Bill Castle Response to Question No. 4

Running for mayor has been a great learning experience for me. I have learned that most citizens of Oshkosh support our city’s redevelopment efforts. However, it has become clear to me that we as a city haven’t communicated with and kept the public as well informed of our efforts, as we should. The Oshkosh Northwestern recently ran a series of articles on the city’s redevelopment efforts. It was great stuff. After having read it I realized that we as a city need to more actively tell our own story.

The Five Rivers Resort proposal is currently before the Redevelopment Authority. The Redevelopment Authority is composed of citizens and city staff and is tasked with evaluating all of the nuts and bolts of projects like the Fiver Rivers Resort project. The people on the Redevelpment Authority were selected for their experience and knowledge. They meet every third Wednesday at 4 PM at city hall and the public is welcome to attend. Ultimately the Redevelopment Authority will negotiate the final package for Fiver Rivers.

Their recommendation will go to the city’s Plan Commission which meets every first and third Tuesday of the month at 4 PM at city hall. I would expect the Redevelopment Authority to make a detailed and informative presentation to the Plan Commission on all aspects of the Five Rivers Project. The advantage of doing this at the Plan Commission meeting is that these meetings are televised and the public is free to speak on specific agenda topics. This is a critical step in helping the public find out what’s going on.

The Plan Commission then votes on the land use components of the proposal. For example the Plan Commission would review how the public would have access to the riverfront. Our recently adopted Comprehensive Plan specifically directs public access to this rive front property.

If approved by the Plan Commission the proposal would go to the city council. In one of my previous answers I indicated that city council meetings are not as productive as they might be. When elected mayor I would hope to improve how these meetings are conducted. For example I would hope city staff would make a detailed presented of the Five Rivers Resort project. Citizens could speak. Council members would discuss with each other while not pandering to the camera. When finished everyone should feel that they know what’s going on and that they had the opportunity to provide input.

Generally these projects are easier to modify earlier in the process. Our public access tv helps keep the public informed. However we must always work harder to keep the public and ourselves better informed. To that end you can go to BILLCASTLEFORMAYOR.COM for a detailed presentation of my views.

I ask for your vote April 5th so we can continue these important projects.

ESSLINGER RESPONSE TO QUESTION #4

First, I think that if the developer is asking for public funds in any substantial amount, that there be a public meeting on the project (a town hall meeting if you will.) I think citizens should evaluate the project based upon the complete plan when it comes forward.


Some of the elements of the plan that citizens should evaluate are as follows:

1. Is the development appropriate for this location?
2. How much money is being asked of the taxpayers?
3. Can we afford the amount being asked for?
4. Will there be public access to the riverfront?
5. Will the public be able to use the various aspects of the development, like the
water park?
6. Will the taxpayers be burdened with the project should the TIF fail?
7. How many jobs will be created, and what is the multiplier effect of the jobs that
will be created?


I don't think there should be an arbitrary dollar amount that we can say now that the taxpayers should be willing to pay for because we haven't seen the complete plans. I also don't think that we can afford to write a blank check for the project either. I would be more comfortable talking about dollar amounts when the plan comes forward and we can have the questions from above answered.

The amenities that the citizens should insist on are access to the riverfront and that the public be allowed to use the water park. And as I stated before, something should be put in the contract that the taxpayers not be burdened in any way should the TIF fail.

Sincerely,


Paul Esslinger

Question No. 4

The Five Rivers Resort proposal for the Pearl Avenue-Marion Road Redevelopment Area provides an interesting test case for the city. Not surprisingly it has generated a certain amount of rhetoric even before many of the details have become available.

* How do you think citizens should evaluate this situation and make up their minds about the proposal?

* Should there be a specific dollar limit on the amount that taxpayers should be willing to provide in public support?

* Are there certain amenities or development limits that the city should push for?

Bill Castle Response to Question No. 3

We can expect the costs of city government to keep rising. Employee costs including medical costs will continue to increase. We can not take the attitude that we are going to balance our budgets on our employees backs. Some businesses have tried that approach and found that it doesn’t work. We must work cooperatively with our employees to find ways of delivering greater value for each wage dollar spent. We need to move away from our political discussions always being about yes or no budget issues. We need to raise the level of political discourse and focus on delivering better city services for the same tax dollar. I am proud I supported replacing two police officer car patrols with one-officer cars. We want to keep the same number of officers on the street, but allow them to be more places at one time. For the same tax dollar we get better protection and we work cooperatively with the police department to ensure our officers remain safe.

With that same cooperative attitude we need to engage the county and surrounding townships on how we can all bring greater value for each tax dollars spent. Police, fire and roads are obvious places to look. We should look for the less obvious.

For a more comprehensive look at these and other important issues I would ask that you go to my web site BILLCASTLEFORMAYOR.COM. thanks for taking the time to become better informed.

ESSLINGER ANSWER TO QUESTION #3

1. In the last contract negotiations with the unions, there were some positive developments. The unions agreed to pay 5% of their premiums where they previously paid 3%. We also had savings by having two health plans, an EPO, and a PPO. The EPO limits the amount the doctors for the employees but saves the city money because the doctors involved agree to discounts. We saved money on the PPO by increasing the out of network payments by employees. We also agreed to a 2.25%, 2.50%, and a 2.75% increase in the employees' salaries over three years respectively. This is the first time that the union employees received less that a 3% increase in their salary in a long time.

The thing that will need to be taken into consideration in the next contract negotiations is that the comparables (contracts that have been signed in communities around us) are over 3.0%. This is important because we must be close to what we offer our employees or the unions can go to court and claim that the city is not bargaining in good faith.

So, to sum it up, are hands are somewhat tied when it comes to salaries and benefits, however, we may have some leverage with more insurance concessions.

2. I have heard of some possible efficiencies, such as combining the Sheriff's Department and the City Police Department. I have not personally seen any of this information, but if it makes sense to the taxpayers, and it does not diminish the quality of the service, then we need to look at making some consolidations.

3. Nonunion employees should be evaluated by the City Manager and suggestions can be made to increase salary and benefits based on their performance. I don't believe employees should receive increases in salary simply by occupying space from one year to the next.

Sincerely,


Paul Esslinger

Question No. 3

How do you propose controlling personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits, in city government?

Please respond to the following specific aspects of this issue.

* Does the city need to be more aggressive in bargaining with unionized employees?

* Are there efficiencies that can be achieved through greater collaboration with the county or adjoining communities?

* How should nonunion employees such as department heads be evaluated and compensated?

ESSLINGER RESPONSE TO QUESTION #2

My opponent voted in favor of a 5.7% tax increase that included millions of dollars in funding for infrastructure improvements for the band shell, $675,000 toilets at Riverside Park and $125,000 for colored concrete and lights for the up-coming new Wisconsin St. bridge. Does he really think that the majority of Oshkosh residents want to spend their money on these items, or that they can even afford this tax increase with spending on items like this?

I believe my opponent is out of touch with the majority of the residents of Oshkosh. My opponent needs to remember that Oshkosh residents a generally low to middle income earners, and can't afford hefty tax increases, especially for frivolous items.

Sincerely,


Paul Esslinger

Bill Castle Response to Question No. 2

My opponent envisions the new mayor position to be ultimately a fulltime paid position. My question to him is how much per year does he expect the mayor to be paid?

Under our existing system the mayor is paid less than $3,000 per year. When I and others have served as mayor we did it as a civic responsibility. I am a strong advocate of this system and would oppose any increase in what we pay the mayor.

Question No. 2

What question relating to the city of Oshkosh would you most like to pose to your opponent in this debate?

And how would you answer it?

Bill Castle Response to Question No. 1

Traditionally the mayor of Oshkosh has made little difference. Seven city councillors have elected the mayor and the mayor has served at the pleasure of those councillors. The mayor was considered one among seven. By directlly electing a mayor the citizens of Oshkosh are giving that elected mayor a strong voice. The mayor should be a voice for change.

For example I have become convinced that our city council meetings have grown increasing disfunctional. Citizens speak but we as council members cannot respond to them under the constraints of the current system. Council members make statements (often for the benefit of the camera) but seldom talk to each other. The city manager makes reports but often doesn’t tell us what’s going on.

When I’m elected mayor I will create a panel of people (politicians, civilians and city employees) to initiate a public dialogue of what a city council meeting should look like. We need to have more discussions and fewer speeches.

The newly elected mayor will set the tone for how a city government functions. The city council will remain the city council; 7 duly elected officials charged with executive oversight of the city of Oshkosh. The city manager will continue to run the city on a day to day basis bringing major issues to the attention of the Council. I would intend to set a positive, progressive tone for our government. As it is now, city government works well. Our priority has to be on improving the functioning of government continuously. How can we provide better services for equal or less money? How can we get more people involved in our city? How will we hold ourselves accountable for the decisions we make?

None of these issues are easy but I’m convinced we have the capacity in Oshkosh to continue getting better. As mayor I will help provide the leadership to do just that.

On a separate note I have been asked to comment on unpaid property taxes on 100 N Main Street. I don’t know the full facts of the situation. We all need to pay our taxes when due. Beyond that I cannot comment until I know more detail.

ESSLINGER ANSWER TO QUESTION #1

Ultimately I think the mayor of Oshkosh should have veto power. I also think that the mayor should be a full time position. Whether the position would work with, or replace the City Manager I think would be a great debate. At this time I don't know what would be the best for the city. I would like to hear the pros and cons of each.

If we had a full time mayor, the mayor would be able to be the council representative to most, if not all of our boards and commissions. This mayor could also hold office hours so citizens could get a hold of a representative of our government during the day. People could contact the mayor with general questions about the city, and the mayor could contact the city staff to get questions answered instead of residents having to call the city staff. I have head from several citizens that they get frustrated when they call some city departments because they are treated rudely, or don't get their questions answered. The mayor also would be the "front person" for the city, the person that would be quoted in the paper in response to whether projects should or should not be introduced to the city. The mayor then could really become better-educated on the different departments in the city. A better educated mayor would especially be beneficial at budget time.

The Common Council would act as the rest of the representatives to the city, and the position would remain a part time position. I also think the council should remain at large representatives.

The city manager, as I stated previously, would either be replaced or would continue to run the day-to-day operations of the city.

At the very least, we need a mayor with veto power.

Sincerely,


Paul Esslinger