Wednesday Round Up

Today is Friday for me, as I get to enjoy another 4 day weekend (Steel Bridge Music Festival in Door County!), then panic when I get back to work on Monday. So, here's a smattering of items to comment on, as my blog topic list grows and grows and grows and I can't get to it all!

STATE BUDGET - PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION TAKEN OUT OF BUDGET BY ASSEMBLY DEMOCRATS
So, according to the Wisconsin State Journal, the celebrating may have been premature. It matches what I was hearing, contrary to the Mayor's crowing about his great accomplishment after 5 years. You know, he claims he personally lobbied on this and takes credit for its resolution. Well, doesn't look so good according to this article:

In votes behind closed doors late Tuesday night, Assembly Democrats voted to make several changes to the budget, said Rebekah Sweeney, spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker Mike Sherdian, D-Janesville.

The changes would delete budget provisions that would have: [snip]

• Resolved a long-running dispute over when housing units for seniors and low-income residents can receive tax breaks. The deleted provision has been vigorously sought by Madison non-profits who say they need it to keep providing housing to the poor.

COMMUNITIES UNITED/PAT SCHNEIDER ON COMMITTEE DIVERSITY
They are asking all the right questions! But . . . um . . . I nearly started banging my head against the wall when I read that they were going to collect all this information themselves. I appreciate them being sensitive to staff, but this is about priorities!!! Seriously, it can be done and probably done quicker with volunteers that know what they are doing, but the data won't have as much credibility and it sends a really strange message about how important diversity is to the city. I guess what the City and Mayor are saying are that yes, those are important questions to ask, but apparently staff can't be bothered to gather the information. I guess it speaks volumes to the Mayor's commitment to diversity. Can you believe after talking about this for a few years, the Mayor's office doesn't even know if women, people of color and people with disabilities are even applying for the positions and can't share that information? I thought that part of the plan by Affirmative Action was outreach last year, how will they know if it is successful if they don't have a benchmark to measure it by?

OH, MANIACI
Yes, my first direct comments about her performance. I've been trying to keep an open mind, encourage her and give her an opportunity to find her way. However, I have some pretty major concerns that I hope she is working on and I just don't know about! But, um . . . shouldn't we know . . .

1. After attacking me throughout the campaign about not doing enough for the Johnson St. businesses, (after all 11 businesses left in the 8 years I was in office) it turns out, 2 businesses left in her first 2 months in office. Along with that we're losing Don Miller and lost the Madison Dairy. I haven't seen any public meetings or comments on listserves or any information about any of this from her. Not a peep. I'm more concerned about the E. Washington corridor and know that they are reviewing the proposals for marketing for the area, I hope she is working with the neighborhood to make sure we get the best group for the job!

2. For someone who talked so much about safety, she really blew it when she paved the way to stop the speed humps that were supposed to be getting installed by Tenney Park on Marston Avenue. Even tho the neighborhood surveys were in and they were approved by the residents that lived there by over 60%, she had them re-survey and the results ended up slanted by the absentee property owners/landlords. I sure hope no child gets injured in that area as a result.

3. The Edgewater. Psssst, wanna fill us in? What's going on, where's the community discussion? There should have been a public meeting before the students left for the summer. To make this decision over the summer without their input is not representing the students in her district very well. At this point, even if she delays this til they get back, the major discussions will have already been done and their ability to have an impact will be greatly diminished.

4. Already complaining? These are her comments from the Critical Badger blog about electronic voting:

Interesting… but (1) If this were my full time, living-expense paying job, I might have the time to work on this outside of all the other demands of the district at the moment (Maybe Steve King’s got some time for this jk….), so if you’d like to advocate for above-minimum wage, fair pay for your friendly local alder, awesome!

A much better answer would have been, I'll check with the City Attorney to see if we have the authority to do that. And the likely answer is no, no need to make excuses about time.

Oh, there is more, but those are three major issues in the neighborhood that have me concerned and one observance.

CRITICAL BADGER
Ok - I know I'm a bit behind on a few topics I want to blog about, but what took the Critical Badger so long to respond to a month old story.

POLICE MEDIA STRATEGY AND RESPONSE TO SHOOTINGS
So, on the 5th, the police announce that they are going to have a press conference about the shootings. Since its Friday, a kinda bad press day, they decide to wait until Monday to appeal to the public to help the with this problem, and the next day, someone is dead. Maybe, just maybe, they should worry a little less about controlling their message and good placement in the media and more using the media to get information to and from the public. Talk about misplaced priorities! Meanwhile, they did manage to try to bury the story about their racial disparities in traffic stops - that's good enough news for a Friday.

DUH/MELANIE CONKLIN?!
First, the shocker! I didn't even know Melanie Conklin was still in the news business, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw she wrote this article!

Second, I'll just say duh. Housing. First. works. We just don't want to pay for it, even tho in the long run, it will likely cost us less.
Read more!

Council Recap - The Rest of the Meeting

Continued . . . .

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
#40 SHERMAN TERRACE WATER MAINS

Robert Schniker - support - passes on speaking

Richard Meyer - Sherman Terrace was built in 1947, told that water mains put in there had a 50 year life expectancy, last two years spent $60,000 to fix water mains, trying to figure out how to do it piece by piece and came up with proposal. [The real credit here goes to Larry Nelson who met with myself and Nathan Brelsford and Jerry Rowe and came up with a solution. Thanks Larry!] Meyer explains that the highest selling units there go for $120K, they're not real fancy, good affordable comfortable housing. Many are on a fixed income, opportunity for this is that association couldn't borrow the money and have no assets, its a darn good thing if it goes through.

John Marhoefer - support - oldest member of board, served there for 12 years, investor, owns 7 units, wants to assure council has a professional board of directors, spends money prudently, $60,000 that they spent repairing broken water mains could have been spent on preventative maintenance. Will cost him personally $25,000 but still supports the installation of the new main and urges support.

Barbara Mazzoni - support - Sherman Terrace Condo Association - Very old established neighborhood, low income area, where people can afford to buy a small place to start or end up. Concern is that by fixing the water mains one at a time, wasting the water and natural resources and it will benefit the whole city to have the mains replaced. Needs council's help.

5 registrants in support not wishing to speak.

Palm asks any board member - Since board of public works, questions raised about one of the larger assessments. Says he expects amount of project to go down based on the bidding. Asks if they understand that if one assessment goes down, others might go up. Mazzoni says she just became aware the issue this afternoon with the commercial property. Been meeting, invited all the members of the condo association, notices went up in all the buildings, city engineers came to the meeting, but this is new.

# 41 - Reiner Rd - no registrants

# 42 - Lawrence St. - no registrants

Motion by Maniaci, refer item 40 to June 16 meeting. Maniaci says that this came up suddenly with he commercial owner. Says her understanding is that it won't impact the timeline for the project. Staff says schedule to bid wouldn't happen til after the next meeting anyways. Wanted to get project done in 2009 construction season. Leaks occur in winter and want to get it done before then.

41 & 42, move adoption.

PLAN COMMISSION
#43. Sign issue on Millpond Rd. One registrant - available to answer questions, no questions
#44. 12 single family homes and 2 school lots. One registrant, person from Middleton Cross Plains School Dist, in support, available to answer questions, no questions
#45. Union South - Gary Brown - support, available to answer question, no questions.

Approval, no discussion.

8:30, end of public hearings, now back to the separated items . . .

SEPARATED ITEMS
CITIZEN APPOINTMENTS
46 - Report of the Mayor submitting citizen committee appointments (introduced
5-19-2009; action 6-2-2009).

Moved adoption. There are speakers.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Carl DuRocher - no longer here.

Margaret Bergamini- there to speak to Transit and Parking Commission appointments, recommend that it be referred back to mayor and appoint Carl DuRocher. Explains that Carl DuRocher uses paratransit and his ride was scheduled and he had to leave [No irony there, eh?]. She says she felt strongly enough to come and speak because she relies on Carl and his knowledge and the relationships that he has built. Doesn't come here cuz always agrees with Carl, fundamentally disagreed on the fair increases but she respects his knowledge. Says he understands the ADA the way Bruer and Verveer understand liquor licenses. He knows staff and elected officials from other cities, and advocates throughout the region. Discussion of Metro budget isn't a simple topic, and not sexy. Says the council barely touched on the intricacies of paratransit. She's worried he also loses seat on other committees. Talks about contracted services oversight committee, says he was instrumental in getting that group started in working with partners and other regional partners. Carl is an excellent translator for everyone. She says at this moment in history when systems in a fragile state, fed and state funding changes (mentions risk of losing $2M although we may have patched together a solution) this is when we need Carl because this is what he is good at. Talks about the RTA, but we already have a semi-regional system, he is one that understands and helps us all understand, he can translate it with all the complexities with the funding, contractors, bids, etc. He's critical to the functioning of the group. Don't always agree, but deep respect for knowledge and commitment. Applauds the recommended person, but there are other ways to do get involved and build the expertise. Knows mayor has responsibly to make recommendations. Advise and consent is duty of the council. She says turnover is necessary and good, but this isn't the moment. Not when we are looking at threats to the funding in which he is an expert. Not good for partners or city of Madison.

DISCUSSION
Rummel - Says Bergamini did better than she could. At the last meeting she asked to have it referred even tho that is what would happen she wanted to raise the issues, met with Mayor and Skidmore, didn't expect anything to change [and it didn't]. Says Bergamini summed it up well. Understands that mayor has the discretion, appreciates that he gets to decide. However, DuRocher is progressive and experienced. Says she understands that council's role is advise and consent. She says she wants to remind you that not the same thing as Obama and Supreme Court. Those are lifetime appointments. And the Senate rejected - like senate who rejected Robert Bork - She says the council's role is to give appointment recommendations, but that she would appreciate it if the Mayor responded to her inquiries about appointments before she reads the results on the agenda. She can agree to disagree, but feels there is more ability for the council to get involved. She suggests that if Carl was here, she would ask for his phone number, because the TPC is going to need his advice.

Skidmore - Says it is not about DuRocher or Tolmie, who would be a great member of the Transit and Parking Commission, but more about the ability of mayor to make appointments. Says its his prerogative, respects his ability to do that. Says he had an interesting conversation with former Mayor Paul Soglin and that he agreed with Skidmore and Mayor Dave that there is not entitlement or right to be a member for a lifetime. He says it is the right and obligation of being the mayor. He says he lobbied to get some others to be kept on committees (Ped Bike and Public Safety Review Board). He thinks DuRocher is a great member, but many people are qualified to serve and they benefit by having turnover. Suggests DuRocher runs for alder, suggesting that of Dave Tomey as well.

The Mayor reminds Skidmore that DuRocher ran and was "crushed by Alder Rummel"

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Clear asks what it means to serve at pleasure of the Mayor. Asks how people can be removed from committees? May says mayor appoints, council confirms. General rule is that all authorities that appoint have to be involved in removal, so it would take the Council and the Mayor to remove someone. Clear asks if the Mayor could appoint someone if their term is not over. May says no.

Pham-Remmele - Was going to ask for this item to be excluded, but Rummel did. Question for City Attorney, she says "I don't want to bother you, but I'm learning". She says that the City used to encourage citizens to step up to the plate and serve on commissions, do we sincerely do that? She thought it was a courtesy to approve the Mayor's appointments and never questioned it. [Can you say rubber stamp?] She saks what does serving the pleasure of the Mayor mean, are people expected to do that or serve in the best interest of the Madison resident? She says again that she tought it was a courtesy to approve the Mayor's appointments, and just say "aye".

May re-explains. The Council has no ability to tell the mayor who he has to appoint. You can say no to his appointments and then you have political fight if he comes back with the same person. He says that person serves their term unless they are removed or resign.

Pham-Remmele asks if they say "no" does that mean they don't respect the Mayor?

May says Council can say yes or no, but he can't tell you if it is about respect.

Pham-Remmele pressesfurther, she says if they don't rubberstamp the decision and say no, the person will still get appointed. May says the Mayor will have to continue to propose a person for that position.

BACK TO DISCUSSION
Skidmore talks about the "unfortunate headline" that DuRocher was "dumped". Reiterates it is the Mayor's prerogative. Says DuRocher was not removed, just not reappointed.

Solomon says he wasn't going to speak. Thanks DuRocher for his service. Can't begin to say how much he learned from him. No reason to doubt, that if Tolmie brings half as much as Carl brought, we'll be a fortunate city.

Kerr didn't want DuRocher's great service to get lost in the mechanical process. She talked about the fare increase hearings, and TPC meetings on bus service and DuRocher's remarkably knowledgeable service and we were fortunate to have him. She says she's sure Alder Skidmore's constituent will do well as well.

Mayor Dave speaks. Thanks DuRocher for his service. He wants to address arguments on his behalf. He says if he appointed only on experience, they would all have lifetime appointments. Expertise does and should reside in staff, needs to reside in staff, can't count on volunteers to have that expertise. Thinks turnover is a good thing. Tolmie is a good man, very bright, and while won't start with basis of knowledge that DuRocher had, he can acquire it over time.

Compton recommends that people who have served many years have to be acknowledged, need to have the Mayor's office say thank you to people leaving committees. Need some acknowledgment. She says that not all of them are her constituents, so the Mayor's office is probably the best one to do it.

The motion is to approve all the appointments except Tolmie. Voice vote, Pham-Remmele votes no.

Roll Call on the appointment of Tolmie (not DuRocher) passes 15 - 4:
AYE: Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Maniaci, Palm, Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore, Solomon
NO: Verveer, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
ABSENT: Sanborn

#75 - Creating Section 8.32 of the Madison General Ordinances to create policies and procedures for removal of personal property from public lands.

Motion is to place on file.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Rummel's light is working! Rummel says she had conversations with Clingan and May, and has questions. She says state law has something to say about what happens and she had heard Mayor may be helping to resolve this. She says to May that it looks like we are not following the law. May says he can't speak to that, doesn't know what our practices are. [Well, isn't that convenient.] He explains that there are two different laws, one you hold the property for 30 days, one for 90 days. The distinction is about if the property is lost or abandoned. There are also distinctions based on the value of the property. He says he's not exactly sure what the practices are at this point in time. He says that the Mayor's office asked for legal background and he is working on it. Rummel asks again, May says he doesn't know the details. He says this ordinance is dealing with specific type [of the homeless] of property and if it is that type of property. Says they should have a more global procedure. Mayor suggests Plant is working on it.

Plant says he convened staff - fire, police, public works, city attorney [they conveniently did not invite me to the meetings, even tho I was the sponsor] They talked about how they handled property. Says police has a robust system [if so, that robust "system" was not used when they threw away the property of the people staying at the Brittingham Park shelter! or they system is simply not as "robust" as claimed]. He says the others had other policies. He says if there is a shredded piece of clothing or broken lawnchair left on a soccer field, it gets tossed. He says otherwise they hold them for a specified period of time if it is items like keys or a wallet. He says he asked for an opinion from city attorney on how to handle it in a city wide level. Not just homeless but all found property. He says there is a memo and cover letter recommending a charter ordinance. [Someone should have asked where the hell that memo and cover letter was!] He says state laws are old and confusing and not clear which applies, thinks a charter ordinance would set policy for all agencies. A uniform procedure for all agencies would have a distinction for $25 property, 30 day retention with procedures on how to turn property back to owner. They need to discuss what proof is required to retrieve property and he talked about posting requirements (in city hall) and on city webpages, and that the property would likely be stored at the police department.

Rummel asks about timeline. He says he doesn't have one. [i.e. he wasn't planning on working on it.] Says he can put it on the top of the list. Charter ordinance won't be available until 60 days after it is pissed. Rummel asks to work on it with them.

Palm asks why charter ordinance. And what harm by passing this? May says charter ordinance because there are 2 procedures that can apply and he thinks they are old, based on rules set up long ago and inconsistent. His opinion is that a charter ordinance says they can get out from under provisions in state law. Otherwise they would be stuck with those two inconsistent provisions. He says this is a state law not of statewide concern [seriously, what kind of a whack opinion is that? and why is he so bold here but not for other issues?] He says the authority has not been withdrawn by state legislature. [Again, they passed a law . . . how is it that they haven't legislated in this area? Seriously? I can't believe he is being so bold and aggressive about not following state law in this case.] He says the only reason it is on the agenda is because there is no sponsor, if someone sponsors it then it will go back to committee. Just wants to make sure it is consistent with what you might pass as a charter ordinance.

Palm asks why go back to committees? He points out this was introduced in Oct 2008, recommendations have been made by committees. If someone sponsored, why go back to committees? May looks confused [cuz he was wrong, there was no requirement for it to go back to committee], but then someone points out that PSRB has not made a recommendation and they are the lead committee.

Schmidt has a question for May - He asks why the provisions in this ordinance that were covered by state law why are we first discovering this in May 2009 when we knew there were laws in Oct 2008? Why can't we pass this if it doesn't conflict with state law? Why didn't we find out earlier that state law addressed this in conflict with our process? May repeats that he's not certain our practice violates state law. [Wow. This dude is losing all credibility at this point. The departments didn't like the ordinance because they were concerned they don't have storage for these items. His claims are making him look ridiculous.] He says that in terms of this ordinance, it imposes above and beyond state law, which city has authority to do. They have advised departments with what state law is, but didn't know that departments are always aware of the state laws. [Now that inspires confidence, doesn't it?]

Kerr is called on, asks the Mayor why he looks pained, he says she is not showing up on the board. Kerr asks Plant about posting in the Parks in English and Spanish, is that also under contemplation by the staff working on this? She says if she lost her keys or homeless, park shelter is likely where might go first. Plant says that the posting requirements as drafted are one of the reasons that city department heads had concerns about the language and its possible fiscal impact. Kerr clarifies that she wants postings in park, not just city hall and website. A generic notice, in English, Spanish and Hmong.

Bidar-Sielaff asks if someone sponsors it, could this serve as the base for the charter ordinance. May says that the issues in this ordinance are not the sort that require a charter ordinance. Normally don't use charter ordinance unless have to, might be a companion ordinance. He says the two would not be incompatible.

AND WE HAVE A SPONSOR, OR TWO! AND A MOTION!
Rummel says she wants to be added as a sponsor and refer to PSRB and CDBG with CDBG as the lead.

Bidar-Sielaff asks to co-sponsor.

Schumacher, asks for it to go back to Parks as well.

Passes on a voice vote, with some no votes but I wasn't sure who.

LOW INCOME PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
76 - Foley & Lardner, LLP attorney for Greentree Glen, LLC, c/o Midwest Affordable Housing Corp., 1560 East Blackthorne Pl., Whitefish Bay, WI - unlawful taxation - $71,922.54 plus interest.

Motion is to place on file.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Tim Radelet, neither support or opposition. Says they haven't quite decided what to do, file lawsuit or what for 2008 taxes. But, Joint Finance has added language that will, in large part, exempt low income housing and it is moving forward. There are some categories of housing that will be taxed, which is unfortunate. Thank you, Mayor Dave, Mario, and city attorney Mike May, Assessor, Bill and his staff, housing committee, prop tax subcommittee, former alder Brenda Konkel and to the Common Council, Julia and Michael, for advocacy both in meetings and outside of meetings. Knows that Mayor Dave and staff and certain alders spent time talking to governor and legislators, not just thanks from him, but his clients and all members of third sector. Thank you.

No questions.

DISCUSSION
Kerr - Says its a record for her speaking this many times in a meeting. Second what was said, thanks Tim Radelet, says he's deeply knowledgeable, she says working on this issue and this issue has befuddled everyone for 5 years. Acknowledge alders and Mayor for pushing this on the agenda and acknowledging how important it was to the City of Madison.

Mayor - special thanks to Mario, working on this for 5 years, says they were close a couple times, attended so many committee meetings in which he took many pointed questions on my behalf.

Passes on voice vote. [I think it was unanimous, but I didn't have any notes here.]

PRES HOUSE TAX EXEMPTION
77 - Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C. for Presbyterian Student Center Foundation, 439 East Campus Mall, Madison - unlawful taxation - $238,565 plus interest.

Motion is to place on file.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Alice Honeywell - Presbyterian Center - Says she was taken by surprise when city attorney let the 90 days lapse. She was here to tell the Council about the Pres House [I took a break . . .] Says City of Madison won't go out of business if Pres House is not taxed, we Pres House might go out of business if City of Madison taxes them. She also says that the UW wants to buy their property, and if they do, the UW will be tax exempt. She says to please help us with the legislation that would include Pres House.

Rev Mark Elsdon - Disagrees with city's decision that they are taxable. Asks for help with legislation that does not provide provision for Pres House. Says Alice started to tell you why - religious, benevolent nonprofit for 100 years, mission is consistent, always have been exempt, truly unique, financed by WHEDA bonds, 20% low income, but benevolence isn't just low income, but activities and services.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Mayor asks City Attorney to explain, May says he thinks they will be exempt. [Wow! I know the Mayor's office and Mario don't understand the legislation they are so proud of, but I thought the City Attorney knew better. They clearly have no clue about affordable housing, how it is financed and the intricasies of the legislation that was passed. I can't believe May is shooting from the hip like that, he really is losing credibility tonight.]

QUESTIONS OF REGISTRANT
Eagon asks the Pres House folks why they think they are not exempt and what the discrepencies are between what the City Attorney is saying and their understanding of the law. Rev Elsdon comes back up and says that is great if the city attorney thinks they are exempt. But he explains that WHEDA description is specific, they don't have a first lien, they have a LURA (Land Use Restriction Agreement). So, if we were to find some other wording about a contractual agreement, then they might be in.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF AGAIN
Eagon asks assessor for comment. Assessor says he can look at it. If they don't have a first lien through WHEDA, that could be problematic. They might have to look at it.

QUESTIONS OF THE PUBLIC AGAIN
Rev Elsdon intercedes and says that Rep Spencer Black has language that would help Pres House. He says they tried and it hasn't happened thus far. City support would be helpful. Understands city needs money, would talk further about that if necessary.

Verveer, clarifies - will the building be tax exempt or just the apartments? Rev Elsdon saays yes, the Church has always been tax exempt, and will be exempt. The new building is not exempt. Apartment has been open for 2 years in July. They have been contesting the taxation from the begining.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Schumacher asks why this didn't come back with the others and how the 90 days lapsed without the council having a chance to act on it? May says this was an oversight in his office [Wow, another impressive moment for the city attorney's office tonight], not clear what happened. He says he gave strong instructions that is not to happen again and put a process in place in the clerk's office. He says there were meetings set up and didn't come to the council. Schumacher asks if the law allows for any compensation for these types of mistakes. May says 90 days is absolute.

Compton says she does not like to do committee work on the floor. Asks if not place on file, what happens? What happens in next assessment? May says, yes, the items before us are for 2008, legislation only impacts 2009. Compton asks again, if we do not place on file, what happens? He says, the law says it has been denied so council can't deny or approve. Court will decide. As mentioned in his memo, if legislature changes the law, then city should take that into consideration in resolving the court case.

Schmidt - Asks assessor, what part of the property is being taxed in this case? Assessor says its just the apartments, not the church. Asks May, if on file without prejudice, can we take an action later. May says not for 2008, but yes for 2009.

Bidar-Sielaff - Asks Mendoza to talk about compromise. Asks about Black language, any discussion on that? Mendoza says there are many proposals that have been contemplated, but not great likelihood of significant change, he says it was hard fought to get her, not everyone is happy. Clear indication not a big willingness to change the language to any significance.

Eagon - would it be possible to place on file but treat the same to work on their behalf? Lobbyist will pursue exemption for this property, by supporting Black amendment. Would like to place on file with understanding that city would pursue language to exempt Pres House. No objection by city attorney or mayor so Bruer says it is friendly. [Hmmm, I'm surprised by that public acknowledgement of whom Bruer is taking his cues from.]

BACK TO DISCUSSION, INCLUDING MAYOR DIRECTLY ENGAGING IN CONVERSATIONS WITH ALDER ON THE FLOOR.
Cnare - says ok with friendly amendment, but wants to pursue it on behalf of similarly situated organizations, Mayor says yes, as sense of council, and intent of council to exempt organizations similar to Pres House. Cnare says fine. Just doesn't want us to be pursuing something for one agency.

Bidar-Sielaff - all agreed legislation isn't perfect, and that we will continue to pursue perfect legislation. Mario will still be shooting for the sky, knowing that we have this. Wants to better understand where we are going, but we should say we are glad we got this far. Would like to continue pursuing language to cover all the entities that are proving housing and the like. We still want the perfect outcome

[I missed some discussion here.]

MOTION CONFUSION
Eagon withdraws his motion and says he would like to reintroduce as its own item at the end of the meeting, by title only. Then he says nevermind, keep it the way it is, since it won't be easier to introduced at the end of the meeting.

Mayor says the motion is to place on file, with understanding that city will pursue language in state legislation to exempt Pres House and similarly situated organizitions.

Cnare, is concerned that she thinks the Turners are going to say they are similarly situation, and doesn't think alders will agree on what "similarly situated" might mean. Cnare says that she'd like a separation on exemption for Pres House. Eagon clarifies what the amendment is, it passes on a voice vote.

Now thw motion is to place on file with City pursuing legislative fix for Pres House and similarly situated groups. There's a voice vote, it seems close. Roll call is called. [I have to laugh, people hated it when I did it, but it seems the call for roll call is alive and well without me there. I wonder who they will blame now?]

ROLL CALL
AYE: Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Compton, Kerr, King, Maniaci, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Schmidt, Schumacher
NO: Verveer, Cnare, Eagon, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Skidmore, Solomon
ABSENT: Sanborn

Passes 12 to 7

TURNERS TAX EXEMPTION
78 - Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, S.C., for Madison Turners, Inc., 3001 S. Stoughton Rd., Madison - unlawful taxation - $24,686.50 plus interest.

Motion to place on file

PUBLIC TESTIMONY (9:40)
[I apologize, I missed this man't name, Morris?] Said he doesn't want to postpone momentum in the discussion. He asks people to reflect on comments from Brianna and her mother, says it has been a school for 150 years with no change in operation, staffing, ownership or procedures of the school. Looking forward to listenitng to spirited discussion.

Paul Wirch - President of Madison Turners, talks about turners and history, said they were in dire financial straights 5 years ago, hired new management, got donations, turned things around,. Lost money last year with the economy, but the taxes will have dire consequences and put them out of business. Talks some more about the history, says nothing has changed. He says he is also a doctor, concerned about children's health and epidemic of obesity. Massive obesity is up due to diet, exercise (physical activity) and behavior issues. Says less physical activity at school and less safe getting outside. He says chronic illnesses, bullying, self esteem and diabetes and joint issues are issues that will occur due to high obesity rates. Says health care system reform is needed and knows that needs to increase access to health care and need to reduce costs. Says kids are getting adult onset diabetes and seeing heart attacks in kids. Turners is trying to do something about these issues. Says he was here last time when council extended, now 90 days expired, would like to make his case.

Gibson - Director at Turners, 14 years in field. Works in schools, but also at Turners and they work with cheerleaders and kids with special needs. He outlines what their differences are from a gymnastics club. Says they are non-profit and there for the kids . . . talks about differences . . . got distracted . . . . [Buzzer goes off again, its being totally ignored this evening, the Mayor just lets them talk without asking for an extension from the council. Very, very, interesting - I wonder if the Mayor will be as generous next time an issue is before them when the speakers are saying something he doesn't want to hear.]

A person named David is called on and he passes.

Kristina Summers - Attorney for Turners, summarizes history, explains that they are proceding under different exemption than the previous cases - educational vs benevolent. Says the statute had to be changed, different here. Nothing needs to be changed, no legislative fix. The test is if they are education and have a systematic instruction, formal or informal. She talks about the class structure, that they follow school semesters, formed as a school, treat themselves as a school. Observe school holidays. Instructors have lesson plans, long term goals as well as step by step goals. City has not challenged that first point. Second requirement in the law is that education available to the general public. That has been challenged by the city. The city says only those involved in gymnastics participate but she gives the example of a daycare that qualified under this criteria. Last requirement is that these are services that should be provided by government or lessen the burden of government. She talks about the schools and concern about instruction and equipment that is available there and says it is a service ordinarily provided by government and that they lessen the burden of government by providing these services. She reminds people of Brianna and how physical fitness helps her. Happy to answer questions.

8 registrants in support, not wishing to speak.

QUESTIONS OF REGISTRANTS
Cnare - Asks about the ability to have birthday party there? Summers says that historically Turner's has had a banquet hall for funding to support other services. Have been working with city on this. Addressed the issue with the city. Says the entire building is 14,000 sqare feet, banquet hall is 4,680 sq ft. Says they also have volleyball leagues and space. Says that issue is more on the edge, but they tried to be reasonable. They said they agree the city can tax the banquet hall and volleyball and they are asking the city to provide a refund for 54% of improvements (not the banquet hall and volleyball) and the land.

Maniaci - Asks a question about the statute. She doesn't like it that only hockey is exempted in the ordiance. Wants all sports groups exempt. Asks about if it is a common practice to divide taxable and non-taxable parts of the property. [Ok, I was talking to someone, debating staying or cutting out and going to get a beer . . . ] Summers is explaining that it is a common practice to not have an all or nothing determination, law and supreme court case allows for partial determination.

Schmidt - asks if the IRS sees the Turners as fully non-profit. Summers says IRS says exempt for income tax purpose. So, says he's confused. He says assessors manual says may be assessed when partially taxable by IRS. She explains, if property has taxed income, that will correlate to taxation in WI, but not the only way that fed and state differ. Hospitals are exempt, but exclusion for commercial (fitness center, doctors office) not exempt. Use doesn't fit in state exemption.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Kerr - question for Assessor or City Attorney - She says city attorney O'Brien told the council a few weeks ago that he evaluates these cases on a case by case basis. The answer is yes. She asks if there are no guidelines or policies for groups to look at to determine if they are exempt. They says they look at statutes and case law. No written policy on website or in assessors office? He says that they ask for information, and organizations provide the info they need based on what is listed on the form. She tries to ask again, uses example to help determine if they would be tax exempt - he says they just direct them to the statutes and require them to cite the statute that they qualify under. She asks if this can be simplified? He says its case by case. So, how do people have expectations? She says it sounds arbitrary, not that you are being arbitrary, but could be viewed that way. May interjects so the Assessor doesn't have to answers. He says the property assessment manual has factors they should look at. That might be the type of summary people might look for. Kerr asks if possible to post that? May says we could link to it. She says she is asking because she was struck by O'brien's testimony and says they were taken by surprise and wants to communicate more clearly? Assessor says can direct them to the manual, but difficult to put out information that would be clear to everyone who is seeking a exemption. [Yeah, he clearly doesn't want to do any more work. He basically was refusing to even try.]

Compton - asks if go to court, can they revert this back to 54% offered by the Turners? May says if court says they are educational they likely will. Says it is up to the court to decide, bottom line. Says if its a school, they'll get back their money, or at least up to 54% if that is what the court decides.

Cnare - Wants to know if we go to court will that be it, or will they be back again on another issue the next year or do they live by the court decision forever? May says yes. [Sounds a little crazy to me, since the city has been so aggressive with these cases, I don't believe it.] Cnare wants to clarify, he says yes [but starts backtracking and says . . . . ] unless there is a change in the operations. She asks if the assessor is bound as well? And will they look at everyone, every year? Yes, every other year the filings are required.

Maniaci - asks if there is anything in state statues that can be fixed, by changing youth hockey to youth sports, if state took out hockey language and then it might cover Turners? May says that could be done.

Solomon - asks May about a case he gave the council and how he decided Turners was more like Kicker's and explains the case was about if the group was more about recreation than education. Says he heard evidence tonight that sounds like Turners were different and wondering how that jives with the review your office did that seems inconsistent with what we heard. May says its not inconsistent. [Everyone is getting more an more skeptical, and May losing more credibility] May says it no about calling yourself educational and classes, he rattles off similarities in the cases such as physical education of students, health, organized sports, team work etc, almost exactly same arguments, that is the city attorney's bottom line.

Solomon -asks attorney for Turners- May interjects and says "I bet she'll disagree with me". He asks how they are different. She says that they have systematic instruction, formal or informal, available to general public, and they have services ordinarily provided by government. Basically they meet the criteria in state law. They are a school of gymnastics, they have not changed terminology or tried to cloak themselves in legal language. Solomon reads off goals in the case and says he doesn't see the goals of the Turner's being the same.

Solomon asks May - didn't see that Kickers case talk about distinction between educational institution vs recreation. May chastizes Solomon and tells him to "remember where we are", we have gone past 90 days, we can talk about substantive issues, but not in position to make those comparison tonght. [i.e. he avoids answering the question and falls back to the ruling he made that they can't talk about the issues.] He says of course there will be differences in the cases, court said that they are wonderful org and some educational value, but not the tax exempt question. Substantially and primarily devoted to educational is the test. He says physical education wouldn't be educational without rest of the school. [I missed a bit of what he said] May says you have no authority, next step is court. If come back next year you can take a look at it again.

Solomon says that doesn't leave him with a great deal of satisfaction.

MOTION
Manicaci - wants to add language to work on resolution in statute to have all sports exempt, not friendly. She makes a motion, no one seconds it. Cnare finally does [good alder buddy!!! New alders are assigned experienced alder buddies, Cnare is Maniaci's alder buddy].

DISCUSSION
Schumacher, says he understands that these decisions are not easy, these are great organizations doing great work. Also have property tax payers and if pursue policies to be agents of every org that seeks tax exemption, that means we are imposing more and more on property taxes on the fewer people who are paying them. Not about these establishments before us, somebody has to pay. Doesn't support exemption.

BACK TO QUESTIONS OF REGISTRANTS
Skidmore - apologizes, asks Summers about the amendment. She says she doesn't agree that this matter is out of the hands of the common council, the statute says that they governing body has to allow or deny, that didn't happen, that might limit what city can do. If a determination is made, says Council has the authority to make the claim. She says that in Milwaukee circuit court [I think she acknowledges that this isn't a binding case, but it is an example of a judge finding differently than May suggests] said that if not denied in 90 days, if doesn't follow law to letter, taxpayer rights are expanded. She talked about filing in court and if the city does settle she will be asking the vote to settle that action at 54%. Says amending the statute, that might be an option, but it might also not work out. Hate to leave it to potential legislative amendment. More direct for council to deny or vote to settle.

MOTIONS
Mayor explains the amendment is on the legislation.

Kerr, moves separation, but it is already separated, she explains she pushed her button a long time ago, button not working.

BACK TO DISCUSSION
Skidmore - passes.

Maniaci - passes.

Cnare - says she seconded but won't support it. Thinks Turner's has a good case. Clear definition, good works don't matter, but compelling information that indicates, despite kickers, if they go to court she thinks they will win and they City will learn a lesson.

Solomon - prefer we should give them their refund, same reasons as Cnare, understand where Maniaci is coming from, but agrees with Schumacher, we don't want to do that. Low income housing providers was an important place for us, but not athletic orgs.

Voice vote on the amendment - not a single vote in favor.

Back to the original motion.

MORE DISCUSSION/MOTIONS
Schmidt - could pontificate or substitute to grant the claim. Conflicting case law from two lawyers. Mayor says motion to grant the claim is not in order. [He and the city attorney are sticking to their overruling the Council] May says can't take a position unless he reads the case [I'm beginning what this guy gets paid for?]. May says he is concerned that this is before the council and doesn't tend to litigate before the council. All these are legal arguments that go to court, and then tells them again that they can't vote on to grant tonight.

Schmidt says right up against the deadline, and they found out about afterwards that they were out of order, its a mess and and he's "frustrated as hell". [It has been clear throughout the night, on multiple issues that the frustration of the continued staff blocks of actions they want to take is taking its toll on council members at a whole new level.] He brings back up the issue on the homeless property and asked why not take into account statute when presented back in October, says this is the same thing. He says he's been reading Kickers for two hours, said they were recreational, not in this case. Spent two or three pages talking about this. Wants to make his motion. Kerr seconds.

Kerr clarifies its a substitute.

Compton - clarify - going into last meeting, said they didn't know. Supported referral, because we didn't have the info they ahve now. Attonrey May said that if they did that, he warned us, Turners would have failed that night. THis window of time to prove they are a school, can we act on it, or should it go to court, vote to place on file so there is an official decision. Need sto be more solid for them, so not voting for the motion, but tends to agree to it. He told us three times during that meeting - it was tense, it was the only option Turners have.

Solomon clarifies if dollar amount is 54% in the motion. Palm groans, not sure what it was about but it distracts. Solomon asks if 54% is ok, Schmidt says people pressing to say yes, but he menat for it to be 100%. He comments that they are on shaky legal grounds, so why not. Statute is crazy, so sure, 54%, but his intent was otherwise. Objection to making it friendly. Amendment is to make it 54%. Solomon is called on to speak, but says he needs a minute.

Schumacher says we are debating things in state statute, May advised us last time that we are out of bounds, take it to court, organization has legal representation, [I'm sure that isn't cheap! Does he think all the non-profits can pay for that. If so, where does he think that money comes from?] He says that if you think this is hard, come to ALRC, constantly hitting our heads against the wall over state statute. Says they should take it to court. Says council should look to city attorney, not outside lawyers. [Maybe they would if he was credible, but he just keeps losing credibility.]

Mayor thanks Schumacher.

Rummel why Turners and not housing providers? May vote no on principle, but says I'm hungry, lets hurry up.

Mayor thanks Rummel as well. [He must be hungry too?]

Compton clarifies - Solomon amend to 54% and that they can't make another amendment.

Kerr won't vote in favor, worked hard on low-income housing. Legislative fix. Needed to take the strong stand to move the ball. Don't see that here. Respect Schmidt's assessment and the Turner's attorney, should place on file and she see's Schumacher's slippery slope. Can't support this. She differentiates this from the legislative fix.

BACK TO QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Solomon - two questions. If grant refund, what would it mean. You say we don't have the authority. May says he doesn't know what it means. [I'm pretty certain it means May will find a way to overrule the council again.] Solomon asks how we would know. If city wanted to go ahead and pursue. May says you'd have to get outside council.. May says action doesn't mean anything. [I thought so, why'd he say he didn't know?] Solomon asks if it goes to court to defend this, what will it cost. May says staff time, Walgreens and other cases took tremendous amount of time, this one is straightforward. Solomon says it will likely cost $14 - 15,ooo if goes to court, probably more in staff time. Says there are many good reasons to not place on file.

Bidar-Sielaff - if goes to court, will the council decide if they settle or it is fought aggressively? May says that settlement offer is made, has to bring it back to client. [That would be new. They settle cases all the time and they NEVER consult with the council.] She says there is an overwhelming sense that they do deserve tax exemption on the council. She suggests to go to court, settlement discussion will come back. Understand the frustrations in not taking final action, keeps coming back, deserve tax exemption, thinks it will settle it once and for all.

BACK TO DISCUSSION/MOTIONS
Mayor reminds, 54% is question. Cnare, says accept own offer, its what they asked for, its fair, we can set our own precedent. Pay half the bill and go home tonight. May shakes head.

Schmidt speaks to urge council members to kill the amendment and then he'd move to refer his motion for more info.

Mayor says only Solomon can refer. Schmidt is trying to clarify if what he wants to do is doable.

Mayor says May will not be here at the next meeting, so they need a longer referral. On this matter the Mayor says he wants May here. [Ya think? Always good to have a lawyer that is paid to give you the opinion that you want.]

Solomon amendment - voice vote fails [?].

Schmidt moves to amend motion to be referred to whenever May is available. He wants to hear Mays opinion on the issue of the 90 days and the issue that Summers brought up with the Milwaukee case. Kerr seconds for purposes of discussion. Checking May's availablility. July 7th is next date he will be here.

Rummel asks about how this impacts the Turners. She wants information or is it just academic? May says there are no appellate cases on the issue, only Milwaukee circuit court, doens't think it will have impact on his analysis. [No shit, he's clearly dug his heels in. He's being very stubborn and not serving the council at all, seems to just serve the Mayor.]

Voice vote - no's have it.

Back on original to place on file.

Compton tries to make an amendment. People are clearly not happy that she is trying to make an amendment. They are interrupting her. She finally explains that her motion is that if the Turners file in court, the common council will strongly consider request of 54% to the Turners. Originally, was going to settle at 54%, but this is a comfort resolution.

Mayor steps down from the chair. Bruer in the chair.

Schumacher says the city buys high, sell low. We're making a deal already, going into a court case telling the city attorney what the outcome is. He says they are tying the hands of the City attorney upfront. [Yes, I think they are, I think they are sending a strong message that the Assessor and City Attorney should not have been trying to make policy by aggressively pursing these cases.]

Compton clarifies that this is an amendment, not a substititue.

Bruer calls on "smoking Joe Claussius" - Claussius reminds people they have had this discussion, Attorney May said that they were on thin ice. Not supporting it. Says should go to court.

AND THE TRUTH COMES OUT- MAYOR DAVE WANTS THE TAXES!!
Bruer says this is the moment people have been waiting for and calls on Mayor Dave. The Mayor remarks that he is not sure anyone waiting for this moment. Understands and is sympathetic. Says body doesn't have authority. Attorney and Assessor interpret state law, for the Council to say they are wrong is extraordinary. Says it is an extreme mistake. He explains that the presumption is that land it taxable, and its up to the non-profits to make the case that they are exempt. In a few months we are going to debate the budget, and you're not going to be happy you don't have the money from these taxes then. These people don't want to pay their fair share. Attorney and assessor should make it hard. Very dangerous road to go down, to legislate here. City Assessor and Attorney can interpret law. He says he doesn't even like hockey, legislature can make that decision.

Compton repeats motion - Compton says doesn't prevent placing it on file, but we want to strongly consider exemption of 54%, not deciding outcome. [Yikes, I agree with Compton here and what she is trying to do.]

QUESTIONS OF STAFF AGAIN
Cnare question - if goes to court, court could determine otherwise something different even if we offer 54%. May makes it appear that they will. [Ok, he's a shittier attorney than I thought, he should have explained that it would be rare for the court not to agree to a stipulated agreement between the parties. Damn, the council really can't rely on this guy to give them good advice.]

Pham-Remmele says she has been sitting here patiently, putting up with debate, people like to hear themself speak, asks why are we going against city attorney and assessor, we are not qualified to decide the %, wants original language. [Again, she seems to think council is wasting time by debating issues.]

Schmidt says he respects city attorney and assessor, just disagrees. Whatever we decide, up to the court, this is just a strong suggestion, no a commitment.

Compton amendment fails on a voice vote.

Back to motion to place on file. They have a voice vote, chair rules the aye's have it. Roll call is requested.
AYE: Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Maniaci, Palm, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Schumacher.
NO: Rummel, Schmidt (with annoyance), Skidmore and Solomon
ABSENT: Sanborn

Passes 15 - 4.

SHADY WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
118 - Adopting Phase 1 of the Shady Wood Neighborhood Development Plan as a supplement to the City of Madison Comprehensive Plan, and authorizing the City’s application to amend the Central Urban Service Area to include the Phase 1 development staging area identified in the plan.

#118 - Clear defers to Rummel, Rummel moves adoption, someone seconds.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Trachtenberg says if the motion is to adopt and Rummel makes it, won't speak.

Satya asks for clarification. Is she moving recommendation of plan commission or whole plan. Rummel says plan commission recommendation to move it along.

Tractenberg now wants to speak - says all the landowners support it. Phase A, Phase B & C and ice age trail interests all agree with Plan Commission.

There are 4 others wishing to speak and 2 in support. They ask if anyone else wants to speak.

Gempler speaks, says it is unnerving to let Ron [Trachtenberg] talk for him. Says Ron is correct. Prepared to speak, but everyone agrees with Plan Commission.

No one asks any quetions, no one further speaks.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Rummel speaks, says she was struck by Cnare voting now and asks Wiedelich if they are doing something unprecedented. Wiedelich says it is unique, we don't do this in phases, discussed 3 hours at parks and plan and in the end best solution to timing issues. Staff can accept it. Explains that they will adopt non-controversial part and that, yes, the city does plan for property outside the city.

Rummel says it's a plan until someone does a project, not for 50 years. Open space is conceptual, exact boundaries will be negotiated and worked out with property owners. Asks if plan will impact value of property? Weidelich says that is up to Gempeler.

DISCUSSION
Rhodes-Conway. Dosn't think they should do this - precedent. Disappointed staff thinks this is ok.

Cnare, sole no vote at Plan - very, very slippery slope where we will approve neighborhood plans with only a house or two. She says the beauty and discomfort is that it is critical that there are reasons we plan the way we do. Would rather wait. The planning process isn't over, its not ready. We should wait until we have a whole plan. She likens it to Thanksgiving, she says they are getting the marshmellow and jello salad, no turkey.

There's a voice vote, roll call is called because it sounds close.
AYE: Bruer, Claussius, Clear, Compton, Eagon, King, Pham-Remmele, Schumacher and Skimore.
NO: Rhodes-Conway, Rummel, Schmidt, Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Cnare, Kerr, Maniaci, Palm
ABSENT: Sanborn

There is a second motion [out of order?] to refer it back to the plan commission. Motion made by Clear, seconded by Cnare. It took Clear forever to make the motion as the lobbyists tried to direct him what to say. He wants it to be referred to Plan Commission on the 15th and the Council on the 16th.

Rhodes-Conway asks to clarify. Says plan has to decide at the next meeting. She makes a substitute to let plan commission vote and have it come back to the council when they are done (i.e. not on the 16th). Motion is to refer to plan commission "full stop"

Compton - amend the motion. Once plan commission has made a decision it will come back to the next council meeting. Someone must have seconded.

Lots of confusion, lots of clarification by staff, Compton, etc.

May explains that there is notification issue with the meetings and Compton can't make her motion. [Again, bullshit!!! You can notice it and take it up if it is ready.] I believe the Compton motion is withdrawn and the motion is to refer to plan. Motion passes unanimously.

FINISHING UP
Introduction of items for referral. Very noisy, Clear has to ask for order.

Rummel introduces conservation district report for E Wilson, Shley pass neighborhood, refers to plan and council.

Clear has a resolution to have an agreement with the Board of Rebents to use the city's fiber optic strands, referred to Board of Estimates.

Clear also has a resoluion, by title only, to have the city continue contract for dispatch operations. Requires a 2/3 vote because it is by title only. Not sure I heard where it got referred.

With that they adjourn.

AFTER
Rummel and I went to the Great Dane. Other alders that went out include Claussius, Clear, Schumacher, Bruer, Maniaci, Solomon, Kerr, Palm, Schmidt. I was surprised they all went to the Dane again, I thought they were rotating the downtown bars, but it was late, and the Dane has food.
Read more!

Last Minute Info for Tonight's Council Meeting On . . .

Property tax exemption . . . here's the city attorney's latest memo . . .

The email that accompanies the memo is as follows:

Mayor Dave and Alders:

At the Mayor's request, I prepared the enclosed memorandum regarding the language approved by the Joint Finance Committee of the Wisconsin Legislature as part of the state budget bill. I also enclose a copy of the language. I will see that hard copies of this are available for the meeting tonight.

Second, I understand that some or all of you have received communications regarding the claim by Turners. As with the other claims, this claim was denied by operation of law by the City's failure to take final action within 90 days of the claim. See my memo of April 27, 2009, which is in the Council materials. Even if the substance of the Turners claim were before you (which it is not), we believe the claim is covered by the Court of Appeals decision in Kickers of Wisconsin v. City of Milwaukee, 197 Wis. 2d 675 (Wis. App. 1995), where the Court rejected similar arguments made by an association dedicated to teaching soccer. I enclose a copy of a memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Larry O'Brien discussing the Kickers case. A copy of this was distributed to you in April, but it does not appear to be in the Council packet.

Thank you.

Michael P. May
City Attorney
City of Madison

The Memo says:

Date: June 2, 2009
TO: Mayor Dave Cieslewicz
FROM: Michael P. May, City Attorney
RE: Impact of Joint Finance Committee’s Language on Tax Exemptions

You have asked for a brief explanation of the effect of the language approved by the Joint Finance Committee of the Wisconsin Legislature on tax exemptions. In particular, you wanted to know how the language impacts existing tax exemption claims filed with the City, and how it might impact future claims.
We have not completely examined the impacts of the language, and the language is complex, so the conclusions stated herein are necessarily tentative.

Future Claims.

The language, if enacted into law, significantly expands the ability of low-income housing providers and retirement homes for the aged to obtain property tax exemptions. The proposed law sets out specific tests for these entities, including an expanded rent-use test. It appears to remove retirement homes for the aged, but not low-income housing providers, from any test under the benevolent association portion of the statutes. It expands the acreage limitation test for low-income housing providers from 10 acres to 30 acres. There is also an exemption for facilities financed by WHEDA that were in existence on January 1, 2008.

A. Low-Income Housing Providers.

Although the Assessor will have to look at each specific request for exemption on its facts, it appears that two entities that filed claims against the City (Greentree Glen and Wisconsin Housing Preservation Corp.) likely would be entitled to future tax exemptions for some or all of their property under the new language for low-income housing providers, assuming the other tests for benevolence are met. Other low-income housing providers, such as those entities in the Third Sector Housing group, also appear to fit the new, expanded tests for exemption. The language appears to apply to specific units, so some market rate units might still be subject to taxation.

The new language is effective as of January 1, 2009. This means that many of the 40 or so low-income housing providers that are now subject to review by the Assessor
under the current legal limitations will be entitled to an exemption if the Joint Finance language is enacted.

The language has no impact on an entity like the Turners, which is seeking an exemption under a different legal theory, that of being an educational institution.

B. Retirement Homes for the Aged.

The language will also expand exemptions for retirement homes for the aged. I anticipate that several large entities that are now taxable (e.g., Attic Angels) will attempt to obtain exemptions under the new law. While the Assessor’s office has not finished their review of entities to which this new exemption might apply, they have identified the following entities that are retirement homes for the aged: Oakwood East and West, All Saints, Attic Angels Prairie Point, Meriter, and ILI Senior Housing.

The exemption for retirement homes for the aged requires that the “fair market value of a unit be less than 160 percent of the average fair market value of improved parcels of residential property located in the county.” We are not certain exactly how this language will be applied in practice. To give you a rough estimate of those figures in the City of Madison (the proposed law requires use of the county average), the 2009 average assessed value of a single-family residential home was $245,424. 160% of that figure is about $392,000.

Because this analysis applies to individual units, it is possible that some units at a retirement home for the aged would be tax exempt, while others would be taxable.

C. WHEDA Financed Projects.

The proposed law exempts WHEDA financed projects that were in existence on January 1, 2008. This may impact the Pres House in the future. It appears that an entity like Pres House still must qualify as a benevolent association.

D. Chapter 50 Licensed Facilities.

The proposed law also removes any rent-use test for facilities licensed under chapter 50 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which includes, among other things, adult family homes, community-based residential facilities, and nursing homes.
Pending Claims.

From a purely legal analysis, the Joint Finance language has no impact on the pending claims. This is because the pending claims are for 2008 taxes (depending on the status of the property on January 1, 2008) and the new law is effective on January 1, 2009. For those entities on the Council’s agenda for June 2, 2009, those claims for exemption have been denied by operation of law, and the next step is for them to challenge that denial in circuit court.

Assuming those entities challenge the denial and assuming the language from Joint Finance is enacted into law, our office would examine the costs and benefits to the City of Madison of enforcing the law as it existed in 2008, given that the State has changed its public policy position on the taxation of some of these entities. In my opinion, it is proper for a public body such as the City to take into account such a change in policy, once enacted. Here, we would face the possibility that for the three housing providers listed above, they would be subject to taxation for a one-year, locked-in period only.

At this point, I would not wish to speculate on what sort of accommodation, if any, would be appropriate for those entities that are in this locked-in period. I recommend that, at the time we have an enacted law and pending legal actions, the Board of Estimates meet in closed session with our office to discuss the City’s legal strategy for those claims. Any resolution of those pending legal actions would come back to the Common Council for approval.

As noted above, other entities, such as Turners, are not affected by the change in law. They also must pursue a court action at this point to raise the question of their tax exemption claim.

CC: All Alders
Mario Mendoza
Mark Hanson
Mike Kurth
Larry O’Brien

Read more!

Property Tax Exemption Meeting

Meeting called to order, a minute or two after noon. Minutes approved, no Mario to give an update. No Bill Clingan to give an update. Hmmm . . . . bad start. Highlights and surprises are bolded.

Sparer says Mario sent information around by email, not available to the public. Mario walks in the door, with Clingan right behind. There was a variety of a emails shared among committee members, also not available to public. They say amendment 575 is the same as 700 on this issue. Mario says Mayor was personally involved in the lobbying. Thanks Schumacher in helping with the League of Municipalities position. Says as a result of combined efforts, the Joint Finance Committee passed the "vetoed" language, exemption for low income housing providers, there is safe harbor language and resolves the rent use issue. Retroactive to January 1, 2009. Overall, the big problem is resolved with this language. He says there is every expectation that the language will be passed and signed into law. "So, yesterday, was a really good day."

Sparer wants to make it explicit that the Governor will not veto. Mario confirms. Says it is a deal between Governor and both houses leadership.

Mario says, as he did in the email, they heard how active the Third Sector Housing group had been while visiting legislative offices. Also says Berceau was a champion and thanks Pocan and Miller as well.

Sparer asks about list of uses for rent use that are permitted, but he read it otherwise, that these is no list. Mario explains that it is true for senior housing, but not low income housing. Sparer looks confused and seems to disagree.

When will we see the final draft? He says some legislators didn't have it, but that he'd be surprised if there are any changes.

Schumacher says thanks for the kind words. Glad they didn't have to fight it out at the city level and around the state. He asks what this means now, practically speaking. Mario says all of third sector housing should maintain their tax exemption going forward. For the few that were involved in litigation, any claims that related to Jan 1, 2009 are moot. So, those who did pay would get reimbursed? He says yes for those who paid as of January 1. Schumacher clarifies that Turners are not covered. Assessor clarifies that the claims discussed at the council are not affected as they are from 2008. They clarified that the retroactive date doesn't cover those two.

Schumacher says that while he wasn't in favor of violating state statute, he's interested in looking at the 2008 cases that were before the council in retrospect if the law passes, even if they aren't included. He might not vote to deny their claim at this point.

The Council will be discussing this on Tuesday, because Attorney May won't be here when the referral back June 16th happens. Says Michael May will issue a report on that question. So they will discuss again on Tuesday at the Council.

Sparer asks when it is expected to be final. Mario says Joint Finance is done (as of 5:30 this am) and now the full legislature, starting with the assembly. Right now, seeing how the Joint Finance Committee finished in May, its not unreasonable that they will get this done by June 30.

Sparer asks about the tweaks - none of them in there, right? Yes says Mario. Rosenberg reads memo from Tim Radelet, that was in my blog this morning. Rosenberg explains that there are some issues still out there.

- He explains some non-profits will bump up against the 30 acre rule, if not now, soon. Schumacher clarifies that there might be a way to structure to create the firewalls? i.e. not have the same boards. Everyone agrees.

- Mixed income projects, market rate units will be taxed.

- 60%, versus 80% which units funded with HOME dollars will be impacted. Each unit has to qualify. Schumacher says the lawyers will figure it out. [I briefly consider going back into the legal field as it appears to be quite lucrative! :)]

- Additional reporting requirements

- Non-residential properties not addressed.

Rosenberg says that elderly housing, there are no income restrictions, no reporting requirements.

Retroactive date this year, elderly next year. Says much was addressed, but not everything. This is what we got, should be happy, but we need to be mindful that there are still issues.

Mario says this is a huge change. Thinks that the Plan B discussion shouldn't have as much promininence as before the legislation. So, not surprised if not much more effort goes into the review the Assessors office was making and so they are not going to continue to charge forward.

Sparer asks assessors office, if had any thought on how to deal with the reporting for this year since the deadline has passed, but reports already due. Kurth says that they haven't decided anything, but thinks they would require the reporting requirements to start in 2010. New exemptions for 2009 would be logical to get the reporting requirements for them. There is alot of paperwork to process and that its alot of work on the retirement side because of the formula, and they have to wait for Dept of Revenue to get them information. They aren't certain yet. Kurth is confirming with the boss as he's shooting from the hip.

Sparer asks about multi-income projects, any sense of what % of units will fall into that? Sparer says he assumes it will be a wild guess. Wilcox says its kinda standard that 20% are market rate and would be taxed. Assessor has no clue. Wilcox explains how it works, MDC and Commonwealth might be affected. [Mario seemed to think all the Third Sector folks were ok, but we're finding out that isn't true.]

Schumacher tries to figure out how this works if there are multiple buildings with multiple incomes. Everyone is guessing how that's going to work. It's clearly complicated on how to value them. Kurth says they will use income method to assess the values of the market rate units. Kurth explains that a percentage of the expenses will be used based on a market rate complex (not low income).

Hanson says that very close to getting values determined for those still exempt and that they are on hold until the legislation is signed. Kurth says once the law is passed the non-preofits should get some letters clarifying their status. Some denials will be recinded, some will get letters explaining what happened, non-residential properties will move forward.

Schumacher, asks if there is any benefit to sharing the data that they collected, since it is collected after alot of effort. Kurth says that he has learned alot about the programs. But the data isn't likely to be useful. Schumacher digs deeper, asking if the info isn't useful to the city, but could it be useful to the non-profits. Kurth says the data is there, won't be shredded, so if someone wants it, it should be there.

Schumacher talks about getting wife a shredder for paper with sensitive information and calls it a Cheney moment - Kurth says that he has those when he goes hunting, his brother walks behind him. [Wacky moment.]

They thank Mario and he leaves.

Bill Clingan called up to talk about Plan B. Wilcox says we still need a plan B. Rosenberg says its still and issue and we have to deal with 2008 cases, so Clingan goes back up to the table.

Clingan says that he can give them the "terrain". Not sure if he will report to the council on the 16th or if its necessary. Says its not useful to throw out explosive hypotheticals if we aren't going to go there. Some debate about if it might make us look good to show how bad it could have been. Clingan says the scope of the problem [He sort of randomly lists off some items]:

- 1700 affordable housing units
- Low income providers need to raise more money to pay the taxes
- Rent caps?
- Raise rents?
- Downsides of increased expenses for taxes are that they have to cut costs including services, maintenance, etc, hard to estimate that cost
- Potential that they might not pay taxes, run afoul of lenders and what would city do?
- What if the non-profits get out of the market?
- Biggest costs, what happens to people who would not be sheltered, shelter system, police calls, etc
- Sub-population for high risk people who likely can't be housed in other kinds of ways
- What do we do with HOME funds and properties ($26M of funds) Says they talked with HUD and who knows what they would do officially, but he was hoping that they would relax how they look at those things, but they would expect that to be paid back out of tax levy. [i.e. if this didn't get resolved and non-profits couldn't pay, the City would have to pay back $26M to the feds.]

Schumacher clarifies this is all hypothetical, but what would be the financial impact. Bill says that there were several numbers, an appeal process and it can drag out. So, they were not sure. They said that we would have to pay the money back. But everyone acknowledges

Solutions:

Operating costs. Doable but not easy.
Issue with if you put money in operating costs, you have less funds for housing units being produced. How to calculate the operating costs would be an issue, per provider? per unit? Go forward or backward when calculate. What if the amount we have on operating costs don't cover the tax. And then brings up the legal boogie man and the connection between the operating costs and the taxes.

Schumacher asks if we are talking all the taxes, or just the city portion. Clingan added the county as a potential funding stream. Says he doubts that MATC and Schools could contribute. Clingan says that if can't get hte money out of the entitites then maybe we have a pure policy position but the non-profit still has the problem and therefore so does the city.

Talks about legal issues again.

Talks about rent assistance program. He says procedurally doable. Not helpful to some of the providers because there is a rent cap and can't get money to them. Talks about legal issues again. How do you calculate it? He talks about a potential formula. He talks about mechanics, would CDA be in charge of this, what staff costs and administrative costs would there be? Wilcox says there is admin money with HOME

CDA role? initial indication from Olinger and Shimanski was there not keen interest in this [go figure], would CDA be in position, have capacity, have the money to take over properties? Or, could properties be turned over to CDA and then turned back for property management to the affordable housing provider?

Funding Sources:

HOME funds - says we get $1.6 - 1.9M per year in allocations.

Affordable Houinsg trust fund - need language change. Has $4M. If use it for this purpose can't do it without changes for how money is spent.

City Levy - Council and Mayor makes those decisions.

County - School District and MATC but not sure how that might happen.

That's the framework he is working in. He will have to take his cues from folks on how much further to push this. He says that Mario seems to think its a done deal, but not signed yet.

Schumacher says we need to be prudent and cautious and not raise expectations so that this doesn't become expected that the non-profits will get operating money. Schumacher asks if there is something that he has learned that may help us in the future?

Clingan says not around tax policy. What he says he has known but more convinced that city has a very key role in affordable housing, but much of the heavy lifting is done outwide these walls by housing providers and that we are attached at the hip. What we do affects them. And then, he says that bottom line is that low income individuals and families and we have to look at how they get housing in the community. If we don't keep the alignment with service providers, housing people and the city - these folks need the partnership to be strong and vital and the risk of this drove that home.

Wilcox says that Clingan still needs to look into Tim's analysis of the market rate rents. What resources will be there for those who are left out? Also wants to look at agencies that lease to non-profits.

Rosenberg says we aren't looking at Plan B, but remaining issues. 30 acre units, common control piece, who's at risk and what are the alternatives? 2008 property taxes? That doesn't reflect public policy at this point. The market rate issue. MDC can't raise the market rate units $150 and where will that be made up. The people affected will be 61 - 80% income.

Schumacher asks Bill to research this. If law is passed and has market rates and under 60% and if we give them quid pro quo money are we out of the legal issue. Can give money to people who are tax exempt. Funding is for tax exempt units, not the exempt ones.

Rosenberg says the last item is the annual application for all these properties and have to make sure it isn't too onerous and could be intrusive into indivisuals. Needs to reasonable meet the needs of the assessors office but not intrusive. Wilcox suggests using existing reporting for HOME dollars. It would be ideal to turn in reports they are already doing.

Sparer asks if anything else? Now labeling it Plan C.

Moved to adjourn. Rosenberg says wait, next meeting in July? If things look like they are going badly, they should meet sooner. Schumacher says housing diversity committee won't meet til end of August. (So much for the July 1 report and making this a priority!) This kind of work ought to also be information for that committee, so they don't have to start from scratch. They talk about joint meetings.

Now, they are adjourned.

[Sorry, only took about 15 minutes to clean up my typing, many typos likely in here!!]



Read more!

Property Tax Exemption Fix?

Well, kinda, mostly.

Yesterday afternoon, news spread throughout the community that the State was going to fix the property tax exemption in the omnibus bill, the Mayor congratulated himself and others before it even passed Joint Finance, let alone the legislature, and last night the omnibus package passed. Since its been less than 2 hours since it passed, I don't have a detailed analysis of what it means, but as of yesterday afternoon, an analysis, by those smarter and paying closer attention than me, resulted in these comments:

A. The motion is okay for low-income housing, but not as good as hoped. For low-income, it's basically the vetoed language except for #1 below and rent can be used for any purpose.

1. The acreage limitation is increased from 10 to 30 acres, but extended to all low-income property under common control. This was the basic issue in the Future Madison case. This seems to change the law to side with the city's position and to reverse the court decision in the Attic Angel's Prairie Point case. So, if a corporation has several subsidiaries under common control, together they could own up to 30 acres instead of each one being able to own 30 acres. This won't affect most nonprofits, except to the extent some organizations choose to consolidate as MDC and MMHA did. Two separate organizations could own 60 acres, while one consolidated one could only own 30 acres.

2. Market rate units in a mixed income housing project will be fully taxed, instead of exempt as they have been in the past. This does not apply to WHEDA financed housing that exists today if owned by a nonprofit. It is unclear what will happen if the project is owned by an LLC that is wholly owned by a nonprofit.

3. To be exempt, single family houses and condominiums must be occupied by households at or below 60% county median income, instead of the 80% generally applicable in the past.

4. If several condominium units are owned by a nonprofit in a larger condominium project, apparently the units won't be considered together as a single project. So, none could be occupied by households above 60%. If a project consists of 2 buildings on separate parcels, generally they will apparently be considered as 2 separate projects instead of as one.

5. Annual reports must be filed with the assessor stating how many units in a project are low-income & providing other information. There's a fine if the report is not filed.

B. Property that is not residential is not addressed (Social Justice Center), nor is housing authority owned rental property.

C. The jackpot (as compared to the vetoed language) goes to elderly housing that is not low-income.

a. 30 acres exempt, but no expansion to property under common control.

b. If licensed, certified, or registered as a care and service residential facility, housing for people with SSI disability or hospice, then rent can be used for any purpose.. My understanding is that this covers most of the projects for the wealthy.

c. No requirement for annual reporting.

d. If the unit is of a very high value, then taxed. (Simplified, units in excess of 160% of the average value of residential property in the county.) The formula is long, but appears to allow exemption for most units. If 50% of the units are exempt, then all common space is exempt. If less than 50% of the units are exempt, then a percentage of the common space taxed.

D. Retroactively effective for low-income to 1/1/09. For elderly, effective 1/1/10.

It doesn't appear that this was discussed at all. So I think the above analysis stands, tho it was done on the fly. I guess the question now is, who will the City tax? And what do we do so that they don't take more cases to court to further whittle away at these protections? Read more!

Propert Tax Exemption Meeting Friday

So, the awaited report from staff will be discussed . . . you know, the one where the City says they can't do anything, its the state's problem.

The meeting is Friday:

Friday, May 29, 2009
12:00 PM PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE ROOM LL-110 MMB

This wasn't out on Monday with the rest of the weekly schedule.

There's no attachments but they were supposed to have another meeting when Bill Clingan had made progress with his report on what the city's "Plan B" options were if the state didn't fix this.

Should be an enlightening meeting. Will the City step up to solve this problem? Or get dragged along kicking and screaming?
Read more!

Board of Estimates - Council preview of a few issues

Often, what happens at Board of Estimates is considered to be a preview of what will happen at the Common Council . . . if the Mayor's appointments represent a cross section of the council (plastic bag ban, TIF agreement on Capital West, stimulus money, personnel issues and paid sick leave for city staff).

START
The meeting started with only 4 members there (Bruer, Sanborn, Clear and Clausius). The agenda can be found here.

Stimulus money item was skipped for later.

PERSONNEL ITEMS
They quickly dispensed of items 2 - 19 which were all personnel items. Some of the items I pointed out were
- Mini reorganization in Community Development Block Grant office - here and here.
- Police are getting a new LTE position
- Human Resources folks seem to be getting raises - here, here, here and here.
- Finally, after 3 years, sick leave for hourly employees!! We put it in the budget 3 years in a row and they finally are going to have the ability to spend the money!

Thanks to Clear for asking what's going on with all the personnel changes. The answer, of course, is "nothing to see here". Except, the impact of all these incremental changes come at budget time, when the council has no ability to do anything. Clear asked the right questions, but I think the answer was tantamount to "none of your business". This is a tough area, as personnel drives so much of the budget, there is no alder on the Personnel committee and the Board of Estimates is mostly told to stay out of it. So, who's looking at the bigger picture and strategy when it comes to personnel costs throughout the city? I think that this is the biggest investment we make, and most of the time the city gets it right, but there are certain things happening that don't seem quite fair.

Also in these items was the paid sick leave. They explained that is it was already being implemented for the unions and the ordinance makes it applicable to non-represented employees. The Mayor bristled at the fact that the Council put the money in the budget instead of it being bargained and the comptroller said it was now going to cost $75,000 - 150,000, which is WAY OFF of the projections they previously made ($60,000). The mayor says that the paid sick leave has already been implemented this year. It's about time after us budgeting it in 2007 (not implemented), 2008 (not implemented) and again in 2009.

All the items passed unanimously on a voice vote.

POLICE OVERTIME
Assistant Chief Davenport said that the fact that it went down was a result of the new police officers. He said that briefing overtime was up, but the demand-driven overtime was better - however, Terri Genin pointed out that there wasn't the extraordinary event overtime as there as been in the past, which seems to be the biggest chunk of savings.

The Mayor seems a little sassy, giving Bidar-Sielaff grief for sitting in Alder Verveers seat "self appointing" herself to the Board of Estimates.

Report passes unanimously on a voice vote.

PLASTIC BAG ORDINANCE
George Dreckman explains this is the only ordinance of the kind in the country. He says that other cities either ban the use (usually restricted to larger stores or those with a certain number of chains), charge a fee or tax the bags (Irish model, but we can't do it), require retailers to take take the bags back (not clear if they actually get recycled) or require biodegradable bags (cost is the biggest issue there). The Mayor asked about if we could ban the use of them, and I don't think he got the answer he thought he would, George says that we do have the legal authority to do it according to at least on assistant city attorney (who no longer works for the city). There also is the issue of how the bags would be picked up - including perhaps another separate container to put the bags in - which is dicey so for now, it sounds like they would have drop off sites. The ordinance they are passing is just the ban and they will figure out how to implement it, and pay for it, later. In the future, we could pay for for recycling in our normal recycling containers when our contract comes up with the people who do the recycling for us - but that will have to wait 2.5 years until the contract is renewed. Alder Compton says she'd like to have curb side pick up a few times a year. George makes clear you can still use plastic bags to pick up after your dog or line your trash can. They want to encourage reuse of the bags. The Mayor makes it clear that the violation for throwing away a bag is the same as throwing away a pop can - which you can be fined for. But, they basically said that no one will really ever get fined. They continued to talk about the issue for nearly an hour. Sanborn spoke most vehemently against the ordinance, and I think the only one to vote against it.

REDOING MDC LOAN FOR THE AVENUE
One quick question - passes unanimously.

STIMULUS MONEY
Bill Clingan explains that we are getting $534,096 in CDBG funds. He says the funds which are usually for suitable living environments, affordable housing and economic opportunities are required to be spent on infrastructure which means rehabilitation, retro-fitting, energy efficiency and conservation activities. He explains that there is a tight time line and that they need to get the information to HUD by June 5th. He says Council would approve general spending categories for not and specific awards of the money would come back to the council later. Bill says 15% can be spent on service and he says that he is looking at foreclosure prevention services (hire an lte to answer questions) and he also said that he might want to have a job development job search with people who are pending homelessness. The rest would perhaps be spent on economic development around energy issues or home rehab.

Bill also talked about the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. He says there is a round 2 of the funding available ($2B nationally) and they have to apply for at least $5M. He says that there will be a need analysis.

The only other update was from Metro on cost of hybrid buses and they are more expensive than anticipated, so there will only be 15 buses instead of 18.

CAPITAL REVOLVING LOAN FUND
There were some questions about the Capital Revolving Loan fund for the Wingra project. Jed Sanborn votes against and speaks against us using the money in these ways.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTERN
Alder Rhodes-Conway asks why we aren't getting an intern for free. He says that its true that it probably won't cost $9,000. Mayor asks him to explain what the intern will work on. Cooley says working on some projects and research they haven't had time for, looking into commercial real estate database software, and some software for entrepreneurs. He also explains that the $9,000 that should have gone for software isn't enough and not a high priority right now.

I believe it passed unanimously on a voice vote.

PLANNING FOR UNIVERISTY AVENUE
There was some questions and it was approved.

CAPITAL WEST TIF AGREEMENT
Cliff Fisher speaks about how he believes that the City shouldn't have given TIF money to Alexanders because they undercut his condos at Metropolitan Place. He says that the assessment of his project was impacted by $8M as a result of Alexander underselling him. Cliff talks about how he's been on Sly and Mitch Henck and other shows. Cliff publicly asks Alexander to come on Mitch's show to debate - Cliff gets directed to talk to the Board of Estimates problem - Cliff says that the Alexanders won't come on the show and debate them.

Clear asks Cliff about what would happen if Alexanders are required sell the units by the current deadline, won't the units get sold at rock bottom prices and won't that negatively impact him. Cliff doesn't understand the question whatsoever.

Schumacher asks the Alexander folks a few questions and the Mayor says that Cliff's comments seemed irrelevant given they were about the original granting of the TIF, not the current deal.

Sanborn points out the hypocrisy of the compromise, given the principles that people were so adamant about the last time they talked about this.

Clear says that the agreement should be followed and that it shouldn't be renegotiated at this time and that the City should stick to its agreement.

Clausius seems like extending this agreement won't do much, he also says its unfair to other developers.

Verveer and Bruer defend the new agreement. There are more questions of staff. Staff say that this agreement is sound and that they did review the financial info and it did not seem unusual. In fact, they seem to be saying that the new agreement to extend the time is a sound decision given the legal issues and the cost to the city and the market in pursuing a breach of the agreement.

They spent nearly an hour discussing this issue. Which is amazing in that this was a compromise between Bruer and Verveer. It passes, it was a 3-3 tie, with the mayor breaking the tie.

WALGREENS
No discussion - they approve Walgreens getting their money and then go into closed session to talk about several tax cases. I wonder what they learned?

p.s. It looks like alders Schumacher, Rummel, Bidar-Sielaff and Compton attended portions of the meeting and were staying for the closed session, but it was hard to tell from tv. Read more!