mbhaypark

When it comes right down to it, the City Council is gambling with our money and our public assets. They are betting that a large restaurant- placed on the most desirable piece of public real estate in the county- will generate enough dollars to pay for future improvements at the city’s parks. 

 While it may, indeed, succeed, there is a larger chance that it will not. Sixty percent of restaurants don’t make it past their first year and 80 percent go out of business within five years. Even if it does succeed, the return on investment is questionable.  

City taxpayers are on the hook for $5.2 million of this project. At this point, it is unknown how much of that will be directly related to the restaurant, but we do know it is a substantial amount, as we are responsible for all infrastructure.  

So, just for argument’s sake, let’s say we have to invest $2 million in infrastructure. Let’s also say the building generates $100,000 per year in revenue from leasing to a private operator.  We will only receive that revenue if the restaurant is successful. That is the gamble… and a not-so-profitable one even with success.  If we have $2 million in taxpayer funds, that means we could just invest $100,000 in our park every year for 20 years without having to put up a building and gamble on a business being successful.   

If the restaurant does not make it- and over time it is proven either the rent is too high, parking inadequate, patrons too seasonal, etc, there will be less or no leasing revenue collected. After 7 years, the building itself may become the responsibility of the taxpayers. That means maintenance, utilities, general upkeep and finding and maintaining a tenant is in the taxpayers’ hands.  

On the surface, this seems like a great deal.  We get a big, fancy building for “free.”  We get revenue from a leasing restaurateur. In reality, we are simply betting the place will be a wild success- even when the industry odds of restaurant success are only 1 in 5.  If it fails, we get no lease revenue. 

We do not wish any business venture to fail. Speculative businesses are great for investors and venture capitalists. It is a form of gambling. City Council members are neither investors nor venture capitalists- and should not be investing taxpayers money in a risky start-up.  

What can you do? Ask city council to stop gambling with your money. Also, do your research and vote on April 6. Current council members on the ballot do not deserve re-election. 

Last summer, the City of Fond du Lac opened up a comment section on the Lakeside Park Masterplan webpage.  John Papenheim donated and put up signs in Lakeside Pake that showed the pictures of the proposed development that were in the Alternative Master Plan.   These signs directed people to the web page to leave comments.  321 people left comments with 298 of them doing so in the months of July and August 2020.  The site is still open.  You can click HERE to go and comment.  

To date, there has been no public discussion of these comments.  We downloaded them and compiled the answers.  82% of the people oppose going forward with the plan.  Especially unpopular is building a restaurant on the shoreline.  

We have put the citizen comments into a spreadsheet on our google drive.  You can click HERE and go read the comments.  It is clear from the comments, citizens do not favor going forward with development on the peninsula.  The current location  for the restaurant is still on the peninsula.   It is time for a referendum to show the people the plans and let the people decide. 

On Wednesday, January 13th, two citizens came and spoke at the City Council meeting for two minutes about putting a 4 way stop at three intersections.  City Engineer, Paul De Vries and the Advisory Traffic and Parking Board both recommended not changing the intersections.  There was an hour of discussion and at the end the council went against the recommendation of the Advisory Board and directed Mr De Vries and the Board to re-evaluate their decisions and study the issue more.  

Contrast this with what happened with Lakeside Park.  How many hours and how many people have stood in front of the council asking for a pause on the pavilion, a referendum, and to delay signing the Enhanced Agreement?  And why does Council member Degner speak how his decision is informed by the recommendations of the Advisory Parking and Traffic Board but when it comes to the Advisory Parks Board he ignores them as well as the people?  

Below is a detailed account of the meeting.

The presentation for the first ordinance (corner of Marquette and Follett St) began with information presented by city Engineer, (now the  new Public Works Director) Paul De Vries.  He explained that the Advisory Parking and Traffic Board recommended denying the request as the traffic data from the intersection did not meet the criteria for making it a 4 way stop.  Council member Dan Degner made a motion to deny the ordinance with a second by Council member Richards.  

Council member Hans commented that she relates to the concerns of the citizens as she had made a similar request for an intersection in another neighborhood.  She was told that what the citizens want may not be the best solution.  4 way stops do not necessarily slow people down.   She talked about being conflicted when what people want is not supported by engineering data.  She asked if  more law enforcement could be a solution.  

Next, Council member Degner agrees with Council member Hans and says the best option is for police to patrol the area more and he supports the Advisory Parking and Traffic Board’s decision to deny the motion.  Council member Allen comments next.  She said she “agrees with the motion to deny” but she is very aware of the speeding on Marquette Street as she lives 2 blocks away.  She suggests there are visibility issues and that it definitely needs to be looked into.

Finally, Council member Miller asks for alternatives from Paul De Vries.  He proposes driver education and says that vision issues can be investigated further.  He says lots of the responsibility falls on the driver and that there is not a ton more engineering that can be done, but they can try and work with the police department.  Council member Miller comments that it is frustrating that residents have concerns about what is happening on their streets and that nothing can be done for them.  She states that she will not support the denial.   

The board votes and the motion is denied with Hans, Degner, Richards and Kolstad voting in favor.  Giles, Allen and Miller vote no on the denial.  (Notice, Council member Allen said in the comment time that she was in favor of the denial, but she did not voted to deny.)  So the 4 way stop is denied.  

Then the second ordinance is presented (corner of Marquette and Cotton St) and again, the recommendation is to deny.  Council member Richards asks questions about signage options and there is more discussion about how the traffic counts are done.  Again, Council member Degner makes the motion to deny, Ms Hans seconds and the motion.  Degner again states that the Advisory Traffic and Parking Board’s  unanimous recommendation was to not pass the ordinance and that the solution is “better patrols.”  

On this vote, Council member Richards switches sides and the vote to deny fails.  Those voting in favor of the denial are Degner, Kolstad and  Hans.  

With this failed motion, Council member Degner immediately makes a motion to APPROVE the ordinance and it is seconded by Allen.  In the comment period, Degner says in light of the previous vote, he will change his vote to be in favor of the ordinance.  

Council member Miller makes an amendment to the motion to refer the ordinance back to the Advisory Parking and Traffic Board and it is seconded by Council member Hans.  (Council member Miller is the only one who seems to know what motions are appropriate)  There is more discussion with Paul De Vries about collecting more data and that it will take more time to do this.  That motion passes unanimously.

The final ordinance is about the corner of Roosevelt and East Bank Street.  Again, the recommendation is to deny.  Council member Miller asks about making a motion to refer the ordinance back to the Board and Paul De Vries talks about collecting much more information for the board and the council to address their concerns.  Council members Hans and Richards ask additional questions about traffic counts and intersections.  

Council member Degner makes a motion to deny the ordinance, and Hans seconds.  Degner citing what he has before as reasons to deny.  Council member Hans agrees with Degner, but asks that the Advisory Traffic and Parking Board look at how they are making decisions when people are coming to them and being denied.  She suggests the board look at the criteria they are using.  Council member Miller makes a motion to send the ordinance back to the board and it is seconded by Hans. 

Council member Hans says it is a good idea to “pause” with this and take time giving the board more opportunity to collect data and information.  The vote to refer the ordinance back to the board is 6-1 with all but Kolstad voting in favor.  

This discussion took almost an hour.  We are happy the Council is responding to citizens.  Can the many citizens who are concerned about Lakeside Park get the same consideration?