I was unable to be at the evening meeting due to the fact that I had to go to a funeral north of Milwaukee – but here’s what I was able to attend and to see from Tivo.
NOON MEETING
The Common Council meeting started at noon today, with honoring resolutions. We honored “outgoing” Common Council President Tim Bruer, who gave a speech for about 10 minutes, despite the Mayor telling him to be brief because the chicken was being served at 1:15 or 1:30 and would be cold. He got only half a standing ovation from the Council – with at least a few purposely not standing, perhaps others not paying attention – that was unclear.
Next, we honored Mark Clear for serving as Pro Tem for the past year. He did manage to be brief and also got only a partial standing ovation, but more than Tim and again, those not standing were doing so on purpose.
The next honoring resolution was for me. The Mayor coughed/choked about twice while reading it. I made my little speech (which I will put on line tomorrow) and while the Mayor tried to quickly move on it didn’t work, about 8 of my colleagues had something that they wanted to say about my service. Kristin at the Cap Times did a live blog of the noon meeting and you can see some/most of the comments there.
Next up Alder Webber – who was quite emotional. She did a nice speech and asked us not to say anything – but of course, we did. The Mayor pointed out that despite Robbie’s request, some of us still wanted to make her cry.
Next up, Libby Monson, who filled in when Alder Brandon left office. More nice words said and heartfelt thanks to her for stepping in! She had served on the council 25 years ago and made note of some of the changes that she has seen.
Next up, Eli Judge. Charming as always. Thanked his parents for “not screwing me up too much”. He urged us to remember the students and find new ways to reach out to them. Again, check out Kristin’s comments from her live blog.
Finally, Alder Gruber, and his son Martin who stole the show.
With that, the “old” council adjourned sine die. The “new” council took their oath of office, filled out their paperwork and handed it in and went into the “committee of the whole”. For that portion of the meeting, the Mayor does not chair the meeting, so they had the senior member of the council who wasn’t running take the chair – that being Judy Compton. Not used to being in the chair, she made many rookie mistakes, offered many apologies and used her good old sourthern charm to entertain while the ballots were being counted.
VOTE FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND PRO TEM
The first vote was for Council President. Alder Clear nominated Alder Bruer. Alder Cnare nominated Larry Palm. The vote was by secret ballot and the results were Bruer 13, Palm 7. Not exactly a mandate for Alder Bruer to return for a fourth or fifth term as Council President and the second term in a row.
The second vote was for Pro Tem. Alder Schumacher nominated Alder Clear. Alder Cnare again nominated Alder Palm. The results this time were Clear 12, Palm 7, with one write-in.
With that, the council recessed the meeting around 2:00 so that they could go to lunch.
EVENING MEETING
I left town, but tivo’d the meeting and here’s what I had time to watch. Everyone was there at the beginning of the meeting except for Thuy Pham-Remmele.
HONORING RESOLUTION
The first item of action was number 113 honoring Diedre Green from the Simpson St. Free Press. She spoke and seems like an impressive young woman.
The Mayor then made an announcement that the Curfew issue had widespread support to refer and that people could go home.
CONSENT AGENDA
Next up – the consent agenda. All items on the agenda
18 & 32 supermajority votes
56 – Alternate Parking Ordinance was placed on file
The items separated for discussion were
19 – citizen appointments
20 – alder appointments
35
51 – Curfew
52, 53 & 54 – Property Tax Items
plus all of the public hearing items.
One person took advantage of speaking early – they had their kids with them. They spoke on the Turners property tax exemption issue.
SIDEWALKS AND ASSESSMENTS
Next, there was minutes of testimony on the Camden sidewalk issue. Because of the late night/early morning hour, I fast forwarded through about 50 minutes of testimony – my apologies to those who took the time to come to city hall to discuss an issue important to them. There were no questions registrants or staff. A motion was made to approve the assessment, without any alders saying a word, it was unanimously approved.
Next, there was public testimony on Oak Street assessments. There was about 8 minutes of testimony plus a speaker on Marquette St. assessments. There was a brief discussion on items 11 – 15. Again, passed unanimously on a voice vote.
MERITER MASTER PLAN
Meriter Hospital Master plan was referred to May 5th Common Council meeting.
STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS
The Mayor next offered not to do the State of the City Address until after the public speakers were done.
CURFEW
The next item was curfew, it was referred, but there were several speakers stayed to speak.
People who went home were 5 in support, 3 in opposition. Tom McKenna of Orchard Ridge Neighborhood Association spoke and informed the council that the nieghborhood association voted unimously to support this. He said this would make it consistent with surrounding communities. Linda Hoskins spoke in opposition. She felt that it was unfair to ticket parents because they simply don’t have the money to pay for the tickets – especially because they have to pay more for bus tickets. Bert Zipperer spoke in opposition. He pointed out that EOC unanimously strongly opposed it based on racial disparity in the criminal justice system. The motion was referred without comment.
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
Next up was items 52 to deny the claims. Several people spoke about the impacts of the not issuing the property tax exemption on low income housing. Attorney Radelet, representing several non-profit low-income housing providers pro bono, pointed out that at the last meeting the motion asked for a list of options to consider, with the benefits, risks and recommendations. He offered some options in his memo, but the city attorney did not address those options. He says that they would be consistent with the state law, court ruling and the ruling of the Department of Revenue. Dan O’Connell pointed out the irony that the City of Madison which says that they support affordable housing, took the actions to create this problem. He also urged the council to find other options. He also said that the other irony was that if the City pursues this, not only will the City not get the taxes, they will also get responsiblity for these properties as they go into foreclosure. Doug Strub, from Future Madison, came to point out that they have worked in troubled neighborhoods and the success of their projects was because of the partnership with the City. He mentioned his properties and explained that there would be deferred maintenance at Wexford Ridge, that they would no longer be able to support the neighborhood center in the Vera Court and the City would have to find another place to rent and pay for the neighborhood center, in Darbo, they will hand the properties back to the lenders, including the City who has $575,000 money in those properties. After some questions, Attorney May made a brief presentation to the Council.
Attorney May basically told the council that the role of the assessor is to look at the property, look at the law and make a determination about if a property is tax exempt. The role of the city attorney is to help the assessor interpret the law. The outcome doesn’t matter, it just has to be consistent with the law. He explained the history of this issue. He said he disagrees with Attorney Radelet’s analysis. He said that tonight is not the time to resolve this issue, this is simply about the claims – are the properties tax exempt or not? He also addressed extending the time for resolving this issue – he says nothing will change and he doesn’t know if the city can make the decision to extend the timeline, but he hasn’t researched the issue.
Alder Cnare asked what the legal implications of city assistance to these properties might be. Attorney May said that you can’t “look like” you can create a tax exemption. He says no matter what we do, someone will argue what we are doing. Generally speaking, however, they city could support the low-income housing projects, but you have to be careful how you set that up. He mentioned that they could possibly subsized the tenants rent, but Bill Clingan might say there are some restrictions on how CDBG money might be spent. Cnare also asked where the money might come from – attorney May says you could change the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, CDA or CDBG funds. Cnare also asked how much it would cost – Attorney May said it was $1.2 million annually, but that some think that is low.
Alder Pham-Remmele asked how this issue got in front of the ocuncil and why staff doesn’t just handle this and so it wouldn’t come before the council. Attorney May responded that the Council follow the law, but the groups have a statuatory right to come before the council, and if they want to go to court, they have to bring that claim before the council. So, there is no way to avoid this.
Alder Palm asked Bill Clingan, our Community Development Director, what funds might be available. Bill Clingan says “income payments” are not allowed under CDBG funding, however HOME funds could be used. The City would have to change the plan it submits to HUD and the common council and CDBG would have to approve it. He also expressed concerns that legally the council might not be able to do it without offering it to all low-income people in the city of Madison. Also, he pointed out that if we gave direct tenant assistance, there wouldn’t be funds for new projects. Larry asked about the additional tax dollars we might get as a result of this change. Bill Clingan had not looked at this.
Alder Rummel asked if the CDA could purchase the properties and have the non-profits run them. Mark Olinger said that the CDA is not in a position to do that unless the Council gave them the money to do it. She also asked how CDA pays for maintenance. Olinger explains they get money from HUD. Attorney May pointed out that CDA has a separate statute and these ruling don’t apply to them.
Alder Solomon asked what the ramificaitons might be. Attorney May says that they should act according to law. He also points out that the City could get sued and that the assessor might face some action to compel them to comply with the law. Alder Solomon wanted to keep the exemptions in place and seek a clarification from the legislature. Solomon noted that there might be some vagueness and that the council could find different than the city attorney. The city attorney said he didn’t think it was vague.
Compton asked how much of the 1.2M is actual city money. The Comptroller didn’t know where the $1.2M came from, and that the city share is about 35% if that number is the total taxes. Judy asks about other grants that the city might be able to apply for. Attorney May says in the last 24 hours nothing has been identified beyond CDBG and HOME. Compton asked about what happens if the state changes the law. She also pointed out that the council had until April 29th or 30th to make the decision.
Cnare asked where the state legislature is on this issue. Mario Mendoza from the City Attorney’s office explained the city’s position is to support the language vetoed in last year’s budget. He explained that the fix that has been discussed is not likely to pass, that the legislators are focused on budget and that they have expressed that we need a fix this year.
Clear asked relationship with other entities for which we collect taxes. Does the council make the decision for the County etc? The answer, was yes, but it took a long time to drag it out of the City Attorney. The city attorney could answer any questions about what standing the other entitites might have to come back on the city if we decide they are exempt.
Alder Chris Schmidt asked why a statute about the previous year tax exemption status doesn’t apply here. The attorney said that language doesn’t sya that once a group is found exempt, they aren’t locked in forever.
Alder Schumacher asked why they initiatied the re-evaluation of these properties. Attorney May said that one of the attachments in his report gives the history and he says it was because of the Columbus Park case which brought Wis. Stat. 70.11 to the attention of the assessor and they started looking at the properties. They thought these properties didn’t meet the maintenance restrictions and then we eneded up in court. The assessor said that it was also about the 10 year rule. Schumacher asked why were are doing this when other cities are not. Attorney May says it is just lag time due to other assessors finding out about the new ruling through training. Plus, they only assess property once a year and so if they miss a year, it will take them another year to comply. He’s not sure if the other assessors follow the law as closely.
Schumacher asked a question of Future Madison. What was originally the reason for denial and what did it change to? Doug Strub said that the original denial was based on the 10 acre rule and that was the reason for the denial. As the litigation progressed, they ended up in front of the judge only on the rent use restriction issue. The court did not rule on the original reason for denial of the claim. Schumacher asked May why the shift in strategy. He said that they were surprised by the court. He also explained that they raised all issues where the claim could be denied, because that is what good city attorney’s do.
Kerr moved a substitute – 60 day extention for item 52, 53 and 54. She explained that this had been referred to attorney and mayor’s office to discuss options with Attorney Radelet and others. She felt like that did not happen to her satisfaction. She said she wants the council to understand the implications of this decision. She says there is no strategy to deal with this issue and that it is embarrassing. She wants to see city staff to take this on and outline the possible financial remedies, what the tax base implications are and what the effect is on the people who are impacted by this. She also said that the City has not made clear how educational institutions will be evaluated in regard to their tax-exempt status. She wants the city to be clear about what the rules are.
Alder Rhodes-Conway supports Kerr’s amendment. Respects city attorney but this isn’t just a matter of law, but also policy. This issue has been flying below our radar screen for 2 years or more and the Council is way behind on this issue. However, after the last meeting, the Council now knows how important this is and that it has widespread implications. This means people will not be able to pay their rent and many may become homeless as a result. It also may mean that housing providers that have been putting it together with duct tape and string for years will be put in an even more difficult position. There are several areas in her district that were not doing well and it changed because of the tax exempt entitites that are here. If the motion fails, she’s going to vote her conscience. She said that the saying goes that “the road to hell is paved by good intentions” but tonight the road to hell is due to narrow interpreted legal decisions.
Alder Schumacher asked about the delay. Attorney may says the city may not have the authority to do this and that nothing is going to change legally. He said that effectively, the council is instructing the city attorney to not raise the issue as a bar to the parties filing a suit as a result of the agreement that the Council is telling them to enter into. Schumacher asked for options to buy time and stay withing legal obligations. Attorney May advised that they follow the rules in state statute and we should just go to court. He was not sure about alot of things and said lots of things were unclear. Yet he was sure he was right. Interesting. Schumacher pursued a question – the attorney repeated the same things over and over.
Alder Clear asked about cash flow – Greentree Glen has paid their first installment. Will they get that money back due to the extension. The Comptroller says this motion doesn’t affect the money end of things.
Alder Skidmore says that this is frustrating. We need to address the policy issue – he supports the extention, but angry as a policy maker, so supports referral. Understands the legal ramifications but wants to explore this further. If no referral, he too will vote his conscience.
Alder Palm wants the City to petition the Department of Revenue to reconsider how they interpret their rules. And, regarding the Turners the city assessor should determine which portion would be taxable and which portion would not be.
Alder Solomon asked for the substitute to be reread. Referred back to common council in 60 days and city attorney directed to accept offer of extention of time and that they do their best to change the state law in regard to the deadlines. Alder Kerr said she just asked for an extention. Alder Solomon then made a friendly amendment that during the 60 days it be referred to Office of Community Development to explore the implications and come back with a slate of possible solutions. He says we dropped the ball on this, there are huge implications and we can’t vote on this out of nowhere and dropping this on our service providers.
Alder Clear supports the intent of Kerr and Solomon, but the issues of these three properties and our policy decisions are getting mixed. He reiterates this is a state policy that they don’t have the policy to change. He wants to pursue the additional options, but without precarious or murky legal position of the delay – which may have no actual affect.
Alder Kerr agrees we need to work with the state to change the law, but this narrow legal decision has broad policy implications and we need to look at them. The council has lost sight of the policy and we are not in the drivers seat. She wants the Council to be in the driver’s seat and that is why they need the extention.
Alder Clear thinks that they can do what Alder Kerr described with or without the extention.
Alder Cnare – karmic wheel has turned. We were focused on IZ and creating committees and not dealing with this. Also urged people to call the governor and their legislators.
Schumacher seeks clarification on the motion on several items. Schumacher points out that all of the solutions that we are looking at are to focus on financial options to solve this problem. Was that the intent? Kerr says Turners is a separate issue.
STAY TUNED
Ok – you’re going to have to stay tuned for the rest. I’ll tell you now that it was a roll call vote, the council voted to extend the time, but there is more to report when I have time. Also, there was no state of the city address, there was some discussion of the 10 year rule on appointments and that was about it . . . I think. Will need to finish watching the last 45 minutes or so of the meeting. The rest of the meeting is here.
