. >> Alder mayor.

[4:51:58] » Hi. >> Aler mayor I.

[4:52:02] » Alder Enseu >> I.

[4:52:04] » Alder Segu I. Alder O'Brien. >> No.

[4:52:07] » Alder Brian. No. Alder Ohich. >> Alder Hovich. No. Alder Pritchette.

[4:52:11] » No. >> Alder Pritchette. No. Alder Tistler.

[4:52:15] » Uh, no. >> Alder Tistler. No. Alder.

[4:52:18] » I. >> Alder. I. Alder Vidver.

[4:52:22] » I. >> Alder Ver. I. Alder. Jang.

[4:52:26] » Ilder. >> Jang. I. Alder Evers.

[4:52:30] » I. >> Alder Evers. I. Alder. Field.

[4:52:32] » No. >> Alderfield. No. Alder Figuro Cole.

[4:52:36] » No. Aler. >> Figural. Cole. No. Alder Glenn.

[4:52:40] » Alder Glenn. I alter. I >> Gar I Alder Harrington McKenna

[4:52:45] » I >> Alder Harrington McKenna I

[4:52:48] » terribly sorry Alder Gar could you repeat your vote for me please

[4:52:58] » I'm terribly sorry about that

[4:53:02] » Linkella >> I link I Lieberman

[4:53:05] » I Lieberman I Madison >> no

[4:53:09] » Madison no Martinez Rutherford.

[4:53:13] » Martinez Rutherford. I Alder Matthews >> I.

[4:53:16] » Matthews. I We have 13 eyes and seven nos.

[4:53:20] » With 13 eyes and seven nos. The motion fails. It is a budget amendment. So it

[4:53:25] requires 15 votes. All right. That will take us then to

[4:53:33] item 60 which is legisar 94261 amending the 2026 adopted operating budget by

[4:53:40] transferring funds from the contingent reserve to the office of the independent

[4:53:45] monitor for additional staffing and services costs and directing staff to

[4:53:49] provide a full accounting of costs associated with the city's critical

[4:53:52] incident response between July 22nd, 2026 and September 8th, 2026. six. Uh,

[4:54:00] on item 60, a motion, please. Alder Matthews.

[4:54:07] » Um, >> or did you have questions for staff?

[4:54:10] » I was buzzing in to do questions for staff, but I can make a motion.

[4:54:14] » We can go to questions for staff first. Go ahead, Alder.

[4:54:17] » Okay. Um, so this question comes from the previous um, presentation that was

[4:54:25] just given for item 59. Um, and so I just wanted to ask to be sure because I

[4:54:31] also noticed that this item is not listed under needing a supermajority. Is

[4:54:38] that because it's underneath the $50,000 limit that can be administratively

[4:54:45] transferred out of the contingent reserve? Did I see that correctly on the

[4:54:49] slide or is this just like a mistake? it it's because the motion from finance

[4:54:56] committee is to place on file which doesn't require 15 votes.

[4:54:59] » Okay. >> So to affirmatively to pass it if if the

[4:55:02] motion was changed to adopt it would require 15 votes.

[4:55:07] » Could I have the motion be to have staff

[4:55:12] administratively transfer the amount out of

[4:55:16] » No. If the council I mean it staff if staff want to administratively transfer

[4:55:22] something they the council doesn't speak to that.

[4:55:25] » Mhm. Okay. That's fair. I just had seen that and that wasn't something that had

[4:55:29] gone or been brought up in any of my previous conversations. So thank you.

[4:55:34] » Thank you. Alder Alder Lieberman. Questions for staff?

[4:55:38] » Yes. Um, I was hoping if uh uh Monitor Glass uh was available for questions. If

[4:55:46] not, um I know Greg is here, but I had some questions regarding uh how the

[4:55:53] office of the independent monitor would use the funds.

[4:55:58] » I think Alder Matthews might be able to speak to that. Um I I just specifically

[4:56:02] wanted to know for the amount that is uh dedicated for training and conferences

[4:56:07] if we could just get some more specifics on what those training and conferences

[4:56:12] were and specifically uh how they would help with the taking

[4:56:18] on the additional workload that had been mentioned uh before

[4:56:22] due to the the Cory Ruiz shooting. >> Alder Matthews, are you able to speak to

[4:56:29] that? Yeah. Um I can speak to that. I think so. Um it is specifically for and

[4:56:35] I think it's in the body of the resolution but for um I think seven

[4:56:42] board members and staff to be able to go to Nicole this year. Um and

[4:56:49] while that does not um immediately

[4:56:54] move forward actions um that relate to the needs from this

[4:57:01] event. Um it is a very clear way that money could

[4:57:08] be invested into the office this year and spent this year. Um there are a lot

[4:57:13] of um restrictions. It was very hard to find even money that

[4:57:19] we could give them because they have such a small capacity to be able to even

[4:57:24] spend additional money. Um and I know that many folks have a lot of

[4:57:30] concerns when it comes to some of the oversight or the

[4:57:37] accountability of the office. And I had noticed in some of my research that we

[4:57:43] really cut their training and conference budget basically right before the

[4:57:49] majority of the count like the new board came on. Um so this seemed like an

[4:57:55] investment that we could make now to help

[4:58:00] um have a better board and office functioning in 2027.

[4:58:07] um if [snorts] that kind of helps. Thank you all. There are there

[4:58:12] additional questions for staff.

[4:58:17] Seeing none, then President Madison, a motion, please.

[4:58:22] Uh

[4:58:27] » can you hear me? >> Yes. So just to make sure I am sure um

[4:58:32] what's before us is to pass the finance committee's motion to place on file. So

[4:58:38] motion to place on file. >> The motion out of finances to place on

[4:58:42] file. Is there a second?

[4:58:49] Moved and seconded to place on file. Uh is there discussion on item 60? Alder

[4:58:56] Glenn. Yeah, I'm not going to uh I've said

[4:59:00] enough at finance the other week. I'm not going to talk about the 28,500

[4:59:05] indirectly. Um

[4:59:10] cuz I'm not I mean if we couldn't [clears throat] pass $100,000 I I'm not

[4:59:14] going to even give anyone the pleasure. Um,

[4:59:18] what I'd like to say is that when I decided to run for an al as an alder,

[4:59:27] I did it because most of the community knew me as a system disruptor, like in

[4:59:33] human form. I wanted to get in and stop the gatekeeping and the upholding

[4:59:41] um and the continuous of watching people like me be killed in the streets and

[4:59:48] sent to prison and disorderly conducts at a rate that puts

[4:59:54] our city on a map that we shouldn't be on if

[4:59:59] we're who we say we are. And then what I found out was that

[5:00:06] nobody wants to challenge it. And today uh

[5:00:10] Joanne Campbell passed away, one of the mother of Rebecca Kimell.

[5:00:17] And um it made me think of Rebecca and how she was willing to and those alders

[5:00:23] to challenge the status quo at a time when you know even then h said they it's

[5:00:29] going to get challenged and they still did it. Um

[5:00:33] because that's what you're supposed to do is

[5:00:37] learn a system and then challenge it and push it all the way to its limit if that

[5:00:44] limit is causing harm. to people that are under reppresented

[5:00:50] and underserved.

[5:00:54] There were double the amount of people showed up on August 4th than did for the

[5:01:00] night of the PCOB that we got that ordinance through and

[5:01:06] we had double the amount. And then I hear things about templates and people

[5:01:12] not understanding it. And I just don't know what

[5:01:17] we want from our community anymore. I don't know if you want them to show up,

[5:01:22] do you want them to write? Do you want them to beg?

[5:01:26] Um,

[5:01:30] I know for the next year and a half, I'm going to work on educating the community

[5:01:35] and doing what I do best, which is disrupt the system and stay true to

[5:01:41] myself. I'm not interested in the power of it. I'm not interested in having

[5:01:46] power. I was never interested in get becoming an alder for the next thing

[5:01:51] that I could do. I did it because the community needs

[5:01:55] people like me that'll say the things and not in the back room but to each

[5:02:01] other's face and not discuss things in back rooms but to each other's

[5:02:06] [clears throat] face.

[5:02:10] I'll take the next year and a half to educate the community because I'm pretty

[5:02:13] sure at most [clears throat] ways things that I believe in will be challenged as

[5:02:19] most of the black women who have been an alder left with scars that are

[5:02:24] unhealable that I've spoke to.

[5:02:28] So,

[5:02:32] I'll fight for their budget when budget time comes. Um, but I'm going to fight

[5:02:38] to educate the community to make sure they're sitting at these

[5:02:42] tables next year. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alder. Alder Lieberman.

[5:02:49] » Thank you. Um, I I I there's not much I can say better than that. What I will

[5:02:55] say is this. I'm I'm not naive. I know that there aren't uh 15 votes to uh

[5:03:04] pass this motion if it were if it were made uh to adopt and I I don't think

[5:03:09] that there are the 10 required to stop it from being placed on file. Um, but

[5:03:14] what this vote is about is about a recognition for me of the things that

[5:03:19] are fundamentally wrong with policing, not just in this city, but

[5:03:25] uh in in this country at large. And I know that $28,000 is not going to fix

[5:03:32] the racial disparities. Um, body cameras are not going to fix racial disparities.

[5:03:38] An independent monitor's office that's fully funded and operational on its own

[5:03:41] will not be enough to fix all of the problems that are fundamentally wrong

[5:03:44] with policing here. But what I want the folks who spoke at this meeting, at our

[5:03:48] last meeting, and all of the meetings in between to know is that these are

[5:03:52] concerns that I take seriously and that my colleagues on this board take

[5:03:58] seriously. And if you are somebody who is on the fence about how to vote on

[5:04:03] this motion, just consider the symbolic weight that this vote can have,

[5:04:09] especially with budget season coming up in letting folks know that we want there

[5:04:14] are things that need to be fixed about the OIM's uh about the office. There are

[5:04:20] things that need to be fixed about the PCO. There are thing there are certainly

[5:04:24] things that need to be fixed about policing in our city. and that this is

[5:04:29] not something we are sherking off. That this is a

[5:04:33] challenge that we are going to tackle headon and that we are going to make

[5:04:37] sure that the concerns of the people that the fears and the hopes of the

[5:04:42] people who have been reaching out in mass since this horrible thing happened

[5:04:49] that we are hearing that that we are acting on it and we are doing our duty

[5:04:52] as alders to address those concerns.

[5:04:58] Thank you, Alder. Alder Pritchette. >> Yes. [clears throat]

[5:05:04] You know, I I I'm sitting here and I'm listening and I'm thinking and

[5:05:12] I do support the structure structure

[5:05:19] of the office PC NIM. I support it.

[5:05:26] But I cannot defend the occupants of this structure.

[5:05:33] The amount of toxicity, the amount of vitriol

[5:05:38] that has gone on between this office is awful.

[5:05:45] It's awful. I said before that the office of the OIM

[5:05:51] and PCO is in its infancy. I am yet to see any growth. [snorts]

[5:06:00] Growth that will allow me to say that things can change. The amount of

[5:06:08] subjectivity, no objectivity.

[5:06:12] It's me against you. It's like putting two people in a paper bag and I don't

[5:06:19] know who's going to come out first. It's that bad. I'm also saying too that

[5:06:26] when we start looking at and I do agree that $28,500

[5:06:32] is spit. It's nothing.

[5:06:37] But I don't care how much it is. I will demand how you're going to spend it. I

[5:06:43] want to know how you're going to spend it. I haven't seen a plan.

[5:06:49] I have no idea what you're going to do with it in terms of training because

[5:06:53] training needs to take place. When I think about the current

[5:06:58] composition of the PCO, the things that have been

[5:07:03] said to me, I'll mute you. That's a problem.

[5:07:10] That's a real problem. I don't know what the intake procedure

[5:07:14] is. No idea.

[5:07:18] If you have a case, what's the first thing you do? How do you go about

[5:07:23] assessing what the needs are with respect to the people who will be

[5:07:28] investigating? These are things that need to be known.

[5:07:32] These are things that need to be written down. This is the plan that you're going

[5:07:36] to use and you're going to pursue in terms of a case.

[5:07:41] Until I can see that, until I have some comfort in knowing that this is what you

[5:07:48] want to do and I see that it makes a difference and that we can grow from

[5:07:54] there, then I'll all with it. But for now, the answer is no.

[5:08:01] Thank you. [snorts] >> Thank you, Alder. Alder mayor.

[5:08:06] » Thank you, Mayor. Uh I have long supported the mission of the PCOB and

[5:08:10] OIM. Um I've gotten to know uh members of the PCOB and the the data analysis

[5:08:17] and the OAM over the past year. Um as to Elder Pritchette's point,

[5:08:23] sometimes you know the OM and and PCB have done fantastic work and other times

[5:08:27] they do things that that frustrate the hell of me. Uh they I should say they do

[5:08:31] things not the way I would have done them. But uh that office will outlast

[5:08:35] the occupants just as this common council will outlast all of us and

[5:08:40] because of that support. I mean I think I know how the the way the vote is going

[5:08:43] but I support funding the the OM PCO. I support increasing that funding but I

[5:08:49] also incre support support working on that structure a lot and I know it's

[5:08:52] annoying that we keep coming back to try to fine-tune it. But I do think that a

[5:08:56] lot of the problems we have are because uh it was never given the funding it

[5:08:59] needed at the beginning to really be effective. And so we are um

[5:09:04] [clears throat] we're criticizing something that's in its infancy that's

[5:09:06] also been malnourished and hasn't been able to fully grow into what it ought to

[5:09:10] be. So I am I will not support the motion which supports

[5:09:16] the PCB. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alder Alder Matthews.

[5:09:23] » You may um first I want to say that the $28,500

[5:09:28] is spit. It's basically nothing. Um, this uh budget resolution ask is a

[5:09:35] result of trying to be as reasonable as possible and take all of our budget

[5:09:40] limitations into account. I am not and was never asking us for a million

[5:09:47] dollars tonight. Um, I don't think this ask is anywhere near sufficient to

[5:09:51] address the additional need for capacity. I also don't think additional

[5:09:55] funds alone will be enough to resolve every conflict between the city office

[5:10:01] board and community. [clears throat] The additional training allowed by this

[5:10:06] resolution um is a step in the right direction.

[5:10:11] But this money is a token, an olive branch to move us even a step forward

[5:10:17] while we commit to doing the work needed while we commit to doing the work needed

[5:10:23] to ensure the structural questions are addressed such that this council is

[5:10:27] comfortable or I guess a future council but I'm hopeful that it could be this

[5:10:32] council is comfortable to for the first time fund the office at a level that

[5:10:38] allow them to perform the duties that the community that us as a council

[5:10:44] and that the ordinance demands. Um I also just want to say that we did get

[5:10:52] several well we got a lot of emails [clears throat] um in our all alder

[5:10:56] inbox as we have since July 22nd. Um, and especially I think there are like

[5:11:02] five that we got just today and maybe the tail end of yesterday that have

[5:11:07] extremely good points and that I hope that all of you and all of us read. Um,

[5:11:13] one specifically, I'm not going to read the whole thing. Um, but I do want to

[5:11:17] read an excerpt and then just a tiny snippet from the end of the email that

[5:11:21] we got from Michelle Robinson who among other things served as the first

[5:11:26] inspector general for the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families.

[5:11:31] [clears throat] Politics and policy are often

[5:11:35] intertwined, particularly in government, but they are not the same thing. As

[5:11:40] someone whose work has largely centered on policy, systems change, and

[5:11:44] institutional design, I find myself much more interested in getting underneath

[5:11:49] the political noise of this moment to the policy and governance questions that

[5:11:54] will remain long after the current controversy and the people involved in

[5:11:58] it have changed. And right now, I worry that we are losing that conversation.

[5:12:04] The politics surrounding OIM and PCOB have become intensely personalized. And

[5:12:10] I don't mean only the current monitor or OIM staff. At this point, the motives

[5:12:15] and conduct of nearly every actor involved are being contested. There are

[5:12:19] concerns and allegations involving OIM leadership and staff. The mayor and city

[5:12:24] administration are being accused of undermining the office. Alders are being

[5:12:29] characterized as either defending or dismantling civilian oversight. The

[5:12:34] chief and MPD are also part of this increasingly politicized environment.

[5:12:39] Some of those concerns may be legitimate and require resolution. I am not

[5:12:44] suggesting that the politics or the conduct of individuals do not matter.

[5:12:48] But I worry that questions about people, personalities, motives, and individual

[5:12:54] conflicts are becoming comp conflated with a fundamentally different set of

[5:12:59] questions about institutions. Does Madison remain committed to

[5:13:03] meaningful civilian oversight of policing? What does genuine independence

[5:13:08] require? What accountability should exist for the oversight institutions

[5:13:12] themselves? And what structure will allow OIM and PCOB to function

[5:13:18] effectively when their work inevitably creates discomfort for the city and the

[5:13:23] institutions they oversee. Um, then there's a lot more about her personal

[5:13:29] experience with this kind of work and some other things. And then this last

[5:13:33] little snippet, the test of our commitment to independent civilian

[5:13:36] oversight was therefore never going to come when oversight was comfortable. It

[5:13:42] was always going to come when the work of oversight created discomfort for the

[5:13:47] institutions and people being overseen. Um, and so I would just like again to

[5:13:53] encourage everyone to read this email. Um, and really think about this as we

[5:13:58] move forward to budget season because we do need to have the tough conversations

[5:14:02] and I am intending to do everything that I can to have them. Um, and I welcome

[5:14:08] anyone else that wants to join me. Thank you.

[5:14:11] » Thank you, Alder. Alder Jean, >> I'd just like to clarify

[5:14:18] is the motion right now to place the amendment on file and so

[5:14:25] voting I would effectively do nothing with because the the budget would not be

[5:14:30] changed. Voting no would mean that something else would have to happen.

[5:14:35] That's correct. So the motion is to place on file and I vote would place the

[5:14:39] item on file. There would be no budget amendment. Uh, a no vote would mean that

[5:14:45] you want to continue the discussion and potentially another motion could be

[5:14:50] made. >> Okay. Thank you.

[5:14:54] » Thank you, Alder. Alder Madison.

[5:15:00] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had not planned to speak because I feel like I said

[5:15:05] everything I had to say at finance, but I wanna um to Alder Matthew's last

[5:15:10] comments, one of the reasons why I decided to go ahead and speak is because

[5:15:14] I actually spoke to Michelle Robinson. She's one of my constituents. We had a

[5:15:17] very long conversation and there were some things she was like, you know,

[5:15:21] maybe if you can share this because her opinion was that what she was hearing

[5:15:26] specifically about me um was not who she knew me to be. And so I explained I'm

[5:15:30] not, you know, people are gonna, you know, create all kind of fantasies about

[5:15:34] me such a life. I'm not going to allow that to sort of change who I am. So I'm

[5:15:37] not going to focus on who I am as an alder because I don't feel the need to

[5:15:41] defend my own record. But I really want to focus on what this council has done

[5:15:46] in the last at least since I've been regarding this office. It is we have

[5:15:51] overwhelmingly supported this office. So, I'm I'm not going to pretend like

[5:15:55] I'm not voting no because I'm going to or vote yes to put on the file for a lot

[5:15:59] of reasons that I won't get into because I've already gotten into it. But the

[5:16:03] council from my history of being on council since fall 2022 has

[5:16:07] overwhelmingly supported this office. Actually, despite how what is it the

[5:16:12] distortions um have been out there, the majority of alters who hit me up about

[5:16:18] potential next steps, their questions, asking for more information, which led

[5:16:22] me to get the summary document, for example, no one's come to me to say,

[5:16:27] "Sabrina, answer this question for me so we can figure out how to dismantle it."

[5:16:30] Or, "Sabrina, answer this question for me and get me information so I can learn

[5:16:33] how to defund it." That has never come up. Everybody has been overwhelmingly

[5:16:37] supportive. So, I just want to go back to a couple things and my apologies for

[5:16:41] being all over because I was like, you know, whatever what I'll do or not do.

[5:16:45] But I I've never been a fan of symbolic nor performative gestures because they

[5:16:50] do a whole lot of harm to the community when we do things that are symbolic or

[5:16:54] performative, for example. So, I've always been a fan of like just actually

[5:16:58] doing the work and accomplishing the work. Some of that work where I was

[5:17:01] included is for example last year where the council voted 17 to3 to not defund

[5:17:07] the office because the operating amendment that was put the floor

[5:17:11] amendment for operating budget would have purchased zero cameras. Sure it

[5:17:16] would have given MPD some operating dollars towards you know their eventual

[5:17:19] cost but we would have defunded the office and we would have purchased zero

[5:17:24] cameras where the public sort of assumed that we would have been able to buy

[5:17:27] cameras. This council voted 17 to3. I'm not going to go over who were the the

[5:17:31] three because the majority said we don't want to defund the office.

[5:17:37] » It doesn't we regardless still also supports the work

[5:17:42] of the office. I'm confident of it. She just wants some things addressed like a

[5:17:46] lot of us. So, um, the other thing I want to say because I'm confident Chair

[5:17:51] Pearson will listen to this eventually and if they're members of the PCOB here,

[5:17:54] they may listen to that or they'll come backwards and listen to this. I want to

[5:17:58] say I appreciate my or Chair Pearson because we did sit down and talk about

[5:18:02] the challenges um both operational conflicts and maybe a different of

[5:18:07] opinions. this council and I won't share the alders who hit me up but there were

[5:18:10] alders who uh were expecting that amendments would come back after our

[5:18:15] April meeting from alders Glenn or vice president Glenn and alder Matthews we

[5:18:19] didn't get those things back there were also who hit me up who expected some

[5:18:23] sort of I think maybe community something else they expected that thing

[5:18:26] did not happen so I want to the reason I bring that up is because whereas a

[5:18:30] community is being told that this city or these this body wants to dismantle it

[5:18:35] actually the questions that I get are always in the affirm are always in the

[5:18:38] positive. Hey, can you give me an update order on this? It is not because this

[5:18:44] thing didn't happen, tell me how I kill it. It's never been that despite the

[5:18:48] distortions that are overwhelmingly killing people's ideas about us, for

[5:18:53] example. So, I also uh I want to go back to Alder Rumble and

[5:18:58] I I believe it was I'm 47 now, so it was either two budgets ago or three bes I

[5:19:02] think it was two budgets ago. Alder Rumble and I worked really hard because

[5:19:06] again ne Rumble was very old school. I had some of the hardest conversations

[5:19:12] I've had to have about taking money from an agency or staff in order to give it

[5:19:16] to someone else. That was my first time experience doing that because for the

[5:19:20] library I didn't have to do that. I didn't have to beg to take money from

[5:19:23] the agency or kill someone's job to give it to somewhere else. So we were very

[5:19:26] emotional maybe two budgets ago when there was a budget cut um to the office.

[5:19:30] I don't know, $120 some odd thousand or $199 some thousand. Alder Rumble and I

[5:19:36] worked really hard strategically. We focused on what repair can we do in

[5:19:41] the office versus what we didn't focus on harm. I see so much harm being

[5:19:46] created with a bunch of dis disinformation, misinformation, and

[5:19:50] literally sometimes outright BS. So, Alder R and I did not focus in that

[5:19:54] direction. and we focused on what can we do to repair things so this council

[5:19:59] would support our freaking amendment. So we I can't remember the exact money the

[5:20:02] exact number but it was $120 some thousand. It went back I believe to

[5:20:06] staffing cost potentially and this council overwhelmingly supported I can't

[5:20:10] remember what the numbers were but we got that the council supported. So

[5:20:14] there's another opportunity of this council supporting that office. I have

[5:20:18] lost count of the number of times in our um council meetings when we're talking

[5:20:23] about reports from the office. For example, Alder Evers, probably like

[5:20:26] myself, we can be nerdy about some things. And Alder Evers has never come

[5:20:30] to me to say, "How can we kill this office based on a report we might not

[5:20:34] have gotten or an update? It's always been we would like this thing so we can

[5:20:39] move forward." So again, I want to say when we talk about reports, it's just

[5:20:42] like, hey, we just want this thing to happen. And I feel like that improvement

[5:20:45] has happened from the office, for example. One reason why I brought Nicole

[5:20:49] to the comic council, unfortunately, we had this freaking tragic, insane tragedy

[5:20:54] that happened the next day after Nicole presented to the council, was not some

[5:20:58] finessing that was fed to the community about why we had Nico. It was like

[5:21:03] because this freaking council had not heard from Nico. I am a nerd 100%. I

[5:21:09] like to learn. Other council members love to learn. So I in the council

[5:21:14] budget used our money to pay for for Nicole to come to present to the

[5:21:20] council. They gave a fabulous presentation but some of the things that

[5:21:24] they brought up is like I don't know we we don't need to play games and pre

[5:21:27] pretend what's happening is not happening. Some of what they brought up

[5:21:30] is like the threats to legitimacy. We can see now that there are tons of

[5:21:34] threats to the legitimacy of the office based on what we see and oftentimes

[5:21:37] unfortunately created by other alders. It is the this toxicity is threatening

[5:21:43] the legitimacy of the office as Nicole told us months ago. That is what is

[5:21:49] happening. Nicole also told us the reason I appreciate chair Pearson for

[5:21:54] sitting agreeing to sit down with me is because when we dropped the amendments,

[5:21:57] we dropped the amendments because we are human beings and there's no way we're

[5:22:00] going to be talking about some dang on amendments when somebody just got shot

[5:22:03] three times in the head in the middle of a freaking city street. That made no

[5:22:07] sense to do that. But it was not to say we don't agree because people were

[5:22:10] pumping this thing out there like oh we won. I'm like are y'all you know what is

[5:22:14] happening here. It was not about we won or we lost. It was we are going to

[5:22:18] figure out this at another time when it makes more sense because what still

[5:22:22] exists the challenges that we were trying to address. And after the Nicole

[5:22:27] presentation I'm confident that the sponsors including myself were going to

[5:22:31] sit back down again to edit because what do we believe in? Repair versus harm.

[5:22:35] and Nicole was there to help us figure out what we might need to edit in those

[5:22:40] amendments as well. The other thing Nicole shared with this body that I

[5:22:43] notice doesn't get shared out publicly very much so is that it is natural and

[5:22:50] normal for ordinances for these kinds of offices to be updated over time because

[5:22:55] you don't know what you don't know until you experience what you need to know. So

[5:23:00] it was not a dismantle or kill or defund. it was updating and then again

[5:23:06] we never got back amendments from the two alders who said they would bring

[5:23:09] something back to us. Those things never happen. Maybe they they'll go back and

[5:23:12] work on them. Such is life. So I just want to say again there are so many

[5:23:17] examples since I've been on this body since October 2022 where this council

[5:23:23] has overwhelmingly supported. I want to say again, despite what some of this

[5:23:28] mess you all have been fed, not one single member of this body has hit me

[5:23:34] up. My oh, let me make sure makes sure I clear about this. Our records are

[5:23:39] public. You can read our emails. You can read our text. It's all out there. You

[5:23:43] can read it. Not one single of the other 19 auditors has ever ever come to me or

[5:23:51] not even the mayor. Let make sure I put the mayor because I know how y'all love

[5:23:54] to be like an in mayor is the mayor and I don't be having conversations about

[5:23:57] this office. This is like a it was created by common council ordinance not

[5:24:01] the mayor. So I just want to say this body you you don't need to believe me

[5:24:07] you can review the record you can review the meetings I come to when we come to

[5:24:12] PCO B meetings sometimes despite us coming to learn and to listen we get

[5:24:16] talked out we get we get t caught all kind of stuff or whatever and and we

[5:24:21] just sit through it. It's just like, you know what? I get they upset ain't got

[5:24:24] nothing to do with me or whatever. I'm not going to take it personal. I'mma

[5:24:26] still come and sit and learn in these meetings because I got sort of like this

[5:24:30] is not helping. I just watch them now and replay. I go back and watch them

[5:24:34] after the fact. But what I've learned, the last thing I want to make sure I say

[5:24:37] is that think about what you want to exist. I

[5:24:42] appreciate Dr. Robinson for reaching out to us. The the office is not just a

[5:24:48] responsibility of the council. Yes, by ordinance. Yes, it is. But it's also

[5:24:52] resp the responsibility of the community. Do you want something to

[5:24:55] exist? How do you want to get there on what you want this to exist? Do you do

[5:24:59] you want it to exist where it's created in sort of the foundation is toxicity?

[5:25:03] Do you want it to be do we want to get towards some level of repair? That's why

[5:25:08] I've been successful in just about everything I've accomplished because my

[5:25:12] focus has been on repair, on fixing, on being solution focused. I don't need to

[5:25:16] hate on nobody in order to get there. None of us do. And none of this body has

[5:25:21] reached out to me hating on this office to get us there. It has been

[5:25:25] overwhelmingly how what can I get more information? I

[5:25:30] just want to make sure I repeat that. It is not just me who has supported this

[5:25:34] office. It is alders who have voted yes to support what I have supported. When I

[5:25:40] went back and tried to get more money, it was this body who said yes. Last year

[5:25:44] when Alders put up a thing to defund it, 17 of us said no to defunding it. When

[5:25:50] Alder goes on about reports, we've all supported what he has asked for for the

[5:25:55] most part. I don't know what the numbers are. So again, I just want to say I

[5:25:58] really wish we can walk out of here tonight and sort of have a reset on how

[5:26:03] we think about what this body wants and how we get to sort of this thing that is

[5:26:09] beautiful and that is brilliant. Not that it isn't now, but we cannot be

[5:26:12] pretending that we don't have issues to address. So, let me just make sure.

[5:26:16] Mayor, I'm sorry. I know you looking at me. Let me just make sure I get, you

[5:26:18] know, uh, Yep. Okay. I think I hit it all.

[5:26:24] Okay. Thank you. My bad. Thanks for your patience.

[5:26:27] » Thank you, Elder. Alder Evers. >> Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, fellow

[5:26:33] council members and members of the public who spoken up. Lots of things

[5:26:37] have been said. powerful things have been said

[5:26:41] um in reference to the issue about politics and what um Dr. Robinson wrote

[5:26:47] and I along with Matthews encourage everybody to read that email.

[5:26:53] Um, it's important, I think, for us to

[5:27:00] think clearly about what is before us right now and why my

[5:27:07] vote in favor of placing this on file

[5:27:13] is centered on not wanting to support the status quo of what we have right now

[5:27:19] at the risk of not drawing attention to the things that I think are crushing the

[5:27:26] effectiveness of the OIM.

[5:27:30] I'm at a place similar to where I was shortly after Corey was killed where at

[5:27:36] that time I said that two things could be true at the same time. That what

[5:27:40] happened to him was unnecessary. It was awful. It was terrible. But I also

[5:27:45] thought that a protest that morphed into a homeless encampment making demands

[5:27:50] that could not be met was distracting us from working on the various issues and

[5:27:57] the policies that could prevent something like this from happening

[5:28:01] again. I'm in a similar place today where two

[5:28:06] things in my opinion can be true at once. that independent police oversight

[5:28:11] is absolutely absolutely necessary, but what we have

[5:28:17] right now is not working. President Madison made reference to that

[5:28:23] Nicole meeting and as you recall I had a question that was asked and it was

[5:28:28] referencing the impass that I think has been exemplified and expressed clearly

[5:28:35] in tonight's meeting and you know I I said that the um we

[5:28:42] seem to be at an impass. The activist community claims alders and the mayor

[5:28:47] are beholden to the police union, though most of us have never received or sought

[5:28:52] their endorsement. Meetings on the topic carry a on a conspiratorial tone,

[5:28:57] arguing that alders and the mayor are trying to destroy the OIM and the PCO

[5:29:02] and the OIM is supporting this narrative. The divide is wide and the

[5:29:07] acrimony is over the top. We've heard that tonight. There's been talk of a

[5:29:12] reset. I had a conversation with with chair Pearson uh in a restaurant after

[5:29:17] the April meeting about what that recite could look like, but it's not happened.

[5:29:22] How do we overcome this divide? What would Nicole advised? and Nicole's

[5:29:27] director of training paused as you recall before responding and basically

[5:29:32] said it sounded sounds like you need professional mediation

[5:29:39] warning that if the impass were allowed to continue it could threaten it would

[5:29:44] threaten the legitimacy of the office. Weeks later, there's been no reset and

[5:29:50] the divide has widened. The interim independent monitor and the OIM's data

[5:29:57] analysts routinely take to social media, vilifying fellow city employees,

[5:30:03] imputing the character of members of this body, attacking the mayor, making

[5:30:10] claims and accu accusations that reveal a complete lack of interest in improving

[5:30:16] these relationships. Greg Gallenbeck corrected me regarding

[5:30:22] his Facebook post. Um, one thing is undeniable though. He showed a picture

[5:30:29] of a white police officer holding a gun to the head of a black man and included

[5:30:35] the tagline gang and blue. What is equally undeniable or what is undeniable

[5:30:43] that's inflammatory that's incendiary and is grossly irresponsible.

[5:30:49] I get it that there's anger, there's profound grief and sadness, the

[5:30:53] unanswered calls for justice. And I get it from my conversation just now with

[5:30:58] Greg or during the intermission that we had earlier that it's out of frustration

[5:31:03] that that motivates a lot of these posts on social media. uh frustration that

[5:31:09] they're not getting the evidence and the response from MPD that they expect and

[5:31:14] deserve, but that's not an excuse for

[5:31:18] unprofessional behavior on the part of a city employee. The OIM job description

[5:31:24] states that the monitor quote will set the office's operational philosophy and

[5:31:30] develop and maintain standard operating procedures to ensure all matters are

[5:31:36] handled in a thorough, objective, fair, and impartial manner.

[5:31:42] That's not happening right now. It's clear we had some journalists here who

[5:31:46] were here earlier. If a journalist was covering a protest, a march down the

[5:31:52] street, but also participating in that protest and that march on the street,

[5:31:57] the legitimacy and credibility of that journalist would

[5:32:01] be at stake. No longer a neutral arbiter of facts, I

[5:32:07] am Glass and her office have have traded impartiality and objectivity for the

[5:32:13] passion of an activist. In so doing, she has torched OIM's credibility and

[5:32:20] greatly diminished its ability to provide effective police oversight.

[5:32:26] I have one last point and that's this. I am Glass is the interim monitor.

[5:32:32] Accordingly, a significant portion of her job description was to be as the

[5:32:38] hiring manager for a permanent replacement. It's my understanding that

[5:32:43] little or no progress has been made in this regard. Uh she has not put much

[5:32:49] time at all in the hiring of a permanent independent monitor. And it's for these

[5:32:54] reasons that I cannot in good conscious support even this

[5:33:00] you know spit of money of additional funding for the office of the

[5:33:05] independent monitor. Most Madisonians firmly believe we need independent

[5:33:10] community oversight of the of the police, but they also believe that the

[5:33:14] office as it currently stands is deeply flawed and dysfunctional and that adding

[5:33:20] funding alone will not remedy the situation.

[5:33:25] So, we do need to look to the Dr. Robinsons out there for ways that we can

[5:33:30] try to heal this divide and bring people together because right now we're not

[5:33:35] there. And I don't know how we're going to come back from this. But if we want

[5:33:39] effective police oversight in this community, the toxicity has to go away.

[5:33:45] People need to start talking to one another. People need to get off of

[5:33:49] social media uh Facebook Live and whatever. Cut that

[5:33:54] crap and start working to see what we can do to move forward. Thanks.

[5:34:01] » Thank you, Alder Alder Glenn.

[5:34:06] » [clears throat]

[5:34:13] » I just want to say first of all I have never said any that any elders wanted to

[5:34:18] defund the OIM. So if there's any insinuation with that but I just need to

[5:34:24] just name some things and I don't even care if none of us are sitting here by

[5:34:29] the time I'm done. I am so tired of everybody saying and

[5:34:36] have expectation of the community to follow the rules that you don't follow.

[5:34:44] I'm talking cororum. [sighs] I'm talking about chatting with

[5:34:49] people. I am so tired. I I was to I knew who Greg was and how bad we all hated

[5:34:57] him before I ever met him. I knew how much Ma was an angry black

[5:35:04] woman who wasn't going to be able to make it and how she was making

[5:35:07] everybody's life hard before I ever met her. Everybody hated her because she

[5:35:13] challenged the system. Not everybody. Sorry,

[5:35:17] not those that know no who call

[5:35:23] who challenge. Not you either. Uh, but there I knew

[5:35:30] about who Amelia was, never met her. I knew who all these players were. I had

[5:35:36] to hear about when people come to council and this and that and templates

[5:35:42] and nobody listens. I I don't have to turn your community against you. Nobody

[5:35:49] has to turn the community against us. They're watching us.

[5:35:56] I have tried to protect us in rooms many of times. They're watching us. They're

[5:36:04] changing my mind on who I believed I was working with, not the other way around.

[5:36:16] If you want an office and a person to be this colonized version of what you have

[5:36:24] an expectation of parliament to look like, I'm never going to be that.

[5:36:28] There's a lot of us that are never going to be like that. I'm not your culture.

[5:36:32] Come meet me at mine. I'm angry. Yeah, I'm angry. I got every right to be angry

[5:36:41] living here my whole life.

[5:36:48] When I before I ever met Aram, I had to hear about this woman who was not

[5:36:53] following the rules and I needed to talk to her and she was so angry and this and

[5:36:57] that. And then I met this like docile, educated, pushback person who knew her

[5:37:04] stuff and questioned the system. That's what we're supposed to be doing, not her

[5:37:11] telling us to question.

[5:37:15] There was all this big hoopla for a little while around her questioning the

[5:37:19] subpoena and filing through. We've got to legislate it.

[5:37:24] We have to be able to legislate push I mean, not legislate, take to court the

[5:37:29] ordinance. We're going to have to push against it. That's how you're going to

[5:37:33] find out where it lives and where it's supposed to be. But to say that people

[5:37:37] like like the insinuation that some of us are dividing the community is

[5:37:43] watching and telling me I'm losing my mind for

[5:37:48] believing y'all.

[5:37:51] And the reason I'm so frustrated with you all, it doesn't have anything to do

[5:37:55] with if you funded the OIM or all of the versions of what you've did. It's

[5:38:02] because you won't give the PCO and the OIM what it needs because you hate and

[5:38:09] this is what I've been told by a couple elders about other elders. They hate

[5:38:14] Aramik. They hate Greg.

[5:38:21] And because of that, nobody's going to get anything until

[5:38:25] they're gone. For the first time, we shut a case

[5:38:33] because of her. We have an annual report. We have

[5:38:38] disorderly conduct. We have recommendations for our police. You

[5:38:43] don't like the way she talks. You don't like the way she acts. You don't like

[5:38:47] the way she does this. She's not from here. Go look at how great Baltimore

[5:38:52] turned out after she was done. Go look out how good better San Diego was. When

[5:38:57] we talk about wanting to be nerds and go search stuff, go search her history of

[5:39:02] what she completed by disrupting the system of where she was.

[5:39:08] Cuz I did that for a month before I ever went and talked to her, which is why I

[5:39:11] was one of the last alders to talk to her.

[5:39:17] If you want the community to follow rules, y'all better start following them

[5:39:21] cuz I'm going to make sure that they know everything you do.

[5:39:29] I'm done. >> Thank you, Alder.

[5:39:35] » Alder Madison for the second time. >> Yes. And um I just want to clarify

[5:39:40] something because I know both uh Alder Evers and I mentioned Chair Pearson.

[5:39:44] Common Council Chief of Staff is working to get a schedule with a um I think a

[5:39:50] Nicole referred or provided a referral for a mediator. So, I just want to make

[5:39:54] sure I clarify because I don't think I said where the process is at right now.

[5:39:58] So, just want to provide that clarification.

[5:40:01] » Thank you, Alder Alder Matthews, for the second time.

[5:40:06] » Uh, thanks, Mayor, and thank you for that clarification. That's good to know.

[5:40:10] Um, I'm distracted now. Uh, [snorts] I'm not

[5:40:15] going to get too wild if you want to see me ugly cry about all the reasons that

[5:40:21] this needs to happen. The Monday finance committee meeting is in the public

[5:40:26] record for the rest of digital time. So, it's all there. I said it and I am

[5:40:33] pretty sure I stand by it, but I'm not going to go back and watch it all to be

[5:40:38] frank with everyone. Um, but I just want to, I guess, point out that, yeah, I

[5:40:43] haven't had a single conversation about this that hasn't gotten very heated, not

[5:40:48] necessarily coming from me. Um,

[5:40:52] and I also know as a newer alder [snorts] that

[5:41:01] while there is a lot of culture of um collaboration at the city,

[5:41:07] there is also, you know, if if the folks you're trying

[5:41:12] to work with don't want the same thing that you want, they don't make it easy

[5:41:18] to learn and figure out how to do it. So, I'll leave it there.

[5:41:23] Um, but again, I want to keep having conversations. We need to make this

[5:41:28] happen. >> Thank you, Alder Alder Lieberman.

[5:41:34] » Um, thank you. I'll I'll be >> also for the second time.

[5:41:37] » Yes, >> it's been the last few. Um,

[5:41:42] I I'll be brief about this um because I don't think it's particularly relevant

[5:41:47] to what's being said here. I just wanted to respond briefly to something that uh

[5:41:51] my colleague Alder Evers uh had said uh about the

[5:41:57] um the independent monitor forfeiting legitimacy by partaking in uh protests

[5:42:05] and those actions. God knows I do not agree with everything

[5:42:10] that our monitor has said and done over the last uh few months, but uh I just

[5:42:18] wanted on the record the purpose of the office as defined in the

[5:42:23] ordinance is to ensure that the MPD is accountable and responsive to the needs

[5:42:26] and concerns of all segments of the community. I do not think that being in

[5:42:31] community with people in those protests um and who are calling for

[5:42:36] accountability for MPD is a disqualifying action. I I think we can

[5:42:40] debate some of the other things that uh and the merits of the actions that the

[5:42:45] monitor has taken, but I do not want us to fully write off the possibility that

[5:42:50] it is legitimate for an independent monitor uh to partake in those sorts of

[5:42:55] things in the future. Um, I believe that independent in this case means

[5:42:59] independent from the police and from city politics, not uh independent from

[5:43:06] all lived experience and uh feedback from the community. Thank you.

[5:43:15] » Thank you, Alder. I

[5:43:19] have no other alders in the queue wishing to speak.

[5:43:26] I have no other elders in the queue. So, anticipating disagreement,

[5:43:33] uh, we will have a roll call. Um, the motion is to place on file, just to

[5:43:39] clarify again for the nonp parliamentarians,

[5:43:44] um, the the motion to place on file requires 11 votes to pass.

[5:43:51] Um if 11 votes are not achieved, the item is

[5:43:56] back before us, another motion can be made. So all those in favor of placing

[5:44:03] the item on file. We'll say I. Those opposed, no. As your name is

[5:44:10] called and the clerk will please call the role.

[5:44:12] » Thank you, Alder. Mayor,

[5:44:17] » it is a simple majority to place on file. No. Alder mayor. No.

[5:44:23] » Alderman Zegu. >> You come back to you.

[5:44:28] » Okay, we'll get back to you. Alder O'Brien.

[5:44:31] » Hi. >> Alder O'Brien. I Alder Hovich.

[5:44:36] » Alderovich. I Alder Pritchette.

[5:44:42] » Very well. Alder Tistler. >> Um I

[5:44:46] » Alder Tishler. I Alder. >> Alder. I Alder Vidiver.

[5:44:51] » I >> Alder Viver. I Alder Jang.

[5:44:55] » No. >> Alder Jang. No. Alder Evers.

[5:44:58] » I >> Alder Evers. I Alder Field.

[5:45:01] » Aler Field. I Alder Figer Cole. >> I al Figer Cole. I Alder Glenn.

[5:45:06] » No. >> Alder Glenn. No. Alder Ugar.

[5:45:08] » No. >> Alder. [clears throat] No. Alder

[5:45:11] Harrington McKenna. >> Alder Harrington McKenna. No. Alder

[5:45:14] Linkella. >> I. Ala. I. Alder Lieberman.

[5:45:17] » No. >> Alder Lieberman. No. Alder Madison.

[5:45:20] » I aler Madison. I Alder Martinez Rutherford.

[5:45:23] » No. >> Alder Martinez Rutherford. No. Alder

[5:45:26] Matthews. >> No.

[5:45:27] » Alder Matthews. No. >> Alder.

[5:45:31] » No. >> Zu. No. Alder Pritchette.

[5:45:34] » No. >> Alder Pritchette. No. 10 eyes. 10 nos.

[5:45:39] » With 10 eyes and 10 nos. The item fails. >> So the item is still before us.

[5:45:50] there doubt.

[5:45:53] » Okay. Uh so the item is still before us. Alder Jeang

[5:46:00] » motion to adopt the budget amendment to transfer $28,500

[5:46:05] to >> Are you moving the original?

[5:46:08] » Moving the original to adopt. >> The motion is to adopt. There's a

[5:46:12] second. Do you wish to speak to it, older?

[5:46:15] Um, I think that with the contentious nature of this movement and also with

[5:46:22] the comments made um, I guess 2 hours ago

[5:46:28] um, about the responsibility and the ability that we have to support the

[5:46:33] community. I think that this is a reasonable ask and I support it.

[5:46:40] » Thank you, Alder Alder Matthews. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I

[5:46:45] really appreciate that and um I think that the community at a minimum deserves

[5:46:50] that we take a vote on this and I think that when all of the headlines come out

[5:46:56] tomorrow and they don't say council voted

[5:47:00] whatever 11 to 10 to do nothing, that's going to be good for us that that's not

[5:47:05] the headline tomorrow. So, um I think [snorts] everyone knows how I would like

[5:47:10] to vote. And again, I tried really hard to be as reasonable as I possibly could

[5:47:16] as an example to all the folks that everyone keeps telling me are not being

[5:47:21] reasonable. Thanks.

[5:47:25] Thank you, Alder. Alder Okovitz. >> Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I was not

[5:47:30] originally planning on speaking. Um, I would have spoken on the last motion if

[5:47:35] I was, but it seems we are at a bit of an impass. Um, because I don't

[5:47:40] think there are the votes to pass the item.

[5:47:43] Every vote that we have been having on the OIM and the OIM's budget has been

[5:47:48] implicitly or directly a referendum on the behavior and conduct of the

[5:47:53] independent monitor and not just IM glass but the previous IM as well. Um

[5:47:58] when it came to the uh budget amendment last year, it was a reflection of the

[5:48:04] lack of work that the previous IM did and the

[5:48:09] nobody would call the office successful um under the previous IM and then IM

[5:48:14] class came um and I voted yes uh or I voted no on the budget amendments last

[5:48:20] year because I had hoped that a new IM would be really helpful for the office.

[5:48:26] they could um actually bring about effective

[5:48:31] police oversight. uh back in March when I am Glassass was pretty new um she

[5:48:38] offered to meet with all alders and I met with her in March um and we talked

[5:48:44] about the things she wanted for the office, the issues that she saw um where

[5:48:50] she wanted to go and I asked her explicitly about hiring the new

[5:48:56] independent monitor and she told me that she didn't want to leave the office in a

[5:49:01] state that would be bad for somebody new, but she also told me that she would

[5:49:05] be starting that process this summer. It was not long after that that I started

[5:49:11] hearing rumors that she was talking with PCO Chair Maya Pearson about um

[5:49:18] about being appointed as the permanent monitor. Um I find that a bit

[5:49:23] unsettling. Um but it was just a rumor. Um but now if you go back and if you

[5:49:29] look at the June meetings and if you look at the July meetings and if you

[5:49:33] look at open records between the chair and um I am glass and HR it is clear

[5:49:40] that they have been planning for a while to appoint I am glass as the permanent

[5:49:44] monitor. I bring this all up because there has

[5:49:48] been a lot of talk of trust, a lot of talk of um what we can do to rebuild all

[5:49:54] of these things. And I feel like I again all of this is a referendum on I am

[5:50:01] glass right now. And it is tough for me to vote yes to give an apartment more

[5:50:06] money when I feel like the leader of that department lied to my face and came

[5:50:11] here on an interim job and is now playing politics and pushing for a

[5:50:17] permanent job. And so I want independent police oversight, but every single step

[5:50:23] of this has been adversarial between I am glass and the city. From just taking

[5:50:28] an hour training to get access to a website to how can we work around our

[5:50:34] dedicated HR processes which are there to protect taxpayer money to make sure

[5:50:40] that um what we are doing is not just benefiting people you know it's not

[5:50:45] backdoor processes. I this has just been crazy to me. We I signed on to the

[5:50:51] amendments um on that April meeting and the reason

[5:50:56] was I just I wanted to have a discussion about it. I did not like the case we

[5:51:01] were having. We kicked the amendments down the line.

[5:51:05] The disaster happened at the end of July and we still have not had an actual

[5:51:09] discussion on the structure of the office outside of

[5:51:13] some PCOB meetings. But this chamber has not had a discussion on this office and

[5:51:18] the structure. We can't have those discussions out in the open. People have

[5:51:22] been having them behind closed doors. And it's not me. I don't I there's been

[5:51:27] accusations of this, but I don't know what that's about. Um I just I'll stop

[5:51:32] there. But this is why I am voting to place this on file is because I don't

[5:51:37] think that this office can effectively move forward under I am Glassass's

[5:51:40] leadership. Thank you. Thank you, Alder.

[5:51:46] I have no other alders in Alder Lieberman.

[5:51:50] » Yeah, I just wanted uh to be clear on two things. One, I did somebody second

[5:51:55] the motion. >> Okay, I might just missed that. And then

[5:51:59] this requires a 15 vote to pass. Okay, thank you.

[5:52:02] » That's correct. >> Thank you, Alder. Alder Pitchett,

[5:52:07] » you know, I I echo uh what u Alder Oakis is saying. Uh I too have some concerns

[5:52:15] about that. Not only that, but when I think about um

[5:52:22] on I think it was August 4th and when someone when the monitor becomes the

[5:52:28] story, the monitor became the story

[5:52:34] when she inserted herself at the camp [clears throat] at the

[5:52:39] encampment site. That's a no no. I went back and I have looked at my dictionary

[5:52:46] meaning of monitor and it does not mean inserting yourself.

[5:52:52] It means standing back making observations

[5:52:56] making contemporarous notes so that you know what happened. But to insert

[5:53:02] yourself that's a no no. I have standards.

[5:53:07] I have high expectations and I will not sit here and allow

[5:53:14] someone to just be mediocre

[5:53:18] because mediocrity is not what we need. We need someone who's going to do the

[5:53:24] work. I hear the OIM and the PCO saying we got to do the work.

[5:53:32] We got to do the work. We need money to do the work. I look at the reports that

[5:53:36] have been written and if they had been handed to me I would have done this.

[5:53:42] That's the quality as I said I have standards. Thank you.

[5:53:48] » Thank you Alder. I have no other elders in the queue. Uh so we will go to the

[5:53:55] question. The motion before us is to adopt

[5:54:00] uh the original um resolution. It is a 15 vote item. Um so

[5:54:08] all those in favor of adoption will say I. Those opposed no. As your

[5:54:14] name is called and the clerk will please call the role.

[5:54:17] » Thank you. Alder mayor >> I.

[5:54:19] » Aler mayor I. Alderu. >> Renseu I. Alder O'Brien. No

[5:54:26] » auto Brian. No autoic. >> No.

[5:54:30] » Alder Hovich. No. Alder Pritchette. >> No.

[5:54:32] » Alder Pritchette. No. Alder Tishler.

[5:54:38] » No. >> Alder Tishler. No. Alder.

[5:54:40] » No. >> Alder. No. Alder Vidver.

[5:54:43] » No. >> Alder Ver. No. Alder Jang.

[5:54:47] » Yes. >> Aler Jang. I. Alder Evers.

[5:54:50] » Aler Evers. No. Alderfield. No. Alder Figo. Cole,

[5:54:55] » no. >> Figural Cole. No. Alder Glenn.

[5:54:58] » Hi. >> Alder Glenn. I Alder Gear.

[5:55:01] » No. >> Alder Gear. No. Alder Harrington

[5:55:03] McKenna.

[5:55:08] Al McKenna abstains. Otto Kella. >> No.

[5:55:12] » Link Kella. No. Ot Lieberman. >> Hi.

[5:55:15] » Lieberman. I alter Madison. >> No.

[5:55:17] » Madison. No. Otter Martinez Rutherford. >> Martinez Rutherford. I Matthews. I

[5:55:24] » Matthews I we have seven eyes 12 nos one abstain.

[5:55:30] » Okay with seven eyes and 12 nos and one abstension the item veils.

[5:55:36] So [sighs and gasps] we will move on to item

[5:55:44] » 68. Item 68 is legisar 94196

[5:55:49] authorizing the mayor and the city clerk to execute a contract between the city

[5:55:53] of Madison and SH for planning, engineering and public engagement

[5:55:59] services for East Washington Avenue uh highway 30 to Anamar and Schroeder Road,

[5:56:04] Whitney Way to Gammon Road in districts 3, 12, 17, 19, and 20. On item 68, uh,

[5:56:13] President Madison, a motion, please. Motion to adopt.

[5:56:16] » Is there a second? >> Moved and seconded to adopt item 68.

[5:56:21] Uh on item 68.

[5:56:27] » Are there questions for staff?

[5:56:32] » Alder Harrington McKini. >> Uh yes. My question is about the uh

[5:56:37] public engagement. What is uh what is the the plan for that? could you speak

[5:56:42] to to that and more specifically is how do how is the plan to get those voices

[5:56:48] to the table that are normally not heard?

[5:56:54] Uh, Alder, I am looking for staff that might

[5:56:59] be able to answer your question

[5:57:05] and I am not seeing any transportation staff left in the meeting.

[5:57:17] I'm sorry, Alder. I don't think there's anyone here that can answer your

[5:57:20] question.

[5:57:23] So, I perhaps you could reach out to transportation

[5:57:28] staff. I think it's probably traffic engineering.

[5:57:33] Um, I did, but I'll follow up on offline.

[5:57:36] » Okay. Thank you, Alder. Um, item 68 has been moved and seconded.

[5:57:43] Uh, I will not ask if there's additional questions for staff since there are no

[5:57:47] staff here to answer them. Uh, but is there any discussion?

[5:57:53] Seeing none, is there any objection to

[5:57:57] recording unanimous vote in favor of item 68?

[5:58:02] Seeing no objection, item 68 will pass. That brings us to the end of our agenda.

[5:58:11] Are there any announcements or additional introductions of items from

[5:58:14] the floor?

[5:58:18] Seeing none, Alder mayor

[5:58:24] has left the building. Who's next in the list?

[5:58:28] » I don't want to time next week.

[5:58:32] » Okay. >> So,

[5:58:34] » uh, we'll go to Alder Madison. A motion, please.

[5:58:38] » Is there a second? >> Second.

[5:58:40] » Moved and seconded to adjurnn. Is there any objection to recording? Unanimous

[5:58:44] vote in favor of adjournment. Seeing no objection, we stand adjourned.

[5:58:50] Have a good morning everyone.

Common Council: Meeting of September 8, 2026

Transcript