| 10/31/2005 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Sanborn, seconded by Ald. Rosas, to Refer to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: Additional Referral(s): Housing Committee, Economic Development Commission |
| 11/1/2005 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| 11/1/2005 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 1/5/2006 | |
| 11/3/2005 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Fiscal Note Pending to the Attorney's Office Completed on 11/3/2005 | |
| Notes: Brasser |
| 11/3/2005 | Attorney's Office | Referred for Introduction | |
| Notes: Plan Commission; Housing Committee; Economic Development Commission |
| 11/4/2005 | PLAN COMMISSION | Refer to the HOUSING COMMITTEE Completed on 12/7/2005 | |
| 11/4/2005 | PLAN COMMISSION | Refer to the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Completed on 11/7/2005 | |
| 11/4/2005 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 1/5/2006 | |
| Notes: Send approval back to EDC. |
| 12/7/2005 | HOUSING COMMITTEE | A motion was made by King, seconded by Merrill, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation to Place on File to the PLAN COMMISSION and additionally, Phil Salkin appeared representing Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin in support of the repeal of Inclusionary Zoning and they are opposed to amendments proposed. He recited statistics for the number of condos/homes sold and the value they were sold for. You can't make people buy units that are not in their best interest. He is hearing that there are going to be more apartments being converted to condominiums at reasonable prices. He would hope the Housing Committee would not vote on this tonight until they get the City's report on IZ which should be mid-December. The reports says (1) prospective buyers lose interest when they hear of the restrictions; (2) prospective buyers lose interest when they find there are available units at the same general price level; (3) because of the asset test, people are calling saying they would like to buy a condo and when they sell their house, they are then excluded because they have too many assets. This is anecdotal from discussion from individuals currently involved with IZ. With the affordability period of 40 years, it is very difficult to make it more attractive to realtors to sell the units.
Nancy Jensen representing Apartment Association of South Central Wisconsin appeared in support of the repeal of Inclusionary Zoning. She passed around a preliminary report from AASCW with vacancy data. This is raw data but it shows the high volume of affordable vacant apartment homes in the Madison area. The bottom line is, there is a tremendous amount of rental property available. The industry is creating thousands of affordable apartments that rent for less than IZ can create and they are vacant because there isn't enough tenant/resident traffic to fill them. AASCW urges the Housing Committee to repeal the rental portion of the ordinance as they don't feel there is a need for the rental industry to be involved in this.
Rosemary Lee appeared in support of the repeal of IZ but did not wish to speak.
Delora Newton of Smart Growth Madison appeared in support of the repeal of IZ. Smart Growth Madison actively participated in the discussion on IZ when introduced 2 years ago because they believe in the need to provide affordable housing for working families and thought that IZ would be a good way to do that. Since the passage of the ordinance, the City has acknowledged several problems with the ordinance and they waited in good faith for language to be drafted by the City. They were extremely disappointed to see that the proposed changes fall short of the changes needed to fix the problems. Smart Growth Madison worked in good faith on the original ordinance and reluctantly compromised on many of its components even though they feared the compromises would result in the failure of the ordinance due to numerous restrictions and requirements. Many of the predictions have been correct. The ordinance before the committee make changes to the equity model but the City retains control of the resale process and also takes equity away from the homeowner. The incentive portion of the proposed amendment tinkers around the edges but doesn't correct the problems. It still doesn't guarantee that the City has to provide requested incentives and this results in cost shifts for other buyers. The changes to the marketing period makes the ordinance worse. It will practically guarantee that lots for IZ homes will never be sold because developers and builders can't find buyers for the lots now. Smart Growth Madison supports repeal of IZ because starting from scratch and taking a fresh look at crafting a problem that actually delivers on its goals is the only real option. Before starting over, the City must issue its status report on IZ so the data gathered so far is public and the City must also conduct marketing research to determine what type of housing product and program will be embraced by those who it aims to help. Only after these steps have been completed will we have the tools available to make the right decisions on the best way to provide affordable housing for those in need.
Ald. Jed Sanborn appeared in support of the repeal of IZ. There are two different levels of problems with this ordinance. One is the micro level that have problems with the developers with the complexity of the law, the lack of incentives for people to buy the units, the equity problems. The ordinance is a one-size fits all where the needs of affordable housing vary greatly depending on what area of the city you are looking at. History has shown with these programs that they are very difficult and costly to administer as well. He is concerned about the bigger, long-term consequences. He has been looking at and discussing with other committees a study that is the most comprehensive study of IZ that he can find. It looks at California where they have had IZ for over 30 years, it looks at 50 communities in particular, and they find in communities with population of over 100,000 people, they average less than 15 IZ units per year. They look at the effects of the construction market and housing market in general and find that consistently the amount of new housing decreases substantially, 31% after IZ ordinances go into effect. This is what concerns him. What we will be doing over a long term is make housing more expensive. The costs greatly out-weigh the benefits and he would rather focus our energy on helping people on an individual level with down payment assistance and rental assistance. These kind of things don't distort the market place and put the cost of this program on one small segment.
Hirsch noted that the Housing Affordable Subcommittee recommended rejection of this proposed ordinance to repeal IZ.
Merrill stated the ordinance is apparently not working the way it is now. There are two choices: fix it or repeal it. There has been a lot of work done on this the first time. Many of the arguments that he has heard can be fixed. He would like to make an effort to try to fix them rather than throw it out and go through a long process of starting all over again when there are many good elements now in the ordinance. The market conditions are very favorable now and he thinks the IZ ordinance has to recognize any changes that need to be made to work with the market better. He is concerned that the IZ does something that other programs don't do. It is intended to be a way to assure that units will be produced at a lower market value not just being subsidized. It is also important that the units be geographically disbursed.
Villacrez noted he would support the repeal of the ordinance. Being a realtor, an apartment owner and developer, it is affecting each one of these aspects. The ordinance is not working.
Brink would like to work towards the repeal and/or make the changes within the ordinance. We don't have the study back yet so we don't have the data to work with.
Hirsch noted that he is concerned that the large number of existing units being brought forward as a reason to not have IZ misses the mark. There is a place for new product in the marketplace and there are people out there buying IZ units. The existing housing stock does need to be addressed in our community, but IZ is not distracting from doing that. IZ offers the potential to produce some new units and to make them affordable and hopefully accessible in ways that the existing housing market can't do it.
The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(8:2) |
| 1/5/2006 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Cnare, seconded by Davis, to Refer to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: Referred to the meeting of Monday, January 9, 2006. |
| 1/5/2006 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Approved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (AFTER CC INTRO) to the PLAN COMMISSION Completed on 1/5/2006 | |
| Notes: Brasser |
| 1/9/2006 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Konkel, seconded by Davis, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO PLACE ON FILE - PUBLIC HEARING. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(7:1) |
| 1/9/2006 | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | A motion was made by Kauten, seconded by Clarke, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation for Denial to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| 1/17/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Sanborn, seconded by Ald. Compton, to Rerefer for Recessed Public Hearing to the COMMON COUNCIL, due back on March 7, 2006. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(12:8) |
| Notes: Substitute motion: Place on File Without Prejudice, Golden/Konkel: no action taken. |
| 1/17/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Sanborn, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Rerefer for Recessed Public Hearing to the COMMON COUNCIL at the 2/7/06 Meeting. Amend the motion by changing the due date to 3/7/06. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(13:7) |
| 3/7/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Sanborn, seconded by Ald. Olson, to Rerefer for Recessed Public Hearing to the COMMON COUNCIL, due back on April 18, 2006. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(12:8) |
| Notes: 5 Registrant(s) in opposition wishing to speak; 2 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak; 9 Registrant(s) in opposition not wishing to speak. Substitute motion to place on file, King/Konkel: no action taken. |
| 4/18/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Sanborn, seconded by Ald. Compton, to Rerefer for Recessed Public Hearing to the COMMON COUNCIL, due back on June 6, 2006. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: A motion was made by Ald. Van Rooy, seconded by Ald. Rosas to Place on File: no action taken.
1 Registrant(s) in opposition not wishing to speak. Public Hearing Recessed.
Due back at the 6/6/06 Common Council Meeting. |
| 6/6/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Sanborn, seconded by Ald. Compton, to Rerefer for Recessed Public Hearing to the COMMON COUNCIL, due back on July 11, 2006. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: 1 Registrant(s) in opposition wishing to speak; 1 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak; 2 Registrant(s) in opposition not wishing to speak.
Due back at the 7/11/06 Common Council Meeting for final action. |
| 7/11/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. King, seconded by Ald. Olson, to Table. The motion failed by the following vote: | Fail
(10:6) |
| 7/11/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Sanborn, seconded by Ald. Thomas, to Adopt With Amendment(s) as follows: Repeal would include (25) & (26). The motion failed by the following vote: | Fail
(4:12) |
| Notes: Public hearing Closed. |