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 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 May 26th, 2009
Yesterday I received a copy of a letter apparently sent to all of Wausau’s City Council members. It is attached, and I encourage each of you to download it, and the envelope it came in. It is my contention that this is about as divisive and deliberately intimidating a piece of mail one can get if elected.
The envelope has a return address that would indicate to some that this item came from the local VFW post. But, in a Monday morning phone conversation with local VFW Quartermaster Bernie Guaerke, he said that they did not send the letter. He was upset to be implicated in this, and said that when the VFW sends something they do it on their own letterhead and they sign their name.
One of the ideas espoused by Citizen Wausau is civility. It is an idea that appears all over the place, in many of our materials. This letter sent to each of our elected council members is depressingly uncivil. I wrote a post about a lack of civility at a CISM Committee meeting, and it was met with a few less than civil comments.
Now, the world has this letter. Sent anonymously (read chicken) from an address that was not theirs with the intent of intimidating the board into some action, and creating some further wedge for 2012. This is sad, and someone should be ashamed of themselves.
I spoke to one of my mentors today, and he reminded me that if one wants to take part in the council process, you simply sign up to speak, and you stand in front of the council and speak. He said you do not stand in the shadows, and send out anonymous letters from addresses that are not your own in the hopes of getting council members to vote out of fear rather than vision. I may not dig everything all of the council people do all the time, but I do like the idea of having a vision and acting on that rather than voting out of fear of being targeted for attacks like this.
I wrote a post a while back about the concept of WORTHY-ness. What we as citizens of Wausau are worthy of. Well, we are worthy of far more than this. I am saddened by the bullying tactics that seem to go on, and none of that comes from the council. I am worthy of more than that from our council, and the people who seek to move and shake behind the scenes. Our city is worthy of more than that.
I think that there is a cancer in the council, and that cancer is causing these voting blocks, causing this lack of transparency, causing this thought of conspiracy (and I am more than a little upset Rob gets to be in the conspiracy and I do not, as I like to join new groups, and I need friends). Whispering in peoples’ ears, telling them how to vote on this or that issue. Creating wedges about things like this statue, that some guy wants to raise the money for himself and donate to the city. Council people live in fear of being targeted like others in the past have been, and as such they get bullied into bad positions. It is bad politics.
We need men and women who have the strength of conviction to stand up to this sort of bad wedge garbage. Seeking to be divided by forces outside and with their own interest is a mistake. It is my understanding that all but two members of the council showed up to the goal setting meeting, and one was a long-time planned absence. So, other member, where were you?
But, back to this letter. It is my contention that this letter is intended to do one thing, to make it seem like the VFW is against the statue, to use the voting power of the VFW to intimidate councilmembers into voting against a free statue. I think that this is a wrongly directed impulse given the fact that the VFW did not send this letter, and when asked about the statue, they had no opinion.
To use this sort of deception to bully the members of council into not voting to support an item being DONATED to the city, well that seems bad. If you have an opinion, you should come to the council meeting tonight and state it, not send something inflammatory and anonymous to the members of the council.
Members of the council get enough input; they do not need anonymous intimidation. It leads to fear, and that fear leads to bad leadership. I hope the council can see beyond this, and vote for whatever they want to do. I also hope that council members will make a comment about the letter, so it can be discussed as the bad thing that it is. If you shine lights on cockroaches, they run away.
Letter
Envelope (Note the Return Address)
Sculpture
by John H. Fischer on April 23rd, 2009
Currently, the City of Wausau is considering allowing a vacant warehouse on the East Side to be used as an indoor skateboard park. The proposal went to a public hearing and the Plan Commission said yes to the plan with a 5-0 vote. However, the City Council was to make the final decision last week, and they decided to “table” decision to May.
This has generated much discussion in other forum boards that I participate in, and some of the discussion was to why the City of Wausau turned down the proposal. Other parts of the discussion related to why the City should even have the right to deny this if the property is zoned for commercial use.
Since my last topic was meant to be a little on the edgy side and generate discussion (which it did very well), I thought I would ease back a bit and just throw a little “educational” information out there on zoning.
One of the principals of our country is private property rights. The thought is that you can own property and do with that property pretty much whatever you want, as long as your use of your property does not interfere with other people enjoying and using their property. It is because of this restriction that your use should not interfere with other’s use, that the concept of zoning comes about.
Municipalities take each piece of property and apply zoning to it. Zoning defines generally what the property can be used for. There are many different types of zoning, to just name a few, there are Residential, Commercial (sometimes called Business), Manufacturing (sometimes called Industrial), Agricultural and many others. Each municipality decides what types of zoning they will have and what is allowed in each type of zoning. (This can make life difficult for people like me, because the basic single-family zoning codes, often called R-1, are different in Wausau, Weston, Schofield, Rothschild, Mosinee, Rib Mountain, etc.)
The thought is that you group these properties together in zoning districts. Although they differ from city to city, R-1 is usually the most restrictive single-family residential zoning. The thought is that if you are in an R-1 district, your neighbor cannot do something on their property that would interfere with your use of yours.
In addition to the different types of zoning, there are also different “severities” (for lack of a better word) indicated by the numbers. For example, R-1 might be single family, R-2 duplex, R-3 low-density multifamily and R-4 high-density multifamily.
To protect these properties within the zoning district, the municipality then establishes uses. It establishes permitted uses, conditional uses and prohibited uses. These are pretty much self-explanatory. If something is a permitted use, you may do it. If your neighbors don’t like it, that’s too bad — it is a permitted use. A conditional use is outside of what would normally be permitted, but under the right circumstances, might be a good fit within that zoning. You must ask permission from the municipality to do something that is a conditional use, and you can only do it if given this permission. And as the name implies, the municipality can put a number of conditions on the use to ensure that it does not interfere with people enjoying the use of their properties within that zoning district. If what you want to do is not a permitted use and is not a conditional use, it is by default prohibited, and you just simply cannot do it. You cannot ask the city to let you do it as they don’t have the authority to grant you permission – it is simply prohibited.
The way the process works for conditional uses differs from city to city, but basically you must ask for the city to give you permission. The first step is normally through a committee (in Wausau, this is the Plan Commission). One of the things this committee must do is have a public hearing. They will post notices and mail notices to neighboring properties. They want the neighbors to know that someone wants to do something that is normally not “permitted,” and the neighbors have a right to come tell the plan commission what they think of the proposed use.
After hearing the testimony, the plan commission then decides if they will recommend the conditional use and what type of conditions they will put on this use to help address the concerns brought up by those at the hearing. The commission does not approve or deny the use, they only RECOMMEND approval or denial. The City Council, or Village Board, as the case may be, makes the final decision.
Once the City gets the recommendation, they can do a number of things. They can agree with the recommendation, they can disagree with it, they can send it back to the plan commission with further questions or they can put it on hold as more information develops.
So, on the Indoor Skateboard Park, why is this before the city when the property is zoned commercially? Well, technically the zoning is Manufacturing, M-2 to be specific, and this type of indoor entertainment facility is not a “permitted use” within the M-2 — it is a conditional use. Therefore this went through the hearing process and found itself before the Council.
Why did the City say no when the plan commission recommended yes? Well, the City did not say no. The City “tabled” it — they basically put it on hold. The plan commission had “suggested” the skateboard park owners do a few things. The park owners did not realize that in “playing the game,” when the commission “suggests” something, what they are really saying is “do this tomorrow.” Because the “suggestions” had not yet been done, the City did not make a decision in April — they just pushed it back to May to give the owners time to heed the “suggestions.”
It’s a complicated process with a pretty steep learning curve. But hopefully this helps explains a little bit of the inner workings at City Hall.
by Dino Corvino on April 10th, 2009
Once again Mayor Jim Tipple has sought to stop the transmission of open records that are legally supposed to be available for review. This is officially an “again,” as he did this not too long ago and apologized for his own mistake.
Now it has become a trend of a mayor refusing to give the media access to information that they are legally allowed to have. ONCE AGAIN. Let us understand this, he is literally doing the same thing, again. AGAIN. A SECOND TIME. RETURNING TO THE BEHAVIOR THAT WAS WRONG BEFORE. Again.
According to a piece in the Wausau Daily Herald by DJ Slater today, a request was made of the mayor, officially and through proper channels, of the mayor regarding the new Development Director candidates, and the mayor refused the request for public information. In the article experts are cited, the legal matters are discussed, and the mayor and his track record are mentioned.
The question is this then: Is this intentional stonewalling on the part of Mayor Tipple at this point? I think we all gave him the credit for the first mistake, which he apologized for, but this second time appears to be a trend. Is this mayor defying the media and the people for some other reason? What justification can there be for not giving the people something they are legally allowed to have?
I want to point out that one of the core values of this City Council is transparency. Where is your transparency, Mayor Tipple? Where are you? This is a legal request, made by a paper of record in this community. To refuse them is to show your disregard for the people and the legal obligations of your position as an elected official.
Being a mayor is not running a department or running a private company. The position of mayor is held to a different set of rules. A mayor must abide by them. To defy them is to defy the people and to demean the office.
When will someone stand up on the City Council and do the right and legal thing?
by Dino Corvino on September 29th, 2008
Ideas for a Green Wausau, for a sustainable future, sometimes seem far-fetched or too costly, but I assert that this doesn’t have to be true. By taking some first steps to sustainability, we can achieve a more environmentally healthy city and hopefully, less of a dependence on foreign oil. With a media focus on T. Boone Pickens’ plan, we can take this moment to talk about the first steps that Wausau can take, should take, since we are a community packed full of conscientious, brilliant people with determination and grit. (more…)
by Cheryl Mathis on May 20th, 2008
Mike Morrisey, Director of Community Development for the city of Wausau, has announced his retirement, effective June 2.
Morrisey returned to work following an internal investigation that cleared him of misconduct in regards to a wrongful termination suit currently pending before the state involving a former employee.
See NewsChannel 7’s coverage of this breaking news for more information.
See retirement letter here.
Morrissey Retires
by Dino Corvino on April 14th, 2008
In case you were wondering who on the City Council is tasked with what? Well, this document should be able to answer these questions. In the past, these appointments have led to some clashes on the Council, and these might as well.
Your City government is yours though. That is something that should not be forgotten. These people are voted for by you, and for you. They are acting in a role of service, as such we should thank them. But also we need to be a part of this process.
Committee Appointments
by Citizen Wausau on January 4th, 2008
What an amazing year 2007 was. It’s brought about a a lot of change in our community, and in some ways, I myself will never be the same.
A few months ago, I was walking into my friend Forest Young’s drugstore to pick up a prescription. As I entered, I was quickly asked to leave and not touch anything. Why? Was I a loitering miscreant? No, not this time. It was because the ladies behind the counter had just been accosted by a gun-wielding burglar. (more…)
by Dino Corvino on November 27th, 2007
So “Tis the Season” and all that sort of jazz. Holidays, family, bowl games, NBA basketball, new video games, and apparently local politics. We are thrilled to be a part of this sort of thing, and by no means are we taking sides (yet). But we have this release that we got from Mayor Tipple’s people (and by people we mean email) so I am just going to cut and paste it up here in all its glory: (more…)
