September 19, 2022 at 11:16 a.m.
Mayor vetoes ordinance amendment involving public amusement fees
Mayor vetoes ordinance amendment involving public amusement fees
In a "veto message" issued Thursday, Hanus explained why he decided to overrule the council's decision to add the following language to the ordinance: "Common Council may waive fees for a registered charitable institution and registered 501c3 organization upon request."
"I see this as being a double standard," Hanus said in the statement. "One of the leading principals that I will always argue for is to make policies that level the playing field for all. This entices one group and turns off another to hold carnivals, shows, circuses, etc. Events like these showcase our city and draw people into our city due to this we should welcome anyone with open arms who would like to put on these types of events."
"I am also requesting that the common council reconsider this aspect to read 'common council may waive fees for anyone upon request,'" he added.
Hanus said his thinking is that anyone, not just nonprofits and charitable organizations, should be allowed to request a waiver and it would be up to the council to decide, on a case-by-case basis, who gets one.
In response to a question posed by the River News, Hanus confirmed that he paid $110 in fees to hold the last weekend's Oktoberfest. Oktoberfest, which Hanus coordinates, falls under "special events" rather than public amusements, he added.
The fees associated with the public amusement ordinance prompted a robust debate among the alderpersons Sept 12. It began when alderman Tom Barnett suggested adding specific language to make clear that 501(c)(3) and charitable organizations can request a waiver of the $100 fee.
However, despite Barnett's suggestion, the first motion made was by alderman Gerald Anderson to approve the ordinance change as submitted, meaning without the language Barnett suggested.
"As I see it, the ordinance as presented is trying to eliminate a couple of places where it says these fees may be waived and I think it's a good idea to take that out of there. So I don't really want to put it back in there in a different form," Anderson said. "If someone is using a park or whatever they're doing, the cost to the city is the same whether they're a charitable organization, some other kind of (nonprofit) organization or whatever and I don't think we should get in the habit of saying automatically, or almost automatically, or as a matter of custom, we always waive for charitable, nonprofit organizations especially if they're doing something that involves fundraising. That means they've got some money to pay to cover the city services involved just like everybody else."
As the discussion continued, Hanus asked if the city could be sued if, hypothetically, the council approved a waiver for one carnival and then the next week forced another carnival to pay the fee
City attorney Steve Sorenson responded by reminding everyone that the city "can be sued anytime, anyplace, anywhere".
"Taking that snide remark away, the answer is if you don't have a reason for the discrimination, a charging municipality cannot discriminate in the providing of services and that's effectively what you're doing, you're providing services to a nonprofit," the attorney explained. "So the question is did you discriminate based upon a rational basis. You'd have to come up with a reason, you'd have to state a reason where your rational basis would have to be something that shows your doing something that's in the best interest of the city."
"Anytime you discriminate you ask for trouble, that's the bottom line," he added.
Barnett, who is the coordinator of the Oneida County Fair, which is a 501(c))(3) organization, noted that waiver of the $100 fee can be critically important for organizations focused on the common good rather than profit.
"The whole concept of not-for-profits raising money (means) they should have enough money to pay the fee, is mind-numbingly agonizing to me," Barnett said. "That's not the point of a not-for-profit. A not-for-profit does a good deed in the city, putting on an event, selling raffle tickets and all that so that money can go back to better the city and the organization..."
He went on to argue that the $100 fee "could mean the difference between someone being able to stay at Frederick Place for a night or someone having some canned goods in their cupboard. If the city's OK with saying they've got to pay the $100 fee so you go hungry tonight, OK, so be it, I'm not going to be a part of that though. I will fight every time to make sure that our city is supporting our not-for-profits not nickle-and-diming them out of existence. As soon as we start nickel-and-diming all these not-for-profits, when historically we have not, we are going to find ourselves without a whole bunch of events that everybody looks forward to every year...."
City council president Eileen Daniel said she could see both sides of the argument. She noted that not all nonprofit organizations operate with limited resources and stressed that the inclusion of the word "may" offers potential event planners an opportunity to request a waiver while at the same the offering the council some flexibility in deciding when a waiver is warranted.
"I think where we are helping ourselves with the language that Mr. Barnett proposed is 'may be waived' and I think if (a request) comes before council, we've got enough level heads on council to (make an appropriate decision). "Not all 501(c)(3)s are created equal, right. There are some 'nonprofits' that have a pretty hefty following and have a pretty substantial bank account," she noted, adding that she could think of one that is "quite, quite well off" despite being a nonprofit. "If it comes down to it, I think there are some 501(c)(3)s who could pay the $100 fee. A $100, in some minds, is not a whole lot and there are others like the homeless shelter and the food pantry that we can say yes, this make sense that we can waive the fee. They have smaller budgets, they have a smaller staff, it just makes sense from a goodwill perspective to waive the fee. So I do believe that having that word 'may' in there is what helps us out in the long run."
After Anderson's motion was voted down, alderman David Holt moved to include the language suggested by Barnett.
That motion passed with only Anderson casting a "nay" vote.
According to city clerk Austyn Zarda, the topic will be on the agenda for the council's next meeting on Sept. 26.
To watch the full debate, visit www.hodagtv.com.
Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.