Loading...
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Packet - 11/26/2013 CITY OF MUSKEGO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA November 26, 2013 5:45 PM City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLICE NOTICE APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 22, 2013 NEW BUSINESS 1. Cable Club Update 2. Lemke Property Proposal Update 3. Long Term Capital Improvement Plan a) Funding Source (Landfill) 4. Distinction of Appropriate Operating versus Capital Expenditures COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW ADJOURNMENT Possible reconvening of the Committee of the Whole immediately following Common Council Meeting of the same date to continue work on agenda items NOTICE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE. ALSO, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF DISABLED INDIVIDUALS THROUGH APPROPRIATE AIDS AND SERVICES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO REQUEST THIS SERVICE, MUSKEGO CITY HALL, (262) 679-4100. Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES October 22, 2013 6:15 PM City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Mayor Chiaverotti called the meeting to order at 6:15 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Chiaverotti, Aldermen Wolfe, Hammel, Borgman, Glazier, Soltysiak, Kubacki, Madden, Community Development Director Muenkel, Finance Director Mueller and Recording Secretary Chavie. STATEMENT OF PUBLICE NOTICE Recording Secretary Chavie stated that the meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting law APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 8, 2013 Alderman Soltysiak made a motion to approve the minutes of October 8, 2013, Alderman Kubacki seconded. Motion Passed 7 in favor. NEW BUSINESS Lemke Estate Proposal - Update on Information Requested Mayor Chiaverotti stated that at the last meeting council had requested additional information. Community Development Director Muenkel gave projected costs on moving the Lindhorst driveway easement, demolishing the 2 homes, installing fencing and plantings to create a buffer next to Lindhorst property, cutting down and/or trimming trees on the property to allow for a lake view, mowing and maintenance expenses and further information on Stewardship Grants if the City were to purchase the Lemke property. Discussion followed and Council agreed to hold a Public Informational meeting on November 12, 2013 from 5-7pm. COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW ADJOURNMENT Possible reconvening of the Committee of the Whole immediately following Common Council Meeting of the same date to continue work on agenda items Alderman Glazier made a motion to adjourn at 6:36 pm, Alderman Soltysiak seconded. Motion Passed 7 in favor. CITY OF MUSKEGO Committee of The Whole November 26, 2013 Meeting Subject: Lemke Lands Comments Date: November 20, 2013 Background Information: Please find attached the comments received at the public info meeting, online, and via Alderman. Staff broke them up into ones who basically have said yes, who said no, or those who still have questions in moving forward. At the cutoff date of Wednesday November 20, 2013 the following was found: Forty-two (42) total comments received with 25 (60%) YES, 14 (33%) NO, and 3 (7%) with questions. IN FAVOR (Online comments copied verbatim) Bryan Kubel W198 S8506 Bendingbrae Dr., Muskego I have been an advocate for the lake park plans in the past, and I hope the city finally pursues the purchase of this land to make that dream a reality. Let's show off our beautiful lake on our beautiful main street. It would be a new gem for the city for the next 50 years. We've had missed opportunities in the past, and we need to capitalize now. This is what Ms. Lemke wanted, so let's make her dream for this property a reality. Marguerite Ingold S76W17501 Janesville Rd I am in favor of a green space or an access area on the lake and now the opportunity has come up once again. What nicer way to celebrate Muskego's 50th birthday with a present to us all. The area is small, of that there is no doubt but it's better than what we have now which is nothing. The deceased owner who was one of the older residents on the lake, decreed that the city get first chance at the property. I would not go so far as to name the space after her as she didn't donate the land. The naming could and should be a city-wide endeavor. We need a walking, walk-up park on the south side of the lake so we all can have a view of our lake. As the beautiful new road is nears completion and more walkers are appearing everyday on the finished portions, I think a park of this sort will bring business to the area as well as enjoyment. It will be a destination of sorts I say: "go for it!" and let's see what the future will bring. Joan Berens S75W18646 Kingston Dr Great way to showcase our beautiful lake! Robert Mueller W173 S7996 Scenic Drive I support purchase of the purchase of the Lemke property. Several years ago, the city paid a significant amount of taxpayer money for a plan on how to improve the city. One recommendation from this plan was to include a lake park on the south side of the lake. If the city paid for this advice, this advice should be taken, or at least considered. To ignore this recommendation would be poor judgement. Opposition to this purchase comes primarily from people who live on what they consider "their" body of water. The truth is not a concern for borrowing but rather for exclusivity. Kathleen Mueller W173 S7996 Scenic Dr I urge support of the purchase of the Lemke property for use as a small park on the lake. As a resident of the south side of the lake, where there is no way to access the lake, I would love to be able to walk or bike to the lake and enjoy its beauty. I also feel that a small park would benefit our downtown as well as development along Pioneer Dr. I further urge the city not just count these forms and base a decision on pure numbers. It is time to show leadership and make a decision that shows a vision for further improvement of the city. Arguments against borrowing for this venture should be carefully examined as to motive. Monies were borrowed for the Borst property and there was no concern for the borrowing. But a park on the lake does bring up concern for borrowing. Why? Is it, again, for the purpose of keeping the lake for the people who live on the lake? Nicole Kolinske S78 W18221 Lions Park Drive We would love to see a green space here. Since moving to Muskego almost 10 yrs ago, we have been wanting to see more public space on the lake since we enjoy that area so much. It would be wonderful to have access to this land and bring our kids there to enjoy for many years to come. GERALD S. BOISITS W174 S6815 EAST DRIVE AM ENTIRELY FOR THE LEMKE LAND PURCHASE. THE BENEFIT OF EVEN A MINOR VISIBLE VIEW OF THE LAKE FROM JANESVILLE ROAD FAR OUTWEIGHS THE EXPENSE INVOLVED AND WILL BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITY. A SMALL PARK WOULD PROVIDE A DESTINATION FOR THOSE UTILIZING THE TRAILS AND WALKWAYS RECENTLY DEVELOPED ON JANESVILLE ROAD AND OTHER ADJOINING AREAS. THE PARK WOULD ALSO COMPLIMENT THE VISION THAT THE NEW AND BEAUTIFUL JANESVILLE ROAD DEVELOPMENT PRESENTS OF OUR "LAKE" COMMUNITY. Denise Konkol S81 W12724 Hi View Drive Muskego I am writing in support of this purchase, based on years of spectating the many meetings that have preceded this one, my desire as a long time city resident, and as someone who is a proponent of our current and future businesses. I encourage ALL of the aldermen to vote for this proposal, not just based on the number of no's and yes's received, but the reasoning behind them. In the last go-round, there were many in opposition based on imagined problems that had no basis in fact, and they were never corrected, which is the job of the council - to present the facts and keep these facts in front of the public, and not allow misplaced fears to stand. This is a very strategic location for at least two reasons: it is near an area that is poised for business growth. DJ's will soon be rebuilding, and newer businesses coming into this area feel it will be key to their success. In addition, it rests along the Little Muskego Lake Dam, and it would be a very smart move on the city's part to secure that parcel to help access, monitor and maintain that dam. As stated in the brief from city staff, such acquisitions are looked upon favorably by the DNR, and could help offset the costs. Speaking of price, residents no doubt are against this because it's going to cost the city money. To that I counter that the message in not capitalizing on an opportunity like this is also going to cost the city. Look at this area along Janesville in its entirety, as a total package. So many of the people who have come into Muskego from elsewhere see it immediately. They rave about the street scaping (which so many on the council sneered over spending money on) and even the little things like the benches. People use them, just like they use the rec trails that so many seemed to think were a waste of money. Folks, these aesthetics MATTER. They tell people that someone lives here, and they care about it. And they decide to move here, or move their business here. As for the complaint that we have too many parks, I have no idea what that means. Let's try closing one and we'll hear the outcry. You may also hear from people who say they don't like this process. However, having the context of sitting in many meetings on the Borst property where the city spent about $1 million, no one complained. There were no drawn out public input sessions. Please ask yourself why it's OK in one instance and not another. The difference: the lake. The same double standard existed with DJ's rezoning. People cried that there was no plan, except for a sketch. His issue was to first get rezoned to a DR-1. A few months later, the owners of the Shell station did the exact same thing in requesting a DR-1 rezoning. They had no plans, no design. Yet no one had an issue with it. The difference between these two is simply the location: one's on the lake. So I implore this council to finally do the right thing to complement the Janesville Road corridor and vote yes on this parcel. I can guarantee that it will be used, it will be welcome and it will make a difference. loretta jorn s71w17274 pleasant view dr I support this and believe it will help make Muskego a more attractive city for new business if we have lake access for public enjoyment Brian Hofmeister W124 S6438 Hawthorne Rd I am thrilled about the prospect of a public park being added to Muskego Lake, provided that the purchase price is at fair market value. More opportunities to connect and congregate, through public parks, is a great idea. Glenda Holm W206 S7995 Pasadena Dr, I would support moving toward acquisition of this property. I would like to see the application for the grants begun as soon as possible and timing of the purchase to allow for utilization of the potential grant approval. Krisann Durnford moved from Muskego this past spring current is 33403 S Honey Lake Rd Burlington Hello. Although I moved this year from Muskego (due to my husband's ministry), I am still actively involved in my church and business connections. I lived there for 25 years--12 of those years near the lake on Hiawatha Dr-- and have long hoped for an area as is proposed to open the Little Muskego Lake. Please sincerely consider this endeavor as I believe it will be beneficial in many ways to the Muskego community. Gregg R & Kristin S Golden s73 w15102 cherrywood drive, Muskego Hello, My Name is Gregg Golden. I am a planner, Licensed Architect, Business Owner, Parent, and Muskego Resident. Let me take this moment to share my thoughts. Master Planning and Land Planning begins with a opportunity. A opportunity to grow, expand and build on successes. With all opportunities comes risks AND decisions. Decisions in this case that drive a common goal. The GOAL to make Muskego a GREAT place to live, work, and play. A place to call home and raise our families. We all know, Muskego has many, many things that are of great value. Reasons to why we CHOOSE to live here. ONE...... is our great SCHOOLS to LEARN (thank you School Board, Admin, and especially our teachers) TWO.... is our Downtown Redevelopment & Business to WORK (thank you local businesses) THREE..... is our LAKES & PARKS.. A place to PLAY. Both GREEN and WET Continue on your plan to make Muskego Great. A place to Live, Work, and Play Seize this opportunity. You were chosen now to be Stewards of Muskego and its residents. Stewards to make Muskego a better place. Now and in the future. I know......Nobody has a crystal ball to see the future. but please set Muskego up for success.. Your decision today to say yes, will set Muskego up for the future. Lets Continue to keep Muskego Lakes a place to play, enjoy, be seen by all, and be shared with all. I ask that you BUY that partial of land abutting the water and make it something great. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity. Thank you for your time, Gregg R. Golden AIA, Muskego Resident Laura Mishefske S70W13177 Flintlock Tr, Muskego I believe the city would benefit from having this park on Little Muskego Lake. It is a city treasure that should be enjoyed by all citizens of Muskego. It is also in a location that was historically known as the center of Muskego, therefore, it is not hidden as Idle Isle is. The opportunity to attain Lake property rarely presents itself and should not be turned away again. Chad Salter W190 S7602 Circle Dr I am all for this new Lemke Land purchase. Especially after the last multimillion park proposition near this same area which I thought was absolutely outrageous. This is a much better financial plan and in my opinion it's in an even better area. Jeremy Keil W189S9014 Creekside Ct. I believe this is a great idea. People don't know Muskego as a town with a lake, but a town that used to have an amusent park. I suggest Muskego make an offer on the adjoining property to the southeast to increase the size of the park. This will put us on the map just like Pewaukee is with its Lake. Rob Glazier W186S7588 Kingston Drive I am in favor of pursuing the purchase of the Lemke property as offered. This makes sense on a few levels: One, residents of Muskego have asked for access to Little Muskego Lake from the south side and this property would provide that access. Two, acquisition of this property can be considered an act of conservation. Little Muskego Lake is heavily trafficked and cannot afford any additional residential development. Third, creation of a park on this side of the lake with close access to Janesville Rd and Pioneer Drive will further enhance Muskego's image a lake community creating a walk-able business district that may very well become Muskego's true downtown. I would like to see negotiations begin with the property owners and plans made for a park on the Lemke parcel. AGAINST (Online comments copied verbatim) Bruce & Kathy Wendling W187S6450 Gold Dr We are definitely against any plans for future City of Muskego parks. Muskego must start taking proper care of the parks it already has! Mayor Chiaverotti and the Muskego Common Council should take a brief tour of Lee Hubka Public Park on Diamond Dr. A large dead tree was cut down on the property about a year ago, and the mess still has not been cleaned up. The large tree trunk and branches still remain in the park a year later. This park is also on Jewel Creek, and the area along Jewel Creek has never been maintained. This park is a MUSKEGO EYESORE! You need to fix this problem and maintain the other Muskego parks properly before building another park! A response to this email would be greatly appreciated. Jill Budnik S75W17649 Harbor Circle I attended the informational meeting. Many folks I talk to state that if the City has to borrow money to do this Lemke land acquisition and make it into a park, then the City should not do it. My alderman, Rob, did not really say where the $1 million would come from. Maybe landfill monies, maybe borrowing, etc? I am very concerned about how this park effects the Lindhorst family. Has the City tried to buy or negotiate with them? I am very concerned about parking for the park. A parking lot near Janesville Road would be very un-slightly. Parking on Pioneer Road is far and difficult to cross Janesville Road with small children. I am concerned people would park on the new driveway built for the Lindhorst family. I am concerned that Idle Isle park is not properly maintained by the Park and Rec department, so how can we add another park? Idle Isle is currently maintained with volunteers and donations of plants solicited by Lisa Niles of the LMLA. I am against the idea. Czaplewski W191S6747 Bluegrass The City does not properly take care of the park we already have on the lake. So we definitely don't need another park on the lake! I must wonder if the land/home owners true goal is to sell the properties to the City vs. to another family, cause that is the only way they can get the money they want for those properties. If the City must buy the land/homes in the end, a far better use of the properties would be to have a restaurant, with maybe a hall for weddings too, overlooking the lake with outside dining as well. This would add charm & value to the City. Turning these properties into a park is certainly not in the best interest of the community! Daniel Miron W176S8019 Joel Drive First, this is starting to sound like a school board that keeps bringing a referendum to voters until something passes, each time proposing a smaller referendum. (I understand that this proposal is entirely new proposal, but it is related to the first two.) It appears that some people are obsessed with having a park on the south side of the lake. What is worse to me is that some of the people pushing for these proposals appear to be the land owners that are obviously having problems selling the land or at least getting the money they think it is worth. If an estate wants to “preserve the beauty of the lake,” maybe they should just donate the land for a park. Second, ~$700,000 is a lot of money for a city to spend on a small parcel of land (~2 acres or ~$350,000 per acre). Even if grants are received to help pay, that grant money is still tax dollars; just from another source. Third, there are a lot of parks in the city, which is great, but I feel that the ones we have are already under used. I would occasionally ride my bike to Veterans park with my kids on a summer weekend so they can play on the playground equipment and often we would be the only people in the park. I haven’t gone to Idle Isle much but when I have it doesn’t seem like a lot of people are there. Bluhm Park is empty if no practice or games are being played. I could go on with other parks but you get the idea. Fourth, I think that a park on the south side of the lake would only widely be used for one thing: Fourth of July Fireworks. I guess that this would be a new prime location to watch them but other than that I don’t see much use of the park. This would be a lot money so people can watch fireworks. Fifth, there is talk of needing a new police station or a remodeled city hall. If those are really needed then we should prioritize our tax dollars before we start spending them. (I went to a high school build in 1905, or something like that, and I did OK. You will have to do some convincing that new buildings are needed. I think that it is more important to give people the tools they need to succeed rather than a building. But that is another subject.) With all this said I think that the city should not pursue the purchase of this land for a park. Please contact me if you have any questions. Dr. Mike BUbon W188 S7830 Racine Ave., Muskego The very nice park that already exists in Muskego on Janesville road gets very little usage as it is. Not sure the city needs another recreational park. John Kardelis W191 S6710 Bluegrass (forwarded from Ald. Soltysiak) We currently have lake access at Idle Isle that could be upgraded if need be.I see no reason to do this. It is a waste of tax payer money. This money should be part of bringing back School referendum.We need to bring back the referendum for rebuilding the schools. They are in terrible shape.New schools bring new families and keep the community growing.We already have public lake access. Tom Laritson S67W18898 Steeplechase Dr. (forwarded from Ald. Soltysiak) I want to say that I don't think we need another park. It seems to me that these people just want to sell their property. The new Park Arthur isn't finished yet and these same people keep coming back to buy land and property. This is the third time that this group is promoting another park. I hope that you are against this. Thank you for hearing me out on this subject. T Laritson robert penoske w193s6853 hillendale dr NO NO NO .Why is Muskego hell bent on having another park on the lake.Its to crowded on most weekends already .Spend OUR money to do something with that stupid tree farm NEEDS MORE INFORMATION (Online comments copied verbatim) Robert Hoffman W192S6781 Bluegrass Dr The the purchase price and ongoing maintanence costs seem to be well documented. However there is no case stating the benifits of such a park. Are there financial benifits to the city by adding such a park? If not, what are the benefits? Who would use this park? Residents or non-residents? How will the city finance to costs? How does this proposal affect the bottom line of my tax bill? Until these questions are answered I cannot support this proposal. Ken Fries W175 S7229 Lake Dr., Muskego Muskego Mayor and Alderpersons: I am not really against this Park proposal/green space, I am against Muskego taxpayer funding of this project. With all the land purchases, building demolition, present and future maintenance, etc., I predict this will turn into a $1,000,000 project (WDNR financial grants are fading away). Currently there are 19 public accesses around the Lake. Excluding Idle Isle, I don't see these existing Lake accesses being used that frequently. Plus this property is close to the Lake dam/spillway. I know there are nice scenic views but that appears to be quite the liability for any use of the water. Plus, what about the Lindhorst property? Their property appears to be landlocked and surrounded by potential 24/7 access of users. I would predict their land property value would decrease. In Summary: For a $1,000,000 City investment, I believe there are other City projects/developments more deserving of consideration. Ken Fries