Live blogged! (I can do that when I’m not on the committee)
David Sparer, Judy Wilcox, Greg Rosenberg in attendance. (Committee members) Joined by Michael Schumacher (not committee member).
The first issue is the resolution that was drafted. There was input from Tim Radelet and David Sparer sent out a new version – copies not available to the public. Then updates from Alder Schumacher and Clingan.
Public Testimony from Dean Loumos (from Housing Initiatives). Was at council meeting and the alders are intensely frustrated. When you live with frustration for too long you end up bitter. Now he’s just angry. He suggests that this group urge the council to ignore the city attorney, engage in that civil disobedience and defy the state legislature. The state legislature is not moving on a potentially disastrous law. If they don’t deal with it, there will be an increase in homelessness and many people will lose their housing. Dean is going to focus his efforts on the state and is going to meeting tonight at 7:00 to stage a sit in in the rotunda – and if that doesn’t work, he’s moving in to the Mayor’s office. High end senior housing isn’t the issue – this is going to just increase homelessness and throw working families out on the street. No new funding. Not asking for money. He runs a program that is tax exempt, doesn’t get operating funds from the city – all he needs is his tax exemption. That is what he was going to say at the city council the second time, but he wasn’t allowed to speak last night. The council did the right thing by extending the deadline for 60 days over the objection of the city attorney and the even larger objections of the Mayor. The City can be a leader on this issue.
Greg asks Dean what the impact will be. He says it will cost $50 – 70K. He has 51 units in 13 properties. He says he can’t raise the rent due to funding restrictions. Utilities are a problem as they pay full utilities. All of his clients have a mental illness, can’t cut staff. They can all live independently but it requires intensive case management. As Executive Director he doesn’t spend time in the office and in meetings, he’s on-site at his properties. Rarely has police contact. If he has to lay people off, the properties will fall into disrepair and he won’t be able to address behavior problems on a timely basis before they get worse. Property tax exemption is key to what they do. His frustration level is far beyond the council members, he’s angry and he’s going to start organizing.
Public Testimony from Howard Mandeville. (From Moving Out) Not clear what city position on this is. Glad Mayor has sent lobbyist to change maintenance definition. However, the mixed message is the City Attorney that is trying to get a more narrow and restrictive definition. City Attorney should send a more consistent message to Department of Revenue that would be in-line with the Mayor’s instructions to the lobbyists. The Council and Mayor should provide that guidance.
David Sparer asked about the resolution that they have, that we don’t have copies of. The conclusion is to tell the City Attorney to communicate to the Department of Revenue about the definition of maintenance that we as a City would like to see.
David says the resolution has been changed as follows:
Change first whereas to hundreds
Fourth whereas, take out for-profits
Part 1, 2 & 3 – add the governor to who they are urging
Changed it to direct the city lobbyist to do these things
Fourth paragraph is new, asking lobbyist to report back to city council on a regular basis.
In 3rd paragraph, b was removed because it wasn’t needed.
The finally handed out copies.
Schmacher suggests change “extra large expense” and call it “property tax expense”
Rosenberg wants to add
Until such time as the legislature takes action, that the city assessor act according to the definition of rent use definition (of vetoed budget language)
including the language in parage 3 a to 3 b in this resolution.
Doesn’t think that if the city takes action we will ruin our leverage with the state legislature, he disagrees with Mario (the Mayor’s office). Judy seconds his paragraph. They realize there is no main motion, Judy moves, Rosenberg second that they adopt language with Schumachers tweak. He says at the end of the day that only maybe 4 people on the council don’t want the exemption – that’s his general sentiment. The issue splits – and he was in the minority – on the council we were put into a bind. He feels uncomfortable that on several levels doesn’t get us to results – he’s more pragmatic. The vote on the council hasn’t changed anything – they still have to pay their property tax, and we have defied Wisconsin Statutes. That battle should be at the legislature. They are mixing policy decisions with legal decisions. And those two things can be done in a parallel way. He will not vote to put the city at odds with state statutes. So, he can’t agree with Greg’s language. He thinks we can’t negotiate this away. This is where the alders will fall apart. 13 votes for a 60 day extention is easy, but the votes may be only 8 or 9 at the end of the day to defy state statute. So, he urges committee to be mindful that this is not the way to go. External parties should send a message about the public good. Can’t support the language. (That means that this there is no current sponsor). Even tho the City Attorney was asked for options and the city attorney isn’t going to give us options, he is sticking with the legal arguments. Schumacher says that the council can’t tell the city attorney what to do any more than you can tell a police officer not to write you a ticket. He thinks that we need to keep the alliance together and it will be more effective.
Greg Rosenberg answers that one city attorney has a personal interpretation different that attorneys different than our previous interpretations and countless other attorneys. He was making policy without consulting the council. What do you do when an individual in the city attorney’s office is making policy. Where is the accountability. This is the same law that it has been for many, many years. The city attorney’s office changed how it was interpreting the law. It was an internal decision at their discretion. Now they are saying there are no other options. The Mayor hasn’t been presented with more than one option. Neither was the city council. They teach you in law school that the law should not result in a an absurd result. This is an absurd result. We shouldn’t be hostage to attorney Larry O’Brien. It’s up to the Common Council to do change that. It’s killing non-profits. Why are we spending hundreds of hours of time on this – its brutal.
Wilcox says that the effort to interpret the law was not in our best interest. Also knows that there are alternatives and that the city attorney’s office is not looking at the alternatives. And certainly, Tim Radelet has made the recommendations and been dismissed by the city attorney’s office. Granted if you have five attorneys in a room you will have five interpretations of the law. They should be doing the least harm in their positions. The council needs to deliver that message and the subcommittee has to deliver that message to the council.
Schumacher says he tried to ask those questions on the council floor and behind closed doors. Also on Leage of Municipalities on which board he serves. If it were just the City of Madison, some of the comments we have heard makes complete sense. But this is statewide. (A member of the audience wonders if he has a conflict of interest)
Secondly, he doesn’t know how to force the city attorney to make a different decision, that is why we have courts. He thinks this is just the wrong tactic. On Tuesday all we did was delay and the givens did not change. The non-profits still have to pay taxes. City attorney may come back and say that legally the council instructions are impossible. Or the courts may say that the council decision is void. The battle is really to get the city to organize to get the state to change the law and figure out how we can locally mitigate the impact on the non-profits. Mike Kurth from the Assessors office is visibly nodding his head in agreement.
David Sparer says that he is uncomfortable with the city council if it seems like what they are asking. He also points out that there is no sponsor.
Judy clarifies – is it the amendment you are uncomfortable with. Sparer says yes.
Sparer 110% in support of the rest. As is Schumacher.
Rosenberg is trying another amendment.
That the city take action, in the event that the legislature does not resolve this issue in 2009, to mitigate the impact of losing the tax exempt status on non-profit housing providers and the people they serve.
All seem in support. Schumacher says that this will get lots of support.
Unanimous in favor of the amendment.
Unanimous support of the resolution with the amendment. Schumacher will be the sponsor.
No further update by Schumacher. Asks Mario for updates. Mario says not really. Met with lobbyists Monday or Tuesday and got update. In the same breath that they are talking about the budget they are talking about tax exemption. City of Milw lobbyist says that their position is the same as ours. The more people speak with one voice, it makes our message more clear. Hopefully helps with movement at the Capital.
Judy asks about Marshfield? He hadn’t heard that they are in support as well. He said his next stop is the League. Schumacher says League is meeting tomorrow and he will try to talk to as many people as possible. Mario tries to encourage Schumacher to get League on board with the vetoed language. League is currently looking at a fee instead. Mayor’s office doesn’t support the fee because non-profits still won’t be able to pay and it hasn’t gotten traction at the capital.
Schumacher says that League has municipalities that are lobbying to remove the exemption, so the League is trying to seek a compromise. But he thinks that the momentum has changed and they may change their position.
Schumacher said that O’Connell says that there is a 60% chance that something will happen. Mike Kurth says that he had heard the same and that within the 60 days of the extension the issue may be resolved. That the leaders of the houses and governor want to resolve this and that they are just deciding about the veto language (with tweaks) or Plale’s language.
Schumacher asks me if I have any comments.
Mario leaves.
Judy says that Bob from WisCap is lobbing as well and will share this info with him.
Clingan comes to the table to discuss Plan B.
This is in regard to rent subsidies.
Can’t use CDBG money, can use HOME funds, need to craft amendment to plan, CDBG and Council would have to approve, HUD would have to approve. The council also directed him to come back with solutions that go beyond the rent subsidy approach and HOME dollars. He thinks they can turn it around in less than 30 days. He is thinking about it in terms of strategies and their affectiveness.
Ray Harmon leaves the meeting – no more representation from the Mayor’s office.
Need to look at the mechanics of the process, does it get subcontracted to CAC or do it through CDA. How do we prevent bad local policy to fix bad state policy. He agrees that the homelessness that could result would end up with more costs to the city and county. What happens if we use HOME funds for this, then where does money come from to build new housing. What happens if non-profit can’t pay taxes, what will lenders do, what if they give up the property.
David says that it would be good to have good numbers.
Bill says that the strategy to remedy it is that we need to grow the target to make sure that it is legally defensible. He offers to come back and give progress reports as he gets this ready for the council.
Greg says this could drain HOME funding. Since city doesn’t pay operating costs, they rely on developer fees to operate their program and if there are no new developments, then still no operating costs.
Judy says that you can target the funds and it can be done with a relatively small amount of money.
Schumacher says that in Judy’s program they did not have to watch their back with the uniformity clause. Judy explains the program some more. She says it was just a portion of HOME funds and is guessing that there isn’t a whole lot of production at the moment anyways and there should be no reason to spend these funds this way in an emergency. It takes 18 months to 5 years to get a program done, so its not like HOME money won’t be used in the future.
Clingan says they will look at other funding streams. Including tax dollars. Should only city revenue be used to solve this problem. Can we look to the county.
Schumacher emphasizes the need for numbers – how many people will be impacted. Schumacher is worried that if housing providers can charge more, they will. Private complex owners will take the people in and charge them more.
Clingan says that there are rental caps on so many units and there is the problem with layering of various programs. How can they give rental assistance to a tenant whose rent hasn’t gone up.
Greg asks when Plan B will be done? Can it be locked down by June? Leases are coming up and tenants will start getting displaced. Clingan says that he wants to get it done sooner than that. He will give this group updates. Would like to have something done by end of April/beginning of May.
Judy says that we should start the amending of the consolidated plan process now. Clingan agrees.
David asks how long it will take, Judy says they can turn it around.
Schumacher says even once you have the mechanics of the process, but if it includes budget money it will be 15 votes. That is why we need to keep the council kept together on the issue and not have them fractured.
Clingan says that we might be able to weave together different streams of dollars prior to a budget amendment.
Schumacher says we don’t know how many providers are done.
Assessors office says they have put this on a fast track and it won’t be September, he thinks they can do it much sooner than that. Assessor hesitates . . . says they might have it by the end of June.
Greg is concerned that up to this point we are just guessing.
Schumacher and Judy rehash old history of Schumacher going to Judy for funding for something senior housing when she was on the county board . . .
Schumacher says that in senior housing assessments are difficult. You should do your own work up front to find out what the assessment might be – he thinks that people will do it pro bono. He reminds the group that the Turner’s issue is still linked to this. He says not every senior citizen is the person who lives in great care and golfs.
Sparer says they have completed their agenda.
Next agenda: Update from Bill, Update on Lobbying, Update on resolution and Meg will schedule the next meeting. Could be later in May when they meet. Resolution will be introduced May 5th, hopefully under business by president. So it could be May 5th that they vote.
Clingan says he can give a status report every time they meet. Sparer will coordinate the next meeting with Bill’s timing. Greg suggests they could just set the meeting and create a deadline.
Move adjournment.
Assessor is up to 1700 units affected that are currently tax exempt. Non of those are the programs paying the PILOTS. So, its more than the 1,000 originally affected. No senior ones, Oakwood, Attic Angels are not in there. Columbus Park decision may kick them out. Includes Independent Living on Segoe Road. There is some wording that eliminates them in some manner. Meriter is also exempt. Continuum of care type situation may be what gets them out of the taxation.
Judy says Sun Prairie evaluated Independent Living has to pay there. Schumacher says that in Sun Prairie they can raise the rent, on Segoe they cannot.
David suggests that since they have adjourned, they should stop talking.
