The Forum

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.

A number of streets over here have been in complete darkness for the last few nights.  Driving home tonight, I noticed the lights were out on Congress, Kensington, and the 4400 block of Woodruff.

I mentioned in a previous post that Shorewood shows a slight but distinct political pattern in terms of the relative likelihood to vote for conservative or liberal candidates.  I checked a few of the recent election results which are shown below.  Although the pattern is not perfect, there is generally about a 10-15% difference between the most liberal wards (7-8), and the most conservative (11-12).  The chart below shows the % of the vote that each candidate received in the Feb and April 2008 election cycles. 

Ward Number	BUTLER	TAYLOR	OBAMA
Wards 7-8	78%	68%	63%
Wards 3-4	72%	59%	61%
Wards 5-6	73%	57%	61%
Wards 9-10	69%	57%	57%
Wards 1-2	71%	56%	55%
Wards 11-12	68%	53%	54%

As a side note, the wards on the bottom of the list are West of Oakland Ave.  (View Ward Map)

I apologize for being a bit slow on the blogging as of late.  

I thought this headline and picture from 620 WTMJ's website would make you laugh.  What seems out of place to you?

Source: http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local 

A few highlights from Tuesday's election.

1. Overall turnout was 34%, significantly lower than the 53% who turned out for the February presidential primary.
2. The highest turnout wards were 5 and 6, located along the lake, at 40% of registered voters, . 
3. The lowest turnout areas were wards 1 and 2, the southwest corner near SIS, at 27% of registered voters.
4. There is an interesting bit of political geography going on here in Shorewood, which I will cover in a future post.  Generally speaking, those who live west of Oakland voted more conservatively in this election cycle than those who live east of Oakland.  More on that later.
5. In other elections, not already covered on ShorewoodNOW, Shorewood residents voted as follows:

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE BRANCH 40

REBECCA DALLET	82.52%
JEFFREY NORMAN	17.48%

COUNTY EXECUTIVE

SCOTT WALKER	41.68%
LENA C TAYLOR	58.32%

STATE PARTIAL VETO REFERENDUM

YES	68.98%
NO	31.02%

I attended a presentation today on Carbon Offset for vacation travel.  Expedia offers TerraPass carbon offsets already, as do several of the major rental car companies (view full list). 

In case you are scratching your head wondering in the world a Carbon Offset is...

What is a Carbon Offset?  (From TerraPass)

A carbon offset is a certificate representing the reduction of one metric ton (2,205 lbs) of carbon dioxide emissions, the principal cause of global warming.

I am interested if any of you have purchased carbon offsets as a part of one of your vacations.  If so, what drove you to purchase them?  Generally speaking, what do you think of this idea? 

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.

I had plans for a multi-part series on Sunrise Senior Living and the Riverfront development site, giving readers the details on everything that has happened with the issue since the beginning.  But our time grows short.  The Plan Commission hearing on the issue is tonight, and the Village Board votes next Monday.  As such, I have put together a rough outline of what happened. 

Before we get into the outline, I need to emphasize that the Village Board does have the power to stop the Sunrise development from happening.  It is not a done deal.  Yet.  So if you feel passionately that this the Sunrise Development is not the right thing for Shorewood, now is the time to email your trustees.

Ok, here is the shortened version.

1. Sunrise Senior Living first approached the Village in August of 2006 through Andy Stefanich (An SHS classmate of mine), a commercial real estate agent for CB Richard Ellis.  At that time, the Village had already gone through several iterations of planning for the site, including the original Master Plan recommendation, and early interest from several developers who later pulled out.
2. There are currently 3 properties on the site which are or have been for sale.  Milwaukee PC, the Touhy Apartments, and the Riverbook Restaurant.  Sunrise has been in negotiations with the owners of these sites since as early as September, 2006, according the Open Record emails.
3. As it stands now, Sunrise is the only property which would be put on the site.  Other proposals, including condominiums, and an Advanced Health Care Clinic have been unsuccessful.  In the case of AHC, their proposal was even more out of line with what Shorewood is looking for than what Sunrise is offering.  The condo proposals were abandoned, at least for the time being, due to the sluggish real estate market.
4. Most of the early negotiations took place with Village staff rather than Village Trustees.  President Johnson was involved in some of the earlier meetings.
5. Negotiations and planning have gone through many twists and turns, including details related to traffic control, parking, building plans, the orientation of the building, green building concerns, and subsidies to the developers, among many other details. 
6. Email records indicate that members of the Village Staff were not aware of the legal and ethical issues confronting Sunrise Senior Living until as late as December of 2007. 
7. The final proposal would be as follows.  Sunrise would buy the Riverbrook and the Touhy Apartment Building.  They would build the assisted living center, which would take up the entire Riverbrook lot, and 1/2 of the Touhy lot.  The Village has guaranteed that we will repurchase the other 1/2 of the Touhy lot from Sunrise for $800,000. 
8. Various zoning changes and parking exceptions would be required for this deal to take place, all of which will be voted on at the Plan Commission and Village Board level within the next week.

In other news from the Village Board Meeting:

1. The Village will be holding a hearing on Shorewood parking policies on March 10th.  I am not certain what the agenda is here, but there is certainly plenty to discuss and potentially improve. 
2. The Village Manager is moving toward hiring a consultant to study options of online administration of the Village Parking system.  Such a system could potentially include online renewals, home printing of permits, and other improvements to the current manual, paper-heavy system. 
3. The Village is now studying ways to implement an online payment system for parking and other fees.  Village Manager Chris Swartz will be visiting Grayslake, WI to learn about the e-payment system implemented in that municipality.

Note: Sykes and Boots & Sabers have picked up the Rep Wasserman story.

State Rep. Sheldon Wasserman addressed the Village Board this evening, following State Sen. Alberta Darlings comments at the last meeting.  He covered a variety of issues, including gridlock at the state level, taxes, spending, Smoke Free Wisconsin, and the AT&T issue. 

Note: There seems to be something wrong with the BooMP3 player.  Hopefully it will be back online tomorrow.

boomp3.com

The entire discussion (about 27 minutes) is well worth a listen, but the most interesting part came around the 7:00 to 8:40  mark, when he appeared to blame Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling for preventing a balanced budget in Wisconsin by opposing the hospital tax. 

"The estimate on the budget deficit is $300-$400 million.  And the question is where the money is going to come from.  And we typically we have these repair budgets.  But the question comes in, if the repair budget includes a tax increase, any tax increase, the Republicans Assembly members say, 'we're not going to back it.'  We'd rather have a deficit than have a tax increase.  And then you also the only thing that could fill in this tax increase...the only thing that's really out there is the hospital tax, which is really more the Federal Government giving money through Medicaid.  It's kind of an exchange of money.

"Even though the hospital association has been very for it.  At first they were against it, now they absolutely want it because the majority of the hospital systems in the state are going to get a tremendous bonus for supporting this and getting this thing through."

"The Republicans don't want to do it, because it's a tax, and to be point blank with you, two people in the city of Milwaukee are very, very powerful.  And when they talk the Assembly Republicans listen very, very, very well.  And that's Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling.  And Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling are absolutely opposed to the hospital tax.  Even though the hospitals want it.  Even if though brings them $200 million to the state.  They're opposed to it.  And my colleagues will tell me point blank, 'Sheldon, I've got to do what I'm told.' So in terms of where revenue would be coming from, that's really off the table"

The school district sent me several renderings of the proposed renovations to the SHS Library and PE Building.  These pictures should help to clarify exactly what Dr. McCann was referring to during the videos of the SHS referendum tour.

SEE THE RENDERINGS