Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Reestimates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves 2024 reestimates after heated debate over $200,000 for outside legal fees and Boston Store TIF support
Summary
After a lengthy debate over outside legal spending and continuing TIF support related to the Boston Store at Mayfair Mall, the council approved the Financial Affairs package (item 12) by a 13–1 vote; an amendment to split vote on three subitems failed 10–4.
The Wauwatosa Common Council on Sept. 24 approved a slate of 2024 budget reestimates that included a requested $200,000 increase for the city attorney’s office to pay outside counsel and additional funds tied to holding costs for the Boston Store property at Mayfair Mall.
Ald. Meindl moved to amend the package to separate three requests — for the fire department, the city attorney, and Boston Store-related funding — arguing each request should be considered on its own merits. The motion to amend failed on a roll call vote (amendment lost 10–4).
Meindl raised concerns about priorities and said the city had eliminated an annual $125,000 contribution to an affordable housing fund while seeking added money for legal fees and Boston Store holding costs. “We’re seeing some amorphous fee from developers… I’m just having a hard time understanding our priorities here in the city of Wauwatosa,” Meindl said.
City legal staff and the mayor defended the increased legal spending as necessary to defend the city’s property tax assessments and other litigation risks. The city attorney said some cases “are challenging our property tax assessments” and that defending those cases protects the city’s tax base. “We were sued. We did not bring these lawsuits. We were sued,” the attorney said, adding that failing to defend the cases could cost the city significant refunds to taxpayers.
Council members debated the Boston Store effort separately. Critics said the property has incurred roughly $30,000 per month in upkeep costs and has multiple pending lawsuits filed by its owner against the city, while supporters described the municipal intervention as a long-term strategy to protect the city’s tax base and to attract housing and other uses to the site.
After extended discussion, the council approved item 12 (the financial reestimates) by voice/roll call with a final tally of 13 in favor and 1 opposed (Alder Bridal cast the lone no vote).
Actions and follow-up: the council approved the budget reestimates as presented. Council members requested additional detail on outside legal spending and suggested staff provide a report on outside counsel costs and return on investment, potentially in closed session to protect litigation strategy.
