by Dino Corvino on March 17th, 2010
So, like John Fischer, I am not going to claim to know everything. But, I think that this Van De Yacht matter, and the subsequent reading I have done, has led me to a place rich with questions, and these questions seemingly aren’t being approached by anyone else in town.
First off, I am 100-percent not commenting on the matter of guilt, innocence, a City Hall Conspiracy, or any of the rest. My joy at pounding on Mayor Jim Tipple for lack of leadership or vision is well-documented, and that is not what I am doing here. Instead I want to focus a little bit on the process, and the shocking way the City Council is tilting at windmills.
I am including the Ethics Board Finding of Fact in the original complaint. This is the ruling of the quasi-judicial Board of Ethics which was empowered to decide, and was agreed upon by the parties involved. Christine Van De Yacht agreed to the process, gave testimony, and had legal counsel. So, the process was afforded to her.
First off let us establish some things.
- There is a City of Wausau Board of Ethics Finding of Fact. It recommended that the City Council censure then-Alderwoman Van De Yacht (see page 6).
- The City Council did not, for their own reasons, censure Christine Van De Yacht.
- Christine Van De Yacht brought a civil case in federal court against the City. This case was summarily dismissed before going to court.
- City Council President Bill Forrest moved that a decision on whether the council would refer this to the Ethics Board will be taken up at the next council meeting.
Van De Yacht says that she wants new evidence, evidence which she claims was withheld by staff the first time around, to be heard by the Ethics Board. Clearly this is an allegation of misconduct, or unethical behavior.
The discussion to this point has been that city staff conspired to put Van De Yacht in harm’s way, and as such, she was harmed. This is a new allegation.
Van De Yacht has yet to follow the appropriate process and swear out a complaint. Instead, she has come to the council and effectively asked for a special dispensation to introduce material to a closed case.
Let me repeat that. This case is closed. The Board of Ethics ruled. Wrote a finding of fact. This is done. There is no policy for the City Council to take new evidence and present it to the Ethics Board.
In fact, this might be legally questionable. Does the Council looking at the item, and passing it along, equal a form agreement with the evidence? Is the Council empowered legally to do this — to be a judicial or investigative body? Is this exposing the city, and its constituents to more risk and fiscal liability?
Van De Yacht was not censured. Van De Yacht brought a federal court case that was summarily dismissed by the judge before going to court.
Since this potential evidence is directly related to her civil claim in federal court, why is it not being introduced there? If it would in fact prove illegal or damaging actions by the city, why is it not sent there? This would be the common sense route, since it would be outside of the political sway of this allegedly corrupt administration. Ms. Van De Yacht has legal counsel, so why are they not advising her to return to the civil courtroom and seek satisfaction there?
Prior to this last city council meeting, the suggestion was that the Council send this to the Government Accountability Board (GAB) for review. Considered a fair and impartial outside observer, that was apparently agreed upon by the parties. The State sent a memo back stating that the State does not have jurisdiction, and would not make a ruling.
I think that the City Council drafted a resolution to send this item back to the GAB, after it knew that the GAB would not take the case. In light of the belated realization that GAB is not an option, Forrest tried to change the overly-specific resolution, which is when Anne Jacobsen told them they could not substantially change the resolution and vote on it, because sending it to the Ethics Board was not on the agenda.
Alderman Rosenberg urged the Council to not send this back to the Ethics Board. This would be placing the city, its staff, and the constituents to financial liability.
Council Member Deb Hadley said that the council started this, and it should return it back to the Board of Ethics.
Well, that is all fine and good. But, it already went to the Ethics Board, and the Board presided over the matter and made a ruling. The Council received a suggestion of action.
At what point is this going to be called a nuisance matter by the Council? This matter went to the Ethics Board, and Van De Yacht was given every chance to respond to charges at that time. Depositions were taken. Statements and evidence were brought forth. Ms. Van De Yacht was given every opportunity to respond to the claims at that time.
She then went to a federal court, which dismissed the matter.
Now, four years later, armed with “new evidence”, Ms. Van De Yacht returns to the Council demanding the abolition of the Ethics Board, the payment of her legal expense, and a public apology.
So, if the city council sends a matter that has already appeared in front of the Ethics Board (and a decision rendered), as well as a federal judge (where the City was declared off the hook), there will be a fiscal impact! This is not free. Why are they doing this? Why are they exposing the city to new potential liability and actual cost? This matter has gone through the proper channels, been decided upon, and the channel that the public would have to go through to swear in an ethics complaint has not been followed.
I can speculate that Ms. Van De Yacht feels slighted both personally and professionally, but this matter was never acted on by the City Council. She was not censured. In fact, if you read the finding of fact, there is the matter of the Skip Ellenbecker Dairy Building. Well, she ended up owning the building.
At what point is this a nuisance? Are there not laws to protect municipalities against nuisance lawsuits? The City has a legal process, and it should be followed by both the council and the people in the city.
Finding of Fact.
by John H. Fischer on March 9th, 2010
There have been many critics who say leaders of the City of Wausau have put too much emphasis on downtown, and that resources are being diverted away from some of the more low-income, inner-city neighborhoods. I may be one of those critics.
For a long time, the perception was that once you got outside of an area bounded by 6th Street and the river (east-west), and Scott Street and Forest Street (north-south), you really didn’t matter. I am not saying that is how it was, but that was a very common perception. I was very pleased that for the last year or two, more emphasis is being put on areas outside of the downtown area, including the near west side. However, now there is a perception that once you get outside of an area bounded by 3rd Avenue on the west, 6th Street on the east, Bridge Street on the north and Thomas Street on the south, you just don’t matter.
A meeting I attended on Friday morning, March 5th, will hopefully help to eliminate this perception. The committee, which meets the first Friday of the month fairly early in the morning, is the Mayor’s Neighbor-to-Neighbor Committee. The N-2-N Committee (as it is called) was born as Former Mayor Linda Lawrence’s Core Area Renewal Effort (CARE). Much like the Wausau Century Project, this was a fairly high-government involvement project to do something with Wausau’s low-income neighborhoods. Although the CARE effort ended with Mayor Lawrence, some of the ideas continued on with the N-2-N Committee.
The N-2-N is more of a bottom-up type of organization trying to improve neighborhoods. One of their preferred tools is creating neighborhood associations. They define neighborhoods and help them create an identity and civic pride. They get help from the police department and the inspections department. Two of the most well established neighborhood groups under the N-2-N program are the much publicized Werle Group on the West Side, and the Longfellow Group on the East Side. The N-2-N committee has been working with a newly-formed inner-city neighborhood group on the West Side that has called themselves the “Westies,” and has already seen some improvement for their efforts.
The N-2-N committee is now looking at creating a neighborhood group in one of Wausau’s most problem areas. Their goal is to facilitate residents and property owners with creating an “East Town” neighborhood group. The area they are focusing on runs from 6th Street on the west to the railroad tracks (before Bellis) on the east, by Franklin Street on the north to Forest Street on the south.
The model they have used for other neighborhood groups is going to probably have to be put on the shelf and a completely new approach used because of the very unique and diverse make-up of this area.
Some of the challenges facing the N-2-N Committee include:
- 130 rental homes vs. 34 single-family owner occupied homes
- 42 commercial properties
- 7 large apartment complexes
- 7 owner-occupied rentals
- 5 group homes
- 4 probation & parole houses (TLP)
Based on information available to the N-2-N committee, there are 26 registered sex offenders living in this area. Also, the average age of the homes is around 115 years old (houses range from 1850 to 1960, so the newest properties are still a half-century old). Getting “buy-in” from the home owners is not going to be enough. Rental property owners and tenants are going to play a much larger role if this is going to work because as best the city can calculate, about 80-percent of the housing in this area is rental (and that number might be low).
The two biggest problems identified in this neighborhood are blight and crime. Per the summary statement distributed at the N-2-N meeting, some of the tools that Wausau can use for the blight issue include: inspections with follow-up and enforcement, landlord oversight, and community development grants. For crime, the same statement lists solutions such as increased police presence, enacting a dog ordinance, and enforcing a nuisance ordinance.
I applaud the N-2-N Committee’s desire to look at an area that seems to have been forgotten. However, I am not letting down my guard completely. The City of Wausau’s housing task force came up with a number of recommendations, despite having no real stakeholder input. Many of the recommendations are very heavy-handed. The task force consisted of council members and city staff who, in turn, interviewed other city staff in doing research for their recommendations. There was no input, however, from residents, home owners, renters, or landlords.
I applaud the apparent willingness of the N-2-N Committee to take a similar bottom-up approach in helping strengthen this troubled neighborhood. As an active landlord in this community, I pledge to do what I can to help. However, if city leadership falls back on trying to address these issues without stakeholder involvement, I fear there will be more problems than solutions. Let’s work together and do this right!
by Dino Corvino on March 8th, 2010
From the Wausau Area Events Page.
Friday, August 20th
Robert Allen, Jr. 5pm
Johnny & the Mo-Tones 7pm
Big James & the Chicago Playboys 9pm
Saturday, Aug 21st
The Jimmy’s 1pm
John Primer 3pm
Harper 5pm
Ruthie Foster 7pm
Bobby Rush 9pm
by John H. Fischer on February 23rd, 2010
[I know this appeared on Johns blog, but the work is impressive, and I think it is worthy of a larger discussion.]
Let me start off by saying that I don’t know everything and I don’t understand everything. I start out with that statement because something just doesn’t add up for me — it doesn’t make sense to me. Although I admit I don’t know everything there is to know about various sources of development incentives from the local, state and even federal level; to be fair, I am not completely without knowledge either.
At Tuesday’s City of Wausau Plan Commission meeting, after a public hearing, a zoning change was approved for a 40-unit apartment complex near downtown. It would be located where the Zastrow Beer Distribution facility is, on the river just south of Bridge Street. This zoning hearing is not the first step in the process for this development. Although the meeting last night was to get the zoning situated, about a year ago the City of Wausau approved a Developer’s Agreement for this project where the City of Wausau (through various sources, including funds allocated toward development of low-income housing) was going to provide a total of $450,000 towards this development.
Before I start my rant about how this project appears to be an outright abuse of those systems in place to help with our “affordable” housing crisis, it is important that I make a few of my personal thoughts clear.
I do not oppose a development of this nature in this location. This property is currently zoned manufacturing, which made sense back when we floated logs down the river. However, today a mixed use of commercial and high-density housing along the river front makes sense from an urban planning perspective. I also, in concept, don’t have a problem with the Community Development Authority (CDA) using money they have available to eliminate blight. However, I would hope that because this is a limited resource, they would be selective in its use to get the best bang for the buck.
I have said for a while that our rental housing market for “market-based” rentals is saturated. And, reports done not that long ago by the Wausau Daily Herald and City Pages both verified the amount of overbuilding that has happened, and what this overbuilding has done not only to the supply, but also the quality of housing available. However, the market is, though, in my opinion, overbuilt. I cannot and will not object to a private developer proposing a multi-family development in an location that is consistent with that type of use and the developer is taking this gamble with their own money. After all, I am a free-market kind of guy.
Personally, I think we need to take a much closer look at what our government (city and state in this case) is doing when a developer realizes that the only way to make a development profitable in a saturated market is to have the government defer their risk with grants, tax credits, and other incentives.
I did testify at the public hearing. However, my testimony was neither truly in favor or against. Instead, I was providing information. The hearing was only on the zoning aspect of this project, and as I already stated here, this is a good use of that land from an urban planning perspective. Although the hearing was on the zoning, I did try to address the funding issue without being completely out-of-order. I pointed out two facts: The market for “market-rate” multi-family is beyond saturated; and there is a severe shortage of income-based housing (often called subsidized housing, or often labeled “affordable” housing).
We have a crisis when it comes to housing for those with very low incomes. Most of our subsidized housing developments have waiting lists. The waiting list to get on the Section 8 Housing Voucher program has gotten so long with so few people coming off of it, that the Housing Authority isn’t even taking new applications any more. When I testified, I wanted to know how many of the 40 units were targeted to help with this urgent need. I wanted to know how many families this $450,000 would help, what were we spending per family? You can imagine my shock when the final answer to the question as I phrased it was: ZERO. I was told these are “tax credit” units, which differs from those type of units where the rent paid by a tenant is a percentage of their income. In exchange for these “tax credits” (issued by WHEDA), they have to keep the rents at a level that is affordable to “low and moderate income” individuals.
To give you an idea how much help $450,000 could do if targeted differently: The average amount that I get as the Housing Authority portion of the rent payment for my tenants that are on Section 8 is about $260 per month (let’s round that up to $300). That means that someone who just needs a safe roof over their head costs the Section 8 program about $3,600 per year (let’s call it $4,000). At $4,000 per year per family, over 50 families (10% of those on the waiting list) could get safe housing for over 2 years!
(That is based off of the payments I receive, can any one from the Housing Authority correct my numbers as to what the average cost per household is, if my $4,000 per year number is off?)
We must remember that certain types of City funds can only be used certain ways. You can’t just take this $450,000 and use it to fund the voucher program. That is a federal government issue (although WHEDA does provide funding for some of the vouchers our Housing Authority provides). If, instead of cash for clunkers or new home buyers credits, the federal government would put some funding in the Section 8 program, we could solve the problem of this huge waiting list of families that need help AND solve the problem of record vacancy levels in market rate units AT THE SAME TIME. However, the federal government has no time for solutions that make sense, and this post is not about the federal government use of money to solve problems.
It was said at the hearing this is a $6.9 million multifamily development (however the Daily Herald reported it at $7.2 million). That comes out to well over $170,000 per unit. Based on my experience, a good rule of thumb when calculating the financial feasibility of multi-family projects is $100 per month in rent = $10,000 of value. That is a rough guideline. An example of how to use it would be if the market says you can get $600 per month in rent, you are looking at about $60,000 per unit. If you are relatively close, for example $80,000, the project may still cash flow, just the risk increases as you need to sharpen your pencil. However, but if the market dictates $600 per month and the costs are going to be $120,000 per unit, there is no way to make that thing profitable. On this project, we are looking at units that run from $600 to $750 per month with a cost of over $170,000 per unit. You do the math.
One way to make this work is to cut your costs, bringing down the per unit cost. Another way is to not spend less money, but instead someone else’s. One way to do this is to get WHEDA tax credits designed for low income housing. Another place to ask for money is to ask the City of Wausau to throw money at the project. If I remember correctly from information that came out when the developers agreement was being discussed, they are cutting operating costs also, specifically property taxes. It is my understanding this nearly $7 million project is not going to be taxed on $7 million of value.
The person at the hearing representing the developer said at the hearing that as a condition of getting these WHEDA tax credits, they have to keep the rents “low and affordable” for low and moderate income individuals and families. Really? $600 for a one-bedroom? That is not housing for low income individuals. That is “market rate.” Actually, if you look around, that is a little higher that what the market charges for one-bedroom units.
As a matter of fact, only a few of these units will even take those people who do manage to get off the waiting list and get Section 8 vouchers (though I don’t know of too many landlords in town who would turn down a Section 8 tenant, so there is no need for units that take Section 8, the need is for Section 8).
Based on the information handed out last night, of the ten one-bedroom units, only two will be at rates that are eligible for Section 8. Late last year, I had been told by Mary Fisher of the housing authority (no relation) that the highest need is for two-bedroom units. Of the 19 two-bedroom units in this project, only two are priced within Section 8’s guidelines. The other two-bedroom units rent from $650 to $775. (The highest priced two-bedroom unit Section 8 will allow is $631).
The information provided at the public hearing that specifically addressed how this housing will cater to our need to provide safe housing for low income individuals and whether the CDA’s contribution to this project actually created more questions for me than answers. I feel one of the reasons the developer’s agreement passed was that I was not the only one who thought this development would help with our low income housing needs. The biggest question I have, was there a deadline in the developer’s agreement? Now that we know this project won’t help with low income individuals, can that agreement be re-negotiated?
We have a need for housing that is affordable to our low-income families (the market provides plenty of housing for moderate income families). We have programs available through the City of Wausau and through WHEDA to help solve those needs. This project, in my opinion, does nothing to help with our low-income housing problem and that money would best be, not put toward this project,but instead focused more on things that will actually solve the problem.
I close this post as I started, reminding you that I do not know everything, and maybe there is something going on here, something important, that I am missing. If that is the case, I need for someone to explain to me what I am understanding incorrectly. Please educate me – educate us. Because if I am understanding the situation correctly, a great disservice is being done, not only by the City of Wausau, but also by WHEDA.
by Dino Corvino on February 16th, 2010
District 1
Romey Wagner 46 Votes
Greg Foye 44 Votes
Jay J. Carlson 33 Votes
District 3
Jonathon Havel 33 Votes
Craig Gardner 26 Votes
Chuck Szalewski 36 Votes
Matthew Sann 18 Votes
District 10
David E. Nutting 64 Votes
Chuck Gering 27 Votes
Dan McMullen 31 Votes
District 11
Tom Wohlfahrt 26 votes
Debra Weiss 7 votes
Sherry L. Abitz 64 votes
DC Everest School Board
Rita A.Kasten 19 votes
Valerie A.Palarski 10 votes
Helen Ackermann 19 votes
Andrew E. Sutton 11 votes
Thomas N.Rosenberg 12 votes
Jim Foss 16 votes
Joshua Dickerson 13 votes
by Dino Corvino on February 15th, 2010
Clearly we encourage everyone to vote. Voting is the life blood, and the engagement in the political process, and your voice. Something that we should exercise often.
We even have two members of the Citizen Wausau community running in these primaries.
We took this information, which should help out your finding polling places etc, from the Marathon County Website.
This is a list of polling places we found.
Title: ELECTIONS
When: Tuesday, February 16, 2010
(Go to election reports)
MARATHON COUNTY ELECTIONS:
SPRING PRIMARY ELECTION – TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2010:
PRIMARY ELECTIONS WILL BE HELD IN THE CITY OF WAUSAU ALDERMANIC DISTRICTS 2; 3;10;11 – MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THE EDGAR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A REFERENDUM AND THE EVEREST SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SCHOOL BOARD RACE.
TO OBTAIN PRIMARY ELECTION NIGHT RESULTS YOU WILL NEED TO CONTACT THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE – THE EDGAR SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE AND THE EVEREST SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE.
SPRING ELECTION – TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2010:
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE – BRANCH 2
COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISORS – DISTRICTS 1 – 38
FOR LOCAL MUNICIPAL RACES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS RACES OR REFERENDUMS CONTACT THE MUNICIPAL CLERK AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE.
Information on the April 6, 2010 – SPRING ELECTION will be available after the Tuesday, February 16, 2010, Spring Primary Election.
2010 Election Schedule:
* FEBRUARY 16, 2010 – SPRING PRIMARY
* APRIL 6, 2010 – SPRING ELECTION – Ballot Races: Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Branch 2; County Board Supervisors; Municipal Offices; School District Offices; Referenda.
* SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 – PARTISAN PRIMARY – Governor; Lt. Governor; Attorney General; Secretary of State; State Treasurer; U.S. Senator; Rep. in Congress; State Senator; Rep. to the Assembly; District Attorney; County Partisan-Sheriff & Clerk of Circuit Court; if required Referenda
* NOVEMBER 2, 2010 – GENERAL ELECTION – Governor; Lt. Governor; Secretary of State; State Treasurer; U.S. Senator; Rep in Congress; State Senator; Rep. to the Assembly; District Attorney; County Partisan-Sheriff & Clerk of Circuit Court; if required Referenda
by Dino Corvino on January 28th, 2010
Today WAE announced that Kari Rasmussen has accepted the position of Director of Wausau Area Events. Kari has been the Events Coordinator for roughly three years, and during that time the prominent events in the community have all seen growth and improvement.
I have known Kari for over a decade, and I think she is a great choice. The naming of someone so familiar to both the community, and to the events, is a wise choice.
In a press release Terry Sturm, the President of Wausau Area Events, said: “We are certainly pleased to have someone of Ms. Rasmussen’s capabilities and talents helping to continue the Wausau Area Events tradition of bringing top-notch entertainment options to the Wausau area. Her familiarity with the organization and the events themselves will make for a very seamless transition as we enter into the 2010 event season. “
Congrats, Kari. We wish you well. Knock ‘em dead!
by Brad Schjoth on January 22nd, 2010
When you think of the unfortunately-named, newly-opened Patriot Center in the Cedar Creek Mall, it is inherent that you imagine flourishing gun shows and obnoxious motorcycle rallies. And, well, you probably wouldn’t be far off. But between all that madness, mixed martial arts will take over the building Saturday night in the form of Konquer the Kage 30: The Takeover. See what I did there?
Based out of Marshfield, KTK puts together some of the state’s most entertaining bouts, and at the very least the ring girls always look good. And if you generally sport a straight-billed hat, you’ll be in good company.
Sam Thao, the brother of Lah Thao, who founded Rising Son MMA right here in Wausau, will headline the show against an Illinois boy Wade Choate. As is par for the course when leading in to a Sam Thao fight, two opponents dropped off the card in the past month, and one as recent as just days ago for undisclosed reasons. Let’s be honest, it looks like they’re running scared. A sprained ankle the size of a softball? Excuses, excuses.
Chris “Swiss” Befera, known for his predictable fight endings (most end by way of guillotine choke, or the aptly-named “Swissotine”), was Thao’s original opponent. He suffered the ankle injury, and was unable to fill the duty of defending his bantamweight title. Okay, so we’ll get ourselves a replacement.
Perhaps an even more intriguing matchup revealed itself, after Janesville’s Floyd Hodges openly said Thao was “nothing special his own damn self” in an interview I conducted prior to there being any knowledge of any opening on the card.
So, Befera was out, and Hodges stepped in – for a week. Just days ago Hodges removed himself from Saturday’s main event based on unknown circumstances. The only clarification came from KTK head man Corey Christopherson, who iterated that Hodges’ reasons for pulling out were out of his control. A likely story.
A mad scramble obviously ensued, as showtime was merely hours away. Jack Bauer was on speed dial, and Kimbo Slice on the back burner as a last resort, but Wade Choate stepped up, taking the fight on extremely short notice. Choate’s last bout was against the aforementioned Hodges, and he was overwhelming unsuccessful in requiring less than a minute to be TKO’d. So, that’s where we stand. Two potential Fight of the Year candidates out the window, replaced by a solid, respectable bout.
Most of the umpteen fights on the card will be filled by Wausau and north-central Wisconsin area fighters, as Rising Son will look to dominate on their home turf. Expect madness during the Thao introduction.
For extra information check out WICombatSports.com, and this week’s edition of the City Pages. There, strangely, you’ll be able to read more – more from me.
by John H. Fischer on January 13th, 2010
A while back, an interesting thing happened at city council in Wausau. They took a vote, the person in the audience whose issue it was then asked to speak because they were very confused with what the vote meant, was the item approved or not approved. The item was the Peace Sculpture and the Mayor explained that the sculpture was approved, but the City had to put in place a system for reviewing sculptures, but once that system was made, this one was approved.
Instantly a number of people who voted for the sculpture hit their blue lights to speak. They had understood that this procedure for accepting sculptures had to be developed, and then this proposal would go through that procedure. A review of the minutes determined that to not be the case, and the Mayor’s interpretation of the motion, as amended, was correct.
While I was at the council meeting last night for a completely different issue, we had another one of those “What Did We Just Vote For” moments.
A while back, Trigs got a conditional use to put a sign on the back of the property that could be seen from the freeway. Signs are only allowed to be 30’ high, but with a conditional use, the sign could be over 30’ but not more than 50’ high. The height is actually measured from the curb on the FRONT of the property. In the case of Trigs, they wanted a 50’ sign to get it up high enough to get over the hill in the back of the property and still have freeway visibility. In reality though, the sign is actually only 38’ tall. But, the application was for a 50’ sign because the back of the property is 12’ higher than the front of the property, where the front curb is.
County Market was asking to put up a similar sign. All during the council meeting, they discussed that County Market wanted a 40’ tall sign to be at the same elevation as the Trig’s sign. City staff seemed to think that the geographical features that County Market was dealing with would actually allow for similar visibility with a 30’ tall sign, so that is what staff recommended, and that is what the Plan Commission recommended.
A representative of County Market was allowed to address the Council before the vote to explain why they wanted the sign 10’ higher.
The motion was made to approve the sign, second, and passed unanimously with no discussion. The person representing County Market wanted to know if they got their 30’ sign or their 40’ sign. The Mayor indicated they got the 30’ sign, because no one on the council offered an amendment, they went with the recommendation of Plan Commission.
Alderperson Rasmussen was then quick to point out that when looking at the council agenda, they did approve a sign that “exceeded 30’ in height”, so she inquired if, in fact, they can have the 40 sign.
Good question.
They then called a member of staff to explain the situation. Much like Trigs, County Market must actually measure the height of the sign from the front curb. Also, much like Trigs, the back of the lot is higher than the front of the lot, 10’ higher to be exact. So, on the drawing that they submitted, the 40’ tall sign was actually considered a 50’ sign when measured from the front curb. The Plan Commissions recommendation to the council was to allow for a 40’ tall total height sign (10’ in difference from front curb, 30’ in sign itself). What they approved was what the plan commission recommended, which was a specific sign per drawings and diagrams that is, in fact, in excess of 30’ – even though the sign itself was only 30’ tall.
I was debating if I wanted to go the Council meeting. I had a meeting in Sun Prairie that ran from 3:00 to 6:00 that I needed to leave at 4:30 to be back here in time for the meeting. My item was a conditional use for a business associate that passed the Plan Commission on a unanimous vote. Most things that pass like that see very little discussion and pass at council. I am happy I made it. A question was asked for a clarification on a parking issue, and I was asked to answer that simple question, which I did. However answering that questioned opened the door to other discussion I didn’t see coming – discussion that was brought up at the public hearing, but was not a concern of this particular neighbor at that time. After a minor amendment, we did get our conditional use but I think had I not been there, there might have been a different result.
by Dino Corvino on January 8th, 2010
John Jordan has a plan. A plan that gets Public Access out of the City, off the books, and over to the University. Times are tough, and as such the University cannot fund it. So, he must raise the $40,000 to do that very thing. But it might be just the solution this problem calls for.
On December 21st, Mayor Jim Tipple announced that the City of Wausau would stop funding Public Access television. This elimination of Public Access, and the staff housed there, would save the city roughly $90,000. The Mayor said that the City had to make this cut based on the fiscal needs of the city, and that Public Access would cease operation on January 31, 2010 — roughly 40 days later.
The timing of this action by the Mayor could not have been worse given the proximity to Christmas and by connection the amount of available funders in their offices, and as more than one city council member stated, the action was totally unilateral, since it appears in no committee minutes, or agenda items. But, this issue is incredibly complex, and some of it is very much in dispute.
I spoke to John Jordan, and he seemed positively hopeful about a plan and a tentative budget that he has put together, and the future of his station. Clearly community media can bring out the best in people, and, in fact, build community.
Jordan, who appeared on Glenn Moberg’s Wisconsin Public Radio show “Route 51″ on January 7, said that he has spoken to UWMC in regards to creating a home for the station at UWMC. This moves it out of the City, and Jordan thinks he needs to raise about $40,000 to get the station moved and keep it operational for six months. During this time he would even move himself to a part-time employee to save funds. He seems in high spirits about this challenge.
There is an ongoing court case between the City of Wausau and Charter. The scope of the case is in regards to what are called “PEG funds” and “franchise fees”. The source of the lawsuit is the refusal of Charter to pay PEG fees, and instead pay franchise fees. It is all very confusing. There are federally mandated dollars called PEG funds. PEG stands for Public, Education, and Government. These are federally mandated dollars that are used specifically to fund Public Access programming and operations with the intent of making those types of programs available.
These funds that are in dispute are not directly related to the franchise fees that are being discussed by Barbara Morgan later in this article — they are PEG fees. These fees are specifically allocated by the state from companies like Charter for the support of public access television stations and programming. This money is from a previous agreement that Charter says it no longer needs to pay, since a new franchise agreement was made.
This conflicts with the city’s position, which seems to be that this money was agreed upon for three years, and Charter should pay it. The current franchise agreement states that Charter has to pay a percentage of its billing to the municipality, but this number should not exceed a specific percentage. Charter believes that the franchise fee, combined with the PEG fee, would exceed the maximum percentage, and as such Charter has chosen not to pay the PEG money.
Jordan said that this matter did not help the budget process in regards to the Public Access station. Maryann Groat said that while the disputed money has not been paid to the city; the City has paid for Public Access out of franchise fees. But, with a tight budget, and rising costs of Public Access, the Office of the Mayor had to make a choice.
Along the way there has been talk about streaming the meetings online, or like the Village of Weston, creating a podcast that is available for download. Obviously we believe more transparency is better, and city government should be as open as possible. Consider Internet usage in our town. Sure, you’re a reader of Citizen Wausau, so you are an Internet person, but studies have shown that the rate of broadband penetration in rural areas (most of the area) has diminished from a 40 percent growth in 2005/2006, to a dismal 12% in the last year. So fewer people get the Internet, and fewer people have broadband than we thought. Streaming is out.
Creating podcasts, while part of most of our daily lives, is also something that is technologically forward. My mother does not subscribe to any podcast (not even the two that I am a part of). So that is the standard I apply. It would be hard to convince me that the elderly population who have spoken out about seeing church services, or city meetings, are going to be the first to download iTunes, and find the RSS link to the city podcast (the city makes things so easy on their website), and then download and listen. I mean, I can do that, but not sure that my mom can.
Clearly, the importance of community media cannot be overstated. These are voices of our community, voicing, often times, issues that are not covered by other media outlets. With our daily newspaper being owned by Gannett, and our talk/news radio station being owned by Midwest Communications, we are losing local media. And as such, a resource such as Public Access television is important and something that should be saved.
Wausau is developing itself into a progressive media city in some regards. The existence of the only Hmong-operated radio station in America in WNRB-LP FM is part of this story. As are the municipalities that use things like podcasting to communicate the business of their municipality with their residents.
In the Wausau Daily Herald Barbara Morgan wrote a passionate column about how Public Access is the one utility in this area that pays for itself. She makes this point, “Every month there is $2.60 on the Charter cable bill for “franchise fees.” This totals $330,000 per year collected from cable subscribers and paid to the city.
That lump sum goes toward some additional city expenses. When I spoke to Maryann Groat she said that the dollars are for various things like utility pole right-of-way, licensing, underground cabling, etc. But, at the same time, it all ends up in the general fund, so I am not exactly sure how this works.
Morgan goes onto write: “[Groat] goes on to say that the money will now go toward general expenses in the tight budget. So now the cable TV subscriber is getting nothing for the $330,000 collected each year and given to the city? This is a very generous donation to the general fund by cable TV subscribers, wouldn’t you say?”
Groat confirmed that the money does in fact all end up in the general fund. This fund is used for the run of the mill operations of the city. One of them being Public Access of course. But, like I stated before, this is not as simple as it seems. These are two agreements, and one of them seems to cancel the other out. At least that is Charter’s position.
Morgan further states: “Another disappointing aspect of the demise of public access is that it was done under a cloak of secrecy. Not one word of discussion, not one opportunity for Charter subscribers, who fund the channels, to state their case.”
Clearly, this is an issue that this administration has struggled with; the perception that transparency is not very high on the list of operating principals. No one is entirely sure as to the way the cut was made by the Office of the Mayor. Clearly there are differing accounts, and lots of people are assigning blame. The timing though, is not in dispute.
For more information about Jordan and his attempt to save Public Access television, go to Glenn Mobergs radio show and listen to what John Jordan had to say about his plan to save Public Access.
