MINUTES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday,
March 16, 2006
City Hall, Room 604
5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Graves, Guy Zima, Tom Weber, Chris
Wery, Gary Kriescher
MEMBERS EXCUSED: John Vander Leest
OTHERS PRESENT: Atty. Jerry Hanson, Chad Weininger
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Fred
Graves at 5:35 p.m. All members were
present with the exception of Ald. John Vander Leest, who was excused.
Motion made by Ald.
Kriescher, seconded by Ald. Wery to approve the agenda. Motion carried.
Motion made by Ald.
Kriescher, seconded by Ald. Weber to approve the minutes of the January 16,
2006 Advisory Committee meeting, as submitted.
Motion carried.
Atty. Hanson stated that
Ald. Van Den Heuvel had called him today and said he would not be able to
attend this meeting due to his child being ill. Atty. Hanson stated that Ald. Van Den Heuvel had only spoken with
him about agenda item #6. Ald. Graves
stated that apparently Ald. Van Den Heuvel had been in contact with Doug Daul
and with the Assessors Office, and the feeling earlier in the week was that he
was satisfied. He said apparently last
night Mr. Van Den Heuvel was not satisfied and was going to appear tonight to
address his concerns.
Ald. Graves shared
information he received from the Assessor’s Office relative to questions about
the use of a Development Consideration or as it is sometimes referred to, a
Development Discount in the appraisal process.
A brief overview on the process, which is used by municipalities
throughout the state, was provided as listed below:
·
When a subdivision is first
created, all subdivisions are given what is called a “Development
Consideration” due to the access to utilities, the condition of streets and the
percentage of lots that have been sold.
Ald. Graves said he believes this means that a price of a lot is assumed
between the developer and the Assessor’s office and then it’s discounted.
·
Over time, as
individual lots are sold, the Development Consideration is removed from the
individual parcel. Once 75% of all the
lots in a subdivision are sold, any Development Consideration on the remaining
lots are then removed. Ald. Graves
stated that as they are sold and houses are constructed he is of the belief
that the price of the lot at that time would be assessed at what it was sold at
or what it was agreed to previously, most likely the higher of the two.
·
Municipalities may have
subdivisions that have the Development Considerations and also have some that
do not. It is all based upon the
percentage of lots sold within the specific subdivision.
The Assessors Office
indicated that all property in the City of Green Bay is taxed at the same rate.
Ald. Graves recapped his
understanding of the process stating that if a developer comes in and does a
subdivision, he is granted this Developer’s Consideration. If he sells it, that consideration is then
lifted. Ald. Weber added that it is
lifted on each lot as they are sold, or once 75% of the lots are sold in the
subdivision. He said this is a starting
incentive for the developer to get going because they have to put money into
improvements and things and they don’t want to do that at 100% of the real
assessed value.
There being no further
discussion, motion was made by Ald. Zima, seconded by Ald. Weber to receive and
place on file the request by Ald. Van Den Heuvel to review why vacant lots in
the city are taxed at different rates.
Motion carried.
Atty. Hanson distributed a
memo to the Committee reviewing the point of order which is when a member is
calling upon the chair for a ruling about the rule that is in question. He stated that it is in order when another
has the floor and it does not require a second. Atty. Hanson said it is not debatable; the chair is the one
making the ruling and the member can appeal the ruling to the body and then
it’s majority vote after that.
Regarding breaches of order,
if there is inappropriate behavior or conduct, the following rules apply:
Ald. Weber stated that he
would like to see new Council members receive a copy of Robert’s Rules of
Order. Chad Weininger said they are
planning to hold an orientation session for new members, possibly a mock
session. Atty. Hanson said he is going
to put together a packet for new members.
Motion made by Ald. Zima,
seconded by Ald. Kriescher to receive and place on file the report by the City
Attorney on the process from Robert’s Rules of Order regarding inappropriate
behavior and conduct when somebody raises a point of order. Motion carried.
Atty. Hanson said in talking
with Ald. Van Den Heuvel today, he inquired what the issue was because most of
the funding that occurs at RDA also goes through Council, TIF approvals, CDBG,
etc. He said Ald. Van Den Heuvel
indicated that there was a $50,000 loan or grant to Mr. Chris Swan on some
program for the education of minorities and he was curious as to what that was
all about. Atty. Hanson was unable to
reach Rob Strong, but said Mr. Strong left a voice mail stating that Council
grants monies to the RDA to dish out and all checks that are approved don’t
necessarily get sent back to the Council.
Ald. Kriescher said when
Council denied the block grants for the Hmong Center and for Mr. Swan, they
agreed to let RDA come up with money to pay for these things, adding that he
does not remember a sum of $50,000.
Atty. Hanson also believed this amount was $5,000. Ald. Weber said that Mr. Swan applies for a
large sum from block grants each year and he believed this year it was for the
building of another home which would be sold.
Atty. Hanson said Ald. Van Den Heuvel plans to pull this item at the
Council meeting for discussion.
Ald. Zima stated that some
time ago he brought forward a request that final expenditures of CDBG come
before Council. He said evidently in
this year’s block grants they said they had some money left over or coming back,
and there might be some money later for these programs and the money could be
shifted at that point in time. He
indicated that he believes Ald. Van Den Heuvel’s wishes are that whatever
decisions the RDA makes regarding that, comes back for Council approval, so
things are not left to administration strictly by the RDA because they might do
something that is contrary to what Council wants. He added that Council makes the initial approval for the programs
to be funded in the CDBG.
Ald. Zima made a motion that
any and all block grant expenditures that are not specifically approved at the
time of Council approval, be returned to the City Council for final
approval. Ald. Kriescher seconded for
purpose of discussion.
Ald. Weber stated that he
believed the item should be held until Rob Strong could be present. He added that the RDA is, by statute, an
agency of the state and under the statute is given all kinds of powers. Mr. Weber said the relationship of most RDA’s
with the municipality is one of funding their operations. He said the RDA has bonding power,
condemnation, they can make loans, etc.
He said he believes it would be extremely cumbersome to ask RDA to come
forward every time there is an expenditure, when that money is in the system,
in the RDA’s flow of funds. Mr. Weber
added that the concept is, the RDA expects, by design, some autonomy and they
work almost as a private sector partnership.
He stated that he doesn’t believe this fits with the intent of the
structure by the state and fulfilling its purpose. He said the would prefer to have this sent back to the next
meeting so that Rob Strong and staff can address that particular issue and
other accounting issues. Mr. Weber said
he would not support Ald. Zima’s motion.
Ald. Zima said his motion
said only things that were not specifically approved at the time of grant
approval, such as some money that was left in a fund that was unidentified or
unspecified, that it come back for approval and do not use their autonomy to
decide. Atty. Hanson asked if the
$5,000 for the Hmongs and $5,000 for Mr. Swan would need to come back for
approval? Ald. Kriescher said it was
grant money to begin with and instead of reallocating it, it was the
understanding that RDA would come up with funds that they received back, and
Council knew about it. Ald. Weber
concurred saying that it was agreed that they would be done with it at
Council. Further discussion surrounded
the amount of money that Mr. Swan requested, with Mr. Zima stating that votes
were taken separately on removing money from the Swan account and from the
Hmong account. He added that there was
some discussion about returning funds later and he is reiterating that
expenditure of these funds should come back to Council. There was discussion as to what was approved
at Council regarding these funds, with Ald. Zima understanding that funds would
come back for Council approval. Ald.
Weber didn’t believe this was the motion at Council, adding that they are
funded by the Council each year and said we don’t ask every department to come
back with every expenditure.
Ald. Graves said the agenda
item states all spending by the RDA be approved by Council, and does not
relate to a specific item. Ald. Zima
reviewed the history of the RDA stating that when it was originally formed, it
was in order to take advantage of urban renewal monies that the Federal
Government was making available but they wanted to insure that cities at that
time weren’t incorporating those funds into their regular budgets, but were for
extra projects. Mr. Zima said they wanted
an autonomous body at that point to make those decisions so it wasn’t a
political decision, but a community decision.
He stated that the necessity for that has passed, adding that the
requirement for those types of federal grants was only for a couple of
years. He said the RDA has become a
nestidual remnant; something that is left over but we really don’t need to have
but the City of Green Bay has chosen to keep it. He recalled that some years ago Council said to come back with
any expenditures they have. Mr. Zima
said what happened here is that a couple of things have fallen through the
cracks and have gotten the ire of a few Councilmen.
After further discussion
regarding the motion and the vote that was made at Council regarding the Hmong
and Swan funds, Ald. Zima withdrew his previous motion and Ald. Kriescher
withdrew his second. A motion was made
by Ald. Kriescher, seconded by Ald. Weber to receive and place on file the
request by Ald. Van Den Heuvel to have all RDA spending approved by the City
Council and to ask staff to have the information ready for the next Council
meeting. Motion carried.
Atty. Hanson stated that
there are currently four different groups that have vending machines on city
right-of-way: the Green Bay Press-Gazette, the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, Start Renting and an Auto and RV publication. He indicated that the fee is $50 per
company, per year, and set out by ordinance and an application must be
completed. Discussion surrounded how many machines are out there and if there
is a limit to the number, and what private property owners charge for this
machines on their property. Ald. Graves
said if he was a business owner, he would welcome them on his property and not
want to charge them. Ald. Zima said we
should be able to raise rates to them since the Press-Gazette doubled
our rates for legal publications and raised our rates again this year. He said they now have a monopoly with being
the only paper in the city and believes we should charge per vending machine
and according to the circulation such as $25 per machine and go from there
. Atty. Hanson said two vendors have
free circulation and suggested we look at what other communities are doing,
with Ald. Zima stating that he doesn’t care what other communities are doing. Ald. Weber said not to be confused on free
publications, stating that their money is raised through classified
advertising, not on circulation rates.
He said the reason our rates have gone up is because classified
advertising in the newspapers has taken a real hit since the internet. Ald. Zima withdrew his earlier thought,
adding that we need to find the right amount and initiate the increase. Ald. Weber and Kriescher agree with finding
out what other communities are charging.
Ald. Zima said we should charge per vending machine possibly $2 per
day. Ald. Graves said he looks at it
differently with being in business, this increase simply adds to the cost of
doing business and since they are the only newspaper, next year they could
raise prices to the city and to residents who advertise. He feels we defeat the purpose and penalize
the residents of the city. Ald.
Kriescher said rates for advertising are determined by circulation; the more
customers you have the more you can charge and people will cancel if rates go
up too much.
Discussion ensued regarding
whether the city can publish its own legals and placing one vending machine per
district with our legals. Ald. Graves
inquired if ordinance requires us to publish our legals in the newspaper? Chad Weininger stated that the city can
apply for a waiver through the state, Department of Administration, adding that
it’s very unlikely that the waiver would be granted. He said he could check
into different options for publishing our own legals, adding that he believes
we still would need a waiver. He indicated that he will check in the state
statutes to see what the requirement would be for publishing in another
source. Ald. Graves asked if we could
publish something in the paper that would state refer to the city’s web page,
etc. Ald. Weber said he believes there is
a middle ground and if we go into an attack mode and pick a fight with the Press-Gazette, the paper will pack onto
the rates they charge the city. He
agrees that $50 per year for the Press-Gazette
to have how many boxes out there is a sweetheart of a deal and feels some
increase is appropriate. Further
discussion included finding the number of boxes on city right-of-way, checking
into alternative methods and finding out the last time we increased our fees.
A motion was made by Ald.
Kriescher, seconded by Ald. Weber to have staff check into alternative methods
of publishing legal notices, to research what other communities are doing, and
to research what the private sector is charging to have newspaper boxes on
their property. Ald. Zima amended the motion to ask staff to have this
information available by the next Council meeting and to Advisory Committee
members prior to the Council meeting in case they have questions. Motion carried.
The next meeting will be
held after the April election when the next Council is seated, unless there is
an emergency, at which time a special meeting would be called. Ald. Graves thanked the recording secretary
and chairs of the committees for their work, input and dedication.
There being no further business, motion was made by Ald.
Kriescher, seconded by Ald. Weber to adjourn.
Motion carried. The meeting
adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Haupt
Recording Secretary