2:05 a.m.: LET'S VOTE! There's Perkins breakfast to be had, people. The operating budget passes 16-4, and nobody in city government has Thursday night plans anymore, so call them to hang out so they have something to do with themselves (besides hang out with their neglected families).

1:45 a.m.: Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway thanked the mayor and council for their work on the budget, but said she would be voting against the budget because she cannot in good conscience vote for a bus fare increase.

Ald. Judy Compton asked the comptroller for the numbers on the budget (these may get fixed):

The council added $511,000 in expenditures offset by $54,000 in additional revenue for a total tax levy of about $165.4 million, a mill rate of 7.5 percent (up just over 8 percent from last year) and taxes on the average home up 3.3 percent.

Compton said she is sad to see that taxes went up this year, but she sees a lot of integrity in this budget and will be voting for it.

Palm said given the parameters of this budget, did not expect to see taxes on the average home up less than 5 percent. Was happy with the decisions on adding services for homeless, and hopes the TPC will be able to find a compromise that will not increase the burden on the cash fare so strongly. Shouldn't exactly pat ourselves on the back -- there are areas, as Konkel pointed out, that we need to look at where we are spending and why.

Konkel said she thinks the budget process still needs to be fixed, and she thanked council members for listening to many of the amendments. This is one of the most important things the Council does, and she is frustrated by people who seem to want it done more than to have a good discussion.

She said she will not be voting for the budget, largely because of the bus fare increase. She found $400,000 in cuts that were not passed, but the council couldn't support the $2.72 per household increase that would have kept bus fares as $1.50.

Schumacher said he will be supporting the budget and thanked the mayor for putting out a good budget in a tough economic climate. Schumacher said the omnibus amendment was not meant to quell discussion, but was a philosophical discussion on if the Konkel amendments were micromanaging departmental budgets.

Solomon reminded the council they did not pass a fare increase, but a $600,000+ deficit on to Metro and the Transit and Parking Commission. He struggled with whether to support it, but realizes that budgets are about compromise and even though he feels strongly about the bus fares, he will support it because it does balance community services.

Bruer said this was the most engaged budget process he has ever seen, but noted that 2010 will probably be an even worse year. Also wanted to take a minute to thank staff for their work and responsiveness to requests for information and answering questions from council member, particularly the Comptroller's Office (I would also add my thank you to them -- Dean Brasser in particular has been nothing but helpful to me in recent weeks, and always for that matter).

Bruer also thanked the mayor for being open and upfront about what he was doing with the budget very early on in the process -- said there was an "exceptional" level of communication.

Cieslewicz thanked everyone for their hard work -- "the product is very good, especially considering what we started with in July." Started off looking at a 16 percent increase on the levy, asked for 5 percent contingency cuts from department managers, and they were helpful in giving him ideas his office could use.

"Do I think you added a little too much spending tonight? Yeah. Can I live with it? Yeah." Would have voted against re-adding the four Streets workers (and keeping weekly large-item pick-up).

Overall, thinks the budget set the city up as well as possible for 2010 -- actually did better than last year with a tougher budget year. Hope the process keeps getting better.

1:43 a.m.: Cnare explains the last amendment, which would use the proceeds from dog and cat licenses to fund a position that has recently lost federal funding. The former position, weed and seed coordinator, is now being improved as the healthy neighborhoods liaison. The police support the program, as did many of the people who testified yesterday "“ the position would be, as the name might suggest, a liaison between the city and neighborhoods "“ getting to know people, knowing who to contact in a neighborhood for help, knowing who in the city to put people in touch with, etc. The police have worked with the former weed and seed coordinator and spoke very highly of the position, and would want even more of it if possible.
Schumacher asked jokingly if there is a conflict of interest on the council for the dog and cat owners. Konkel asked seriously why we can let dogs and cats pay for this program when someone yesterday mentioned a state law that requires a fee goes to a related service. City attorney Michael May said there has be to some kind of relationship, but not sure how this would work.
The mayor said he suggested it as a source, but necessarily tying the two directly. At the Board of Estimates Monday, the city approved increased fees for dog and cat licenses, which would generate more than $30,000, and this recognizes that revenue, but it goes in the general fund and eliminates the levy impact of this position as a result.

Clear said he likes the tie-in between this position and the neighborhood indicators project "“ we get the data from the project, and the position helps us use it. And his pets approve (presumably he asked them before making that endorsement).

Rummel said her district is having a meeting next week about dog parks, and it was her understanding that dog license fees went to dog parks. Attorney May confirmed that the fees would go in the general fund.

Solomon said this was the No. 1 need identified by the community services when polled. He also thanked the previous weed and seed coordinator "“ Leslie McAllister "“ who will probably have to get a new job with the reorganization of this position. Did a ton of work particularly on Allied Drive "“ hundreds of people knew her and would give her a hug.

The amendment passes unanimously.

1:23 a.m.: Konkel explains another amendment to give community services the full amount of money in their budget for services that were deemed worthy programs by staff, but then amends its to prioritize needs by adding $75,000 for child care and $126,000 for youth services.

Cnare said this amendment pits demographics against each other, which is exactly what the Community Services Commission tries not to do. The CSC works to figure out how to equitably to treat all groups -- children in need are not more important than older people in need, or vice versa. It's not equitable or fair to do this.

The amendment fails, 7-13.

1:16 a.m.: Ald. Brenda Konkel talks about an amendment to give the community services a full 4.4 percent cost-of-living increase. As a member of the Early Childhood board, hears heartbreaking testimony on the impact of even small cuts -- it's not fair to force the agencies to face a "death of a thousand cuts" from not getting fair increases each year.

The amendment fails 9-11.

1:12 a.m.: The council takes up an amendment to re-itemize (it's 1 a.m. and I will use fake words when I want) the Office of Community Services budget. Solomon said he talked to many community service agencies after the mayor did this, and though he understands way, every agency said they felt like they lost their voice. The process is political this way, but it's also democratic, and we need to decide which side we are on of this. This is an important venue for them to tell their stories and the great and important work they do "“ it's too easy for us to forget this work, and it will be easy for future councils to make broad cuts that will really hurt agencies.

Palm said there are a lot of departments that have contracts with agencies that the council doesn't hear about "“ it would be good to depoliticize the budget and would be better for the agencies.

Cieslewicz said he was concerned  after five years that after the community services submitted their carefully vetted budget, the council would go in and pick more winners without that vetting.

Cnare said as a member of the Community Services Commission, she is in favor of community services but thinks they will be okay "“ the city has somewhat of a "sacred cow" view of community service providers. There may have been a mistake in the timing of the announcement, but is not worried that council will make broad cuts "“ it's not any easier to do that with community services than with the library or other agencies. She's willing to try it the mayor's way for a year, but encourages alders to keep in touch with community service providers and what they do. Need to try this, though, and respect the decisions of people who have worked for years with community service providers (CSC).

Rummel said she didn't know a lot of the agencies last year in her first budget year, and it was helpful to hear from the agencies.

The amendment fails on a voice vote.

12:57 a.m.: Konkel talks about her amendment  to add an eviction prevention program "“ couldn't do better than Lisa Subeck's (of YMCA) testimony from yesterday. The cost of eviction prevention is so much less than what the city has to provide for those who lose their apartments and are homeless. These programs are also highly effective in keeping people in their homes the next year "“ this combined with last amendment gives community services most bang for their buck. Tenant Resource Center will not apply for money.

Kerr cited testimony from yesterday that the budget is a moral document -- people all over the city are losing their homes, and the city could help them with this. It's a tight budget, but she thinks we have been prudent. Has been watching foreclosures closely, and can only imagine what the eviction rates are doing.

Solomon said he hears from a constituent at least once per week in Allied Drive who is $100 away from being evicted. The amount as a community we save from this tiny investment is "astonishing." The current resources are all tapped, so it's time for the city to step up.

Cnare said this is the answer when people ask what you're going to do about homelessness, this is it. If your kid came to you and said he/she was a little short on rent, you would do this. Let's do this for our community. Homelessness is all over -- take a drive to city parks tonight and see people sleeping outside on a cold, wet night.

The amendment passes, 13-7.

12:39 a.m.: Mike Verveer makes a substitute amendment for adding a homeless outreach worker for $40,000 instead of $80,000 -- we have seen recent crimes downtown by those police identified as homeless, had personally had professional contacts (as a DA) with three of them. Not trying to paint the homeless with a broad brush, but many have had run-ins with police because of the circumstances in their lives, and with someone to help them get in touch with needed services, may happen less. Worth noting that Capitol Neighborhoods spoke in favor of this amendment yesterday, and they as well as other downtown groups have worked to create homeless outreach programs. The police department does support -- reminds colleagues of a meeting earlier this year when Chief Wray provided a briefing about how important community services.

Schumacher said this reminds him of last year's budget -- trying to pass last-minute amendments with levy implications and making deals to reduce costs. Either the position is worth $80,000 or not, but don't haggle just to get it passed.

Cnare asked if $40,000 is a good dent in being able to help the homeless -- staff said it would be helpful in outreach.

Palm said he is going to support, and not as penance for charging people for Metro. Part of his conceptualization of city budget is to find out what we really need to be doing. Roads need to be plowed, leaves need to be picked up, but shifting changes of these past couple of months illustrate we need to do more for people who were once working strongly and through foreclosures or job losses or underemployment, are not making enough money. Things often get lost in community services budget, but he appreciates taking a special crack at homelessness.

Konkel said the amount isn't enough, but it's a start. It's a person on the ground that can help agencies and fill the gap between the different populations that other agencies work with (children, mentally ill, etc.) It's better than nothing. As for this being late at night, community services is always going to be last -- thinks departments should be switched around each year -- and there's the (unpopular) option to come back tomorrow (today, actually) to finish.

We really need this -- the No. 1 recommendation from the homeless services consortium. If there's one thing we're going to do for community services, this would be it.

Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele asked if this is related to Konkel's initiative to notify the homeless when their property will be moved -- Bruer says it is not. Pham-Remmele said she was not clear on this amendment, wonders why it was brought up now and if it was well thought-out.

The amendment passes, although I'm not sure what the numbers were.

12:26 a.m.: Konkel makes a motion to put a few amendments on file -- including an amendment to create a landlord registration program that received a lot of criticism last night. Did not mean to hurt landlords or punish them -- not sure when is the best time for initiatives like that. Was just to get more information on properties for the Neighborhood Indicators Project.

The council takes up an amendment to add a planner/neighborhood support position, sponsored by Konkel. Wants to make a strong statement this position is still important after reorganization of planning department. Kerr said it's incomprehensible that there has been a position open for two years and we keep telling people we can't provide that service to them.

Sanborn said the council just made a difficult decision not to add money to the levy for bus fares, so don't make that nonsensical by adding various amendments now.

Rummel said the reorganization of the planning department has been problematic -- still have an open economic development director position, an open neighborhoods position. Not sure of the message we're sending here.

Schumacher said he could have added 10 or 20 amendments that would be on his wish list, but the council has already added more than $400,000 to the levy this year with amendments.

The amendment to add a planner 3 position failed, 7-13.

12:02 a.m.: BUS FARES, CONT'D.
Palm: Yesterday former alder Judy Olsen gave us a letter than really struck me. She was in opposition to amendment 30 "“ wanted to put money in Metro reserves to protect long-term health, wanted the full funds for transfer point security, Transit for Jobs should be raised to $80,000.

For many people, the ability to buy weekly, monthly, semester passes is not there, and they have to use the cash fare

Need to keep Metro strong, and need to raise the prices of services, but need to do it proportionately, and a 50 cent increase is not proportionate.

Transit and Parking Commission  decides fare, not council, and could come up with other ways to generate revenue. Agree with Olson "“ she thinks 50 cent increase is appropriate, I don't "“ I think we should go ahead with this, but think we should advise TPC to revise fare structure to not hurt people with cash fares so disproportionately.

Rummel, who represents Judy Olsen's old district, but said she's the only person in District 6 who supports the increase. Not sure what Palm is supporting. People who pay cash fares also have to pay to take kids along . We're in a recession, people are losing their jobs and it's absolutely the wrong time to put this on the shoulders of those who can least afford it. Appalled that this makes some sense to people.

Schumacher said most areas he studied had fare increases this year. Already adding another $400,000 to Metro budget, but if the fare increase doesn't go through, that's over a million (not quite,  with my math because of tweaks in the amendment)

Cieslewicz says he supports the Sanborn amendment with trepidation -- part of a clean air coalition, but understand they are not as effective.

This was the last decision he made in this year's budget, and it was the hardest -- possibly the hardest of the past six budgets. Nothing positive politically from this -- wouldn't be doing this if he didn't think it was the right thing to do. Respectfully disagrees with those who thinks this will weaken Metro -- thinks it will strengthen it. Believes Metro is a public good, and taxpayers should pay more for it, but they have -- didn't think it was fair to go even further with taxpayer money.

Don't know the last time we actually added service back to Metro, which fare increase will allow us to do. $150,000 in service enhancements is not insubstantial. Thinks the marketing position is very important in selling unlimited ride passes to employers. $100,000 for transfer points is like $100,000 for downtown safety initiative, which has been very successful. Metro used to have $2 million in reserves -- basically down to nothing with increased fuel increases. Adding to reserves now will protect against fare increases in the future. The thing that has made me lose the most sleep over this is the very real concern people have on how this is going to affect the poorest people in our community. Four responses -- 33 percent increase all at once seems dramatic, but is basically rate of inflation. If Metro fares had done what every other commodity has done, would expect cash fares to be at about $2, and suspects we won't increase fares at least for the rest of my term (2011). Secondly, Transit for Jobs program -- can help more people even with an increased fare. Agree entirely with more programs to help those who are low income. Third, if faced between cutting service and increasing fares, better to increase fares. If you are transit-dependent and don't have service to buy at any price, that's an issue. Lastly, agree strongly with the need for an RTA -- thinks with new make-up of state legislature, that's possible, but not next year, and probably the year after. Would be happy if this was the last fare increase he ever had to ask for. Ultimately, we need an RTA not only to avoid fare increases, but because it makes sense. Respects those who cannot vote for this.

Solomon wanted to address a couple things during debate. Based ridership numbers decreasing on cash fare, and those are the ones most likely to be low-income -- could lose 200,000 riders. When Schumacher talked about average fares increasing 18 cents -- that's not what low-income riders pay, they pay the 50 cent increase. Many cities did To Sanborn, we still get more money from fares than taxes. To "my favorite constituent, Mr. Mayor," agrees with his improvements -- that's why he kept most of them. Both Rhodes-Conway and Solomon wanted to keep the Transit for Jobs increase, but wanted to decrease impact on levy of amendment. As for the RTA, now is not the time for a dramatic increase -- it's the time to try to hold on and see what will happen. What is our goal? To improve service? The amendment Solomon created does that. To be equitable? This falls on the most low-income. To protect the levy? Levy is protected better by long-term health of Metro.

Sanborn adds a quick amendment to add language to get a report on how a fare increase will affect Metro and to come up with more programs to help low-income riders.

The Sanborn amendment to keep the bus fare increase passes, 12-8. Ayes: Sanborn, Cnare, Monson, Skidmore, Kerr, Bruer, Palm, Compton, Clausius, Schumacher, Clear, Pham-Remmele

11:46 p.m.: BUS FARES, CONT'D. Webber points out the Sanborn amendment reverses the intent of the original amendment completely.

Solomon said he respects Sanborn and knows he is thinking about the long-term future of Metro, but totally against the substitute amendment. Wonders why we're doing this -- not sure revenues will even increase.

Kerr has been up and down, but will support fare increases. I know this is a really dramatic increase -- wishes it weren't as dramatic, but is coming at this from a slightly different perspective, a rookie alder who had to fight tooth and nail to preserve a route that serves the city pool and many low-income riders. Is worried about the long-term health of Metro -- while it is painful, it's somewhat understandable to constituents in that we haven't had a fare increase in 7 years. Most people can see that costs have gone up in 7 years, and maybe this is the time. This is the most different decision she has made on the council. Applauds Solomon and Rhodes-Conway for amendment, painful to disagree, but hoping that fare increase will help us a lay a foundation for a more robust Metro over time.

11:39 p.m.: BUS FARES, cont'd. Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele: Let's look at Metro as a struggling business. If you don't raise price, routes will be cut, transfer points less safe "“ even worse for riders. Raise fares to have a better bus service for the entire city of Madison.

Ald. Lauren Cnare: Supports the Sanborn amendment, but there's need to be a strong statement that we need to find people who can't afford the increase, or perhaps can barely afford it now, and address how to help those people.

Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway: Wants to clarify original amendment because of confusion. Did not reduce service improvements, did not reduce marketing program, reduced slightly safety money for transfer points. Most of the enhancement for Metro would remain.

Have a lot of respect for people whose priority was large-item pick-up or the convention and visitors bureau, but this is what will determine her overall vote on the budget.

We had a ton of speakers, and got plenty of e-mails and calls "“ has gotten more contact on this than anything else from either budget she has done, and people were overwhelming against the fare increase.

There are many ways to make a decision, but if you're focusing on what your district thinks, it's obvious for her.

From an economic standpoint "“ people need Metro to get to jobs, and several employers in his district have expressed interest in passes.

Have been contacted by several people for whom a fare increase would make driving a car equally expensive and more convenient. Which brings her to how Metro is able to reduce congestion, particularly downtown and campus.

Not raising fares not only will strengthen ridership, but strengthen the system.

The choice is between asking everyone to pay $2.72 per year, or ask people to pay upwards of 50 cents each time they ride the bus.

Ald. Brenda Konkel is at a lost for what to say -- have heard some disturbing comments today. When she was working at the Job Center today, heard a mother tell her kid why he/she couldn't have a soda because she needs the money for something else. Had to explain to kid why she couldn't afford to buy a soda -- to say that the Metro increase is only a soda, it's not a big deal for you and me, but it's a big deal for people for whom $260 is a week's salary. Would pay double or triple the $2.72. It's about how we treat our community. The amount we get from the fare box is a relatively small number -- it seems really wrong to make this huge impact on people's lives when it's a relatively small amount in the budget. Dismissed more than $400,000 in cuts earlier for whatever reason. This is a deal-breaker. Won't vote for the budget with a $2 fare.

11:26 p.m.: BUS FARES, cont'd.  Schumacher questioned Judge's statement that students are affected. Those who purchase student passes by semester would see an increase from $125 to $150 (mostly bought by school district). Daily student passes would go up from $1 to $1.25 and 10-ride passes from $8.50 to $10. Schumacher said $25 every four months is not that much.
Unlimited ride passes are 95 cents per ride currently.

The average cost per ride is $3.11 "“ the city currently gets $.88 per ride, the city, state and federal governments subsidize the rest. With fare increase, would go up to $1.10 per ride.

Sanborn put forth an amendment to strike all language except eliminating clean air action days (so would preserve the fare increase). Pretty widespread agreement they are not that effective, that people who get free riders are regular bus riders.

Not surprisingly, this is not considered a friendly amendment.
Sanborn understands that some people think bus fares should be free "“ in that case, should eliminate gas taxes, which he does not support. Another option is to keep fares as affordable as possible, which means opposing all fare increases and fares thus not keeping up with inflation.

What he supports is keeping fares reasonable with inflation "“ saying this is a 33 percent increase is not fair because fares haven't risen since 2000 and won't for awhile. Fare prices aren't even keeping up with the cost of Metro "“ ridership is going up, which helps, and this will cause a temporary slowdown in that, like with any price change.
Why doesn't anyone talk about increased property taxes hurting tax base?
Since 2000, gas prices have gone up 8 percent per year (even with recent dip). Thus, Metro prices still the underachiever.

For people who are low-income, why not work to get them month-ride passes instead of paying cash fares every day? Would support that.
11:09 p.m.: BUS FARES, cont'd. Rummel asked when the contracts with large employers are coming up. The UW employee pass goes through Aug. 1, 2010, with renewals through 2012, ASM is the same time period. The MATC contract is Aug. 1, 2009, so that would be renegotiated under a new rate. Meriter is 2010.

The average fare is 95 cents now with unlimited ride passes.

Rummel asked what the impact of a new state government would be. Kamp said hopefully support will go up, but doesn't know.

Rummel said her area is very well served by Metro, but it always seems like we're making trade offs between service enhancements and service detriments. One route in her neighborhood was eliminated, and people who wanted to take the bus couldn't.

Compton said she wanted to support this amendment, but can't. 50 cents to and from work is $1 per day. That's one soda per day, a pack of cigarettes per week. People shouldn't be smoking anyway. The price of gas is over $2 per gallon "“ they're going to spend $2.50 driving to and from work (not in my car, just as a side note), and going to make stops along the way and spend more gas money.

Have tried to raise fares several times unsuccessfully, we keep adding money to the mayor's budget that kept taxes on the average home below 3 percent.

Judge said students support Metro through seg fees, and he doesn't want to see those go up, so he supports the amendment. He has sympathy for those alders whose districts are not well served by Metro, but his district doesn't have any parks, but he's supported all of the parks amendments tonight. There are those out there where this raise may make using Metro prohibitive.
To quote West Wing, "give me numbers," and Solomon did.

Gruber said he is in favor of the amendment to keep fares low, but wants to say Mayor Dave has taken a lot of heat for this undeservedly "“ still thinks he is an environmentalist and his motives were good, but he disagrees with raising fares.

Kamp's numbers had a 1 percent increase for riders compared to 5 or 6 percent without raising fares "“ basically flatlining. Concerned about impact on riders.

10:44 p.m.: BUS FARES. Solomon explains his amendment to keep bus fares at $1.50, and even though he's talked to all council members, he wants to "beg their indulgence" for a further explanation of his motivations and asks them to keep an open mind.

He says he thinks most people think Metro is a basic service, but perhaps not as basic as water or streets. Solomon said, for him, it's an essential program. Some people think Metro should be free, but if it's not, it must be affordable.

We're here because of fuel costs, but we're willing to absorb costs for police and fire and snow plows, so we should be willing to do so for Metro. He voted for the road expansions last night in the capital budget even though he's concerned about borrowing in the future because it's a necessary investment in long-term health of Madison's transportation, and so is this.

50 percent of Metro riders are low-income, and this amounts to a regressive tax. For those who are choice riders, it's telling them to opt out of the choice, but the low-income riders don't have a choice. He talked to 50 people in Allied Drive last week, and 5 or 10 were shocked they were even considering it, and some people said they might have to quit they jobs to avoid taking the bus.
Increasing bus fares could then lead to greater homelessness and a decline in the quality of life in the city. He questioned adding 30 police last year because police are a reactive solution to problems, while keeping fares at $1.50 is a proactive way to help low-income people.

(Agh"¦ talk slower, Brian!)

In Cincinnati, 33 percent of riders were low-income and nearly 60 percent did not own a car, and he thinks our numbers of similar.

Solomon is also concerned with the economic impact. Can't tell you how important good bus routes are for businesses "“ gives them access to employees who otherwise would not be able to get to jobs. Raising fares could mean that businesses can no longer access those employees.
He is also concerned with the impact of a fare increase on the long-term health of Metro and a loss in ridership. He respects the mayor and his work on the budget, but thinks he is assuming that a fare increase will make up for the loss in ridership, and there's no proof of that.

Is also concerned with how the fare increase will affect a Regional Transportation Authority-you build support for an RTA through supporting public transit. In Rochester, NY, they lowered bus fares to $1.00, the lowest price since 1991.

There's no guarantee we're going to get more than $600,000 from raising bus fares -- the formula used to calculate that not based on national studies on how fares impact ridership. Not only could this increase hurt ridership, it may not help monetarily as much as we think.

Solomon voted for bus wraps because Metro needs to find money wherever they can, but not at the expense of ridership.

Using numbers from an APTA study, ridership would decrease 14 percent, which would cause us to break about even, and would increase the cost per ride dramatically.

A fare increase is not going to increase revenue, it's definitely going to decrease ridership and will definitely be on the backs of those who can least afford it.

Gruber asked about how the city calculated the increased revenues. Kamp said that the city calculated a smaller increase in riders than past years (which were increasing at 5-6 percent) after the fare increase because many of the new riders are coming from unlimited ride passes from employers such as UW-Madison "“ apparently the city doesn't think ridership will decrease, but increase at a lower rate. He also thinks the system will rebound in future years as people get used to the new fares. If fares increased 25 cents (which was on the table before the mayor's budget), he said they predicted ridership will still increase 2-3 percent.

Cnare asked what the demographics of riders were -- do we know concretely how many riders are low-income? Kamp said a survey was done this year, but is not completed. The last survey done had 9 percent making less than $10,000, 14 percent making $10,000 to $20,000, 33(?) percent making $20,000 to $30,000, 13 percent making $30,000 to $40,000, 9.5 percent making $40,000 to $50,000 and 22.5 percent making more than $50,000.

Cnare asked about some discussion at last night's public hearing about homeless service providers buying bus passes -- do they do it on the open market? Staff answered that he thinks they do it as efficiently as possible (I missed a bit of this -- sorry!)

Palm said he has several questions, the first being about revenue. Right now, Kamp said 55 percent coming from unlimited ride passes, 45 percent from cash and multi-ride passes -- about 15 percent from cash fares alone.

Palm asks what percentage is going up from the cash fare, and what percentage is going up from multi-ride passes (10 or 30-ride passes, etc.). Hears a lot about the cash fare, but wants to know about other fares, too. Kamp says a month pass would go from $47 to $55 per month -- last night you heard numbers about a $260 increase annually, but only $72 for month-passes. Would assume some people would switch from cash fares to month-passes.

Palm wants a power point to explain these numbers (don't we all...)

Every one here would want a $1 cash fare, but Rochester has more than 50 percent state funding, Metro has 38 percent, Rochester has an RTA, Madison doesn't.
Palm wants to know how gas price affect ridership -- Kamp said there are probably numbers, but he doesn't know them.

Palm asked about the increase in Transit for Jobs from $40,000 to $80,000 annually in the mayor's plan, and how getting rid of that increase would affect people. Kamp said it would be a detriment considering the various concerns on low-income riders.

Palm said he can see both sides -- his district is half downtown, half closer to the periphery. Wants to know how much routes would be expanded/improved (which would happen with or without the amendment -- the amendment preserves service expansions). Kamp said it's not just expansions, but improvement in timeliness, etc.

10:29 p.m.: And... we're back. Apparently bus fares are getting pushed back one amendment so traffic engineering can finish up (and go home, maybe?). Webber explains her amendment, which would restore funding for pavement marking. It's a small amount of money, she said, and cross walks, stop lines and other "really simple things" that make people feel safe on the streets -- particularly crosswalks around schools.

The motion passes by voice vote after a little discussion.

10:14 p.m.: Bus fares! ... after the break. Back in "10 minutes."

9:52 p.m.: Ald. Tim Bruer asks that the city place Amendment 28, a potential agreement between Madison and Blooming Grove for trash pick-up, on file because Blooming Grove decided against it Gruber mentions, though, that Madison's services cost less than the private sector, which he applauded. The council voted to put in on file unanimously.

On the next amendment, restoring weekly large-item pick-up, sponsor Ald. Julia Kerr asked what the implications of removing four Streets positions would do. Al Schumacher said the streets department would now be 8 positions down from where they were in 2005, and while large-item pick-up would not be affected too greatly, there may be some delaying in plowing, leaf collection, clear sidewalks, etc. because those who do large-item pick-up do other things in other parts of the year.

Schumacher said the reduction in service would be minor, but present -- streets workers are never idle, and even with keeping the weekly pick-up at every-other-week, there would be plenty of work for them to do.

Verveer asked for an update on potential layoffs -- at the Board of Estimates, it seemed like they could be shifted to other positions. Al Schumacher said one person has already moved to another department, while there are three positions that are currently vacant for temporary reasons (medical or policy violations). If the amendment fails, he said the department would ask the council to double-fill three positions to keep the staff on board until those who are leave or absence return (I'm a little confused on how the city actually saves money on this -- one person is on military leave, so I don't think he's on payroll, one person is on medical leave -- maybe the money comes from somewhere else? -- and one person is suspended for a policy violation that will return in April -- maybe he's not on payroll either?).

Clear said he thought he was clear on this before (har har -- get it?), and that most people didn't realize there was weekly pick-up now, but with the implications for other aspects of Streets, he isn't sure any more.

Cnare says this is her "large item" for the night. These people take care of eyesores in the city and are indicative of the health of a city -- not only picking up items, but keeping streets and sidewalks clean. Remember when the DNR said they were not picking up dead deer carcasses any more? she asked -- "That was disgusting." Secondly, there are jobs at stake here -- the city provides good jobs for people and she doesn't want to see them cut.

Kerr said for those concerned about the inefficiencies of weekly large-item pick-up (which is currently just trucks driving around the entire city looking for large items), the amendment asks the streets department to come up with a better plan for that. As for other tasks, she is particularly concerned about the implications for snow -- last winter, she had to call Streets because roads in her district were impassable and they came out with Bobcats to take care of it.

Clear makes a motion to strike all language after restoring funding for the four streets program -- he's fine with every-other-week pick-up, but doesn't want to lose other services. Al Schumacher said he still wants to research a better way to do weekly pick-up. Technically, Clear's amendment doesn't mean there will be every-other-week pick-up -- it leaves the amendment silent on what the streets departments would do with the four restored positions.

Rummel said she heard mixed reviews on this amendment from her district, but likes that the amendment leaves the positions open for other things that might be needed.

Gruber said he still wants Streets to look at ways to make the large-item pick-up process more efficient.

Palm said he has also heard mixed reviews on this, but doesn't want to micromanage how we do pick-up -- would like to hear from streets on how to best do this.

The amendment passes on voice vote.

9:42 p.m.: Three amendments away from bus fares.

Ald. Tim Gruber explained an amendment to increase advertising funds for the streets department to promote its goal of moving toward zero-waste by promoting its recycling program and providing education on contamination of recycling. There is no tax impact, but fees for large-item and appliance pick-up would increase. Eventually, he thinks the goal of reducing waste will save the city money, as landfill fees will continue to go up and eventually Dane County will need a new landfill that will be very difficult to find a site.

Sanborn asked why this amendment is being put forth on the backs of people who are throwing away large items. Basically, we're charging you more for the large items we're going to be pick up less, is the message it will send, he said.

Gruber said there is a perception that throwing things away is free, and it's not. There are landfill fees and transportation costs to take these away. He doesn't recall the last time these fees were raised. Schumacher said the fees were raised about 5 years ago to reflect the increase cost of salvaging CFCs and freon and the negative things that come from throwing away refrigerators. He said the program is not particularly popular right now not because of fees, but the hassle of having to get a sticker from the streets department.

Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele said in her district, particularly on Raymond Road, that people "cheat" by dumping large items in dumpsters and she gets a lot of complaints about how long items sit out on the curb as well as on the costs of throwing these things out (particularly for older people on fixed incomes). Raising the price would punish people throwing away big appliances, particularly older people with older appliances they hang onto for many years.

The amendment fails, 8-11.

9:36 p.m.: The council takes up an amendment to keep parks restrooms open during normal park hours and hire two more parks rangers. Briski explained that many of the parks bathrooms have been closed for vandalism concerns, and that all parks bathrooms close at 3 p.m. when parks staff leaves, unless there is a special event going on.

Palm asked if the two parks rangers are just there to close the bathrooms, or if they would do other things. Briski said there would an opportunity for the rangers to enforce other park guidelines during this time.

The amendment fails, 7-12 (Solomon stepped out).

9:20 p.m.: Still on recycling parks. Ald. Larry Palm said he would love to see more recycling all over the city, but he doesn't think the compliance will be there -- particularly from his experience working in the Madison Metropolitan School District and seeing rampant abuse of recycling containers. He applauded Briski for his efforts, but doesn't think this is a priority right now.

Judge added himself as a sponsor to this amendment. Actually, I need to check through the final votes when the minutes for this meeting comes out, but if I had to guess at one alder that has consistently moved across the lines of council factions, it would be Ald. Eli Judge.

Solomon adds an amendment to the amendment that would prevent any money from being expended until the program goes through the Parks Commission and details are finalized. Gruber said he wants to add that parks work with the streets department on this.

Cieslewicz said he has concerns on this after talking to city recycling guru George Dreckmann. There's no bigger advocate for recycling than Dreckmann (according to the mayor), but he too is concerned about contamination and would rather see people take their recyclables out of the parks. He would also like to see a composting program, but is not putting it in the budget this year.

Clausius makes a motion to place this on file until streets and parks can make a recommendation.

Palm said these amendments don't speak to his concerns of the program. In this budget year, $50,000 is a lot of money and would rather talk about other more substantive amendments.

A few more comments, and then the move to place on file fails 9-11, and the original amendment (as amended by Solomon), passes 11-9.

9:15 p.m.: For those of you looking for bus fare discussion, we're still a couple amendments away, so sit tight and I'll be live blogging it as fast as my fingers can carry me. As for now, we're still on recycling in parks. Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele compared recycling and trash bins in parks to looking at people's bathrooms to decide how clean they are. She asked the former parks superintendent about more trash cans at an earlier date, and he laughed and said more cans were not the issue, but getting people to behave better by either public education or more littering tickets. $50,000 for this program is a lot of money to add to the budget, she added.

Rummel asked about what the friends of the parks groups can do. Briski said the city can "definitely" incorporate the groups, which are the "eyes and ears" of the park system, into planning a recycling program.

8:55 p.m.: The council quickly passes an amendment to add funding for a crossing guard at a new far-west side school.

The council takes up an amendment to add a recycling program to city parks. Solomon, one of the sponsors, said he gets more unsolicited mail (meaning the council is not currently debating this issue) on this topic than anything else.

Webber asked about a state law that it is illegal to dump recyclables in a landfill, and ask what we do with recyclables in parks (I believe the answer was it was not illegal if they cannot separate garbage with recyclables). She echoes that she gets a lot of comment on this and doesn't even have any large parks in her district. "People really want to do the right thing," and as county taxpayers, it's important to ensure the landfill does not fill up too soon.

One of the council members asked how the carts would be used. Parks superintendent Briski said they would either be chained to garbage cans or another removable object. Cnare asked if they would be around year-round, and Briski said they would only be out, like garbage cans, from April to October.

Compton asked how the city would deal with people putting garbage items in the recyclable bins. Streets superintendent Al Schumacher said that parks has inquired about the containers that restrict the size of objects that can enter the bin to either can or bottle, which prompt better compliance. Regular curb-side recycling pick-up is 7 or 8 percent contaminated, he said, and they can deal with that level at the parks, too.

Compton asked if the parks staff was ready to implement this, and Briski said there has been a committee to debate this, and discussions have escalated in recent weeks with this amendment. As for the State Street mall, he said there has not been a good success rate with recycling, but that discussions with staff indicates that they are still interested in pursuing this.

Ald. Joe Clausius, a member of the Parks Commission, said this was just referred to the body and he doesn't have a lot of knowledge of it, and asked Briski for his thoughts. Briski again said his staff was studying this and thinks it's a worthwhile issue, and that a little more time to plan would be appropriate, but if the council wanted to go forward, he and his staff have done their best job at getting ready to implement it.

Schumacher asked about the cost of the failure rate (and thus extra sorting), and if it's included. Briski said the bags with excessive trash would eventually become part of the city's refuse collection and be sorted there, but I didn't hear any specific cost of that.

Verveer asked for more information on the failures of recycling at the State Street mall concourse, and if it could be talked about at the Downtown Coordinating Committee. Briski said he could refer it to them for discussion.

Rhodes-Conway asked about when this program could begin, noting that there was no timing in the amendment and that it could be started later. She asked if the amendment failed, if the parks staff had the funds to begin implementing it mid-year when they were ready to, or if they have to wait for funds. Briski said they would wait for the 2010 budget process, although they could work to secure grant money during that time.

8:53 p.m.: Konkel explains an amendment that would take $160,000 from the IZ fund to help purchase an IZ unit that may come on the market in 2009. There's a funny exchange when Compton said the council should wait until IZ is discussed by that body as a whole before making any of these decisions.
Cieslewicz: "You're going to propose to keep it around?"
Compton: "I know it's getting cold, but I don't think hell has frozen over."

The amendment fails.
8:38 p.m.: The mayor does a quick rundown of which amendments are left -- 12, 13, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 5 is on the table. The list of amendments can be found here for reference.

Konkel and comptroller Dean Brasser explain an amendment to reduce the funds from the inclusionary zoning special revenue fund to the Community Development Block Grant staff for the administration of the inclusionary zoning program, which the mayor announced would end on January 2, 2009. There is still some money in the budget for administering IZ in order to give them some money to close out the program. The funds would instead come from a reduction in supplies and $16,000 from the levy while the Council decides what to do with the IZ fund.

Compton said she will not vote for this because the council has not discussed letting IZ end yet. Konkel said the bigger concern is where the CDBG will get the $75,000 in future years that they have counted on from the IZ fund. Palm said they should still be using the IZ fund to finish this program.

The amendment fails on a voice vote.
8:28 p.m.: Ald. Mark Clear tries again to combine a few amendments that are levy-neutral are fairly non-controversial - the five combined are 14, 19, 20, 21, 31. Notably, 14 is Ald. Eli Judge's downtown residential exterior lighting enhancement grant program. Judge explains that the target area for the program is bordered on the east by Paterson Street and Randall/Regent streets as the southwest corner and the lakes. Sanborn asked to be marked as a "no" on 14, and Cnare asks for clarification on the language of the program (which does not exist). Judge said one of the reasons for the delay on the language, which will be crafted by the Public Safety Review Board, was to make sure that it was done right. The motivation for the program came from discussions with the police when working on the Neighborhood Watch programs downtown. Judge asked what would make the police officers' job easier, and he said many of them would point to a street and say, "light that." Pretty much every police officer and downtown resident he has talked to supports it.

The amendments are adopted by voice vote.

8:27 p.m.: The council takes up Amendment 11, which would eliminate funding for the sister city program. Sanborn explains that this amendment is not meant to criticize the virtues of the program, but that it's not the role of all taxpayers to pay for it. He also doesn't want the council to look at the room tax fund as "free money."

The amendment fails by voice vote.
7:59 p.m.: Ald. Michael Schumacher explains HIS adjustment to the compromise on the room tax fund, which basically just sets a floor and ceiling for how much extra the GMCVB will get.

Ald. Marsha Rummel asks for clarification on what happened at the BOE compromise "“ was the contract changed?

Schumacher said the contract is not changed, but the GMCVB just gets some extra money on top of the 20 percent allotted, which comes from the fund's reserves. It is important to increase the funds the GMCVB gets because in a tough economy, it is harder to attract tourists, and this extra money for destination marketing will at least allow the city to maintain tourism (and thus room tax funds) in future years.

Rummel asked what the benchmarks are for the contract.

Jim Hess of Monona Terrace explains the GMCVB contract. The GMCVB reports to Monona Terrace quarterly on benchmarks for the room tax fund, and reports that the agency did make all of its benchmarks last year.

Konkel asked why we are giving more money for the same benchmarks "“ said she's uncomfortable giving them $250,000 and saying, "Ok, we'll check on you in six months."

Schumacher said across the country, such as in Las Vegas, when people saw a drop in tourism, they added millions to tourism marketing to stave off the effects of a bad economy on tourism, and that maintenance has for the most part been the goal. If we wait a year, it will cause us more problems because tourism could dip so low that "we could be stuck paying for Monona Terrace." (A possible exaggeration, but with the Overture Center fiasco, who knows?)

Konkel thanked Schumacher sarcastically for the lesson on what the room tax fund does, but says we would not give any other agency $250,000 carte blanche. She wants to support the amendment and its goals, but is very uncomfortable.

Cieslewicz clarifies that the Council is not voting on the compromise, but on an adjustment to that compromise.

Kerr said she will support the amendment as well as the compromise because of the importance of tourism in her district (particularly for Monroe Street), but she wants to be very clear that she shares Konkel's concern about the lack of benchmarks for this money. She shares Schumacher's concern that we don't want to lag on this, but she will be following this closely.

The amendment is adopted on a voice vote.

The council votes to take a 10 minute break. Be back in a few.
7:55 p.m.: Ald. Brenda Konkel explains her amendment to strike a compromise on giving additional funds to the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau from the room tax fund because the city has a five-year contract with GMCVB to prevent these negotiations, that there is a report on the room tax fund that the Council has yet to debate as a body and that there were procedural issues in making the compromise at the BOE (check the links at the bottom of this blog for more info). There is no debate, and the amendment to remove the compromise fails 6-14 (Ayes: Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Gruber, Rummel, Webber, Judge)
7:51 p.m.: A motion to restore future funding to WYOU fails on a quick 9-11 vote.

7:49 p.m.: Ald. Brenda Konkel explains Amendment 7, which would provide sick leave funding for hourly employees. This has already been passed by the council, but Konkel wants to know why it hasn't been implemented. Human resources manager Brad Wirtz basically summed it up that it's a "confusing pot of money" that isn't really included in any of the union contracts, and he's not sure how to implement it.

Konkel said the first year this was passed, all of the parameters were laid out. She acknowledges that there was a changeover in management in the city's HR office, but asked if Wirtz made any attempts to find out how to implement it. Wirtz said he did not. (This seems like a rather public way to settle this"¦)

Ald. Lauren Cnare asked what happens when an hourly worker calls in sick "“ if they know there is money for sick leave. Right now, Wirtz said they are not paid for that day because there is no mechanism to pay them Cnare said she will work with anyone necessary to put that mechanism in place.

Schumacher asked HR to explain the difference between hourly and permanent employees. Wirtz said they generally work less than half-time and have substantially fewer benefits because the city is not actively working to keep them around.
The amendment to give sick leave to hourly employees (again) is passed, 13-7.
7:33 p.m.: Ald. Marsha Rummel explains her amendment to restore full funding for the sister city program and move it from the room tax fund to the general fund, noting that two speakers came specifically last night to comment on the value of the sister city programs.

Ald. Jed Sanborn said he would support this and would move to place his amendment to delete it entirely on file because he doesn't want to see it in the room tax fund any more. He would prefer it was gone, but he would much rather see it in the general fund.

Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway said she knows several sister city programs that are not happy to see the money in the room tax fund, and that it places too much emphasis on economic development over other purposes of the programs -- humanitarian aid, cultural exchange, etc.
Ald. Lauren Cnare said the city shouldn't be involved with sister cities for reasons other than economic development.
The mayor said he wanted to depoliticize the sister city programs by moving them to the room tax fund and he cut it in half, even though he thinks the programs are great, as a symbol of how tough this budget year is (even though the $5,000 isn't that big in the grand scheme of things). He put it in the room tax fund not necessarily for economic development, but because a lot of the program is about exchanging visitors.

The amendment fails, 8-12.
7:31 p.m.: Still on facades. Ald. Lauren Cnare brings up that one of the grants has gone to Google Earth, which doesn't exactly need our money.

Ald. Larry Palm said he knows this is a lot of money, but it's not money the council can easily get back if they decide in a year or two that the budget isn't as hard. Also, there is some value in having incentives to offer businesses -- even Google -- to get them to come to Madison.

The amendment to remove funds for facade improvement grants fails on voice vote.
7:12 p.m.: Ald. Jed Sanborn explains Amendment 2, which would eliminate a fund to issue grants to businesses for facade improvements, on the grounds that it's even more not the role of government than his previous amendments (which would have cut arts funding and planning money for the Central Park) and takes tax money to give to businesses that should have enough motivation to keep their facades nice. Basically, it's rewarding bad business behavior, he said, by rewarding businesses that don't want to pay for upkeep on their buildings.

Ald. Mike Verveer he and Sanborn have "agreed to disagree on this" for years, and that there is no new city money in this -- the capital revolving fund offers loans, and the interest from loans goes to the facade improvement grant program. He adds that the amendment was already defeated 1-5 at the Board of Estimates.

Konkel said that this is really smart money -- it's not borrowing, it's not taxing, it revolves in and out and it provides a great service to businesses as an economic development tool.

Ald. Eli Judge said Verveer and Konkel said everything he wanted to say (and thus he won't make any comments). The mayor lauds him for keeping it short.

Ald. Marsha Rummel cited a few examples of she has seen a little money go a long way in the city, such as a Stop and Go near the capitol that needed a little work. Although the money is needed because there may have been some neglect to the building in the past, it's still a good program.

Sanborn said even though there is no new money going into the program, the money could still be used for a number of other things, like paying off debt service.

Compton said she wants to use this money for the Stoughton Road revitalization in her district, but wants to point out that this is not $500, but $1 million in a budget year when the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors' Bureau had to give up $1 million in money that could have gone to economic development, as well.

7:04 p.m.: Ald. Brenda Konkel explains her next amendment (we're back to Amendment 1, actually), which reflects a recent court decision that eliminates a partial property tax exemption from a low-income housing unit and brings the city another $20,000 in property taxes. Another amendment (6) would give those property taxes to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway said this is of great concern in her district, where there are several properties this decisions could affect, and wonders what the long-term solution is. Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said there is likely some action at the state level that will address this in the next legislative decision.

Amendment 1 passes unanimously. Amendment 6 passes by voice vote.

6:48 p.m.: Ald. Thuy Pham-Remmele chastises alders for holding people hostage at the budget meeting tonight with long debates over these amendments, and said she feels bad that the police chief is letting go of the citizens academy because he doesn't feel the $500 is worth arguing over. She adds that she hopes the alders are equally diligent when it comes to adding or subtracting thousands from the budget.

Ald. Michael Schumacher also makes a comment on micromanaging the staff down to the $500 level, and added that the political grandstanding is "nonsense".
Ald. Brian Solomon said he didn't sign onto these amendments to "grandstand" or make political points or embarrass management of these departments, but that in a tough budget year, he wanted to look "under every rock and every tree" for extra budget money."

Ald. Julia Kerr said she is "disappointed" by the way this meeting is starting out, but that all alders have a right to make amendments and those should be respected. People have different political philosophies, but should be respectful and not chastise alders for making certain amendments.

Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway said it has been a bad month for public process -- she wrote an memo to the council earlier this month criticizing them for side conversations and side deals. She gives an impassioned speech about what she sees her role on the council -- to scrutinize the budget and even the mayor when need be -- and she will not criticize others for making amendments or for how much time they talk on these amendments, and she will not vote on an amendment to just sweep discussion under the table.

Konkel said the citizens' academy is a week's worth of an officer's time, and just a year after the city hired 30 new officers because police did not have enough time to do all of their patrol work, it made sense. That one was the outlier, though -- others were up to $150,000 of money that wasn't getting spent in department budgets on a regular basis. If they need the money this year, fine, but these are all budgets that have been consistently under target in recent years.

Konkel said she's trying to respond to her constituents, who don't want higher property taxes, but still be able to add needed programs (such as her amendments to add a healthy neighborhood liaison and eviction prevention program to the budget) that other alders are going to say the city doesn't have the funds to pay for later. She said it's a good display of politics to get rid of these cuts now to prevent her additions later. She also said there is not enough time in the budget process for amendments.

Sanborn said we're reading too much into this (I laughed, but I'm not sure he's right).

The motion to put all of these cuts on file passes, 15-5 (Nos: Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, Webber, Solomon, Rummel).

6:34 p.m.: Konkel moves to separate Amendment 16, which fails 9-11. Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway moves to separate Amendment 18, which would cut the citizen�