When the Fox Guards the Henhouse: Madison’s $150,000 Handout to Downtown Developers

Key Points

• DMI’s consultants began work in July—two months before tonight’s Council vote on the $150,000 contract

  
  

• The actual contract isn’t included in the legislative file, yet alders are asked to approve it sight unseen

  
  

• DMI is subcontracting to firms the city could have hired directly through competitive bidding—this isn’t a true sole-source situation

  
  

• Unlike the city, DMI isn’t subject to open records laws, eliminating public transparency

  
  

• The beneficiaries of downtown investments are writing the strategy that determines where public money flows

  
  

Tonight, the Madison Common Council will vote on awarding a $150,000 sole-source contract to Downtown Madison, Inc. (DMI) to develop the Downtown Economic Investment Strategy. There’s just one problem: DMI represents the very businesses, property owners, and developers who will directly benefit from whatever public investments this strategy recommends.

Even more troubling? According to DMI President Jason Ilstrup’s August report to his board, work on this project already began in July—two months before the Council is being asked to approve it.

The Contract That Isn’t There

When the Finance Committee rubber-stamped this proposal last week through their consent agenda without discussion, they approved something they couldn’t even fully review. While the resolution promises to authorize “the attached $150,000 sole source Purchase of Services contract,” no actual contract appears in the legislative file. Alders are being asked to approve $150,000 in public spending without seeing the terms, conditions, or deliverables they’re agreeing to.

As Lisa Veldran, who spent 38 years working in the city council office, observes: “Even if leaving the contract off the resolution is standard practice, the Council has every right to demand better. Voting on a sole-source deal without seeing the actual contract—especially with a non-competitive contract—is not real transparency. Newly elected members promised openness and accountability; this is their chance to make that more than a campaign line.”

The Council and public remain in the dark about fundamental questions: What’s the total project cost? Where is the rest of the funding coming from? How much is DMI keeping versus paying to consultants? These aren’t minor details—they’re essential information for responsible governance.

The Sole-Source Fiction

Madison’s ordinances are clear: sole-source contracts are only permitted when “the service required is available from only one person or firm.” The City Attorney’s office emphasized in 2018 that “sole source means the good or services are truly available from only one company or supplier.”

Yet the scope of work reveals that DMI isn’t actually doing this work themselves. They’re subcontracting to MIG, Inc., Vandewalle & Associates, NEOO Consulting, and EQT by Design—all firms the city could have hired directly through competitive bidding. MIG faces competition from national firms like AECOM, HR&A Advisors, and Sasaki, as well as regional competitors like Houseal Lavigne Associates and MSA Professional Services. Any of these firms could provide similar services.

The sole-source justification collapses under the slightest scrutiny. This isn’t about unique expertise—it’s about circumventing the competitive bidding process that protects taxpayer interests.

A Troubling Precedent

Former Mayor Paul Soglin doesn’t mince words: “I find it scary that the city is awarding the contract to a party whose members have a direct financial interest in the outcome. This is beyond inappropriate. The study, no matter how good, will not be credible.”

He’s right. When downtown property owners and developers control the strategy that will recommend where public investments flow, we’ve crossed a bright line. This isn’t just about appearances—it’s about fundamentally corrupting the planning process.

Consider what’s at stake. This strategy will influence decisions about:

• Which areas receive infrastructure investments

  
  

• Where tax increment financing gets deployed

  
  

• How development incentives are structured

  
  

• Which projects get prioritized for public funding

Every one of these decisions directly affects DMI members’ property values and development opportunities. They’re literally writing their own investment wish list with public money.

Transparency? What Transparency?

Unlike city departments, DMI isn’t subject to open records laws. Once this contract is signed, the public loses any right to see DMI's internal communications, meeting records, or correspondence about this project. The consultants’ deliverables show extensive coordination through “Project Management Team” and “Project Leadership Team” meetings—but these won’t be public meetings with posted agendas, minutes, or opportunities for citizen input.

The scope of work reveals DMI will control virtually every aspect of the process, from stakeholder selection to community engagement coordination. While the city participates in various teams, DMI drives the agenda, manages the consultants, and shapes the narrative. The city becomes a junior partner in planning its own downtown future.

Where’s the Economic Development Committee?

Perhaps most tellingly, this proposal bypassed the Economic Development Committee entirely, despite the committee’s charter explicitly stating it shall “make recommendations to the Mayor and the Common Council on economic development.” Instead, it went straight to the Finance Committee, where it passed without discussion on the consent agenda.

Why avoid the committee specifically tasked with reviewing economic development proposals? Could it be that substantive review might have raised uncomfortable questions?

The Shadow Committee

Adding to the opacity, Jason Ilstrup reported in May that he serves on the “City of Madison Economic Development Division’s strategic planning stakeholder committee.” One problem: this committee doesn’t exist in the city’s official Legistar system, and Ilstrup doesn’t appear on the active roster of city committees and commissions.

What is this shadow committee? Who appointed its members? What role has it played in developing this proposal? These questions deserve answers before any vote.

A Better Way Forward

No one disputes that downtown planning is important or that DMI contributes valuable perspective to the conversation. But there’s a right way to incorporate private sector input without handing over the keys to the kingdom.

The city could have:

• Accepted DMI’s financial contribution

  
  

• Conducted a competitive RFP for an independent consultant

  
  

• Created an advisory committee, including DMI representation

  
  

• Maintained public control over the process

  
  

• Ensured transparency through open records and meetings

  
  

Instead, we get a process where the beneficiaries write the plan, transparency disappears behind private organization walls, and work begins before approval is even granted.

The Questions That Went Unanswered

Nine days ago, I sent detailed questions to Alders Verveer, Ochowicz, and Govindarajan about their sponsorship of this legislation. I asked about the conflict of interest, the lack of competitive bidding, the missing contract details, and whether they’d discussed this with constituents beyond the downtown business community.

Not one has responded.

Their silence speaks volumes about how seriously they take public accountability when downtown interests are involved.

What You Can Do

This vote happens tonight at 6:30 PM, but it’s not too late to make your voice heard.

• Contact your alder immediately. Send a personal email explaining your concerns about this contract. You can also email the entire council at allalders@cityofmadison.com.

  
  

• Register your opposition at the Council’s registration page. You can speak in opposition by registering at the same link—speakers get three minutes and can participate via Zoom without attending in person. This is agenda item number 56.

  
  

• Share this story on social media. Tag your alder and use #MadisonTransparency to spread the word before tonight’s vote. The more people who know about this backroom deal, the harder it becomes to push through.

This isn’t about opposing downtown development or dismissing DMI’s contributions to our city. It’s about maintaining the integrity of public planning processes, protecting taxpayer interests, and ensuring that when we invest public dollars, those investments serve the entire community—not just those who stand to profit from them.

When we allow beneficiaries to write their own investment strategies with public money, we’ve abandoned responsible governance. The Council should reject this contract and demand a transparent, competitive process that serves the public interest.

Our downtown’s future is too important to be left in the hands of those with the most to gain from it.

Note: The Common Council meeting begins at 6:30 PM tonight, September 2, 2025. Register to speak or submit your comments at the link above. 77SquareMiles.com covers what mainstream media won’t—because democracy dies in darkness, especially at City Hall. © Alex Saloutos 2025.