This Wednesday, the Village Board appointed Drive to Distinction (D2D) Chair Sean Cummings to the Trustee position vacated by Michael Phinney.  Now Trustee Cummings previously petitioned the Village Board for a $600,000 grant for the D2D athletic field renovation.  The Board eventually approved the request, at a lower amount of $465,000.

His term will run through April, 2010.  A total of 11 other applicants put in their names for the open position. 

According to a recent ShorewoodNOW article, the others who applied include Mark Clingaman, Daniel Daemmrich, Peter Grimes, William Kohl, Patrick Linnane, Brady McMonigal, Tim Ryan, Ryan Scott, Brad Simenz, Niki Skinner and John Toutenhoofd.

I saw with a mix of disappointment and interest that 12 people had put in their names for the open Village Trustee position.  Disappointment because at some level, I find it troubling that so many are willing to apply for the position, but so few are willing to run for it in an election.    Interest because there are some names on the list who are new to Village political life.  Hopefully, they will continue to participate after the appointment process is over.

The last Trustee election was unopposed, but now we have 12 people lining up for an open seat.  The election before that had 3 candidates.  As soon as it was over, we had 9 people lining up for Guy Johnson's open seat.  Why do so few run for the office of Trustee, but so many seek appointment to it?

At this Monday’s Meeting, the Village Board decided to appoint a Village Trustee to fill the seat vacated by Michael Phinney.  Other options would have been to hold the seat vacant until a special election could be held, or for the duration of the unexpired term. 

The appointment process for the new Trustee will be identical to what was done in 2006 for Trustee Dawn Anderson.  Anderson was appointed to fill the balance of then Trustee Guy Johnson’s term after his election to Village President.

An application process will be open to interested and eligible Shorewood residents.   The process will include a questionnaire, interviews, and then a vote by the board.   Last time, the questionnaire included several open ended questions, as well as an attached resume.  Following the application process, the Board will conduct 30 minute interviews of all candidates at a Village Board meeting in June.  The Board will then vote on the applicants and make their choice that same evening as the interviews.

Interested residents should call the Village Manager's office at (414) 847-2700 for more information.  The application forms will be posted on the Village Website in the near future. 

At last night’s meeting, the board approved two new consulting projects worth $26,000. 

1. The first ($16,000) is for a plan related to bluff improvements near the Sunrise Facility.  While the details of the study were not at all clear to me, it has something to do with planning for bluff stabilization and foot/bike bath construction.  The purpose of the study was similarly confusing to the members of the board, prompting 30+ minutes of discussion between members of the Board and Village Manager Chris Swartz.  Vote passed: 6-0. 
   
2. The second ($10,000) is for a consultant to create a village-wide plan for bicycle traffic.  This study is prompted by the upcoming changes to Capitol Drive, and the desire to study the possibility of including bike lanes.  This study may not actually occur, since the vote yesterday was to authorize the Village Manager to commission such a study, if necessary, rather than a vote to make the study happen.  Vote passed: 6-0.

The fate of the Riverfront site and the Sunrise Proposal will be decided at this Monday’s Village Board meeting.  For those of you would like to attend, it is at 7:30 at Village Hall.

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.

In an earlier post, I suggested that putting audio or video files of local government meetings online would radically improve citizens' access to their government.  So here is the first installment of the Village "Boardcast".

As a test, I recorded several agenda items from yesterday's (2/4/08) Shorewood Village Board meeting.  I only stayed for the first few agenda items, so you will not see audio clips below for the later portions of the meeting. 

For your reference, here is the published agenda for the Village Board Meeting, as well as the committee meetings that took place last night. 

Item 1: Call to order, Statement of Public Notice, Presentation of Accounts

boomp3.com

Item 2: Alberta Darling addresses the Village Board on events and new developments in the State Senate.

boomp3.com

Item 3: Update on school referendum from Superintendent Blane McCann

boomp3.com

Item 4: Discussion on community survey proposal from Center for Urban Initiatives and Research (Development and Long Range Planning Committee)

boomp3.com

Take a listen and let me know what you think. 

The internet is changing everything, even local government.  The Village of Shorewood is slowly but surely moving in the direction of more services available over the internet.  You can already view your tax bill online on villageofshorewood.org, and more services are slated for online accessibility in the near future.  Today, however, I believe there is another huge leap forward which we could explore as time goes on. 

My idea would radically upgrade the accessibility of local government meetings to Village residents.  The challenge with accessing Village Board meetings currently, is that you have to do one of three things:

1. Go to the meeting and listen to what happens
2. Read the minutes, which often are not published for weeks after the meeting
3. Go to the library and check out the audio recording, and listen to the whole thing

This combination means citizens are often weeks behind in terms of their information, and many just choose not to participate at all. 

I propose creating a podcast of all meetings of the Village Board.  According to Wikipedia's definition, "A podcast is a collection of digital media files which is distributed over the Internet using syndication feeds for playback on portable media players and personal computers."  I believe that a well-organized audio podcast would bring our local government much closer to the citizens they represent. 

How would it work?  All Board meetings would be recorded in audio form, and posted online.  The audio would be broken up into sections, which would reflect the sections outlined in the meeting agenda.  So, for instance, this last weeks meeting would have had separate audio files on The Parks Commission, the Asst. Village Manager position, the intersection on Morris & Menlo, and the SHS National Award.

In this fashion, listeners would not need to listen to the entire meeting to get the to the section of interest.  So, for instance, if I only wanted to listen to the part of the meeting specifically related to The Parks Commission, I could click on that part of the meeting rather than having to search through the whole audio file.

Audio content could be further organized through the use of "Tagging," a user-friendly technology gaining wider and wider use on the internet.  The clouds of words you see in the right hand margin is an example of tagging.  If you click on any of them, you will get all posts I have written on that specific topic.  Village Board audio content could be similarly organized by topic, so citizens could click on a tag, and automatically see all audio content relating to a specific topic from current or past meetings.  So this week's files might have had tags for "Local Parks," "Street Reconstruction," and so forth.

The final product would be a set of audio files that would be:

1. Accessible online for anyone with a web browser
2. Accessible by specific topic
3. Searchable by topic, so Shorewood residents could easily find all instances where a specific topic was discussed

Is it practical?  I am not sure yet.  What do you think? 

The Village Board is planning to conduct a community survey this Spring.  According to committee discussions, it will be administered by mail, and may also be available over the internet.  It will explore the sentiments of Shorewood residents on various issues facing the Board. 

An RFP will likely be generated and sent to interested Marketing Research companies and university groups who  have expertise in this area.

Several of you have expressed interest in seeing more detial from the facade improvement grant for the Lakewood Building at 3575 N Oakland.  Here is the packet from Monday Night's Village Board meeting.  Starting on Page 63 to 77 includes the financials, pictures, and a copy of the proposed contract.

The Village of Shorewood appears to be close to finalizing deals on two of their key development priorities.  A series of closed session discussions on the possible deals is occurring this week, both at the Village Board as well as the Community Development Authority (CDA).  The following development projects are under discussion.

1. "Sunrise" Assisted Living Center (at the Riverfront).  This site was listed as the #2 priority in earlier rankings, behind the 4500 Oakland site which is already under contract.
2. The "Lakewood" Building (3575 N. Oakland).  Listed as #12 in the list of top 20 development priorities.

More information on both sites is available on this Village document outlining available properties.  Both sites were rated as high priority redevelopment sites in earlier documents and comments from VIllage officials.  In an April, 2007 interview with the Small Business times, Village Manager Chris Swartz outlined the prioritization process. 

“We identified sites that were under-utilized, not well maintained or non-conforming and came up with our top 20 sites,” said Village Manager Chris Schwartz. “We have to look for opportunities - we have to figure out what will be catalytic projects and concentrate on them and try to match developers up with projects."

The CDA meeting is this Friday at Village Hall, and is open to the public, though the specific negotiations on these sites will take place during closed session, according to the published meeting agenda.

The Police & Fire Committee met today and briefly discussed the Video Gambling ordinance.  At the end of the meeting, they did not arrive at any consensus regarding sending the matter before the full Village Board.  Whether this will come up again of future committee agendas is not clear at this time. 

Trustee Eckment is concerned about the potential widespread use of the machines beyond the American Legion Post, citing a concern that the machines could even appear in retail establishments such as convenience stores.  It is not clear whether any other establishments have indicated their intention to install the machines, if the ordinance were to be repealed.

Trustee Hickey appears to be more sympathetic to the travails of the Legion Post, with the upcoming smoking ban, and the removal of the machines.   All three Trustees (Eckman, Hickey, Maher) questioned whether support for repealing the gambling ban extends beyond the 2 or 3 people from the Legion who typically show up for meetings on the issue.  The Legion Post delivered signed petitions when this issue was on the agenda previously, but attendance levels from interested parties has lessened over time.

The committee seemed somewhat more sympathetic to the argument that restoring the machines could potentially remove the need for the loud and obnoxious concerts that the Post currently allows.  The Post hosts the concerts as a way of making up a portion of the revenue lost when the machines were removed.  Members of the Post indicated at the previous committee hearing that the need for the concerts would be considerably lessened if not eliminated entirely, if the Video Gambling ordinance were repealed and the machines were brought back.

By way of full disclosure, I am a member of the American Legion, and a regular at the post.  I started going there after the machines were removed, so I cannot give any personal accounts of the impact on traffic levels when the machines were removed.

The Village of Shorewood Police & Fire Committee agreed to place the Video Gambling issue before the Village Board again at a future board meeting.  For those of you unfamiliar with the issue's history in Shorewood, it is a fairly complex, multi-faceted issue which boils down to a simple conflict.  The Legion Post wants video gambling machines, which are currently illegal.  The Village Board has so far refused to repeal the ordinance which forbids the machines.

The American Legion Post wants to have video gambling machines at their facility on Wilson Drive, to enhance revenues, and bring back old clientele.  They had the machines previously, as did the Shorewood Inn, and the Village Pub, before it changed owners.  The machines are illegal under Shorewood ordinance, which the Legion Post wants changed.

The State of Wisconsin technically prohibits the machines.  However, the State will not enforce their own laws concerning the machines unless a particular establishment either has 6 or more machines, or does not pay taxes on the income received from the machines.  Not only will the State not enforce their own laws, but Wi State statutes prohibit any municipality from enforcing state law relating to these machines. 

I do not want to dive too deep into this issue, so please refer to this 2003 document from the Legislative Reference Bureau for full information.

The Village Board passed the 2008 budget at this evening's meeting.  The actual difference you will see on your tax bills should not be that great (2% to 3%), unless your reassessment was signficantly out of line with the rest of the Village. 

If you would like to know whether an item of interest to you is included in this year's budget, or in future years' budgets, refer to this quick summary.

Additional documents on the 2008 budget will be forthcoming soon.

A program called the "Neighborhood Initiative" is working its way through the Shorewood VIllage Board committee structure. If implemented, the program would offer assistance to duplex owners in the Village of Shorewood in upgrading their properties, or converting them to single family homes.  Several options are being discussed, including incentives to convert to single family dwellings, attic space upgrades, and down payment assistance. 

Below is an email from Trustee Dawn Anderson outlining the origins and intent of this program.

-------------------------------------------------
From: Trustee Dawn Anderson
To: Steve Koczela
Date: Sep 21, 2007

I'm not sure when this was first brought up, but I first heard of it when I joined the board last June(06). As you probably recall it is an idea that grew out of a market study on residential properties by SB Friedman and Co - the village asked for it after the Visioning Plan. They presented the study in March of 06 with recommendations on how to approach revitilization of the village's duplex stock. They identified 3 areas of concern:

1- A shortage of family appropriate housing units
2- deferred maintenance of duplexes with absentee owners and
3- overcrowding of duplexes. 

The goals of a "Neighborhood Initiative" would be to enhance housing options for young families and improve the exterior conditions of the existing "problem" duplexes. Overcrowding would be addressed through increased enforcment of code - we have yet to discuss this part of the initiative. For obvious reasons, we want the housing stock in the village to be attractive to young families and we want to protect the value of housing stock in areas that are more heavily concentrated with duplexes with absentee owners.

The CBR committee had discussed it briefly last year, with Ericka Lang tweaking some ideas as we spoke, but it did lay fallow for quite a bit of time - the shoreline ordinance and smoking ban ate up alot of the limited time we had to discuss it in committee before board meetings.... so we have just taken up discussion of it again recently.

We still are really in the preliminary stages of collecting more information and discussing the recommendations among ourselves - I can't give you cost estimates or a timeline at this point. As we move on, we'll be talking more about process and the nitty gritty of how the program might work. But at this time we are talking about incentives that will encourage upgrades/enhancements and more owner occupied duplexes.

Next week we are meeting to talk about code enforcement and how that would fit into the plan. When it might go to the full board for consideration is something I just can't say right now.
 
I hope this helps - have a nice weekend, dawn
-----------------------------------------------

The Streets & Buildings Committee heard last from a representative of Shorewood Little League regarding moving the old lights from the SHS football field to Spector Baseball Field. The move would coincide with the planned removal/replacement of the lights during the Drive to Distinction renovations, which will soon be underway.

The Committee has not yet approved the placement of the lights, pending notification and input from area residents. The commitee also asked for additional information regarding engineering specifications, and payment for engineering work and ongoing maintenance. Action on this may come at future meetings.

At tonight's Village Board meeting, they passed Resolution 2007-11, urging the State Legislature to pass the annual budget promptly. The resolution mirrored one passed earlier this month by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Council of Milwaukee County. The ICC has urged member municipalities to pass similar resolutions to increase pressure on the legislature.

Also included in the resolution were requests to avoid creating new unfunded mandates, and to include a cost of living increase in the budget numbers. These, along with levy limits and state aide to municipalities are the primary ways the State of WI budget affects municipalities and school districts.

In each of the last 3 election cycles, I have heard the question posed many times: "Would you support bringing back sidewalk snowplowing?" This is a question best addressed during budget season, since this is the time when real changes can be brought about through choosing which programs to fund, and at what levels.

For those of you interested in sidewalk snowplowing issue, or any other funding priority, now is the time act, since budget season is when programs like this are enabled. If you think we should repave our streets more often, or keep the library open later, or stop spending money on marketing Shorewood, or if you think you pay too much for parking tickets, this is the time to say so. Now is the time you can suggest finding a full time trampoline compliance officer…Or maybe we can put that one to rest once and for all.

The article in this week's edition of ShorewoodNOW mentioned that only 2 residents attended the budget listening session this last week. For those of you who did not attend, but who feel strongly about any of the issues above, I invite you to send me your comments and suggestions on the budget.

Some things to think about...

Should we bring back sidewalk snowplowing? Should we spend money to rejuvenate Atwater beach? Should we keep spending money on marketing Shorewood? Should renters have to pay $45 per month to park in public lots overnight? Should we fund a full time code compliance officer? Should the Library be open longer? Should the Library be given money for more books? Should we acquire the 5 acres next to the Milwaukee River? Should we have more Police? A new Police Station? Should all of our polling stations open for every election? Should we enable online payment of fines, bills, and taxes to the Village?

Which of these issues are important to you? Open dialogue is the only way our elected officials will ever know what is on your mind, or what issues are important to you.

Now is the time to speak up.

The trampoline ordinance was dropped today at the committee level. The Judiciary Personnel & Licensing Committee unanimously recommended that the full Village Board take no action on the ordinace.

Each of the committee members stated different reasons for rejecting the ordinance. Trustees Michael Phinney, Dawn Anderson, and Jeff Hanewall make up the Judiciary Personnel & Licensing Committee.

Comments

1. What a waste. As the disturbed resident finally made herself very clear, she said, "I don't want a trampoline next to my fence. I don't want a trampoline under my window." Note - the summation didn't mention safety. It was about how she'd like a bigger yard, or for her neighbors to have a bigger yard. Well, she lives in Shorewood and there are a lot of great things about Shorewood but the distance between the houses isn't that great. It's usually about 20 feet or so.

The people here are great. Bringing this crazy issue to the Board wasn't great. Talking to her neighbors - that would have been really great. Next time, before doing external research on an "issue", let's look at ourselves and see if this is one strange incident (non-communicant resident) or if it is an issue that is spread village wide. What a waste.
- Fellow Trampoline Owner, 8/7/07

2. It's too bad some people can't just walk over to their neighbor's house and say, "Hi, I'm sure you don't realize, but I'm being bothered by... and I was wondering if you have any ideas on how we can find a solution together?" Why run to the government to solve the problem? Then again, I don't like the other poster's insinuation that the Village Board shouldn't bother to get outside information when making decisions, as if everyone here knows all things at all times. Maybe if we took a look at what other villages do, and why, more often we'd be less likely to come up with silly ordinances that go too far in serving someone's persnicketiness and less likely to make expensive or dangerous mistakes because no one bothered to do any research.
- Shorewood Person, 8/8/07

3. Another of the great things about Shorewood is the absence of Homeowners Associations making arbritary rules about what we can have or do on our own property. Banning trampolines would be the slippery slope towards this. I am personally neutral on the subject of trampolines but strongly in favor of the freedom to bounce at will on one's own property. Thus I applaud the Village Board's decision.
- Shorewood Resident, 8/8/07

From Steve: Out of pure curiosity I have to ask, why do commenters rarely include their names? I can tell they are different people by the IP addresses attached to each comment, and I can tell when the same person leaves a series of comments. But I do often wonder who they are. Any thoughts on why people generally do not leave their names?

You will notice that the facts below do not all support or oppose the project. I am not arguing for or against this project. I am just trying to be sure that if we disagree, we disagree based on facts. If anyone disputes these facts, or has additional insight or information, please send your comments. That way, all residents will have the opportunity to make a fully informed decision on their support of or opposition to the D2D project.

By way of full disclosure, I was on the D2D committee at its early stages, left the committee several years ago, and have no ongoing affiliation with it other than the D2D sign in my yard.

1. This is a school program. Although there are significant private dollars going into the renovation, these dollars are going to renovate a public structure which is part of the recreational facilities of the school district. The school district would spend significant amounts to renovate the field whether or not D2D existed.

2. There was indeed a significant private donation several years ago for the new bleachers. The money was donated to the school district before D2D began. Once it became clear that we were not going to stop at the bleachers, the decision was made not to spend the money on the bleachers until the full scope of the project was determined. The School District has not spent the money yet because the bleachers are a part of the overall D2D project, and not a standalone project. The money is instead being included as a part of the overall funding package for the renovation.

3. Phase 1 costs will likely rise if the dome is included. The specifications for the stormwater runoff facilities may be altered, if the dome is to be included in phase 4. The cost of these additional facilities is not pinned down yet, but the estimate of $400,000 was discussed at the Village Board meeting. This has not been reported in the paper, which is why I bring it up now.

4. The date the contractor needs to begin dome preparations is Sep 1 of this year, according to the discussion at the Board meeting. As such, we cannot wait until Phase 4 to decide if we are going to build a dome. We cannot wait to see if the private funding will be sufficient to cover the dome, as is suggested on the D2D website. Preparations for the dome need to begin in Phase 1.

5. The Village Board’s contribution is $465,000. The CDA’s contribution is $250,000. The CDA had agreed to conduct landscaping of part of the grounds using TIF monies before the $465,000 was voted on by the Village Board.

6. The dome phase of the project will be privately funded, and will only be built if it is determined that it can be economically self-sustaining. It will only be up from November to March, and may be rented out to private organizations. Business plans are being examined using comparisons to Minneapolis seasonal domes to see if the Shorewood dome would be economically viable.

Comments

1. "Steve, Thank you for taking the time to present the facts. Just one comment for clarification. While it is true that some money will have to be spent to prepare for the dome in Phase 1, that number is likely to less than $100K. No public money will be allocated to this element of the project and indeed the dome prep work (and hence the dome) will not proceed if all project features, as described to the public, cannot be delivered in Phase one. In other words, the dome prep. work will not take money from Phase one amenities. The $400K number discussed was misinterpreted as storm water retention cost required for the dome when in fact storm water must be retained for the field, with our without the dome. Finally, I believe the School Board will not approve the expediture of any dome prep. $'s if they are not convinced the dome is likely to become a profit center for the school district."
- Sean Cummings, D2D Committee Co-Chair

Pardon the headline. It was irresistible.

The Village Board took no action on the trampoline ordinance at this Monday’s meeting. Several residents who wished to comment on the proposed ordinance asked for the delay.

After the last post, I received several comments which suggested possible reasons for the ordinance being either safety, or privacy.

Privacy, I can see as being a municipal government matter, especially if it relates to the interaction between neighbors. Trustee Margaret Hickey explained the driving force behind the ordinance as follows. "As to the trampoline, it has to do with someone who is a neighbor to a family with a trampoline. They have put the trampoline right next to the person's bedroom window and are invading their privacy, both visually and noise-wise."

While I might personally wish that neighbors could work out these issues on their own, I understand this is not always the case. To me, the issue here is the invasion of privacy rather than the trampoline itself. Perhaps we should focus on the invasion of privacy as the primary issue in this dispute rather than the product that is enabling it.

I am less supportive of the notion that we need to establish ordinances relating to product safety on private property.

One commenter wrote the following. "Used incorrectly, trampolines can be extremely dangerous and result in death and paralysis....To me, trampoline safety is a serious community issue and I hope that we don't end up with an all-out ban, but that a serious discussion of safety issues is held and that parents pay close attention to safety rules (and check their homeowner's policy)."

While I admit to deficient knowledge in the matter of trampoline safety, I question the notion that potentially dangerous products are necessarily the responsibility of the Village Board to address. I am especially dubious of this responsibility if the primary danger arises when the product is used incorrectly. I have many potentially dangerous products in my home. I have garden clippers, saws, ladders, hammers, shovels, and garden hoses. Any of these, if used improperly, are dangerous, but I doubt anyone would argue that we need to step in and establish ordinances requiring me, for instance, to keep my fingers out from under the hammer.

So if we need to spell out that neighbors should not peek in one another's bedroom windows, then so be it. But can't we do that without the slapstick debate on banning trampolines?


Comments

1. "Steve, think of trampolines like you do pools and you'll see why there are ordinances against them and why homeowners' policies are strict about them. A kid sees an empty trampoline or pool not fenced off, can't resist sneaking over to use it, and... suddenly, there's a tragedy. This is why every community has some law requiring fences around pools. There are, unfortunately, times when as a community we have to step in and say sorry to step on your toes, homeowners, but that's a disaster waiting to happen."
- Nancy Peske Darrow, 7/6/07