MINUTES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday,
January 16, 2006
City Hall, Room 604
5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ald. Fred Graves, John Vander Leest, Guy
Zima, Chris Wery, Gary Kriescher, *Tom Weber
OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Schmitt, Ald. Chad Fradette, Carl Arnoldi,
Tony Theisen, Andy Nicholson, Atty. Jerry Hanson, Atty. Allison Swanson, Chad
Weininger, Rob Strong, Tom Lesperance, Scott Patrick (WTAQ)
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Fred
Graves at 5:30 p.m. All members were
present with the exception of *Ald. Tom Weber, who arrived at 7:20 p.m.
Ald. Graves requested to
address agenda item #8 first and to address agenda item #12 when Rob Strong
arrived, and to take items #4 & 5 together. Motion made by Ald. Kriescher, seconded by Ald. VanderLeest to
approve the agenda and to take items #8 and #12 out of order, but to keep items
#4 & 5 separate. Motion carried.
Motion made by Ald.
VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Kriescher to approve the minutes of the October
27, 2005 meeting as submitted. Motion
carried.
Ald. VanderLeest said when
the Nicolet Bank project was approved in 2004, it was agreed, and Council
agreed that we would continue to try to seek less TIF involvement with future
projects in the downtown region. He
distributed a Summary of TIF Supported Developments from June 23, 2003 which
gave the TIF#, the Developer, the name of the Project, the Assistance, TIF $,
the Type, the terms and Security. He indicated that he would like to see this
summary developed on all future developments in TIF districts. He said he wants to continue to lower TIF
assistance from 20 years toward 18, 15, etc. on all TIF projects. He cited the Lombardi development at
Ashland, which was a 13 year TIF, stating that he would like to see TIF’s for
13-15 years or lower.
Allison Swanson clarified
various assistance with TIF projects stating that the Tundra project isn’t the
lowest. She stated that with the I-43,
TIF 3 we did not give any assistance directly to businesses as part of that TIF
but did public improvements and closed that TIF in 7 years. She indicated that with the Hwy 54/57
Business Park we are looking for quicker payback in 7-9 years and again the
assistance to the developer is they are providing guarantees for purely
infrastructure items such as sewer extension, water, and roads. She said TIF 8
which is the Morrow Street area would be 7-10 years and the city assistance is
for acquisition of blighted properties and we turn those properties over for
building of senior housing. She said in
terms of downtown we have stuck to that; in the Astor Place, an 18 year, and
River Center both of the borrowing is for public improvements stating that
River Center is a 20 year borrowing but almost half of it is for the boardwalk
and covering our acquisition price. She
said the public portion is guaranteed by the developer. Ms. Swanson said Doug Daul is looking at all
the TIF’s and where we’re at with borrowing.
She said Baylake Bank’s initial portion didn’t take anything and we did
give APAC $800,000 which Council approved
for building above. River Lofts took no
assistance. Ald. VanderLeest said we had that issue with the Alexander project
earlier in the year whether it was a loan or a grant, stating that the summary
he is requesting would clarify this for the Council members. Allison stated that each project is
different, adding that with The Tranquility Spa on Broadway, we made it a TIF
rather than making it part of our revolving loan fund, she stated that Olde
Main will see some TIF. Ald.
VanderLeest stated he would like to see a resolution that staff understands
that it is the wish of Council to continue to lower TIF on future projects,
especially on downtown projects. He
cited the City’s assistance with the Parking Ramp downtown in subsidizing some
of that parking. Allison responded that
downtown is an anomaly and is the only area 100% supported by TIF.
Ms. Swanson said her concern
is that they would be able to divide out the public portion of borrowing. She
stated that with Astor Place and River Center the developer guaranteed
increments that covered their portion and our portion. Ald. VanderLeest stated his concern with how
much TIF assistance the City is giving to downtown projects, adding that the
Mayor stated at the time of the Nicolet Bank project that it was a goal that we
continue declining TIF assistance. He indicated that his reason for bringing
this forward is twofold: to be certain that our actions need to be consistent
and that we pass a resolution to continue to decrease TIF assistance on future
projects. Ms. Swanson responded that
they have already done that with the TIF’s mentioned above. Ald. VanderLeest stated that if Council sees
another TIF at 20 years, he’s going to be disappointed. Allison responded that the TIF may be at 20
years because you have guaranteed for the entire borrowing not just for the TIF
borrowing that is going directly to the developer. She said what he’s asking her to do is to run another proforma
for the improvements to the developer and show that it’s paid off a lot sooner
than 20 years. Ald. VanderLeest
responded that he’s only asking staff to be consistent, including improvements,
to decrease the amount of time for the TIF.
Ald. Graves asked Mr.
VanderLeest what his purpose is with this request? He responded to follow-up on discussions that took place at the
time of the Nicolet Bank project and to be certain we were being
consistent. He stated that if we close
a TIF early the City sees a boost to their tax base and the money is available
as revenue to hold taxes down. He stated that there was a lot of issue
regarding the Alexander lofts/apartments whether this was a loan or a
grant. Ald. Zima said he supports Ald.
VanderLeest’s comments and reviewed the history of TIF, stating that generally
speaking TIF legislation started with the idea as a way for cities to do public
works projects so they wouldn’t have to bond everything. He said TIF has
matured over time to not only provide public works projects but to provide
subsidy for underwriting the risk involved in private projects. He stated that the idea of TIF was supposed
to be the project that jumpstarted development in the area and that would
encourage other development which would aid in paying the TIF. Mr. Zima said with rare exceptions, all that
TIF did was to raise expectations for developers to get more assistance than
the previous developer received. He
said TIF set standards for subsidies rather than to encourage normal
development in the area. He stated his
objection to the give aways, and would like to see a tracking of what’s going
in and being taken out. He said we
should pick the priority projects to jumpstart development and said he believes
that projects that require too much subsidy are not worth it, adding that each
developer comes with their hand out to see how much they can get from the City. Ald. Zima stated that he feels downtown
needs to be neat, clean and functional and we don’t have to have 20,000 people
passing through. He said we only have a
few acres to develop downtown; retail has moved out and we should find what
will stabilize downtown and stick with it.
Ald. Wery said he agrees
with having some periodic progress reports on all TIF projects and said each
project should be decided on their own merit. He agrees that we should trend
downward with TIF assistance. Mayor
Schmitt cautioned the committee to be careful with what happened on Broadway
with the GO Debt where the neighbors were funding $5 million. He said he doesn’t know about an ordinance
but agrees that a periodic update on where we’re going is healthy. Mayor Schmitt said if you let it alone,
development won’t happen, adding that the City hasn’t done a good job with
development in downtown. He said other
cities have redeveloped their downtowns successfully and it’s not happenstance,
adding that government plays a role. He
stated that we will work with developers if they share the same vision. Ald. Theisen said he also likes the idea of
keeping track of things like this, but stated that each project is unique. He said some projects might have an old
building where you have asbestos to be removed, some projects are parkland,
etc. He stated that his hope is that the city is negotiating so that the TIF is
as small as it needs to be. Ald.
Theisen said rather than artificially saying that we are going to 18 or 17
years, if it’s true that as we develop it, the next parcel should bring more
developers looking at it and we can negotiate with them. He said we look at each project, negotiate
and make the best decision, adding that we may not know if we hadn’t offered
TIF if the project would have happened. He said he does not agree with downtown
only needing to be clean and functional and said if the majority of Council
agreed with this they would not have voted the way they did. He asked how you
define too much subsidy for a project, asking if we do not negotiate with
developers on the amount of TIF? Ms.
Swanson responded that each phase of a project is negotiated. In general, he stated that the competition
for each project will determine what the TIF will be. In summary he said he
likes to be reminded what we get, we negotiate each project and get the best
deal we can.
Ald. Fradette said he agrees
with Ald. Theisen’s points and said TIF is a tool we have and should be using
more often. He stated that Ashwaubenon uses it more and he doesn’t understand
the rush to close the TIF. He indicated
we have many projects now that we can’t pay for, citing the Bay Beach expansion
project. He said with the advent of
Donor TIF’s there was a lot of discussion about why can’t we use this money for
our neighborhood? He stated that we
shouldn’t rush to close successful TIFs because we could use that money to fund
projects within other TIFs, adding that maybe we shouldn’t have rushed to close
the I-43 TIF. Ald. Fradette stated that
we need to have an advantage over Ashwaubenon, we have more land to develop and
need to use TIF. He stated that Allouez
has no advantage over us but they use TIF when they can. He said we should be
frugal with TIF and we should keep track of it, but it’s a tool we should use,
and if someone thinks it is a negative, they should go to Madison and try to
change it.
Ald. Arnoldi stated that he
agrees with a lot of what’s been said tonight and said every project comes
before Council for a vote and all projects go to committees first, so they’re
all well informed of what’s going on ahead of time. He said instead of debating that on the Council floor, he
believes it’s the duty of every elected official to know what’s going on ahead
of time. Ald. VanderLeest stated that
we closed a TIF in 2003, giving the city revenue of approximately $1.5
million. Atty. Swanson responded that
we did need to close that TIF in order to fund the budget but one thing that
changed subsequent to that is we weren’t able to amend the TIF at that time to
track the land, adding that we are now able to amend TIF. Ald. VanderLeest
confirmed that we were able to help cover the budget shortfall with closing the
TIF and to maintain the tax rate, indicating that this supports the argument
for closing a TIF. Ald. VanderLeest
said another reason he brought this issue forward was the discussion on Council
floor regarding the Vetter project to change the TIF from 18 or 20 years to 13
years. He said apparently the project
wasn’t going to be attainable to the developer at 13 years. He again said they
would like to see lower terms than 18 or 20 years on future TIF projects. Atty.
Swanson said what may be more helpful to Council members would be for her to
report out annually on the status of the TIFs. She believes this would be more
helpful because every single project is not on the form that Ald. VanderLeest
distributed. She said this will tell
them what’s happened in the TIF, analyze the TIF, the status and tell them
where they’re headed. Ald. VanderLeest
stated that he’d like a report on the major developments that Council has voted
on, annually submitted either to Finance and/or to all Council members. Atty.
Swanson said a report saying this is what we said we were going to do with the
TIF and this is what the result is, this is where we are, would be
helpful. She stated that they receive
the numbers from the State in August and an annual report could be done and
provided to Finance.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest to request Economic Development Department to update the summary of TIF supported developments and to provide an annual update to the Finance Committee in future years. Ald. Zima inquired about an update twice a year. Ald. Zima seconded the amended motion to receiving a report twice a year.
Ald. Graves stated that
Council had better know what they’re approving. Ald. VanderLeest said when new Council members are elected, they
can go back and see what previous arrangements were on projects. Ald. Graves inquired if TIF can be used to
pay off the parking ramp? Atty. Swanson
answered “yes”. Ald. Graves gave the
example of a two block area in downtown, Flatley Park and the Younkers
Building. He said with $80 million in
improvements, that’s $631,000 a year in taxes. The total, at the present rate
the county, the city, NWTC, schools, is $1,756,000. that we would be
getting. He said in that two blocks, it
is not going to cost the city extra in police, fire protection. His point is that we should take the TIF
money as long as we can and learn how to use it. He said we had better see what the competition is and be
competitive. He also stated that he
doesn’t believe downtowns are dead, especially downtown Green Bay.
A vote was taken on Ald. VanderLeest’s motion. Motion carried.
*Ald. Wery left at this time
to attend another meeting.
Ald. VanderLeest asked for
feedback on the intent of the TIF state law, stating that is was not intended
to be a long term situation but was intended to get the property back on the
tax roles. Atty. Swanson responded that
is correct but you have certain guidelines, like the case in I-43 you can’t
keep it open just to keep it open. She
said for example, on specific projects, if that project is a 10- year and is
doing well and you want to add projects to it, and you have excess funds in
that TIF, and you want to donate funds to a different TIF, you can do
that. Ald. VanderLeest inquired if TIF
resources could be used to acquire property for the Bay Beach expansion? Atty. Swanson responded that it depends on
what type of TIF we’re creating there. The expansion could not be paid with TIF funds unless there are
other TIF-qualifying projects in the area.
Mr. VanderLeest asked about the Vetter project, with Atty. Swanson replying
that the base is already established on that TIF as of 1/1/05. She indicated that the state will look at
the numbers and treat it as one big pot, adding that in reality, the money from
the state is greater than the money we are basing our proformas on from
developers, depending on how the TIF performs. Ald. VanderLeest confirmed that
the city only gets the base amount each year for the life of the TIF, Atty.
Swanson said we get our TIF money on top of that. Ald. VanderLeest said the intention is not to carry TIFs as long
as we can and to close them when achievable.
Atty. Swanson said we are not maximizing our TIF like other communities
and have not been charging the time from the Law Dept, Public Works and
Engineering spent on these projects and these are legitimate expenses. Ald. VanderLeest said his same message is to
decrease TIF support on projects and make better use of it in other areas, i.e.
identify opportunities for TIF in other areas of the city and to decrease TIF
support. He indicated that more Council
support will be received for lower assistance projects. Atty. Swanson again stated that they are
doing what Ald. VanderLeest is saying. She said if an opportunity for a project from a large corporation comes
wishing to build in I-43 rather than downtown, and requires different type of
assistance, she is not going to tell them “no” but will need to bring this
project to the Council.
Ald. Zima said we can’t
dictate who is going to request what and each project has its own
characteristics and discussion on how to put limits is not worthy. He said TIF should be used to create an
atmosphere where growth would occur naturally. He feels the city should set
goals to reduce TIF assistance away from 18-20 years to minimal involvement. He
said now everybody wants their share and we’re competing with other communities
to see who will give the most assistance.
Ald. Zima discussed the
redevelopment on Broadway, which was a thorn being turned into a flower. He
indicated that the TIF district wasn’t created before the development and the
total tax base in the Broadway area is dramatically larger and contributing to
the city/county school districts and no money spent on Broadway has been tossed
into a deep, black hole as the Mayor has alluded to. He asked that the Mayor speak to the On Broadway people to get
the numbers on the total tax base on Broadway before the redevelopment and what
it is today. He said it’s significantly
higher today but is not going into a TIF it’s going into the coffers of the
city, county and school district. He
stated that the money was to replace infrastructure and pavement that was 50-60
years old.
Ald. Zima responded to Atty.
Swanson’s comments regarding Baylake Bank not getting a TIF. He stated that Baylake Bank got free land, a
super cheap price for the Boston Store and their sub-developers got TIF
help. Atty. Swanson said she did
acknowledge that APAC and their developer on the second floor got TIF
assistance that increased the value of that building. She said Baylake paid $1.5 million for the building, to which Mr.
Zima responded that was a super cheap price.
Atty. Swanson stated that the original numbers that Council calculated
in terms of what Mayor Jadin brought to them break even point was $1.35 million
for Younkers and $1.35 for Boston Store, and Baylake ended up paying $1.5
because they didn’t get credit for the Children’s Museum. Ald. Zima said he thinks its important that
we don’t misuse TIF and not just pour money into TIFs for 15-20 years that
benefit developers and allow them to recoup money. He asked how we decide who
gets help and who doesn’t in the city and asked if we shouldn’t help the people
on Military Avenue. He said from a
business standpoint we should look at the best place to invest our money, to
get the quickest return and to benefit all of our citizens. He said if it means helping people on
Military Avenue where we can get our money back in 5years or 7or 10 years,
that’s what we should be looking at, rather than benefiting the few.
Motion made by Ald. Zima to direct staff to semiannually give their vision for where they want to invest the city’s money for TIFs to get the best return on our money as quickly as possible. Motion seconded by Ald. Kriescher.
Ald. VanderLeest said
some constituents on the west side see a fixation on downtown and would like to
see redevelopment on the west side also.
He supports Ald. Zima’s motion and would like to see an analysis by
staff for new and redevelopment possibilities on Military, West Mason and Velp
Avenue. Atty. Swanson responded that we
are already working on Military and Velp Avenue on reconstruction. She said we
had a TIF request that ended up being pulled back by the developer near the Bay
Settlement interchange and are still looking at that. She indicated that they
are working on assistance on Lombardi Avenue outside of the TIF trying to look
at some changes there. They are still working on Paul Kaczrowski’s project on
Lombardi as well. She said they are marketing the Best Buy property on Mason
Street and just referred people to property on Taylor and West Mason. Ald. Zima said the intention of the motion
is to get a city wide analysis to determine options for places to develop to
get the best return on our money, to encourage development to improve jobs,
etc. He said the entire Council should
see all of the goals and what our potentials are, and then they can make
decisions where they want to invest their TIF dollars, and we should avoid
areas where we aren’t getting a good return. Atty. Swanson responded that a lot
is happening without TIF such as on Main and East Mason. Ald. Zima responded that that’s what’s
desirable, adding that the less TIF we have to provide for development in the
long run is what’s good for the city.
He said the projects that require the greatest TIF are the greatest
risks. Ald. Graves asked if it’s
possible for staff to accomplish Ald. Zima’s motion? Atty. Swanson responded that to some extent, adding that
developers want to market that tool whether they use it or not. She said TIF is
a tool to help them. She said the other side is that they’re marketing not
using TIF for competitive reasons that developers don’t want their plans to get
out because there’s a lot of competition between not just the east and west
side but from Bellevue also. She said
she can bring forward a plan of options but not specific projects, adding that
a lot goes into it and it changes a lot.
Ald. Zima would also
like to know what would have to be spent on developments that are taking place
and what money the city would need to spend, with Atty. Swanson responding that
that is a plan in and of itself. Mayor
Schmitt said this is a silly motion because a grocery store may be less
expensive to put in Ald. Fradette’s district than on Military but if the owner
wants to be on Military, then we have to support that. Ald. Zima said he’s not telling anybody
where they need to develop. Atty.
Swanson said we have 10 TIFs now and
will probably create two more next year. She indicated that she is
looking at a TIF on Military and Velp.
Ald. Zima said Economic Development has limited staff and he feels it’s
important for staff to focus their time on things that will have the greatest
return on their investment. Further discussion ensued regarding who decides
which is more desirable with Ald. Zima stating that Council is currently not
involved and feels that the entire Council should assist in making the decision
and should be kept updated on what’s happening with development projects. Rob Strong referred to the Comprehensive Plan relative to locating areas that will
pay off quicker, saying that we’ve done that. He said some areas have existing
buildings which would need more money and environmental issues, saying that it
varies by each project. He indicated
that its relatively easy to identify the areas but much more difficult to tell
which ones will pay back quicker, which are the ones Ald. Zima wants to
concentrate on.
Ald. Fradette said some
of the comments being made sound as though they’re stepping over the bounds of
separation of powers. He said Council
cannot tell staff they should not concentrate on certain areas of the city but
can lobby the Mayor’s Office to do so.
Ald. Zima again said we should be marketing areas that will give us a
quicker return. Mayor Schmitt said that
makes no sense, adding that that is where we get a poorer area poorer and
poorer and we encourage development throughout the city. He said he met with a large developer today
and showed him the whole city, adding that we market the city not special
projects or special areas. He feels if
you start neglecting the areas with the most need it’s not a good idea. Ald. Kriescher said we can’t wait 5 years on
Military and asked why we aren’t pushing retail at East Town Mall? He said everything is going to Ashwaubenon
and Bellevue and we can’t bring it back after they leave. Ald. Graves said this is because of the idea
we had that we don’t want to use TIF.
He asked why Ashwaubenon is so progressive and uses TIF.
A vote was taken on Ald. Zima’s motion. Motion carried with Ald. Graves voting “no”.
*Ald. Wery returned at
this time – 7:20.
Ald. Graves said we are
questioning if we have enough staff and now we are going to put more on their
plate. He said they are going from city
limits to city limits to try to get as much development as they have and he
does not understand this. Ald.
VanderLeest said in summary we should continue to see reduction in the amount
of TIF District and if Council does not see this in the next project, they
should send it back. Ald. Theisen said
he heard Ald. VanderLeest state that these are our wishes, and said his thought
on the past hour of discussion is that it’s the biggest bunch of B.S. he’s ever
heard and a big waste of time.
Rob Strong said this has
been talked about a couple of times in the past couple of years and this is a
key component to growing our community, adding that it’s market driven. He said condominiums are not in planned use
in our zoning ordinance and is an ownership issue, a multifamily project. Atty.
Swanson said it doesn’t prevent someone from changing something from an apartment
to a condo or vice versa. She said we’re limited in our ability to control
condos by statute, adding that it’s a density issue. Ald. Zima inquired if we keep in touch to know apartment
vacancy? Mr. Strong responded that on a
whole our market is down with 30-40% vacancy but said some are 90% full. Ald. Zima stated that this may be an
important statistic to get a handle on because when a request is brought
forward, we can ask if this is in our best interest, to have some means to
report the vacancies so we don’t flood the market and compound the social
problems. Mr. Strong said there is no
law requiring them to report vacancies but he can request this information from
the Multifamily Association. Ald. Kriescher said that the rental market is bad right now
and owners are trying to sell to their tenants because they can’t make any
money off of them. He said there are too many apartments and not enough people.
He said since we have such an imbalance right now, it doesn’t make sense to
keep building apartments. He said these
owners are going to demand cuts on their property taxes and we’re all going to
suffer.
Motion was made by Ald.
Zima to hold this request and to request staff to bring back what the vacancy
rate is in larger apartments. Motion
was seconded by Ald. Kriescher.
Ald. VanderLeest said he is
opposed to placing a two-year moratorium on apartment building adding that in
free enterprise people are free to build an apartment building if they wish and
we should let the market determine this and government shouldn’t try to control
this. Ald. Kriescher said they are just
attempting to get more information at this time. Mr. Strong said there is a small amount of land remaining for
multi family and said in Ald. Nicholson’s district they didn’t allow a
development because the area was too dense.
He stated that United Financial Group is building new senior housing
units every year. Ald. Theisen said
staff doesn’t have time to spend in gathering useless information and he agrees
with Ald. VanderLeest that this information is intended to look at a moratorium
otherwise why are they being asked to do this?
Ald. Weber said he concurs
with Ald. Theisen and VanderLeest and this is a lot big brotherish. He said we aren’t capable of fully
understanding the dynamics of supply and demand, adding that they don’t equal
each other rather go in different waves up and down. He stated that we can’t predict or determine and this is not the
role of government. Ald. Kriescher said
it does effect the city because we give up tax money when these apartment
building owners can’t rent their units there is a formula for them to request a
reduction. Ald.Wery said he likes the
idea of getting the information regarding vacancies and asked Mr. Strong if
that would take a lot of time. Mr.
Strong responded that he believed getting this information would be relatively
simple but if they are asking his staff for a mechanism to track vacant
property, this would take a lot of time.
Ald. Zima said he only requested Mr. Strong to provide the vacancy rate
if that number is available, adding that if that information is not available,
that’s what Mr. Strong reports back.
A vote was taken on Ald. Zima’s motion. The vote ended in a tie with Ald. Weber, VanderLeest and Graves voting “nay”. Ald. Zima, Kriescher, and Wery voted “aye”.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest to receive and place on file the request by Ald. VanDenHeuvel to reopen talks about a two-year moratorium to restrict apartment building, excluding condominiums and to re-define what condominiums actually are. Motion seconded by Ald. Weber. A vote was taken on the motion, resulting in a 3-3 tie.
4. Request by Ald. Graves to review complaint
regarding actions of Ald. Guy Zima
during the Common Council meeting of June 21, 2005.
Ald. Graves played the tape from the June 21, 2005
City Council meeting, stating that this kind of action has been going on by
certain individuals on the Council, stating that another thing that happened
that day was a city employee was told to shut up and told that she was a nobody. He indicated that there were other
accusations aimed at other aldermen that there was double dealing, etc. He said it’s time that we move the actions
of the city council up considerably. He
said Mr. Zima compared a county employee as a deaf mute, a situation in Algoma
where there was an auction and he was the low bidder and started throwing
obscenities around at the high bidder and apparently the auctioneer was asked
to leave the church facility. He
indicated that it’s getting to be a situation where it’s embarrassing for the
City of Green Bay, city employees and other City Council members. He said this is not a matter of free speech
but we need to have conduct that is befitting of the job they do. He stated that
personal attacks are happening that shouldn’t be, because things didn’t go the
way people think they should, right away we get on the band wagon and start
accusing people. Ald. Graves said he
is requesting a resolution of censure for these actions and opened up the floor
for discussion. Ald. Wery seconded the
motion to censure.
Ald. Zima said if you’re going to start reprimanding
each other every time the majority of the Council doesn’t like something that
someone else has said, you’re setting a dangerous precedent. He cited two
examples of behavior that occurred this evening. He referred to Ald. Theisen’s comment about the discussion that
had taken place as B.S. indicating that that meant bull….. Ald. Graves cautioned him to refrain from
that language. He said the Mayor sat here and made no correction because the
right people said something and that’s “A o.k.” He said the Mayor concurs with
Ald. Theisen’s comment, adding that, in other words discussion by other
aldermen about serious topics is B.S. He
stated that if Guy Zima tonight had called anything anyone else said, B.S. the
Chairman’s hammer would have come down very fast. He said it is a double standard.
Ald. Zima held up a tape where he indicated the Mayor had used God’s
name in vain at a meeting and asked if the members wished to view the tape. He
stated that the Mayor has a temper and in a mayoral debate with Dave Nennig
called Mr. Nennig an obscenity. He
again said it’s a double standard that the Mayor can say whatever he wants. Ald. Zima said elected officials have to
allow discretions and admitted that he is not the popular boy in town and
wishes he would use a different word now and then, adding that he believes the
Mayor wishes he had used a different word at times. He said sometimes things come up in the heat of debate and
tempers flare. He said if the Council
wishes to play judge and jury against him, they are opening up a can of
worms. He stated that this request
should be placed in the trash can and received and placed on file because if
everyone present was honest and looked in the mirror, they would admit to
saying something at some time that they wish they hadn’t said. Ald. Zima said this is an issue of Freedom
of Speech which allows for free expression.
He indicated that if they pursue this censure, he is going to start
taping every meeting and will expect the same treatment of every person who
says something out of order
Ald. Kriescher said he doesn’t support the request
for censure and this is freedom of speech and said he supports the
constitution. He said as long as it’s not an overthrow of the government or
yelling “fire” in a theater, the constitution protects our right of freedom of
speech, even speech that we don’t want to hear sometimes. He stated that they all took an oath to
support the constitution and if they vote for this censure, they should
resign. Ald. Wery said it’s unfortunate
and a sad show what we’re doing here tonight.
He said we are city leaders, we must act like it, yes there is freedom
of speech but we should be above that.
He said when we fall below that and make direct attacks, we need to
bring each other back up. When asked
for an apology say yes, I was wrong, but that didn’t happen. He said we need to hold each other to a
higher level. Mayor Schmitt said he did
swear at a meeting and he apologized for it and felt bad. He said not to let Ald. Zima spin them with
Freedom of Speech, because this is about respect and we need to show respect.
Mayor Schmitt said Ald. Zima had a chance to apologize and he didn’t, and there
is a pattern here of disrespect. He
said if this Council is going to allow this, there is your chaos.
Ald. VanderLeest said both the City Council and
County Board spend too much time on name calling and poor behavior. He said it’s unfortunate that the City and
County has become the laughing stock for poor behavior. He said the taxpayers
would rather see more effort on holding taxes down, development, and making
this city a safer place to live, and believes the public is appalled and tired
of the behavior of the members of the Council and County Board. He referred to
Supervisor Collins newsletter that he emails which makes the county look bad,
adding that he supported censure for those actions. Ald. VanDenHeuvel’s racial
remarks cast a bad shadow and again made the city and county look bad. He
indicated that Ald. Zima had the chance to apologize for his inappropriate
actions but refused, therefore he supports the censure. He summed up by stating that we are wasting
time on non-productive things to taxpayers.
Ald. Zima said he won’t reverse his opinion and will
not apologize, again referring to two cases tonight of inappropriate
behavior. He stated that Ald. Graves
didn’t like his comments on TIF and said he could look for a career change, and
added that the Mayor did not apologize the night he used God’s name in
vain. Ald. Weber said this is not an
issue of Freedom of Speech and nobody is saying that a person can’t say it, but
with all speech comes responsibility and consequence. He said this goes beyond respect to other people and he feels
it’s a tremendous disrespect to this body of the City Council and this body has
a responsibility to themselves and to their constituents to insure that the
body performs in a manner and decorum of that body. He said Ald. Zima made many comments regarding the discussion on
censure such as grow up, where this ends up, don’t know what we’re doing,
meager understanding of the law, threatening all members of the Council with
taping meetings. He said you have to
bear the consequences when you open your mouth and said he would vote for a
censure. Ald. Theisen apologized for using those terms this evening, stating
that it’s not professional and is not something he should subject the Council
or staff to. He said he was wrong.
Ald. Nicholson asked to see the tape that Ald. Zima
has. Ald. Graves said he could view the
tape at a later date. He stated that
Supervisor Collins disrupted practically the whole state with his newsletter
and Ald. VanDenHeuvel disrupted the whole community with his comments, but said
Ald. Zima didn’t cause much disruption.
He said he could give examples of how he was treated last week and at
the last council meeting and didn’t receive an apology, but said he takes this
in stride because he’s an adult. He stated
that he’s not going to confront the individual or ask for an apology and
accepts it because he sees the individual for what they are. He referred to an
investigation with some aldermen where a lot of time and money was spent on
false accusations and said that hurts but you take it in stride. He said we spent state money on city
politics and there was no reprimand or repercussions on these false
accusations, which could have put an alderman in jail, but nothing came of
it. He said this is serious and now
we’re offended by poor judgment of language.
He asked the members to be consistent.
Ald. Theisen said the things that were said were unprofessional and the
bottom line is that the constituents will decide if this is the behavior they
will tolerate. He said if these things
are going to be brought up, they should be brought up and dealt with at the
time they are said.
Ald. Kriescher asked the city attorney if any of
these comments were grounds for a libel suit.
He said public officials should be able to take it or they shouldn’t be
here. He again said this is free
speech, adding that we don’t have a code of conduct here. He said if they want a code of conduct they
better have one drawn up and try to get it passed. Ald. Graves said this is not freedom of speech, adding that he
will defend anyone’s right to say what they want to say but said it’s the
behavior and when you do it on TV, degrading a developer and threatening staff with being fired, you need
to be called on it. He said he hopes
the members of this council are above this and do not have to have written
rules of conduct. Ald. Weber said he believes we do have a code of conduct
under Robert’s Rules of Order. Atty.
Hanson said there are guidelines and it’s about the decorum, adding that we do
not have a civility code like the county has.
Ald. Weber again said the words belittle, berate, be-smudge,
intimidating, etc. should not be hidden under the umbrella of freedom of
speech. He feels that the group needs
to set standards of decorum and said he is not challenging freedom of
speech. He said as a body we have the
right and the responsibility to self-regulate ourselves and said the members
have the right to censure if they do not approve of what was said. Ald. Kriescher asked who decides speech, and
said it’s intimidation, referring to dirty politics at the highest level. Ald. Graves said this is the City of Green
Bay and hopes we are above that. Ald.
Zima said he wasn’t above that when he made the comment about a career
change. Ald. Graves stated that this
was a general comment and was not directed to Ald. Zima.
A vote was taken on Ald. Graves motion for
censure. The motion passed with a 4-2
vote. Ald. Graves, Weber, VanderLeest
and Wery voted aye. Ald. Zima and
Kriescher voted nay.
Ald. Theisen said he has been studying this issue and
working on it with Carl Weber and they are discussing some changes on the
item. He requested to have the item
referred to staff.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald.
Weber to refer this item to staff.
Motion carried.
Since Ald. VanDenHeuvel was not present, motion was made by Ald. Zima, seconded by Ald. Weber to receive and place on file Ald. VanDenHeuvel’s request. Motion carried.
Atty. Hanson said this
item was last discussed at the Advisory Committee meeting of October 27, 2005.
He stated that a policy was adopted by the City on March 2, 2004, which was a
culmination of a fair amount of discussion in the past. At the last meeting, Ald. Zima requested
that employees who use city vehicles be required to keep a log of mileage and
how the vehicle was used, which is a policy that the county adopted. Discussion ensued regarding this being a
time consuming thing for staff and if it should apply across the board on only
to employees who take city vehicles home.
Ald. Zima said he has received a few complaints about the use of city
vehicles, indicating that maybe using this log as a trial for one year could be
a useful tool. He said he doesn’t believe this is a large problem but would
make people more conscientious. Ald.
VanderLeest said a few years ago he brought forward a comprehensive plan for
vehicle use and inquired if the city policy of who can take city vehicles home
is not being followed? He indicated
that he was receiving complaints from constituents who saw city vehicles on the
weekend in Milwaukee and Madison. He stated that he agrees with keeping a log
to monitor use, which was not included in the policy adopted on 3/2/04. Atty. Hanson said there was a grievance
filed relative to city vehicle use, as a prohibitive practice but this was
overturned. Ald. VanderLeest said he would like to see all departments be
required to keep the log to place some controls.
Motion was made by Ald. Zima, seconded by Ald. VanderLeest that mileage logs be kept by administrative employees who regularly take city vehicles home and to report back to the Personnel Committee after one year.
Further discussion
ensued regarding some vehicles being shared by a number of people and Ald. Zima
stating that there was a tremendous decrease in mileage at the county when the
policy of logging mileage was implemented. Ald. Weber asked that these logs be
reviewed by the Personnel Committee after six months to be certain that city
employees are filling out the log correctly.
A vote was taken on Ald. Zima’s motion. Motion carried.
Atty. Hanson distributed
a copy of the minutes from the October 27, 2005 Advisory Committee meeting
where this item had been discussed. He
indicated that the committee instructed him to revise the language in the Code
of Ethics in the Municipal Ordinance to make it clearer and read the language
that he proposed from the previous meeting.
He read a copy of revised language which he also distributed. Ald. VanderLeest asked if the language could
be made clearer. He stated that the
intent of Ald. Zima and former Ald. Roger VanderLeest was to restrict full employment, administrative employee, union
employee or a contracted employee. He said a contracted employee would be
exempt according to this revised language.
Ald. Zima said his intent was to include contracted employees in the
one-year restriction and suggested adding the words “contracted employees”. Further discussion included giving Council
the option by ¾ majority vote to rehire an employee if they wish and exempting
poll workers. Ald. Zima said he’s
trying to take the politics out of it and this keeps it clean. Ald. VanderLeest said it’s unethical to seek
city employment in less than a year when leaving office and said state
legislators can’t hire family members to their staff.
After further
discussion, a motion was made by Ald. Zima, seconded by Ald. VanderLeest
to approve the following language regarding Post-Office Employment: No
alderperson, during the term of office, or one year thereafter is eligible for
any employment with the City of Green Bay whether by regular employment or
contractual services. Exceptions to
this policy will be as follows: 1.
where alderpersons are appointed to fill a vacancy for another elected
office, or are elected 2. where an alderperson serves as a poll worker
or at any other position which has a stipend of less than $1,000 a year 3. where an alderperson is appointed to a post
with an 80% majority consent of the Council.
Ald. Wery recommended
changing the exception in 3. to state 80% majority consent of the Council. Ald. Zima concurred with this amendment to
the motion.
A vote was taken on Ald. Zima’s motion. Motion carried.
Ald. Wery said Parks and
Improvement & Services approve some funding of some department special
fund. He listed examples for Protection
& Welfare to approve funding on such items as minor equipment purchases for
Police & Fire, special limited timeframe task force such as a liquor
license sting, escort license sting, extra traffic enforcement for speeding or
loud mufflers, and drug or gang impact teams.
He stated that allowing use of reserve or creating a small Protection
& Welfare fund for this purpose maybe $10,000-$20,000, that could be
refilled every year possibly out of the Police or Fire Dept. budget. He said
they otherwise they have a Protection & Welfare Committee who studies a lot
of things and know what the problems are but have to recommend everything over
to Finance. He stated that if they have
this pool of funds, they could immediately put an action to a problem. Ald.
Wery made a motion to recommend that the Mayor approve putting $20,000 in his
2006 bond request to start this fund and analyze how it works and consider next
year as a budget line item. Ald. Zima suggested approving that any items under a
certain amount would not need to go to the Finance Committee. Further discussion surrounded setting
parameters, specific items and clarification that these items would be sent
directly to Council rather than to the Finance Committee. Ald. VanderLeest suggested getting input
from Doug Daul.
After further brief discussion, a motion was made by Ald. Zima, seconded by Ald. VanderLeest to refer this item to Ald. Wery and Ald. Fradette and to the Mayor’s Office to work this out and report back to the Finance Committee. Motion carried.
Ald. Fradette said there were comments made at the
Park Committee that he felt were inappropriate, against people who were working
on Fisk Pool and the Selmer Company as well as against a Department head. Ald. Fradette read from a transcript of the
Sept. 27, 2005 Park Committee, adding that it was unfortunate that Ald.
VanDenHeuvel was not present to defend his comments. Ald. Fradette said the discussion involved the construction
management process to determine if this would be legal and what they should
do. He referred to Ald. Zima’s comment
that he doesn’t like things being smelly and asked if they have an association
with Selmer, insinuating that Selmer puts the bill up higher and they come in
and say they can do it lower and everybody splits the profit in the background.
Ald. Theisen cautioned Ald. Zima at this time about conjecture. Further into
the discussion, Ald. Zima states that he finds all of Bill Landvatter’s
processes and everything Bill does as kind of fuzzy. Ald. Zima states that everything is irregular and states that
Selmer brings in the blank and pays me half and everybody is happy. Ald.
VanDenHeuvel makes reference to giving work to Union buddies.
Ald. VanderLeest asks what’s the central reason for
the censure? Ald. Fradette responds
that these Aldermen made accusations against a local business including the
designer of the Fisk Pool to somehow elevate the cost of the pool, then somehow
lower the cost and split the savings behind the scenes. He doesn’t feel it’s
fair for an alderman to do this. Ald.
Zima makes a statement that he is going to draw and quarter Bill Landvatter if
the bid doesn’t come in at $3 million.
He said this isn’t appropriate behavior for an alderman and he wants the
committee to evaluate it as such. He
stated that this company was volunteering their time to try to save the city
some money and were getting conjecture of accusations made against them. He
asked if this is how we want our local businesses treated?
Ald. Zima
said this is not a complete transcript and said the Park Committee
studied the design of the pool over a long period of time and chose the lowest
bidder and questioned if the bidder had enough experience. Staff said this bidder had sheparded Joannes
Pool and they felt comfortable. Ald.
Zima said there were three proposals and he felt the estimates were high. He
said Selmer came in and said for a 5% fee a consultant would try to find savings for the city,
indicating that this is done in private sector all the time. Ald. Zima said he
questioned how, when everything is bid out, could they find savings on the pool
and questioned whether this was legal. He said in the end, the consultant
withdrew because they said the project was too small for their type of
services. Ald. Kriescher commented that
construction managers will sacrifice safety to save money, with Ald. Theisen
responding that this is an inappropriate blanket statement. Ald. VanderLeest again questioned the level
of debate that is appropriate for censure. Atty. Hanson said Robert’s Rules of
Order says to use censure sparingly and first try to get an apology. He said they cannot bar the person from
attending future meetings. Ald.
Kriescher requested an apology from Ald. Theisen stating that he has worked on
crews to prove construction managers sacrifice safety for money. Ald. Wery said because one construction
manager was bad, therefore all of them are bad? Ald. Theisen responded that it was a broad accusation. Ald.
Kriescher say he insinuated that his comments aren’t worth anything and that’s
degrading to him.
Ald. VanderLeest said everyone’s opinions should be
respected and he would like to see Robert’s Rules of Order relative to censure
because he feels this issue is not as clearcut as the previous censure of Ald.
Zima’s comments. Ald. Weber said as a body this group doesn’t have a good
reputation and need to address how we behave, maybe by resolution. He stated
that we can let people know we don’t agree with them without belittling, making
negative comments, accusations or insinuations. He said if he was the contractor sitting in that meeting, he
would have been livid. Ald. VanderLeest
motioned to review the Code of Conduct for Aldermen, to refer to staff. Ald. Arnoldi said this shouldn’t have been
before the Park Committee. He said a
construction manager makes a profit after the bids are in; he manages the
job. Additionally, he said we are not
following Robert’s Rules of Order stating that it’s the job of the chairman of
a committee to keep control of that committee. He said we’re our worst enemies;
we don’t hammer anybody out! He said if
accusations are being made by the chairman, then the committee can call for the
chairman to sit down, and asked if nobody in this room knows Robert’s Rules of
Order? He said we can’t even run a committee decent and now we want to censure
people? He said “we should censure ourselves”!
Ald. Graves said he doesn’t believe we need a
resolution and should understand professionalism. He said he has often wondered why some department heads continue
to take the behavior of some council members. Ald. Weber said when you say as a
body that you’re going to do something, it does have some impact and we should
know how to behave but maybe don’t know how.
Ald. VanderLeest said he would like to dispose of this item. Ald. Wery said the Selmer Company gave this
to Ald. Fradette to look at and it was brought to the Park Committee. He agreed
that there were many inappropriate comments made to make the Selmer Company
look like they were on the take and were evil.
Ald. VanderLeest made a motion to receive and place
and to encourage all City Council members to use good behavior at City Council
meetings and committees. Motion
seconded by Ald. Kriescher.
Ald. Theisen said he was
more offended by this item than some of the other stuff that was discussed
tonight. Ald. VanderLeest would like to see better behavior and said he has
seen an alderman make slanderous remarks toward businesses that could have
resulted in a lawsuit. He said if someone has poor behavior at a committee
meeting or council meeting, it should be voted on immediately. Atty. Hanson said the body can request an
apology at that time and would need to bring forth a communication for further
action if there was no apology. Ald.
Weber disagreed stating that if they don’t apologize, the body has the right to
ask the offending party to leave the meeting if the two don’t work it out. Ald.
Theisen asked Atty. Hanson what point of order to take? Atty. Hanson responded
that there is a progression of penalty they can impose, beginning with asking
for an apology and making a motion by majority vote to have the offending party
removed from the meeting if they do not apologize.
Ald. Zima stated that the
committee opened up a can of worms tonight and set standards. He indicated that
he is going to ask for a tape of this meeting and all future meetings if they
are going to be this petty. He said he is going to hold everyone here to the
same standards, adding that they may be hurting themselves. Regarding his comments at the Park Committee
meeting, he stated that he felt the consultant would drive up the cost of the
pool. Ald. Graves asked if he felt the way he said things were inappropriate?
Ald. Zima responded that he didn’t believe any insult was taken and he stands
by his comments that the park director is fuzzy. He said he may have been a little flippant and apologized for
that. Ald. Zima said he has heard Ald.
Fradette insult people but unless something gets pretty severe, you live with
your comments. Ald. Weber said he couldn’t support the motion on the floor
because it does absolutely nothing, but doesn’t know if it’s to the level of
censure.
Ald. Weber said if the
motion on the floor doesn’t go forward, he is making a motion to ask the
City Attorney’s office to list the process from Robert’s Rules of Order
regarding inappropriate behavior and conduct when somebody raises the point of
order, and bring that back to the Advisory Committee. Ald. VanderLeest agreed to this amended motion. Motion carried.
Ald. Graves asked all
aldermen to demonstrate good behavior by aldermen at committee meetings.
The next meeting will be
held at the call of the chair.
There
being no further business, a motion was made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by
Ald. Weber to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried. The meeting
adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Mary Haupt
Recording Secretary