Commuinity Development Authority - MINUTES - 6/15/2010
CITY OF MUSKEGO Approved, as amended, 7/20/10
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA)
MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2010
Chairman Glazier called the meeting of the Community Development Authority to order at 6:00 p.m.
Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
The meeting was posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law.
PRESENT: Commissioners Kathy Chiaverotti, Rob Glazier, Gail Konkel, Larry Lefebvre, Steve Whittow,
Ald. Harenda, Ald. Soltysiak and Executive Director Muenkel
GUESTS: Ald. Borgman, Jim Ott, Et. Al. (63)
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2010
Ald. Harenda moved to approve the minutes of May 18 , 2010 meeting as corrected. Ald.
Soltysiak seconded. Change Commissioner Miles to Commissioner Konkel throughout document.
Under Introduction of New CDA Members revise the sentence to read: Former members Ald. Werner
and Commissioner Waltz have resigned. Under RD#2 Amendment Adoption Process, change the
character of the property to the character of a particular property. Upon a voice vote, the motion to
approve the minutes as corrected carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – To consider adoption of an amended project plan for Redevelopment District
#2
Chairman Glazier spoke on the Redevelopment District #2 and why they are amending the district
boundaries. The district was created in 2003 and the purpose of a redevelopment district is to help spur
development within the city. The redevelopment district has specific boundaries and in which the CDA
functions to have the ability within that district to offer low interest loans, grant monies, and other
mechanisms to help spur development. In 2009, looking at the reconstruction of Janesville Road, and
various changes that occurred throughout the district, it became apparent that the CDA needed to take a
look at amending the boundaries of the district. He pointed out that the CDA does not have any purview
over zoning, etc. They will just be talking about the district boundaries.
CDA Secretary Konkel read the notice of the public hearing.
CDA Executive Director Jeff Muenkel, through maps and power point visual aids, gave a presentation on
the Redevelopment District #2 plan and the proposed amendments, which included a change in the
boundaries. He gave a historical account on the creation of the CDA in 2001, specifically to adopt
redevelopment plans. The CDA has certain responsibilities and allowances by state statute that the
Common Council does not have such as a bonding authority at low interest rates. They identify an area,
the needs of the area and then spur implementation efforts to revitalize the area through several
mechanisms such as grants or loan programs for the owner. A redevelopment plan does have specific
geographical boundaries and every parcel within the boundaries would be allowed to take on any
implementation effort that is outlined in the plan. He briefly touched on the approval process needed for
the adoption of a redevelopment plan.
CDA Minutes Page 2
June 15, 2010
Chairman Glazier opened up the meeting for comments from those in the audience, for or against.
Comments and issues from the general public included:
Some residential homes were inadvertently shown as commercial property on page 20 of the
draft for 2020 land use plan;
Of the 170 tax keys, how many were residential and how many commercial;
Are you changing any zoning from residential to commercial; if so, would height have
anything to do with it;
Extending of boundaries from Pioneer to Racine; a stretch of business, then residential, and
then a stretch potentially identified for development;
Definition of blighted, which made it seem very benign; no matter how nice his house was if it
didn’t fit the CDA vision, they will try to take his house;
He has not seen a definition for the term “mixed use;” are you including low-income housing;
They would like the CDA to understand how they feel; they are very afraid that a developer
will take precedence over a homeowner that when you consider and look at these plans,
you realize that just because you don’t have the money that a developer has, it shouldn’t
give you any less protection for their property. We know the CDA has the right to condemn
and even though the current administration doesn’t believe in that, the next administration
might. Adding homes to this redevelopment area, when they feel there isn’t a real good
connection among the city on what the homeowners and businesses want. There’s an
inability to hear back from the homeowners right now. They hope the CDA will at least think
about that and what is their role in negotiating and not appear threatening or be threatening
to people. Literally, there’s a holocaust along Janesville Road of empty houses. Will they
see a big development effort going on with a developer buying properties and if they
happened to be next to them, will the CDA support the developer instead of the homeowner
or is the CDA here to help them or is the CDA going to hurt them.
If they don’t want to be a part of the development area, is there any way of getting out of it;
When you redefine the boundaries, it doesn’t mean you’re not going to develop it; you’re
going to encourage it;
Now living next door to two empty lots; she expects they will put a business in there; she
doesn’t want to live and play where people work; she wants to live and play in a residential
community;
If the property wasn’t included in the area, then they wouldn’t be available for any loans or
grants;
The property on Harbor Circle that isn’t included in the plan; does that mean the road is not
going to affect that property;
A portion was Bring Back the Lake and not included, does that mean that they would not be
able to go forward with it; if it were to happen, concerned about their privacy next to a park,
they may want to have a gated community to protect their property;
Are they the recommending body to the Common Council for the Redevelopment District #2;
for map #5; under normal circumstances, does the Common Council generally accept their
recommendation; Little Muskego Lake has always been a lake community; there has been
houses around that lake from the beginning; why are they going to recommend that houses
be torn down in order to create a lake community when the essence of the development of
Little Muskego Lake as a lake community was homes all around it;
Respectfully requested that Bring Back the Lake be deleted from the proposal when the CDA
makes their recommendation to the Common Council;
All are a part of the community and they are here because they are concerned; look at map
#7 and see the areas that want to be taken are along the eastern shore all up toward the
northern bay and as they become available and within the document, blighted areas are
CDA Minutes Page 3
June 15, 2010
talked about; take a $2 million assessment home and state it is blighted area because it is
under-utilized for whatever the redevelopment district wants to use it for, he was confused;
there are four houses about $8 million that they state are blighted and is part of Bring Back
the Lake and that is why he is asking for it to be deleted.
Somewhere in the document it stated that the CDA would not use eminent domain and he
questioned where;
The CDA supports public input and would support the information secured from residents of
Muskego in order to make decisions;
If it was a TIF district, the CDA would provide the funding of the development efforts;
If I understand correctly, right now in this district, it stands that Bring Back the Lake is not part
of that district though it’s in the 2020 plan; isn’t it to the developer’s advantage to get the
financing that the CDA provides;
Eminent domain may not be in the document now, but it still can be done; blighted property is
the politically correct definition today for eminent domain;
If the homeowner’s property is in the redevelopment district, does that mean they have to
follow a design guide on building materials, conforming to certain type of façade;
What is the long-term plan for the Parkland Mall to move forward, get the downtown area
redone by the CDA
There seems to be a general negativity towards this plan and fear that government does
what they want some how or some way; when it comes to whether or not Bring Back the
Lake is moving forward, how do we stop it, what do we need to do to stop it, do we get to
vote;
Getting information at city hall and CDA should make things accessible in a variety of ways
so they can understand what is going on; documents should be accurate;
Efforts of the redevelopment districts, is there an overall plan of the CDA or is it based on
funding in creating the districts, was it prioritized in the 2020 plan—district 1, district 2 and
district 3;
There’s a greater question that needs to be answered, what is the real desire for what
Muskego should be as a community; want to be like Brookfield; it seems a few people want
to have this entrepreneur area with tremendous amounts of businesses and this is a lake
community. I work in New Berlin and it is wonderful when I come home and get back into
lake country away from the hustle and bustle of the city. Just a few people try to dictate to
the entire community what kind of home we should have or what our community should be
like; there should be a survey on what the people want, the city itself and the Janesville
corridor;
Thanks given for the patience of the CDA. Any developer would have to come forward with a
proposal for approval, how does that work, is public input allowed; the final authority to
accept the proposal;
What impact will the redistricting have on the property assessments for those that are
included as well as the properties adjacent to those included;
Concerned about the lake plan and possibility of lower cost units next to their more expensive
units and how that would affect their values; also, what kind of people they might bring in;
Altering the borders of the plan, the CDA does have first purview; Bring Back the Lake should
not be able to move forward without the approval of the CDA if the boundaries are
approved; if the boundaries are changed, as described, Bring Back the Lake is under the
purview of the CDA and part of this discussion; there does need to be some development
along Janesville Road because there are businesses that are no longer usable as
businesses unless they are redeveloped; there are going to be orphaned lots which the
CDA Minutes Page 4
June 15, 2010
CDA should be working on; trying to understand what is driving some of the decisions on
what to include and what to exclude;
On Map #5, notation #5 is that in or out of the redistricting; can they redraw the line to take it
out; he is requesting that they take it out; are the seven properties residential in the 2020
plan and they will remain in the 2020; is your recommendation to the Council that they be
changed from residential to a combination or commercial;
Requested their house be excluded from the redevelopment district;
Confused about putting the residential into it as to provide loans but everything in the
document indicates all those opportunities are commercial; at this point, nothing for a
residential homeowner in the document; recommend text to state that residential is part of
these opportunities;
On Map #7, it shows the properties that are going to be commercial, everything between
Lannon and Center to the east which is all residential, why that would be?
Addition of the Oliver request to have Bay Breeze included in the redevelopment district
All the inquiries made by the general public were answered in kind directly by Executive Director
Muenkel or Chairman Glazier.
Commissioner Konkel said it is unfortunate that discussion about the Redevelopment district Two
proposed plan, a proposal regarding what could be described as the larger downtown area, has been
focused on Bring Back the Lake. Currently, for the CDA, Bring Back the Lake is a paragraph in the 2020
Plan incorporated into the Redevelopment District Two plan, written way before Alderman Werner
brought forth his ideas for an actual Bring Back the Lake development. The CDA has no jurisdiction
over Alderman Werner’s proposal at this time. That being said, no one knows what the future will bring,
and try as we might, we can’t make everyone happy when we do make decisions on proposals within
CDA jurisdiction. The CDA looks at proposals on their merit for the community as a whole, not any
particular party or parties. Commissioner Konkel said it is unfortunate that the Bring Back the Lake was
in the 2020 plan. They had discussed it before the proposal came about. The CDA has no jurisdiction
over the Bring Back the Lake. They can’t do anything about it. They don’t know what the future will bring
and you can’t make everyone happy. They look at proposals and have jurisdiction on anything that is
within the boundary of the development district. Commissioner Chiaverotti questioned about the
properties needing to be contiguous in a redevelopment district and this was confirmed by Chairman
Glazier and this is why the residential properties were included. A house could be excluded if the rest of
the parcels were contiguous. Ald. Harenda could not see how the residential could benefit from this
without the rezoning to get more value for when they sold their property. They may have to revisit the
loan and grant programs to benefit also the residential. He had concerns about the blighted definitions
when it involved the mixed-residential-use properties. He did not see how the residents would benefit
unless they revisit the items and make them more beneficial for the community. One definition of blight is
part of a larger project. Other two areas in the 2020 plan was the area behind the elementary school and
area off of Lannon Drive. He noted it was a valid concern about a business next to residential. He
believed that there needs to be economic development but it needs to be sensible growth. Chairman
Glazier stated that eventually the CDA would have to make a decision on the boundaries and the
parcels. He encouraged CDA members to think through their concerns and reconcile them to move the
process along. Commissioner Konkel said they need to be clearer what is available in the loan and
grant program for residents; is it possible there is another source of funding that would apply to
residential use, or add it to the original grant and loan programs? Executive Director Muenkel stated the
original earmark of all that money was specifically for loan and grant programs for the industrial park and
for Janesville Road so that would encompass it. Further, go before the Committee of the Whole and let
them know about this new realm of usage. He thought they could factor it into the current programs.
Chairman Glazier would like an updated document for the next meeting; including the parcel inventory.
CDA Minutes Page 5
June 15, 2010
Also, how the residential can fit into the grant/loan program. One of the concerns is the stretch of
residential properties and just having them in the plan, doesn’t mean they will be developed as
commercial properties. It just bridges the gap between Janesville and Racine.
At 8:02 p.m. Chairman Glazier closed the public hearing.
PUBLIC INPUT: None.
OLD BUSINESS
RD#2 Amendment Adoption Process
Executive Director Muenkel said at the next meeting they will discuss some of the questions that were heard. It
would not have to be forwarded on to Council yet by any means. However, the Council will have to certify the
amendment at some point in time.
RD#3 Implementation Efforts
Executive Director Muenkel shared that they only sent out four citations. At one time, he was working with 40
some properties. Of the four, three have contacted him. He has met with them and they have done some things.
When they get to the citation, they may waive it. The fourth one has made no contact and it may be an issue in
the future. Most know of the $500 available to help them out. Some have made very good investments.
Commissioner Konkel mentioned giving some acknowledgement to those that have made compliance. She
didn’t want good behavior to go unnoticed. Executive Muenkel thought it was a good idea and will be sending
out thank you letters.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW
Redevelopment District Development Updates
Executive Director Muenkel said that Alpine Lanes is looking to remodel their site in line with the cleanup
implementation efforts. They plan to enclose their refuse containers and spruce up their landscaping.
They also want to update their façade.
Executive Director Muenkel would like the CDA members to come up with any budget needs that would
be beyond their normal day-to-day needs.
Commissioner Konkel had requested the status of TID #8 which is within the Redevelopment District #2
boundaries. Executive Director Muenkel reported a balance of $937,182 and the TID received tax
increment payoffs last year of $63,665. Based on those amounts, the TID is scheduled to be paid off in
approximately 14.7 years which would be before the allowed 27-year timeframe. Once the tax base that
will be brought in by Firestone in 2011, this should reduce the payoff timeframe by 2.5 years more
The next meeting date will be July 20.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Commissioner Chiaverotti moved for adjournment, Ald. Harenda
seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Stella Dunahee, CPS
Recording Secretary