[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.