MINUTES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Wednesday,
June 7, 2006
City Hall, Room 604
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chad Fradette, Chris Wery, *John Vander
Leest, Tom Weber, Celestine Jeffreys, Jerry Wiezbiskie
OTHERS PRESENT: Ald. Andy Nicholson, Ald. Tom DeWane, Rob
Strong, Allison Swanson, Jerry Hanson, Chad Weininger, Keith Pamperin, Mr.
Jepsen, DNR, David Luedcke, WHEDA, Rich Arnesen, Stonehouse Development Inc.,
Jessica and Chad DeGrave, others.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Chad
Fradette at 6:05 p.m. All members were
present with the exception of John Vanderleest, who arrived at 6:35.
Chairman Fradette requested
a motion to move agenda item #9 to the front. Motion made by Ald. Wery,
seconded by Ald. Weber to move agenda item #9 to the front of the agenda. Motion carried.
Motion made by Ald.
Wiezbiskie, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to approve the agenda with this
revision. Motion carried.
Motion made by Ald. Weber,
seconded by Ald. Wery to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2006 meeting as
submitted. Motion carried.
Chairman Fradette stated
that not everyone has had the opportunity to meet with him and Vice-Chair Wery
regarding problems in their district. He indicated that he would like to change
the focus of the Advisory Committee and will be bringing issues to the
forefront that they can all work on together, rather than working
separately. He said there will be items
on the agenda that can be sent to other committees if they see the need. Ald. Wery said he agrees with what Ald.
Fradette is trying to do with the committee and the direction he is taking.
Motion made by Ald.
Jeffreys, seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie to open the floor to allow interested
parties to speak. Motion carried.
Mr. Jepsen from the DNR
addressed the Committee with an update on the questions of ozone in Brown
County. He indicated that 2-3 years ago Brown County was much closer to the
non-attainment status that he uses today.
He indicated that there has been a general decline in air pollution
because we have had a few cooler summers and due to technology and fuel
changes, adding that this could change with more hot summers. He stated that fine particle pollution is a
concern and the EPA will be issuing a new standard for this in September and
Green Bay and Brown County will be right at the limit. He said that doesn’t mean we’ll be at
non-attainment because we would have three years from the time the standard is
set. Right now we are very close to
exceeding the standard.
Mr. Jepsen cautioned the committee
regarding volatile organic emissions from gasoline stations, adding that
probably well over half the VLC’s in Brown County come from cars, not gas
stations. He said gas stations emit 2-5% and to trying to focus on that one
entity might be something to be careful about until they take a look at all the
sources.
Mr. Jepsen spoke of two
initiatives that are underway in Dane County through a grant; one of them being
a pressure vent valve that goes on the top of the pipes. He stated that the
underground storage tanks have to have a vent pipe to the atmosphere, in many
cases these vent pipes do not have vent valves on them so that the emissions go
right up the stack and out. The vent
valve helps to reduce the VLC’s that come out as well as reducing other
dangerous kinds of pollutant emissions. He said the cost of these vent pipes is
$100-$140 per vent pipe and 85-90% of gas sold is regular grade, and putting
the vent pipes on regular grade gasoline might do a lot. He spoke of another device that is quite
expensive called a vapor recovery unit, which is like a small refrigeration
unit that takes the vapors out of the tank, condenses them, runs them through a
membrane, condenses them and then returns the product back into the tank. He indicated that the gas station is
actually saving money by rather than having the gas volatilized and go out,
it’s staying in the tank as product. He
said this device can run from $20,000-$30,000 a piece and $3,000-$7,000 to
install. He stated that according to
industry numbers, for a gas station that pumps 100,000 gallons per month, they
would get a return on that device in 3 years.
He said the DNR has numbers that they use to estimate emissions from gas
tanks and they are about ten times lower, adding that they’re trying to find
out whose numbers are right? Mr. Jepsen
said it may be a good idea to revisit this issue in 6-12 months and see if this
is a cost effective technology.
Mr. Jepsen shared another
project that the DNR is working on through an EPA grant, which is a project in
Denmark to do a retrofit on their school busses to reduce VLC’s. He indicated that they will try to get other
school districts interested. He indicated that the grant funds will pay for the
retrofit muffler and the school district or private bus company will install it
using their own labor. Mr. Jepsen said
it’s low cost, low maintenance and is similar to a catalyst like you have in
your car and essentially reduces fine particles 20%, hydrocarbons about
40%. He said it’s a low tech device and
is a tried and true system throughout the country. Another thing they are exploring with the city is participating
in a retrofit project for our garbage collection trucks. He indicated that they are trying to do a
combined project with a private Milwaukee waste hauler, and work with a public
fleet as well, like we have in Green Bay.
He indicated this is through the same grant program, some funds are
designated for school busses and the remainder is for all other diesel, ports,
railways, public diesel fleets, other kinds of transportation long haul, metro
busses. Mr. Jepsen said he would be
happy to come back at a later date to give an update. He indicated he had also talked to Paul Jadin at the
Chamber. He said they have a chance to
get some money for Green Bay and is currently relying on their Green Bay staff,
Len Polcinski, working with the solid waste people.
Ald. Fradette said he would
invite Mr. Jepsen or Mr. Polcinski back for another presentation. Ald. Jeffreys said the idea of the retrofitted
muffler seems like a no brainer and with regards to the vapor recovery unit,
possibly gas stations should be required to go with that. Ald. Weber suggested we consider mandating
this through an ordinance. Ald. DeWane
recommended bring a presentation before the whole Council.
Motion made by Ald. Weber,
seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to return to the regular order of business. Motion carried. Motion made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to hold this
item for a future presentation by the DNR.
Motion carried.
5. Request by
Ald. Nicholson to review state tax credits (WHEDA) at the River Center Lofts.
Motion made by Ald. Weber,
seconded by Ald. Wery to suspend the rules to allow interested parties to
speak. Motion carried.
Allison Swanson gave a brief
introduction of David Luedcke, WHEDA Multifamily Development Officer and Rich
Arnesen of Stonehouse Development, Inc.
She indicated that WHEDA is responsible for managing various financing
tools including the WHEDA tax credits that were granted to Stone House
Development. She stated that Rich
Arnesen is doing the rental loft component of our Younkers project. Ms. Swanson said this tax credit equity
program is for a developer to make better projects possible in areas that
otherwise may not happen. She said this is not Section 8 Housing. Ms. Swanson indicated that the Mayor has
toured a Stone House Development project in Madison, a block from the capitol.
Mr. Rich Arnesen gave a
brief power point overview of other Section 42 tax credit projects that his
company has done, indicating this is their primary form of development. He explained how the Section 42 tax credit
works, stating that the residents they rent to pay the rent from their income
earned from a job, but the rent is lowered from the market rate rent and in
that way it’s a subsidy from the government but not a rent subsidy. He explained that the subsidy comes in the
form of credits which are awarded to start the project and the developer sells
the credits to corporate investors and Fortune 500 corporations who, in turn
for these credits, give the developer money up front to start the project. He said it’s a huge benefit to the project
and allows some of the projects to be done.
Mr. Arnesen said he and his partner have been in business for 10
years. He indicated that the tax
credits are awarded over a 10-year period and the IRS is very particular that
you follow the rules of the program and if you do not follow the rules they can
recapture those credits. He as a
developer has guarantees to their investors that they follow the rules and
WHEDA has systems in place to be certain that the rules are followed. He stated that they manage all their
properties.
Mr. Arnesen reviewed the
River Center project which will have 65 apartments ranging in size from
700-1100 square feet and are 1, 2 & 3 bedroom units. Parking will be in the River Center project
interior garage. There will be
approximately 5,000 square feet of first floor commercial space adjacent to the
boardwalk. There will be a community
room, exercise room and an office where people can utilize internet
access. Mr. Arnesen said the way
Section 42 works is a low to moderate income project; mostly moderate. He said it generally helps people who meet
40% to 60% of the county median income, where Section 8 is for people with 30%
of the county median income. He said
most of the units are 60% which means if you are a single person, you can make
up to $27,000 to qualify for one of these apartments. If you are in the 40% range, it would be $18,000, generally
$18,000-$38,000 income would qualify for these units. He indicated that 20% of the units are market rate and have no
income restrictions. Mr. Arnesen stated
that students do not qualify for Section 42 apartments. He indicated that their rent is in the range
of $425-$850.
Mr. Arnesen reviewed the
screening criteria for Section 42 as follows: 1) cannot have a prior eviction
for the previous 5 years 2) no pending or undischarged bankruptcies 3) must
have a clean criminal background, no prior drug or violent crime convictions 4)
a credit history is done, applicant must have a 2 year acceptable housing
reference and 2 years employment or a co-signee. Ald. Nicholson asked how the criminal background checks are done.
Mr. Arnesen will check into the procedure and let him know. Ald. Vanderleest asked how much money was
given to the River Center Lofts, Mr. Arnesen responded $750,000 per year, which
they will be receiving cash from investors for a total of $7.5 million to cover
the renovation costs. He indicated that
the investors realize a 4-5% yield.
Ald. Vanderleest asked for
comparison to Section 8. Ms. Swanson
commented that with Section 8 if the rent is higher than their subsidy, they
pay the difference and most do not have the means or motivation to pay. Mr. Arnesen said from his 10 years
experience, he believes it comes down to the management of the project and said
they manage for the life of the project. Mr. Luedcke reiterated that with
Section 8 you do not have to have a job or income to qualify to live in those
developments, and the government pays for your entire rent, adding that you pay
30% of your income, but if you don’t have any income you are still qualified to
live there. With Section 42 you are required to have a job and an income to
make the rent payments and the leases are annual and are verified annually,
therefore, they do not have high turnover. Mr. Arnesen indicated they require a
security deposit. Ald. Wery asked if a
renter is locked into a lower level apartment if their income changes. Mr. Arnesen said they can go up to 140% of
their income and still be qualified as a Section 42 apartment and after that
they can be moved into a market rate apartment. Annual recertification of income is done. Mr. Arnesen said they purchase existing
buildings from municipalities or school districts or vacant land for new
construction, adding that they respond to RFP’s. He said schools are purchased
reasonably because they are very costly to renovate.
Ald. Nicholson questioned if
there is any potential for Section 8 in the River Center Loft project? Mr. Arnesen said Section 8 sets the rent and
if their rent is higher, Section 8 has to pay from their pocket and it is
unlikely that they would have any Section 8 renters. After 10 years Mr. Arnesen said the credits stop so there is
potential to convert the apartments to condos after 15 years. He plans on his company still managing the
property in 15 years. Mr. Luedcke said
that there is a 30 year requirement unless the units are sold for condos. If
not then it continues as affordable housing for another 15 years. He added that
some of the monitoring lessens but they are still required to follow the same
income and rent limitations. The rent
is established annually by HUD. Mr. Luedcke summed up by stating that for
Stonehouse Development to do 11 tax credit projects in 10 years is remarkable
and said they have done an outstanding job in managing their projects as well.
A motion was made by Ald.
Vanderleest, seconded by Ald. Weber to receive and place on file the request of
Ald. Nicholson to review state tax credits (WHEDA) at the River Center
Lofts. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Ald.
Weber, seconded by Ald. Vanderleest to move agenda item #7 up. Motion carried.
7. Request
by Ald. Vanderleest for an update on Section 8 reforms and an update on the
requested waivers from the federal government.
Ald. Vanderleest said over a
year ago there was strong concern that Green Bay was shouldering more of the
the burden for Section 8 for the county than it should be. He said Keith Pamperin put together a list
of reform ideas which he presented to the Council and he also sent a letter
requesting waivers to the Federal Government to have these reforms
enacted. Ald. Vanderleest asked Mr.
Pamperin to give an update on these efforts.
Keith Pamperin reviewed the
requested waivers by the Brown County Housing Authority, which was a request
for a waiver of the Federal regulations in order to de-concentrate the program.
Mr. Pamperin said at one point in 2005 about 85% of all of the trace voucher
households were in the City of Green Bay.
He stated that this has been reduced to 71% now, through the efforts of
ICS and the Housing Authority. Mr.
Pamperin said he requested a waiver of the regulations that would allow us to
develop an area of concentrated poverty (as HUD refers to it) and we would try
to prohibit any new households from trying to receive assistance in that area.
He stated that he received a faxed response today and unfortunately they denied
both waivers at this point. Mr. Pamperin said he had the opportunity to
discuss, via telephone, with HUD Central Washington staff and the Deputy
Secretary, the reasoning for the request and he believes they opened the door
for further negotiations for the second request for a waiver which was to put a
limit on the term that a household can participate in the program. He would limit the term that they can
receive assistance to three years, unless they can show that they have earned
income from employment for a minimum of 30 hours per week for a period of 12
months, the concept being that they don’t want to penalize minimum wage earners
but do want to motivate people to get out and earn some income. Mr. Pamerin said this would include households
that are non-elderly or non-disabled.
Mr. Pamperin said in his discussions with HUD and the Deputy Secretary,
they indicated that had a number of similar requests and asked Mr. Pamperin if
the City would like to be the guinea pig and invent the process of how this
might work, to which Mr. Pamperin responded that we would love to be the pilot
program.
Mr. Pamperin said the Mayor
had an opportunity to address a panel which included one of the Secretaries of
HUD and they discussed this issue of concentration. He said he was told that they couldn’t approve a de-concentration
program because when you start to limit the choice of where people can live,
you start to infringe on people’s rights.
He indicated that he was given some concepts that might be helpful to
the Housing Authority in de-concentrating.
Ald. Vanderleest requested a copy of the denial of the waivers for
Council members, and suggested getting an update on suggestions and ideas for
reform, in a month. Mr. Pamperin will
provide the requested copies and said the Housing Authority is in agreement
that it is not fair to have a high concentration of similarly economically
households in the same area. Mr.
Pamperin said the Housing Authority put out an RFP for the administration of
the program and received 16 qualified requests, several of which were national
firms that operate similar programs in other cities. The result was they
received only two completed proposals; the Housing Authority analyzed those
proposals with a scoring process and Integrated Community Services was awarded
the contract again. As part of that process, Mr. Pamperin said they are
building into that contract the ongoing screening and fraud investigation
services that the Housing Authority has purchased from Langan Investigations
and this will now be a part of the responsibility of the vendor (ICS) and the
cost of that will be covered from the administrative fee of the Federal
program.
Ald. Nicholson inquired
about the reasons for the waivers to be turned down. Mr. Pamperin read a section of the denial relative to the
concentration area …”the Department will not waive a regulation that provides a
family the freedom to choose among available approvable rental units in the
jurisdiction of the PHA. Therefore the
BCH’s request is denied.” Regarding
the request for a waiver on limiting the households that are participating, Mr.
Pamperin read, “Any additions or deletions from the housing choice voucher
program family obligations….or any other section of the regulation that could
result in denial or termination of assistance based on a term limit could
require a proposed rule which interested parties could respond. In lieu of such a rule making, the
department will not waive any housing choice voucher regulation that could
result in denial or termination of assistance based on the term of
assistance. Therefore the BCHA’s
request is denied”. Ald. Nicholson if any other example of these issues have
been granted in other cities. Mr. Pamperin said there have been instances where
courts decided, but the Department has never granted such waivers.
Ald. Nicholson inquired why
ICS was granted the contract to manage this program and asked to see the RFP’s.
Mr. Pamperin said an elaborate scoring process was held where 14-16 issues were
scored upon and then more questions were sent out to the vendors. He stated that a screening committee scored
those questions and in both cases ICS was the unanimous choice. He said the screening committee consisted of
the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Housing Authority, Rob Strong,
Keith Pamperin and a professional consultant that they hired. He indicated that it would not be
appropriate to share the screening and scoring but would provide copies of the
RFP, criteria, and questions for the next Advisory Committee meeting. Ald. Vanderleest again said he would like to
see 1) the original list of Section 8 reform ideas that were developed, 2)
copies of the response for the requested waivers 3) suggestions for reforms as
provided by HUD.
Motion made by Ald. Weber,
seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to suspend the rules to allow interested parties to
speak. Motion carried.
Bob
Langan, president of Langan Investigations, 1723 Mercury Court, Green Bay,
Rosemary Jonas, Integrated Community Services, 201 West Walnut St., Green Bay
and Mike Mason, 1516 Creekside Lane, Green Bay, employed by Langan
Investigations, introduced themselves and were available for questions.
Mr. Langan said he and Mr. Mason are
specifically involved in fraud investigations.
Ald. Nicholson asked if there was still approximately 29% rejection rate
on new applications. Mr. Mason
responded that the rate has been consistent since they started at 25-33%. He stated that the screening process has
been improved with an application supplement that asks for arrest history and
landlord/tenant history and if applicants are not being honest with these
questions, they are rejected. Mr.
Pamperin said some of the people that are being screened have been on a waiting
list for 1-2 years and with the administrative procedures, and the additional
screening for gang activity, criminal background, illegal drug activity, it is
the hope that word is getting out and applicants will self-screen
themselves. Mr. Pamperin said they no
longer have a freeze on the enrollment since almost all of the 2500 households
that were on the waiting list have been screened and they are down to about
100. Question arose whether we can get
any leverage or can put any pressure on the Federal Government with HUD to
spread Section 8 over the county? Mr.
Pamperin responded that many of the people are on the housing voucher program
are good people and great neighbors. He
said of the 3,000 households, 1-3% are the troublesome people. Mr. Pamperin
again mentioned that HUD has agreed to send some ideas that have worked in
other communities toward the concentration and when they receive them, they
will do their best.
Ald.
Nicholson expressed frustration at the length of time this is taking. Mr.
Pamperin responded that he submitted a request in June or July of 2005 and this
was funneled to Washington and Washington then responded that Congress was in
the process of considering the administration’s proposal for a Flexible Voucher
Program, which would have given local communities more discretion in making
more choices and also would have reduced funding substantially. He stated that Congress did not approve that
and Mr. Pamperin resubmitted a formal request in February, 2006. Rob Strong said regarding the
de-concentration, when we submitted our request, we designated a specific area
and he believes this is one of the reasons the request was denied. He said we are trying to put some pressure
on but they have a goal to not concentrate as well and suggested to wait and
see what we get.
Mike
Mason responded to a question by Ald. Nicholson asking why our area attracts so
many people, stating that he received 200 applications this month with 15
having out of state history. He said
many have family living in Green Bay but said he does not see migration up
here. He reiterated the improved
application process with proof of address and the more stringent screening
process. Mr. Pamperin said they give
preference to Brown County residents; applicants must live in Brown County and
be hired to work in Brown County and said no one gets on the program without
meeting that preference and added that we are not allowed to impose a solid
residency requirement, by Federal Fair Housing law. Ald. Weber said this is a fairly loose preference. Rosemary Jonas said the applicant has to
document continued employment in the County and said the only people left on
the waiting list are those out of Brown County. She said due to the short waiting list, some applicants may be granted
an interview as early as July, but will not be given immediate assistance. Most
people will have a wait of 6-12 months before they receive assistance.
Further
discussion ensued regarding the number of senior and/or disabled applicants,
which is approximately 54% and will probably be rising because these types of
households will be offered assistance before others who are just looking for
assistance. Atty. Jerry Hanson said he
and Ald. Nicholson had discussed the sequence of investigation that the Police
had used; the Triple I from the FBI and Department of Justice. He said the Police Dept. can no longer give
out information from these reports to any non-law enforcement person. The
reports cannot be used for purposes of checking alcohol license or adult entertainment license, etc., adding that these
tools have been taken away. He said they are now searching for other ways to
get information such as through social security numbers and a screening
process. Ald. Nicholson inquired if a
resolution could be sent to the congressman to again allow information used in
background criminal checks. Ald. Wery
said a good job is being done of screening applicants and asked if spot checks
are being done to see who is actually living in the house. Mr. Mason responded that if people are found
to be living with the applicant and they haven’t listed those people, they are
going to be denied. He added that they
have a flag file and check back on those things as time permits, adding that
there is not time to do spot checks but said every time someone wants to add a
person to the household, they check the entire house. He said they closed 29 fraud investigations last month and have
40 more waiting. He said Mr. Pamperin
runs a report on the households who do not have any income coming in and they
check on those to see where they are getting their money from. Mr. Mason said the bad people eventually get
caught, citing 21 cases were substantiated as fraud and were sent back to ICS
and will probably be rejected as a result of their investigations. Mr. Pamperin said every household is
screened annually. Mr. Langan said in
the first year they had 246 fraud investigations and Mike Mason said their goal
was to get all fraud cases cleared up and are still working on that.
Motion made by Ald.
Vanderleest to have Mr. Pamperin come back with the original list of Section 8
reforms, copies of the response to the waivers and present to the City Council
on additional reform suggestions within two months. Motion seconded by Ald. Wery.
Motion carried.
Motion made by Ald.
Vanderleest, seconded by Ald. Weber to bring back to the Advisory Committee the
scoring criteria and RFP for the BCHA.
Motion carried.
Motion made by Ald. Weber,
seconded by Ald. Vanderleest to return to regular order of business. Motion carried.
6. Request by Ald. Fradette that the Advisory
Committee consider allowing Family Day Cares as a permitted use in all
residential zoning districts without restrictions or conditions (GB Chapter 13;
Zoning Code – Residential Districts).
Ald. Fradette asked that the Advisory Committee
consider this item inspite of Council’s action last night. He is asking the
Committee to consider if they believe we need a conditional use on day cares in
general and continually see daycares in front of the City Council.
Ald. Vanderleest asked Rob Strong to review changes
in the Chapter 13 Zoning Code relative to daycares adding that he believes they
should be handled the same way that we handle CBRF’s. Mr. Strong stated that the previous ordinance Chapter 13 didn’t
prohibit or require a conditional use for a daycare with 8 or fewer
children. They simply had to apply and
be accepted and certified by the state of Wisconsin and meet their
requirements. He said during the
creation of the new ordinance some of the alderpersons commented that they
wanted to have more say in what came into their neighborhoods and that included
CBRFs and daycare and other things. Rob
said they brought these things forward with the understanding that they would condition
them but would not necessarily turn them away.
Mr. Strong said antennas in residential districts, duplexes and in house
services were included in this conditional use. He said they brought some
flexibility into the ordinance and thought what would happen is that they would
talk about what types of conditions would be placed on a particular property to
help it fit into the neighborhood and didn’t expect to be denying these
conditional requests but simply trying to find what conditions would make
sense. He added that the way the
ordinance is set up the Council has the right to deny the request. He indicated from a staff perspective, they
don’t feel 8 or fewer children in a neighborhood should be restricted, and
again stated that the prior ordinance didn’t require it.
Ald. DeWane indicated that four blocks away from his
home, one neighbor petitioned to find out about putting up another duplex and
the neighbors didn’t reply; they didn’t care.
He said it is going to depend on the area/neighborhood whether or not
the neighbors have an issue with it.
Ald. DeWane suggested waiting for the legal opinion from the city
attorney and if that opinion denys this request, the Council has to respect
this, but if not, he has no objection to the request. Ald. Fradette reminded the committee that this is a city wide
issue and he is not necessarily talking about this single case. He added that regardless of how the legal
opinion comes in, he wants the committee to look at whether we even want to
have the conditional use at all. Ald.
DeWane said we should look at this case as an example. Ald. Weber feels the ability to turn down
this request is ludicrous but stated there are 3 basic sentences that are at
question: 1) the municipality can’t prevent a family daycare from coming into a
neighborhood when it’s zoned first family residential 2) the municipality can’t
establish different standards for this type of a home 3) this subsection does
not prevent a municipality from applying to a family daycare home the zoning
regulations applicable to other dwellings in the zoning district… Mr. Strong explained that this means they do
not get any special treatment in those districts and have to meet the same
codes as any other house in the neighborhood.
Ald. Weber asked if Mr. Strong believes that this states that we could
specifically enact a new zoning regulation for that property? Mr. Strong again said that that the same
restrictions such as height and setback must be met as with other houses.
Motion made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald.
Vanderleest to suspend the rules to allow interested parties to speak. Motion carried.
Jessica DeGrave, 1646 Fiesta Lane, Green Bay
addressed the committee stating that her idea of offering in-home childcare is
being able to welcome children into her home and become part of her family. She stated that if the Council allows this
new zoning ordinance and permits property owners to decide, without any valid
argument, where children can be cared for, she feels they are jeopardizing
quality family in-home childcare. She
indicated that parents should be allowed to choose where their children are
cared for. She said family daycares are not a traditional business and belong
in a residential setting in our homes. Mrs. DeGrave added that she believes
this ordinance is in violation of the state statute. She said she believed that the neighbors were scared when they
received the letter from the city stating that she watches children in her home
and that they had misconceptions.
Chad DeGrave, 1646 Fiesta Lane, addressed the
committee, saying that he feels there are two separate issues; the permit issue
and the zoning issue and they feel strongly that the conditional use process
does not fit into daycares. He
indicated that they are not blaming the Council but said he believes the
process doesn’t fit. Mr. DeGrave said that in a different neighborhood this
probably would have been acceptable, and two blocks away in their neighborhood
it also would have been acceptable. He
stated that he doesn’t care about the permit adding that they are going to
build their house either way and are going to fight this to the end. Jessica DeGrave said that in-home daycares
are already regulated by the Dept. of Health & Human Services and this
Department has already licensed daycares since January and were not aware of
this ordinance change. She feels that these regulating bodies should be
notified of this change. Chad DeGrave
reviewed the requirements for certified in-home daycares stating that many
people consider that blood relation children don’t count in the number of
children you can watch, but in state licensed family daycare requires 8
children only, including your own children.
Mr. DeGrave said many daycares in the city are certified, but not
licensed, and there is a big difference between the two.
Discussion ensued about changing the ordinance back
to the way it was and what happens with the conditional use permit if the house
is sold. Rob Strong said the permit
stays with that property, but the permit could be terminated. Ald. DeWane again
recommended waiting for the legal opinion from the city attorney. Rob Strong said he believes what is key and
what the city attorney is looking into, is if there is something in state law
that would prohibit us from making this conditional use. He said the other side of that what Ald.
DeWane stated, if the state is giving us the right to condition it, we’re going
to permit it. Mr. Strong said the
“NIMBY” Not in My Backyard” is a very strong thing with every zoning issue that
comes before the City, adding that having these types of conditional uses on
the books, you will get people here to comment for and against it. Ald. Jeffreys stated that part of the reason
for changing the zoning code was to make it more user friendly and easier to
understand, and said she is not a fan of laws with exemptions and said if we
are going to do anything to change this, she is not as interested in
restricting Council’s ability to say yes or no, but more into saying how. Mr. Strong suggested stating that daycares
are permitted in our rezoning district with conditions, rather than allowing
the option to say no to some. Ald. Jeffreys said she is in favor of waiting for
the legal opinion on this issue, but in the larger context she is more
interested in exploring options such as Rob Strong suggested.
Jessica DeGrave said she feels this is a fair
compromise and said she and her husband have bent over backwards to meet all
the concerns of the neighbors and felt they didn’t get a fair shot at the
Council meeting, with the overwhelming opposition from the neighbors. She
agrees with the part of requiring licensed daycares and stated many people
watch children in their home for cash and are not licensed. Chad De Grave said they had factual evidence
from the last three years from neighbors who had no opposition to their
daycare, adding that there will always be opposition from a few. He agreed that it would be fair to put the
same regulation on everyone and said neighbors should not be allowed to decide. Ald. Wiezbiskie said he is with the DeGraves
and said they were treated unfairly both at the Plan Commission meeting and
again at City Council last night, with the Council not listening to the
recommendation of the Plan Commission, or the case that the DeGraves presented.
Ald. Weber said first we have laws and it’s the job
of Council to uphold those laws and not to buckle to the first 20 people who
come and say not in my backyard. He
said he sometimes gets confused about the body of the Council; their responsibility
and what their role is. He asked if we
really want to restrict these things by adding an ordinance and micromanage
every aspect of people’s lives. He said this isn’t a gated community but we
could have a gated community and the neighbors don’t want a daycare inside the
gated community, we would build a large center just outside the gated
community, and cautioned people to be careful on what they wish for. Ald. Weber said there is misinformation out
there that a permit is an open ticket and if the property is sold, because the
property is permitted, they could come in and put in a 30 child daycare. He said he would be in favor of eliminating
the conditional use permit.
Motion made by Ald. Weber, seconded by Ald.
Vanderleest to return to the original zoning code on the daycare issue.
Ald. Vanderleest said he has been on both sides of
this issue and he understands that you have to represent your district and
cited the example of a 4th bed CBRF in his district a few years
ago. He said if it’s a functional
licensed facility by the state, the city shouldn’t have the right to say it
can’t be there. He supports allowing
daycares without having a conditional use permit and supports the motion.
Ald. Hanson said before the committee can make any
zoning amendment, they must send the amendment to the Plan Commission and they
have a period of time to look at it and discuss it, and if they haven’t acted
on it in 30 days, then Council can act after that.
Amended motion to recommend to the Plan Commission to
remove the conditional use requirement for in-home family daycares.
Ald. Wery questioned the
process on sending this item to the Plan Commission. Atty. Hanson said the Plan Commission can act right away but if
they have not acted in 30 days, then Council can take action. Ald. Wery said assuming the Plan Commission
agrees with this recommendation, they would then send this recommendation to
the full Council. If the City Council
adopts this, it would have two readings and would then become law. Ald. Wery said he likes the conditions but
not denial concept, which is what they heard from staff. He said he sees the
point of the neighbors regarding the use of the property and their concern with
what would the next person in that property do. He said it was very valid to
listen to the neighbors. He indicated
that he also had a CBRF issue in his district just before the ordinance was
changed and the neighbors were against it but he told them they were wrong. He
said as an alderman they also have to lead, as well as listen.
Rob Strong suggested
including having the requirement that the daycare be licensed by the
state. Chad DeGrave said the state also
governs the hours of operation. Further
discussion on clarifying licensed versus certified with Mr. Strong saying he
will check further into what certified means.
Ald. DeWane requested clarification that if the state says the City can
deny this, does this mean that the City Council has to deny it? Rob Strong
responded that if the state says you cannot place conditions on a childcare
facility beyond what the state statute, then the City of Green Bay cannot
condition it. If the state says we can
condition it, the City can still choose not to place conditions. It’s a matter
of not breaking the state law. Chad
Weininger said this argument can be phrased as a property rights protection
also. He said the neighbors should have
a voice in that, adding that after the legal opinion is received and if it’s
legal, then it’s up to the Council to make an informed decision whether or not
to deny or grant it with or without conditions. He said the Mayor’s
Office doesn’t want to take away that ability to give Council a chance to act
on it. He said sometimes this process
isn’t the nicest but they want all residents to have the chance to voice their
concerns. Jessica De Grave said they
bought this lot four years ago and if they had built on it as recent as last
December, they would not be having this issue.
She stated that she would like to take the attorneys and state statute
out of this decision as she feels this is a quality childcare issue.
Motion made by Ald.
Wiezbiskie, seconded by Ald. Vanderleest to return to regular order of
business. Motion carried.
Final comments: Ald. Wiezbiskie said the DeGraves are
fighting a battle against people who are reading misinformation and are
fighting people with a lot of money.
Ald. Jeffreys said she has a problem with the way the motion if made and
doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice.
She indicated that she is in favor of receiving and placing this item on
file, but if they are going to send it back to the Plan Commission with a
recommendation, they should look at the entire section of this ordinance. Ald. Vanderleest said this could be a
separate communication. Ald. Fradette
would entertain to bring back the whole conditional use section of the
ordinance for review.
Ald. Weber said his
motion is what it is and he has the rare opportunity to take something back and
he needs to seize that opportunity.
Ald. Fradette said the item to review the entire conditional use section
can be placed on a future agenda. He
then said that the Council made a mistake and he should have fought harder not
to have daycares included in the conditional use section.
A vote was taken on the motion to send the recommendation to the Plan Commission to remove the conditional use requirement for in-home family daycares. Ald. Wery – aye, Ald. Vanderleest – aye, Ald. Weber – aye, Ald. Jeffreys – aye, Ald. Wiezbiskie – aye. Ald. Fradette – aye. Motion carried unanimously.
Ald. Vanderleest left
the meeting at this time.
Ald. Fradette said this is a
rough area and an area that needs help.
He said when he visited the area with Ald. Nicholson, they saw a very
crowded, scary, area with bad things going on.
The committee reviewed the
boundaries of the area on a map, namely Imperial Lane and Bader Street and Ald.
Nicholson asked all committee members to take a drive through the area. Ald. Nicholson stated that the drug task
force utilizes their resources in that area more than any other part of the
city. He said there are duplexes and
apartments on top of each other, very overcrowded. He said he would like to change the area from what it is now, to
some type of development and indicated that he has been working with Principal
Planner, Bill Lockery. He said Bill is
meeting with him Friday and will come up with some possibilities. Ald. Nicholson said he and Ald. Fradette did
not feel safe in that area after dark, with illegal activities going on. He
stated that Green Meadows apartments were averaging over one call per day to
the Police. He said he’s asking the Council for help.
Mr. Nicholson said the Krok
Foundation is going to be opening a community center near there and he has
concerns about safety for those using the center. Ald. Wiezbiskie brought up Eisenhower School and said the Park
Committee just approved new playground equipment for them. Ald. Nicholson also discussed a problem with
burglarizing again at businesses at Main and Mason.
Motion was made by Ald.
Weber, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to suspend the rules for interested parties to
speak. Motion carried.
Jaclyn Fradette, president
of Olde North Neighborhood Association, addressed the committee regarding the
Imperial Lane area. She stated that
this area was bad when she was there 12 years ago and it has gotten worse. She said she talked to the Apartment
Association and they were to contact Ald. Nicholson. She indicated that there are resources such as the Apartment
Association, because of their interest, NHS, (Noel Halvorsen) and Neighbor
Works, which focuses on the housing stock and tries to get people in there who
care and then the crime element leaves.
Ms. Fradette said she attended two conferences recently in Nashville,
Tenn. and Kansas City and visited neighborhoods that sounded like they were
very similar to Imperial Lane, and had been rebuilt.
Ald. Weber suggested needing
a multi-faceted program and need to be proactive rather than reacting to the
problem. Taking away the means,
delapitated, crowded housing will not give them means to live there. He wants
to get them out of Green Bay. Ald. Jeffreys said she sees an unmitigated ghetto
and in Chicago they bulldozed 5 such ghettos.
She said the structure of streets is also a problem and need streets to
go through and be at right angles. She
indicated that bulldozing is radical and costly but it needed to be done. She
said we need affordable housing, mixed income, adding that when people go to
other areas and you disperse people, their behavior improves. She again said it’s not cheap and she’s not
afraid of spending tax dollars to improve an area. Ald. Nicholson said the area attracts bad people and cited the
example of his 14-year old neighbor girl who he spotted in this area getting
into a van and called the Police, who picked her up and brought her home. Rob Strong said they tried to get a
commitment from the landlords to repave the parking lots, and other
improvements but they didn’t come back after two meetings. He said they didn’t
come back until their vacancy rate dropped to 50% and asked to work with the
city then.
Further discussion
surrounded limited resources and the need to get money from Federal funds/HUD money,
which Rob Strong will check into. It was agreed that inspections aren’t going
to work, the need to contact the resources that Jaclyn Fradette mentioned, and
suggested trying to get the private sector to partner with them. Rob Strong said if we need to start with the
concept, and possibly taking out every other building. He suggested going after discretionary
money, redoing street patterns, tax credits, donor TIFS, possibly contacting
Packerland Packing, as a few options for resources. He believes it’s basically
going to take grant money. Ald.
Wiezbiskie asked why we couldn’t require the landlords to update and comply to
code. Mr. Strong said we’ve done that
and six months later, it’s not up to code again. He indicated that Bill Lockery is looking at best uses for
property in that area. Ald. Jeffreys
said we need to do a combination of offering them places to live and
encouraging people to want to live there and to work with the school district.
Ald. Weber agreed that schools are very important as realtors see when people
are locating to the area.
Motion made by Ald. Wery, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to bring back this item to the Advisory Committee after Bill Lockery has a draft of a plan. Motion carried.
Motion made by Ald.
Fradette, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to hold this item until a future Advisory
Committee meeting. Motion carried.
The next meeting will be scheduled at the call of the
chair.
Motion
made by Ald. Jeffreys, seconded by Ald. Weber to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried.
The
meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Mary
Haupt
Recording
Secretary