Muskego Council Revisits Lake Park Plan, But Only On The Agenda
Council members did not bring discussion to floor, therefore vote in favor of lake park stands.
The Muskego Common Council had the opportunity to discuss a reconsideration of the resolution to purchase two parcels of land, known as the Dilworth/Cherek properties at its meeting at Lake Denoon Middle School Tuesday night.
However, no discussion was brought to the floor for the reconsideration, as it is only allowed by 'yea' votes on the resolution (Aldermen Snead, Werner, Schaumber and Fiedler cast these votes on Jan. 24). As none of these Aldermen brought the measure to the floor, discussion was nil, and the 4-3 decision in favor of the resolution stood.
However, the evening was not without some initial confusion regarding parlimentary procedure.
Tracy Snead asked to address the council after the opportunity to discuss had passed, and suggested an ad hoc committee be formed among all parties, for example representatives Muskego Proud, Muskego for Ethical Government and the Parks Board. Snead said the job of this committee would be to work on the question of costs, which she said seemed to be the greatest concern.
However, because the suggestion was placed under 'communications and miscellaneous business' no further formal discussion could be brought to the floor because (per parlimentary procedure) as the specific topic was not originally on the agenda. A future council meeting will allow for such discussion among all of the council members.
Simple Bacon
10:05 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
So, we are going to buy the land and then figure out how to pay for it? Even spend money on a consultant to figure out how to spend the money. Then the council agrees that there was not suffiecient opportunity for public input on the lake park. By Noah Fiedler's count two opportunities counting tonite - TWO. That means ONE before resolving to buy the land. And because they recognize that there was not sufficient opportunity for the public to comment NOW they decide to change the rules so next time people can comment on closed session items.
There was not enough chance to gather public input and we really don't know what this is going to cost. That is what the council concluded tonite. Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along? But that's not enough to reconsider the decision. Just change the rules so it won't happen again. How more disfunctional can our government be?
Simple Bacon
10:14 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Ohh and by the way. Anyone notice the pattern in the public input (count that as the second time public input has been allowed on the lake park per Noah Fiedler)?
Muskego Proud to a person, including those representing the Chamber of Commerce, directed their complaints at those citizens opposing the land acquisition. Those opposed to the land acquisition directed their complaints at the process and the elected officials. Muskego Proud routinely has made this about people - the people of Muskego who are skeptical of giving government a blank check. This group is nothing to be proud of and if I were a member of the Chamber I'd be questioning where they want to align themselves. Got a new slogan for the Chamber "Jammin' it to the people".
Simple Bacon
10:17 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Go ahead Patch...let me have it. I'm out of order, being snarkey. Know what? I don't care...I'm mad as heck and I'm not going to take it anymore!
Denise Konkol
12:43 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Apparently...I also heard what Fiedler said, and in the context of public input he was talking about open v. closed session discussion. If the rules were to eliminate public input on closed session items, there would have been only 2 public input sessions allowed on this topic. You were close, but counting tonight I think we're up to 5. Regarding an earlier comment, we know how we're paying for the land, but the details people are concerned about are the what comes next. What isn't being heard is that the public will be asked to determine that, and if you're interested, that's what the ad hoc committee suggested tonight would do. Public input is just beginning. Don't go away...you're still needed.
Simple Bacon
7:36 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Technically, the public input on closed session items was not allowed so there was one Council meeting where the public had the opportunity to speak on an item in open session. That's why they changed the rules last night. Noah specifically called out the lake park in his deliberations. Regardless...It was obvious that the public was not satisfied with the level of thought and deliberation (or lack thereof) going into this pood decision. They ignored that fact. Doesn't matter what they propose from here on out. A small minority of people wanted this and they were able to effectively get the Council to suspend all reason and move forward. The money's now going to be spent. And as was stated last night the Parks department has no money to build the park. Those properties will sit vacant until a funding source emerges.
It's going to be difficult at this point to come together and hold hands with Muskego Proud and help them build the park. Council could have brought people together last night they chose not to. They divided the community and I don't see how they regain any sort of credibility. Goes for this Chamber of Commerce as well. Why they had to get behind Muskego Proud is beyond me.
Muskego Mike
10:23 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I agree with everything I've read from you on this topic. Time to vote some people out of office.
Simple Bacon
10:29 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
With you Mike....
Rick Petfalski
4:32 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Part 1
I haven't weighed in on this whole subject for a number of reasons, but after tonight I believe I can no longer sit back and watch. I have long been concerned with the process and lack of complete information on this proposal. What are the total costs? What might the park all include? Etc. I'll be honest, I don't care for a park there by itself. What I'm would like to see is if we allow a park to be placed there what does this mean to the rest of the development surrounding this proposed park? Yes this park my be taking 3 to 4. Million off the the tax rolls. That by itself concerns me if that were it. I happen to know that's not it however. There is a plan in the works for some type of commercial development adjoining this property, that if done correctly will more than offset the lost revenue from the homes that would be taken down. In addlition, there's a chance that one such amenity would be a restaurant with a view of the lake amoung other developments. But at this point we don't know. These are important questions amoung others that need answering before completing this purchase.
Continued....
Rick Petfalski
4:33 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Part two...
This is what alderman Snead was trying to communicate tonight. Unfortionaletly parliamentary procedures do not allow for deeper discussion on this idea. I can say that there is traction to try to gather this information before moving forward with completeling this purchase. This will be discussed further at a future COW meeting. If the information gathered doesn't support morning forward, then I expect this whole this will die.
At this point I would love to hear the answers before we kill this off, as the aspect of a 6 to 7 million dollar development that fits our design guides on the on the lake is very exciting. If these questions don't come back with pallitable answers, then the project needs to be killed. Let's give these leaders a chance todo the right thing. Reconsideration was not the right thing due to the pending direct legislation petition. I'm again the current proposal as it currently sits, but I disapprove to direct legislation much much more. Nothing is going to happen in the next week anyway, so let's all take a deep breath a see what comes forward in the next few weeks. This patience hurts nothing.
Simple Bacon
7:54 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Gosh Rick I wish the Council could have shared this plan. That would have been great information to share prior to spending $2miillion in new borrowing + the remaining TIF residual funds+DNR grants not yet applied for+most of the remaining landfill monies. They could have done so much to assage the fears of many - they didn't. So, whether or not there is a plan for commercial development I simply cannot support this Council, the Chamber of Commerce and the rest of them. Governing cannot be about the end justifing the means. I know that's politics but there could have been so much excitment around this project had it been done right. Now we're going to have endless challenges and bickering.
Personally, I wish you would have weighed in sooner. A lot of people didn't and it may have improved the process.
Sour grapes maybe but that's all the Council has given me to work with. Appreciate your thoughts none the less though. Ever think of coming back to the Council?
Denise Konkol
9:41 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Deeper discussions will come on Snead's idea in the next meeting. The idea is to make sure it's spelled out as a formal agenda item so the public can expect it, and per the rules of pubilc comment, people can weigh in with their opinions. What I find curious is why this idea took so long for ANYone to come up with - alderman or citizen. Seems like a ridiculously simple idea.
Rick Petfalski
4:38 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
One last comment, the removal of those homes off of the tax roles actually helps lower school property taxes..go figure!
Brandon Karpowitz
8:02 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The way the City of Muskego conducts business is just completely frustrating to me. They constantly talk out of both sides of their mouth on issues and I feel I can't trust a single thing they say. They will talk about supporting Muskego small businesses, yet they allowed a 2 Walgreen's stores to open up within a mile of Jerome Drugs a long time Muskego business. Same with 3 Auto parts stores within 2 miles of Muskego Auto another long time small Muskego business. We talk about being a lake community and then tear down the bait shop, which was likely killed business wise by Walmart. They'll tell Kohl's that their remodal is not "Prairie style" enough but then what is Prairie style about North Shore Bank that was built just a couple years ago? This sort of stuff is why I have zero trust that this park plan is legit. I have a hard time believing they've gone this far with this without any drawings or plans being submitted even off the record. There's no way an intelligent person would make this decision for this much money without seeing what it could actually look like. To say we'll just buy it and figure it out later is completely ridiculous IMO. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.
Denise Konkol
9:46 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The short answer to your comment on North Shore is that it's not part of the Moorland Corridor - the design plan doesn't apply to the entire city commercial and retail establishments. You also raise a question that I have heard before, regarding more detailed plans. If the city spent thousands of dollars on a park plan and presented it, everyone would be angry because they had no input into the design, as is done for any project (Tess Corners Drive, Pioneer Drive and Janesville have had information sessions where public input is sought). The detail and cost is being put into the public's hands, which is where people have said they want it.
Bryan K.
3:27 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Mr. Karpowitz,
Obviously you don't know how the city government works in terms of new construction of businesses. The city can't just say no to a business because of the name on the building. This is what was said when Walmart was proposed in 2008. Speaking of that, Walmart WAS NOT the reason why Sport Shack closed. If you have examined the plans for Janesville Road, you would know that Michi Drive and Westwood Drive are being realigned so that it will be a 4-way intersection. This required the destruction of the Sport Shack. Also, the owners of the Sport Shack retired, sold their business to the county, and moved to Florida. So, no, Walmart did not impact the Sport Shack closure. If this were to be the case, the Muskego Bait Shop and Johnny's Bait Shop wouldn't have opened to fill the Sport Shack's void.
Also, you make mention of the three new auto parts stores. Yes, I would agree that Muskego has an overabundance of auto parts stores, but they didn't open to "kill" the Bumper to Bumper auto shop that has been here the longest. They opened purely for business reasons. (FYI, Muskego Auto is the Firestone dealer, who doesn't sell auto parts).
Bryan K.
3:33 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
(continued)
You also make mention of Walgreens. For many years, Walgreens was in the Pick n Save plaza, until a corporate decision was made to have all new stores to be freestanding. This is why it was built on Racine and Janesville. However, the store moved from a centrally located location to one that favored Muskego's west side. This is why in 2005, they constructed a new store on Janesville and Sandalwood. This was purely a business decision.
Lastly, just as Denise said, North Shore Bank was NOT required to be Prairie style because it is not in the Moorland South Design Guide District (neither is Walmart, which is why they aren't completely Prairie-style). I will agree with you that when the PC denied Kohl's request to remodel was silly. However, at the next meeting, they are recommending approval of the plans.
Yes, local small businesses are needed. However, larger, national chains are inevitable. The Moorland corridor in New Berlin and Muskego is expected to be a hot development district in the next 10 years. This area serves approximately 65,000+ residents of Muskego, New Berlin, Hales Corners, and more.
We can't change the past, but Muskego's business plans for the future look promising once we get some office buildings built that keep the city's daytime population up. It also helps to make sure everything people say in these comments are truthful. Spreading lies will not help people stop the park!
kevin
8:20 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
RECALL RECALL THE ANIMALS IN THE FARM WHAT A SHAMEFUL DISPLAY OF MUSKEGO POLITICS WITH THE WICKED WITCH AT THE HELM RECALL RECALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
Simple Bacon
9:58 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
An ad hoc commitee should have happened prior to a resolution to purchase the land. This is what has been asked for all along...a plan BEFORE spending millions. Now it's reported that we all just want to weigh in what color the band shell will be etc. Parks Dept. has said they have zero budget for this park. That should have been discussed prior to purchasing the land. So, sorry but a commitee to no figure out what to do with $3.55M in land is not what was being asked for. Is the Council thinking that a commitee comprised of citizens is going to come up with the $$ to build this park and maintain it?
Spin it as you will...this commitee, after the fact, is not what people were asking for. They wanted the deliberations to happen before the fact.
I'm just dumbfounded by how our government works. And just cannot understand how this became such a priority to the Council that with all the projects going on in Muskego, with all the dead spots along Janesville Rd, that this is what they needed to be Jammin' down the pike.
Lawrence Roethle
8:30 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
First of all, you have a fire dept. in front of this thing, and the 295 feet of street frontage is not what I call a great view of the lake as someone once said. By the time you turn your head to look, you've passed it. So what next, we have to move the fire dept.? You know what gets me is that they have the parkland mall issue, no money for the parks dept., and yet they want to spend millions on this? Because they think it will draw business? Are you kidding me? What? First you need to fiqure out the parkland mall issue to see what kind commercial developement you get there. Then you pursue other ideas. If the parks dept. has financial problems, why would you even think of creating another park? Oh yeah, they said we can afford it. We just can't maintain it. I'm sure the money already spent on studies is enough to make your head spin, cause they can't make common sense decisions on their own. I thought we elected a conservative mayor, and yet she's the biggest cheerleader. I wonder why.