Madison council authorizes bid process to remove Dairy Drive campground after two-week hold for funding review

The Madison Common Council on Sept. 2 approved a public-works procurement to advertise for bids to remove the Dairy Drive temporary campground and restore the site, but the council added a brief delay of portions of the authorization until Sept. 16 to allow council members time to pursue last-minute funding options and committee review.

The measure, which authorizes the Board of Public Works to advertise and receive bids for demolition, recycling/reuse and site restoration, passed after an amendment was adopted that defers selected contract steps until the council completes consideration of a related item on Sept. 16.

Why it matters: Dairy Drive has housed roughly two dozen people during a severe regional shortage of shelter and affordable housing. Service providers and residents said closing the site now would force people back to unsheltered locations during the winter. Council and city staff said available one‑time funds and the property owner’s need to restore the parcel make a planned closure necessary unless additional money is found.

Public comment: More than 30 registrants spoke during the item’s public-comment period. Service providers, social workers and onsite case managers described the site as a functioning program that helped move residents into permanent housing. Sarah Alijada, director and founder of KAVA Inc., which has worked alongside Madison Street Medicine at Dairy Drive, told the council, “We are just asking that we say no to demolishing Dairy Drive. We are hoping for the extension so that we can keep providing services, especially as the seasons change.”

Multiple current and former residents recounted moves into housing that they attributed to supports delivered at Dairy Drive. Case manager Savannah Harpel said onsite services made same‑day interventions possible: “I’ve watched a client receive keys to their very first apartment at age 40… 13 have moved on successfully to permanent housing,” she said. Resident Tris Cushman warned, “They will die if we put them back out on the street.”

County and city officials: Dane County Supervisor Heidi Wegleitner, speaking for the county Health and Human Needs Committee, urged the council to extend the site through the winter and noted county funding possibilities: “There are at least a couple few $100,000 we know that would be left and available,” she said, while cautioning that those funds are time‑limited and must be spent by Sept. 30 for some programs.

City staff described the budget situation. Jim O’Keefe, director of the Community Development Division, said the city has $220,000 of one‑time levy funding in CDD’s 2025 budget intended for site restoration; if not spent this year the money would lapse back to the general fund. “That money, if it’s not spent this year … would lapse to the general fund,” O’Keefe said. Finance director David Schmedeke and county staff explained that re‑securing similar dollars in 2026 would be difficult because of the city’s near‑limit on expenditure‑restraint thresholds and competing supplemental requests.

Operator and funding details: Madison Street Medicine and subcontractor CABA were the principal onsite operators. Brenda Conkle, speaking for the provider, reported that the current operating budget this year totals roughly $603,000 made up of HUD, county, city and provider funding; she said the program has not spent all of its HUD allocation and that about $200,000 of HUD funds remain contractually available this year but must be expended by August 2026 for that grant stream. Engineering staff and the provider said operating costs have been reduced through staffing changes, with recent monthly operating estimates ranging in the transcript between about $40,000 and $65,000 depending on which costs are included.

What the council approved: The council authorized the city engineering team to advertise a public-works contract for demolition, removal and site restoration, with the explicit instruction — by amendment — that portions of the resolved clause be delayed until the council completes consideration of the newly introduced item 89,779 on Sept. 16. City engineering estimated the project budget at roughly $185,000 for contractor removal work plus about $35,000 in city soft costs, for an estimated total of $220,000; staff also said the city will attempt to auction reusable site fixtures (shelters, fencing, a bathroom building and equipment) to reduce net restoration costs.

Staff timeline and logistics: Engineering described a bid schedule that would have produced a start‑work letter in early November if the council had approved the advertisement immediately. Staff said they could begin limited city work (disconnects, removal of salvageable items, work by other city divisions) in October if the campground were vacated by Sept. 30 and that some components (vertical shelters, fencing, bathroom building) could be disassembled even in colder weather; removal of asphalt and other ground‑contact work could be hampered if the ground freezes.

Next steps: The council’s amendment created a two‑week window to allow final pursuit of county or other funds and to consider a related floor‑introduced item. If no additional funding is found, staff will proceed with the advertised contract and the planned restoration using the one‑time 2025 budgeted funds.

Ending: The vote authorizes a procurement process — not immediate demolition — and gives the council a short period to consider alternatives before the city commits contractor resources. The council recorded a unanimous vote in favor of the motion as amended.