Here’s the motions as best as I could understand them without having all the handouts. Enjoy!
A. ROLL CALL
The meeting started off with 8 people missing but several arrived quickly. Stubbs missed a bit of the beginning of the meeting, she was still sick. Martz and Wiggie were the two absent for the whole meeting. Wiggie had a family emergency, Martz . . . I didn’t hear a very good excuse for missing the budget.
1. Prayer/Inspirational Message – Supervisor DeSmidt (Supervisor Downing next)
– None
2. Pledge of Allegiance – Supervisor DeSmidt
B. OPERATING BUDGET RESOLUTION
1. Res. 145, 2009-2010 – 2010 Dane County Operating Budget Appropriations Resolution (Adopt Sub. 1)
They go through the budget section by section, taking amendments from the floor in the order in the budget.
Willet makes a motion to require pay reductions for non-represented employees. He says that its not fair for people to have increases when others are taking pay reductions. [I didn’t have a copy of this one. And there was a little confusion getting started.]
McDonell explains the process is that they have a list of departments, go through in order, in operating and then capital budget. Make amendments at that point in the process. Follows the budget book. If amendment that spans several areas pick the area it makes the most sense, if not sure, let us know. Not going back once you pass it.
McDonell asks Willett if he made a motion, he says yes, Schlicht seconds.
Willet says that his amendment freezes pay for all non-union staff. Supervisors got raises while they got cuts.
McDonell asks if there is no fiscal impact? Willet says there is $1.6M savings per year.
Hulsey asks controller a question. He says he is concerned that this is a 2 year amendment but they only vote on a one year budget. The controller says he just got it now. Hulsey asks him if $1.6M is for all county employees, not just the unrepresented employees. Controller says its not $1.6M, he explains that with the agreements with AFSME the get their get steps and longevity and merit increases. [Ok, now I’m feeling ripped off. Where is the POS/non-profit longevity increases and step/merit increases – I thought we all shared the pain equally? This is going to be a theme in my purple comments, get used to it.].
Hulsey says this can’t be 2 years, $1.6M is in error and this was bargained already. Urge to reject, wishes Willett had made a case a Personnel and Finance.
Willet says there must have been a mistake in communication on the $1.6M number – would accept 1 year change.
Hendrick says non-represented employees will get same 3% cut according to letter from Falk, this is not necessary.
ROLL CALL:
AYE: Ferrell, Gau, Jensen, O’Loughlin, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Willet, Bruskewitz
NO: deSmidt, Downing, Durancyzk, Erikson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Ripp, Rusk, Schmidt, Stoebig, Vedder, Veldran, Wheeler, Bayrd, deFelice, McDonell
ABSENT: Martz, Stubbs, Wiggie
FAILS 9 – 25 – 3
Gau – He makes a motion similar to P &F #5, he calls this motion Sub 1 – this is the motion that O’Loughlin made to cut certain positions, only this is different. Motion is $1,291,575 cut due to keeping several vacant FTE and part-time positions vacant. There would be a freeze for 2010 until personnel and finance approves filling the positions. $645,000 of the savings would go to the 2010 sheriff’s department salary line, $646,575 reduction in tax levy. Gau says that Personnel and Finance wasn’t allowed to look at these positions, so he is bringing it up on the floor. Willett seconds.
Miles asks how is this different than the hiring moratorium? Myren “aka Travis” says that the freeze assumes 16 weeks of vacancy, this removes funding for entire year. Also says he’s not sure the costs have been netted out, so total salary savings would have to be made up with additional vacancies. Miles says that is not what the amendment says. They clarify.
Hulsey asks Myren if this is double counting, already taking the savings. Myren says that these vacancies would count towards target of $1.4M in personnel savings.
Hulsey asks if they will have to layoff people or raise levy to meet the salary savings? Myren says there would have to be additional vacancies, and hold the positions open longer, will include positions beyond what is on this sheet, including potentially sheriff’s positions.
Hulsey says they looked at it two different nights at Personnel and Finance, there is a lot of double counting, wished Gau had joined them and been educated on his motion. Can’t count the positions twice without layoffs or cutting employees.
Rusk points out the child support investigators are positions funded by federal reimbursements, they have worked hard to keep the department intact, they will bring in less money. Also Juv Court area, not in compliance with state regulations if they vote to keep the positions open, urge vote no.
Gau says that he appreciates explanation – hard to understand that the amount frozen for a year will require further reductions in salary – some have been held since 2004, and we sit here holding positions open and then find money later to fill the positions, this has been going on for years. This is the wrong way to do it.
Bayrd asks Gau to explain, status section – what does FMLA mean? Would this require people on family medical leave to stay on leave and they won’t be able to come back? They clarify those wouldn’t be counted.
O’Loughlin thanks Gau, says the motion had no life at Personnel and Finance or here, but it gives him an opportunity to see that we are going to double the tax rate, have everyone take a pay cut, and we really haven’t solved the problem, this was an opportunity to at least look at the budget at a macro level – deputies and human service people are being cut. Support the amendment.
Solberg asks about the child support investigator positions federally funded? They confirm that is true. Solberg makes an amendment to remove the federally funded positions. Second by Hendrick.
McDonell asks how that will affect the funding, [It gets all confusing again.] asks if it is just 2 child support positions or if there are more. They say there is a clerk typist in t in corporation council. Gau says that on the back page also something from public works. 60% state funded position. Back and forth between Gau and McDonell trying to figure this out. McDonell asks to separate the vote on the positions and how you fund it. Allocation will be done. Solberg amendment is friendly says Gau.
Expenditures will be increased by $1M approximately. McDonell asks the controller to come up with a number. Ferrell says savings would be $108,525 and balance will come from federal or state funding. [More confusion about the numbers, some embarrassing moments supervisors try to do math in public.] McDonell says that this is why they normally do things in finance.
Hulsey asks about how this impacts the bargaining units? Myren says that in negotiations the issue of vacancies has come up and it was a point of discussion and negotiation – holding vacancies open longer has the same affect as layoffs according to the unions. That was addressed at bargaining table – 16 weeks is reluctantly acceptable to the unions.
Hulsey asks how it impacts already settled bargaining units. Myren says there is a “Me too” clause in the rest of the bargaining units, to the extent they are not doing a 3% reduction, would be required to alleviate that amount to the other units.
Hulsey asks if we pass this with $645,000 to the sheriff, how much would that cost us elsewhere? Myren says that is roughly half of the savings, so we would have to come up with an additional $2M? Controller has updated number, $108,525 is the change – so without those positions cut it is $1,182,990 total savings.
Hulsey says appreciates the efforts, they did work on it for about an hour, will make them raise taxes 1.8% and result in existing layoffs and cuts and loss of child support services and other items, vote against.
Vedder asks what the reason was for half going to sheriff instead of POS agencies.
Gau doesn’t have to answer but he rises for the 3rd time says he’s not going to answer, but then says it’s a good reason, public safety is number one issue, other people might not believe that is the issue but that is his.
Ferrell asks Myren about the “me too” clause, what will happen if deputies do not accept 3% cut, what will we do in response to it? Myren says they are hoping voluntary compliance but continuing to negotiate.
Ferrell asks if doesn’t happen is it that they are responsible for meeting the savings target or they will have layoffs? Myren says if deputies don’t agree, they will have layoffs.
Ferrell asks if overtime would cover the shifts? Myren says they would work with sheriff’s office, in order to avoid overtime would target non-replaceable shifts.
Ferrell asks what if exceed overtime for the year? Myren says we are obligated to pay regardless.
Ferrell asks where does money come from? Myren says the general fund.
Ferrell asks if amendment passes and this goes to sheriff’s salary could it be used for overtime as opposed to keeping employees hired? Myren says the amendment doesn’t allocate it to overtime. It would have to be specific line item.
Hendrick says that he has some of sentiment that Gau addresses, doesn’t think any county employee should have to take a 3% cut, after AFSME settled he volunteered to take a 3% cut as well. Not good idea, in terms of layoffs, never supported it and shouldn’t lay off employees in any department including sheriff. Layoff’s would not result in overtime, if no options they would have to do it without increasing overtime. He says this amendment is a mess he does not want to get into, does not support. If the amendment would fix problems he’d vote for it, but this amendment is already counted savings, not real number, can’t eliminate corporation council position and in the end this is not something that was presented to Personnel and Finance to get the right number. This is an unknown amount of money cuz not worked out at Personnel and Finance. Motion was to eliminate 10 positions, 43 check marked positions here and he doesn’t understand what they are eliminating – if eliminate 8 positions, 35 left. Confusion.
O’Loughlin, ask sheriff, how do we avoid layoffs? How would this affect the department, if there are layoffs and we don’t pass this? Sheriff says that any layoffs of sworn staff will result in reassessment of services. He says his budget has no reduction of staff plus didn’t ask for additional positions – agreed to make due. Already has 29 vacant positions, they are authorized but 9 are overseas, others are on extended leave, family medical leave and workers comp. and extended leave. However, they ahve 11 authorized pre-hire positions. Takes 9 months to be available training to get into position. Of the 29, he’s paying overtime for 18 positions, everyday.
O’Loughlin, asks where the morale of the department is at right now.[Funny, no one asked where morale was at for POS/non-profit agencies.] Sheriff says morale is low, lots of stress, particularly among younger deputies. He says he vowed to increase diversity and he did but those are the people worried about their jobs. Says it is all dependent upon negotiations between DOA and bargaining units and if they have 18+ layoffs there will be time and a half. Then they will decide what they cut back on in terms of services.
Willett says that he was second to Gau amendment, and he says the amendment is friendly. He says he is wondering if maker would consider moving $648,000 to sheriff overtime. McDonell says it is out of order since it was separated – they are only on the revenue part. Willett urges them to vote to delete positions, then decide what to do with it.
Bruskewitz, people in audience can’t see the check marks, but there are only 21, not 43. Has questions for Myren. Says you can only get to 43 if count each one twice. [? 21 x 2 = 42?] She’s from private sector, there they run different scenarios, what would happen at Badger Prairie? Will they cut workers, work overtime? Morale is down at Badger Prairie, are there any projections forward in sheriff’s department if layoffs. Myron says he has not run numbers yet, working hard to achieve voluntary agreement with the unit – if it breaks down, will do it. At Badger Prairie, AFSCME and nurses have tentative agreements, AFSCME has ratified their agreement.
Ferrell asks Myren about difference between what Myren said and what the sheriff said regarding overtime. Myren says they would work it out, if position eliminations, office would evaluate service hours.
Ferrell asks sheriff to give same answer, what is the procedure if layoffs? Sheriff says if negotiations break down, it will be a reverse layoff. Last hired, first fired. Explains there are 5 AFSCME units as well as sheriff’s WPPA unit. Least senior goes first.
Ferrell asks if the board will have to vote on layoffs. McDonell asks Myren to answer how that happens. He says WPPA layoffs by reverse seniority by classification – 3 or 4 classifications in the sheriff’s office.
Ferrell asks would it be approved by PP&J (Public Protection and Judiciary)? Myren says he would work with the sheriff under constitutional authority – if no agreement, what happens? Board has no vote. Executive budget authority would decide.
McDonell asks about affect of amendment only giving money to deputies. Myren says that it violates the “me too” clause so all other units would be entitled to renegotiate, likely faced with coming up with money to give them the same amount.
Hulsey asks the sheriff about the discussion of adding deputies to address overtime for the last few years, how many added positions in last 10 years? Sheriff can’t answer, he says since 2007 they have increased 7 positions. He says he is intimately knowledgeable with negotiations to add 22 positions cuz of overtime, and the impact it had on quality of life of employees. When negotiations take place with WPPA and supervisors and Myren, if no agreement, it will come down to negotiations with the bargaining units about who gets laid off. Then he has to decide what services won’t get done.
Hulsey asks about the average daily population in jail? 800 per day, 130 out on electronic monitoring. Have room for 40 from state which raises $600,000 in revenue. Sheriff says most they have had in one night is under 12, that is the max to this point.
Hulsey says that revenue isn’t here.
Gau says 21 positions are checked, 4 were removed [more embarrassing math] so 17 positions cut. More questions about the money saved and questions for staff.
ROLL CALL
AYE: Ferrell, Gau, Jensen, O’Loughlin, Ripp, Salov, Bruskewitz, Schlicht, Solberg, Willett
NO: DeSmidt, Downing, Durancyzk, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk
ABSENT: Martz, Stubbs, Wiggie
FAILS 10 – 24 – 3
Gau tries again with sub 2. He’s rules out of order since they already considered it. O’Lauglin [;)] quips that there are still 101 positions to choose from. Gau continues to argue that it is different. FAIL
Willett has amendment to reduce county supervisor pay by 20%. He says there is a lot of talk about cutting everyone else’s pay. Says supervisors should lead by example, talks about rising budget, loss of AAA bond rating, cuts in pay. Schlicht seconds. Willett says this shows they are serious about cut in pay.
Hendrick asks Myren if this includes the 3% cut for supervisors, is this GPR effect correct, is this 17%? Yes, 17% cut.
Hendrick says that there are 2 problems, this is voluntary and its not responsible cuz some refused to take pay cut, one in room, one not here, this amendment is not accurate if voluntary reduction. If change it to mandatory, not legal, state constitution won’t allow it. Can live with the argument, but revenue saved not accurate.
O’Loughlin appreciates the intent, county board chair worst hit of all, vote against it, we are taking a cut, like everyone else, leave it at that.
Willett asks if all have signed on to the voluntary 3%, have all signed on? Deadline is mid-December. He asks what is the difference between 3% or 20%? McDonell says that is a legitimate political question, but asks him not to use staff to make his point.
Schlicht says he didn’t take the cut, gave twice that to some fund at Crystal Lake. He supports this whole heartedly.
Hulsey points out they can voluntarily take a cut at any time. Hulsey asks about language in the amendment that says borrowing went from $68M to $241M, says a lot of it is court house. McDonell [cracks the whip once more] admonishs him not to address the supervisors. Hulsey points out the hand out from deputies, 2nd page, I didn’t understand his point, but then I didn’t have the handout. Can do 20% voluntarily but not legal.
Gau asks about if not legal in this process, have to do before Dec 1, why is this different than the ordinance setting their salary.
McDonell says it includes through April – can do it April and forward. Gau asks if this needs to be in Nov packet and then can debate it? Yes. [Supervisors (and Alders) can’t vote on their own salary, they can vote on the salaries of the next body, its a state law.[
Bruskewitz says court house was $44M, so not most of the $241M in debt.
ROLL CALL
AYE: Ferrell, Gau, Jensen, Schlicht, Willet, Bayrd, Bruskewitz
NO: DeSmidt, Downing, Durancyzk, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, O’Loughlin, Opitz, Richmond, Ripp, Rusk, Salov, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Vedder, Veldran, Wheeler, deFelice, McDonell
ABSENT: Martz, Stubbs, Wiggie
FAILS 7 – 27 – 3
Gau has P&F 17 amendment. Wants to remove $20K for Commonwealth Development. Says this was not previously in the budget, new amendment, please explain what it is for. Not at the meeting at that time it was discussed.
Hendrick says it is a youth employment initiative for at-risk youth to get employment skills, expanding the program to western half of county. Says it is crime prevention and a youth employment initiative, years later people are still employed.
Gau asks if new initiative? Hendrick explains it is an expansion to west side, but not new. Gau moves to reduce budget by $20,000 for commonwealth. Ripp seconds.
Hulsey says that this helps public safely, especially on the Southwest side of Madison and Meadowood. They give at-risk kids a job, number on way to keep them out of trouble, was up for $40,000 last year and he voted against it because it needed measurable outcomes, now have 5 year follow up and it shows the skills they gained propelled them into the job market – if this keep 5 kids out of trouble instead of spending a week in jail, it will be worth it.
Levin says that this is a preventative program and they were told at Health and Human Needs 95% graduation rate, better than grad rates as a whole.
Veldran, says this is one of things he focued on for that year, [Hulsey is taking pictures, for campaign lit Veldran?] This is worthwhile – missed a bunch – these are kids on the edge, appreciate the motion, can’t support it, can reduce issues with juveniles in the area.
deFelice says that not too long ago 500 people came out on the west side concerned about crime, here is a program that demonstrates its utility, put kids in jobs, off street, stops crimes and he wants to keep citizens keep safe. This is a program that has a wrong name, maybe it should be the anti-jail program, keeps kids working, gives them a future, makes them role models and this is a small investment.
Bruskewitz says she’s on Health and Human Needs. She did research about this, if you can get a kid into a job and learn job skills, won’t end up in jail, great program, but 3 or 4 purchase of service agencies that do the same work, Commonwealth cost $3000 per kid, they do some additional time and training, but all of the agencies that do the work, can do it for $1K per kid. Need to look at this, where is best bang for the buck? Can’t figure out why this agency singled out for the increase, won’t vote to take it out, but next year, when vote on programs, we need measurable outcomes. This is 3 times as much for this program when other programs working as well or better. This is the kind of issue we need to look at, we are spending other people’s money, need to be more responsible.
O’Loughlin asks Foster how much they get now. $78,500 for 2010 to $98,500 additional after tonight. O’Loughlin says that all the POS agencies got a cut, voted for it at Personnel and Finance. Asks if it is fair this one group gets a boost. O’Louglin asks if Foster has heard from other POS agencies, Foster says no. [Konkel says he’d have to return phone calls to actually hear what POS agencies think.]
Gau heard that it is a good program, also don’t know a lot of POS that tried to get more money, one picked out to get more funds, not right, look through list and see people who made reductions. This increase should not be there this time, bringing issues up, will be here a long time, don’t like to see this come to the county board when this kind of budget, this is pork for certain members.
Levin says that he is opposed, this is an affective program, supported and introduced in Health and Human Needs by him, this is preventative and will save money.
Hulsey, points out that this was paid for by other amendments.
Bruskewitz says she sees people from POS agencies and heard lots of testimony from mental health, MUM, DD coalition and it doesn’t seem fair that one POS agency gets a boost and the rest don’t. This is some kind of friendly stuff going on. McDonell says FSAT got money back. [They still got the 3% cut like everyone else, they just had a MUCH bigger cut.] Why is getting picked out – needs to do better job looking at how much paying.
ROLL CALL
AYE: Gau, O’Loughlin, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Wheeler, Willett, Bruskewitz
NO: DeSmidt, Downing, Durancyzk, Erickson, Ferrell, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Jensen, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk, Schlicht, Solberg, Stoebig, Vedder, Veldran, Bayrd, deFelice, McDonell.
ABSENT: Martz, Stubbs, Wiggie
FAILS8 – 26 – 3
deFelice has a Human Services amendment on suicide prevention
Says the problem of suicide is more prevalent than traffic fatalities and we spend millions on traffic safety, this was a $10K, got reduced by 3%, this amendment has Safe Communities coalition administer this money, they do the daily work, talk to people, go to schools, educate nurses and college counselors, money is best spent at most grass roots level, which is the HOPES program. Seconded by Hendrick.
PASSES unanimously on a voice vote.
Gau, has an amendment to P&F 20, the decrease in 15K for THRIVE he moves to remove the remaining $5K. Ferrell seconds. Matano tries to second. Gau says he is on the economic development commission, he is supportive of THRIVE, but they only made a three year commitment. He says the county board’s word means something, except in labor negotiations.
O”Laughlin says THRIVE is made up of 8 counties with Dane County in the middle, they have the charge of developing community with economic development, growth and opportunities, we are the biggest county in THRIVE. If look at entire budget, this is infinitesimally small. We have UW Research Park and this cooperatively workes with those partners. Says he got calls, hopes they can give more than 5K in future years. To eliminate commitment doesn’t reflect well on county as whole or us as a board at looking at the future on economic development.
Levin supports O’Loughlin, THRIVE is Dane County with 7 contiguous counties, public and private work together, besides economic development they work on health care costs, stream line and match benefits and incentives.
Miles says that also in opposition – originally supported but to put money to reserves, need to do something but his understanding is that other counties have cut their funding as well. Unfortunate sign of economic times and tough choices, also cut other economic development related program, the BUILD program that has economic benefits for little investment and that is totally gone, for $15K reflects that same sentiment, especially since it results in savings.
FAILS on voice vote.
Richmond amendment on the vehicle registration fee went to several committees, adds $4.5M in revenue to the budget through the $15 fee on 360,000 vehicles, 3 other pages to the amendment detail that it will be spend on restoring cuts to Human Services, less furlough days for employees and putting money in the general fund/reserve. Vedder seconds.
Richmond says that the human services POS agency cut of $1.8M, that’s really, really important to erase at a time like this.
Willett wants this amendment to be treated the same as his. McDonell says he needs to ask for separation. Willett does. So they are talking about 1/4 of this amendment only.
Richmond speaks to his amendment and says they are taking money out of highways budget, cuz we need to but also not raising property tax, transportation tax on transportation. There is a 2 year sunset, $15 per vehicle, just like state. 360,000 vehicles, it costs half a tank of gas or 4 cups of coffee, it is a tool at our disposal and hopes we use it. He went to 2 neighborhood meetings, constituents talked to him about the fee and where the money would go – reserve fund, human services, especially needed this year, and treating employees in difficult manner. Shifting the revenue and putting it elsewhere makes sense. Some have questioned doing this on a temporary basis, he could do it on a permanent basis and not go to property tax for highways, he says we should charge people who use the roads for the roads.
Matano speaks in favor, this budget has most difficult he has seen in 10 years on board, now more than ever need revenue for items on page 2, 3 & 4 which they are not allowed to talk about. Also on the procedural ruling to divide, reason to keep this unified, straightforward page one, fee to raise money where in previous instance page one was complicated with many positions which were already covered by hiring freeze, previous ruling in order, but this is different.
Vedder says that would like to make changes to page 2 – not 1%, 2.83% increase. McDonell says can make the change later. Vedder says that page 1 main reason to support is page 2, well crafted amendment, targets three areas of spending where people are on the brink, on the edge, and need to be addressed in next year’s budget. Human Services, reserve and employees are important.
Stoebig, appreciates the attempt by Richmond to find a revenue source outside of property taxes for crying needs, wasn’t here when last debated this, as he recalls strong argument against was regressiveness of wheel tax. He has households that have 1200 sq ft with 2 vehicles, low paying jobs to make mortgage payment, even at $15 that is $30 for that household compared to others who might not have a vehicle not paying towards this. If spent some time studying it, and had more hearings, data, etc maybe he’d think differently, but he notes the the motor vehicle fees are lowest in the country, had a discussion with Japanese friends, in Japan the fees are $3,000, while not those kinds of numbers other states more substantial fees, that is why this is a tempting amendment, but not right time.
Hendrick says he’s in support. Doesn’t feel good about asking to share the pain if not considering revenue options. Page one isn’t perfect, on issue of regressivity, could improve it by creating a low-income transportation grant program. If you have one car and are below the poverty level you could get a $15 grant to pay for transportation costs (bus pass, cars or bike), impact is almost a red herring, placing transportation expenses on transportation. Only $15 and low income family families could get a grant. More progressive than sales tax and property tax which we charge now. Crying needs are going to require some solution, if won’t raise property taxes beyond 7.9, this is a good solution.
Gau asks for clarification on the 2 year sunset which he doesn’t see in the amendment, McDonell says it is in the ordinance. As to the wheel tax, he worked in a county that had a wheel tax, it had a 1 yr sunset, but it was for transportation fund. Speaking to page 1, more contact this year than ever on the budget, RTA and several pieces of legislation that we started pushing through, many feel that is what you should do, this is not right on our constituents. Great to try to find money, this is not a tax that should be placed on this county, doesn’t agree to 7.9%. Ask supervisors to look closely at this.
Willett says tax is a tax, basic business principles, raise fees or cut expenses. We keep doing a, but not b. We can do this all the time, raise fees, raise fees, raise fees. 2nd point is that heard in the last month that the things we do at 2:30 in the morning are wrong, people have no access, don’t know know what we are up to – this tax was not even on the agenda, [pot. kettle. black.] betting that 99.9% not know it is considered tonight. Nice to raise funds, not the right way, find a way to cut funds. $5K is not chicken feed, our constituents would like it in their pocket, it all counts, don’t pass this without citizens knowing it.
Opitz says that on ordinance amendment 33 he has gotten lots of emails, there was no recommendation from two committees where it was placed on their duly noticed agendas, it has been publicized. This is not on the high end of state fees, some are over $200, ours is $75. If concerned about regressivity then they should put it on their legislative agenda to have a sliding scale fee. Not first in state to do it, 4 or 5 others have done a vehicle registration fee. There is a sunset. Hendrick says if you can’t afford to drive, or unable, not paying the fee and Stoebig said not the right time, if not now, when? He supports it, need to think outside the box, he supports it, can’t increase property taxes, vote of courage to look at other options, knows it will not pass, commends sponsors for courage to take a stand.
Richmond doesn’t know when right time if not now, constituents know why doing it, went to neighborhood association meetings and explained it very clearly, people understand about the cuts in the budget. They are upset when just raising taxes for no reason. That is not what going on, he wouldn’t propose solutions to problems without a fix, this is the responsible thing to do. There is a deadline and end date. He is still waiting to hear them rail against state when they raise their vehicle registration fee and doesn’t hear it. This is to deal with serious problems – that he can’t talk about it. He says there is a domino effect – look at the people with black shirts, faith communities, POS agencies, public safety – safety net is frayed and getting worse with foreclosures, lost jobs etc, there are lots of reasons to be doing this, please support.
Bayrd says Linda Ketcham handed her some petitions and wants the supervisors to know they are there, 1,000 in support. She supports the amendment, we are hurting in every direction – this helps spread the pain for $15 not pitting sheriff against purchase of service agencies or against the DA, save programs that are important.
Vedder, agree with former 2 sups, this year is pivotal, if this amendment goes down, her other amendment would would raise the levy. If you want to support human services and other necessary things in the budget, we can do it that way. If want to bring in money, do it this way. Pivotal year, people attended the hearings and hear about needs, people falling off the cliff, hitting rock bottom, no safety net at the bottom of the cliff for those who lost job, more demands on community than ever before. Demand has gone up, need to put money in through vehicle registration fee or on levy, operating costs are going up, people are falling down. Need to support this now unless increase in levy.
ROLL CALL
AYE: Hendrick, Manning, Matano, Opitz, Richmond, Vedder, Bayrd.
NO: DeSmidt, Downing, Durancyzk, Erickson, Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Jensen, Kostelic, Levin, Miles, O’Loughlin, Ripp, Rusk, Salov, Schlicht, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Stubbs, Veldran, Wheeler, Willett, Bruskewitz, deFelice, McDonell
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggie.
FAILS 7 – 28 – 2
Motion before them now is the balance of the amendment to spend money to increase human services, decrease furlough days and put money in reserves
Vedder says that this was to be accompanied by previous amendment. Page 2 correction, this is to fill a hole in human services department, in the line item details change 1% to 2.83%, for $1.8M. 1.5% increase in levy. $8 per average Madison household. Everyone had to make a reduction, Falk restored 1%, still a 2.83% cut, most attended the public hearings and that is what she is talking about now. Wanted to try to look at the budget in a fair manner, but there has been a request to deny human services money, this is the wrong year, tough economic times, everybody is hurting, losing jobs, getting cuts in salaries, furlough, this was meant to be a package deal. Pivotal year in many ways, never decreased human services before, not deny help to those who are separate, most vulnerable, homeless, becoming homeless cuz lost home, not enough money to put food on families table, huge increase in demand for food pantries. Mental health issues who will not be serviced, 18.2 staff cut in mental health. What doe that mean for us as a community. It is daunting. Think of people serving now that will not be served in 2010, homeless, people with disabilities, youth and families at risk, low income people, poor communities, people who can’t find jobs, can’t support families, these are people on the edge of losing it. They are falling off of the cliff to rock bottom level, no safety net. Putting people in danger at this moment more than ever before, what will happen, growing demand and yet at the same time asking for reductions and not get services getting now, people are finding themselves with no where to go. Don’t know what else to do besides this amendment. The cost on us will be more dire on the budget in coming years, it’s unacceptable, she is ok with this as an individual but not as a member of Health and Human Needs or the County Board. We’re saying no to folks and there will be less people living in a healthy way, more people in jail, no alternatives, more in Mendota cuz can’t serve them in community based services, more in nursing homes, cuz can’t get in home health care, people are going to be more and more institutionalized. This is not for her, this for people in community – people are losing now. 1.5% on levy, what will that do.
Hulsey appreciates what they are trying to do, tough decisions and choices, part of the choice is a shared sacrifice, this board and all our employees is to have them do their part. Subcontractors to share in the sacrifice, this is one leg of the shared sacrifice. [GRRRRRRRRRRR . . . it is not a shared sacrifice. If they wanted it to be even, they would just cut the wages by 3% to the POS agencies and they would bargain with us/non-profits so that we would get other things in exchange for the cuts. We don’t get our merit pay increases or longevity increases, we don’t have the same bargaining power with the health insurance agencies, and our 3% cut is just wages, but our entire operating costs!!!!] Voted down in Personnel and Finance and hopefully they will restore cuts in future years. [NOTE: We’ll keep that in mind!]
Matano asks for clarification is this on pages 2, 3 & 4. They say yes. He seconds Vedder. He says he is a tree hugger type, but care about human services, care about humans as much or more than enviromental needs. His last opponent challenged him on that. Taxation spreads the burden of government evenly in the populace, but picking subgroups to take a cut is unfair. He has taken a 3% cut as a state worker and as a county board supervisor, page 3 of this amendment offsets the furloughs. He believes in government, he still believes government does do good things. People are far less well off that will be hurt greatly by this. Keeping human service budget flat is a cut. Voting yes on 2, 3 & 4
Richmond says that the 4 pages was to alleviate several problems, Vedder talked about page 2, county employees on page 3, we should try to reduce burden on employees too. That is why 2 furlough days erased, 4th page, which constituents understood well, need money in reserve, understand bond rating and why we need stronger financial standing. He says there is a lot of political posturing at budget time, and some might accuse him of that now, but if propose something to stop serious problems and spread that pain and do it with a revenue source, it is responsible. Doesn’t think they have the votes, if can’t do it with revenue source on page 1, won’t get there. Apologize to people who believe in this and thinks we should be more responsible with reserve fund and to employees and those who are at the bottom. He withdraws the motion.
With that, there is no more amendments.
Operating Budget Final vote
[Let the grandstanding/cya begin!]
Willett says that budget ignores current economic times, foreclosures, expenses, jobs, rising taxes, glad not more, but this is too much already. He says some employees get cuts while some raises at same time. People get a pay cut or laid off and then we pay overtime to cover open positions – lay off 20 or 27. When I call 911 I want some not respond. We have a hold on land purchases, we save but others spend, can’t afford new positions. He talks about the debt going from $61M to $241M in 9 years, debt service goes up and we blame it on economy. We raise .5% sales tax to build a jail but then don’t lower it, budget problems not just the economy, caused by our spending, this budget system is broken, worse every year, this isn’t the economy, this is us, send a message to citizens and employees, vote no, go back, no tax increase
Miles says rises with reservation in opposition – tough choices, support consistency and continuity of services, this reflects some difficult choices and notes the wage compression. Grateful to employees. Doesn’t share the optimism for 2011 and doesn’t think this positions us well. Reserve is too low, supported several cuts with expectation that savings go to reserve, and had other cuts with no support, didn’t happen, given amount of levy, should be cutting, but we are not, put off difficult choices for next year. Not voting for budget.
Salov says we can do better, they did not mustered a “can do” attitude, they have not provided Dane County citizens with a good budget, vote no, send it back, get to work, work harder. Says he was not privy to the discussions around the budget, had access to meetings but can’t make every meeting. [Wow, since you didn’t show up and participate they should send it back? Dude, if you need to catch up, you could just read my blog! 🙂 I covered several meetings and discussions.] He says the chair could have done a better job making appointments to committees, he has not chosen most qualified people on the board to serve [sour grapes?], not a good product at all, not people who have know how pushing for a can do attitude, dissatisfied with the result. Doesn’t like THRIVE amendment, employees were promised and they took that back and the library can’t pay rent. So many issues, 1 20K item got money but its heart wrenching, so many other good programs abandoned in the budget. Not the way I want to operate. When go to municipality to explain this there is so much negative, this is Dane County, we’ve been creative in the past, brilliant in past, not showing that, if have to stay over Thanksgiving and reassess how we do things, let’s do it, embarrassed by the budget, vote no. [So he couldn’t make the scheduled meetings but now he wants more meetings?]
Hulsey says tough budget, toughest in 11 years, O’Loughlin and he went to National Assoaition of Counties and heard about Maricopa County that laid off 20% of their workers and our strategy is very different, State of Wisconisin strategy was to layoff workers and give a 3% cut. Milwaukee did that plus a 15% copay, 5% in match in retirement and 42 correction officers laid off. We gave our employees a choice. He was in a union and had 10 years of layoffs in 17 years. Layoffs in other areas of Dane County in the private sector are much worse, we’re trying to keep fundamental core services. He talks about the history of increases, I didn’t get all the numbers. He takes some responsibility but also wishes he had gotten out of stock market and that is retirement strategy wasn’t “would you like fries with that”. He talks about priorities and he says of the levy $54M goes to the sheriff’s office, $53M to human services, after that it drops off. 75% of the budget is public safety and human services, everything else very small. Would like to restore human service cuts and have no employee take a pay cut, but they have to do their fair share. Human services, tax payer and employees [It just galls me that he considers these equal. They are not!] this is a survival budget, and compared to others, fair by our employees – not laying off with no choice.
Stoebig concurs with Hulsey, hard to make silk from a sows ear, this budget does not have revenue holes and we filled them, he says there are lots of factors that got us where we are including reduction in shared revenue, federal cuts, additional charges by the state to mandated services, with the federal stimulus money that passed we didn’t get money from the legislature pass through, state took it, counties were an orphan in that process. This is what it is, hopefully gets us through 2010, he looks a glass that is half empty , now 1/4 full and hopes that national indicators have an effect and that at end of 2010 better than 2009 – don’t like this budget, doesn’t like voting for 7.9, but if lower it to 0 what would you cut? We looked, it’s not there, this just gets us through the year.
Gau agrees with Salov, chair does his best, but overall and agrees with Miles, reserves are way too low, group that passed the budget is same as last year except one. Had the discussion, few listened, has done a budget for years, had downturns, made cuts to staff, been an administrator, this budget is too high on prop tax, should not pass it tonight. He will stay hours to get it right, brought small amendments tonight, but heard truth about it, didn’t think they would pass, yes good programs, but we never get into detail [His phone starts ringing while he is talking . . . so he swears, and then apologizes – classy.] He says this should not pass tonight, wants to get back to the table and work with the budget. He voted against for it for the last 2 years, look at the budgets and past experience, doesn’t happen in one year,, this year showed us our defaults and where we were short – shows bad management – we haven’t done it.
Kostelic says that doesn’t talk much or waste time. He feels like a Yugo backer, this budget might get us around, no one likes it, and its hard to sell. McDonell says they are also dangerous. Kostelic says people talked about what they wanted, show me the road map, don’t want employee concession – how do we get there. No cuts to services, show me how it was done. They got the budget 2 months ago, they don’t need to look into it more, that is what he was doing. There’s no there, there. No magic bullet or pots of money, no $6M hiding somewhere, if someone has a great idea, please speak up. Doesn’t like it, no one does, but they are here to govern and get job done, sitting on it won’t make it better.
Bruskewitz says it can be done, she spent 2.5 years on self—directed services commitee which is the DD part of budget, met with people who run POS agencies and talked about how they could get the most out of $75M spent in the area. How could we be more efficient, make less mistakes, give people with developmental disabilities a better life, 2.5 years talked about outcomes, physicians participated and they said we need a better system to track the people we serve. They report to all kinds of levels, every report is different, time consuming and wasteful effort, county and state obligations, their solution was some computer program where track things better and give not only parents and caregivers better service, but more accountability to the supervisors. [I’m sure I’m missing something, but consistent reporting requirements doesn’t need software.] She asked for $53K in last budget, 2 years ago, last year not carried over, small amount of money. They were opposed to taking the first look at a $75M system to look at how we can make it better, more services, not less. Couldn’t get the $53K out of the human services budget, that money would be invested, unfortunately, the only way to get it was to take services away, need to think different about government, reach across political lines [the sound of someone in the minority], can’t be optimistic, everyone is so entrenched, people who suffer is taxpayers and citizens of Dane County. Won’t vote for it, she knows we can do better, people in this room if spent the time could have a productive conversation, but when provide same services and same outcomes why does one get 3 times as much money. Visited many of the providers, knows they can do better, not more money to work with, can work smarter. How can we deliver services better without excessive taxes, want a good deal for their money, can’t say they are.
O’Loughlin, this will be his 12th budget, 11 of 12 he voted for it. This one he is not voting for, but feels really bad that we let this occur, agrees that they should show me where the revenue is, been over it inside and out, but would ask in future budgets to budget according to need, revenue and future. Last many years, didn’t do that, and now paying that price. Ask that whoever sits in the chair next April start immediately with new team and totally undress our system of budgeting and figure out why – sales tax, economy, interest income fluxuate – but this is first year over 100 calls for constituents asking what happened, why did this occur? Once explains about sales tax, economy and interest income, they ask will it be better next year – honest answer is no. He owned and ran a company for years – major issues for 2010. – employee issues, 1 time cash and reserve and bond rating. Asks that we do a mea culpa on this year and really take a hard look at what we are doing with our money, elected to represent taxpayers money. Hard to say no, worked hard on it, but doesn’t make sense. If in doubt, think seriously.
Salov says that there is an alternative, we could shine and come forward, budget is junk. It procrastinates the inevitable, something bad 5 or 10 years ago we know what we would do more or less off, a budget should know how many pencils do you need and what will you do with it. [Hey, POS agencies, should we tell him how many pencils we need? What it would really take to serve our clients? Wouldn’t that be interesting.] Not how many more or less, what do you need to get the job done. Got to attack it, huge amount of work, department at a time, build from bottom up, deliverables and outcomes, build the budget to deliver those things, not just add or subtract from what may have not been a good budget. He says this year there was no camaraderie, partnership or recognition that this work would be welcome. Throw this in the trash, get something better.
deFelice says if you go through it, there is history, previous years information is all down, page after page after page, all down. I’ve seen amendments to cut spending, we have a half billion budget and not one over $2M, its chicken feed, haven’t heard proposals for structural change. When first elected thought there was too much government, 60+ municipalities in Dane County, but he learned quickly that attempts to reduced that didn’t go far. Has this board and county executive been remiss? Possibly. We could have put more away, cut spending, raised revenue which is not always popular. But the but circumstance of near financial bankruptcy, 6000 people can’t pay taxes, $20M in revenue not collected and yet still have to pay other localities, even if not collect it. There is a lot more of those example where state leaves us hanging. Hospitalize people at Mendota required but they raised our fees, they got the stimulus money but didn’t pass it on. So he doesn’t know how remiss we are, special circumstance at this time – people say we should run government more like household budget or business. What household or business is required to run a jail, help abused and neglected, build roads, care for mental health patients– none of them do this, we are a government, not a business and we’re a pretty good government and pretty representative, says says Madison said “government is the greatest of all reflections of human nature”. We have difficult decisions, differences, but when walk out they are settled fairly, there are not militias, or gangs, and we won’t be expelled from houses, this is a good government, this is where we gather and decisions are made. If don’t like the decisions run for office. Gives people in audience the recognition for coming – he supports the budget – it is a moral document, treats people fairly, good news, spread it around. They have taken the unfairness and spread it equally, he’s an optimist, there will be a time again when we will have pay raises, build community instead of cut, cut, cut, [get out the flags and get ready to wave them, cue the music] I believe in America, we will bounce back, but have to go through hard times, this is one of them.
Hesslebein – holds up a tattered budget document – says spent a lot of hours asking questions and trying to figure things out 85 hours outside of meetings. She says there are no cuts to 911 or veterans, maintained services in Stoughton, Joining Forces for Families didn’t get cut, she is voting for it.
ROLL CALL
AYE: DeSmidt, Durancyzk, Erickson, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Opitz, Rusk, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, Wheeler, Bayrd, deFelice, McDonell.
NO: Downing, Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Jensen, Miles, O’Loughlin, Richmond, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Willett, Bruskewitz
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggie
C. CAPITAL BUDGET RESOLUTION
1. Res. 146, 2009-2010 – 2010 Dane County Capital Budget Appropriations Resolution (Adopt Sub. 1)
It’s now 10:05, they spent the first three hours on the operating budget. They’ll be done in less than an hour . . .
Gau says he’d like to make his annual amendment to zero out the Land and Water Legacy Fund as originally proposed. [Those weren’t his words, those were mine.] Schlicht seconds. I think Gau explained further but I have a gap in my notes . . . bummer.
Hulsey says they $3.2M carryover, they talked about a lot, the cap budget has impact on the operating budget. They cut the fund 80%, may actually be some purchases it might go to next year, frozen this year, it will be frozen for first three months of this year and they will view spending carefully.
ROLL CALL
AYE: Ferrell, Gau, Jensen, Schlicht, Solberg, Willett, Bruskewitz
NO: DeSmidt, Downing, Durnazyck, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, O’Loughlin, Opitz, Richmond, Ripp, Rusk, Salov, Schmidt, Stubbs, Veldran, Wheeler, Bayrd, deFelice, McDonell and Vedder who votes while they are counting.
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggie
FAILS 7 – 28 – 2
Gau again, zero out conservation fund. Ferrell seconds.
Gau says he heard several times that on a referendum long ago people voted for this, but they voted for a certain amount to be borrowed, met that amount according to the referendum. Also have $6.4M unspent in 2009, that $6.4M is more than we budget which is $3M per year, some is earmarked, we won’t even need $6.4M, remove this amount for this year only.
Hulsey says considered in Personnel & Finance, it was an 87% cut, sheriff got a 4% increase, humans services got a 3% cut, this is only item voted on by taxpayers and it took an 87% cut. Our investments got us $3M in state and federal money, this year $2.2 million will come in. We can unfreeze if frozen now, people like to bring up and enjoy Monday morning quarterbacking, if we had bought Ice Age trails, we would have $2.2M more in the operating budget and we would have no cuts to deputies. [I can’t believe he keeps bringing up this awful budgeting scheme . . . ]
Richmond, urge to vote against, talks about all the environmental groups that asked for what county executive asked for which was half of the department request. Then they cut it in half and this is even lower. We shouldn’t handcuff ourselves, can vote down individual projects when the time comes, don’t cut.
Gau says question for controller about where the reimbursement money goes when it comes back in. Gau says that it would go to debt repayment, but this year for the first time they are proceeds for GPR, not to purchase property or reduce debt. Controller says each resolution had gone to increase the fund for land purchases, he said these funds would go to general fund. McDonell says they would go to a specific fund. Then there’s some back and forth I didn’t quite understand, the bottom line seemed to be its all frozen so it just doesn’t matter.
Hulsey has a chart [or should I say another chart]. He says public safety borrowed $5.6M, conservation $3M, he talks about debt service and how it impacts the operating budget and frees up money to spend on salaries and other items.
Solberg, supports the amendment, hears a lot that public safety getting more, but its fundamental, not discretionary – this is discretionary, tough choices and choice we should make.
ROLL CALL
AYE: Ferrel, Gau, Jensen, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Willett, Bruskewitz, deFelice
NO: DeSmidt, Downing, Durancyzk, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, O’Loughlin, Opitz, Richmond, Ripp, Rusk, Schmnidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, Wheeler, Bayrd, McDonell
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggy
FAILS26 – 9 – 2
Final vote on Capital Budget
No discussion.
AYE: DeSmidt, Downing, Durancyzk, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, O’Loughlin, Opitz, Ripp, Rusk, Salov, Smidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, Wheeler, Bayrd, deFelice, McDonell
NO: Ferrell, Gau, Jensen, Richmond, Schlicht, Solberg, Willett, Bruskewitz
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggie
AND THEN THERE WAS CHAOS . . .
They attempted to pass D1 – D13 in one motion, but there were too many people voting no on one piece or another, this is what I caught:
– McDonell says D8 is not property before them
– D7 separated cuz they have to decide which motion to make(?)
– Willett wants D4 separated
– Hendrick voting no on D4, D9,
– Ripp, Gau and ?? voting no on D1
– Richmond no on D9
– Gau no on D2, D5, D6, D11
– Durancyzk no on D1
– Matano no on D9
– Bruskewitz no on D1
At this point there may have been even more, but McDonell announces they are just going to go through the items “because Bob is confused” tho he quickly acknowledges that the clerk is doing fine and he is confused. 🙂
D. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS CREATING OR CHANGING FEES
1. Ord. Amdt. 26, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 12, Establishing a Farmland Preservation Zoning Conversion Fee (Adopt)
No discussion.
ROLL CALL
AYE: DeSmidt, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk, Schmidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, Wheeler, Bayrd, deFelice, McDonell
NO: Downing, Duranzyck, Ferrell, Gau, Jensen, O’Loughlin, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Willett, Bruskewitz
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggie
PASSES 12 – 23 – 2
2. Ord. Amdt. 27, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 12, Regarding Zoning Fees (Adopt)
No discussion. Passes on a voice vote with several nos.
3. Ord. Amdt. 28, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 62, Adjusting Fees Charged by Family Court Counseling Service (Adopt)
No discussion. Passes on a voice vote with one no.
4. Ord. Amdt. 29, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 35, Huber Law Prisoner Fees (Adopt Sub. 1)
Willet is concerned because the vote says 8 – 0 but only 7 people on committee and he and Schlicht were absent. After confusion, they determine the vote was 5 – 0.
Passes on a voice vote unanimously.
5. Ord. Amdt. 30, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 62, Increasing The Cremation Certificate Fee (Adopt)
No discussion. Passes on a voice vote, one no.
6. Ord. Amdt. 31, 09-10 – Amending Chapters 45 & 46, Revising Fees Charged for Environmental Health Service(Adopt)
No discussion.
ROLL CALL:
AYE: DeSmidt, Durancyzk, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Jensen, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, Wheeler, Bayrd, deFelice, McDonell
NO: Ferrell, Gau, O’Loughlin, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Willet, Bruskewitz, Downing
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggie
In the middle of the vote Gau whines a little about having questions, McDonell offers for him to be able to ask them, Gau passes and just votes.
PASSES 26 – 9 – 2
7. Ord. Amdt. 32, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 54, Regarding Parking Fees at the Alliant Energy Center (Adopt with Amdts./Adopt)
Opitz moves P&F recommendation, Hesselbein seconds.
Gau asks for explanation.
McDonell says there are two different prices that they would raise the parking fees to. He reminds them this is an enterprise fund, so not on the levy.
Willett says Public Works and Transportation is the oversight and they are ignoring their recommendations and they are the only one who talked to the staff. McDonell says “that’s one interpretation”.
Opitz notes that it was 2 – 1 in committee and would have turned out differently if the other two people would have been there.
Ripp says Personnel and Finance did meet with staff. He says they didn’t vote for it.
The substitute passes with a few nos.
Ordinance passes with one no . . . or so.
8. *Ord. Amdt 33, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 62, Imposing a County Vehicle Registration Fee (“No Recommendation”)
This item was not properly before them.
9. Ord. Amdt. 34, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 62, Regarding Fees Charged by the Sheriff for Seizure of Property or Evictions (Adopt)
There is no discussion, they note that the personnel and finance vote appears not to have the complete information about who voted no.
ROLL CALL:
AYE: DeSmidt, Downing, Durancyzk, Erickson, Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Jensen, Kostelic, Levin, Miles, O’Loughlin, Opitz, Ripp, Rusk, Schlicht, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Stubbs, Veldran, Wheeler, Willett, Bruskewitz, McDonell
NO: Hendrick, Manning, Matano, Richmond, Salov, Vedder, Bayrd, deFelice
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggie
PASSES 27 – 8 – 2
[One might stop and think about this vote, some people voted for it because they thought the landlord would just pay for the additional costs and it was no big deal. If that were true, would Bruskewitz have voted for it? This didn’t raise the cost for the landlords, they raised the cost for the tenant being evicted who likely can’t even afford to pay their rent. Swell.]
10. Ord. Amdt. 37, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 67, Airport Terminal Rent and Landing Fees (Adopt)
No discussion, passes on a voice vote unanimously.
11. Ord. Amdt. 38, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 46, Regarding Collection of Fees for Private Sewage System (Adopt)
Gau says that this is fees on a property tax, so the municipality would be required to collect the fee. He says there was a lot of discussion on item crossed out and those sections are being eliminated. Will these funds be put into general fund to cover health department, or general revenue?
Controller says they go to the health department.
Ripp says he obejected at Personnel and Finance, the fee remains the same or goes up, services going down a lot, only place in department where raising fees and making more revenue. All the fees are being paid in one sector, that’s not right.
Downing asks if this was just to cut down the paperwork, still send out three year notice? Are they really saving on paperwork?
Kostelic says he was on the committee 1.5 years ago, intent was to cut down on paperwork. They have to send out the notice, but it will save them in collections
ROLL CALL
AYE: DeSmidt, Downing, Duranzyck, Erickson, Hampton, Hendrick, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Kostelic, Levin, Manning, Matano, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk, Schmidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Vedder, Veldran, Wheeler, Bayrd, deFelice, McDonell
NO: Ferrell, Gau, O’Laughlin, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Willett, Bruskewitz, Jensen
ABSENT: Martz, Wiggie
12. Ord. Amdt. 41, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 62, Regarding Fees for Deferred Prosecution Program (Adopt)
No discussion, passes unanimously.
13. Ord. Amdt. 42, 09-10 – Amending Chapter 70, Increasing Fees at the Dane County Parking Ramp Consistent withthe 2010 Budget (Adopt)
No discussion, passes on voice vote with one no.
E. RESOLUTION SETTING THE TAX LEVY
1. Res. 147, 2009-2010 – Setting the 2009 Tax Levy (Adopt)
After all that, there were no changes to the levy.
Jensen asks 2009 mill rate? Controller says 2009 was $2.37 center, $2.55
Hulsey thanks people . . . says it was a tough budget, but fair budget. Says they have to lead by example, 3% cut ourselves and ask employees to make the sacrifice, 3% in human service, tax payers contribute a little more, shows one more chart, increases $38 and average $20 last year and this year. [Oh for the love of God, is he equating the 3% cuts to the POS agencies with their dinky 3% paycuts and saying its equivalent? Sure, that’s the same as 18 layoffs over at the Mental Health Center. end sarcasm.] City of Madiosn taxes are raised $76 and the schools raised them $92. We have world class human services, [better make that had.] we’re protecting our lakes and transportation system is world class – also said no to people who wanted to raise taxes more. 5300 people could not pay their taxes last July, some wanted us to go higher, some wanted lower, this budget weathers the storm and is a foundation to do better.
F. SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS THE COUNTY BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT BY LAW
OTHER BUSINESS
Levin make his final combined campaign announcement. The campaign has ended but can still get your forms in. He says they exceeded their give from last year by a couple supervisors even in tough economic times they raised $100 more.
G. ADJOURNMENT Until Wednesday, November 18, 2009, at 7:00pm, for Continued Budget Deliberations, or Call of the Chair
deFelice moves, Erickson seconds. They adjourn.
Off to the Great Dane to play Euchre which we were winning til they attempted to teach me to play Sheepshead. That game is nuts. Thanks for the lesson guys.
