Archive for the ‘County Board’ Category

Stupid, stupid, stupid

Saturday, March 6th, 2010

My nominee for dolt of the week: Supervisor Toni Clark.

So how long before she asks for her teaching job back? And could she be denied on the basis of her being a thief?

County Board takes to the airwaves, but public still can’t get info

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

The County Board now has its own radio show, “Inside the County Board,” on WISN (1130-AM).

The one-hour show will be on at 9 p.m. on the first Sunday of every month.

“Inside the County Board is intended to give listeners a more in-depth analysis of actions taken by County Supervisors,” according to the press release announcing the show.

What a load of crap that is. The County Board has not shown much interest at all in making routine public information available to the public in a timely and easily accessible manner. The Board still does not make resolutions and reports available online with committee agendas. The Board is the worst local unit of government at making public information easily accessible for anyone wanting an “in-depth” understanding of just what it is the County Board is voting on and what impacts those votes will have on the public.

County officials each year, year after year after year, promise that soon, soon, soon all the reports and resolutions that supervisors will consider will be posted in advance. Still, they aren’t. Meeting audio now is streamed, but without the documents being discussed, they can be really hard to follow. Same with the County Board meetings themselves.

It’s hard to believe the County Board show will be anything more than big spin: “We won’t provide you with the data, but we’ll tell you what it means.”

Weishan to seek delay in County Grounds deal

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

County Supervisor John Weishan said he will seek a delay in County Board action to sell County Grounds property to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for construction of an engineering school and other facilities.

The deal is to be considered by the County Board’s Economic and Community Development Committee during its March 9 meeting, scheduled at 9 a.m. in room 201-B of the courthouse.

Building an separate UWM engineering school when the research park already exists could create “two taxpayer-subsidized placed fighting over the same piece of meat,” he said. It might make more sense for the school to operate as part of the research park, which includes significant county involvement and land control, he said.

“Why are the taxpayers going to pay to put us in a bad competitive situation?” he said.

Weishan also said the proposed buyer of the property is a private foundation, not UWM itself, a public entity.  He said he wanted to know more about how the foundation would work with the county.

“If I have a problem with a real estate foundation, I don’t know what course of action I can take,” he said.

County pension obligation bonds: too risky?

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

The county’s pension obligation bond work group is holding an informational session today (at 9:30 a.m. in room 203-R of the courthouse).  It would be fun to attend just to see if there is a quorum of any County Board committee and then to ask if the meeting has been noticed as a potential County Board committee meeting. It would also be interesting, if there is not a quorum of any committee, to wonder why the hell not and why there is so little interest on the part of supervisors.

County Supervisor John Weishan is skeptical of the plan to issue $400 million in county pension obligation bonds. The county’s proposal is to issue the bonds at 6% and invest the proceeds to get an 8% return. That’s all fine and dandy as long as the county can get an 8% return, but the market hasn’t been kind to investors lately and yesterday fell to a 12-year low. Yes, the market will rise again some day, but when? And what risks should the county take until then?

Weishan’s concern is not only risk, but the county’s plan for the bonds — or more accurately, it’s lack of a plan. If a 95% funded plan is the goal, he said, “this isn’t going to do it.”

In addition, experts on this topic advise that “you have to make a commitment that you’re not going to allow another unfunded liability to develop,” he said. Can the county, with all its huge fiscal problems, actually do that?

Weishan believes that one reason the bond issuance looks so attractive right now is that the timing of the deal and the influx of bond funds, could allow the county to skip a pension payment next year — a payment, according to the JS, that could be as much as $80 million. That one-year break would give the county the illusion of a little bit of financial stability, which County Executive Scott Walker likely would appreciate as he runs for governor.

UWM, county agreement near on grounds development

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

Negotiators for the county and University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee are near a deal that would have the county selling about 89 acres — including 13.3 acres of conservancy land — to the university for construction of an engineering school and other facilities, according to County Supervisor Lynne DeBruin.

The proposal to include conservancy land is bound to infuriate environmental organizations and those who bargained in good faith to preserve the property for the public as a natural area.

“The negotiating team feels they are close to a final agreement and that a final proposed agreement will be available for public and county board review possibly by March or April for consideration in the April cycle,” DeBruin wrote in a memo obtained by Milwaukee Rising through other sources.

The land to be obtained by the college includes, DeBruin said:

  • 51.6 acres in the county grounds development zone, inclusing the historic Eschweiler buildings and a grave of trees used by monarch butterflies that are prevalent on the grounds.
  • About 6.6 acres that include the site of the Parks Department Administration building and surrounding parking land; and
  • the conservancy land.

Another 17 or so acres between the development zone and US 45 would be set aside for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, which is planning to reconstruct and possibly expand the Zoo Interchange and surrounding freeway segments.

“The total amount of acreage set up for sale is 88-89 acres,” DeBruin said. “This footprint is much larger than the original 67 acres publicly set aside by county representatives, myself included, for the development zone. Proponents for the expanded footprint, including the County Executive, Sup. (Jim “Luigi”) Schmitt, and most of the county board, say the added land is necessary due to the state’s widening of the freeway.”

Proponents also argue that encroachment onto conservancy land will be limited to recreational use and for and storm water runoff, she said.

Because neither the WisDOT land nor the conservancy land would be building sites, “the total amount of land available for actual development shrinks significantly. It is likely tha the developed land will be densely developed as a result,” DeBruin said.

The development zone property to be sold includes a grove of trees used by the butterflies, and the deal is to include a UWM agreement not to disturb the trees, she said.  “Whether this is sufficient for the butterflies is unclear since we don’t have the final language or final sign-off  by naturalists,” DeBruin wrote.

The Parks Department also would be able to stay in its current headquarters as long as it wants to, she said.

“The 17 acres set aside for WisDOT may be eventually used by the state for the expansion of I-45 to eight lanes north and south,” DeBruin wrote. “The land could be used for storm water run off areas, relocation of Swan Boulevard and freeway.”

In addition, she said, “How well the Eschweiler buildings will be maintained and their ultimate use could be controversial.”

The City of Wauwatosa ultimately contols zoning of the property.

“The County’s amount of control could vary significantly based on how much or how little control the county wants,” DeBruin wrote. “At present, the negotiators are interested in the county keeping approval rights for any roadway changes for Swan Boulevard or Watertown Plank. The university would have substantial control of the land both in terms of development and re-sale; Milwaukee County’s control would be very limited.”

DeBruin said most of the issues between the parties are resolved. “The outstanding issue is price — how to establish a fair maket value for the land involved,” she said. “Both sides have had appraisals done — the primary differences between the appraisals are estimates of how much of the land will actually be developed.”

March 2 update — The Business Journal reports that the sales price will be about $11.8 million.