City Council Candidate Responses – 2022

1. Please provide some personal background information (name, occupation, list any community activities you are involved with).

Lynnsey Erickson (incumbent): Name – Lynnsey Erickson
Occupation – Community Health Strategist
List any community activities you are involved with – Oshkosh Housing Authority Board, City of Oshkosh Rental Housing Advisory Board, City of Oshkosh Transit Advisory Board, Winnebagoland Housing Coalition, Wisconsin Women’s Network

Michael Ford (incumbent): Name – Michael Ford
Occupation – Associate Professor of Public Administration at UW Oshkosh. Director of the Whitburn Center for Governance and Policy Research.
List any community activities you are involved with – My name is Michael Ford and I live in Oshkosh with my wife of 16 years, Allyson, and my two sons, Charlie and John. Our kids attend Webster Stanley and Emmeline Cook schools, and Ally and I both work here in Oshkosh. Since 2013 I have taught Public Budgeting and Financial Management, State and Local Government, Analytic Methods, public-private partnerships, and other classes in UW Oshkosh’s Masters of Public Administration program. Prior to that I had a career in public policy. I have deep community ties that put me in position to serve as an effective bridge between the values of Oshkosh residents and City Government. I currently serve in the following capacities: Member of the Oshkosh Common Council, Member of the City of Oshkosh Plan Commission, Member of the City of Oshkosh Committee on Aging, Board member of Clarity Care Inc., Member of Oshkosh Area United Way’s Fiscal Health Evaluation Committee

Matt Mugerauer (incumbent): No response

Robert Wilcox: Name – Robert Wilcox
Occupation – Retired Third Party Administrator
List any community activities you are involved with – I coach youth soccer for Oshkosh Youth Soccer Club

2. Please outline what you consider to be the City of Oshkosh’s 3 – 5 most critical issues.

Lynnsey Erickson (incumbent): The most critical issues I’ve heard from community residents over the past two years have been the need for more affordable housing, the expansion and maintenance of transportation options, and the need for us to work together to build a welcoming community.

1. Affordable housing: Both Oshkosh renters and homeowners have seen housing costs increase over the last year and it has been difficult to find housing options. There are a number of policy solutions outlined in the city’s upcoming Housing Needs Assessment and Strategy Plan that I support and will champion, including preserving and maintaining existing affordable housing through incentivizing low rents and reinvesting in the city’s housing rehabilitation programs. This could be funded through more targeted Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations and utilizing the “Affordable Housing Extension” of tax incremental financing (TIF). When a TIF district is about to expire, the city could extend the life of the district for one year to “benefit affordable housing”. Oshkosh already does this to fund some of its neighborhood revitalization work, but we could focus these funds on the creation and maintenance of affordable housing units. This would be successful if there is a decrease in the number of Oshkosh residents spending more than a third of their income on housing costs, which is currently around 44% of residents (ECWRPC, 2019).

2. Expanding and maintaining transportation options, including transit and street reconstruction: There are major transportation needs in Oshkosh and more needs to be done to have a well-maintained transportation system for everyone. People need to be able to get to where they need to go, whether it’s biking, walking, taking GO Transit, or driving. We have a great public service through GO Transit, but funding limitations have not allowed them to run past 6pm or on Sundays. I’m glad that the city and school district reached an agreement to provide all K-12 students in Oshkosh free rides on GO Transit, and we have seen enormous demand with over 86,000 rides to students in 2021. We need to examine other funding options to expand our transit service to meet the needs of riders. Over the next year, the city will also be challenged with how to pay for street reconstruction. I will address that in question #3.

3. Building a welcoming community: There are people in our city who do not feel welcome here even though they call Oshkosh home. We need to continue the work we have started, not just forming a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) committee for the city and conducting some trainings for staff, but also supporting the internal work to make sure that the city as an employer and role model is being equitable in hiring practices, strategies, and decision-making. I support the DEI Committee’s goal to approve city departments’ internal equity performance measures. I also support the city manager in incorporating equity and inclusion into the day-to-day operations and structures of the city. If we are committed to this work, we must fund it and allocate resources through our operating budget. This work takes time, but if successful, we will have greater representation and retention of the community’s diversity within city departments, improved quality of life, and an increased sense of belonging by people of color within our community.

Michael Ford (incumbent): Oshkosh has several pressing issues. The number one task over the next two years will be our COVID recovery. That includes following our policy to responsibly use federal ARPA funds, giving businesses regulatory relief, and developing a plan to prepare us for any future crises. The second issue is quality of life. Oshkosh is a great place to live and work, but we can always do better. I want to create a package of code changes that removes barriers to economic development, encourages downtown recreation, and makes it easy for residents to improve their properties. Third, we need action on our special assessment policy. The current situation is untenable. Lastly, we need to stay focused on keeping the Sawdust District and Oshkosh Ave development rolling. That is the future of our tax base and we need to get it right.

Matt Mugerauer (incumbent): No response.

Robert Wilcox: 1) Eliminating special assessments. Everyone uses the sidewalks and streets. Replacing roads and sidewalks should be included in the tax. This should not be assigned to the property owner. 2) Affordable housing. If government subsidies used then there should be residency requirements. Also increase the supply of residential units by changing ordinances. 3) Forcing the city to be more efficient with how it spends taxpayer money. The expense side of the budget should be addressed as well as the income side of the budget. Only the income side of the budget seems to be addressed.

3. Previous City Councils have considered proposals to change the policy on how to fund the current street improvement and sidewalk replacement program. Past proposals included establishing a Transportation Utility Fee Program or a Transportation Assessment Replacement Fee as a means to eliminate special assessments for street reconstruction/improvement projects and the sidewalk replacement program. Do you support this type of a program? If so, what should be the basis to establish a transportation fee? Please discuss your position.

Lynnsey Erickson (incumbent): Building and maintaining our sidewalks and roads should not place an undue burden on our residents. I look forward to discussing the possibility of a transportation utility fee, a yearly fee based on the type of property, which would fund our streets without assessing thousands of dollars onto property owners. If this type of utility were to be proposed, the basis for the fee should be closely related to property occupants’ use of the local street network. I hope to see community involvement and input in this process as we figure out how to pay for and maintain a quality local street system.

Michael Ford (incumbent): Yes. I am ok with a transportation utility provided it is legal, transparent, and with a clear process for appealing unfair assessments. Residents and business need to be a partner in the development of the new system.

Matt Mugerauer (incumbent):

Robert Wilcox: No, I do not support a Transportation Utility Fee Program. As I grew up learning about civics in school my first thought on governments charging fees for things was that it was wrong unless the citizen is getting something tangible in their hand. In my opinion this is why we pay taxes. When the taxes are paid the government should not be coming back to the citizens and asking for more money. The government should charge enough tax to cover all of the expenses for each year, or cut from the budget the amount of the special assessment each year so there are no special assessments each year.

I do acknowledge fee’s are appropriate for the government to charge, but generally speaking I do not like fee’s and for this issue I am not in favor of charging a fee to cover these costs. My solution to this is that the council should find ways to save money in the budget each year and use that savings to pay for street improvements, and sidewalk replacement program. One solution regarding the sidewalk replacement program is to prevent the city from being extremely picky on replacing slabs of sidewalk. If there is one crack in the slab of sidewalk the city should not be replacing it. One example I have regarding this was a few years ago a friend of mine who lived at 914 Otter had to pay for a sidewalk slab to be replaced that had one little crack in the corner of the slab. If the city would not be allowed to be picky like this how many fewer sidewalk slabs would be needed to be replaced each year? Would this reduce the number of sidewalk slabs to be replaced to a level where the city of Oshkosh could just pay for the replacements without charging additional tax money.

Another example of the city being to picky with sidewalk replacement is when one slab of sidewalk has to high of a rise from one slab to the next. The city could grind down the higher slab so that both slabs are flush.

In my opinion there is no basis to establish a transportation fee. My solution is for the City of Oshkosh to get its financial house in order.

4. Municipalities across the State are moving to Fee for Service approaches to pay for the delivery municipal services that were otherwise funded by the annual property tax levy. Do you support a funding approach like this? If so, what current city services would be appropriately funded as a Fee for Service? If a new Fee for Service is imposed, should property tax payers receive an equal, proportionate tax levy credit?

Lynnsey Erickson (incumbent): This is a complex issue for cities. The perspective I bring to these types of issues is asking who is most impacted and what data do we need to make a more equitable decision. Too often, when cities collect revenue through fees for services, the burden on residents can multiply and create a cascading series of consequences for families with little to no savings. These fees for service and municipal collection processes can be costly for both residents and the city. I am open to hearing different options and approaches to ensure that how the city delivers municipal services meets residents’ needs and is effective and equitable.

Michael Ford (incumbent): Under state law most new fees that are shifted off the tax levy require a corresponding reduction in the tax levy. I support that. In general I support user fee models for services that do not benefit the city as a whole.

Matt Mugerauer (incumbent):

Robert Wilcox: I do not support moving to a Fee for Service approach. If a municipality covers the service with taxes then I would conclude/argue that it is not a service. Secondly, what is a service? Are municipalities changing the definition so they can charge a fee? I think municipalities are trying to charge fees anywhere they can to avoid the issue of no taxation without representation. I also think the solution to these problems is fiscal responsibility and not paying government employees extravagantly. The highest paid city employee should be paid no more than 6 times the lowest paid citizen of Oshkosh.

5. The City established a Storm Water Utility in 2003 for the purposes of managing storm water run-off issues in the community. Residential property owners are assessed for one equivalent runoff unit (ERU). Non-residential property owners are assessed annual fees based on the amount of impervious space (parking lots and roof tops) to determine the amount of ERUs that exists on a parcel. The initial (annual) storm water utility fee in 2003 was $19.10 per ERU and has grown to $210.60 per ERU, a 14.2% annual rate increase. Do you believe this increase is reasonable? Please outline your ideas to curtail the growth in storm water utility fees.

Lynnsey Erickson (incumbent): Oshkosh has made a lot of progress over the last ten years improving the ability to manage stormwater and prevent overburdened water systems and flooding. The increases since 2003 reflect the increased need for flood control. As we see these mitigation efforts pay off, I hope we can taper off these increases and improve the use of credits for private improvements. As I would with any other issue in the city, I would like to hear from both non-residential and residential property owners to hear their concerns and how they have been impacted by city decisions. I am open to re-examining how we pay for our stormwater management program to ensure that fees are fair and equitable while also ensuring a reduction in storm water pollution and flooding.

Michael Ford (incumbent): No. As I stated during our budget meetings last year the growth in this fee is unsustainable. Projections shared with this council show the fee will eventually flatten. That is not enough. I support indexing increases to inflation (Consumer Price Index-Midwest Urban) to make things predictable for all.

Matt Mugerauer (incumbent):

Robert Wilcox: I do not believe in this fee. Who is to say all the water from impervious space makes it into the storm drain. Being a lifelong resident of the Oshkosh area I have witnessed Oshkosh come up with policies to get more money from its citizens rather than managing its expenses appropriately. I do not believe this increase is reasonable. My outline to curtail the growth in stormwater utility fees would be to get rid of this fee and demand that the water utility manages its expenses better. There are two sides to the equation and they are revenue and expenses. I only ever hear the revenue side of the equation being addressed and I would like to have the expense side addressed.

6. Local governments have asked the Legislature to prohibit the use of physically comparable vacant properties as comparable sales to occupied properties for property tax assessment purposes, known as the “dark store” loophole. The result of this policy would allow tax collectors to more subjectively assess property value and taxes, and make it harder for businesses to challenge their tax bill. Do you support the eliminating the so-called “dark store” loophole to allow municipal assessors to disproportionately assess commercial property owners? Please discuss.

Lynnsey Erickson (incumbent): The dark store loophole has resulted in shifting more of the tax burden from commercial property owners to homeowners and small businesses. If a big box retailer uses the dark store loophole to cut the amount they pay in property taxes, cities are forced to cut services to the entire community, or increase taxes across the board, which impacts homeowners and residents. I am open to hearing different perspectives about this issue and its impact on our community.

Michael Ford (incumbent): This is a bit of a loaded question as I believe there is a need, and an objective way, to assess property that considers use. I support a fairer process with clear procedures for appealing assessments.

Matt Mugerauer (incumbent):

Robert Wilcox: The “dark store” loophole is not appropriate. With my understanding of the dark store loophole commercial property owners would not have their properties disproportionately assessed. My knowledge of this loophole is limited and I am open to having my opinion changed with new facts presented to me.

I would say that if municipalities would fix their spending issues they would not have any problems with revenue. As for fairness local governments are not fair in their assessing of properties. Last local governments should not be in charge of assessing. This is because the employee should not be in charge of the revenue that comes into the organization that pays their salary.

7. The State of Wisconsin currently imposes levy limits on local municipalities, but allows for levy increases based on new development. Do you support the continuation of this? Should there be modifications? Should this be repealed? Please discuss.

Lynnsey Erickson (incumbent): Wisconsin municipalities are forced into a position of needing to meet increasing needs and costs for services while also being limited to how we are funded. Tying tax increases to net new construction has slowed the growth of levies to the benefit of property owners, but this has also made it difficult to maintain services levels over time and created a vicious cycle for low-growth communities with fewer resources to invest. I think that this is an issue that needs to be reconsidered at the state level with voice from local governments and those impacted on whether these limits are creating unintended consequences that need to be addressed.

Michael Ford (incumbent): I could write you a novel on this one! Local control has lost its functional meaning in Wisconsin. Indexing levy increases to net new construction is not a sustainable practice, and it encourages new development over reuse and redevelopment of existing properties. This perverse incentive bleeds into other areas of local government, including the use of TIFs and other public incentives to encourage new construction above all. To put it another way, our levy limits limit our creativity and stifle private entrepreneurship.

I believe we are elected to make difficult decisions regarding the tax levy, and support restoring our ability to do so. In a democratic society we should have local freedom to make local policy. I think this can be done without raising new state revenue as part of a local freedom agenda.

Matt Mugerauer (incumbent):

Robert Wilcox: With the status quo being as it is I agree with these levy limits. This is because Wisconsin was once the leading state for in what it charged for property tax. The levy limit has done its job because Wisconsin is now in the middle of the pack when it comes to what the state charges for property tax. As long as the status quo stays the same then the levy limit needs to stay to protect taxpayers from paying way too much in property tax.

The levy is ok because it prevents the people who receive the tax money from putting the tax high through subjective assessing. They are essentially making their paycheck higher.

How to change the status quo:

1) Local governments need to be willing to spend less rather than looking on how to spend more every year. There are some acceptable expenses that can be increased from year to year such as employee wages to cover inflation and insurance costs. Local governments need to learn how to be efficient with money like businesses are efficient with their money.. When we as a society can have confidence that the local governments can be efficient with the money they receive from taxes then the levy law can be repealed.

2) Another way to change the status quo is to do away with assessments. The levy is their because local governments will assess property values highly beyond reason to gain a tax increase. The levy is there to prevent property taxes from sky rocketing.

3) Why are we only considering property taxes to fund local municipalities? Why should property owners be the only ones to bear the burden of funding local municipalities.