CITY OF HUDSON COMMON COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2008

Meeting scheduled for 7:30 a.m. called to order by Mayor Jack Breault in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:38 a.m.

PRESENT: Mayor Breault and Alderpersons Randy Morrissette, Paul Radermacher, Lee Wyland, Alan Burchill and Scot O’Malley.

ABSENT: Alderperson Dennis O’Connell.

ALSO PRESENT: Attorney Catherine Munkittrick, and Betty Caruso.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF HUDSON AREA JOINT LIBRARY NON-BINDING REFERENDUM QUESTION AND EXPLANATION STATEMENT FOR USE AT APRIL 1^ST SPRING ELECTION – RESOLUTION NO. 1-08: Mayor Breault commented about the proposed Library referendum and Explanation Statement, noting that he thought the preliminary costs should be included the second paragraph of the resolution. Radermacher questioned whether the costs should be included in the question on the ballot.

Attorney Munkittrick stated that would be up to the Council, but the goal of the Library Foundation was to have a uniform ballot question. Wyland also questioned the wording and whether it should only indicate “the City of Hudson.” Ms. Munkittrick explained that the proposal was for the participating members to buy the building jointly, and not to confuse people that it was only the City. She also noted that the Explanatory Statement would not be inside the ballot box but would be posted at the polls.

General discussion was held concerning the ballot question and the information in the Explanation Statement. Ms. Munkittrick explained that prior to the April 1^st election, the ballot question and explanation statements would be published in the newspaper and posted at the polling places. She suggested that Council could have an informational meeting to educate the residents about the proposal.

Mayor Breault stated he would like to avoid being deceitful and that the citizens deserved to be provided with the costs, which should be in the ballot question. He stated that the ballot question was simple, but the costs were only indicated after reading the very wordy explanatory statement.

Council was in agreement that the costs should be indicated in the ballot question.

Finance Officer Betty Caruso cautioned that the suggested $24 per $100,000 of assessed valuation was not the entire answer. She noted several items were not addressed such as the impact of the building coming off the tax roll, who would be issuing the debt, how much debt would be issued, the amount of donations, and other financial issues that needed to be finalized.

Ms. Caruso called attention to a Library Proposal sheet that she provided; the numbers in blue were based on allocation by population. She explained that the City previously allocated based upon equalized values, but populations were appropriate for some contracts such as E.M.S. and the Library. Ms. Caruso also questioned how the Impact Fees would be distributed. She noted these issues could change the figures.

Ms. Caruso noted that in order to keep the ballot question uniform in all the municipalities, an average was used to represent the possible tax increases. She cautioned that the mill rate increase could be $48 or $87 for a $300,000 home. At this point it was only an average. She also noted that if figures were included in the question, they might not be the final actual costs, as many negotiated items still needed to be worked out.

Ms. Caruso also questioned the $1 million estimate for operating the building. She noted that nearly $690,000 was currently being spent on a 5,000 square foot space, and the new building would be almost 10 times that space, and additional personnel costs would occur. She stated that the referendum was to obtain the general feeling from the public, but the actual costs could increase property taxes by $76 per year, or possibly more.

Discussion was held concerning the possible use of a range of dollar amounts for the proposed tax increases, noting that only estimates were available at this time.

Ms. Caruso questioned whether the mill rate would be based on assessed values or would it be based on an equalized value. The range of $16 to $23 per $100,000 of home was considered.

Council was in agreement that an estimated property tax increase amount needed to be provided. It was noted that the proposed costs were based on donations paying for half of the project. Discussion was held regarding possible wording changes. It was questioned whether the explanation statement could be handed to each voter; Attorney Munkittrick noted that it only could be posted. She agreed that the proposed dollar amount needed to be provided for information. Council indicated they would like to see the wording in the actual ballot question.

Discussion was held concerning possible pledge amounts for the project. It was noted that the ballot question was substantively the same, but the Explanatory Statement for the City was slightly different. O’Malley suggested the following wording: “Should the City of Hudson, etc. exactly as worded, ending with “a building to be located at 700 First Street, Hudson, WI, at an approximate cost of $24 annually per $100,000 of home value in Hudson, dependent on philanthropic and private donations?” Discussion was held for wording of the “half factor” to help people understand how the estimated costs were computed. It was noted that the referendum was not binding and would only indicate whether the project was worth further consideration. It was agreed that wording in the question should include that half the costs are paid by philanthropic and private donations.

MOTION by Radermacher, second by O’Malley to adopt the referendum question language as suggested by O’Malley. Attorney Munkittrick noted that the Resolution needed to be adopted, with the suggested changes. MOTION by Morrissette, second by O’Malley, to suspend the rules toward adoption of Resolution No. 1-08. Roll call vote, all ayes (5), MOTION CARRIED.

Attorney Munkittrick also noted that the word “building” should be added to “Uniform Advisory Referendum on Joint Public Library” and the word “uniform” should be removed. Discussion was held concerning the Joint Library Agreement, noting two-year notice was required for withdrawal, and a new agreement would be needed if a community withdrew.

MOTION by Radermacher, second by O’Malley, to adopt the following, as amended:

RESOLUTION 1-08

ADVISORY REFERENDUM REGARDING JOINT PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING

(Copy on file in Clerk’s office)

All ayes (5), MOTION CARRIED.

Mayor Breault cautioned that of the $800,000 in Impact Fees, the City has generated $400,000. In preliminary discussions, the City has asked whether we should get credit for that amount, but they have indicated that the City should consider it a donation to the Library. It was noted that the City and the Village instituted the impact fees and the money can only be used for the library. The City’s portion for contributing to the Library still needs to be determined.

It was noted that the public may be presenting questions about a Police Department facility. He stated that a library study indicated 31,000 square feet would be needed, and the First Street building provided 41,000 including the garage. He suggested that if the Library does move to the NMC building, possibly all the other renters in the building could move and rent space there as well, thereby emptying the Municipal Building except for Municipal Court. He suggested that the Police Department and court system could then share the Municipal Building. It was offered that might not be legal.

MOTION by Radermacher, second by O’Malley to adjourn at 8:09 a.m. All ayes (5). MOTION CARRIED.

Nancy J. Korson, City Clerk

I hereby certify that the City Clerk has submitted the foregoing minutes to me, and I hereby by my signature approve said minutes and all acts of the Common Council as sent forth therein.

Jack D. Breault, Mayor