Dane County  
Minutes - Final Unless Amended by  
Committee  
Alliant Energy Center Redevelopment Committee  
Consider:  
Who benefits? Who is burdened?  
Who does not have a voice at the table?  
How can policymakers mitigate unintended consequences?  
Monday, April 15, 2024  
11:30 AM  
This is a Hybrid Meeting: Attend in person in the Board  
Room of the Alliant Energy Center, 1919 Alliant Energy  
Center Way, Madison.  
A. Call To Order  
Staff present: Lauren Kuhl, Carolyn Clow, Haley Lauffenberg, Todd Violante, Cecely  
Castillo  
Others present: Nicole Anderson, Rob Gottschalk, Scott Harrington  
Members of the committee did introductions of themselves.  
Meeting called to order at 11:32am.  
RUBEN arrived at 11:42am.  
KNOX arrived at 12:32pm.  
STOUFFER left at 1:14pm.  
13 - RUBEN ANTHONY, ROBERT CRAIN, TOM DECHANT, HEATHER STOUDER,  
BREWER STOUFFER, Supervisor DAVE RIPP, PAM CHRISTENSON, CHUCK  
ERICKSON, JEFF GLAZER, ISADORE KNOX, ELLIE WESTMAN, LAURA  
HERSCHLEB, and KEVIN CONNORS  
Present  
B. Consideration of Minutes  
Minutes of the February 19, 2024  
2024  
1.  
MIN-002  
Attachments:  
2024 MIN-002  
A motion was made by GLAZER, seconded by CHRISTENSON, that the Minutes  
be approved. The motion carried by a voice vote.  
C. Action Items  
ALLIANT ENERGY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 2024  
2024 ACT-027.pdf  
2024  
ACT-027  
Attachments:  
Discussion on Major Capital Improvement to the Alliant Energy Center  
2024  
1.  
DISC-001  
Attachments:  
Alliant Energy Center Potential Market Opportunities Report, 2024  
Alliant Energy Center Proposed Facilities Matrix 04-05-24  
Alliant Energy Center Redevelopment Committee Survey Responses  
Supervisor Erickson provided an overview of the timeline for next steps.  
Scott Harrington provided an overview of the Expo Hall Expansion and Related Sites  
improvements.  
Harrington noted that Strang is currently updating cost estimates.  
Glazer inquired about to what extent the recommendations to the expo hall include  
other site improvements related to modern amenities that would be expected of a facility  
of this size.  
Harrington indicated that those updates are included in the schematics, it was a  
comprehensive look at upgrades across the building.  
Glazer asked about what green efforts are being included.  
Harrington remarked that he anticipates that Strang will have a full presentation in June  
that may speak to some of these questions.  
Dr. Anthony inquired about funding for the project.  
Erickson remarked that he is talking with other Supervisors about the $150-175 million  
for the expo hall.  
Dr. Anthony asked if the costs for the expo hall are realistic for the county.  
Erickson remarked that he believes the figures are realistic and the County Executive  
had previously discussed funds for the project.  
Westman Chin indicated that at Destination Madison, their position is that the number  
one thing that needs to happen is to expand the expo hall.  
Stouffer noted that Hunden indicated that the expo hall is key to the revitalization of the  
campus.  
Stouder noted that the numbers are 2027, so there is some urgency to act because the  
figures are going to grow.  
Ripp indicated the plan is over ambitious and is likely under budgeted, and that the  
figures do not include any input from the city. It will be easier to sell to rural residents if  
there were funds from the city. It will require people going to talk to people.  
Connors indicated that the discussion needs to be mindful of parking and storage for  
the facility to run. The current kitchen is undersized for the facility and supplying food.  
Stouffer noted that the kitchen size, storage, and parking are included in the  
schematics.  
Erickson noted that the current designs mean that the Huber building will need to be  
knocked down.  
Ripp noted that the building is not in good shape and was not built to last a long period  
of time.  
Stouder noted that TIF cannot be used for anything tax exempt.  
Alliant Energy Center Potential Facility Recommendations  
AEC Potential Facility Recommendations_04-05-24  
2024  
ACT-001  
2.  
Attachments:  
Expo Hall Recommendation: A. Commit to funding  
Central Plaza  
Harrington provided an overview of the potential recommendations for the committee to  
consider, and noted these are 2027 numbers.  
Dechant noted that this project really complements the expo hall project.  
Connors noted that knocking down the arena could create problems for existing  
customers that use the facility.  
Glazer noted that later down the road, the messaging can include all of the proposals  
that address issues such as the arena concern.  
Connors inquired if projects would be done in timing so there are facilities to use in the  
meantime.  
Harrington noted that the plaza would be benefit to existing and new events  
Herschleb noted there will be a gap in time as to when the facilities are built.  
Ripp indicated he would get the first project completed before tearing down the arenas.  
Harrington noted that the arena and the Bob Johnson training center actually lose  
money.  
Erickson noted he believes the roller derby uses a facility, but could be moved  
somewhere else.  
Glazer noted that they should think more about what phase 1 will include. Would hate  
to limit what is done in phase one and have to go back in five years to do more marginal  
improvements. Do not want to have to ask for the money over a series of time, would  
be better to do it all at once.  
Central Plaza Recommendation: Jeff Glazer proposed Recommendation A – the rest of  
the committee agreed.  
Indoor youth sports facility  
Harrington provided an overview of the survey responses as well as the potential  
recommendations.  
Crain indicated from the Sports Commission perspective that “a” is the recommendation  
to put forth.  
Glazer shared concern that the sports facility could be over studied. The group needs  
to think about how quickly to move forward, and would not like to see it included in the  
phase one.  
Dr. Anthony agreed with comments that “a” should be move forward on. Should test the  
waters to see what private interest is out there to fund the project.  
Stouffer noted there are a lot of options in addition to just being a youth facility.  
Christenson agrees with “a”, and this provides some certainty to potential private  
investors.  
Dechant likes “a”, but also “b” should be included as well. There should be a definitive  
answer on the Coliseum.  
Herschleb noted that there are multi-use needs that need the Coliseum space.  
Westman Chin agreed with all of the comments and also that there have been several  
conversations around bringing a sports facility to the area.  
Stouder noted that going to potential partners within the context that a feasibility study  
of the Coliseum could be considered.  
Ripp supports building a separate facility rather than using the Coliseum.  
Erickson noted that “a” gives flexibility to consider the Coliseum, and there are other  
things that go into the  
Knox supports recommendation “a”, understand concern about where other activities  
will occur.  
Indoor Youth Sports Facility Recommendation: Option A because of the flexibility  
Land East/South of Rimrock Road  
Harrington provided an overview of the potential recommendations.  
Conners indicated the County has contracted with a consultant to map the wetlands  
Dr. Anthony noted the options are not mutually exclusive. Not to purse until there’s a  
better idea as to what to do with the other spaced.  
Ripp suggested looking at leasing the land rather than selling it similar to what the  
airport does.  
Glazer noted if the county continues to own it there may be limits as to what the county  
can do with the land.  
Herschleb inquired if it has been explored to put a parking ramp in the space.  
Erickson noted hearing “c”  
Christenson indicated she is leaning towards “a”, could be a complimentary use to the  
other project happening on campus.  
Erickson suggests modifying the wording of the recommendations.  
Connors indicated they are updating the wetland map.  
Glazer inquired if the site has been studies for other uses.  
Todd Violante noted negotiations may not be the best term, but there is an expression  
of interest and the county is trying to assess what it can be used for.  
Dr. Anthony noted that if the site can be used for a hotel, there should be some  
negotiation with this and the sports facility.  
Proposed recommendation by Christenson: Continue exploration of a development of  
complimentary uses and bring proposals to the redevelopment committee.  
Dr. Anthony voiced concerns about not considering strategic investments in the  
recommendations.  
Knox agreed with Dr. Anthony regarding using this a leverage  
Westman Chin noted keeping the option open to do the exploration  
Sale of Land East/South of Rimrock Rd Recommendation: Option A (modified):  
Continue exploration of development of uses complementary to the Center and  
surrounding Destination District and bring proposals to the redevelopment committee.  
Indoor pro soccer facility  
Harrington provided an overview of the topic as well as the survey results and potential  
recommendations.  
Glazer indicated he agrees with “b”.  
Herschleb indicated it is important to consider “b” to be able to use the facility as  
multi-use.  
Connors inquired if it has been considred to put a multi-use facility on top of a parking  
ramp. Space is a premium, so having multiple uses is important.  
Indoor Pro Soccer Practice Recommendation: Option C – table until have more  
information.  
Multi use entertainment arena  
Harrington provided an overview of the survey results, and potential recommendations  
Knox indicated support for option “a” because of what he has heard from entertainers.  
Dr. Anthony indicated support for option “a”, would be one of the most exciting options  
discussed at the meeting.  
Ripp indicated support to do something with the Coliseum. Will need to find a way to  
recognize Veterans.  
Multi-Use Entertainment Arena Recommendation: Option A  
Private Commerial development  
Harrington provided an overview of the recommendation and survey responses  
Glazer suggested packaging this with the coliseum redevelopment and think about what  
a new concept would look like – private development and work on coliseum. Think of  
sports center as something different.  
Herschleb noted that private commercial development doesn’t benefit World Dairy, but  
recognize fuller picture of use for the facility.  
Knox indicated support for “a”  
Westman Chin indicated this could be a game changer for the AEC.  
Groups arrive in the morning and leave at night and having retail and restaurants would  
be beneficial. Could be a revenue generator for the AEC. Anything on property should  
have some revenue for the AEC/County. Agree with “a” to sew aht opportunities are  
out there.  
Dr. Anthony – agree with Westman Chin and Knox. This is the option to think about  
future revenue generation.  
Good with “A”.  
Ripp noted “a”, noting that parking needs to be considered.  
Private Commercial Development Recommendation: Option A  
With the stipulation that there is a need to address lack of parking  
Parking structure  
Harrington provided an overview of the recommendations.  
Ripp has concerns that this means that parking will not be considered.  
Connors noted that all parking is currently used for existing business, and parking is a  
problem here today.  
Glazer noted that exploring independent to what is being discussed in other areas of the  
property.  
Stouder inquired if it makes sense to put a placeholder in for 2026.  
Parking Structure Recommendation: Option A, but change to 2026 capital budget and  
allocate funding to study, no specific budget amount.  
Amphitheater  
Harrington provided an overview of the recommendation and survey results  
Erickson indicated that he was open to hearing about the amphitheater in thinking about  
Bratfest  
Glazer suggests adding to the costs of phase 1  
Dechant suggests it would be an easy target for philanthropy. The downside is the  
neighbors complain about the noise specifically from Bratfest.  
Christenson noted that the neighborhood will weigh in heavily on this one.  
Christenson in favor of “c”  
Stouder noted that it could be used in tandem with entertainers, but neighborhood  
concerns are very valid.  
Westman Chin indicated it is not a request that has been made of any client. Tend to  
lean towards tabling for right now.  
Knox indicated he likes the proposal, there’s a need for an outdoor space for music  
venues. Suggest leaving it open but not a high priority.  
Harrington indicated the cost is $1.5 million.  
Ripp indicated it needs to be very carefully designed.  
Outdoor Amphitheater Recommendation: Option B (modified). Determine initial  
feasibility, but not high priority. Modify to remove county-alone. Leave it open to explore.  
Multi-use show ring  
Harrington provided an overview of the recommendation and survey responses.  
Herschleb indicated support for multi-use facility. This ties very closely with what  
happens with the coliseum, some sort of multi-use showroom facility would be  
important.  
Connors suggested considering this because it is very expensive to move dirt for  
events. This would allow for a multi-use purpose.  
D. Presentations  
E. Reports to Committee  
F. Future Meeting Items and Dates  
G. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda  
H. Such Other Business as Allowed by Law  
I. Adjourn  
A motion was made by CRAIN, seconded by CHRISTENSON, that the meeting be  
adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.  
The meeting adjourned at 1:47pm.  
Minutes respectfully submitted by Lauren Kuhl, pending committee approval