The Alternative Master Plan for Lakeside Park consists of 29 pictures. The lack of an official plan with detailed written information leaves us all wondering about what is planned for our park.
At the October 23, 2019, City council meeting, council member Ben Giles stated that a restaurant in Lakeside park was the number 5 recommendation from the Lakeside Park Exploratory Committees report. He also said the number one thing survey respondents wanted added to the park was a restaurant.
Let’s look at those claims. The fact is, the report shows “food options”- like food trucks, rolling vendors and concessions as the number 5 priority. A restaurant does not appear in the study until number 11- or 13 or 20 depending on what part of the report you read.
It is also noted in the report there is substantial citizen opposition to a privately operated restaurant at the park.
“Food options” is a very different goal than restaurant and the two have been conflated as meaning the same thing by Giles and in the Alternative Master Plan.
As far as the survey responses about what should be added to the park, roughly 5% of the 3200 survey takers answered “restaurant.” That is hardly consensus.
At that same council meeting, then council member Karyn Merkel stated that there had been a proposal in 2016 for a large pavilion called The Hub, which included a restaurant, but not only was the restaurant idea rejected by citizens, no operator of the restaurant could be secured at the time.
There was an opportunity for survey respondents to leave comments about each survey question. The number of comments opposing a restaurant was 140, the number supporting was 78. When asked about a beer garden, the report showed 128 comments opposing and 48 supporting. The agreement which the city has now signed off on states that the restaurant can serve anyone who is in the patio area around the restaurant. This amounts to…a beer garden!
The graphic here shows the actual final survey numbers concerning a beer garden and restaurant. 47.4% said no beer garden vs 33.4% yes. 42.4% said no restaurant vs 40% yes.
It is clear, most survey respondents did not want a restaurant or beer garden in Lakeside Park.
Why are Ben Giles and Lakeside Forward falsely citing the Lakeside Park Exploratory Committee as being strongly in favor of these 2 amenities at the park? That report and survey was issued before the current stand-alone restaurant was proposed at Lighthouse Point. Imagine what that survey might look like now.
We’ve been told the investors entity that will have the ownership of the restaurant building would be a non-profit. Oops, there was some fine print. In the FAQ on the Lakeside Forward site it does say “non-profit or separate entity.”
Let’s try and figure out what that means by looking at the latest document, the developer’s agreement.
In the developer’s agreement presented to the city council on Sept 23, 2020, Lakeside Forward (LSF) is set up as a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company. According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue:
Profits and losses of an LLC are allocated among members on the basis of their contributions, unless otherwise
provided for in an operating agreement. Distributions of cash or the assets of an LLC are made to members in
the same manner that profits are allocated, unless the distribution is varied by an operating agreement.
[§§183.0503 and 183.0602, Wis. Stats.]
Lakeside Forward looks like a for profit company. It is not clear how this arrangement provides that there are no profits to the donors. An LLC is the usual structure of a for profit business.
Non-profit entities have requirements that come with their special status. For one, they file a public 990 form every year. There is no such public requirement for a LLC.
We were also told that the “investors focus is on working collaboratively with the city.” We are at a loss to understand how forcing the city to sign a developer’s agreement before the feasibility study is even done is collaborative. Not to mention surprising the city manager and council with a resolution demanding that it be passed that day with the only reason being that the investors want to “move forward with fundraising.”
We threaten to pull the funds that we promised because we want to raise more funds doesn’t sound very collaborative.
