MINUTES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
City Hall, Room 604
6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Council President Chris Wery,
Council Vice-President Tom DeWane, Ald. John VanderLeest, Ald. Tom Weber, Ald.
Celestine Jeffreys, Ald. Jerry Wiezbiskie
EXCUSED: Ald. Andy Nicholson
OTHERS
PRESENT: Ald. Amy Kocha, Ald. Dan Piton,
Ald. Guy Zima, Doug Daul, Allison Swanson Scott Matejov, Members of the Fire
Department, Members of the Media
1.
Call to order.
The meeting
was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Council President, Chris Wery. All members were present with the exception
of Ald. Andy Nicholson, who was excused.
2.
Approval of the agenda.
Motion made
by Ald. DeWane, second by Ald. VanderLeest to approve the agenda. Motion carried.
3.
Approval of the minutes of the May 5,
2008 Advisory Committee meeting.
Motion made
by Ald. Weber, second by Ald. DeWane to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2008
Advisory Committee meeting as submitted.
Motion carried.
4.
Report on poverty in Brown County by
Bay Area Community Council.
Chairman Wery stated that this item
that was promised by previous president, Chad Fradette. Phil Hauck of the Bay Area Community Council
was introduced and stated that he was the past president of the Bay Area Community
Council a couple of years ago and during the time that they did research for
this report, Bob Woessner was the incoming president and is the author of the
report.
Mr. Woessner reviewed the history of
the Bay Area Community Council stating that they were formed in 1989 as part of
a plan from the Chamber of Commerce. He reviewed the mission statement and
stated that 18 months was spent on the poverty report. Mr. Woessner reported
that in the year 2000 according to the Census Bureau, Brown County’s poverty
rate ($20,000 annual income for a family of four) was 6.6% and in 2006 it was
10.4%. The Green Bay School District in Sept. 2007 had 9,583 kids who qualified
for the subsidized meal program which meant that their families were in
poverty. He said during the course of the 2007-2008 academic year, the School
District counted 660 students as being homeless with 46% of the students
qualifying for free or subsidized lunches. He said Green Bay is the second
highest city in the state for kids qualifying for free lunches, second to the
Milwaukee Public Schools.
Mr. Woessner said his committee met
with families in poverty who were identified by various social service
agencies. He stated that they found in
general these were working people; working poor but their jobs didn’t provide
the income they needed to take care of much more than their basic needs. Mr. Woessner broke down what they learned
into five areas of concern: Children, Health Care, Housing, Neighborhood
Services and Transportation. He reviewed these areas and said they are not asking
the city for money, but asked Committee members to review the report and keep
these things in the back of their mind as they deal with issues that come to
the Council that affect people with these kinds of needs. He discussed the
priority of making these people self-sufficient through job creation,
inexpensive housing, and transportation, stating that many people work weekends
and said city busses do not run at these times. He said neighborhood resource
centers and neighborhood associations are places where people can be brought
together and mentored, which is always a benefit. Mr. Woessner said many of these people made
bad decisions earlier in their lives such as not paying attention in school,
making bad choices in relationships which led to unwanted pregnancies. He stated that every indication is that
poverty is going to get worse.
Phil Hauck said we need to ask
ourselves if the services are in place that these people need and are they
sufficient, which they are not, because of the growth. He said transitional
generational poverty will persist if we don’t make these people
self-sufficient. He said virtually all of the families they interviewed had
gotten in trouble as teenagers. Mr.Hauck stated that parenting is the most
important thing and said there is an initiative that was started last week
where, if they can find the funding through United Way, the family of every
child that is born in Brown County will be interviewed and will be asked
whether they are in need and then assistance will be provided to them from
birth until kindergarten. Mr. Hauck said healthcare is another need, with most
of these kids not receiving dental care or physicals, adding that the NEW
Community Clinic has a need for larger amounts of money to provide healthcare.
Housing vouchers are very much needed for these people as well as finding
another way to get people to and from work. Mr. Hauck said Resource Centers
would move these people into their neighborhoods if they could to get them
closer to the neighborhoods and to the access of the various agencies. Every agency they talked with said they need
double the dollars and more volunteers.
Mr. Woessner said the scariest part of
the research is early childhood development adding that if a child has not
received the nurturing they need and have not been read to and cared for
properly, by the age of 3 or 4 they are done. The chance of them making
anything meaningful of their lives is over and he said we need to catch the
problem early.
Ald. Wery said the work of the Bay
Area Community Council is appreciated and he made certain that all aldermen
received a copy of the report. Ald.
VanderLeest inquired if a study was done on where the population included in
the poverty numbers came from? Mr. Hauck said we know that many of these people
are coming from Milwaukee and are Spanish speaking but said there is no
breakdown of where they all came from.
Ald. Weber said he appreciated that these people were not asking the
city to solve the poverty problem and said sometimes government is more of a
hindrance to these people than is the private sector. He said it’s people such as Mr. Hauck and Mr.
Woessner and the charities and agencies that will make the difference. He
thanked them for reporting. Ald.
Wiezbiskie also thanked them for presenting their report and inquired if
emphasis is put on sex education and mentioned the language barrier stating
that learning the English language would be a big help for these people. Mr.
Woessner responded that the language barrier is not a new problem and has
existed for many, many years.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest,
second by Ald. DeWane to receive and place on file the Report on Poverty in
Brown County by Bay Area Community Council and to make sure that all aldermen
receive the report. Motion carried.
5.
Response from U.S. Attorney’s Office
regarding the Langan Report of the Younkers Acquisition Agreement.
Ald. Wery stated that he received the
response from the U.S. Attorney’s Office on Friday and said he called everyone
on Saturday and provided aldermen with a copy of the letter on Monday. He said the letter basically states two
things and read excerpts from the letter, first …”for the conduct of a local
public official to rise to the level of a potential federal criminal violation,
these essential elements usually must be present: (a) the public official
violated or misused a duty inherent in his or her office; and (b) the official
did so for some type of private gain”... secondly he stated that the statute of
limitations has expired.
Ald. VanderLeest stated that it seemed
out of the ordinary that the federal statute of limitations would expire in
five years. Atty. Swanson responded that
this is not an unusual time frame, adding that civil litigation is six
years. Motion made by Ald. DeWane,
second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to receive and place on file the letter from the U.S.
Attorney’s Office. Motion carried.
6.
Request by Ald. Wery for an update on
whether or not a Federal Courthouse will be constructed in Green Bay.
Atty. Swanson
stated that we are on a long-term plan for the Federal Courthouse and believes
they were told it takes about 10 years.
Scott Matejov said Judge Griesbach has been patient in waiting his turn
and the Mayor’s Office has been in communication with Sen. Kohl and other
members of the Federal Government to move this along quicker. He stated that Judge Griesbach is working on
this as well with contacts in Ohio to try to speed up the political process. Atty. Swanson said we have to jump up above
all the other cities who are requesting to have a federal courthouse, adding
that the city first started working on this about five years ago.
Ald.
VanderLeest made a motion to have the Law Dept. draft a resolution in support
of a federal courthouse being constructed in Green Bay and to forward the
resolution to the appropriate Federal and local representatives asking them for
support in getting a Federal Courthouse on the docket, and to forward this
resolution to the County and to other municipal governments in the County. He added to include some of the reference of
communication when this was brought forward, regarding previous timing on
getting it done, etc. Motion seconded by
Ald. DeWane. Ald. Wery asked to have this resolution brought back to the full
Council rather than to Advisory, since we don’t know when the Committee will be
meeting next.
In response
to a question by Ald. Wiezbiskie on what the benefits are to have a Federal
Courthouse here, Atty. Swanson said initially it’s about access for the
parties, stating that everybody north of Green Bay and in northeast Wisconsin
would have to travel to Milwaukee. She
said the added benefit brings additional lawyers to the city, additional police
forces and said it does generate revenue to the community with added federal
services and revenue. She stated that
many sites have been looked at in the past and said we would want the
courthouse downtown, not in outlying areas. She said we would have to go
through GSA and basically have to start over looking for a site. Ald. VanderLeest stated that it could be
beneficial to build this in a depressed area of the city.
A vote was
taken on the motion. Motion carried.
7.
Request by Ald. DeWane to have a
city-wide referendum pertaining to cuts of any City employees in the City
services departments.
Ald. DeWane said this is
self-explanatory stating that his constituents know how he feels and now he
needs to know how his constituents all feel. He feels the citizens should have
a chance to vote on whether they want to see cuts in services.
Doug Daul explained how the $5 million
projected budget deficit was derived. He
said Finance took a look at each individual budget and put in a multiplier for
employee costs and health care and put in 7% increase for energy line
items. He stated that he tried not to
overstate this and said this came to $3.3 million for those purposes. He estimated a $1 million reduction in
non-levy revenue for land sales and interest revenue. This brought the deficit to $4.3
million. Additionally the City knew we would
be getting a substantial increase in WRS in our protective services area and
put in $.5 million, for a total projected deficit of $4.8 million. He stated
that this was a projection from several months ago to get a high overview of
the 2009 budget situation in regards to the levy limit. He said the most important thing to look at
is this is a revenue issue and explained that there are two sources of revenue:
non tax and tax levy. He said what’s happening to us next year is the levy
limit is going to limit our increase in tax revenue to $953,000 but said we’re
going to lose that much or potentially more in non-tax levy dollars. He expects decreases in interest revenue and
land sales. He said we’re still waiting
for our numbers from the state of Wisconsin but said we know our revenues are
basically going to be frozen to where they were last year. He said he doesn’t
have WRS in yet but got an approximate rate from them. He said some WRS rates
are going to drop for the first time, adding that the one that is going to kick
up may be in the area of $400,000 rather than $500,000.00. He said the question is, is the $1.5 million
for the Fire Station a real number? Mr.
Daul said the increase that was projected for the Fire Dept. was $800,000 plus
that WRS kicker, somewhere in the area of $1 million. He didn’t include any
extra equipment. He stated that he
would like to put the budgets together now and come up with some real numbers
and see where those numbers are. He said the Fire Department Budget is basically
a flat budget from the previous year and said we’re looking at how many other
things are coming in flat. He stated
that the Council last evening gave a directive to get the budget done in 30
days, but said if we’re looking at a September referendum, it would need to be
done quicker.
Ald. Wiezbiskie asked if the Fire
Dept. will be asked for any further cuts than the $1.5 million cut that they
have agreed to. Mr. Daul responded that if every department did this, we would
come in with a balanced budget but added that this is the expenditure side and
said if we lose revenue the budget could still be upside down. Ald. Wiezbiskie
asked if the salaries and benefits of the 11 people who are not going to be
replaced in the Fire Dept. could be applied into that $1.5 million. Atty. Swanson said that attrition is
happening late this year and said former Chief Stauber’s concern was that if we
do these cuts, these would be the first people to go so he made the decision
not to hire off that list, since these people may have passed up other jobs to
work for the city. Ald. Wiezbiskie expressed concern that the Fire Dept. be
left alone now. Mr. Daul said his role
is to put the numbers together and what would be asked of the departments comes
from the Mayor’s Office. Scott Matejov
said when Chief Roemer came in he examined the Fire Dept. and worked along with
the Fire fighters to come up with a way of creating efficiencies in the
Department and presented that recommendation last night at Council. He said he would see no need based on what
they’ve already done, to ask for further cuts.
Atty. Swanson said to clarify on the hiring issue, without changing the
staffing level, through their policies they are filling that with overtime, which
is less costly than hiring more firefighters to a certain extent but said Chief
Roemer is looking at some impact by the reorganization.
Discussion ensued regarding holding a
referendum: Ald. VanderLeest stated that
he would not be in support of a referendum and ran on the platform of trying to
keep taxes low, adding that taxes are already very high. Mr. Daul was asked to
comment on Ald. Zima’s comment at the Council meeting last night regarding
taxes being held level the past few years. Mr. Daul distributed a handout and
reviewed the four years since the levy limit was imposed stating that there was
a 5.6% increase in debt service from 2005-2006 and said the overall increase
from 2005-2006 was 2.7%. He said in the
levy line for all other funds from ‘06-‘07 went up 4.7% and in 2008 it was up
6.2%. The 2009 levy for debt service
will increase about 9.4% including the 2008 bonding approved last evening at
Council and the levy for all other funds is restricted to the levy limit of
2%. He stated that basically the
pre-TIF levy will be up about 4.4%.
Ald. DeWane stated that we have an
opportunity to hear from city residents and said for the last decade there has
been a trend to not rehire retired employees. He said it’s up to the citizens
whether or not to go over the tax levy.
Ald. Weber stated that people speak through their aldermen and said it’s
their responsibility to do this for their constituents. He stated we do have a choice to spend more
or start tightening the belt in our homes and businesses. He said he will not
pass his responsibility off to a referendum, stating that they are costly and
are only effective to the number of people who go to the polls and third, said
the language in the referendum is often confusing. He stated that we need to
see a budget before going to a referendum and said the assessed valuation of
the city will change in more ways than we know and said before we rely on the
value of those real estates as being what they were on last years tax role,
they’re not going to be. He said we
haven’t seen the flood of people coming to appeal their tax bill nor have we
felt the financial impact of the drop in assessed valuation yet. He said we need to be fiscally responsible
and frugal during these hard times and said he is against a referendum.
Ald. Jeffreys asked for clarification
if Ald. DeWane was talking about cutting people or services, to which he stated
services. She reviewed the statute for
wording of a referendum, and said we cannot get to the taxpayers for every cut
in employees and said if we’re talking about the money, that’s different. Ald.
DeWane responded again that he’s concerned with cutting services without
constituents’ approval or giving them the choice to raising taxes. Ald. Zima questioned Ald. Weber if he stated
that lowering of property values through desperation sales, etc. will come back
and lower our assessment rate which is going to inversely increase our tax
rate? Ald. Weber said that is correct.
Ald. Zima said would have to correct him based on a conversation with
the city assessor who explained that because we are at a percentage of fair
market value the assessments won’t be changing at all and it’s that the
relationship with fair market value might get tighter and it would have to be
very drastic before that would be overcome. He said our tax base this year
would not be affected, adding that we are at about 93% of fair market value. He
said for the short term it will have to continue for quite a while before the scenario
that Ald. Weber mentioned would take place. Ald. Zima said there is a fall
election and reviewed the specific referendum language with Mr. Daul and
recommended asking the Mayor and staff to get the budget done a month early
this year and said we should have two budgets, one within the levy limits and
one that’s what we want above the levy limits and to put that on a referendum
for the November election, and ask the public. If they say no, he stated that
everything should be cut across the board equally. Mr. Daul said the cutoff for placing a
referendum on the November 4th election is September 23rd.
He estimated the cost of a referendum as approximately $10,000 or less.
Motion made by Ald. Weber, second by
Ald. VanderLeest to receive and place on file.
Ald. DeWane stated that he wants a
decision to be made tonight and does not want to put this away. Further
discussion and suggestions were to bring this up again in a month when budgets
are closer to being completed. Ald. VanderLeest and Wiezbiskie again stated
that they do not support a referendum. Ald. Jeffreys said she does not support
the referendum, stating that a referendum has to be very well conceived. She
would prefer to see this idea come from the populous rather than from the
Council. He added that it’s the peoples’ right to appeal their taxes, adding
that the assessment isn’t necessarily going to change. Ald. Zima responded that
the appeals are not going to change the assessment value for tax purposes and
said the ratio will get tighter. He stated that this is a very trying
circumstance where we’re faced with cutting services rather drastically and
said people expressed concern about the next cuts being in the Police Dept. and
feel they should have a say so.
Ald. Wery said the state mandates caps
and he doesn’t agree with this. He said that he personally doesn’t mind
referendums. He said the state has taken power away from us that we cannot go
over the cap and said our power is still there in having a referendum that
would allow us to decide what we will spend and what we’re going to spend it
on. He expressed appreciation to the Fire Dept. Union for seeing what’s ahead
and stepping up. He stated that he likes Ald. Zima’s suggestion of having two
options and said he is not in favor of receiving and placing this on file. Ald.
Weber stated that there is always room for looking at changes in organizational
staffing and looking at ways to improve.
A vote was taken on the motion to
receive and place on file. The motion failed with a 3-3 vote. Ald. VanderLeest, Weber and Wiezbiskie voted
in favor and Ald. Wery, DeWane And Jeffreys voted no. This will be forwarded to Council with no
action.
8.
Request by Ald. DeWane to keep our
Fire Department intact and, under no circumstance, privatize, jeopardizing our
citizens.
Ald. DeWane motioned to receive and
place on file, as this item was already discussed. Second by Ald.
VanderLeest. Ald. Jeffreys stated that
in terms of privatization, small parts of our city could possibly use private
entities but said large parts of our city should not be using privatization
because it does not encourage openness and accountability. A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried
9.
Request by Ald. Kocha to consider
requiring that future Council discussions related to major litigation,
including the current Younkers matter, be done in special session.
Ald. Kocha stated that it is often
late in the evening when Council is dealing with decisions dealing with
millions of dollars and she doesn’t feel that’s the best course of action for
the city. She is suggesting meeting at 5:00 on Tuesday for the closed session,
before the regular meeting at 7:00. Ald.
VanderLeest agrees with starting the meeting early or placing closed session
items first on the agenda, especially when outside Counsel is present and
charging the city for their time. He feels we should make this a policy.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest to
suggest to the Mayor’s Office to have special sessions or have as a first
agenda item where closed session is necessary, especially when a contracted
attorney is present. Second by Ald. Weber.
Ald. Weber said he is not in favor of
an additional meeting but suggested rearranging the agenda to allow closed
session items to be closer to the top of the agenda. He suggested broadening
the motion to issues that are going to be time consuming. Ald. DeWane believed
it would be difficult to start the meetings earlier for members who have jobs
but agrees with instructing the Mayor to place closed session items at the start
of the agenda. Ald. Kocha disagrees and said committee meetings start at 5:00
or 5:30. She feels we may be putting an inconvenience on the public if closed
session, lengthy sessions are placed first on the agenda. She stated that maybe
a policy isn’t necessary but rather create an awareness and advise ahead of
time that maybe closed session could begin earlier. Ald. Jeffreys said most of
the members could make a 6:00 Council meeting to take care of some of these
issues, lengthy issues that even do not include litigation. Ald. Piton agrees with starting the Council
meeting at 6:00 if necessary and stated that they approve the agenda at the
start of each meeting and could ask for agenda items to be adjusted if necessary. Atty. Swanson stated that ordinance states
the order of the agenda and closed session items either come out of a report or
is requested at certain times for that to be forwarded. She said often times
they are trying to address shorter items first so people can leave. Ald. Zima said administration should call a
special session prior to the Council meeting for closed session items, adding
that it’s not fair to the public to sit and wait through these sessions.
A vote was taken on the motion by Ald.
VanderLeest. Motion carried.
10. Report
from City Atty. on request of Ald. VanderLeest that all future contracts for
redevelopment be subject to final approval by the Common Council prior to final
contract approval.
Atty. Swanson said she sent out a
request to other municipalities and received 12 responses which varied with a
fair number doing term sheets like we do and others that negotiate the full
agreement and draft it and bring it at that time rather than bringing it twice.
Another municipality brings it five times, and other variations. She said some
do a work session with Council or RDA ahead of time and said that they have been trying to work toward
getting quicker on smaller contracts and said sometimes it’s a timing issue in
terms of deadlines. Regarding term sheets, Atty. Swanson stated that we go
through those and send those back and forth between attorneys and do agree on a
lot of that language. She said that the agreement that was signed regarding
Younkers she would treat as a term sheet. She said the separate term sheet did
not go back and forth between the parties as we do now. At Ald. Weber’s request she said they are
looking at placing a footer on the bottom of documents to better track where
things are and where they’re going.
Ald. VanderLeest said the goal is to
not repeat what happened in the Younkers matter and to have City Council
approve what is being agreed on and asked for a recommendation from Atty.
Swanson. She responded that said she will make a better effort of having the
full agreement for Council and said sometimes it’s a timing issue and said she
has a checklist of things and at times it’s a problem with easement or surveys.
Discussion ensued regarding Council seeing the working documents on large
projects and placing a dollar value of a project. Suggestion to not pay
attention to what other cities do and having the documents themselves come
before the Council as they are meant to be and explained paragraph by paragraph
and have Council do their due diligence. Documents that the city expects to be
signed should be the documents that come before Council. Further discussion on what a threshold should
be? In the past year 4 or 5 significant projects a year was estimated by Atty.
Swanson. She believes Council may want to review anything with TIF assistance.
Ald. Piton expressed concern that Council agendas may get very long. Atty.
Swanson said basically every development would be approved by Council. Ald. Jeffreys likes the idea of a work
session on a contract which she feels would allow them to learn about the
details of the contract. She indicated that she spoke with members of EDA and
RDA and was told that term sheets are concise and obvious and contract language
is a nettled form that they wouldn’t want to get into. She thinks it’s
important to look at what other municipalities do and said what dollar amount
is involved needs to be worked out. Ald. Weber said RDA members want more
information quicker up front and asked that Council be provided with
information and details of contracts and they can choose to review it or not.
After further brief discussion, the
motion was amended to state that all future contracts for development be
subject to final approval by the Common Council prior to final contract
approval if financial assistance is required by the city.
Atty. Swanson explained that the Law
Department drafts a term sheet and the last provision of the term sheet
provides that it should be drafted by the City Attorneys Office into a full
contract and should be executed by the Mayor and the Clerk and the RDA. Ald. VanderLeest said in light of what
happened with the Younkers deal, he would like to see the full contract to
protect the taxpayer.
A vote was taken on the amended
motion. Motion carried.
11. Request
by Ald. VanderLeest that all documents requested by Mr. Langan for his
investigation of the Younkers issue be provided to the City Council and the
public.
Ald. VanderLeest stated that he’s not
sure where this stands at this point as we received the opinion from the U.S.
Attorneys Office, which was the first step. He said the second step is asking
if we can recover any cost to the city.
Atty. Swanson cautioned that this was not the agenda item. She stated that six bankers boxes of
documents were provided to Mr. Langan and he reviewed them. She said that any
alderman is welcome to stop in the office and review the boxes of documents and
any member of the public can put in an
open records request which would be handled appropriately. Ald. VanderLeest
asked if there were specific documents that Mr. Langan requested, with Atty.
Swanson again stating that she provided him with six boxes of documents.
Motion was made by Ald. DeWane, second
by Ald. Wiezbiskie to receive and place on file.
Ald. VanderLeest asked if Mr. Langan
had a list of documents that he used in preparing his report? Atty. Swanson
stated that he is welcome to review all of the documents.
A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.
Ald. Zima said he was not recognized
to speak before the vote was taken.
Motion made by Ald. DeWane second by Ald. VanderLeest to reconsider.
Motion carried.
Ald. Zima’s comment was not pertaining
to the agenda item. He stated that it needs another communication and said it
strikes him as the work was not completed.
A vote was again taken on the original
motion to receive and place on file.
Motion carried.
Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that he doesn’t
care to be plagued by this item anymore and said it’s beyond time to move on.
12. Request
for a resolution in support of the families of Wisconsin, in support of strong
trade policy curbing industry subsidization and currency manipulation by
foreign governments and to take swift and responsive actions to halt other
unlawful barriers to fair and free trade.
No one was present to
speak to this item. Motion made by Ald.
Weber, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to receive and place on file. Motion carried.
Motion made by Ald.
VanderLeest, second by Ald. Jeffreys to adjourn. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Haupt, recording
secretary