I attended the Common Council meeting yesterday, Tuesday, July 22^nd.

Several interesting items were on the agenda.  I’m going to present those items through short podcasts, in no particular order, and as I have time to go through the tape.

I’ll be starting tonight with Item G5, which was:

Resolution accepting Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants and Easements for Sendik’s West, 5320-5430 W. Rawson Avenue.

This discussion began with Alderman Wilhelm bringing to the attention of the Council and the Mayor that the Development Agreement was a mess.  She had meticulously gone through it and, in the end, this item is being sent back to City Staff to be corrected

As for Franklin, maybe it has something to do with "B" issues....

Boomgaard...Buckhorn...Budget (tax pledge)....





With the domain name “www.boomgaarddistrict.com” being of no use to the Franklin-Oak Creek Steering Committee, nor the cities of Franklin and Oak Creek, I was wondering what will now become it?  It is registered under the Zizzo Group. 

Most domain names cost only $9.95 for registration, but we have paid a pretty penny for the entire fiasco and will still be paying as a new name is sought.  Perhaps some of the money could be recouped by selling the now infamous domain name.

You never know who might want www.boomgaarddistrict.com.  Perhaps a real orchard may want to use it.  Or a blogger.  Actually, the possibilities are endless.  May the highest bidder win…..if the committee/city is willing to sell.

Actually…I would place the first bid if they want to get something going.  They’re auctioning off a house on the city website, why not a domain?

I would start bidding at let me think……$10.00!

That should start the ball rolling.  So, let’s make a deal!

Boomgaard!

Before I get to the reason of writing this blog let me first say a few things about the recent flooding in the City of Franklin.  I, along with many others had water damage to my home.  I visited a half a dozen homes this weekend and offered my support and assistance.  I spent some time with Mayor Taylor on Sunday assessing some of the damage and he kept me abreast of the City’s efforts during the storm.  We had many city employees working around the clock this weekend and I appreciate all of their efforts.  I want to single out Fire Chief Jim Martins, Assistant City Engineer Ron Romeis and Public Works Superintendent Jerry Schaefer for their dedication to the City.

This storm wreaked havoc on our residents and many are without flood insurance.  Even if they do, the deductible is not what they wanted to spend their hard earned money on.  Don’t forget to call the Milwaukee County Disaster Hotline at 414-278-3000 to report your damage.  Please feel free to contact me if you need additional assistance.    

Now, to the reason of this blog……….

Last week I met with Zizzo Group Advertising & Public Relations.  This meeting came about after a phone call I received from Anne Zizzo in response to some questions I had about the South 27^th Street Corridor project.  At this meeting, we discussed what the future holds for this project and for our community.  I shared with them my desire to see the project move forward in a positive way.  Zizzo Group agrees, and we brainstormed ideas for more significant public input on the future of the South 27^th Street Corridor.

I am excited to work with our partners in this unprecedented opportunity for our communities.  In fact, the economic impact of this project to our two cities is estimated to be as much as $2 billion.  I am committed to helping bring quality developments, family-supporting jobs, and positive attention to the South 27^th Street Corridor.  The South 27^th Street Corridor plan will grow our tax base, improve our local economy, and serve as a model for other cities nation wide.

I encourage the public to continue giving input into this project and to contact me with any questions or concerns.  Forging ahead together, we will make the Corridor a community-friendly economic development opportunity with tremendous potential.  I hope to hear from you on this issue.

Steve F. Taylor      

Common Council President
      


                                                           

Mayor Taylor:  Are we on the issue? 

Unidentified:  I think Alderman Sohns is leading up to it.

Laughter from one of the Councilmen and cross-talk.

Mayor Taylor:  The reason I did Alderman is because the City Attorney has permission to beat me up if I’m getting off track.

Unidentified Alderman:  Not me bro.

Alderman Sohns: I went to the Assessor’s Office and I pulled the assessed valuation of the seven members of  Council at the time; that would include Kosovich and Hammelman.  Alderman Wilhelm and Taylor were not part of this.  So you see the Council members identified as…

Taylor:  Alderman Sohns, the Clerk is asking that you speak into the microphone

Sohns:  O.K.  I also pulled the assessment records for six of the bloggers.  And if you look at these sheets I ran them up to what the property taxes bills would have been, this is City of Franklin taxes now, for three years and five years, and the results are summarized on the first sheet.  There’s a couple of outliers, and by that I mean, we have a couple of folks who saw changes in their assessments because they made improvement to their property, one of my colleagues made significant improvements to their property in 2006, his assessment was approximately double what the average was for the city.  Councilman number 7, is me.  My wife and I remodeled our home and so our home was reassessed as a consequence saw an increase last year.  The last one is blogger number 4 and that was a home that was not fully assessed in 2006 and so you can’t a 3-5 year history given the short lifespan of the history.  If you remove those outliers and you look at the average of the rest, the average three year increase of these folks who I studied here was $63.38, a little better than twenty bucks a year.  The percent increase 4.3 about half the consumer point price index.  This is in a period of time when the City’s total assessed value increased almost 40%.  Our expenditures increased 27.6 % and our tax levy went up 15.8%.  We’ve actually done a pretty darn good job managing our finances; I make no apologies for the tax levies that I voted for.  This last tax levy I had reservations about whether or not as a matter of politics to demand a small decrease but when I did the arithmetic I said great on my $5,400 tax bill I’m going to reduce it ten bucks.  So I voted for the budget I admit I voted for every budget since I’ve been in office.  I make no apologies for it.  I think we’ve been doing a great job.  And I will say as a taxpayer, not as an Alderman, if my choice is to see police protection diminish, or response time by the fire department diminish, or the library have to be closed, or spend an extra twenty bucks here.  I’ll spend the extra twenty bucks.  How it turns out will determine what we determine at the end of the year when we have a budget when we put it together.  The levy limit, 3% is less than $600,000 last year on costs for an increased payroll and the payroll related expenses was a million dollars.  Alderman Solomon was […] finance Committee for a lot of years, he’s nodding his head up and down.  I don’t know how you’re going to pull this 3% rabbit out of a hat.  For three years in a row.  We’ll see.  As Alderman Olson pointed out, we’ve got the history in front of us.  History will tell us a little something about the future.  We’re going to have to decide.  We’re either going to uphold your pledge or we’re not.  Scott Walker put it […] 

Taylor:  Thank you for the compliment.  Just to mention that Scott Walker got 80% of the vote.

Sohns:  The other one is the School District.

Taylor  Alderman Solomon.

Alderman Solomon:

Again, thank you for the information, it’s the first I’ve seen it.  I will peruse through it at length.  Along with that goes the 5-year history that I assume was provided by staff.  Most of the people don’t realize this but throughout the last five years folks, we not only kept the taxes , what’s the average, Cal, Three over five year? 

Mr. Patterson:  2%

Solomon:  2% over five years.  We also took 200,000 per year out of the operation budget from landfill revenue out of the operation budget and put that on the tax rolls because what’s happened to our landfill revenue?  There isn’t any.  We anticipated that , the finance committee did five years ago, to get a million dollars off he tax rolls, that’s about 1.2% per year.  Per year!  For five years.  That’s another 6% reduction.  In other words your tax levy for property taxes has gone down over the last five years. 

Olson:  Two things. One is, I've taken a couple of implied hits here for my vote on the Finance Committee against the budget last year... I think it's our place to be a little more efficient, with all due respect to the staff who does a great job.  And then when it came time to vote at the Council level, each of us faces a decision.  We can be a part of a team, show support and move forward, which is what I chose to do, in light of the relative cost of a decision like that.  Or you can continue to be a rebel.  Well, I chose to go that route.  I don’t know if there is any benefit to me but we’ll see about that won't we.

Olson:  Mr. Sohns, as usual when you do things in a hurry, there’s a mistake.  The detailed spread sheets are the same in the both.  Which means when you look at the city of Franklin for your assessed value and all this and that…that all stays the same on both spread sheets, but the tax rate is always the city tax rate as opposed to the school tax rate. 

Mayor Taylor:  As long as you’re talking about the history here ….tax increases and tax increase is primarily tied to the growth of the city.  And that’s the equalized value  which I think is in one of these charts.  This year, I’m sure anyone who owns a home is wondering if they can sell their home for the same price they were able to sell it for last year.  We’re going to be having a Board of Review shortly, and my guess is there’s going to be a line all the way out the door of people saying that they’re going to want to have their assessed values reduced because the market value has fallen significantly. 

And our members that sit on the Board of Review are going to have to listen to the Assessors and their going to have to listen to the people .  It’s almost every day that you turn on the news and you hear the price of gas went from $350 to $3.75 to $3.80 to $4.00 a gallon and now we’re hearing that it will go to somewhere around $8.00 a gallon.  All of our constituents are getting hit by this.  Their all getting hit with major increases in health care and out of pocket costs and the price of bread has gone up the price of flour everything has gone up.  They will be coming to you because there’s a few people that were just elected like me that went out there and talked to all of the, well a lot of people of the community; the only thing I heard really, there was  a lot of things, but the only thing I really heard was taxes.  And while we have based our budgets on the growth and we say well O.K. we’ve got this much this year and we’ve got that much this next year, every community in Wisconsin, every community across the United States, is going to be tightening their belt, every business is going to be wondering how they’re going to service.  And your constituents are going to be calling you, our constituents are going to be calling us, and saying, “Do not raise my taxes needlessly”.  They’re going to be saying, “Well, maybe we don’t need that service.” 

I think some of you know, that I used to represent a lot of public employees and I was also management.  The Parks Department if I can from the Scott Walker play book used to have over 900 full time staff in the department.  I think they’re down to less than 200 […] and it’s all seasonal work force.  And you know what, there are certain areas that could look a lot better, but they’re almost getting the job done.  And the public has yet to say, we want you to increase the work force.  And it’s going to have a trickle down effect to us, if it hasn’t already.  And I’ll leave it open for the other people that just ran for office because that’s the only thing that I was hearing when I was running for office.  Alderman Taylor.

Alderman Taylor:  Well I campaigned.  When I was campaigning obviously taxes, taxes, taxes, it was what I heard all the time.  And you go to the little old lady, that cost of gas, the cost of groceries, the cost to heat her house, and they see 5.7... or 24% or 22% for 4 years.  This is ridiculous.  This is not what we should be doing.  And my thought, is I didn’t sign a tax pledge but I’m not going to vote on a budget that’s over 3%.  The Mayor can send one to us and we can do what we want, but at a committee level I won’t vote for it.  And if I won’t vote for it at the Finance Committee I’m not going to come to the Common Council meeting and vote for it just to go along.  Maybe I'll be the one rebel.

Mayor Taylor: Alright no motion was requested on this information.  Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Patterson:  Just a couple pieces of information.  The item that you’ve got labeled G-7, the top part of is on the web site.  The bottom part of it is tax levy units calculation. […]  Second point, this big document is a reference document I put it together so that we could get it to the Finance Committee in May.

Mayor Taylor: The City Attorney is reminding me that we are getting a little bit off of the Agenda since your talking about the future. 

[…]

Mayor Taylor:  Alright let’s turn to Item 8 Request from Board of Health to appear at July 8, 2008 Committee of the Whole

Alderman Wilhelm:  So Moved.

Mayor Taylor: 

Contained in all of these resolutions you submitted Thursday afternoon or night you had the language that said, “Whereas Mayor Taylor has publicly pledged to limit growth of the city’s property tax levy for the next three years; and then it goes on next sentence absent a significant source of new revenue.  I do have a problem with that, given that what I pledged was, I pledged that if elected to another term as Mayor of the City of Franklin that I will not recommend an annual budget to the city’s finance committee that exceeds 3% in tax levy increase.  This pledge is related to years 2008-2011.  And while it’s semantics, if we’re going to talk about my pledge, I would hope that, I would ask that you put in the precise language.  With that, it’s yours.

Alderman Sohns:

The first sentence of the resolution says Mayor Taylor has publicly pledged to limit growth on the city’s property tax levy for the next three years.  I think that’s what it says.

Taylor:  No, this is what it says.”

Sohns:  We will not recommend an annual budget to the city’s finance committee that we  for two years, 2008-2009.

Sohns:  The second sentence is not part of your pledge, it is a statement of fact on my part which is absolute balancing the budget increase is likely to be difficult.  If anyone here wants to argue that we can certainly do that.

Taylor:  Well, I will.

Sohns:  O.K.

Taylor:  And that is you put in the words, “ will have.”  That is a statement of fact and your saying the Common Council there are some Common Council members that may not even be happy with the 3% tax levy increase and may want to have a reduction in the tax levy and so the words Common Council “won’t have” is more of an opinion.

Sohns:  You wrote it

Taylor: I may have [written] it but I think this was just passed out just before the meeting.  Alright and your question to me was?

Sohns: […]  April 14^th, the personnel committee received a staffing report and I’m going to take this to […] there are the 15 seasonal positions which you exempt from your….

Taylor: Is this something I have in front of me?

Sohns: Yes.

Taylor: You mind if I get to it?  And that’s in the packet that you?  The staffing report and data as of April 14^th

Sohns: Correct.  15 seasonal positions were by your memo were exempt from a hiring freeze.  A library assistant which this body has no control over once the library has their budget they can choose to hire at their discretion and two police officer vacancies so I ask the obvious question.  You ‘ve had a vacant position since February 13^th obviously this was part of the hiring freeze; no that position was going to be filled.  The job offer has already been made.  I’ve since discovered that the offer was made to the sole candidate on the police department and it turned out to be a person who couldn’t be hired for whatever reason, I don’t know what that reason is.  The Police and Fire commission is reloading their list of qualified applicants.  What we have left is a police officer who is likely to retire or to announce he is to retire in June. 

Taylor:  Did you say the position was offered?

Sohns:  I was told the police officer position was offered.

Taylor:  O.K. If I signed off on that position...

Sohns:  I don’t know.

Taylor:  Then it wouldn’t be filled.

[…]

Sohns:  I would like Mr. Patterson and the City Attorney […] to write a ordinance that would take the salary and the related benefits out of the budget from the fund balance and it stays there until we can justify where we will find the other cuts to restore those dollars.

Olson:  Seconded

Taylor: Alright it’s been moved and seconded […]


Taylor:  We annually go through a budget process.  While it’s true I have made a tax pledge, regarding submitting a budget to the finance committee that would not exceed a  3% tax levy, this is 2008 and the budget that passed was not a 3% tax levy increase it was a 5.7% tax levy increase.  Since I first was notified of Alderman Sohns request for placing these Resolutions I had a meeting with Mr. Luberda and Mr. Patterson to go over the Resolutions in great detail  because I wanted to find out where we are and what would be needed in the event we would need to take some action.  What you have in front of you and I apologize for the lateness of this, but I  got this late I would have to say that I don’t believe that these Resolutions went to Mr. Patterson, or Mr. Luberda or the Finance Committee Chair or the Mayor or the members of the finance committee.  So you got the packet  May 20^th of the 2009 budget forecast just before the meeting because we have to pull Mr. Patterson off of other important duties to get this out so that you would have the correct information and most up to date information in front of you.   Mr. Patterson is here at my request to go through this.  I said to the new Alderman and I know that the current alderman know that there is no more important issue than the city’s budget.  And with that I'm going to ask Mr. Patterson to bring us up to speed on where we are financially in 2008 because my tax pledge does not kick in until I recommend a 2009 budget; I wrote the Chapter 13 of the ordinances on the budget process so I think it 's near the end of September.  I think it's very important that new Alderman and current Alderman know where we are.  And before he does move forward , in Alderman Sohns Resolution he speaks about reductions and ambulance fees and I'm very pleased to say that as the person that negotiated the contracts for all 19 municipalities, for the paramedics contract, the new one.  It appears that contract is reaping great rewards and benefits.  Alderman Olson? 

Alderman Olson:

Two comments Mr. Mayor before we hear from Mr. Patterson.  I want to response to a comment you just made.  I take exception to your comment that anything this Common Council wants to put on this Agenda has to be fed through staff.  It’s not true and it won’t happen as far as I’m concerned unless it’s the intention of the person putting it on the Agenda. 

Mayor Taylor:  That was not what my intent was.  My intent was just to state a fact.

Olson:  And then one other statement I’d like to make relative to this future ordinances.  I view this strictly as a management issue with all due respect.  The Board of Directors of this Corporation need to respond to changes in economic conditions.  We, like you have got to report to our constituents and if we’re not allowed a voice in decisions in hiring personnel in bad economic times then that is the single largest expense we have in this community and that is why we need to be able to answer to our constituents as to why that happened or didn’t happen and that’s why I support this ordinance. 

Mayor Taylor:  The motion?

Alderman Sohns?

Mayor Taylor:

The problem I have with Aldermen is that, you are the Board of Directors I don’t have a problem with that, that’s just matter of fact.  And as Alderman and Board Members policy makers.  You set policy.  As the Mayor of the city I’m the Chief Executive officer and I manage the city.   .  .  One of the things that gets managed is how budget gets controlled and how budget is spend and how positions are filled.  All due respect we had an incident this morning with a very large drug bust signaling to us that there is trouble in River City on 34^th and Sycamore and there may be other trouble.  If I’m to wait for the action of the Common Council to decide should we fill another police officer in the time of an emergency I think that that is a problem that we are going to have in coping with some of the problems of the city.  We just had an election and there are two new aldermen and one that was returned and I was just reelected as the Mayor of the city by the constituents of your Aldermanic district.  And now what I have in front of me is a resolution that would basically take away the CEO’s right to manage the workplace.  That’s the way I’m see it.  And I have not submitted my budget and will not submit it until September.  And this is not the first time that this subject has come up about taking control or putting the control about filling vacancies in the hands of the policy makers versus the hands of the Mayor.  When I came into office there was a memo I found from then former Mayor Klimetz, not the Common Council, that said from this point forward we are going to be stopping vacancies.  That is a CEO decision.  Now, it’s very true that the Council Members assisted the Mayor in that decision because they basically well, we’re not going to be giving you anymore money.  And the Council clearly owns the purse.  I give you that, I mean, that’s just a matter of law.  I mean, we have a part-time Mayor…I say that loosely.  And things are difficult enough around here without putting more handcuffs on me and the staff of the city.  And, you know, going through this whole exercise of the budget and having what I would say is another budget process on top of another one when the staff of the city is already taxed is very frustrating.  We put out a memo; I put out a memo, saying we’re putting a hiring freeze in place, a reduction of 2% in the budget and that doesn’t seem to be enough.

Alderman Sohns?

Alderman Sohns:

You’ve created a hiring freeze.  [...] If you want to rehire them all you have to do is tell us where you're going to get the money from.  Now I got the same phone call the rest of you, or a phone message, about this morning's police situation. [...] All I'm doing is suggesting that if your freeze means something you won’t have a dilemma taking money out of the budget or the fund balance. If that’s a problem then your hiring freeze doesn't mean a thing.

Mayor Taylor:

Alderman, to be very frank, I think you have a problem with my taking the tax pledge and I think you are playing with the organization of the system.  It’s true I did take the tax pledge the reason I did that is when I talk to the people out there, your constituents, my constituents, they’re barely hanging on by the fingernails, they don’t know here their next is dollar is coming from.  This had nothing to do with…I should say that, I was very reluctant this last budget to go to 5.7% and wanted to stay at 3% so it did not take a great deal of .  I just think you’re playing around with the organization of the city at a time when your staff is totally as well as your part-time. 

Well, we’re still on Item 4, O.K.?
The information that was handed out by Mr. Patterson this evening obviously is very, very fruitful information but I just received it as I sat down in my chair at 6:31 since I was in the Licensing Committee with my two fellow colleagues, so I have not had a chance to look at this whatsoever and I know Mr. Patterson is not gonna go through it line by line this evening but I will do that this evening probably at 3:00 this morning because this arming doesn’t arm doesn’t stay sleeping all night it does get up and walk around.  But let me say that your letter on the hiring freeze, the part that means more to me on this letter is the 98% of your budget that means that over 2% of the budget must be saved.  So if you commit a 3%  increase and everybody cuts 2%... Hmm…that comes up to a total of 5% and we should be able to fit this size 12 foot in a size 10 shoe.  Now it should squeeze in there; we should make it.  So that’s my only comment on that.  I would hope that all of this information get’s to the Finance Committee in a timely manner.  Probably not in time for this month’s meeting, but obviously in time for next month’s meeting and I would suggest that all of these issues be put on the agenda for next month’s meeting and can digest this information in the next couple weeks and we can save ourselves probably about three or four house tonight and I am not ready to move forward except for listening to Mr. Patterson and quite obviously we would need to do that and then come up with some reasonable fixes and or alternatives and I don't think that anyone is prepared to do that tonight.   so Item #4 I would move to if my colleagues want to withdraw a motion.  There’s a motion on the floor.  I know that I 'm just suggesting that if it would be withdrawn it would be referred to the Finance committee. 

Sohns:  I'll withdraw my motion.  I’ve made my point.  I’m not playing games here.  [...]

Solomon:  Thank you.  I’ll second that motion. 

Taylor:  I appreciate that motion.   [...]  Is there other discussion?  All In Favor  Aye.  Ayes have it.

endorse

One entry found.

Main Entry: en·dorse  Pronunciation: \in-ˈdȯrs, en-\ Variant(s): also in·dorse \in-\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): en·dorsed; en·dors·ing Etymology: alteration of obsolete endoss, from Middle English endosen, from Anglo-French endosser, to put on, don, write on the back of, from en- + dos back, from Latin dorsum Date: 1581

1 a: to write on the back of; especially : to sign one's name as payee on the back of (a check) in order to obtain the cash or credit represented on the face
b: to inscribe (one's signature) on a check, bill, or note
c: to inscribe (as an official document) with a title or memorandum
d: to make over to another (the value represented in a check, bill, or note) by inscribing one's name on the document
e: to acknowledge receipt of (a sum specified) by one's signature on a document

2 a: to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate>
b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation <shoes endorsed by a pro basketball player>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Boomgaard District” Chosen for South 27th Street Corridor Development 4/23/2008 New Name Blossoms from Area’s History in Apple Orchards and Vibrant Future in Economic Development Milwaukee, Wis. – April 23, 2008 – The Franklin Common Council and the Oak Creek Common Council both have endorsed the name "Boomgaard District" for the area surrounding the South 27th Street Corridor, which is located in both cities. The word "Boomgaard" is Dutch for "orchard," and is significant to both the history and the vision of the South 27th Street Corridor development.

Continue  here  Ã

~~~~~~~



Both Franklin and Oak Creek Common Council's "endorsed" Boomgaard District" as the name for the 27th Street Corridor.

From what we are led to believe, these endorsements took place during closed sessions in order to protect the name from "unscrupulous" individuals who might want to secure the URL.

Oak Creek clearly states their closed session discussion of the name was at their March 18th meeting.

The URL for Boomgaard District was secured before the April 2nd 27th Street Steering committee meeting.

Franklin also entered a closed session regarding the 27th Street Corridor on March 18.

Oak Creek's Mayor Bolender publicly stated at the May 13th 27th Street Steering Committee meeting that "half of the Council liked it, half didn't," regarding Oak Creek's Common Council.  He also stated, "Franklin liked it."

From FranklinNOW blogger Greg Kowalski's meeting with Mayor Tom Taylor:

"Oak Creek's Common Council was evenly split 3-3, with Mayor Bolender breaking the tie by voting in favor. Franklin's Common Council, with Aldermen Hammelman and Kosovich still serving, voted unanimously on this name."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, how exactly does a Common Council formerly "endorse" something?

According to Alderman Steve Olson no vote took place.

Okay....

Somehow, the group of Aldermen and the Mayor endorsed the name "Boomgaard."  

Somehow they unanimously let each other know they liked the name.

Mental telepathy?

Did they know each other so well they could just read facial expressions?

Just a meeting behind closed doors and no one said "I don't like Boomgaard," so they went with it?

Someone told the media that the Franklin Common Council "endorsed" the Boomgaard District.

It was not discussed publicly, that anyone can see, at an open meeting.

The public only found out about the name when it was announced via the news.

A decision was made somehow.

If it wasn't a vote, just tell us what it was then.



Something is rotten in Denmark... Holland...Franklin....