Lincoln City Council: Funding for Juneteenth back on the Agenda for Monday voting session

 

[April 30, 2022] 

The Lincoln City Council Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday, April 26th was one filled with difficult discussions and much disagreement with the two largest topics of the night leaving aldermen clearly divided.

The night began with public participation from Whitney Proffitt who expressed her disappointment in the actions of the council at the previous Monday voting session. She said that she was disappointed that the council had chosen to “turn its back on a marginalized population” in Lincoln. She spoke of the choice of the council to not offer a second on motions to provide financial support to the annual Juneteenth and Pride celebrations to be held in June.

Proffitt said that by offering no second, the council had told the two groups that they were not of value and not even worthy of a vote or additional discussion.

In response to her message, Alderman Tony Zurkammer commented that there was no further need for discussion on the matter and that the lack of a second sent the message that the council was saying no to the funding. He said he felt it was the right move on the part of the city. Zurkammer also commented that he does support the Juneteenth celebration, he attended last year and has intentions of attending this year.

Proffitt did not agree and said that Zurkammer’s comments meant nothing to her. Furthermore she said that the lack of the second and the actual vote “said to us that you don’t want us here.”

Alderman Rick Hoefle said that he voted with his constituents. But Proffitt argued that there was no vote so he really couldn’t say that he voted with anyone.

Alderwoman Kathy Horn said that the message before the item was even put on the agenda had been that both groups needed to go through the tourism bureau to seek funding for their events. She said that the decision not to vote on the two requests was not personal and had nothing to do with the people who were making the request.
 

Proffitt continued to hold her position that the council owed the two groups a vote. Obviously upset, she left the speaker’s table telling aldermen that what she had heard about the council she now had seen firsthand, that it is a council made up of “old, bigoted white men.”

The decision not to offer a second on the two motions was only one situation aldermen approached on Tuesday evening. Some council members had maintained throughout the discussions about the two requests that the issue was with the groups requesting money from the city instead of going to the Logan County Tourism Bureau. At one point in time, it was suggested that if the council was not going to consider sponsorships for events, then it should pass 100 percent of the hotel/motel tax to the tourism bureau.

At the Tuesday night committee of the whole meeting adjusting the distribution of the Hotel/Motel Tax and bringing back the funding question for the Juneteenth celebration were both on the agenda as up for discussion.

The two topics became intertwined because council member Parrott had maintained that the tourism bureau is where the Juneteenth and Pride groups should have gone to request money, not the city. However, Jennifer Hunt, presenting Juneteenth had said that the current budget includes funding by the city for the annual barbecue competition as well as Dock Dogs and other events in Lincoln.

Hoefle had requested the tourism discussion be put on the agenda and opened saying he had two options to propose. He said option one would be to give the tourism bureau 100 percent of the hotel/motel tax and option two would be to give the bureau all but $10,000 annually.

Zurkammer said he could go along with either recommendation, but if the city keeps money, then the use of the money should be outlined and very specific.

Sam Downs asked what the city would do with the $10,000. Hoefle said that amount would cover the Third Friday events the city hosts each summer with a little left over for miscellaneous items such as replacing picnic tables.

Currently the Hotel/Motel tax is distributed with 95 percent of the total revenue going to the Logan County Tourism Bureau and five percent staying with the city.

City Treasurer Chuck Conzo said that the city needed to keep the five percent it has in the plan right now. He noted that the extra money could be utilized for several things, including tables, the pavilion being built in Postville Park, and more. He also noted that with the city and the Lincoln Park District at a stalemate over maintaining and improving the parks, the city could use Hotel/motel tax to fund improvements.

Conzo said that in addition, making significant changes to the money given to tourism was not clear-cut and simple. He reminded the council that the city has already signed a funding agreement for this year, and also felt that the tourism bureau should have some input in the decisions being made for the future.

Kevin Bateman agreed completely with Conzo and added that what he would like to see is more detail in the budget pertaining to the hotel/motel tax and more discussion of the uses of the funds at budget time. He added that he has a specific goal of fixing up the city parks.

There were questions as to whether fixing up parks was actually a venture that would increase tourism in Lincoln and Logan County.

Parrott said that he was not in favor of giving tourism 100 percent of the revenues from the hotel/motel tax. His suggestion was that the city determine the amount it needs each year for specific projects, withhold that amount and give the balance to the tourism bureau.

Some of the aldermen were of the opinion that there was not an adequate amount of detail in the budget when it came to the Hotel/Motel tax. Conzo said there was a line in the budget for hotel/motel tax revenues and expenditures. That brought about the question of a line in that part of the budget that is generically labeled as miscellaneous expenditures. Currently there is $20,000 in that line. Parrott noted that it is a miscellaneous account, but each year the allocation to that line is increasing.

Hoefle thought that at least the city should consider giving the $20,000 to tourism. He felt it was not wise to hold that much money in a miscellaneous account when tourism could be using it for sub-grants.

Exchanges between Parrott and Conzo became somewhat intense in the course of the evening, with Parrott posing a question then appearing to not give Conzo sufficient time to answer. When Conzo remarked that he wasn’t finished, Parrott said he had the impression Conzo was done talking. Conzo said that when he was done talking Parrott would know it. Parrott also said that Conzo was approaching the topic “more like an alderman than the treasurer.”

Finally, Mayor Welch said that he wanted to speak. He told the council, “I have listened to you, now I would like for you to listen to me.”

Welch said first and foremost, he, City Clerk Peggy Bateman and Conzo all agree that if the city is going to merely pass the hotel/motel tax revenue through to the tourism bureau, then the city should give the tax revenues back to the county. He said that there was a good deal of effort that went into monitoring the revenues, and if the city was not going to see some financial relief that would fund certain projects without using the general fund, then why go through the trouble of having it.

Welch said that giving all the money to tourism would put an end to Third Friday events, as the city wouldn’t afford that event without the separate tax revenue.

He said that he had heard the concern over $20,000 that is not specifically designated to anything, but he would remind the city that the General Obligation Bonds amount to about $500,000 at the time that it is issued with no specific use at the time it is taken. He said the GO Bond is a “what if” account; what if something breaks, what if something needs replaced, and the city is okay with that.

Welch noted that the council was saying that it was not their job to fund events, yet there is money in the budget from the hotel/motel tax that is specifically designated to events, and money has been awarded to events in the past. Welch told the council, “We’re talking out of both sides of our mouth.”

He told the aldermen that he felt that the events of the last few weeks equated to the fact that the city was going to have to do a lot repair to its public image.

Wanda Lee Rohlfs said that during the new budget year process she had questioned Conzo about the money allotted for specific events and the answer that she had received was that at the mayor’s suggestion the money would be left in the budget.

Welch said that was true. But he said at the same time, he doesn’t vote on the budget, the aldermen do. If they objected it was their responsibility to question the line and change it if so desired.
 

Zurkammer said he too had questioned those items in his mind, but had not said so. He said had he known the direction things were going to take, he would have voted no to the new budget.

Zurkammer also wanted to know if the items in the budget would be brought up for vote before money was given. He was told that because they were approved in the budget, the only thing the aldermen would see would be the amounts included in the payment of bills. Zurkammer was also told that he can object to or question anything within the payment of bills.

It appeared that the aldermen had a lot to think about after all this discussion, and the idea that the tourism bureau had not been included in the discussion gave the council an opportunity to hold off on adding anything to the agenda for the next voting session regarding distribution of the hotel/motel tax.

The next discussion item on the agenda was at the request of Sam Downs. The alderman introduced the topic saying that he would like to have the request from the Juneteenth Committee brought back for a real vote. He said his request would be to award the committee $2,500 for this year’s event.

Downs also pointed out that there would be no repeat request from the Pride Committee. He told the council that the Pride group was very hurt by the actions of the council at the last voting session and “no longer want our money.”

Rohlfs said that since the last voting session she had received a number of calls from constituents who were thankful to the council for the decisions made and had voiced that the requests should not have been approved.

Parrott asked about $500 that the Diversity and Inclusion Commission (DNI) had provided to the Juneteenth. The explanation was that the DNI was holding money on behalf of Juneteenth and the $500 in question was left over funds from a contribution to the 2021 event by the United Way of Logan County.
 

Because DNI is a city commission, Parrott asked who was in turn holding the funds for the commission and was told that the city was. The money had been entrusted to the city treasurer and who had set up a “Money held in Escrow” account for the DNI. Conzo explained that doing so had not been an intentional move on the part of the city, but one made more or less out of necessity. The DNI is not a 501(C)3 organization, and as Conzo put it, the money had just arrived in the hands of the city clerk and it had to be handled properly.

Parrott then asked if the city had made payments from the account on behalf of the DNI and Conzo said there had been a few printing costs. There is ongoing confusion about the difference between DNI, Juneteenth and the Hunt For Foundation. The DNI had been given the extra cash by the Hunt For Foundation aka Jennifer Hunt, who had in turn given the money into the hands of the city for safe keeping. This was done because the Hunt For Foundation does not yet have its legal not-for-profit status.

When Rohlfs asked whether or not the city knew if the foundation was legitimate, she was referring to the Hunt For Foundation not the DNI. The answer to the question was that the Hunt For Foundation was a work in progress, and right now, the city isn’t responsible for that foundation. The money is in the care of the DNI via the city and it is the DNI who will have to answer to how it is spent.

Questions continued about the monetary aspects of the DNI and Welch suggested that perhaps it would ease some of the problems here if the city would give the DNI a budget for expenses incurred. Rohlfs asked if other city commissions and committees received working budgets. Welch said that the DNI was a bit out of the norm over the other commissions. At the same time, it was pointed out by Conzo that, yes, there are a couple of commissions who have lines in the city budget. He named the fire and police commissions as an example and there are others as well.
 

Welch told the council that when the DNI was established “we didn’t have a clear view” of what direction the commission would take. He said it was to be a broad spectrum commission addressing the needs of several factions within the city’s population including racial inequality, the LGTB community, veterans, elderly, youth, those with disabilities and more. Welch said that the because of the conversations and actions of the city in the last few weeks he was “sad for the impression we have made.”

Parrott asked if the Hunt For Foundation was actually working toward getting their 501(c)3 and Welch said they are and they have been told to push to get it done sooner rather than later. He said that it has been made clear to Hunt that the city was not going to continue in this fashion in regard to the money.

The topic came to a close and the council moved on to other business with the request for $2,500 for the Juneteenth celebration on the agenda for voting on Monday, May 2nd.

Jennifer Hunt is the founder of the Hunt For Foundation and the organizer behind the Juneteenth Celebration in Lincoln. She had been absent for most of the meeting but arrived before the end of the night. As the council prepared to close the meeting, Hunt asked to address the council.

Welch said that he would permit her five minutes and asked her to please keep it professional. Hunt said she was a professional and there was no need to tell her to act as such. She said that she appreciated the efforts of Welch and Downs, but was very disappointed in the rest of the council.

She said that she was aware there was an item on the next voting agenda and she asked that the aldermen please reach out and ask questions of her and get correct answers. She said that the council had voiced misinformation and many inaccuracies regarding Juneteenth, Pride and the Hunt For Foundation that would be documented for the community to see. She felt the council had acted in an irresponsible manner.
 

She asked that those council members please do their research concerning these topics and if they had questions to contact the parties involved to get the correct information.

Parrott asked if she would define some of those inaccuracies. She said yes she would, but because she was limited to five minutes now, she would bring those back next week. Welch asked her to go ahead and speak to the inaccuracies now as he was curious about that as well, but Hunt declined.

Hunt responded that she would revisit the topic next week, and when she did she would give various aldermen, naming Zurkammer and Rohlfs in particular, the floor to correct what they had said. Welch responded with a point about the rules of order to Hunt saying that she needed to remember that the council chamber belonged to the council, and that she was not in a position to give anyone the floor, it is the right of the council to give her the floor. She said she understood, but there needed to be mutual respect. With that she exited the speakers table and the meeting was adjourned.

The Monday, May 2nd voting agenda does have a line for a motion to award the Juneteenth Celebration $2,500 for this year’s event. As is always the case, the aldermen have the right to table any action item they feel they are not prepared to address.

[Nila Smith]