As Mayor Robert Daugherty opened the May 13 Prescott City Council meeting to public comment, Alderperson Maureen Otwell asked to address the ordinance regarding small box discount stores. She stated that she had originally voted against the small box stores.

“At first, I voted in favor of this ordinance to regulate what a small box store could have on its shelves. I was persuaded by the idea that we didn’t want it to create fresh, healthy food

After having more time to think it over, she now opposes the ordinance amendment.

“I believe that we do need a regulated capitalist economy; however, if elected people are going to pass ordinances that attempt to regulate business, I’d rather we would concentrate our efforts on mandating that business owners provide their employees with a livable wage.”

She said establishing a livable wage needs to meet a family’s basic needs that would enable the working poor to achieve financial independence while maintaining housing and food security. “Perhaps then Prescott would not need a food pantry,” she added.

She cited low livable wages as the cause of increased food pantry usage and homelessness in communities while stating that Wisconsin is one of 20 states that has refused to increase its minimum wage, which is currently set at $7.25 per hour.

“This is what economist call “poverty wage,” Otwell said.

When Otwell finished, Prescott resident Tommy Elbert of Linden Street approached the podium to share his concerns with the council.

“We have an issue with the trees,” he began. “Prescott just received a grant for $872,000 so I think what should happen with that rather than wasteful spending is to actually go through and get everybody’s trees cut out because that’s actually going to help everybody.”

“Otherwise, it’s going to cost everybody here an arm and a leg,” Elbert added, confirming that he was talking about the ash trees in Prescott.

Daugherty answered, “The grant money was going to redo Elm Street and put in a sidewalk. It’s not there to be spend on trees. It has to go to transportation as that’s what the grant was given for.”

Elbert said the city should have just paid to remove the trees instead of having someone test the, “when the bugs were going to get here to kill the trees.”

“So, you’re saying the city should pay you to have your trees cut down in your yard?” questioned Daugherty.

“Nope, everybody in the city,” Elbert countered.

He said the city was able to spend the money to test instead of saving the money to take the trees down. Daugherty said the city didn’t test trees on private property but only trees on city owned property.

“What I’m saying is you should take that federal grant and reapply it. I think the streets aren’t that bad,” Elbert said. “Everybody in the city should not have to pay for these trees, and the city knows they are dead.”

“I disagree with you,” began Daugherty. “The city did not plant the ash trees in your yard. We have not maintained the ash trees in your yard. Therefore, why should I have to pay my tax money to take down your tree?”

“Well, I took down most of my trees already. Don’t bother me that much,” Elbert said.

He asked about the trees that are located on city roadways; Daugherty said those are being taken care of.

“If they’re on city property, the city is removing them,” he said.

City Administrator Matt Wolf clarified if the tree is in the right of way, the city generally pays for the removal of dead trees but if it’s on private property, then the tree removal would be at the property owner ‘s expense.