Friends of Lakeside Park

1800logo copy

The Case for Transparency

The Case for Transparency

December 26, 2020

After a flurry of accusations of misinformation, name calling and traded barbs on social media, we are, once again, calling for transparency in the processes involved that may lead to radical changes at Lakeside Park. 

A representative government depends on an informed electorate. An informed electorate needs access to information. This is why we have open meetings laws. We feel that has been lacking through the entire process- leading to speculation, uncertainty and cynicism that social media platforms only amplify.  

Let’s take a look at some of what we know, based on the Lakeside Park Enhancement Agreement signed back in October, focusing on the recently contentious issues. 

A “management team” has been formed to make decisions about how the Alternative Master Plan (AMP) is implemented.  They are due to submit their proposal sometime in early January, 2021. Here is the part of the agreement that forms the Management Team: 

Here it explains what they will be releasing for approval: 

We also know that, when the agreement was signed, Lakeside Forward was an LLC – a legal structure usually used for for-profit businesses. There is no mention of a foundation or non-profit in the agreement.  As of this writing, a possible change in structure is undisclosed.  It is clearly not included in the agreement.

It is spelled out in the agreement that an unknown amount of money will be periodically donated to Lakeside Park, a portion of the rent collected from the restaurant operator.  An unknown amount of money will be set aside for operating expenses.  It also specifies that profits will not go to donors or LSF members. 

We feel there are far too many unanswered questions in this roughly $10 million agreement that was prepared and approved in haste. An agreement like this usually involves a long process of negotiation between city staff (especially the city attorney; it is a legally binding agreement) and the outside party. 

City Manager Joe Moore went public on “Between the Line with Greg Stensland” before the September 23rd City Council meeting detailing the usual procedure and advising the Council to slow down and not to sign a binding agreement.  Johnson Consulting, authors of the feasibility study also advised against a rushed agreement. Council went ahead and approved the agreement, despite that advice. 

There are many more questions, but in today’s example we have these:  

  • Why is the management team’s structure and membership not defined? 
  • Why was Lakeside Forward set up as an LLC?  
  • If the intent is to form a foundation or nonprofit, why was that not spelled out? 
  • How much money will be donated back to the park and when will this occur? 
  • What are the anticipated operating expenses for the “Reserve Fund”? 

Closed door meetings have been going on to answer and hash-out some of these questions- which of course, should have been answered prior to signing. It is little wonder citizens feel left in the dark when important decisions are not made transparently- leading us to the larger question: 

Why are the AMP Management Team meetings not open to the public?

The Friends of Lakeside Park have made requests for an opportunity to attend or receive a verbal or written report of what has been happening in those meetings, which have been rejected.  We urge the city and Lakeside Forward to offer 100% transparency.  This will alleviate much of what we’ve experienced on social media.   An informed electorate needs access to information. 

NOTE:  All of the clips above are from the Lakeside Park Enhancement Agreement filed with the Affidavit of Anthony Garcia, the attorney representing the City of Fond du Lac in our legal action.  It is exhibit #4 and begins on page 35.  We provide all of the documents for the public to read on our website.  Click here to go to that page

We release information first to our email list.  If you want to be the first to know, click on the button below and sign up for our list.  We thank you for your interest in the facts of our cause.  Help us spread the information out in our community!

#LetThePeopleDecide

What the Lakeside Exploratory Committee Really Said About a Restaurant

What the Lakeside Exploratory Committee Really Said About a Restaurant

October 20. 2020

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. 

Let’s do a city-wide survey in the form of a referendum in April. Let the people decide!

Non-Profit or LLC?


Non-profit or LLC?

September 29, 2020

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.

QUESTION for the Lakeside Park Supporters:  How is demanding the premature signing of a developer’s agreement collaborative?  What’s the rush?