The important/juicy part . . . Check here for part 1.
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
Alder Solomon clarified his motion was to figure out the implications of any decision and then to look at possible solutions.
Alder Schumacher thought the Turner’s was different than the low-income housing and that the motion did not ask for a new legal position. Schumacher points out that the narrow construction is legal, the broader construction is looking for solutions
City Attorney reiterates again that his legal opinion is the only thing the council can do and nothing will change.
Alder Schumacher points out he believes that all of the things Alder Kerr and Solomon want to do can be done with or without the delay. He’s been involved in this issue and we are running a risk in our city if the property tax exemption is removed, but he doesn’t want to put us in a legal predicament. He will continue to work on the issue, with the leadership of the Mayor’s office, to come up with a package to resolve the issues. He doesn’t support the substitute motion.
Alder Compton wants to keep the Turners in the motion. There are others Turner’s organizations in the state that are exempt and she is looking for answers.
Confusions ensues – there is confusion about if this motion includes the low-income housing and Turner’s. City Attorney tries to sort it out. They vote to keep the three items together and there are no objections. Alder Kerr didn’t think they were ever separated and she made the motion.
Alder Compton continues to talk about the Turner’s being exempt for 154 years.
Maniaci says she agrees with Clear. She says we should go forward with an exemption. Says we put orgs at risk or its denied if we do the extention. We do need more information, but the 60 day extention will just throw it all out the window. Doesn’t know why hockey is exempt but gymnastics and soccer is not. Says she’s against extension but supports the exemption – but wants to force it into the court. Then, they have to ask her what she was saying and clarify that she was speaking against the current motion.
Alder Skimore supports the extension based on talking with many folks.
Alder Palm – they say he’s spoken three time – but this is another question on the floor. He thinks that the Turner’s is open to anyone. He says if he understands the Alder from the 2nd that she wants to deny the extension and just give the exemption – and that might be too much for the council – but he’s willing to go along and do a little civil disobedience and go against the city attorney.
Alder Solomon tries to clarify ramifications. Clarifies that the alder from the 2nd wants to ignore the city attorney and city assessor and just do their own thing by ignoring the law. Brian figures out that without the extention, we could really give ourselves more than 60 days.
Alder Bidar-Sielaff says that the extension makes a statement that we want alternatives in place before we make a decision. It’s not a good idea to make a policy decision without options especially when the consequences are dire. It puts the fire under us to do something – or decide they make more time. She doesn’t want to go ahead with a narrow decision without looking at the broader implications. She supports the motion.
Alder Clear – confused about how many times he has spoken – doesn’t speak because it is the third time.
Alder Schumacher speaks – extension doesn’t impact the organizations one way or the other. We’re not the state legislature, has to follow the law, and we need to separate the policy decisions. Wants to live within the law instead of choosing civil disobedience. Should not violate state law.
Alder Clausius – regrets missing the brown bag. Asks city attorney if they have until December to make payments. City attorney clarifies that they have to pay in July. He doesn’t like the extension. Wants to follow City Attorney advice. Thinks the Turner’s need to be separated at some point, as it is a totally different legal issue.
Alder Maniaci – under the statutes we are out of time, extension doesn’t do anything. We’re doing an extension for us not the organizations. Thinks it does a disservice to the organizations and puts us on thin ice. She thinks even if they don’t approve the motion they will get the information any ways.
Alder Bidar-Sielaff – says if both parties agree to the extension, who would not allow the agree? The State. This is all about risk management, but usually when two parties agree the court isn’t going to not allow the agreement. What is the legal risk?
Attorney May says they have to pay the taxes regardless. Then he points to the statute. Is willing to enter into the agreement. We’re in murkier waters. They will do their best to agree to it and stick to the agreement.
Alder Bidar-Sielaff points that the other side is taking the risk and they are willing to do that. But there is no additional legal risk to us?
Attorney May agrees, the legal risk is on the other parties. Even if we agree to it, who knows what the courts will do.
Alder Solomon – urges to vote for the extension. At least we’ll be acting with full information and we will be able to move forward with full knowledge of the implications of our decision.
Alder Kerr – double check to make sure the other parties all agree to the 60 day extension. Attorney May says that the city attorney is directed to do that and will offer it to them.
Mayor – 10:25, another half hour to hour before us and will not do his state of the city address. It will be on line tomorrow morning and you can all read it.
You can do what is proposed and it will be referred, but he wants to give the council some ideas that should give them pause. He says we’re not sure they are on solid legal footing. Only two reasons to refer one is that you hope the city attorney will come up with new ideas, but he is not going to come up with any other ideas and change his mind in the next 60 days. He thinks city attorney is good city attorney, just took and oath to follow the law, its “outrageous” that you would consider voting against the city attorney on this. If city attorney isn’t going to change his mind, then you must be hoping for another way out. He says there is no way out – anything you come up with now in this environment because it will be construed as tax abatement. One way out of it, would be to offer money to a broader group of non-profits. He says if you enter into a fiscal obligation and the city starts paying, if the state legislature fixes this, we won’t be able to stop proving that financial assistance. Furthermore, we don’t have the money to do any of this, even if we could. Puts focus in wrong place. Shouldn’t be with city attorney or assessor, they are just doing their job. If you refer we will be spending time locally instead of where the focus should be, which is with the legislature.
City Attorney restate the motion: 52, 53 & 54 referred to common council meeting in 60 days and for city attorney to grant 60 day extension and Community Development should come up with solutions.
Roll Call
AYE: Skidmore, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Schmidt, Cnare
NO (i.e. Mayor’s rubber stamps): Schumacher, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Sanborn (ok, not a rubber stamp, he has principled reasons for doing it) and Maniaci.
Both Cnare and Maniaci passed the first time and did not vote. Alder Pham-Remmele left the council meeting (good gossip behind this one! see below)
RECESS
Then, the moved a 10 minute recess. Which was 15 minutes. Bruer takes the chair again . . . he’s been in the chair almost the whole evening.
There were speakers on 53 and 54 who seem o have gone home. He asked if hey could still speak. City Attorney says that they have acted on the items and they can’t speak. NO FREAKING WAY!! If people were there to speak, they should have been able to speak before they voted.
CITIZEN APPOINTMENTS/10 YEAR RULE
Alder Rhodes-Conway wanted to refer the citizen appointments back to the Mayor’s office which would have no dealay. She explained that she was on the subcommittee that came up with the new ordinances affecting terms and term limited. The recommendations were adopted by CCOC and the Common Council. We voted to standardize terms to a length of three years – staggered so everyone was not up at the same time. We recommended a law to standardize the informal rule – we thought it should be a written policy and it should be clear. We recommended 12 years instead of 10 – so people didn’t time-out in the middle of a term to which they were just appointed. Those recommendations were passed into ordinance. She communicated this to the Mayor and has not heard back from him on it. She wants to send it back to have the Mayor reconsider his recommendations in view of the law we passed.
Bert Zipperer spoke on the matter. 20 years ago first elected and been involved on city committees since then. Served on alot of committee because Mayor kept changing his committees. Thinks the limit should apply to everyone – alders included. Pointed out that there are frequently vacancies. Uses EOC as an example. 3 people have 10 years or more (if Megin reappointed), 3 people have 4 – 6 years and the rest, half have less. 4 have been there less than a year. Affirmative Action has 11 members, and 2 years have 10 years or more, he holds up chart pointing out that 5 people are new, that there are three vacancies. Thinks they need to get deeper and think about if you want people who say yes or are compliant, or do you want people who have experience and expertise.
Mayor Dave speaks. Did read email from Rhodes-Conway but didn’t respond. Says informal 10 year rule that goes back to, no one knows, but he thinks it is Soglin that and he has followed it more than not. But it isn’t always followed. Doesn’t think it is a bad idea. Wants fresh blood, new ideas and doesn’t want people to get a sense that they own these seats. People who are appointed answer to the people who are elected. But the mayor does get to appoint the majority of people who reflect his point of view and then diversity after that is good. Council has a 12 year ordinance, even that isn’t hard and fast, can still do it with a 2/3 vote. It might be his fault for making the 10 year rule an issue. He’s struggling to find a way to put this that doesn’t sound arrogant or overbearing. But its a fact, the mayor can appoint anyone for anytime for any reason. There isn’t a guarantee that people will get 10 or 12 years. So, the truth is, these folks would come off whether or not there was a 10 year rule. You will get the same appointments back.
Alder Bruer asks if the mayor intends to apply this rule consistently. He says as a general rule it is a good idea, but he thinks there are extraordinary reasons to keep people on.
Voice vote – no’s have it.
ALDER APPOINTMENTS
There is a substitute. Passes on a voice vote. (Good back story here.)
The changes to committee appointments were that they added the Board of Estimates seats, the Mayor removed some appointments he didn’t have the authority to make and Alder Thuy Pham-Remmele resigned from Commission on People with Disabilities and Alder Clear was appointed in her place. (See gossip below)
ITEM 35
Several people were going to be there to speak, but he just wanted to say that people appreciated respecting veterans and fixing the spelling of the gentleman’s name.
They adjourned after 4.5 hours.
GOSSIP
Apparently, Alder Thuy Pham-Remmele was not happy with her committee appointments, which was why item 20 was pulled from the agenda. Apparently, she was going to make a big stink and then resign. Someone talked her out of it and instead, she just left the meeting.
Also, I just want to point out that when the Mayor has disagreements with the boys, he usually twists arms behind the scenes, cuts deals and tries to keep it out of the public eye. When Alder Rhodes-Conway disagreed with him, he ignores her email and addresses the council directly. Interesting.
