Council divided over public tax forum and agenda-rule changes; Eslinger to host meeting with state lawmakers

Public comment and extended council discussion about property-tax bills and council procedures dominated the Jan. 28 meeting of the Oshkosh Common Council.

Resident Matt Mickelson told the council his taxes increased sharply and asked for a public forum where staff could explain the revaluation process and options going forward. “My taxes went up over 20% on average on those,” Mickelson said of the properties he owns, adding that a video explanation published by a council member left questions unanswered.

Council members split on whether the common council should sponsor a formal, council-initiated public meeting. Supporters said a public forum with staff present would help residents understand what happened during the city’s revaluation and what remains within local control. Dissenting members said city staff already provide information through multiple channels (open-book sessions required by statute, public notices and direct constituent contact) and warned a broadly advertised forum could raise expectations council cannot meet because some decisions—particularly about DOR revaluation mandates—are set at the state level.

Council Member Paul Eslinger said he planned to host a meeting on Feb. 10 at Beckett’s and invited state representatives; that meeting had been organized with city attorney input and was intended to be noticed so it would comply with open-meetings rules. Later in the meeting, Eslinger clarified he would proceed with his gathering regardless of whether the full council formally adopted it; staff and other councilors said if the full council wants a meeting that includes all members, staff can help notice and organize a separate session with a mutually agreed agenda.

The council also spent significant time debating procedures for how a council member gets an item placed on the agenda. Multiple councilors urged a clear, written process that preserves elected officials’ prerogative to bring topics for discussion while protecting staff from unplanned workloads. Suggestions included allowing any member to place items on the “council discussion and direction of the city manager” section within the published notice period, then using a formal vote (rather than an informal ‘‘nod’’) to move a topic from discussion to staff-directed action.

State-level constraints were also raised. Councilors asked that state legislators in attendance at Eslinger’s Feb. 10 meeting address the Department of Revenue’s revaluation process and the possibility of statutory changes—topics some councilors said will require state intervention for meaningful remedy. The city attorney and interim city manager briefed councilors on open-meetings law and on the city’s existing newsletter description of process for placing items on the agenda.

Councilors scheduled further internal work on the agenda-procedure recommendations and asked staff to compile a draft for review at a future meeting. Several members said they would continue holding constituent meetings and office hours in the interim.

What was not decided: the council did not adopt a single, council-led public forum on the property-tax matter at this meeting; instead, members resolved to continue discussion, and Council Member Eslinger said he will hold the Beckett’s meeting on Feb. 10 that he organized with invited state representatives.