The Forum

Don't forget to vote tomorrow!

Here are the YouTube videos with the school referendum tour again, in case you missed them the first time.

1. Intro to the referendum tour
2. SHS pool renovations
3. SHS PE building renovations
4. SHS Library renovations

If you are unsure where to vote, here is a map showing Shorewood polling places, by ward.

I believe TIF funding can be a potential problem for other reasons, but disagree with Dave’s overall assessment that declining residential property values necessarily spell trouble for the TIF.  What would spell trouble would be if the Ravenna developer, the Lakewood Developer, and Sunrise all decided to cancel their projects, and no other developers decided to build or renovate anything in the TIF district.  If none of the commercial properties in the district appreciate, we will indeed be in trouble.  I see that as unlikely, given the genorisity we have shown with public funding, and the several high profile new developments that are now in the works.

We have funded some public improvement, activities, and developer incentives with TIF funds, and have more that we are targeting.  We are planning to pay these off with the tax revenues from the expected rise in the value of the properties that fall within the TIF. 

These will come both from renovation, and new development.  Sunrise, for instance, will bring in a stream of tax revenue well in excess of what Riverbrook and Touhy provide.   The Ravenna will increase the amount that was offered by the Gores house and the office building that was previously on the site.  The Lakewood building will provide a larger stream of tax revenue once the planned renovation is complete.  Other surrounding buildings will likely also appreciate, as the district as a whole grows and improves.  These increases in tax revenue will be used to repay the bonds we have taken out for streetscaping and other TIF activities.

The problem would come if we spent millions on public infrastructure, and saw no rise in the total assessment of the properties within the TIF.   In this case, we residential tax payers would indeed be responsible for funding the improvements we paid for with TIF supported bonds, as Dave suggested.  Given the developer commitments and interest we have seen in the Oakland and Capitol areas, this seems unlikely to me.  

I would argue that there are other dangers of heavy TIF usage, including impact on School Funding, and overpaying current owners for their properties, once the word gets out that the public wallet is open.  But I do not believe that declining residential values necessarily spell trouble for the TIF district. 

This comes by way of a friend at the Legion Post (hat tip, Joe). 

The AB Data Building in Shorewood is now advertised on the CB Richard Ellis website. 

• Sale price: $3.5 million
• Listed as a: "OFFICE BUILDING FOR LEASE OR SALE / REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY." 
• Building size: Approximately 28,609 square feet
• Lot size: Approximately 45,750 square feet or 1.05 acres

Here is the full advertisement.

The AB Data building on Port Washington Rd in Fox Point is also for sale through CBRE. 

From this week's Village Manager's Memo:

AT&T Boxes: AT&T has requested installation of one of their new cable boxes in the public right-of-way on the west side of N. Cramer Street, just north of Edgewood Avenue. Letters were mailed to neighboring property owners for comments.

 

Several Updates, 3/14/08

1. There is now a For Sale sign in front of the building on Wilson Dr.  Prior to placing the sign, AB Data had, within the past several weeks, made indications to Village officials that they intended to keep the Shorewood location open.  
2. The Village officials I have spoken with did not know that AB Data was planning to put the building up for sale.
3. The real estate agency is CB Richard Ellis, the same agency that executed the sale of the Riverfront site to Sunrise Senior Living.
4. Back when AB Data first announced that they were purchasing the former Manpower Building, I wrote a post on the possibility of AB Data leaving Shorewood.  After that post, I heard from several Village officials reassuring me that AB Data was not closing the Shorewood location, and instead would simply relocate certain staff to the new location.
5. As of this moment, the Village officials I have spoken with have no knowledge of specific transactions in the works related to this property.
6. AB Data is located in the Tax Increment District.  As such, transactions involving this property could potentially include developer incentives, as in the case of the Ravenna, Sunrise, and Lakewood projects.

3/17/08

I have received new information that AB Data may be leaving Shorewood.  Updates to follow.

This winter in WI has been particularly cruel and nasty.  To warm my frozen bones, and hasten the coming of Spring, I am headed to warmer climates for a few weeks.  See you when I get back.

As the WI statewide smoking ban slowly works its way through Madison, this odd story appeared from the AP.

Minnesota bars beat smoking ban
By GREGG AAMOT, AP, 3/6/08

MAPLEWOOD, Minn. - All the world's a stage at some of Minnesota's bars. A new state ban on smoking in restaurants and other nightspots contains an exception for performers in theatrical productions. So some bars are getting around the ban by printing up playbills, encouraging customers to come in costume, and pronouncing them "actors." if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['aeeGw0LEYrY-']='&U=13bt23co3%2fN%3daeeGw0LEYrY-%2fC%3d634526.11963950.12405399.8411986%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4670851';

The customers are playing right along, merrily puffing away — and sometimes speaking in funny accents and doing a little improvisation, too.

The state Health Department is threatening to bring the curtain down on these sham productions. But for now, it's on with the show.  (READ FULL STORY)

The Shorewood smoking ordinance contains a similar exception.

Exceptions. The following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this section:

(1) Retail tobacco stores. 

(2) Any stage of any theater when used in connection with any theatrical performance and so noticed in the program. 

One last post about the Sunrise Development (now all but certain), and then we will move on to other things.  Since it became public, the discussion on Sunrise was a spirited debate, with both sides making good points. 

While I believe we could have done better with the site, I see the points made by both sides, and believe the Trustees and the CDA are acting in what they believe is the best interest of the Village.  A few notes about the meeting last night. The lengthy presentation from the CDA and Sunrise covered many angles of the project, from the history of proposals on the site, to financial and tax impact projections, to the aesthetic and "green" aspects of the project.  The proposed building we saw last night was radically improved over the version we saw at the initial meeting in December of 2007. 

The new proposal is much more eco-friendly, including pervious surfaces for the parking lot, a rain garden, native grass plantings along the river, and more green space.  A partial rotation of the building, and re-drawn set of access roads improved both the available green space, and the urban feel of the Capitol Drive frontage.  In my opinion, the building still lacks a certain character, but it is definitely an improvement.

One concern that several readers have raised is whether Sunrise will be able to pay for construction once they start, should their legal and financial challenges continue.  The Village will be shielded from any internal financial volatility within Sunrise Senior Living via the guarantees in the developer agreement that will be signed prior to construction.  What these means for Shorewood residents is that we do not need to worry about the building being left half way done if Sunrise faces additional financial concerns during construction.

I did have concerns about one specific aspect of the presentation.    (Warning: Inside baseball to follow.  Feel free to stop reading here.)  The financial picture presented at the board meeting included a $33 million condominium development on the south end of the lot, in addition to the $13 million Sunrise project.  Wangard Partners has indeed proposed a condo project of this nature for the south lots, and has options open on the relevant properties.  However, the project is on hold due to real estate market concerns.  When I objected to the use of this uncertain prospect in the financial assessment of the project that was presented last night, I was pointedly criticized by one of the trustees who appeared to believe that I was questioning the Village and CDA's accounting principals. 

While the distinction may be fine, my intent was to point out that when we present the project to taxpayers and board members, we should not use a leverage ratio or tax increase forecasts which include the uncertain condominium project.  I have no doubt that the principals used to arrive at the projections were sound, assuming this project takes place.  But while it would be nice to see these condos go in there, we should not tell taxpayers that we will be getting $1.1 million in new taxes in the future, or that the leverage ratio will be 9 to 1, when 75% of the projected increased valuation will come from a project which is not yet certain. 

One final open concern.   I am not certain that the school district will ultimately benefit from this project.  Generally speaking, large run ups in property values with no additional school children for Shorewood have a negative impact on school finances due to revenue caps and state aide formulas.  I have not run the precise numbers on this question, but was hoping to see this issue covered during some part of last night's meeting.  I am very willing to be wrong on this question, if anyone can enlighten the rest of us on how this development will impact the school district.

When all is said and done, this is an improvement over what we saw in December.  And I am very ready to talk about something else for a while.

I am opposed to the Sunrise proposal.  Having read many of the associated documents and emails related to the Sunrise project, I appreciate the amount of staff work that has gone into it.  However, built up momentum is not a reason to move forward, if Village residents would be better served by putting on the brakes and reversing course.   Why am I opposed to the Sunrise proposal?

1. Sunrise is not a corporate citizen we want in Shorewood right now.  Accounting fraud, insider trading, irregular stock options policies, and defamation lawsuits are only several of the questionable aspects of Sunrise’s corporate governance as of late.  Their treatment of their own shareholders at their annual meeting led the New York Times to publish an article entitled “Welcome to the Annual Meeting. Now, Be Quiet.”  As it stands now, we are prepared to pay $800,000 in incentives, and millions more in infrastructure upgrades to bring this company into Shorewood.  We can do better than Sunrise.
2. The plan meets only one goal, and not the most important one.  The only discernible benefit to this plan is a significant increase in the property tax rolls.  Other worthy goals, like attracting school aged children, and maintaining Shorewood’s charm and character have been elbowed roughly aside.  If the reason we have not seen mixed use or residential proposals is because of the negative residential real estate environment, as President Johnson suggested in an interview, surely we can wait several years until the market improves.  Whatever we put on this site will be with us for decades.  Temporary market conditions should not control what goes in there.   
3. The plan is not in keeping with Shorewood’s character.  Several architects offered critiques of the proposal which resonate with me, calling the proposal a “stock plan,” and “not the best design for the village,” and “out of character with Shorewood.”  I personally stray toward the more harsh assessment offered by a city planner in the UK, who called the Sunrise proposal in his city “alien, overbearing, and visually dominant.”
4. We could potentially do better by waiting.  True, the Sunrise proposal may be the best alternative to emerge to date.  The land value increase and tax advantages of the proposed Sunrise development will be significant.  However, I am convinced this proposal is worse for Shorewood in the long term than what is on the site right now, and definitely worse than what we might obtain with a little patience.  While a rejection of the Sunrise proposal may temporarily cause developer interest in our Village to lessen, this interest will return as time moves forward, and the value of our available development sites becomes apparent.  I believe this delay in new development is a price Shorewood residents will be willing to bear to keep the Village's unique identity intact.

A "No" vote on Sunrise would signify a clear return to the distinctive values and unique atmosphere that have made Shorewood a great place to live, and send a signal that this period of slip-sliding toward Stepford is over.  I urge our Trustees to vote "No" on Sunrise.