MINUTES

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, March 26, 2009

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, Ald. Andy Nicholson

Others Present: Ald. Amy Kocha, Ald. Dan Piton, Atty. Allison Swanson, Atty. Kail Decker, Scott Matejov, Chris Phelps, Rob Strong, Chad Weininger, Krista Baeten, Members of the Media

1. Call to order.

The meeting was called to order by Council President Ald. Chris Wery at 6:00 p.m. All members were present at the start of the meeting with the exception of Ald. Nicholson, Ald. Jeffreys and Ald. Vanderleest, who all arrived shortly after the start of the meeting.

2. Approval of the agenda.

Motion made by Ald. DeWane, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to approve the agenda. Motion carried.

3. Approval of the minutes of the January 6, 2009 Advisory Committee meeting.

Motion made by Ald. De Wane, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2009 Advisory Committee meeting. Motion carried.

4. Request by Ald. Wiezbiskie to review the successes, failures, improvements and procedures of the Sexual Offender Residency Restrictions Ordinance and the Sex Offenders Residency Board.

Ald. Wiezbiskie said the brought this forward because there were some rumbles in that committee and they were experiencing some changes and said he has since had the opportunity to attend a meeting of that committee and they are doing a great job. He stated that one change is that they no longer have a Police Officer at their meetings and their hands are tied a bit with the information they can get. He would like to see a representative from that committee address the Advisory Committee at a future meeting. He stated that he was against the Sex Offender ordinance because it has been proven that if you enforce the rules too much, these people will go underground and disappear. He said there has been an appreciable number which has increased as far as the number of people who have registered and said we could look into this or maybe go as far as to abolish this ordinance and said the ELC basically has the power and the information and are in control of this and do a good job of that. He suggested referring this item to the Law Dept. and pick it up at another meeting to talk with a committee member.

Ald. Vanderleest stated that he would like to see more information about the program and how it works. He said he is supportive of the ordinance and realizes there are some issues as to the information that can be provided to the Board members and suggested having something documented in writing relative to the information that can be provided for the Board members and to give this information to the Board members. He indicated that the successes of this Board have been outlined and would be in favor of having the Law Dept. document processes and procedures of the Board and bring that information back. He supports keeping the Residency Board.

Ald. DeWane stated that he is very much in favor of keeping this ordinance and said we need to find a way to better monitor when whomever it is, male or female, is being released. He stated that until we find a better way to monitor this, we need to keep it the way it is. Ald. Weber stated he is in favor of maintaining the Residence Board and said it was created because we felt there was an inordinate number of releases into our community without justification. He suggested tweaking it and moving forward. Ald. Wery recalled that this item was referred to staff at a Protection & Welfare Committee, which will be coming back to that committee in about four weeks. Ald. Nicholson said he requested to know the amount of money that the city is spending on this and also review of a court case in Waukesha where the ordinance was challenged. He said Atty. Wachewicz was going to look into that and report back to Protection & Welfare.

Ald. Piton said a representative from the Dept. of Corrections will be addressing the Sex Offender Residency Board members at an upcoming meeting. Ald. Kocha said she is in favor of reviewing these issues and inquired if this would happen at the next Council meeting? Ald. Wery responded that the timeline for this is still under discussion.

Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, second by Ald. De Wane to refer to the Law Dept. to report on this item and to request that a committee member from the Sex Offender Residency Board attend Advisory Committee when this report is made. Motion carried.

5. Request by Ald. Nicholson to review guidelines for Council meeting presentations.

Ald. Nicholson inquired if there are any guidelines for presentations at City Council meetings? Atty. Swanson responded that there are no guidelines on presentations except to the extent that it’s the Mayor’s agenda and he can put presentations on there, but no guidelines as to the length of the presentation. Ald. Nicholson indicated that he brought this item forward because of an incident that happened a couple of months ago, adding that if a group or individual is presenting a gift to the city, we should always show respect and courtesy to the public and/or the person who is presenting the gift. He inquired if there is a need to establish a policy or guidelines.

Ald. Weber agrees with how Council members should treat their guests, etc. and believes the intent was not as it initially came forward and was simply an error in timing and judgment. He said we generally have an issue at times with behavior on Council and said it’s a place for the other Council members to rein themselves in. Ald. Wiezbiskie would like to see Council members show more respect for each other adding that it’s embarrassing sometimes to be a part of that body with the outbursts and childish behavior. He agrees with respect being shown at all times and suggested putting a time restraint on the presenters. He added that what Ald. Nicholson is making reference to, will probably not happen again but on the other hand they are all entitled to their own actions. Ald. Vanderleest said the Mayor sets the agenda and he agrees that respect should be shown to all presenters but does not feel the need to set guidelines. He added that if we disagree, it must be done politely and follow-up with the person after the meeting to have questions answered.

Motion made by Ald. Vanderleest, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to receive and place on file.

Ald. Wery agrees that the respect level needs to be raised toward everyone, including staff, adding that he’d like Council to set a good example and said things should be addressed immediately rather than let them fester. He indicated that the Mayor could use his gavel a little more judiciously and said if he doesn’t, it’s up to the Council members to speak up and address it, especially other people’s behaviors.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

6. Request by Ald. Wery to draft a resolution encouraging the reclassification of US 41 to I-55.

A draft resolution by Derek Lord was reviewed by Atty. Swanson since Derek was in attendance at another meeting. She stated that the resolution is what was drafted and approved by The New North and they have requested everybody from Fond du Lac through Green Bay to approve a resolution such as this. She stated that the state is looking at renaming Hwy 41 to either I-55 or 241, adding that the benefits of renaming it to I-55 would be that I-55 runs all the way to New Orleans and is better known. She stated that this is being looked at as an economic development tool and since the state is looking at changing it anyway, she believes I-55 would be the better choice.

Ald. Weber stated that Hwy 41 runs from Michigan to the tip of Florida and is a very old highway and inquired if there is a way that part of the renaming could be I-55/Old Hwy 41 so we don’t lose the connection to that old historic highway.

Motion made by Ald. Weber to rename US41 to I-55/Old Hwy 41, second by Ald. DeWane.

Ald. VanderLeest would not oppose adding this language and inquired where this would be inserted. Atty. Swanson said she would find somewhere and will underline it so they can see it clearly. Ald. Wiezbiskie is in favor of renaming to I-55 and feels it may be too cumbersome to add reference to Old Hwy 41, asking how it would appear on the map? Ald. Weber responded that it would be I-55 on the map. Ald. Nicholson inquired how renaming would be an economic Development tool? Ald. Wery responded that the state is looking at renaming the road and the city can support a preference. Atty. Swanson added that the name recognition would be helpful adding that the city can support either option, but the ultimate decision lies with the state.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

7. Request by Ald. Nicholson to develop a policy on cell phone use during Council meetings.

Ald. Nicholson stated that he brought this forward because of a recent incident where a Council member was using a cell phone while another Council member had the floor. He felt this was rude and unprofessional and felt if people don’t leave the room when they are on the cell phone, we may need to have a policy put in place. Ald. Kocha stated that she is the Council member who used her cell phone and this was due to calling a constituent to tell her that an item that Ald. Kocha was going to hold over, was actually on the floor for discussion. She apologized for this and said it was a one-time necessary move. She does not believe guidelines need to be established. Ald. VanderLeest stated that from time to time there may be an emergency when a Council member may need to make a call and will go to the corner of the room. He said it’s up to the Mayor and committee chairs to ask them to leave the room if they need to make a call. He does not believe a policy is necessary. Ald. DeWane said a policy would be o.k. if we wanted to draft something simple and said this was a weird day. Ald. Wiezbiskie said it’s common sense to leave the room if you need to make a call and does not see this happening again and does not see the need to develop a policy. Ald. Weber agrees with Ald. Wiezbiskie and said he uses his cell phone to go to the web to verify information during a meeting.

Motion made by Ald. Vander Leest, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to receive and place on file. Motion carried.

8. Request by Ald. Wery to draft a resolution supporting the establishment of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA).

Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, second by Ald. Jeffreys to approve the resolution.

Ald. Jeffreys said it’s critical for our area for the many people who ride the bus, including her husband who rides the bus to UWGB everyday. She added that the funding mechanism in Wisconsin is not very transit friendly.

Transit Director, Chris Phelps addressed the committee with a presentation developed by Transit staff as well as members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization which outlines the benefits of transit in our community, the crossroads we face in the next few years and a possible solution. He stated that Green bay Metro provides access for residents of Green Bay and the surrounding communities to jobs, to retail, recreation, entertainment, to schools, to medical care, to job training, social services, rehabilitation programs, meal sites and reduces the negative effects of automobile use such as traffic congestion, delay, productivity losses and production. He stated that the transit budget estimate for 2009 is $8.2 million, with 57% ($4.6 Million) received in funding from federal and state, and local funding from the City of Green Bay, DePere, Allouez, Ashwaubenon, Bellevue and the Oneida Tribe of Indians is $2.1 million, fares bring in $1.2 million and other revenues, investment income, etc. $156,000.

Mr. Phelps explained that $1.5 million (18%) of their budget is provided by the City of Green Bay and they take that contribution and leverage another $6.7 million by having transit in our community. He stated that the financial threats are the decline of federal and state funding and if the city reaches a population figure of 200,000, $550,000 will be removed from the existing budget, since we will be considered a big city in terms of transit funding. He anticipates this could happen with the 2011-2012 operating budget, following the 2010 census. Another threat is the lack of local funds to match federal funding for transit capital and no operating or capital reserve fund to cover budget shortfalls, as well as gas prices being volatile and likely to rise in the near future. Mr. Phelps said we have 28 year-old busses on the streets which will need to be replaced. The contractually-mandated labor costs and benefits have an impact on the budget as well. He reviewed the Green Bay Metropolitan statistical area boundary, which is derived by a federal formula process at the Census bureau. Mr. Phelps reviewed the capital needs which include replacing buses, a new fare collection system with swipe cards and paratransit vehicles. He stated that currently we contract out with Medi Vans for paratransit services but on a federal level we are now able to purchase paratransit vehicles and reduce our contractual costs.

Options to deal with anticipated financial shortfall: do nothing, ask local entities for more money,(which is not an option) raise fares and cut service (which they did on January of this year) they cut the final hour of service from 10:45 to 9:45, advocate for increased state and federal assistance which he has been doing, and finally, establishment of a Regional Transportation Authority, which is a tool used in many other states across the country. He explained that an RTA is an autonomous entity that has taxing and bonding authority. An RTA can be formed by two or more units of government, and is typically governed by a board of directors made up of members appointed by each participating entity. Mr. Phelps explained the benefits of RTA’s stating it has the ability to secure necessary operating and capital funding to maintain existing service, allows the system to expand to meet the transportation needs of a growing community and aging population, the ability to establish a cash reserve for transit system (to cover future capital needs, fluctuating fuel costs, etc.) and minimizes or eliminates burden on local property tax levy. As it’s own entity, the RTA will be given the ability to either tax or contract with municipalities to provide those services that transit does right now.

Mr. Phelps stated that they bill other municipalities for services based on a mileage basis. Another option is to generate a sales or use tax. He stated that through the resolution which was distributed, he is asking to embrace the concept of an RTA, which is the evolution of our transit system into a much more regional and stand alone type of entity which can address the needs of the community in a more proactive and quicker way. He stated that 82% of Brown County residents live in the transit service area right now. He stated that they are looking at the option of establishing a second hub, in Ashwaubenon, which would serve the residents of the west side much better. Mr. Phelps cited achievements they have done the past few years including placing bike racks on the front of buses, the How to Ride the Bus video in many languages and on the website, the Google Transit Trip Planner, the U Pass Program with UWGB and he talked with St. Norbert College about bringing that service to them as well. Mr. Phelps said they are working with Appleton Transit as well as downtown employers to establish a partnership for a commuter service between the business district in Green Bay with the business district in downtown Appleton. They are not looking at this service to Door County at this point in time.

Mr. Phelps summed up by stating that the purpose of his presentation is to give the committee some background information of where they are and what an RTA means. He opened the floor for questions. Ald. Weber inquired about the U Pass program which Mr. Phelps responded that this program was a partnership between the Student Government at UWGB and Metro as part of their sustainability committee to offer a pass to students at UWGB where they show their pass at the fare box and is at no cost to them and is paid for through their student fees, adding that the program has been expanded to faculty. Ald. Weber inquired about the leveraging of $2.2 million, with Mr. Phelps responding that for a local investment of $2.2 million, they are providing economic development jobs in their neighborhood to the tune of $6.7 million. Ald. Weber expressed concern about a new taxing authority being formed and inquired about representation with appointed officials? Mr. Phelps responded that that has not yet been determined, adding that in many places they are appointed by a local municipality through a process and said there would be equal proportional representation. Ald. Weber said he would not be opposed to an RTA if it is done properly. Mr. Phelps said the RTA gives them the opportunity to do things to help generate income as a department and to recoup a little more money from their users and said there is substantial oversight and responsibility to the stakeholders that serve and said there is also outclauses for communities that wish to join or no longer wish to be part of it.

Ald. VanderLeest stated that he would not be in support of this resolution unless there would be elected officials such as Council members to be appointed to the Board. Mr. Phelps said Green Bay would have a say in who is appointed to the Board. Ald. VanderLeest stated that if verbiage is added to state that elected officials be appointed, he would support the amended resolution and expressed concern about a taxing authority like the Technical College has. He doesn’t want to see this change to benefit other communities unless it helps Green Bay Metro. Mr. Phelps stated that the resolution is conceptual and the language can be added in and said the funding element would need to be developed locally. He indicated that Green Bay is 76% of the area, therefore Green Bay would have 76% of the control of an RTA. Ald. VanderLeest stated that he doesn’t want to lose autonomy or local control when there are issues, adding that he would support the resolution with the addition of the language that he proposed. Mr. Phelps said they could work with the Law Dept. to add the language that Ald. VanderLeest suggested.

Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that County, City and other municipalities as well should have involvement with elected officials. He inquired if an RTA will help or hinder the 200,000 population mark in funding? Mr. Phelps responded that it depends on the tools used to fund the RTA and said an RTA would allow us to become eligible for different parts of federal money and said we are working on the federal level to help preserve the operating money that we receive. Regarding expanding service, an RTA would help us to expand the service in leveraging other programs, an example is the service with Appleton. The service to Appleton that they are proposing is work oriented rather than shopping. He congratulated Mr. Phelps on a job well done. Ald. Jeffreys inquired what our transit system will look like in 2013 if we do not establish an RTA? He responded that they will be looking at elimination of more services and raises in fares or both, to make up the loss in operating assistance projected. He indicated if we don’t deal with the funding issue, we are looking at a much smaller and less viable transit service. Ald. Jeffreys said she sees transportation much like education; a public good. She stated that she would like to see elected representatives to serve on the RTA Board, like the School Board. She feels that the resolution deserves a little tweaking but is totally in support of this.

Ald. DeWane expressed concern about creating a new tax and said the current resolution does not address some of his concerns. Mr. Phelps said it is generic in the fact that they went for the conceptual approach and said we’re funded right now and this isn’t going to change, just the mix and how we go about doing that is what changes. Ald. Wery stated that he feels Mr. Phelps is one of the best Transit directors we have had and said when the Governor set up his budget and proposed doing these RTA’s he named Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton and Green Bay was left out. This is the reason he brought this forward.

Motion by Ald. VanderLeest, second by Ald. Weber to add the language “with the RTA Board to be comprised of elected officials from the affected areas”.

Ald. Kocha feels this item needs much more discussion and suggests leaving the resolution as it stands. Ald. Jeffreys stated that she does not support the amendment to the resolution and said the heart of the matter is that Green Bay has been left out of the loop and this language will not resolve the matter. Ald. Weber supports the amendment and said without that language he cannot support an RDA. Ald. Nicholson stated that he does not support the idea of establishing an RTA and giving power to individuals who are going to be raising taxes and bonding without any control of the city, adding that this is how the city lost the Water Dept. and Health Dept. He feels this would be a mistake and will not support the resolution or the amendment. Ald. Wiezbiskie suggested different language for the amendment with Ald. VanderLeest stating that he is firm on what his wishes are for the amendment. Ald. Wiezbiskie then stated that he would not be interested in an appointment on this board and would not support the resolution as it stands. Ald. DeWane stated that he has more questions and wants to look into this further and will vote no at this point to the resolution and the amendment. Ald. VanderLeest explained the makeup of the Technical College Board and again said it’s better served to have people who are elected to be on the Board, with Ald. Jeffreys stating again that she would support officials being elected to a Transit Authority. Ald. VanderLeest stated that he doesn’t support Assembly Bill 75 since he is not familiar with it.

Ald. VanderLeest withdrew his previous motion and motioned to hold this item to gather more information on the issue and on Assembly Bill 75 and to bring this back to the next Advisory Committee meeting. Second by Ald. Wiezbiskie.

After brief discussion, it was decided to hold a special Advisory Committee meeting on April 6^th to review this item in a timely manner.

A vote was taken on the motion to hold this item for an Advisory Committee meeting on April 6th. Motion carried.

9. Report from staff on CDBG and Home Program funds.

Rob Strong stated that this is something that Council has discussed many times over the years. He stated that these are federal programs with considerable regulations and said this will be an overview. Rob distributed a copy of the powerpoint which he indicated is in very small print and will provide larger print copies to any Alderperson who requests them. He introduced Krista Baeten, Community Development Specialist. Krista gave a powerpoint on the Community Development Block Grant Program, reviewing the Primary Objectives, Mandatory Requirements, Eligible Activities, Other Program Requirements and Citizen Participation. Rob stated that when they go to the Block Grant Review Subcommittee, they have to be certain that they’ve met all the mandatory requirements. He said we are an entitlement community which means that we will receive funds as long as the program is out there. Eligible Activity requires that 70% of the program funds have to be used for projects that benefit low to moderate income people. Rob explained that low to moderate income is a census area where at least 50% of the households in that area are at or below 80% of the area’s medium income, which for a family of four is $62,000. Rob stated that even though some requirements are listed as not mandatory, doesn’t mean that HUD isn’t on us for all of these things. Rob stated that Habitat for Humanity has been a great partner for putting in replacement homes and we get to take credit for that as a new home put in as a replacement. Rob said that if we take down a duplex, if we use these funds, we are required to replace it with two single units or another duplex.

Rob stated that a performance report is submitted to HUD in May and he gives a summary of what is done over the past year to Council members. At that time a hearing must be held for the community to come in and ask if we are using the funds in the way that is best for the city. The other hearing must be held when they are preparing the next year’s annual action plan where citizens can come forward with suggestions of how they would like to see the funds used. Any substantial change to the plans must be published with Rob stating that anything over $25,000 moving of money would require public notice as well as a meeting with the RDA. Another would be the deletion of a project, if an original plan stated that a certain number of dollars will be spent on a project and they decide to delete that project, a public notice must be published. Rob said the program started in 1976 and reviewed the funding allocations from 1999 to present stating that in 1995 there was an administrative change and requests were received from non-profit agencies. In 2004 the Council did not want to fund the non-profit agencies and wanted the money to be used in the impact areas, feeling it is much better use of the dollars. He stated that the Community Intern Program started in 2005 is funded and considered a public service. Rob stated he will be looking at the process and based on the past Council approval process, he needs to get Council involved earlier. Ald. Weber suggested coming as a special notice to RDA just like the budget comes to Joint Finance and Personnel.

Krista reviewed the Home Program, primary objectives, allocation of funds, mandatory requirements and eligible activities. She stated that we are entitled to funds through this program, the same as the CDBG Program. Krista said we have 24 months after we’ve received notice that we have been allocated the funds, to enter into an agreement with an approved organization and then five years to pay out the home funds. Rob said the only qualified CHODO, Community Housing Development Organization right now is NeighborWorks Green Bay. An annual performance report must be submitted to HUD. Rob stated that any if you use home funds to demolish a property, construction must begin on the HOME project within 12 months. Ald. Vander Leest requested a list of projects that were funded in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 which Rob will provide. Rob discussed the Home Buyers Assistance Program, which Ald. Weber said is a great program.

Krista stated that the city has been allocated an additional $267, 161 of CDBG funds under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009. She indicated that they do not yet know what the regulations are but did share that they want the funds to be used for activities that encourage and maximize job creation and retention in the area, adding that they want the money to be turned around really quickly. Rob added that they may shorten some of the requirements for these funds and again said we’re an entitlement so that is the amount we were allocated. Rob stated that it may be a challenge since the money has to be turned around fast but still create or retain jobs. Ald. Vander Leest inquired if alderpersons could have some input into how they think is the best use of the money. Rob responded that he will invite all Council members to submit their thoughts. Ald. Weber stated that staff should give the recommendation, but believes that input is fine from the alderpersons. Rob will send a memo to the Council members and said he doesn’t mind the input and will be happy to take a look at projects they submit. Ald. De Wane stated that Rob has a good feel for where this money should be spent and should be making the recommendation.

Ald. Wery thanked Rob and Krista for the presentation. Rob will send a link to the presentation to the alderpersons. Motion made by Ald. Vander Leest, second by Ald. De Wane to receive and place on file. Motion carried.

10. Request by Ald. Wiezbiskie to review and offer possible solutions to address late night—into early morning City Council meetings. Possibility of adjournment or recess to next available day or time. Possible cutoff at 10:30 p.m. or at least by 12:30 a.m. to defray overtime wages for building staff workers.

Ald. Wiezbiskie requested to hold this item until the April 6^th Advisory Committee meeting. He also requested to have an update on discussion by committee chairs regarding staggering the day of committee meetings.

There being no further business, motion made by Ald. Vander Leest, second by Ald. Wiezbiskie to adjourn. Motion carried.