3 Polish guys named Dave (hey, the Mayor said it, not me) and the tiff between the City and County on quarterly tax payments for the City of Madison and the E word. Talking to Lucy Mathiak (Madison School Board Member) about the Schools and the Edgewater TIF and with Carousel Bayrd (Dane County Board Supervisor) on the recent rift between the city and county about how we pay our taxes.
I watched the Board of Estimates from two weeks ago, and below is the recap of that discussion about the City proposal to have quarterly tax payment and how it impacts the county. And here’s the latest This Side of Town, the TV version where we talk about tax issues.
QUARTERLY TAX PAYMENTS DISCUSSION AT BOARD OF ESTIMATES
Mark Clear moves referral of item 5, they ask Dave Worzala to join them.
Dave Worzala, County Treasurer, lives in the City of Madison, he says this would be extremely difficult to implement and will cause problems with the system and it will not provide the benefits that are being promoted to the residents. The complexity in the uncertainty that it will create will cause problems for all residents of Dane County. His staff deals every day with 100s of people who have problems with their taxes, you know from knocking on doors. People don’t pay taxes on time, become delinquent and we talk to them. One of the things that gets us through and brings the heated discussion down is that we tell them that everyone is being treated fairly. In this case the City of Madison would be treated differently, they’d pay a different interest rate and how it is calculated would be different. That’s a problem for them and taxpayers, and they will say why can’t they be treated like others. It will undermine the tax system, it will make it more difficult to collect taxes and it will create confusion. If move to four installments, you have to advertise it in the same media market as everyone else. There are 61 jurisdictions, 27 school districts, 2 MATCs and the county, state and many other taxing jurisdictions and we all work together. We all have the same due dates and if you start to have different dates you are going to trip people up, they will be delinquent and it isn’t going to help people and make it more difficult to collect.
He runs out of time and the Mayor says he can have more time.
He wants to talk about the supposed tax benefits, if you have a $4K bill, under current law, $2K on Jan 31st and $2K on July 31st. Under the current proposal you would pay $1K on Jan 31st, $1K on March 31st and it looks like they had more time to pay, but May 31st is an early due date than with two payments. Under the current system, you can pay at any time, but no deadline will trip them up. He also looked at it if they would earn more money on an interest earnings basis, i.e. would you be better off if you invested it. He says you are better off with $2K for 6 months than having 1 6 month period, one 4 month period and one 2 month period. Financially the citizen of Dane County is better off. He says that most people have escrow accounts, they pay early to get the tax benefits. Sure, they get the interest income from those deposits, he agrees with the city, but he says he was chair of Health and Human Needs and they were creative, but this way you are taking money from the County and putting it with the city. This isn’t a wise way to go when you are going to create confusion and trip people up. He says they are required under this proposal and current law, to make you whole. There are $15M worth of delinquent tax payers in Madison, we paid you for them, we carry all the risk, they have to do the work to go get the delinquencies. He says if Madison does this, there will be more delinquencies and more foreclosures. He says people who paid them, they could apply those payments to the older years, but we couldn’t do that under your scenario. Finally, there will be increased costs, a lot of reprogramming, just the penalty and interest recalculation alone is a problem, also real estate agencies, banks and title companies come to the county looking for all the information, we won’t have it, you’ll have it. Are you sending the delinquency notices, or are we? Do I pay the county or city? How will that work? There are a lot of issues here that make 4 installments a bad idea for the residents of Dane County. At the end of the day, their back talking to the upset taxpayer and they won’t be able to say the rules are the same for everyone, that is an important fact not to let go of. I will erode the belief in the tax system, and make it more difficult and create more upset people. Unanimously 37 or 37 county board supervisors oppose this idea along with the County Executive and myself. This isn’t a good idea and you are part of a larger tax collection system, what you do impacts other people, 61 treasurers will need to explain how this works to their constituents.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz says Dave Gawenda, City Treasurer is also going to speak to this and can answer some of those questions. He says there are lots of things that are different between Madison and other municipalities, we have different mil rates and we assess properties differently, we assess at 100% and other communities don’t and there are things that are far more fundamental to when they pay them. Aren’t those differences more important.
Worzala says that the mil rates are set by the elected bodies that they can talk to, the assessments are done by the assessors, governed by government and we know who they are, there are 61 of them. And they need to stay within the rules. The problem is that you’re talking about the general public who will be treated differently as to how they pay. You can’t organize 209,000 property owners and how they pay, 77,000 in Madison, majority being outside, but you can’t organize them without a message that is clear. The assessors follow the rules that are set by DOR, he sees it as a fundamental difference in magnitude. You can organize a sporting event at Camp Randall with 77,000 people and you can control when the game starts, but if you don’t have a ticket that says this is the one time, you won’t get the people there. With that magnitude of people you one message.
The mayor says the legislature permits it, 62 municipalities in the state do it, if this were an issue wouldn’t it come to the attention of the legislature.
Worzala says that to a person, the 72 county treasurers would say, don’t shift what you already have. Yes, there are a whole lot of legacy systems, more often than not they inherited them or they are special circumstances. Also, in many of them the county treasurer collects the tax and runs the system. Remember, we are paying you $15M for your delinquents, we can’t just take what you say, we need to know parcel by parcel, that is a heavy lift to take us away from delinquencies and foreclosures and trying to improve the process. Now we have to stop and figure out how to manage with a 4 installment process.
Satya Rhodes-Conway asks about people now who are paying in more than 2 installments at their own discretion.
Worzala says they will take a payment at any time, at any amount for any property. So, if you make your first installment and want to pay $100 a week every week after, that’s ok by us, but you still have to pay the second installment by July 31st, that is the same under either of these scenarios.
Rhodes-Conway says they can pay as they wish?
Worzala says they won’t set up 10 installments for them, they get that all the time, can I pay you $150 per week, no need to set up anything formal, they tell them they will take the check at any time, but remember, you have to pay by July 31 or you will trigger penalty and interest.
Clear says he wants to understand the inconsistency better, right now, for the first installment payment that is collected by City Treasurer and then the second payment is collected by the County. Is that the same for all municipalities or is it different jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Worzala says all municipalities collect the first installment and the county collects the second. There was a time when, for two years, there was a local collection option, where county collected for 7 or 10 municipalities, its an extra payment stream and he didn’t want to continue that, in Dane County it is all the same.
Clear asks if that works, if you had your preference is that the way it would be.
Worzala says that personal property and special taxes are part of the first installment, they are kept by the local municipality, so it makes sense to keeping it close to the local level. It does work, it keeps the partnership strong, we have to rely on each other, the local municipalities also like it. There are a few, never more than 10 or 12 that wanted to have the county collect for them, but there were administrative reasons not to do that.
Clear says that if you’re going to have close to the customer argument, it seems to make sense to have the municipality collect. Clear says current system is confusing that make one payment to municipality, then the second to the county.
Warzala says when he is talking about customers, is the special taxes, the reason the county is involved, they have organized the property tax system to collect across jurisdiction and the county is responsible for making everyone whole. The specific close to customer is relevant to the first payment, but not the second, cuz at the end of the day, we have to pay everyone. They have a big stake in understanding on a parcel by parcel basis that everyone is being paid. He asks if it is easier to pay with one check or 4 checks, all the bills, all the interaction tells them where to pay, so all that has to change. Are you sending out the delinquency notices every two months, who is sending all the notice, one from county, one from city, it will be confusing, at the end of the day, the taxpayer who can’t pay, no we don’t treat everyone the same, for the tax collector, that is a hard thing to say to people.
Clear says he doesn’t understand why this is an issue, we’re just giving people different option.
Worzala says the math is there. Walk through the math, what is the penalty, what is the interest, to what date does it go back to, the dollars will be different, and that is treating people differently.
Clear asks about the delinquencies from prior years.
Worzala says the statues cover both scenarios, and you have to pay in a certain order. If the local municipality collects taxes, it can only go to the current year. So, if delinquent, Madison has to apply to the 2009 taxes. If you pay the county, they apply it to 2006. They are currently sending out tax d notices, a.k.a. foreclosures on anyone who owes three years or older. So, in this scenario, anyone who pays the city will be more quickly falling into foreclosure. Perhaps their money would cover 2006 but you have to apply it to 2009.
Clear says they could write a check for the delinquency and also pay the city and then try to catch up.
Worzala says yes, but they would have to know that and the city doesn’t and won’t tell them.
Clear says if someone comes in with a check we will take it, and not necessarily know that they owe money. He then asks Worzala to talk about the costs, programming changes that would be needed, what is the cost to your office to make the change.
Worzala says he has no idea, he didn’t think about the two delinquency notices until a few hours ago, its not a simple fix. There are all kinds of impacts downstream. We have to be sure we are comfortable with want we are paying you for delinquent, they can’t not have all the data and put it in our system so we know what we owe you. You wouldn’t do that for us and we can’t do that for you. He doesn’t know, the opportunity costs of pursuing this instead of all the other things we are doing will be more significant to him and to the county. Frankly, why, to come up with a system that is unfair and complex and confusing and costs more, for no benefit, we wont’ collect more money here.
Clear says we as a group.
Worzala says that local government in Dane County, with state aids tied to local property taxes, collects over 1.1B dollars, with a B.
Clear says that colleagues in Sun Prairie and Cross Plains and all over Dane County are watching to see what Madison does on this, regardless of how we go, any of them could make the same change, you don’t have the authority to stop that, so you’d be in the same boat, right? The same amount of work and the same amount of issues.
Worzala thanks him for bringing that up. If you go to 4, and Sun Prairie goes to 3, Middleton goes to 5 and Fitchburg goes to 6. 2 people said lets go monthly, this isn’t going to help collect the money. Its not city or county money, its for our schools, public safety, transportation, environmental programs, just to get $200,000 in the historic loan environment we are in, just to get that $300 – 900K creating this confusion is not worth it.
Mayor thanks Worzala and calls up Dave Gawenda.
While waiting, Mayor Dave Cieslewicz remarks, it occurs to him that all the principals involved here are 3 polish guys named Dave. (Wry look on his face)
Clear asks if there is some conclusion that they should draw from that.
Mayor says no, I just throw that out there for what it is worth, which isn’t much.
Dave Gawenda, City Treasurer thanks them for the remodeling of the office, they are relocated next to the County Treasurer. He says his new office has a mirror on it that he sees every day and he says that is relevant (after someone makes a joke about him losing weight) that you are about to hear the mirror image. Gawenda says he and Worzala get along real well. He thought he’s start out by explaining the chronology of how this came before them, some of the questions the reporters have asked have implied ot him that there are motivations here that do not exist. He attended the Government Investment Officers conference this year in Las Vegas and this is the 6th year he has gone, usually there are only 2 people from Wisconsin, him and the finance director from Wauwatosa. This year, Dina Mumfort, the county treasurer from Outagamie County and he sat next to her and they were talking during the break and she mentioned why Appleton does 4 installments, yes its a little inconvenient for her, but she understands why she did that. He knew that was the case, and was grateful when he was county treasurer that no one did that, but never really researched what the impacts would be, but not city treasurer not county. He did research and talked to people to Department of Revenue. They guy he talked to said I know why you are doing that, you want to give a break to the taxpayers. He also talked to Appleton and LaCrosse and found out the specifics of how it worked there. He says one of the annoying things as the press did the story was the 61 municipalities do multiple installments, but there are 1851 municipalities, but what they don’t point out is that most of them are smaller than your aldermanic district. When you look at municipalities of 20K or more, excluding those where they don’t have the county collect their taxes, 80% of the remainder, collect in 3 or 4 installments. He can provide them with the list, there are more than that 80%. He says that we collect taxes 2 months of the year, this would move that to 8 months of the year. Instead of collecting Dec and Jan, they would collect Dec through end of July. Advantage to the taxpayer is that we are stretching their payment out over 4 pay periods. They would collect on Jan 31, March 31, May 31 and July 31. If they just deal with the general tax, if you had a $4,000 tax payment, currently $2K due Jan 31 and the other $2000 due July 31. Under this proposal you would pay $1,000 Jan 31, another $1,000 March 31, $1000 May 31 and $1000 July 31. Anecdotally, other municipal treasurers says that some taxpayers use their tax refunds to pay their taxes. Unfortunately, the bills arrive about the time they are getting ready to do their Christmas shopping. Some have been doing this for 20 some years and there is no way they could go back to 2 installments because people like it. The hope is that there will be fewer delinquency. Historically, at the time of the first payment 2 – 3% are delinquent. But the last couple years have been rough, 2008 3%+, this year it passed 4%. Even more dramatic is the dollar amounts involved, Feb 6th this year was 35% more than a year ago. Its a rough economy out there. There has been some confusion in the press, about what we mean when we talk about interested. he has seen it talked about as the amount of interest we would earn before we distribute it to the other taxing jurisdictions. He says with the low rates, we’re talking less than 10K, if the rates go up could be 10’s of 1,000s. What they are talking about with interest is the interest they people have to pay, it would be less because fewer people would go delinquent. He talked to the city attorney, assistant attorney Stafferoni, she is not confident we can charge the 1/2% the county is charging. He says other municipalities do charge it, but they are still researching it and don’t feel comfortable charging it. We hope fewer delinquents, they would pay less and it amounts to a decent amount of revenue based on interest and scenarios about who would pay, it could be a low of $200K and when Worzala throws out the $900K that falls within the upper limit of the range of projections. The interest is what people pay, not what we make before we distribute it. He says that right now December 31st is the busiest time of the year, people pay for the tax advantage. They process those payments and are very busy, but then end of January they get about 25%, under 4 installments, we think that 75% will still pay by December 31st, the rush in January is manageable compared to what they see in December. So, our assumption is that the busy last few days would be repeated on the other dates. On January 15th, they send the taxing districts the share that they collect for the other jurisdictions. Now February 20th, they send the second payment, then they still collect for 6 months. Now in February they would send out reminder notices, that would be 22,000 of 74,000 parcels, they would send it with three coupon stubs for the March, May and July payments and we’ll let them give us their email if they want and they will send out a broadcast email a week and a half in advance of the deadline. They also would send out delinquent statements, that would be about 3,000, not as many as we sent pet licenses reminders last month. Payments to other taxing jurisdiction would go on April 15th, June 15th and August 15th. At the end of the July 31 collection period, they would turn over the tax roll (all the records) to Dane County by August 15th then it becomes their job to collect the taxes not paid. He says he thinks the county treasurer mis-spoke, there would be no re-programming for the county, because the interest would be collected at 1.5% retroactively as it is now. He wants to respond to the confusion and unfairness. He says as Clear pointed out, any municipality can do this. He did talk to Madison Metropolitan School District Business Manager and he says that he is ok with it. He says it is hard to understand the unfairness argument when the statutes say the municipalities can do it. He says that 80% of larger municipalities do it now. To say that we wouldn’t do it because it is unfair to people outside the City of Madison, well, it is unfair to the City of Madison not to allow the option. He says that people will figure it out. He says that press says it is not needed, but delinquency is up to 4%, double what it was a few years ago, dollar amount increased 35% in the last year. On the confusion issue, he says that people are confused that they go to the County Treasurer for the 2nd payment, in this system, unless they are delinquent, they always pay the city. The only thing the county treasurer is involved with is that they deal with delinquents, in fact, it would help them because they send otu 50 – 55K notices about 2nd installment and under this proposal, we’d do 22K for them. He does think there would be a county work load deduction, title counties call us now all the time, they cover their basis for contacting both of us. Also wanted to make sure that there was no confusion about the payments, right now if you pay late, every month they are incurring 1.5%, but if we do it our way, they would not pay interest on their $1K paymen, no interest or payment. Change is difficult, this would be different, there is a benefit to the tax payers and many large cities do this and have been doing it for decades.
Mayor asks if reason to do it tonight, and reason we can’t delay.
Gawenda says there is a timing issue with the software. The short answer is no, but it might make a difference about if we could do it this year or next, he asks the IT Director Paul Kronberger to answer that question.
Kronberger says would like to start in June to do testing by November 1st to give them time to make sure it works, so basically its the lead time to get the programming changes done. They feel they need to start by late June.
Mayor asks if it would take time to get the contract in place.
Kronberger yes.
Mayor asks how long do you need to get the contract in place.
Kronberger says that they want to start late June.
Mayor asks how long it takes to get the contract in place.
Kronberger says he’s not sure, they think they can do it quickly.
Gawenda says that the City and County budgets are not done til mid-November and they can’t do anything before that. The ordinance has to be passed by August 15th.
Mayor asks by statute?
Gawenda says yes.
Rhodes-Conway asks if people are asking for this, is there a ground swell from the constituents, the one email she got was the first she heard about it. She understands the perceived need, or are people articulating it.
Gawenda says they are where the rubber meets the road on tax payments. After he talked to the Mayor on it, he talked to his staff, and he was pleasantly surprised about how supportive they are, because they field the calls when people can’t make the payments. He can’t tell you of the dozens of phone calls they get, how many of those people will be able to make their payments this way. But they get dozens of calls and that is more than in the past.
Clear asks if they delay action on ordinance change but go ahead on programming work, could we diengage from the contract if the ordinance does not go forward.
Kronburger says they would have to pay for the work done up to that point.
Clear wants to make sure they could get out of the contract.
Kronberger says yes.
Rhodes-Conway says you did some research, did you look at other states.
Gawenda says no states do it the same, when he was County Treasurer he was in the National Association and they would sit around in the bar and talk about it. In Florida if you pay early you get a discount on your tax bill. If you pay a couple months late you get a penalty. When your assessment is frozen and market value goes up, it resets when it sells. In California when you trun 65 the assessment is frozen. The state uniformity clause prevents much of that.
Mike Verveer asks how many years this has been allowed by the municipality.
Gawenda says that in conversation with city treasurers, many said longer than I have been there and I’ve been here 23 years. He says late 80s and early 90s is when he thinks they moved to it.
Verveer says that in 15 years never heard this issue come up, never asked us if we were interested in pursuing it. Haven’t heard that from the employees.
Gawenda says no one in their office recalls it. Some in city government didn’t realize it was a possibility, not only possible but quite simple.
Verveer asks about the 1/2% penalty issue. Most do charge it even if statute is unclear.
Gawenda says maybe not most, but many did when he was researching on the internet.
Jamie Stafferoni said that there are some that are and some that are not. There is a split, they are looking into that.
Gawenda says she called the League of Municipalities.
Stafferoni says yes, and DOR and there are arguments on either side for it.
Verveer says that DOR and League Attorneys thought it was possible?
Stafferoni says they both saw both sides of the argument.
Gawenda says that DOR staff says you can do it, but then when Jamie talks to DOR legal, they aren’t so sure.
Stafferoni says when she spoke with the League said it wasn’t her area of expertise and she thought there was a statute that prohibited it. There are two statutes involved, one says you can’t impose a penalty, but in another spot it says if you collect it you can keep it.
Gawenda says there was a change in 1995 in the penalty about personal penalty, and there is a Larry O’Brien memo saying they could collect it.
Stafferoni says we have a penalty that was repealed.
Verveer asks if council adopts the ordinance we have, would there be a follow up ordinance amendment if we can collect the 1/2%.
Gawenda says that it would have to come back, its a policy issue, it might encourage people to pay before July if they know the penalty will increase. On the other hand, it would be fairer if we charged 1.5% from the beginning. Council would have to take that up and decide if we find out we can do it.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks what percentage of the taxpayers in other areas use it.
Gawenda says that based on conversations with municipal treasurers, they seem to not collect as much in December as we do, and have a slightly higher percent than they do. We are gettign about 50% of total tax levy by end of December and 75% by end of January, they run more like 2/3. Not a huge difference.
Bidar-Sielaff says that Jan 31 can pay 1/4 instead of 1/2 but we still give taxing jurisdiction the money, how will that work if we didn’t collect the money.
Gawenda says we just pay on the amount we collect.
Bidar-Sielaff the other jurisdictions could be getting less than they usually get.
Gawenda says yes, but that is another reason he touched base with MMSD. But, he says they would get a payment in April that they don’t usually get. And they would get an additional payment in June, but in August would get a lower amount. They would get 5 payments.
Joe Claussius ask Kronberger about the programming, software changes etc, have you ever done this before.
Kronberger says we are modifying an existing system, add new logic and modify and add programs, needs analysis up front, not an unusual amount of changes from an TI perspective.
Claussius asks about the timeframe.
Kronberger got initial estimates from contractor that would be used, its 400 hours of work and they ahave availability issues. Start in late June, testing done by Nov 1 and more work before taxes go out.
Claussius says definitely doable?
Kronberger says yes.
Gawenda says this person was a city employee and was involved in the original writing of the program.
Kronberger says he is familiar with the system.
Jed Sanborn asks about projections collected on the delinquent taxes, were you assuming that the total amount of interest would not change, it would just shift from the city to county.
Gawenda says they would have 20% less.
Sanborn thinks that there would be a lot of missed 3rd installments.
Gawenda says there are a certain amount of people who are procrastinators who miss deadlines and now we have 4 deadlines instead of two. The impact of the missed deadline financially is based on what you still owe. So when you miss January, you pay interest on entire amount. When you miss the May deadline, the interest will be on the remaining amount. The longer they go without delinquency, the less you have to pay.
Sanborn asks about them paying in advance?
Gawenda says you can pay more than the installment whenever you’d like. If you saved up, so you make the $1K first installment and if you have the remainder at the next payment, you can pay at that time. You just have to meet the minimum.
Sanborn asks if paid $2000 in December, you’d need to remember to pay in May.
Gawenda says you would not need to pay $1K in March.
Sanborn says you don’t have to just pay by July 31st, he sees the person thinking they just need to pay by July.
Gawenda says they will get a coupon to pay and can sign up for email alerts. How much they owe is available on the internet too.
Clear asks about the emails, are they personalized, will they show what is due?
Gawenda says that its unclear, when they put the receipts on line, they had a link you clicked on and they could look it up.
Clear says that Madison as the second largest city in the state is an outlier?
Gavenda says Green Bay is 3rd largest but Brown and Rock County collect all the taxes. 4th is Kenosha, 3 installments, Racine 4 installments, Appleton 4 installments, Waukesha 3 installments, Eau Claire county collects, Oshkosh 4 installments, West Allis 3 installments. Milwaukee is 10 installments, they have their own statutes. Just about monthly for them.
Chris Schmidt asks if the installments have to be the percent they are the way we have been talking about it, 4 payments 25% each.
Gawenda says that if 4 installments, have to pay 1/4 by January 31st and 50% by April 30th. Some of the municipalities with 3 installments have to collect by April 30th.
Clear moves adoption of 5 and 6. (But Clear had already moved referral, apparently no one seconded it, or they are just ignoring it.)
Worzala comes back up to say that the assumption that it would not take much in programming staff and he talked to his IT staff and deputy treasurer and the staff and just like the city has to re-program, we do to. We will have to change logic and business rules, it will cost us money, we have to change our processes. He also has a copy of the resolution saying that the county unanimously opposes it and Appleton is in 3 counties and it would be nice if state were consistent, but this is what we have, lets leave it.
Motion is to adopt 5 and 6.
Rhodes-Conway says can’t vote to adopt it now, if going to make her vote today she’d have to abstain, so she moves referral. Seconded. She says interesting idea, we should spend some time talking about it, in a minimum we should as a courtesy find out what the county thinks and wouldn’t vote against it tonight for the same reason. Hasn’t had enough time to talk and think about it, wouldn’t be impossible to get the software tested.
Bruer says that treasurer has made a compelling argument, during difficult times one of few opportunities to do help them, there has been widespread support, we need to move forward and give IT time. Thanks treasurer and staff, this is really reflective of a sensitivity to those that can’t pay. There was some discussion years ago, cuz of sensitivity to the county, but it was during recessionary times in the 80s when this surfaced, can’t afford to delay, please adopt. Staff will do a good job implementing it. They will work with council members who have questions and concerns and faith that treasurer will continue to work together.
Clear shares trepidation, is 8 days enough time to resolve this, he’s willing to go with that, but he has additional questions and not swayed by treasurers arguments except the punitive part of this towards the county and we have had varying relations with the county, some of which have not been good and we need to find way to work positively together. He wants to find a way it works without penalizing the county. When someone tells you it is not about the money, its usually about the money. In this case a lot of it is about the money, if we can make that work in the next 8 days he’d like to.
The Mayor says that he doesn’t share Rhodes-Conway’s trepidation, he respects it, but staying on track gives them the opportunity to refer it when it gets to the council (which they did). He says that he has had a lot more time to think about it than you have. He says its not punitive, if feeling bad about the county, we have been informed that in 2011 the county will start charging us for street sweeper debris to the landfill, they use it as daily cover and it benefits environment cuz it doesn’t end up in the lakes. In recognition of the fact that they use it as a product, they have not charged us. But they have informed us, before this, but this isn’t in response, that is $120,000 right there, there are other things, he says that county human services spending has only gone up 14% and our community services spending has gone up 47% in the last 7 years. If you don’t think that there has been pressure on our community services because of the defunding at the county level, I want some of what you are smoking. If you have questions about how this would work, that is absolutely in bounds, but if you got a concern about the money, the concern ought to be going the other way. The county has created its own situation.
Gawenda says that if people want to talk, give him a call at the office or at home. Pass that on to your colleagues.
Bruer asks him to send out talking points from his presentation. Gawenda grouses about not having a scanner in his office, he’ll have to go borrow one form a department more deserving.
Gawenda says yes, and he will send out the list of other municipalities doing this.
Bruer asks if they can do it quickly.
Gawenda says yes.
Mayor grouses that you get him a new office and now he wants a scanner, give him an inch and they . . .
Gawenda says, yeah, what was I thinking.
Clear says they have a scanner in the council office and he can borrow that.
Sanborn says he shares Alder Rhodes-Conway’s concerns, feeling like he has to think about it more, not so much concerned about the money, but not seeing this as much of a benefit, yes pay 1/4 instead of half by January but have to come up with an extra 1/4 due in pay. 1/4 due later and 1/4 due sooner, when having system working well, in absence of compelling reason, since it will likely cost more and cause more headaches, when you make a change like this, he’s not against it, but doesn’t see the compelling issue. He says lets not refer, won’t vote for referral, but not sure if voting for the change, need a better reasons perhaps to do it.
Claussius agrees with Bruer and Clear, not support referral, the state of the economy, anything we can do to support our residents he will be supportive of. He says there are 8 days to review it and discuss it and if there are a lot of problems they can refer it.
Mayor offered to meet with city and county treasurer. He’ll invite alders to come to ask more questions.
Bruer says the insurance companies have gone to quarterly payments since the downturn in the economy. He says there wasn’t a rush to get that, but they are offering it in response to the changing times. It is easier for some people to come up with the money. He’s surprised they didn’t do it earlier, cuz of concern for county. Maybe other municipalities will follow suit (can you say smoking ban) and this will come back as a benefit the overburdened taxpayer Sanborn (with all due respect) champions.
The motion to refer fails.
The motion to approve passes 4 – 0 – 2 abstentions (Rhodes-Conway and Sanborn abstain.)
