By Heather Graves
Editor
GREEN BAY – Things got a little tense at the Tuesday, Jan. 11, Green Bay Finance Committee meeting.
Aaron Popkey, the Green Bay Packers director of Public Affairs, was also on-hand threatening legal action against the State of Wisconsin and the City of Green Bay, if the proposed legislation went forward.
“It would constitute a breach of trust and illegal evisceration of the Lambeau lease,” Popkey said. “It would leave no choice other than immediate major litigation to prevent it from taking effect.”
In November, Steffen proposed legislation to eliminate the Stadium District and transfer its responsibilities to the City of Green Bay.
It’s a plan, Popkey said the Packers are not on-board with.
He said the organization has already wasted time and resources on what he called illegal proposed legislation.
“We are considering using the indemnification provisions of the lease and other rights to cover legal fees from those responsible, including the state and the city to the extent of their affirmative participation,” Popkey said.
Steffen said “there is no doubt the Green Bay Packers have an invaluable and increasing benefit to the community at large, but the fact is their impact is not with property tax, it is with sales tax.”
“But it doesn’t benefit the City of Green Bay with sales tax, that is a state benefit,” he said. “Or a lodging sales tax, that benefits the county and the lodging community… And so as the Green Bay Packers continue to grow at an expeditional pace, and continue to have the success and sustainability that will definitely ensure they will be there for the next 100 years. And growing at a pace, to be quite frank, is very difficult for a small town, blue-collar community like Green Bay to keep up with in terms of this responsibility, that also comes with this great opportunity. I think there are some serious questions to be had.”
Popkey said it’s clear where the Packers and Steffen disagree, and finds several concerns with Steffen’s proposal.
“We have a lease in place, a contact in piece, between parties that are working well,” he said.
Popkey said Steffen’s legislation would position the Packers and the city as adversaries.
“The proposed legislation is unwise public policy for that reason alone,” he said.
District 1 Alderperson and Finance Committee Chair Barbara Dorff said she isn’t interested in jeopardizing the city’s relationship with the Packers.
“I would like to say, on behalf of the council, that I would like to thank the Packers,” Dorff said. “Just recently, they gave us the money so that we could get body cameras for the police department. I’ve lived in Green Bay for 31 years now, in Green Bay. I’ve seen as a naive citizen, who put her name on a list and 23 years later got her season tickets. The Packers have been a part of this community, an important part of this community, supporting the economics, supporting just the name of Green Bay… Now, being on City Council, I have even more of an awareness of how the Packers and the city work together. This is not a relationship I would be interested in risking.”
Dorff said she wasn’t shocked by Popkey’s warning of possible litigation.
“I didn’t feel threatened by what Mr. Popkey said about litigation because litigation is what people do,” she said. “I took it as, ‘Yeah, that’s probably what could happen.”
Steffen again questioned the adequate oversight and transparency of stadium district funds.
“I firmly believe the city of Green Bay could do a far better job of providing that base level of oversight and transparency,” he said.
Steffen says he doesn’t intend for his legislation to reach the governor’s desk anytime soon, which he said leaves plenty of time for discussion.
“If I were you, I (the city) wouldn’t trust what the Packers are saying, and I wouldn’t trust what I’m saying,” he said. “I would have your own attorneys evaluate the lease.”
Finance Committee members discussed the proposal, but no action was taken.
“I think this was intended to really just be a Q & A,” District 10 Alderperson and Finance Committee member Brian Johnson said. “I think we had the opportunity to do that… I would simply make a motion to receive and place on file and let the public discussion continue where it needs to exist outside of this forum.”