Category: Uncategorized

Sometimes we overlook the fine services our city employees provide.  Unfortunately, sometimes we do not know about them. I received the following note today from a Mequon resident. It was enlightening to me. If you know someone who could use this particular service, please pass this on to him or her. 

 

John:

I’d like to tell you about a great interaction with Mequon PD today. Officer Darren Selk is my new hero. I’ve sent him a message via the city website so he hopefully knows my gratitude.

My husband has mobility issues as you know from previous emails about handicapped parking spots. He’s also a fall risk. He fell today at home, I couldn’t get him up and our wonderful neighbor was there to help us. God bless great neighbors!

Later….I Wondered what I would do if our call list of friends and neighbors weren’t available.

I stopped at the Mequon PD to ask about help if it was a situation that was not emergency but something I couldn’t handle on my own. Office Selk took all our information and flagged our address in the confidential data base. “Lift Assist” is another new phrase for my vocabulary. He was so kind and caring as he took my information. The non emergency phone number for Mequon PD is entered in all of our phones.

What a great service for our city. I’m hoping we never need to use it. Grateful if we do.

Thank you and Officer Selk for your service.

 

Tonight, my colleagues on the Common Council elected me to be President of the Council. I am honored, particularly considering that only two of the aldermen served with me prior to my self-imposed three years away from the Council.

To some degree, being President is an honorific. The first responsibility is to nominate alderman for various committees. That happened tonight. The other primary responsibility is to serve when the Mayor is absent.

However, I plan to assume a third responsibility. I want to work this coming year on building collegiality among my colleagues. Collegiality does not mean we have to agree. We should not when we do not. However, we should work with each other, and with City staff, professionally and amicably. In my first decade on the Council, that was a hallmark of the Council. Lately, that has not always been the case. Our three newest Council members have a lot to offer and have the opportunity to accomplish great things. However, they and the rest of us will be less effective if we deal with each other with suspicion and hostility. Federal and state lawmakers act that way, and see how functional they are.

At the beginning of each Council year, I give some thought about my role as a member of the Common Council. I made these remarks (click here) when I left the Council five years ago, and again when I ran two years ago. They still hold true today.

 

 

 

 

 

Every year, we have a bunch of people who step forward to give their time to our county, city and school district. These people are not looking for jobs. Most have full-time jobs or are retired. Unless they are delusional, and I know most are not, they are not looking for power, money or fame. These positions give the officeholders none of those things.

Instead, they are offering their time and talent as a public service. Our institutions would not work without them.

Yet, in order to give their time and talent, they spend money and many hours campaigning. They also subject themselves to the electorate, a process that can be humbling and nerve-racking. Moreover, and often worse, they subject themselves to accusation and mud thrown their way (again, all for the opportunity to serve others). Most do it honorably.

Tonight, the following 17 Mequonites (and one Thiensvillian) had their names on a ballot. Win or lose, each made a contribution by running. Please join me in thanking them (names of the people who will take office are italicized):

Ozaukee County Supervisor District 19         Bruce Ross and LeRoy Haeuser

Ozaukee County Supervisor District 20         Patrick Marchese and Noel Williams

Ozaukee County Supervisor District 21         Justin Strom and Bob Walerstein

Ozaukee County Supervisor District 23         David Henrichs

Ozaukee County Supervisor District 24         Janette Braverman

Ozaukee County Supervisor District 26         Jennifer Rothstein

Mequon Alderman District 6                          Brian Schneider and Lewis Chamoy

Mequon Alderman District 7                          Kathleen Schneider and Chris Schelble

Mequon Alderman District 8                          Andrew Nerbun and Kim Steinbrenner

Mequon-Thiensville  School Board                John Daniels, Paula Taebel and Shelley Burns

I look forward to serving with Brian, Kathleen and Andrew, and hope to have opportunities to build relationships with the other bodies through the other officeholders.

If you live in District 6, 7 or 8 (southeastern Mequon and along the lake south of Highland), please remember that there is a contested election for the Common Council in your area. Early voting has started at City Hall and runs through Friday, March 30. Election Day is Tuesday, April 3.

We need Common Council members who appreciate our great community and want to improve Mequon rather than tearing it down. We can keep taxes low, have great police, fire and ambulance departments, maintain roads, improve the City’s services and plan for the future without being divisive. I hope that whoever is elected will work toward those ends.

Read about the candidates by clicking on the following links:

District 6: Brian Schneider and Lewis Chamoy

District 7: Chris Schelble and Kathleen Schneider (inc.)

District 8: Kim Steinbrenner and Andrew Nerbun (inc.)

 

 

I receive a lot of emails from Mequon residents as a result of my Updates, Facebook page and website posts. I try to respond to all of them. Many of the writers and I agree, but not always. Most of the writers are polite and thoughtful. I try to be the same.

Occasionally, however, someone writes anonymously. Those writers have an email address that does not identify them and, almost always, are uncivil and condescending. I usually respond and ask who I am writing to. I never receive a response.

From time to time, someone does this on a grander scale. They create a website with a civic-minded organizational name and distribute emails under that name. They do not identify themselves; instead, they say something like “we are residents and neighbors who are concerned about the future of Mequon.” Invariably, such people (usually, it is only one or two people) spread half-truths and try to inflame the public. Often they do this for self-gain: political aspiration, personal aggrandizement or to advance a cause in which they have a personal interest.

In the language of today’s political debate, this is often “Fake News.” According to the Urban Dictionary, the people who do this are “Trolls” (“one who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument”).

These “concerned” residents have an absolute right to do this. But, what does it say about the writers? Are they afraid to put their names with their accusations? Isn’t this just a form of cowardice?

Mequon has a new group circulating this kind of stuff. I am not going to post the name of their website – why give them publicity?

The irony is that they “demand transparency.”

However, one of these writers has left a traceable trail. I know who he is. I expect that this is a precursor to a run for office. I challenge him and his other “concerned” residents to come out of hiding and put their names on their website and emails.

Debates should be civil and public, not cloaked in anonymity.

Over the past week, the City has launched a new and improved website. Check it out. If you have questions or comments, please let  me know. The new platform is easily modified. Hopefully, the website will continue to improve to meet the City’s needs.
Mequon has many fine employees. Occasionally, one deserves special mention. Don Curran is retiring after 39 years of service to the City. For many years, Don has served as Director of Parks and Operations. He has found a way to maintain and improve a giant and excellent park system with little funding. Don is a humble guy, but he has quietly made a big contribution to our community. He will be missed.

The City has released some interesting statistics concerning the new subdivisions off of Wauwatosa Road between Mequon Road and Donges Bay Road (Enclave at Mequon Preserve and Highlander Estates). During the first 18 months of those developments (January of 2016 through June of 2017), 44 new single-family homes were built with an average home cost of approximately $342,150 (excluding land costs). More homes have been built since June.

The Appropriations Committee (the Common Council sitting as a budget deliberating committee) will meet on Tuesday, October 16, at 7:00 p.m. This is perhaps the most important thing the Common Council does each year. During this meeting, preliminary decisions will be made concerning spending and taxes for 2018. Then, at the November Common Council meeting, the Common Council further debates the budget, possibly amends it and then formally approves a budget.  A copy of the budget proposed by City staff can be found by clicking here.

Planning Commission

On, Monday, October 9, starting at 7:00 p.m., the Planning Commission will hold a meeting. Highlights include applications for approval of:

1. A new outdoor dining patio for Zaffiro’s Restaurant at the Marcus North Shore Theater.  The patio would have hanging string lights similar to those at Cafe Hollander.
2. New lot lines for Crossroads Presbyterian Church, 6031 West Chapel Hill Road, and its adjacent single family home.
3. Rezoning and reconfiguration of the four-lot subdivision at 14907, 14137, 14155 and 14207 North Birchwood Lane.
4. Fill for a residence at 12875 Highgate Court.
5. An addition to the Clark gas station at 10335 North Port Washington Road. The addition would replace the shack behind the building.
6. A 34,900 square foot addition to Christ Church on the 24.47 acre site at 13460 North Port Washington Road. The addition would be to the south and rear (east) of the existing building. Additionally, Christ Church requests approval of a 1,200 square foot garage. Christ Church anticipates a future 23,000 square foot addition.
7. A mixed-use development at 6209 West Mequon Road and 11050, 11124 and 11127 North Industrial Avenue. The development is planned with a sit down restaurant, mixed-use retail center, 90 residential apartments, a brewery, a building with retail, office and corporate extended stay apartments and 23 single family homes. The project is estimated to have a value of $50 million. The Planning Commission reviewed this concept in August. There will be at least five more meetings, between the Planning Commission and the Common Council, before this project will be underway (it is possible that one or more of those meetings could be consolidated).
8. Ordinance amendments for the Town Center and its adjacent Arrival Corridor. The amendments would (a) provide an opportunity for limited numbers of single family homes; (b) create new, somewhat more restrictive, standards for multi-family housing in the Arrival Corridor; and (c) change the zoning for The Reserve and the one property directly east of it from Arrival Corridor to Town Center.

Read more about these items by clicking here.

Committee of the Whole

The Committee of the Whole is nothing more than the Common Council meeting in a more informal manner to discuss an issue. The Committee of the Whole cannot make decisions; instead, items that call for a decision are again addressed at the Common Council.

On Tuesday, October 10, starting at 6:00 p.m., the Committee of the Whole will discuss reports recently received by the City regarding the Police and Fire/Ambulance Departments. The City engaged consultants to review staffing, responsiveness, procedures and equipment in both of these departments. The consultants’ reports are interesting. The consultants were generally complimentary but made some specific recommendations. Click here to learn more.

Common Council

On Tuesday, October 10, starting at 7:30 p.m., the Common Council will hold its October monthly meeting. It looks like another long meeting. Highlights include:
Four Public Hearings. Mequon has a long and proud tradition of allowing the public to comment on all matters in open session before the Common Council and its boards, commissions and committees; however, public hearings are required by law for certain ordinances and provide a specific opportunity for the public to give input.

• Rezoning for a 32-unit, side-by-side condominium project at 12431 North Green Bay Road and the parcel immediately to the west.
• Zoning code change allowing two-acre residential Planned Unit Developments.
• Rezoning of the four residential properties along the west side of Granville Road just north of County Line Road from Rural Industrial to Residential.
• Edits to the ordinances governing the architectural board, the board of appeals and landmarks.

All of these items are scheduled for consideration and potential final action later in the meeting.

Other Items. The Common Council will consider:

1. An emerald ash borer policy.
2. A potential sale of the Logemann property.
3. Comprehensive modifications of the ordinances that govern the City’s boards, commissions and committees.  The Public Welfare Committee has worked on these changes for the past 15 months.  Proposed changes were forwarded to each of the City’s boards, commissions and committees for their input. The Public Welfare Committee adopted almost all of the recommendations from these bodies.
4. A three-year extension of the Revolving Loan Fund loan made to the Bartolotta Restaurant Group. The loan was made a little over three years ago and was originally in the amount of $150,000. Payments have been made as required. The current balance owed is about $88,100.
5. Exemption of WE Energies from the ordinances’ requirement that it pay the sum of $22,700 into the City’s green infrastructure fund. WE Energies removed some specimen trees, with City permission, in the process of replacing the gas main in the west side of the City. Ordinarily, a fee would be payable to the City’s fund; however, the ordinances allow exemption for utility projects where the exemption is appropriate and the project is for the public good.
6. Engagement of a consultant to assist in establishing a capital asset management plan. The Common Council budgeted $25,000 for this purpose in the annual budget. As originally proposed by staff, the budgeted amount would provide a plan covering buildings, roads and major equipment. Now the $25,000 will only cover buildings, and the other components of the plan will possibly be addressed by future contracts.
7. Participation in the Metropolitan Milwaukee Sewage District’s Green Infrastructure Fund. Previously, the City could not opt out. It now can.
8. A closed session to provide a personnel evaluation of the City Attorney. I expect that the Common Council will reconvene into open session to consider a possible extension of the City Attorney’s contract.

Read more about these items by clicking here.

City Committees

I am the aldermanic representative to the Planning Commission and Chair of Public Welfare Committee. All Common Council members serve on the Appropriates Committee, the Sewer Utility District Commission and the Water Utility Commission. In addition to my own committees, I will try to report on items of significance being considered by other committees.
The Public Welfare Committee will not be meeting on Tuesday at its normal time due to the Committee of the Whole meeting described above.
Public Works Committee (Tuesday, October 10, at 5:30 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Public Works Committee will consider:

1. The WE Energies exemption described above as Common Council Item #5.
2. The consulting agreement described above as Common Council Item #6.
3. The MMSD green infrastructure program participation described above as Common Council Item #7.

Finance–Personnel Committee (Tuesday, October 10, at 5:45 p.m.). Click here to learn more. In addition to its normal tasks of approving liquor licenses and payment vouchers, the Finance-Personnel Committee will review the Bartolotta’s Revolving Loan Fund extension described above as Common Council Item #4.

Architectural Board (Monday, October 9, at 6:30 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Architectural Board will consider five new homes, eight additions or other residential construction projects and modifications to three homes previously before the Board.  Applicants come from Districts 1 through 5 and 7.

Other Upcoming Meetings

1. The Public Safety Committee will hold its October meeting on Monday, October 16, at 6:00 p.m. An agenda has not yet been published.
2. The Public Welfare Committee might meet later in the month.

Of course, please provide comments to me or to any elected official regarding these matters or any other City-related issue.

Once or twice each year, Mequon turns down a proposed development (usually a small pocket of homes) after a neighborhood expresses its opposition to the development.  Democracy in action, you might say.

However, it is worth taking a moment to examine this democracy in action. The pattern is remarkably similar in almost all of these instances.

Usually, a family has held a property for many years.  Ultimately, they no longer need it, and want to get their value out of it.  In some cases, it is the owner’s retirement.  So, the owner puts the property for sale. A proposed buyer wants to develop it.

As a result, the City puts the proposed developer through a rigorous and expensive set of requirements – engineering, wetland delineation, specimen tree identification, yield plans, sewer and water plans and so forth.  If the developer meets all of the City’s standards, which have become more exacting over time, staff recommends the development to the Planning Commission which, in turn, usually recommends it to the Common Council.

By the time the proposal gets to the Council, the development fits in the neighborhood.  Often, the lots are slightly larger than those owned by the neighbors. The development is better engineered than the surrounding, already-developed lots.

And there it often dies.

Often, and particularly when the development is in an area already substantially developed, someone does not like the development. The new homes will block their view, or will block their (often trespassory) walking paths.  Or they just do not want the construction noise. They like having a big field or wooded area next to their home – at someone else’s cost.

The unhappy neighbor riles up his or her neighbors, who then deluge the Council with letters and emails in opposition, often based on their perception that the new development will cause or exacerbate storm water problems. They also will throw in arguments about traffic (even though it is only a few homes), wildlife and rural character. They will ignore the fact that they have enjoyed the benefits of the open space at someone else’s cost.

These unhappy neighbors sign protest petitions (meaning that six, rather than a simply majority, aldermen need to vote in the affirmative). They show up at meetings.  They send emails.  They call their elected officials.

A few aldermen vote “no” because of neighborhood opposition (without ever asking the rest of the neighborhood what they think).  The project dies. Democracy in action.

But, what about the poor property owner? His or her nest egg is stuck in dirt that he or she can not sell.  And, the irony is that he or she is penalized for keeping Mequon rural for longer than his or her neighbors did.

Perhaps those of us who try to balance the equities should stop. We should just put the development to a neighborhood referendum.

Then, if the neighborhood votes no, we should ask only one question: did this development fit in the neighborhood? We would look at whether the development met the City’s standards and whether the lots were comparable in size to those in the neighborhood. If it fit in the neighborhood, perhaps the owner should be made whole.  The City could buy the property as a neighborhood park or preserve, and specially assess the neighborhood that said no.

The owner would then receive his or her value.  The neighbors would get what they wanted (and often had for free for many years). And the right group would pay for it.

Any thoughts?

As I stated last month, for the first time, there will be a Walk to End Alzheimer’s in Ozaukee County. The event will be held on Saturday, October 7. Learn more by clicking here. Please consider participating. Register now, or make a contribution.

Also, please join me in thanking the Festivals Committee (Vanessa Nerbun, Chair; Bridget King; Suzanne Dorszynski; Kirsten Hildebrand; Allen McIlwraith; Linda Jarman; Melissa Suring; and Lina Prosser, Staff Liaison) for their hard work organizing Taste of Mequon. They devoted untold hours to ensure the event was a success, and it was a great success. The Mequon-Thiensville Education Association also deserves kudos for the 5K run that terminated at the Taste of Mequon. It looked like fun, and brought many new faces to the event. Finally, but no less important, thank you　to the many businesses and other volunteers who contributed to this great community-builder.

The final electronics and appliance recycling collection will be on Saturday, October 21 from 9:00 a.m. to noon. Get more details by clicking here.

Planning Commission

On, Monday, September 11, starting at 7:00 p.m., the Planning Commission will hold a meeting. Highlights include applications for approval of:

1. A new fitness center in the Aurora Mequon Health Center at 11430 North Port Washington Road.
2. Signage at the Aurora Mequon Health Center.
3. A two-lot division of the property at 11623 West Donges Bay Road.
4. Landscape approval for the north border of the Dermond 33-unit apartment project at 11130 North Buntrock Avenue. The property line adjoins the proposed Foxtown project.
5. A request by Ziegler Wealth Management for a sign that exceeds the 30 square feet allowed by code for the PNC Bank building at the northwest corner of Mequon Road and Port Washington Road.
6. Sign waiver and lighting approval for the gas station at the southwest corner of Mequon Road and Wauwatosa Road. The station is converting from　BP to Mobil. The applicant would like an illuminated canopy with the Mobil name on it. Mequon has previously not allowed lighting on the exterior or roof of gas station canopies.
7. Rezoning of the four residential properties along the west side of Granville Road just north of County Line Road from Rural Industrial to Residential.　 These are long-time residential properties. The current zoning makes financing almost impossible. I have requested this change.
8. A change to our zoning code allowing two-acre residential Planned Unit Developments.

The Planning Commission will also consider changes to the type of future housing allowed in the Town Center zoning districts. I (and others) requested this discussion (although what is proposed differs from what I suggested). Also, staff would like to hire a consultant.

Read more about these items by　clicking here.　

 Common Council

On Tuesday, September 12, starting at 7:30 p.m., the Common Council will hold its September monthly meeting. It looks like another long meeting. Highlights include:

Five Public Hearings. Mequon has a long and proud tradition of allowing the public to comment on all matters in open session before the Common Council and its boards, commissions and committees; however, public hearings are required by law for certain ordinances and provide a specific opportunity for the public to give input.

• An ordinance amending the Planned Unit Development for the Lexington Square development at 11649 N. Port Washington Road. The applicant wants to put a fresh juice bar along the south elevation of the building.
• An amendment to the City’s LTD zoning ordinance that would allow Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars.
• A rezoning to allow a 13-unit residential Planned Unit Development on 21 acres at 2100 West Ranch Road.
• An amendment to the Town Center zoning district to allow breweries. The amendment would have significant restrictions, but would accommodate the proposed Foxtown Brewery.
• Rezoning and concept plan approval for a 32-unit (16 building) plex development on 10 acres of land at 12431 North Green Bay Road.

All of these items are scheduled for consideration and potential final action later in the meeting.

 Other Items. The Common Council will consider:

1. A parking license agreement with WE Energies for the Logemann Center property.
2. License agreements with WE Energies and the railroad to allow a pedestrian and bicycle crossing between the Spur 16 property (Mequon Town Center 2) and the Logemann Center property. The developer of Spur 16 will pay for the improvements.
3. An ordinance allowing exemptions from the tree ordinance for utility and transmission projects provided the Common Council determines, on a case-by-case basis,　that the exemption is appropriate and the project is for the public good.
4. A discussion of the parking study and recommendations for the Logemann Center property, Mequon Town Center 1 and the Civic Campus.
5. A discussion of the type of future housing allowed in the Town Center zoning districts as described above in the last substantive paragraph of the Planning Commission section.
6. Engagement of a consultant to assist in establishing a capital asset management plan. The Common Council budgeted $25,000 for this purpose in the annual budget. The cost of the recommended consultant is $28,423. That level of deviation is not unusual, and there are other cost savings to cover the overage; however, as originally proposed by staff, the budgeted amount would provide a plan covering　 buildings, roads and major equipment. Now, the $25,000 will only cover buildings, and the other components of the plan will possibly be addressed by　future contracts.
7. Replacement of sewer Lift Station B and sanitary force main replacement at 5020 West Parkview Drive. Staff is unsatisfied with the bids and recommends delaying this until spring.
8. Installation of a lining for sewer pipes along Cedarburg Road from Donges Bay Road to a point north of Westfield Road.
9. A closed session to consider the offer for the Logemann Center property. I intend to vote against going into closed session. Most or all of this discussion is appropriate for open discussion.

Read more about these items by clicking here.

City Committees

I am the aldermanic representative to the Planning Commission and Chair of Public Welfare Committee. All Common Council members serve on the Appropriates Committee, the Sewer Utility District Commission and the Water Utility Commission.　In addition to my own committees, I will try to report on items of significance being considered by other committees.

Public Welfare Committee (Tuesday, September 12, at　5:30 p.m.). Click here　to learn more.　The Public Welfare Committee will consider:

1. Final committee modifications　to the ordinances that govern the City’s boards, commissions and committees.　The Pubic Welfare Committee began this process in July of 2016 and completed its initial review in March of 2017 (nine meetings). Then, the recommendations of the Public Welfare Committee were forwarded to each of the City’s boards, commissions and committees. Over a period of　three months, those bodies reviewed the recommendations. The Public Welfare Committee reviewed and adopted changes based on those recommendations. This month, the Public Welfare Committee is reviewing the final language. The Common Council will consider these ordinances in October.
2. A comprehensive rewrite of the City’s Communications Policy. Staff anticipates that this process will take six months. This month, the Public Welfare Committee is reviewing the sections regarding the City’s website and City-sponsored publications (the e-newsletter and surveys).

Finance–Personnel Committee (Tuesday, September 12, at　6:00 p.m.). Click here　to learn more. The Finance-Personnel Committee is undertaking a comprehensive review of the City’s financial policies. The review will take several months, and a couple of portions of the policy will be reviewed each month. This month, the Finance-Personnel Committee will review the policy’s provisions regarding　debt and budget development.

Public Works　Committee (Tuesday, September 12, at 6:45 p.m.). Click here　to learn more. The Public Works Committee will consider:

• The WE Energies parking license agreement described above as Common Council Item #1.
• The pedestrian and bicycle crossing license agreement described above as Common Council Item #2.
• The consulting agreement described above as Common Council Item #6.

 

Architectural Board (Monday, September 11, at 6:30 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Architectural Board will consider six new homes and eight additions or other residential construction projects. One of the construction projects (not a new home) is a resubmittal from a prior meeting. Every aldermanic district has at least one applicant.

Board of Appeals (Wednesday, September 13, at 6:00 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Board of Appeals will rule on two requested variances:

• To construct a first floor master bedroom addition at 600 East Juniper Lane. The homeowners, who have lived in the home for 33 years, want a barrier free and accessible home. The addition would be 17′ from the lot line. The existing home is 17′ from the lot line. The zoning code requires a 20′ setback. The neighbors do not object. Staff recommends denial.
• To maintain an existing pool and fence at 8705 West Sunnyvale Road. The code requires the fence to be 4′ from the pool. The applicant built the　pool and fence consistent with the written materials provided by staff which failed to specify the 4′ requirement. For approximately four lineal feet of the fence, the fence is between 3′ and 4′ from the pool.　

 

Of course, please provide comments to me or to any elected official regarding these matters or any other City-related issue.

 That is a great picture from the current Mequon-Thiensville Historical Society newsletter. A well-dressed group!

I encourage all residents to join the Society. For $15 ($20 for a family), it is a steal. The newsletter alone is worth it, and these good people work hard to preserve our communities’ history. It is far more interesting than you might imagine.

You can find a membership form by clicking here.

Friends and Neighbors:

I am writing again to update you on the upcoming matters that the Mequon Common Council and City committees will be considering.

If you like these updates, please forward them to your friends and suggest that they sign-up. All they have to do is click here and fill out their contact information. People have told me that they do not hear what is happening at City Hall. These updates are one of the ways that I am trying to change that.

Also, please let me know if you would like different content or a different format.  For example, another newsletter like this editorializes.  I have generally avoided that, but if people would prefer, I can do that.

Planning Commission
The Mayor and one alderman represent the Common Council on the Planning Commission. The other commissioners are appointed by the Mayor. Starting last month, I became the aldermanic representative.

On, Monday, June 12, starting at 7:00 p.m., the Planning Commission will hold a meeting. Highlights include applications for approval of:

1. A new daycare at 10510 North Port Washington Road.
2. Division of one 18 acre lot off a 67 acre parcel fro the construction of a new home at 11627 West Highland Road.
3. The Final Plat for Phase II of the Veridian Homes development (The Enclave at Mequon Preserve) at 10839 North Wauwatosa Road.
4. A Fill Permit and Development Agreement for Phase III (the final phase) of the above-described Veridian Homes development.  I plan to ask why the Wauwatosa Road street light for the subdivision has not yet been installed.
5. Three lot land division at 9805 North Cedarburg Road for the construction of three homes.
6. Six unit condominium development at 10950 North Cedarburg Road.  The units would replace an existing office building at that location.
7. A 6,000 square foot batting and hitting building next to Kapco Park on the grounds of Concordia University. The exterior would match Kapco Park and would not be visible from the road.

More information regarding the Planning Commission meeting and these items can be found by clicking here.

Common Council
On Tuesday, June 13, starting at 7:30 p.m., the Common Council will hold its June monthly meeting.  Highlights include:

1. A vote on the appointment of Dr. Kathleen Schneider to represent the 7th Aldermanic District on the Common Council until April.  The Common Council sitting as a committee of the whole  selected Dr. Schneider to fill the vacancy in this district.  Two candidates were interviewed.  Both were excellent.  Pamela Ploor was the other candidate. Please thank her for going through the process.
2. The development agreement for Phase III of the Veridian Homes development (The Enclave at Mequon Preserve) described above as Planning Commission Item #4
3. Discussion of the traffic and parking study for the Logemann Center property.
4. An ordinance addressing the location of vegetable gardens in front yards.
5. An ordinance changing Mequon’s ordinances regarding water skiing flotation requirements to make them consistent with state law.
6. The sale of water utility bonds.
7. Sanitary sewer lateral work on West Shoreland Drive, Corey Lane and Lake Shore Drive.
8. An agreement with the Mequon-Thiensville Historical Society for improvements to the Isham Day House (across from City Hall) to use it for a postage stamp museum.
9.  Discussion of negotiating strategies for the sale of the Logemann Center property. This is scheduled for closed session in order to give staff negotiating direction. Any proposed contract will be debated and voted on at a future public meeting. I may request that the Council hold this month’s meeting in open session.

More information regarding the Common Council meeting will be found by clicking here. As of the time I am writing this update, materials are not on-line; however, I expect they will be there later on Friday.

City Committees
As stated above, I am now the aldermanic representative to the Planning Commission. I also will continue to serve on the City’s Public Welfare Committee. All Common Council members serve on the Appropriates Committee, the Sewer Utility District Commission and the Water Utility Commission. In addition to my own committees, I will try to report on items of significance being considered by other committees.

Public Welfare Committee (Tuesday, June 13, at 5:00 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Public Welfare Committee will consider:

1. Modifications of the ordinances that govern the City’s boards, commissions and committees. I have reported on these modifications in most of the updates over the past year. The Pubic Welfare Committee began this process in July of 2016 and completed its initial review in March of 2017 (nine meetings). Then, the recommendations of the Public Welfare Committee were forwarded to each of the City’s boards, commissions and committees. Over the past three months, those bodies have reviewed the recommendations.  Their reports and suggestions will now be considered by the Public Welfare Committee before it forwards recommendations to the Common Council.  I expect that much of this meeting will be spent discussing comments related to a proposed merger of the Park Board, Open Space Preservation Commission and Tree Board. The resulting body would be called the Natural Resources Committee.  Some members of the three bodies being proposed for merger do not approve.
2. A review of residential lighting standards.
3. The methods for delivering materials to Common Council members.

Finance–Personnel Committee (Tuesday, June 13, at 6:30 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Finance-Personnel Committee will consider:

1. Renewal of the liquor license for the Sybaris. There is an alleged history of problems.
2. Renewal of the liquor license for Vietnamese Noodles. There have been alleged license violations.
3. The lease of the Isham Day House described above as Common Council Item #8.

Public Works Committee (Tuesday, June 13, at 6:30 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Public Works Committee will consider a priority plan for drainage projects in the City and drainage improvements along Donges Bay Road just west of Port Washington Road.

Sewer Utility District Commission (Tuesday, June 13, at 7:15 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Commission will consider the sewer work described above as Common Council Item #7.

Architectural Board (Monday, June 12, at 6:30 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The Architectural Board will consider four new homes and 12 additions or other residential construction projects. Seven of the other construction projects are resubmittal from a prior meeting.  Applicants are in all aldermanic districts except 2 and 8.

River Advisory Committee (Thursday, June 15, at 6:30 p.m.). Click here to learn more. The River Advisory Committee will meet with the Mequon Boat Patrol Officer, review boating informational cards being prepared for Mequon and Thiensville and discuss ordinance changes being proposed in Thiensville.

Of course, please provide comments to me or to any elected official.

The Common Council has a vacancy in District 7. Following state law, the Council will interview candidates on Tuesday and choose a person to serve until an election can be held in April. May 11 was the deadline for applications to fill the vacancy.

Two residents of District 7 applied: Pamela Ploor and Kathleen Schneider. Both have impressive credentials, and both have resided in Mequon since 1998.

Dr. Schneider resides at 10424 North Country Club Drive (Wey Acres) and practices medicine with Vistas Innovative Hospice Care. She is a graduate of University Wisconsin – Eau Claire and the Medical College of Wisconsin. She is certified in internal medicine, emergency medicine and hospice and palliative medicine. She has two children and is a long time volunteer for literacy programs.

Ms. Ploor resides at 10305 North Provence Court (Lac du Cours) and is partner with the law firm of Quarles & Brady. She is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. She practices management-side employment law. She has two children and provides pro bono legal services.

Neither candidate has, from what I can tell, volunteered for a city board, commission or committee. Of course, serving on such a body is not a prerequisite for serving on the Council.

On paper, both appear to be excellent candidates. We will learn a great deal from their interviews. However, if you have information about either that you believe might be pertinent, please let an alderman know.

On Monday, the Common Council, sitting as a Committee of the Whole, chose Andrew Nerbun to be the new alderman in District 8.  For the last five years, Mr. Nerbun served as the alderman for District 7. He recently moved to District 8.  He replaces the late Ald. Pam Adams.

On Tuesday, voters reelected Ald. Mark Gierl to represent the 5th District.

Also, Glenn Bushee was elected to represent District 2.  Ald. Connie Pukaite opted not to run for reelection.

Finally, Ald. Dale Mayr was reelected to serve District 3. Ald. Mayr, the senior member of the Council, faced no opposition.

In May, the Council will be selecting a new alderman to represent District 7 due to Ald. Nerbun’s resignation.  If you know someone who lives in District 7 and would make a good alderman, please convince her or him to apply for the opening.

The new District 7 and District 8 aldermen chosen by the Council will face reelection by voters in April 2008.

 

There are two competing internet petitions regarding the Logemann property.

I do not really believe that petitions are effective tools for determining public sentiment.  However, the organizers of one of the petitions believe it will have an impact, so a different group decided to create a petition in response.

A petition supporting both the restaurant and the park improvements at the Logemann property can be found here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/i-support-the-logemann/?source=search

This petition started just yesterday afternoon (March 14) and has 123 signers.

A petition supporting only the park improvements and opposing the restaurant can be found here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/mequon-park-petition/?source=search

This petition, which started three days earlier (March 11), has 221 signers.  The petition itself is a bit deceptive, making it sound as if the City proposes to sell off the entire civic campus.

Elected officials care what you think.  However, we also care about the opinions of people who do not sign petitions. I expect that most of us we will disregard signatures from people who do not live in Mequon.

Sign the petition of your choice, or start another that accurately supports your position.  However, more importantly, send an email to the aldermen and the mayor, or call them, explaining what you think and why you take that position.

You can read what I think, subject to learning more about the proposals, by reviewing the next article in this website.

 

 

The City is currently considering the future of the property that was formerly used by the Logemann Community Center. The property is between the developments known as Town Center I and Town Center II (Spur 16) and behind Opitz Cemetery. It is next to the Mequon Civic Campus.

I have been receiving many questions and comments. I am posting this to provide some answers.  It is hard to address everything in one post. I will add more as more questions arise and, of course, my opinion may change as I receive more information.

A Brief History of Logemann Center Discussions

The Logemann Center has been closed for over a year. The building is poorly laid out, is expensive to operate and has asbestos and other structural and environmental problems. It is in bad shape. In June of 2016, the Common Council decided that the building must come down.

Since then, the City has been looking at uses for this site. All discussions have all been in open session.

In July of 2016, the Common Council learned that it would cost over $100,000 just for demolition. Utilities would need to be moved, and asbestos would need to be removed. This cost would not include repaving or other improvements to make the site usable. Those costs would likely be, at a minimum, an additional $60,000 to $85,000.

Rather than incurring that cost, the Common Council decided to test the market by seeking proposals for use of the site. The thought was that a user might save the City the cost of the demolition and environmental abatement. Additionally, a user might be able to use some of the structure from the center.

In September of 2016, the City issued a request for proposals. Two proposals were received by the deadline in November.

One was from Foxtown Associates, a group of local businesspeople and developers. Foxtown proposed a redevelopment of the entire civic campus with improved public amenities. The pool and baseball diamond would be improved; there would be an outdoor public/library event space; and walking trails. Part of the Foxtown group owns the old brewery building on the south side of Mequon Road. Foxtown has not yet raised the funds necessary to make the civic campus improvements; however, the group says they have a commitment for $1 million. They estimate the cost of the improvements at $7 million, but have not provided any back-up for that estimate.

The other was from John Leszczynski, a Mequon resident and former alderman. Leszczynski proposed a small family restaurant and pub. His project would have a smaller footprint than the Logemann Center, and would have extensive balconies overlooking the baseball field. It also would have publicly accessible restrooms for users of the Interurban Trail, a dog watering station and ice cream stand. It would include an outdoor public event space. Leszczynski also proposes offering canoe rentals at a nearby park.

In November, the City’s Economic Development Board (a group of volunteers nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by the Common Council) unanimously endorsed the Leszczynski proposal.

In January, the Common Council discussed this site in open session.

Then, on February 28, sitting as the Committee of the Whole, the Common Council held a special, open meeting. The public was invited, and many people spoke in favor of each of the proposals. Both Foxtown and Leszczynski gave extensive presentations.

The Committee of the Whole recommended that the City pursue both proposals. Because the Leszczynski proposal is more ready to proceed, the Committee stated that it should be given initial priority. However, the Committee also wants to proceed with the Foxtown proposal.

I offered an amendment to the Committee’s vote, requiring the City to engage an independent consultant to analyze parking for Town Center I, the Logemann parcel and Spur 16 (also called Town Center II) – the property directly west of the Logemann parcel. See the parking section below.

Can Both the Foxtown and Leszczynski Projects Occur?

The Common Council is not supporting one of the proposals to the detriment of the other. They are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I would like to see both occur. I have spoken to representatives of both groups, and neither believes that the other prevents their proposal from occurring.

Was the Logemann Center Planned for Commercial Development When the Town Center was Created?

No, but that is not a fair question. When the Town Center was proposed 10-14 years ago, the City anticipated that Logemann would remain a community center. The City did not anticipate its demise. There was very little analysis of its use. So, while it was not planned for commercial development, it also was not planned for park use or anything else. Had it been closed at the time; it would have made sense to include it within the commercial area. A walkable commercial area has contiguous properties, not individual, isolated strips.

What About Parking?

As I note above, the current direction to move forward with both proposals is conditioned on a full parking study being done. I will not vote for any proposal unless we have a plan for adequate parking in the area. No proposal should exacerbate parking issues.

Won’t the Leszczynski proposal add parking users? Most certainly. However, Leszczynski also proposes to add a significant number of parking spots. Will that be enough? There is a significant difference of opinion. That is why an independent study needs to occur.

Foxtown’s proposal does not address parking. Obviously, if there is greatly expanded use of the civic campus, parking needs will be greater. The parking study is necessary for that proposal also.

In 2005, a parking study of the entire Town Center area (both Mequon and Thiensville) was commissioned. You can see a copy by clicking here. Unfortunately, the City has followed only some of its recommendations. It ignored some of the other, important suggestions. Regardless of what occurs with Logemann, we need to revisit that study and its recommendations. Presumably, the new parking study will do that.

There are several things the City can do to improve parking, including adding more on-street parking, adding one-way parking along the Interurban Trail, ensuring parking flow between adjacent sites, expanding parking at the library and on Division Street, improving pedestrian connections between parking places, striping existing on-street parking, requiring off-site parking for public and private employees and so forth. We also need to reexamine the parking requirements of the Code, and the way staff administers them. I expect the consultants will have more ideas.

Parking is a real issue. It needs to be addressed. City staff has proposed little to deal with the issue, and has perhaps miscalculated existing parking needs. The study is necessary.

If the study concludes that these proposals are a mistake, I will not be voting for them.

What About a Parking Garage?

Theoretically, this is a nice idea. However, parking garages are incredibly expensive. For example, a 40-car garage is estimated to cost $800,000 to $1 million (or more). It would result in a net gain of perhaps 20 spaces (it would have to be built over existing parking). 20 spaces might lessen the occasional summer problems in Town Center I, but at whose cost? Should taxpayers subsidize that development, particularly when it sold for a multi-million profit a few months ago? The owner of that development obviously does not see a big problem or it would not have paid a premium for that project. If such a facility is necessary, the property benefitted by it should pay for it.

Why Civic Campus Improvements?

To be blunt, our civic campus is tired. A vibrant civic campus gives families a place to go, and makes a community more vibrant.

The civic campus improvements proposed by Foxtown should be just a beginning. Mequon and Thiensville have started a riverwalk and riverside community improvements. Those improvements, along with the civic campus improvements, came to a stop with the recent recession. They are still part of the vision for this area. The Foxtown proposal should help revive that vision.

Why Not Just Use the Logemann Center Property for More Civic Campus Improvements?

If there is not a good parking solution, that might have to happen. However, ultimately, the small commercial area along Mequon Road is necessary to pay for the improvements and to help create a neighborhood. Neighborhood shopping, restaurants, some limited residential and a vibrant civic campus all go hand in hand. Residential creates use and attracts the retail and restaurants; shops and restaurant create opportunity, tax base and a sense of place; and the civic campus will make the residential and the shops desirable.

The Logemann Center property and the cemetery were always interruptions in the Town Center. A good small town downtown does not have big gaps between neighborhood businesses. Instead, it offers side by side shops between which people can easily walk. Developments surrounded by asphalt expanses do not make for a downtown. They make for a bad strip center feel.

If the Logemann Center development is done right (walking paths, community areas and so forth), it will create a bridge between Town Center I and Spur 16 (Town Center II).

So, is it all About the Money?

In part, yes, in part no. Tax base is important to pay for improvements and operations. The residents of Mequon have repeatedly said, in surveys and elections, that one of the reasons they live here is the affordable taxes. The small Town Center development area will provide tax revenue to pay for civic campus improvements and operations.

However, the business development also provides services for the west side of Mequon. It creates a place and a reason to go to the area. It serves the people of the west side of Mequon.

Don’t We Have Enough Restaurants?

Every survey done by the City over the past 20 years has called for more restaurants. In the Vision 2010 study, 8018 residents were surveyed, as well as 773 businesses. Over 65% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Mequon needed more family and fine dining restaurants. Since that survey was done, Mequon has had some great new restaurants open, but we have about the same number of restaurants now as then. The Town Center (a very small area from Cedarburg Road to Buntrock Avenue) was created to encourage these types of amenities for the residents of the west side of Mequon.

Won’t Another Restaurant Harm Existing Restaurants?

Although that seems intuitive, it is not how it works. Most successful restaurants are near other restaurants. Look at Kinnikinnic Avenue, the Third Ward and Water Street. Restauranteurs complained when more restaurants were built in those areas, and then they thrived. We do not need, and probably cannot support or want, an area as full of restaurants as the Mayfair Collection. The Town Center is a small area, and we do not want that kind of population. But a couple of more restaurants, provided they are well-run, should be successful.

Won’t the Town Center Ruin Mequon? Are We Creating the “new Bluemound Road?”

That is an odd comment. Mequon is 48 square miles, yet the Town Center on Mequon Road is about one-third of a mile. The retail on Bluemound Road is densely packed over eight miles. The Town Center will be, if done correctly, a pedestrian and bike friendly, small retail and restaurant area with public areas and gathering places. It is a tiny downtown in a very large Mequon. Bluemound Road has vast expanses of parking stretching out from businesses set back from the road. The Town Center will be a small but vibrant area which, like the downtowns in most small towns, has parking behind buildings and services for the community.

The balance of the Town Center will be a civic campus and river park with amenities for the community.

The Town Center is an exception – a small, unique neighborhood. The greater Mequon community should remain a community of residential neighborhoods and green space. However, the City is big enough to offer those residential neighborhoods, the green space, a Town Center, a couple of limited industrial areas, and a commercial area (Port Washington Road). All of them should be well done, and should complement each other.

Conclusion

The future of the Logemann property is not etched in stone Each proposal requires many more meetings. The Leszczynski proposal requires a contract, rezoning, easements, architectural and site plan review and so forth. The Foxtown proposal requires much of the same. Both will be reviewed considering the parking study. That study might end one or both of these proposals.

We have received a lot of feedback from the public. That is great! We are listening. However, we are receiving feedbacks from people who support one of the proposals, from people who support the other, from people who support both, and from people who oppose both. I expect that there will be no public “consensus.”

Ultimately, what happens to this site will depend on how it fits into the Town Center neighborhood and Town Center plans, and what is good for the City as a whole, including those people who do not express their opinions. Those of us on the Council are no smarter than everyone else (arguably, we are not as smart), but we are taking the time to look at the details of these issues. The Council, with the help of the public, will come to the best decision we can for the future of Mequon.

Last night, the Mequon Common Council held a special meeting to consider the future of the Logemann Center property.　There are two proposals for the site.　The Economic Development Board endorsed one of the proposals – a sports bar and restaurant proposed by former Alderman John Leszczynski. A group of local businesspeople (Foxtown Ventures) have proposed a public use, amenity-filled park that would be paid for with private donations to be raised over time.

Primarily based on ongoing concerns over parking in the area, including concerns raised by city staff, the Council spent a lot of time discussing the proposals. A significant number of members of the public provided comments.  

The Council asked that staff try to proceed to make both proposals happen.   You can see the Leszczynski proposal by clicking here and the Foxtown Ventures proposal by clicking here.

Perhaps the biggest temptation for government on any level is to butt in where it does not belong. This habit is pervasive.The federal government usurps states’ responsibilities. The state imposes obligations on local governments and school districts. Local governments involve themselves in things that have nothing to do with their missions.

Why?  Sometimes it is because government officials do not like how another level of government is handling something. So, they take on the issue. Other times, it is because of the voters. Elected officials receive pressure from voters to do something about voters’ problems, concerns and interests. Voters are happy when their elected officials care enough to do something (even though voters then think that government, cumulatively, is too big). Often, government officials respond because they want to be important and relevant. The more a government entity expands its sphere of responsibilities, the more important and relevant it becomes.

As a result, we now have every level of government involved in education, environmental protection. local transportation, law enforcement and just about everything else.  It is wasteful, inefficient and contradictory, and government just keeps getting bigger.  Yet, so do society’s problems.

Why am I raising this point now?

On Tuesday, the Regional Coordinator of the NOAA Office of the National Marine Sanctuaries (that’s a mouthful of bureaucracy) made a presentation to the Mequon Common Council regarding a proposed Wisconsin-Lake Michigan Marine Sanctuary.  The NOAA wants to “conserve nationally-significant shipwrecks and related maritime heritage resources.”

The Mequon City Administrator followed the presentation by stating that the Common Council would be taking up a resolution supporting this preservation effort.

This sanctuary is interesting. Sounds like a good idea.

The resolution would be rather benign. But what in the world does this issue have to do with the government of the City of Mequon?  The sanctuary is not within the Mequon city limits. It does not affect our shoreline. It has nothing to do with local law enforcement or keeping the peace within Mequon. It has nothing to do with local services provided by the city. Mequon does not even have a marina.

Yes, there are Mequon residents who are interested in the marine sanctuary.  I am one of them. I have a boat on Lake Michigan. I am interested in all things having to do with the lake. But is that enough for this level of government to go outside of its own mission?

If the City takes a position on this, why wouldn’t it take a position on other, meatier issues?  Global warming?  Protection of the rights of the unborn, or protection of reproductive rights? The war against ISIS? Common cause?  The wall along the Mexican border? Why wouldn’t the City interject itself in the operations of our school district?

Do we really want our local government involved  in all political issues?  Do we want local government to be partisan?

Mequon has steadfastly avoided taking an official position on issues that have no direct bearing on city responsibilities. We should not open this Pandora’s box.

If and when the Common Council is asked to support the Lake Michigan sanctuary, I will try to table the effort, not because I oppose the policy (I do not), but because it has nothing to do with the City’s mission. I hope my colleagues on the Common Council agree.