COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MINUTES - 5/7/1998
CITY OF MUSKEGO
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
MAY 7, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Mayor De Angelis. Also present were
Aldermen Slocomb, Chiaverotti, Patterson, Pionek (arrv.7:13 PM), Salentine, Sanders
and Woodard, Clerk-Treasurer Marenda and Finance Director Gunderson.
The Clerk-Treas. reported that the meeting was noticed in accordance with the Open
Meeting Law on May 1, 1998.
Ald. Slocomb moved for approval of minutes of meeting held 4/1/98. Ald. Sanders
seconded, motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Economic viability and land use for proposed business park.
Mayor announced that this is not a public hearing, but is a working meeting of the
Council acting as the Committee of the Whole, and after discussion public comments
would be heard. Mayor stated that additional information as to the overall land use was
not available for this meeting as the Planning Director was unable to attend. However,
our financial consultants have re-prepared the dollar amounts in doing the projects and
projected payouts under TIF.
Finance Director Gunderson presented the reports prepared by Ehlers and Associates
dated 5/7/98 entitled “Revised TID #8 Projections”; “Potential Project Expenditures”;
“Sample Project Schedule”; “Project Financing”; “Tax increment Forecasts”; and
“Financial Forecasts”, along with a preliminary cost estimate prepared by Ruekert &
Mielke.
Ald. Salentine questioned why City had to pick up all costs of Moorland Road
improvements. Mayor explained the County was originally going to have a
transportation impact fee levied, which is gone. The dollar amount in the TIF project
did not change based on Moorland Road. The $1 million is for Moorland Road from
Janesville Rd. to College Ave. for four-lane development.
Mayor noted this plan is being presented without a private partner for purchase of the
land, grading, landscaping, etc. At the current land-sale price they feel they couldn’t
make it work. To proceed at these costs, we would have to look for a private developer
someplace else. In order for the Waukesha County Rep on the Joint Review Board to
vote for a TIF district in a positive manner, they are looking at a 15-17 year life of the
TIF, and not the 22 years as this forecast indicates. That factor has changed in the last
1-1/2 years. For the City to do this now is not economically viable in its current
configuration and land use.
The projections prepared by Ruekert & Mielke dated 2/14/97 were reviewed by the
Committee.
Dawn Gunderson noted the costs associated with the borrowing would be paid over 23
years based on land sales of $50,000 per acre, netted down to $35,000 to the City.
Committee of the Whole Page 2
May 7, 1998
Ald. Sanders questioned what costs are necessary for residential. Mayor noted sewer
and water are still required, but the interceptor could be smaller. Road costs would
increase. Depending on what is built, there may not be a need for an additional water
reservoir as we have enough capacity with our new well #7 on line.
Ald. Patterson commented that originally we were using a private developer as a
partner. Mayor said that given current land values they feel they cannot give us the
same development guarantee, which was a specific absorption rate for land sales, and
if a short-fall it would be made up by the development partner. Ald. Patterson asked
how much lower would the City’s costs be with a private partner. Mayor noted it would
depend on what is negotiated. With land costs what they are today you probably
couldn’t find a partner to pick up all the land purchase costs. In order to get this to a
12-17 year range, you’d have to reduce the costs by about $4-5 million.
Mayor felt the City couldn’t develop the park entirely without a partner due to the risk.
In a 12-17 year window you have 5-7 year flex if you have some type of economic down
turn. Ald. Salentine questioned why the County is looking at a 15 year payout. Mayor
advised that is their benchmark. Since we started, the land prices have escalated
substantially, the infrastructure improvements needed have increased in cost and there
is the possibility of in-line sewer storage which has come up in the last year.
Ald. Salentine asked if the City is back to looking at a different location. Mayor
indicated yes by looking at the recommendation of the comp plan committee, look at
alternate locations unless dramatic change occurs in projected costs.
Ald. Sanders noted there has been a proposal of commercial development on the
corner of Janesville and Moorland roads and asked if sewer and water were available.
Mayor advised that would have to be resolved by the developers, possibly joining with
the developer on the south of Janesville or going east. The City typically doesn’t
extend service for individuals.
Ald. Pionek felt that the question is, do the people in the City want a business park
anywhere. He said he would like to see a referendum in the fall. We would need to
show comparisons. Maybe they want us to stay a bedroom community. Ald. Slocomb
noted the input from his district was possible consideration of a business park in his
area possibly to serve as a buffer between the residences and the landfill. When a
business park is done right, it can have a positive impact on the community. Mayor
noted if further discussion on a referendum is desired, it should be placed on a
subsequent agenda.
Ald. Patterson commented the original plan was based on oversizing of sewer and
water. Has there been any discussion of developing the area to the south? Mayor said
there is some interest and you will continue to see that until the economics are right.
We have a proposal for Janesville and Moorland, and if it can’t be put together, we will
probably see another one. Even if the city doesn’t proceed, the property owners are
looking at their options to sell their property. Ald. Patterson ask if a moratorium can be
established in this area until the Comprehensive Plan is approved. Mayor stated he
conferred with the City Attorney on this question, who said it is very legally
Committee of the Whole Page 3
May 7, 1998
questionable to specify a specific area for a moratorium unless a study is being done
on that specific area only. Since the Comp Plan is City-wide, you would have to do a
City-wide moratorium. Anything currently proposed is exempt, and there is a right to
appeal.
Ald. Pionek noted the costs are really high, and the thing that scares him is if there is a
downturn in the economy who would pay? Mayor said that at the end of the 23 years,
the City would have to pay if the debt had not been covered by the TIF increments.
Ald. Sanders noted the new projected cost is $13.4 million and asked for the original
projection. Ms. Gunderson stated it was $7.3 million with the scaled-down project, and
does not include land cost which would have been picked up by the private partner. At
that time land cost was valued at $10,000/acre.
Ald. Slocomb moved to recommend to Council to discontinue pursuing development of
a business park along the Moorland Road corridor because of the cost situation. Ald.
Pionek seconded, carried 7-0.
Ald. Sanders expressed concern people are trying to tie in the TIF equation with this.
In the past it can be shown TIF did good for the City. It is just because of the high cost
that makes it unfeasible at this time.
Ald. Salentine requested the agenda of the next Committee of the Whole meeting
include looking at land sites to determine a viable place for a business park. She
asked if the business partners are willing to look at other sites. Ald. Sanders requested
development costs for the other sites. Mayor stated he will pursue having potential
partners talk to the Committee of the Whole and provide costs for other sites.
Mr. Bert Ponzi, Preserve Muskego, stated he appreciated the vote. He asked if sewer
and water are available for a development of that size, and asked about the size.
Mayor said sewer and water are available, but a distance away; and, the proposal was
based on a 123 acre park. Mr. Ponzi asked if it goes in somewhere and financed by a
TIF but not built and debt and interest accumulate, will City pay. Mayor said that is a
potential liability. In the history of the State there have not been any TIFs that have
failed to meet their liability due to the term allowed for payment. We anticipate all our
TIFs to pay off. Only have one left. Money spent on TIF projects and paid in full with
TIF dollars have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Chuck Wichgers, Preserve Muskego, said we have concerns if you put business in an
area, more and more business will come and then get buffered from residential with
multi-family. We’re looking at cost of increasing police and fire services. Please
consider this when looking for a site at the long term ramifications of a business park.
Mayor stated it is not necessarily true that because you have a business park that you
have to have multi-family next to it. There are other ways to treat it with increased
offsets, landscaping, duplexes, senior living center clusters, etc.
Maryann Brunner stated she has heard it called “business park” and “industrial park”
and asked for clarification. Mayor clarified it is a “business park”. Ms. Brunner said
Committee of the Whole Page 4
May 7, 1998
land costs in the Moorland Rd. area are high, so you look at another parcel. Won’t
those parcel costs also go up? Mayor responded probably.
Mr. Kramer, Muskego Dam Rd. thanked the Council for re-thinking the proposal. He
addressed Ald. Pionek’s suggestion for a referendum in the fall. He felt it was a great
idea. He questioned looking at other sites now. Why not have a binding referendum
and get a clear and present signal.
Ms. Peggy Diekfuss, Janesville Rd., said there is a business side of this issue that
should be stated. It’s not true that nobody wants business. She is 100% in favor of it.
She said business people in the City have been threatened that if they state their
opinion their businesses will be boycotted. She felt they have a right to be heard as
business owners carry the brunt of taxes. They support all of us in the City. New
businesses have been forced by the Plan Commission and Council to build attractive
buildings. She said she talked to the Police Chief who indicated no additional crime
with a business park. Residential development of 600-1000 units would add one police
officer. She asked why we can’t work together and have a beautiful business park and
save taxes.
Ald. Chiaverotti asked that the Council request the police chief to report on the
potential of crime with a business park, although she said she informally asked him and
he said no.
Chuck Wichgers said it’s not the industrial park that creates crime, it is the extraneous
that go with it. More business, more commercial, more apartments, then the crime. To
clarify misconceptions, he said we do promote our Chamber of Commerce.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Discuss and develop policy for extension of Moorland Road cost.
Mayor reviewed alternatives: 1) R & M proposal for Moorland Road Centerline
Delineation-Janesville Rd. to Woods Rd.; 2)Durham Drive Route Analysis proposal by
R & M; 3) Impact Fees; 4) Developer pays; and 5) Capital Reserve Fund. Mayor said
he favors having those individual developers pay for a standard subdivision street with
oversizing expenses paid for by the City. Ald. Sanders felt that is the easiest to
manage. Ald. Salentine questioned getting the centerline mapped. Ald. Slocomb said
he has a verbal okay from Mr. Boehm to go on his property for this purpose. Mayor
said he will place the proposal to get the centerline for Moorland Road Extended
mapped on the 5/20/98 Finance Committee agenda. Ald. Pionek felt that for any road
in the City, if the developer is going to use he should pay subdivision street cost, but
didn’t think a developer should be charged if he doesn’t make use of it by having
access to it, whether a street connection or driveway access. Mayor said he didn’t
think we should pay for the alignment of Moorland Rd. at all. Ald. Pionek felt Chapter
18 needs amendment to be more specific in such policies, as well as drainage, storm
sewer, etc.
2. Discuss fire department contracts (City-owned buildings and equipment)
Ald. Pionek stated he felt the City should own the buildings and equipment of the fire
departments.
Committee of the Whole Page 5
May 7, 1998
3. Discuss Tess Corners Fire Department Dissolution Agreement
th
Ald. Salentine stated the next meeting with the fire department will be on May 18 at
4:00 PM. Have been working on the scholarship fund. She presented the proposals to
date and said she was looking for direction. Ald. Patterson noted we are dealing with
citizens who devote time and a good part of their life and we need to remember that in
our negotiations. He asked that the Mayor and Ald. Salentine work out a compromise
and bring it back to the committee. Mayor noted all issues except the scholarship fund
th
have been agreed to. He asked that the aldermen call him before the 18 to give him
their views.
4. Discuss job descriptions for all newly hired employees.
Mayor stated he had nothing to report.
5. Discuss park, building, etc. Naming criteria.
Mayor advised ordinance not yet drafted.
6. Discuss land/location for Community Center
Mayor stated there are many complications with the title not yet resolved. Matter
deferred to next meeting.
7. Discuss attendance of Clerk-Treasurer and Deputy Clerk at meetings
Ald. Salentine stated she placed this on the agenda for cost-effective reasons, asking
why it is necessary for both the Clerk and Deputy to attend Council meetings since the
Deputy is not taking minutes but only running a tape recorder and transcribing from the
tape. Mayor noted the Clerk is on salary and not paid for attendance at the meetings.
Clerk-Treasurer Marenda stated the reason for attendance by the Deputy Clerk at the
Council meetings is due in part to her lack of time because of other duties to transcribe
the minutes to get them to the paper by Friday for publication. It is also very valuable
to have the Deputy at the meetings to understand the Council’s actions in order to
assist in responding to phone calls and handling the follow-up. The Deputy does take
minutes of the meeting and transcribes from her notes and not the tape. It is extremely
difficult to transcribe minutes from a tape recording, especially if you are not present at
the meeting. The tape is there for a back-up or controversial issue, and is only used for
public hearings.
Ald. Salentine stated she wished more discussion was included in the minutes.
Marenda responded it’s not always the best practice to include all discussion. The
action of the Council is included in the resolutions, so the work is done ahead of time to
get the history and the committee recommendation, and the motion at Council is to
adopt the resolution.
Marenda also indicated that most of the meetings of the City include the department
head plus a secretary. She felt it was not productive for her to dictate the minutes and
to review the meeting the next day. Ald. Salentine asked if the Deputy was paid at time
and one-half and what was the cost. Marenda responded “yes”, and in 1997 it was
$1,700 for 75 hours, but that Marenda was not at four meetings during the year, which
the Deputy would have worked anyway, bringing the total down to about 60 hours. Ald.
Pionek stated he could understand the need and acknowledged that Plan Commission
Committee of the Whole Page 6
May 7, 1998
and Board of Appeals had both the department head and secretary present. Mayor
noted that we have a quick turn-around and that we are a-typical as most communities
put things off 2-3 weeks. We are conscientious about getting the minutes of all
meetings done asap. Ald. Pionek added that the tape of Council meetings would be
clearer as there was more order and the Chair acknowledged each speaker.
Marenda again stated that every meeting has a paid secretary in attendance. Time and
one-half is paid for Plan Commission and Board of Appeals secretaries to attend every
meeting and requested that be allowed for Council also. In response to a comment by
Ald. Salentine about the possibility of a lower-paid employee taking minutes, Marenda
compared the recording secretary’s pay to the deputy clerk’s, and noted for 1997 there
would have been a savings of $173 for the year using the secretary’s starting rate, but
using the 9-month rate the cost was more for the secretary because you have to pay
her separately for transcription time. Marenda reiterated that it is very helpful for her to
have the deputy in attendance at the meetings.
8. Discuss off-site tax collection
Deferred for future discussion.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Adopt a road
Ald. Pionek stated he would like to have an “adopt a road” program developed for
business or groups to keep main arterials clean. Mayor noted it is a great program
which works very well on the recreational trails. You have to have money to pay for the
signs which are $100-150 apiece. Ald. Pionek felt that business may want to contribute
towards the signs. Mayor suggested the Public Services Committee determine criteria
for signs, which roads should be included, determine cost and funding suggestions for
signs and make recommendation to Finance Committee.
3. Developer impact fees
Ald. Patterson said fees haven’t been looked at for a long time. Mayor reported there
are a lot of things happening in the legislature. Developers trying to get a new impact
fee law approved in the next two weeks.
4. Zoning/rezoning education session/materials
Ald. Slocomb asked for methods to become more informed on zoning/rezoning issues,
and requested printed materials be supplied. He asked that something be put together
possibly through the city attorney’s office. He suggested something similar to the Open
Meeting forum the attorneys presented to the Council, Boards, Commissions and
Committees a few years ago. Could be a joint session with the Plan Commission.
Mayor advised he would do some research and come up with a program.
5. Dollars/budgeting for park land acquisition
Ald. Slocomb noted that because of lack of development, we are not providing enough
funds into the park fund for park land acquisition, and need to take this into
consideration during the upcoming budget period.
Committee of the Whole Page 7
May 7, 1998
Miscellaneous
Mayor stated at the next COW meeting in June, he will ask the aldermen to set goals
and objectives for the budget. What projects, special projects, goals and objectives do
you have for individual departments? Ald. Slocomb asked that department heads
present their goals and objectives, cost-savings and improvements in how to serve the
community better at the June COW meeting. He asked that the department heads be
prepared to present this information in June every year. Mayor noted he will discuss at
the May department head staff meeting.
Parkland Mall - Mayor noted the deadline has been extended by the State to the end of
May.
Ald. Sanders noted the Comprehensive Plan Committee is reviewing the questionnaire
to be mailed out. Comments from the aldermen are appreciated.
Ald. Slocomb moved to adjourn at 10:02 PM. Ald. Sanders seconded, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jean K. Marenda, CMC
Clerk-Treasurer
jm