And the winner is . . . Operating Budget Amendment #38. Registration of Commercial properties:
Agency/Service: Building Inspection Division
General Fund Revenues
Page(s): 138, 14
Sponsor(s): Alds. Konkel, Rummel, WebberCreate a program to annually require landlord and commercial property registration (somewhat similar to a program in Milwaukee). Provide funding and position authority for a 1.0 FTE Clerk-Typist 1 in the Building Inspection Division to administer the program. Recognize revenues of $190,000 (based on an estimated 19,000 eligible parcels to be registered at $10 each).
Permanent Salaries $ 30,747
Fringe Benefits $ 11,622
General Fund Revenues (Increase) $ ( 190,000)
Total $ (147,631) Levy Impact: $ (147,631)
So far, the objections are mostly form over substance. This was a “surprise”, there was “no notice” and “no vetting”, allegedly “no public hearing” (I’m not sure what they think tonight is.), it’s a “witch hunt”, it was done in a “back-door” way, people have been “robbed of debate”, it was done “surreptitiously” or was “improper”, its meant to “persecute landlords” and was an attempt to “slide though” without debate and nothing but “sneaky tricks”.
But so far, no one has called me or talked to me about this amendment. Instead, they just accused me of all kinds of false motives. I’m dying to know who wrote those talking points – but I’m guessing I know!
Now, for the record, I agree, this budget process sucks. We had 28 days from the date the Mayor’s budget came out until the date council amendments were due. This is the shortest amount of time in recent history, by as much as 8 days. I’d love to have more time to work with the budget, have smaller targeted hearings with more notice on the budget amendments – but the truth of the matter is, it often takes that long to get a budget amendment together. As a member of the public, I was always frustrated and as someone who has to defend the process, I’m embarrassed. So, I hear you!
Regarding the substance of the amendment, here’s some things that are not explicitly said in the amendment, that might help people know where we got these numbers from.
– We don’t charge one and two unit owner occupied properties.
– The registration will help us gather information for the Neighborhood Indicators project about rentals, vacancies, etc.
– The number’s were determined as follows:
Total number of parcels (excluding condominiums): 59,878 parcels Subtract Total number of 1 unit owner occupied dwelling units: 40,712 parcels = 19,166 Subtract Total number of 2 unit owner occupied dwelling units: 1,022 parcels = 18,144. Add in Total number of condominium renter occupied dwelling units: 5,568 condos = 23,712. Subtract Total number of vacant parcels: 3370 parcels = 20,342. Then subtract the UW and State properties.
– The money is going for some “nefarious social program” as many suspect, but rather, for the Neighborhood Indicators project. I just didn’t tie the two together in the amendment.
So, folks, relax. I know everyone thinks I’m up to something truly evil and trying to screw landlords, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m trying to help this city program we have started. And I’m truly sorry our process sucks, my colleagues don’t seem much inclined to.
NOTE: I meant to post this yesterday before the meeting, but apparently, I didn’t!
