It was a 4.5 hour meeting, part one is filled with discussions of roundabouts and who pays for them (hint: the county doesn’t pay, blame Kathleen Falk), small discussion on CDA debacle in condemning south side properties, non-profit property tax exemption issues remain, a bizarre appearance from David Blaska and more.
GETTING STARTED
They got started only 5 minutes late, perhaps that is why Cnare, Compton, Kerr, Maniaci and Pham-Remmele were all absent at the start of the meeting. They all arrived within 10 minutes of starting the meeting. [What’s up ladies?]
HONORING DR ANTHONY BROWN
The Mayor asks for a moment of silence and says there will be an honoring resolution at the next meeting.
SHOUT OUT FOR GOOGLE FIBER
Mayor says he and Satya Rhodes Conway are wearing their Google Fiber pins. [Apparently he was paying no attention because more than half the council was wearing them or had them on their desks, microphones, etc. In fact, a whole bad of the pins was passed around on the council floor.]
HOUSEKEEPING
They suspend the rules.
There are no petitions or communications.
They pass the consent agenda.
15 (Terry Family Foundation taxation issue) is refered to the April 13th Common Council meeting.
They record a unanimous vote on items 20, 25, and 31
40 (concessions at Vilas and Wingra Park) is referred to the Common Council meeting of April 13th
91 (consultant contract) is referred back to the Water Utility Board
125 (MSCR at Warner Park) on the addendum is adopted.
Items separated are 34 (25 cent charge for electronic payments), 37 (boat docking in parks), 77 (EOC, AA and CPD being able to introduce items) and 80 (Downtown Safety Initiative).
Jed Sanborn votes no on 32 (TIF for Wingra)
All the rest of the items are passed with the recommendations on the agenda, with the exception of the public hearing items.
[Note: They are going to have to reconsider 4 items because they moved too quickly and there were registrants on several of the items.]
It’s only 6:40 so they suspend the rules by unanimous consent and start the public hearings 5 minutes early.
The Mayor notes that they have new confusing sign in forms, but after some prodding notes they aren’t confusing if you just read them.
1 – Items one has a registrant, Brandon Ripp in support and available for questions. No questions or discussion. The items is adopted on a voice vote.
2 – Assessment for University Avenue and Campus Drive have no registrants.
ROUNDABOUTS AND WHO PAYS FOR THEM (NOT THE COUNTY)
Public Testimony
Buck Sweeney is a lobbyist for Theis Farms says he is in favor of the project, but says there is an unfair assessment issue, roundabout assigned to the area, the Theis’ have a family farm, they have no concerns about the road assessment, only have issues with the roundabout and the way it is charged. They are only concerned with the city funding, the support the federal stimulus money, that saved money for everyone, issue is inequity in county area by county residents and city residents, county is putting in no dollars at all in the project, city share calculated trips to and from the property and they appreciate changes staff made, but cost associated with city and county share is too low. [Thuy is the last alder to arrive and she walks in at the same time as David Blaska] There are not many trips in farming – that is what they base the assessment on – tractors don’t use the roundabout and try to figure out how to get off it, they should eliminate the amount assessed or get relief in interest rate until they are using the property differently. The final is paying an extravagant amount, when assessments for speedway interchange are made they should keep that in mind and don’t assess more later.
Laverne Theis says the assessment is $120,000 on 143 acres, at this point there are three houses and 6 cars and it will be many years before that changes and the road is needed by city and county and for county to wash hands and not pay makes no sense. $127K assess is is for the roundabouts, assessments on road over property is $537K, but it is not due til 10 years, but they pay 3.5% interest, they are paying $22K interest a year to pay for something they don’t need. City has done homework, but they should be leaning on county, these are both county roads, there are 12,000 trips on S and 30,000 trips on M, that is justifying these roundabout with no development from them, he will pay interest for 5 to 10 years – some of his property is a half mile from roundabout, it will be a long time before it develops, $535K will do us good in the future, roundabout don’t help them now or in future.
Randy Theis – roundabouts are city assessed as an improvement, roundabouts aren’t popular with public, can’t think of one person who thought it was good to put it there, might save money on electric and stop and go lights but the ones in Mount Horeb have damage to curbs from semis and snow plows, this is far enough along it will happen, but there will be other costs down road, hopes those will not be assessed to property owners, state law gives you right to charge whatever you want – he asked a friend in Ozaukee county who is on the county board there and it seems like an abuse of the law that Madison and County are taking it to full extreme, in all honesty, law should be reconsidered down the road, in the rural areas when see road improvement or repaving, they have no idea they could be charged an assessment, but legally municipality can charge – he says Buck and his brother covered the rest of it, on 40 acres which he purchases for $40K in 70s he is now being assessed over $100K, but this assessment for roundabout alone is $58K for the property, you wouldn’t want a bill that is as much as paid for house in 70s, needs to be reconsidered, main part of road is an improvement, roundabouts are not.
Housekeeping
They close the public hearing on that item. Open and close public hearings on items 4 and 5, Bruer moves adoption of items 2 – 5.
Questions of Staff on Item 3
Larry Palm ask Rob Phillips, the City Engineer to clarify how roundabouts are assessed on item 3. The Mayor calls on “Alder” Phillips, and then wryly says, that’s supposed to be a compliment, clearly not meaning it. Rob Phillips says that Brian Smith is also here, he says roundabouts are really a substitute for a traffic signal, when look at control for an intersection, they decide if a they will do a traffic signal or roundabout, they accomplish the same thing, assessing roundabouts like traffic signal on area basis, based on trip generation and based on future development potential of property being assessed and in accordance with adopted plan, they folks own a large tract of land, University Research Park also has a large chunk of properties, assessed on area basis based on neighborhood development plan and trip generation from the plan. He also notes they should look at schedule of assessment by traffic engineering, there is a small revision, move that as part of motion on item 3.
Paul Skidmore supports the project, says it solves a lot of problem, appreciates speakers coming in to talk about their issue, county should participate, we do not have that conversation now, he would ask city attorney if we could force the county to participate but he can see him laughing, he says unless the cows get out these farmers are not going to generate a whole lot of trips, this is a successful farming operation – wonder who to direct question to, can interest on this or assessment could be deferred, he believes them and knows Laverne doesn’t get out much, neither does Randy, he agrees this is a good project, but talking about the funding of it.
Phillips says as proposed it will be deferred for 10 years with interest at 3.5% and then installment plan for 8 years after 10 years.
Skidmore asks about if they can get the interest deferred too, no trips, can we defer until movement.
Dean Brasser, City Comptroller, says interest is deferred too, no payment required for 10 years, 3.5% is at the city’s borrowing rate, low interest, it’s the cost to city to defer interest and principal, no out of pocket costs until installment is due when more likely property will be developing.
Marsha Rummel says if Skimore won’t ask, she will, she asks why county won’t pay and what we will do. Why is this a county road with no county participation?
Phillips says the question is better directed at the county. He can say that the requested it every year for participation, requested it every year for last couple years and they have not determined that they can fund it. That is what he knows.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz says this is a topic of conversation between him and County Exec from time to time with no resolutions.
Lauren Cnare asks if after 10 years they can reassess based on if the is development or cattle and corn can they renegotiate at that time?
Phillips says that process for deferring is in the ordinance, it is well laid out, council adopted a revised assessment ordinance recently, that is laid out, if something were to occur, if they plat, that would trigger payment of assessments or if develop, that is also spelled out in ordinance.
Cnare says no re-negotiation at 10 years?
Phillips says none.
Jed Sanborn asks Brasser if the interest is deferred, does interest accrue?
Brasser says no payments are made for 10 years, cost of assessment goes up 3.5% each year, no payment is due.
Sanborn says that is Skidmore’s question, do we ever exempt that.
Phillips says no, ordinance doesn’t provide for it.
Skidmore, says the Mayor was diplomatic about County Exec, he says there is an ongoing discussion and what he has seen is that some of county supervisors in the area, Hesselbein and Hampton worked hard to help fund part of it, would love to get them to pay more, not sure what can do legally, in terms of Sanborn’s question – can we not allow the interest to accrue while the land is not developed, I know what ordinance says, can we change the ordinance or do a supermajority vote?
Michael May, City Attorney says the language says “shall” – if want it changed anyone can come to my office and request it.
Skidmore says “you’re on it”.
Palm asks if county ever contributed to roundabout before?
Phillips says he’s not sure, maybe at intersection of Thompson and highway 30.
David Dryer, Traffic Engineer says they did.
Palm asks if the county did participate, how would that impact the assessment? Federal money is not going to the roundabout, right?
Phillips says federal money is going to the roundabout.
Palm asks how the would apply county money?
Phillips says the assessments would be reduced if county participated – reduced for city and property owner.
Palm asks about if this is same ordinance for all districts and projects?
Phillips says yes.
Palm says change in ordinance couldn’t go back and change it, be retroactive? We have projects now under this policy, would those people be in the same situation?
Phillips says yes, there are many projects where assessments are deferred.
Discussion
Judy Compton says projects in the City of Madison should not be assessed but we have done it for a long time and over years she has been told not fair to do it any other way, she would not support an ordinance change, they should either get rid of assessments completely or leave them the way they are – there are people in her district paying for curb gutter and sidewalk and they can’t afford it and she has listened and understood and heard property owners who have come in as just plain farmers, but they were aware the projects were on their way, if they can’t take burden off backs of people on Camden, can’t take it off backs of Theis’, they should have planned for it.
Rummel asks to be recorded as voting no on 3, county should pay their fair share in roads if we expand roads.
Skidmore moves the substitute for the new information in front of them.
Bruer says it is friendly.
Bridget Maniaci asks to be recorded as voting no on 3 as well.
Thuy Pham-Remmele asks to be recorded as no on 3 as well
Michael Schumacher asks to be recorded as no on 3 as well he says we should find things we won’t pay the county for in the next budget.
Housingkeeping
They vote on 2, 4 and 5 separately, they pass.
More questions from Compton
[You thought they were going to vote, didn’t you. Oh, no, they’re squirrelly tonight.]
Compton asks if they have approached county to pay and if they agree assessments should be reduced?
Phillips says he’s happy to do it, and if they would participate they could reduce payments, but he doubts they will.
Compton asks about other things in her district where they partnered with the county – Sprecher Road to 12 & 18, county payed their part, have they given us the money.
Philips says county paid for park land and city for public right of way, Sprecher road not a county highway.
More discussion
[Yeah, they’re still not ready to vote, their going to talk this one to death – warning, its a sign of what is to come for the rest of the night]
Steve King says that if you are going to vote no, remember this is part of larger scheme of projects that we fought a long time for, reconstruction of these intersections is sequenced to get this done in 5 year span, this is a political issue about county and their fair share, but this is not the place to make the “no” call, I urge you to let this go forward.
Palm seconds King comments, he been through all these public works meetings where this was discussed over the years, every once in a while, at every meeting someone’s says assessment policy is wrong, there is a a reason why I don’t fit that definition, and we have to be fair to everyone, its unfair that County of Dane is not participating, there are lots of cases where they do not see eye to eye. This road has been designed, programmed, received federal funding, the future of west side requires the road and put forward to talk about tonight and request is about assessments, don’t see how can do anything about assessments, it would push back construction of road for county already approved the budget, if it gets pushed off for a year. He tried asking Brasser what eliminating special assessments would cost the average household, because everyone would pay the Madison share, he can’t come up with a number right now, everyone would pay every year and clearly set up a special assessment for people who live on the road, if Veridian or new developer, you would pay 100% and this is no different.
Skidmore says this is a good project, they have been working on it longer than he has been on the council and we’ve id’d the need, there will be a huge amount of development, this is a regional facility, county should participate but political reality is they aren’t going to, don’t want to hold it up and deny people coming in and out to do commerce and get from where they to to where they work, they will continue dialog with county, now supervisors are talking with County Exec, we know where the problem is, he appreciates the mayor’s leadership, they have been working on this for long time it’s gone to the MPO, LRTPC and Ped Bike committiee and they all approved it in the last 6 years, keep a good project moving forward, this is a detail.
Cnare says she’s sympathetic to the Theis farm, we are thinking way far ahead, part of it is tied up in if roundabouts are good, traffic light would be different, county isn’t going to pay, the real answer is to approve it, we are thinking about transportation planning for our future – if we knew roundabout were good 50 years ago we would have done it – we should look at the ordinance, we should treat ag land differently, the county is not paying their fair share, reality is 50 or 60 years there will be development and we will need the roundabout for safety – would like Skidmore to look at ordinance in regard to farmland.
Schumacher says this is not about the project, issue is with county, he would ask mayor’s staff and start saying we won’t pay to the county, it all comes from same pot, the taxpayer, but something he discovered, county always says no money, you take care of it, this may be the time to say enough is enough, it might be symbolic, but its about time we speak up against it – you should go line by line and he’d love to find places they are mandated to do something not pay and they still have to do it if we don’t pay so they feel like us.
Solomon agrees with Cnare, comes down to for him – need to look at rural issue, tonight is not the night to do it, also need to look at county issue, also not the night, the issue is the amount we are investing in roads, there is a proposal before us for RTA and increased investment and we all have constituents and friends and neighbors that are concerned about cost of that while we move forward with non-stop subsidies for road building and tonight is not the night, but do think that as council, he has no answer, but we need to figure out concerns before there is a project in our face, we’re never able to address issues we care about piece by piece, he sincerely hopes we will deal with rural issue and county issue and investment in roads that we fight about every budget year, tonight is not the night.
Pham-Remmele says road construction is very important and city has a lot to push forward, not time to just keep moving and doing things without consideration for residents and taxpayers, who are asked to pay up every chance, ask for roll call, we should cast a vote, it does matter how it is counted, you represent the people, people are shocked that no one has questions to ask and suddenly vote aye and it is passed faster than you can bat an eye so please, these are serious things, many difficult situations if you represent people you represent, weigh carefully, casting the vote, no reason to not have a roll call and be clear,[Hmmm, wasn’t she one of the people pissed at me at budget time when I asked for roll calls?] schools need money, tax trying to stick with all kinds of money we can ask for, speaking for a lot of people in Madison love it and want to stay and make better but at what cost, is it the time, do what you want or what you need, when look at assessment might be small number, everyone is pinching pennies, she asks for a roll call again.
The Mayor points out that someone else already asked for a roll call. [He’s right, I didn’t note it, I didn’t hear who did it.]
Palm says there is a bigger plan than a roundabout, the rest of project will grind to a halt, why build road without connector? UW Research Park west which will be an economic generator, support more jobs and schools and move forward, we are all wearing Google Fiber pins to move our community forward and then cut off road at this intersection, unfortunate where property owner with large property which in future could be sold for a lot more than now and that is the basis of assessment, on the future trip generation of a very large piece of property – cows and tractors now, but UW Research moves in and tax base stronger to build schools to support libraries, polices stations, officers, human services, remember what we fight about at budget time, this is the last piece and leaving it out, other stuff doesn’t get done, stimulus will be gone, still comes out of someone’s pocket, our community. Can have discussion again about assessments and can move through this, don’t use some argument about a roundabout without looking at larger project.
Maniaci – is happy with all points, this is a fun and complicated issue with county, someone somewhere on this committee has to put their foot down, not going to take it any more from the county, step up when comes to county and not let emotions get best of us, sign on bottom line, we are enabling county to not step up because they know city will cover it – we should ask city elected people on county board to step up and represent city, a lot of concerns they hear, we are bankrolling expansion of Fitchburg, Sun Prairie and Oregon and Middleton, esp. on expanding roads, its an infrastructure to leave town quickly, they don’t pay tax base here, this is a simple thing, we are going roundabout on roundabouts here.
Skidmore want to speak.
Mayor says he thinks this is the third time.
Julia Kerr says its the 4th.
Skidmore asks how many times he has spoken in the last year.
Mayor says that’s not how it works, but if there is no objections, he’ll let him speak. There are none.
Skdmore says he’ll be brief, they have been going through this for years, debated the project, $50M in improvements and help west side and enhance the region, Pioneer and Elderberry neighborhood will be increasing dramatically, this will be economic development, create tax base, get people in from Dodgewille and Mineral Point, this is a small piece of a large project, we are not going to not force County Exec to do something, have some great county supervisors working on our behalf, not alone out there, he calls the question. [Why is it the always the one who does a lot of talking that then calls to stifle further debate?]
Mayor says there are people left to speak, but lights are going off and no one else wants to speak.
Roll call
AYE: Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Claussius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Sanborn and Schmidt
NO: Maniaci, Pham-Remmele, Rummel, Schumacher
[Check out who voted no together, very odd. Rummel voted cuz of the road expansino issue, Schumacher and Manaici to stick it to the county, Pham-Remmel, not sure why. Odd bedfellows.]
CDA DEBACLE – REZONING LAND WITHOUT A PLAN
Housekeeping
No registrants on item 6.
Public Testimony
Dan Newman says he’s not speaking for or against rezoning, he wants to give perspective from person who lives there and what is happening now. He lives at 830 W badger and has for for 8 years, that is where the CDA has a redevelopment project, the first he heard about it, the majority of people were surprised, he was blindsided, and he thinks he was the the most vocal of tenants dealing with the redevelopment, he fought for landlords to make sure the best was done to them and now in process of fighting for myself, he’s one of the last tenants and they have given me until May to get out and he has yet to find a comparable dwelling that fits the needs in relocation guide and state statute, they say they cannot force anyone to move until there is a comparable place available, they are in process of forcing us out by that date, some people at the city have been helpful and encouraging, scary to look at deadline and not know where moving within financial means and means to live, not against project, great for neighborhood, full support to improve south side of Madison, but concern for himself and others not get hurt in the process.
Questions
Marsha Rummel ask why they are rezoning in advance of a project, is this a typical thing, usually do PUDs not rezoning help me understand.
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director says they are doing it to have consistent zoning across all CDA owned property so when they apply for tax credits they have a consistent density, which allows the number of units proposed in their development,
Rummel asks about council role in the future process.
Murphy says it would be a conditional use in for the proposed development as well as development agreement for approval. [Note, conditional uses only get approved by the Plan Commission and watch what Olinger says about the development agreement, it may not be coming back.]
Satya Rhodes-Conway asks about the future role, how did we get to where we are, some of us heard about this in various electronic media, but this is the first time before the council, what is the history and roles of players.
Mark Olinger, who didn’t get his contract renewed but still works for the city [?] says as he ages, dates fade.
Rhodes-Conway says dates not important.
Olinger says the council saw it, approved the redevelopment district, at least 2 years ago, council has seen it, what often happens is between creation of district and project, time lapses, on the matter of timing of notices, we have been consistent and applied to letter of law, [Interesting he brings this up, as no one mentioned it. A tad too defensive?] worked with city attorney’s office, having been more personally involved in Allied, understand relocation issues, consistent in efforts to relocate, no undue pressure on them to find replacement housing.
Rhodes-Conway says she was asking about the redevelopment district, district in relation to project – where the land is coming from, role of CDA, role of council.
Olinger says that in addition to creating the district, in 2009 budget they had $3M set aside for the project, as a part of capital budget, redevelopment plan in place for the block, was adopted, housing plan adopted in September of last year, so process where project worked way through system.[I actually made an amendment in 2009 to try to get a better public process as we knew at the time, or maybe it was just me, this was going to be problematic, and it was. I remember at the time getting the “just trust me” speech from Bruer and him being all up in arms for me messing in his district.]
Rhodes-Conway [for the third time]asks about CDA vs. city.
Olinger says CDA does acquisitions on behalf of city in redevelopment district, we acquired them.
Rhodes-Conway [tries again] this is a decision made by CDA and council does not vote?
Olinger says there was a plan approved by council, redevelopment plan confirmed by council, the budget for acquisitions approved, probably a resolution transferring property to the council, probably a handful of points in the process where actions of CDA came before council.
Rhodes-Conway asks where acquire properties from [Cuz Olinger doesn’t seem inclined to give anything up unless someone drags it out of him]
Olinger says there were a variety of owners, they reached agreement on 6 of 7 owners, they are in title on all, but they were served today with papers contesting that right on one of the properties.
Rhodes-Conway is [not buying the bullshit and presses on] what do you mean “reached agreement”.
Olinger says they closed on most of the deals, there was some back an forth over fair and just compensation, but when all was said and done, reached agreement with all property owners. [Yeah, nothing to see here folks, just move along. No mention of condemnation, no mention of the african american landlords and the issues that were raised. He must be forgetting more than dates these days.]
Rhodes-Conway asks if there were any willing sellers?
Olinger says no, they were all approached by us as part of a redevelopment.
Rhodes-Conway asks how many residents they are displacing.
Olinger doesn’t know. “40 seems to stick in my head”. He says they worked with all residents to find new place, less than 12 left.
Rhodes-Conway asks when the project is finished how many people can they accommodate there?
Olinger says its senior housing, they are applying for low income tax credits in April and there will be 54 – 60 units of senior housing, depending upon residents, could have 60 – 120 residents on the property.
Rhodes-Conway asks who is developer?
Olinger says they did an RFP (request for proposals) for developer interested, CDA agreed to work with Horizon, they were the preferred developer in the selection process, continue to work with Horizon to get tax credit app. in for April
Palm asks when were property owners and residents appraised of the plans? [Part of what was required in the 2009 budget was about the public process]
Tim Bruer jumps in and asks if he can answer the question. [That’s not the way Robert’s Rules work, but the Mayor does nothing, I wish McDonell was chairing this meeting, it would have been an hour shorter.] He points out this has been over 15 years in the making, interestingly enough a number of property owners indicated they were well aware that this has been around for 5 or 2 years, they were aware we were planning on moving forward, property owners not confused about how proceeding several were in the press saying they will believe it when see it. He has had an opportunity to meet with the speaker, they had 14 meetings, 3 or 4 in last year with neighborhood association, [The intent of the 2009 budget amendment was to meet witht eh broader community, no just the neighborhood association – note, he doesn’t say he did that.] he applauds work of staff, understand that 30 some residents have found housing in immediate area, pleases us greatly, 7 individuals that are left. Last but not least, this was before council in different forms numerous times in last 2 years, part of challenge is that annexed into the city, interesting how you have to deal with inconsistent zoning, this was a measure to get uniformity and consistency. [I recall that several times when it was before the council, we were discouraged from asking questions and details were coming and we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about what Bruer is up to. It seems like it is always too early or too late to ask questions about the CDA and Bruer. Well, and on many other things the city does.]
Rhodes-Conway [still trying to get answers to questions she has asked] asks about future approvals, since working with not CDA, but another developer, is there a development agreement?
Olinger says no, they are working on it.
Rhodes-Conway asks if it will come back to council or just CDA?
Olinger says generally speaking, CDA and developer enter into the agreement, but he doesn’t know the answer. [And there you have it folks, can you tell me why the Mayor and others are not up in arms about unelected committee members that don’t just make recommendations, but make decisions with the City’s money and have no oversight from the elected officials. What’s up with that?]
The motion passes on a voice vote, I heard no “no” votes.
HOUSEKEEPING
Then need to reconsider items 9 (Blaska Blather), 18 (Ecumenical Housing issue), 25 (School Crossing Guards) and 76 (Monona Drive) because there are speakers.
BLASKA BLATHER
[I’ll admit it, I don’t have any idea what his point was. So, I’m not sure how helpful this will be.]
Public Testimony
David Blaska in opposition on item number 9. He says he lives in Orchard Ridge on the Southwest side of Madison. He expresses condolences for Anthony Brown, says he worked with Anthony’s wife Brenda when she was the Deputy Director of Health and Human services. He says he does a blog and he’s the distinguished squire of the stately Blaska Manor. He says his blog is the only one to be recognized by both the Isthmus and Madison.com. He is here to offer his services an his years of experience, as a member of Equal Opportunities Commission. He says he has nothing against the folks before you, except none of them are me, no one can the bring diversity of thought I would bring. He says you should vote down the appointments until they appoint more diverse members. Why appoint the same people with same political philosophy, why not someone white right– he is opposed to depriving persons of color of their property, like the item you just had on your agenda, do we need senior housing and do we need to condemn property? He thinks he would be a threat to historic notions. [He sort of lost me?] He’s talks about people crying racism in crowded theater when ask for youth curfew, he’s here to ask small government to look at city committees, commissions and boards. He says he’s as rare as a Capital Times reader at tea party, he says he is underrepresented on powerful commissions, when he was on the county board, all of these things ran through county board, he says lots of republicans walk among you, business people do better job of controlling taxes – low taxes create affordable housing, a strong police department is a strong social program, he wants to be the ying to Stuart Levitan’s yang, he’s not picky, you can appoint him to anything.
Questions of speaker
Pham-Remmele says she is surprised, she thought he you had left town.
Blaska says he’s still a resident, just did a little snow birding.
Pham-Remmele says you are my constitute too.
Blaska says he’s “more than that”.
Pham-Remmele says I haven’t seen you and it was a surprise, what do you want to happen with coming here?
Blaska says that he was here to throw a conservative to the wolves, there has been a lot of movement politically in the world, impression is that there are one or two yeah or nay votes, no conservatives on commissions and committees, know a lot of people and none of them are on the commissions.
Pham-Remmele asks if he applied.
Blaska says yes he did, and waged a campaign on his blog to get appointed, he says it was somewhat humorous but sincere, some things defy common sense, they need someone there on commission to think about something else, sometimes people use power and money for things we like and think are good, but it could get done without taxes and powers of government, don’t know if my sell by date is gone, but here I am.
Pham-Remmele thanks him for coming and not quitting.
Blaska says that he just spent some time down south looking for Al Gore.
Mayor quips “I always liked your brother” as Blaska sits down.
[Man, I had to check the date, I thought maybe it was April Fools day.]
The appointments pass with no “no” votes.
NON-PROFIT HOUSING TAX EXEMPT ISSUE NOT OVER YET
Public Testimony
Dan Rolfs is in opposition – representing Ecumenical Housing Corporation – he says his day job is across the street working for you, but his work hat is safely ensconced in his office, he is here representing EHC, he’s president of the board of trustees, this is nonprofit safe affordable housing, has been for 30 years, reason here is that if may recall legal decision by Wisconsin court system, tax exempt properties in Madison were affected, the city helped to fix it and the legislature crafted a fix retroactive to beginning of 2009, long and short is that by making change retroactive, those what would have been tax exempt were on tax rolls for 1 year, EHC got caught, there was no way to maintain tax exempt status in 2009, they have to pay taxes for 2009 and tax exempt in 2010, here asking you that hopefully recognize tax exempt and allow us to remain so and eliminate the burden for group that does senior housing, he usually sits on the other side of the podium, knows there are policies city needs to follow. If there is no relief, in opposing this, if some other way to get relief for the tax burden, they exist solely on revenues from rentals, no other revenue thorough grants or loans, $60K tax bill that they never had to pay before is a jarring sort of occurrence, while recognize city has policy, if there are other opportunities or avenues to get funding back appreciate it.
Rev Charles Wolf, Ecumenical Housing Corp – Charles Wolf is the pastor at Plymouth Congregational since 1987, 30 years ago before he came here EHC was founded by a group of 12 congregations on east side cuz virtually no relatively cheap senior housing, we at Plymouth have an interest and concern for social justice issues in housing and homelessness for more than 20 years they have served meals at Grace, helped shape and support Transitional Housing Inc, now Porchlight and helped fund their eviction prevention program, several thousand each year to prevent people from being evicted when hospitalized, lose work time and can’t pay rent – better for whole community if they are not homeless and then find housing agin, worked with MUM to help prisoners at Huber to find housing and jobs to create a healthier transition, congregation gave $10K over 5 years to The Road Home for apartment housing for families with supervision from case managers, also provide shelter through The Road Home program. EHC is part of the same ministry, to those in community who need safe, affordable housing, many of their residents can’t live at Attic Angels or Oakwood, none of those facilities have to pay taxes, for 10 year on EHC budget has been tight.
Mayor [Was paying attention . . . ]interrupts and tell him to wrap it up, three minutes are over.
Pastor Wolf says that they were forced to encourage well heeled people who lived in their housing to find housing in the market so others could stay. He says a grant to offset taxes would be appreciated.
Julia Kerr attempts to ask Attorney May a question but before she can ask it he says he refers the question to Mike Kurth (City Assessors Office) and Jamie Stafferoni (City Attorney’s Office) Julia asks why he did that preemptively. No answer.
Kerr says that for other unlawful taxation items there is a report from your office, didn’t see anything for EHC, so wanted to have them fill us in on that. She says I’m sure there is a good reason report not there, but what is your side of the story?
Stafferoni says it was an error it was not attached, fixed later, nonetheless, basically with this property, there was a change in the law in 2009 basically for this property would not have had an exempt status cuz of how use income, decision in 2008 Future Madison case defined maintenance, they said this entity was not using income toward maintenance or construction debt.
Kerr says we know that part, she should have been more specific, what in the law changed, why didn’t this get picked up in that.
Stafferoni says low income housing retro fix to 2009 and that legislation required certain % of low income people to live there, they didn’t qualify under % amount in 2009, another piece was passed that is applicable for 2010 and they may qualify in 2010 but for this year that is where they are at.
Kerr asks Hansen, in 2009 what was their percentage of low income residents?
Kurth says had to have 75% or more, didn’t meet it, doesn’t remember what % it was, too many high income people in the units.
Bruer in is in the chair.
Rhodes-Conway says speakers mentioned other housing providers what had higher income tenants and qualify, did they have some other exemption?
Stafferoni doesn’t know.
Rhodes-Conway asks how else they would qualify?
Stafferoni says that they could qualify cuz of change in 2009 and 2010, if using leasehold income as maintenance would qualify, if 2009, and in 2010 homes for aged.
Rhodes-Conway asks if 2009 crux of mater was use of income?
Stafferoni says yes, didn’t qualify in future Madison and didn’t meet percentages and no retroactive date for retired housing.
Rhodes-Conway asks how this is different from item 20 where there was a settlement. Why is htis different, why settling with them as opposed to these folk?
Stafferoni says Greentree Glen did meet % requirements under benevolent low income housing, they had an issue in 2008 for maintenance issue – given it was one year of precedent they thought that this litigation would set reasonable to settle.
Rhodes-Conway says she understands and agrees with desire to treat it as a one year oops – and not fight about a changed law, but why not same thing in this situation if we expect them to be compliant win 2010?
Stafferoni says there was no litigation – so no settlement negotiation.
Rhodes-Conway says that if people have resources to sue we will settle but if they don’t they have to pay.
Stafferoni says she doesn’t want to speculate.
Eagon asks city attorney if there are other non-profits that may have been in the bubble that didn’t ask for exemption and got caught.
Staffaroni defers to Mike Kurth.
Kurth isn’t paying attention and needs the question repeated. [Really, you come to one council meeting once a year and can’t pay attention on the one item you are here for?]
Kurth asks Eagon to repeat the question. He says that there are others, but some have some partial assessments, Green Tree Glen was a 2008 issue, other 2009 entities were partially assessed for that year and then filing as benevolent retirement home for 2010, but in 2009 EHC did not qualify for one project – another project they have did where all but three are exempt and would qualify in 2010 on remaining 3 units, in 2010 there are a few with a one year gap but most qualified as low income housing project under 2009 law.
Eagon asks if organizations ended up paying for that one year – maybe not senior but other?
Kurth all paying except in this situation.
First vote
They vote and Tim Bruer is in the chair and rules that the No votes have it. So the denial is denied and there’s lots of confusion. I’m shocked no one called roll call, cuz that wasn’t what it sounded like.
Michael May explains that if the vote is no, they need another motion.
More questions
Kerr asks if the motion only applies to EHC.
May indicates yes.
Compton verified the amount they out, $53K. If we agreed to give the money back, where does the money come from?
Brasser says that comes from general fund, taxes we budgeted to receive but not recieve.
Compton asks if the taxes are currently paid.
May says yes, its a condition of filing for a tax refund, will have to take money from somewhere.
Motion
Rhodes-Conway makes a substitute to refer back to the city attorney to meet with them and discuss settlement. There are several seconds.
Question
Cnare asks how we pick a number, if reach a settlement, it will come back in same form, correct?
May says yes
Discussion
Kerr speaks against, she tells them to remember the vigorous discussion we had a year ago on this issue which she felt very strongly about that precipitated us in being instrumental in changing the law to allow us not to tax low income housing providers in the city – this seems like an instance of moving the goal post, we got the fix that we could in state legislature, they didn’t fall into it, addressed the policy issue foremost in their minds to preserve affordable housing base, agrees with Compton, that not fair to exempt them, our basis for taxation, similarly situated treated the same, if make exception, you are doing a disservice to every other tax payer. Urge you not to vote for settlement, unfortunately didn’t fall into fix, taxes are due and hopefully rectified in the future, can’t make a fairness argument to make an exception for them.
Schmidt this is making me ill, state law, no way to get around it, great to find a way, suspect they can’t – so we made a mistake in saying no to report we should vote down and reconsider. [Even the City Attorney isn’t taking that hard line. He’s willing to sit down and talk.]
Schumacher has questions now
Schumacher asks if it is typical to negotiate?
May says they read the law and make a recommendation – they do make a different recommendation rightly or wrongly if they are in court.
Schumacher asks Cooley about the work they are doing identifying percentage of properties off tax base, at this point, rough idea where at with that – is there a number finding out is emerging?
Tim Cooley, Economic Development Director says that its 50%.
Schumacher asks what that translates into.
Cooley says 50%.
Palm asks city attorney, says he is not asking you to make a deal, just consider it, so what would you do if it passes?
May says that “we would do what you told us to do”, try to settle and come back with a recommendation.
Palm asks if you do not come to agreement, then bring Mayor in for discussion on this, cuz no legal basis for making a decision?
Giggles – Larry says to strike that. [Not struck from this blog!]
May says in two weeks, same resolution in front of us if no resolution or didn’t think appropriate.
Palm says no harm no foul.
Back to discussion
Eagon agrees with Kerr and Schmidt – a property in his district was trapped and paying one year assessment, making year payment, deadline expired, so would caution supporting the referral and potential overturn of $53K, other groups caught in that year already paid or looking at this as case to exemplify, could be slippery slope for unintended consequences – great work they do but issue of fairness to others who paid.
Maniaci asks May if they would be litigated against in this case, will it go to court?
May does not know
Cnare says none of this precludes then from going to court, if deny, can go to court, if grant then they are happy. Cnare says maybe go to court.
Bruer [Who can’t seem to avoid putting his foot in his mouth when talking with, to, about women] makes a joke about how Julia Kerr is flashing now. [He seems to think its funny.]
Kerr says that she felt strongly and still does and say by giving the refund we are saying to state legislature we came and explained and worked with you and it wasn’t good enough and that is not a position she wants to be in, respects alder Rhodes-Conway’s motion and those who support, but we got the legislative fix we were able to get, sorry EHC didn’t fall into it, not fair for other properties and taxpayers who expect we will treat people evenly – vote against referral and in favor of underlying
Mayor back in chair – just a bit too late.
Compton has more questions now
Compton asks how many non-profits were unhappy with loss of status when this happened?
Mayor says happiness subjective, Compton says no happiness is eternal, or internal not sure what she said.
Compton asks how many?
Kurth says majority went from taxable to exempt – assuming their happiness, small amount were partial exempt instead of fully assessed and they were happy, some that were caught in the one year or – half a dozen and most – ended up qualifying in analysis, a few that had more than the allowed number of certain level of income tenants and those ones were the major ones with EHC were only one of a few solely back on roll – no major properties back on roll, Pres House has to wait another year to recognize what kind of exemption they have.
Compton asks about window how much money are we talking about if return all the money?
Kurth has no idea – no guess.
Compton asks if anyone has the knowledge – Dean doesn’t know.
[Sound of crickets chirping.]
Palm asks city attorney, if settlement is a legal determination, would this set precedent we would be accountable to?
May says he paused, obviously, council is not bound by prior decisions it makes, rule of uniformity of taxation is in place and to extent start making exceptions for certain properties others will say entitled to be treated the same way, no precedent, but do have issues.
Palm asks how settlement with Greentree would affect it?
May says legally different status when settling a suit in court, any number of things to take into account, use of resources to defend suit and consider that a different legal situation than coming before council to ask for tax refund
Cnare asks how different than object to tax bill, procedurally?
May says procedure is same, they pay tax, file claim, assessor looks at it, city attorney looks at it, if basis for it, on one the assessor thought it has a valid basis then bring to council to approve or deny.
Cnare asks if it is always called unlawful?
May says it would say “excessive” because they challenge the amount
Bidar-Sielaff understands where Kerr comes from but strikes me as promoting process that involves litigation to settle, so she has a hard time sending that message – if you go that route you can get a settlement but if do that without additional expenses to city and nonprofit no settlement, hope to see something in two weeks, it strikes me as a very law-based litigation process that is not helpful to either party, city or non-profit.
Roll call:
Aye: Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Canre, King, Maniaci, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
No: Skidmore, Bruer, Claussius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schmidt, Schumacher.
That motion fails 9 to 11.
Then, they vote to deny on a voice vote, again a questionable voice vote, but the mayor rules the ayes have it.
NEXT UP
Next up . . . Monona Drive, Thuy Alert! on 25 cent fee for electronic payments and that nasty civil rights issue that the council is so afraid of . . .
