District 5 -- Previous Notes

I would like to thank the residents of my district who went out and voted on April 3, and re-elected me to my fourth term in office. I feel it's a very important job and once again pledge to do my best to represent your interests on the Common Council.

A letter in last week's Ozaukee Press asked where I was when the city was presented with a petition opposing the reconstruction of Wisconsin & Franklin Streets. The answer is that I was right there in the city council chambers, listening to the people presenting the petition -- Where I was supposed to be.

The fact is, I did not agree with the petition. I feel that Wisconsin and Franklin Streets are too wide and not designed with the best interests of our residents in mind. We need to get going on the reconstruction of these streets and I won't agree to a design which I feel is fundamentally bad, will not improve safety and will cost us more money.

The letter that appeared in Ozaukee Press was in response to one I wrote the previous week (shown below).

I don't recall a single person in my district telling me we shouldn't narrow Wisconsin & Franklin Streets. In fact, I had many people call or tell me in person that they felt we were doing the right thing in the new design. One resident told me how his mother had opposed the original redesign of the street, which made it wider, back in the 1970s.

Our residents and our children will be living with the new street for the next 40-50 years and I think we all agree it should be the safest and best design we can come up with. Our city staff and design committees have done their homework and have created a design that I feel is about as good as it can be.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns about any aspect of the city government, please call me at 284-1948 or me. I'll be more than happy to discuss any issue with you.

While driving up Wisconsin street the other day, I saw a couple of large signs that were put up by the owner of the Kaliber auto body shop, complaining about the narrowing of Wisconsin St. and asking "why didn't we get a vote?"

Whenever I see things like this, it's very frustrating. This person, as well as every property owner along Wisconsin Street, was sent personal invitations to attend several information and planning sessions specifically aimed at getting information on the project out to the affected property owners, as well as take their input and comments. The Ozaukee Press also printed information on these meetings well before they took place. These information sessions outlined the entire project from I-42 into downtown, including the concept of narrowing the street. It was no secret. These signs imply that the city is pulling a fast one or trying to sneak through a bad idea without telling anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When Wisconsin Street was last redesigned and rebuilt, the state planned to eventually run four lanes of heavy traffic on it, right through downtown Port Washington. That is why it is as wide as it is now. The heavy traffic never came because other highways were built and the need for running four lanes through downtown never came. We, however, were left with a road that is much larger than is required for any foreseeable traffic load.

The redesign and rebuild of Wisconsin Street accomplishes a number of important goals:

You can probably tell, I am in favor of the planned reconstruction and narrowing of Wisconsin Street. We've had all the public input sessions, which every resident of that area should have been aware of, and most people seem very happy with the plan. If the owner of Kaliber missed out on the input sessions, he has no one to blame but himself. Part of the responsibility of being a citizen is to keep yourself informed about what is going on in your community.

Recently, the Council revised alcohol controls in certain city parks, and the city now allows alcohol (beer & wine) in several lakeside parks during normal operating hours. I had received a number of contacts from concerned residents -- Some wanted to allow alcohol, others were opposed and wanted us to continue the ban that's been in place for many years. I received a similar number of calls and email messages for both positions. To maximize public safety, but also allow responsible alcohol use, I felt that we should continue the ban in neighborhood parks but allow alcohol with picnic permits in the major lakeside parks. Most people I spoke to about the permits felt it was reasonable.

Well, the vote for alcohol use passed on a 4-3 margin, which was very close -- You win some and lose some -- I just hope that we don't see a lot of abuse of the new, looser regulations. Our lakeside parks are a big part of the unique Port Washington experience, and we want to keep them safe for everyone.

We're currently looking at selling a piece of surplus city land with a great view of the lake. When the subject came up, residents asked the Council to consider holding the land and making a park out of it, with the rationale that the loss of the view to build another house would be a loss to the city as a whole. I suggested allowing the residents to have a month to organize and propose an alternative to the city selling the land -- One where they would, perhaps, form a non-profit group that would maintain the land as a park.

My thinking behind this was twofold: 1) Allow the residents to put their efforts behind their words -- If this is really important to them, they'll take the ball and run with it and do what's necessary to organize a group that will maintain the land as a park. It's not easy, but it can be done and it would be an asset to the community. 2) There is a limited amount of open space land available in the city. Once we sell it and a house is built on it, that land is essentially lost forever. Yes, we get taxes from the new construction on that land, and we get the one-time income from the sale of the land, but we also lose that open space. Sometimes I think we're too quick to take a buck or two now and forget about the future. If the City's financial state gets bad, we can always sell land like this -- And the value will only go up. Right now, I don't feel that things are so desperate that we need to sacrifice every bit of open space in the name of snagging a few extra dollars.

Let's see if the residents will tackle this challenge, save the city some money that would have been used to maintain the lot, and hang onto some of the open space we have left.

As always, if you have any questions of concerns about any aspect of the city government, please call me at 284-1948 or me. I'll be more than happy to discuss any issue with you.

As we come to the end of another year, I thought I'd do a little update on the website and toss out some observations on a few topics.

Our library has just undergone a ceiling replacement in the old section of the facility. A cost-cutting measure taken in the library expansion project several years ago led to a problem with ceiling tiles falling out and creating a serious safety hazard. The library board and our director, David Nimmer, felt it was a serious issue and we acted quickly to remedy it. The project came in on budget and the result is not only much safer for library patrons but looks great, as well. Stop by the library and check it out (and check out some books or other materials as well)! I serve on the library board -- if you have any questions or comments on the library, please let me know.

This week's Ozaukee Press has an article on the Highway 33 redesign and how several members of the County Board feel it is undesirable. I have to agree. The section between Port and Saukville is being treated as if it were some sort of superhighway instead of a moderately busy connector between two small communities. We have been taking steps to make sure the design is something that will enhance our city -- Special thanks are due to our Director of Public Works, Rob Vanden Noven, who has been very active in bringing problems with this project to the attention of the Council.

It's tax time again and by now you should have received your property tax bill. While nobody likes paying taxes, we have tried to keep them as low as possible while maintaining city services. One area where we decided to cut the budget was in road salting. So far I have only received positive comments about this decision, and I feel that it was a good option because it recognizes that our city has some hills that require extra salting to maintain safety, while cutting salt usage overall. Please remember this when driving and take extra care in snowy conditions. If you see an area that is not being salted and you believe it should be, please let me know or call city hall at 284-2600.

Finally, I'd like to wish everyone a safe and merry Christmas and happy holidays, and a healthy and prosperous 2006. Things are definitely looking bright for the future of Port Washington -- As always, if you have any questions of concerns about any aspect of the city government, please call me at 284-1948 or me. I'll be more than happy to discuss any issue with you.

Last night, the Council heard from a number of residents who are opposed to the redesign of Highway 32 from I-43 to Grand Avenue, which deals with Wisconsin and Franklin Streets. We also heard from some who favor the redesign. The main issue we heard about from those opposing the plan was that of narrowing the street from 48 to 42 feet, and how doing this would be a mistake and waste our tax money. I feel that people who feel this way are mistaken. I'll tell you why.

1) Issue: Narrowing the street won't allow people to park safely. This is incorrect. The street redesign allows for 12-foot travel lanes and 9-foot parking lanes. This is a standard street profile. What we have in downtown now are four12-foot lanes, installed when the state DOT told us we needed a four-lane highway through downtown back in the 1970's! The traffic levels they anticipated then never came and we've been living with their mistake since then.

2) Issue: Trucks won't be able to safely travel through downtown. Not true. The design completely accommodates all traffic in the area, including trucks and boat-hauling equipment. The argument that highway 32 is a through highway and has high levels of through heavy truck traffic is laughable -- Highway 32 is on I-43 north and south of Port --What trucker in his right mind would get off I-43, drive through Port, then get back on I-43 again if he didn't need to? It doesn't happen. Yes, we have delivery trucks in downtown, but they will be able to get in and out as they do now. There is still a bit of tweaking going on to make sure certain intersections will deal properly with boat haulers, but these issues will be addressed.

3) Issue: Our tax money will be wasted on an unnecessary project. Incorrect. I have several comments here:

4) Issue: Trees will make unsafe conditions. I don't know how people come up with these things. I walk my dog virtually every day through neighborhoods with hundreds of trees. Yes, there are leaves around. Have I ever slipped on leaves? No. Could it happen? Yes. I do not believe it is a serious risk. If it were, no city in this country would ever plant a tree anywhere.

5) Issue: Pedestrians are already safe downtown. I beg to differ. Yes, the situation is better than it was a few years ago -- You do see cars stopping more for pedestrians. But just about two weeks ago I stopped for a woman crossing Grand Ave and she was almost hit as a car zoomed around my right side! This is going to get someone killed if we don't do something to improve the situation. It is a proven fact that when you widen a street, cars naturally go faster. When you narrow a street, cars go slower. Narrowing the street will result in slower speeds, allowing cars to see pedestrians more easily. It will discourage passing on the right when cars are stopped to let someone cross the street.

This is not something the Council pulled out of their hat two weeks ago. It is a project that has been in the planning stages since May of 2003 -- Over two years ago! There have been 8 separate Council, Board of Public Works or public information meetings where the project was discussed and your input was solicited. All these meetings were noticed in local papers, the cable TV channel and the city's website. I went to a number of these meetings to get information on what was being planned and to contribute my comments and act on behalf of my constituents, who have asked me specifically to help make downtown safer. Many others also participated and contributed their comments and concerns. I believe this plan spends your tax money wisely, leverages your money with that of other taxpayers statewide and will result in a safer road from downtown to I-43.

If you have any questions, please call me at 284-1948 or me. I'll be more than happy to discuss any issue with you.

Today, We Energies ran tests and flushed steam handling equipment on the second unit at the power plant and we had another episode of haze and unpleasant odors in the city. This was not unexpected, and hopefully the worst of this is behind us. I spoke to Ron Dillahunt of the DNR this morning prior to the tests and he assured me they would have an engineer on site today to be sure everything was being done properly. The last thing we need is more air pollution. I understand there are residents out there with asthma and other respiratory system difficulties, and am very unhappy that this situation came up with very little warning from We Energies. After the initial odors from the first round of tests, the smells subsided and I believe we can expect the same as the power plant gets closer to startup. If you want to contact We Energies directly in regard to this issue, visit their website at this link or call 414-274-4400.

UPDATE 4/6/05: This morning, I received a complaint about the fumes coming from a power plant test which ran overnight. I have been in contact with engineers and regulatory personnel at the Environmental Protection Agency in order to get some information on how we can deal with this problem. Yesterday, the mayor asked We Energies to delay further testing until the contents of the emissions can be analyzed; they refused. At this point, given We Energies' failure to respond in a reasonable manner to requests that they hold off on testing that results in these emissions, I am willing to investigate whether the city can ask for a court order that will compel We Energies to cease testing until the contents of the smoke can be tested. I hate to resort to legal action but given We Energies' irresponsible actions here, I feel it's our best chance of protecting our residents. More as this develops.

Recently, I've been dealing with a few issues on behalf of residents and have made some progress.

First, last summer I received some complaints about the cost of watering lawns. People were receiving very large water bills as a result of heavy watering in September and October, necessary because of the dry conditions. We have a summer credit in place to deal with this kind of water use -- It applies a credit to your sewer fees because the water you use on your lawn doesn't go down the sanitary sewer and require treatment. The problem is that the credit ends on September 1 and watering often extends beyond that. I asked that this policy be reviewed and The Board of Public works will take it up this month. More as it develops!

Residents along Cumberland and Chisholm have asked for stop signs at that intersection, and have taken the time and effort to put together a petition asking the city to install them. The Traffic Safety Committee reviewed the request and doesn't see the need for the signs based on traffic volume and accident history. The petition was signed by 71 people in the neighborhood, accounting for almost all of the homes in the area (the only people who didn't sign were not at home when the petition was circulated). Based on this kind of desire by the residents, I feel we should go ahead and install the signs. The installation of these signs would allow for the addition of marked crosswalks and slow traffic in a neighborhood with a lot of small children. This subject will be addressed at the April 6 council meeting.

If you have any questions, please call me at 284-1948 or me. I'll be more than happy to discuss any issue with you.

For the past several months, the city has been dealing with an unfortunate situation with our police chief. Last week the Council agreed to a settlement with the chief that will see him retire with a fair benefits package befitting his years of service to the city. I have always had a great deal of respect for Chief Rudolph -- he struck me as a person who always had the city's best interests at heart. However, a letter from the majority of officers on the police force made it clear that keeping him on after this summer's incident would lead to untenable morale issues within the police department, and I and the rest of the Council felt it best to work out a retirement settlement with him. I wish Chief Rudolph a very happy retirement.

The power plant renovation is moving along nicely. You have probably noticed the two new, shorter stacks that have gone up in recent weeks. The city is already starting to see increasing revenue from the presence of the plant due to its increasing valuation. This additional income, along with the larger payments we will receive when the plant is fully on-line, will help insulate Port Washington from possible cuts in the state's shared revenue program. An additional benefit from the plant's conversion from coal is the cleaner air we will breathe.

If you haven't done so already, please consider making a donation to the Ozaukee Interurban Trail. This hiking/biking trail is a huge success story for the city, because it's bringing in thousands of new tourists every year. The improvements planned for the trail, including a bridge over I-43, will make it safer and more convenient for people to use. And the more people who visit our city and visit our shops and restaurants, the better off we all are. Follow the link above or on my Links page and make a pledge to help the trail and Port Washington!

Finally, my wife and I would like to wish you a safe and happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year!

If you have any questions, please call me at 284-1948 or me. I'll be more than happy to discuss any issue with you.

It's budget time in Port Washington, and as the finance committee chairman, I thought I'd give you a little update on how it's all going.

Our City Administrator, Mark Grams, has been very good at reining in costs and keeping our budget in line. This year, he directed all departments to keep their budget increases to 3.5% or less. This is a number that, when you consider the growth of our city's tax base, will allow us to keep taxes in line. This was not an easy task, and several departments had to trim some items to keep to the guidelines. Many people are concerned that the recent city-wide revaluation on property assessed values will cause their taxes to jump. This is not going to be the case for most property owners because of the city's careful budgeting. There's been a lot of talk about TABOR, the Taxpayers' Bill Of Rights, but you need to know that without TABOR, the City of Port Washington has kept expenditures BELOW what TABOR would allow if it were in force!

One of the toughest things for any municipality to accomplish is what is known as a "levy freeze" -- Keeping the amount of the budget placed on the tax levy at the same level as the previous year. It's usually next to impossible because of things like rising health care costs for city employees. We are hoping that Port Washington will be able to do just that this year, by using some of our funds that we have set in reserve. Mayor Gottlieb was able to grow this fund in the years he was mayor, and now we can apply some of it to offset the taxes you pay. The final numbers aren't in yet but it's looking good to be able to do this for our residents. When the final budget numbers are in I'll post a note here and let you know how it worked out.

It's also election time, and perhaps you've noticed that I'm endorsing a particular candidate for President. Unfortunately, today I received my first phone call from a constituent (at least she claimed to be; she didn't leave her name) who was angry at me for my stated position. She went so far as to accuse me of being "corrupt" for my position, with no real explanation, and then told me she wouldn't be voting for me the next time. It's kind of sad in my opinion -- I feel I've done a pretty good job here in the last 3+ years. My platform when I first ran for office was simple: I felt that we needed a person who would be more responsive to citizen complaints, so I set up a website and email for people to contact me, and I make sure to return all phone calls promptly. I felt that the library was getting short-changed by the city and that this needed to be corrected -- In the 2002 budget process we found creative ways to avoid some expenditures and returned the library to an equal footing with other departments. I said I'd be active in our city government; I asked to be placed on the finance committee so that I could fully understand how the city makes its financial decisions, and I am the city's representative for the Mid-Moraine Municipal Association, a group which works to help municipalities join together for their mutual benefit.

For this woman to call me "corrupt" for my position in a national election was simply incorrect, and to apply my support in a national election to my suitability for my non-partisan office was off-target. I will do my best for our city regardless of who I support for president -- I will always work to maximize your tax dollar and minimize waste.

Highway 33 Project -- As you may know, the state DOT will be rebuilding highway 33 between Port Washington and Saukville. This will result in a four-lane road between our communities, something which could have a big impact on the western side of town. The work will not actually happen until April of 2009, which is quite a way off, but planning for the work is under way now. Two public information meetings have already been held, and the next one is scheduled for October 2004. If you have concerns about this project, NOW is the time to get involved! I have been to both previous meetings and have made suggestions about the work, most notably that the residents who have contacted me about the work have asked that the four-lane road end at the intersection with County Trunk LL. The actual plan calls for the four-lane road to begin tapering off at that point, ending around Culver's restaurant. So far, the design looks reasonable. If you have questions or comments, please let me know and I can direct you to the DOT and engineering contractors working on the project.

Tall Buildings Downtown -- Once again, we're dealing with the possibility of a tall building downtown. This is just in the very early planning stages now, and nothing is set in concrete (literally or figuratively) yet. One idea calls for the city to sell "air rights" to one of its parcels. Generally speaking, I do not believe this is in the best interest of the city. Still, the plans are very preliminary and nothing has been brought to the Council to look at, so for now I'm sitting tight to see what the developers come up with.

Concrete Streets -- Recently, the Council discussed the idea of requiring concrete streets in new subdivisions. There was a fair amount of lobbying by both the concrete and asphalt paving industries, each claiming various benefits. To me, the big issue is the cost to existing residents for maintenance of new streets, admittedly quite a few years down the road. The City Engineer recommended requiring concrete, stating a number in the millions of dollars for reworking asphalt streets. His number was in present dollars, not accounting for inflation. My simple inflation calculation elevates his number to over $9 million, assuming the same inflation rate that we've seen over the past 30 years. If we go with concrete streets, we would have streets that last much longer and don't require that kind of maintenance investment. This means less cost to the city, and lower taxes. The cost to new residents would be relatively low, especially in the kind of high-end developments planned by some developers. When you look at the condition of our existing asphalt streets, and realize that we find ourselves fighting to find funds to keep them patched, I think you'll agree that a longer-lasting pavement in our new subdivisions makes sense. Update 6/17/04: The city engineer has revisited his calculations on the various pavement options, and is recommending either concrete or an improved asphalt standard for residential streets. Up until now, our standard for asphalt streets has been very poor, resulting in streets that simply don't last. When all future maintenance and other costs are figured into the calculation, he feels that the improved asphalt standard will get what we're looking for: longer-lasting streets that cost less to maintain. For this reason, I decided to support giving developers the option of using concrete or the higher standard for asphalt. We'll decide on this new standard at the next Council meeting.

Lately, there have been a number of articles about the proposed renovation of the Port Hotel's upper two floors into a 10-room bed-and-breakfast operation. I think the owners have a great idea, and I'd like to see them succeed in performing the conversion. Such a development would bring more visitors to our city, and with them more business to our beautiful downtown. It would also improve the Port Hotel building, which is a real treasure.

The only snag in the process is that Port Washington requires the installation of a fire-suppression sprinkler system in this building. This is an expensive item and the owners may have to cancel the project due to this additional cost.

It would be a shame to see this project fail because of the need for sprinklers, but because the building houses a restaurant on the ground floor, I feel that the risk of fire to anyone sleeping on the top two floors is a serious one. We need to be sure that anyone staying in the building is as safe as possible, and a sprinkler system is a good way to do this.

There may be ways to help make this project happen. One way is to help find low-cost financing for the necessary work, and our Planning and Development director is working on this. There may be other ways in which the City can help out. I want to be sure that all avenues are explored.

The Finance Committee has completed its review of the 2004 city budget. As it stands now, the 2004 budget is set to run the city with no increase in tax rates from 2003 levels. City staff did a great job of controlling costs and turned in budgets that stayed within the guidelines set by our city administrator, Mark Grams. This was no small task, considering that the state has cut our shared revenue payment by almost $200,000 and health insurance costs continue to rise.

The 2004 budget contains continued support for the local shared-ride taxi service, which is obviously important to many Port citizens. Just about every time I drive up to the Sentry supermarket, I see one of the taxis parked out front, dropping off or picking up a resident doing shopping. I see them downtown and in many neighborhoods. It's a program that is very heavily used and worth funding.

Another feature of the 2004 budget is funding for a full-time fire chief. While some aldermen feel this is unnecessary, I tend to agree with the Police & Fire Commission, which decided to make the move to a full-time fire chief. Port is big enough that it should have a full-time chief. In addition, the new chief will handle ambulance services and fire inspections. Our current fire chief is ready to retire, and we currently have a temporary ambulance service director, who doesn't want to have the job past the first quarter of 2004. We must have someone to do fire inspections, as well. This means that we have three part-time positions that need to be filled. We can have fire inspection services handled by an outside contractor, but we need to have the fire chief and ambulance director positions filled. The Police and Fire Commission feels that all three positions can be handled by one person.

Why not have a part-time fire chief? Well, to be honest, it's worked so far -- Why change it? I spoke at length to Chief Eernisse about this. Like me, Chief Eernisse is self-employed. Because he works for himself, he has the ability to set his own working hours and adjust his schedule to suit the needs of the city position. According to the Chief, this has been the key to his ability to serve the city as a part-time officer, because some weeks he spends upwards of 40 hours handling jobs related to the position. Could someone else do this? In my opinion, not if they have another part- or full-time job. Maybe if they were retired, but in that case would they be able to handle both the fire chief and ambulance director positions?

It all comes down to a question of public safety. Are we better off as a city cutting corners on critical services like fire protection and ambulance? I don't think so. From a money standpoint, yes, we'll see a bump in the budget for 2005 with a full-time chief, but the 2004 fire department budget is actually lower than the 2003 budget and I'm not sure how you account for improved public safety versus a couple of extra dollars in your pocket.

Last Tuesday night, June 17, the Common Council passed a resolution authorizing future borrowing totaling $4.5 million. This doesn't mean we're running right out to borrow that money and make residents pay for it -- It simply sets the stage for the borrowing we expect to be necessary over the next several years.

As you're probably aware, the state of Wisconsin is in a serious situation with the budget for the next two years. A number of approaches have been taken to deal with this, and the most recent, developed by the Joint Finance Committee, aims to enact a tax levy freeze that will prevent local officials from increasing the tax levy. While this sounds good (nobody likes paying taxes) and makes some of our state-level elected officials look like heroes (they get to keep their "no tax increase" pledge), it has serious ramifications for us here in Port Washington.

By the rules proposed by Joint Finance, we won't be able to borrow money for important projects for the next three years without holding a special referendum. This includes money that we already plan to borrow for projects we know will be coming up -- Things like the reconstruction of Webster Street, the sidewalk repair program and the purchase of a new ambulance. The Webster Street and 2003 sidewalk projects have already been awarded to contractors! How will we pay for them if the borrowing we had planned becomes illegal? We passed the resolution last Tuesday because the state's current plan allows levy increases due to borrowing authorized before the passage of the budget bill.

There are other projects in coming years that we'll need to borrow for. If we put them off because of this restriction coming from the state legislators, our city will start to degrade. I often hear complaints about the condition of the streets in town, and we have been taking steps to make improvements as the budget allows. Public safety will be compromised: The new ambulance is replacing one that in terms of this kind of vehicle, is ancient and insufficient. If sidewalks go unrepaired, we open up the city's liability to personal injury lawsuits. If this goes on for the three years that the state is planning to mandate for a levy freeze, you're looking at a serious problem: Many more streets and sidewalks in terrible shape, a much bigger bill to fix them, and a potential massive increase in taxes to pay for all the repairs.

In my opinion, the problem is that the state legislators aren't really committed to fixing the budget. Last time, they used the tobacco industry settlement money to "fix" the budget, but in reality they didn't fix anything. They're using another band-aid fix, just like the last "repair" they made, and it's going to work about as well. This time, they're giving in to the big lobbyists, such as road builders and other powerful unions, instead of cutting spending. From what I'm hearing, legislators expect to be in session early this fall because the numbers they used to plan for the budget's income side are expected to be way off. They'll have to patch up the "fixed" budget again!

And to cover their behinds, legislators have come up with the tax levy freeze idea. This way, nobody will be able to point to them and say, "He didn't really fix the budget -- He passed on costs to local communities and they raised my taxes". Well, you know what? I think that local officials are more responsible than the legislators think. We know what our communities need. We hear from residents all the time about what their concerns are, and we know how to make a budget work, without a lot of games, accounting tricks, or buck-passing.

If the local officials raise taxes unnecessarily, they're the ones who will be responsible. Speaking for myself, I'm confident that I can look at our city budget and make cuts where necessary. I can also justify any increases that might be needed. And if residents don't agree with what I've done, they can use their vote to replace me. I don't have a problem with that. All I want is the ability to do what people elected me to do -- Help make the decisions that keep our great city running. We don't need a state-imposed levy freeze. Tell your legislators (Mark Gottlieb and Mary Panzer) to keep the state's hands off our local control.

First, thanks to all the voters who got out and exercised your right to vote on April 1. I'm looking forward to working with our other aldermen on the common council and mayor-elect Scott Huebner over the next two years. There's a lot going on in Port Washington and I'm looking forward to the challenges. It isn't always fun, but it is rewarding to see how our work serves to improve the quality of life in our city.

Car Wash: On Tuesday, April 15, the Council will be considering a car wash that will be located on West Grand Avenue, next to Culver's. It is before the Council because a car wash isn't allowed in that zoning district without special approval (a conditional use grant). I'm concerned about development out on this stretch of the street because there are no sidewalks on the South side. Many children cross the street there to reach the Culver's restaurant on the South side and the convenience store and video rental business on the North. Adding traffic to this area may make the problem worse and result in someone getting hurt.

Installation of sidewalks in this area has been postponed until the state does work that will result in the reconstruction of the Highway 33/LL intersection, currently slated for 2008. Installing sidewalks now would be expensive and they would be torn up when the road is rebuilt, and the city would like to avoid this double cost.

The thing that makes this decision especially difficult is that someone could put another restaurant (say, a McDonald's) on this same parcel with no special Council action -- It's allowed in the zoning. With that kind of use on the property, the traffic would be far worse than with a car wash.

My inclination at this point is to give a go-ahead to the car wash but to push for two things:

1. Temporary sidewalks on the south side of the street, made of asphalt. This will give people a proper place to walk and should be relatively inexpensive. I've spoken to the police chief about this and he agrees it would be a good thing from a safety standpoint.

2. Reduction in the speed limit coming into town from the West, so that it drops to 35 at the city limits and to 25 at LL. This should get eastbound vehicles going slowly enough by the time they reach the area that they can stop for people crossing the street. It will also eliminate the problem of westbound traffic accelerating in this area as they go from 25 to 35 MPH zones.

Do you have thoughts on this issue? Please let me know. Your input at the "Public Comments and Appearances" section of the Common Council meeting on April 15 would be more than welcome.

Power Plant Opportunities: On Wednesday, April 2, I attended a Chamber of Commerce breakfast meeting where We Energies and their main power plant construction contractors gave a presentation on how local businesses will be able to participate and profit from the power plant conversion from coal to gas fuel. There are all sorts of possible benefits, and one of the main ones I saw is the chance for our local hotels and restaurants to make up for the drop in tourist revenue when the workforce for the power plant begins to increase. The economic slowdown has hit the hospitality and related industries hard, and the plant construction workforce will need temporary housing over the next five years.

Other businesses can also benefit from the construction work. We Energies has a website set up for the Power the Future project (http://www.wepowerthefuture.com) -- This site will have available job postings, information on how local companies can apply to be a supplier or contractor on the job, webcams for the project, and more.

Billboards: At the April 2 common council meeting, we were asked whether we wanted to look into purchasing the piece of land on Spring Street where several billboards are located. This has been recommended by the Community Development Authority, and will likely involve condemnation proceedings, but given the amount of feedback I've received on the unattractive nature of these outdoor signs, I'm inclined to investigate further. It's possible that we could receive a grant to fund up to 80% of the cost of acquiring this property; the Council decided to continue investigating the matter with the ultimate goal of cleaning up the blighted property and improving the appearance of this entrance to the city.

City Foundation: At the April 2 meeting, we approved an agreement with the Greater Milwaukee Foundation that will establish a community foundation for the city of Port Washington. This will be a great resource for the city, providing additional funding for any number of non-profit organizations. The city needs to establish an advisory board for this foundation with from 9 to 15 members; if you know of someone who might want to participate in this important effort, please let me know!

Schanen Farm Development: The plans for the development of the north side of the former Schanen farm (north of Highway 33) are underway. The Council had a presentation on April 2 from the developers, and I was very impressed. My main concern for development on the West side of town is that it be carefully designed so that it doesn't adversely affect existing residents by creating additional stormwater runoff issues. This development seems to have this well in hand, but I'll be doing my best to keep on top of the situation and make sure everything is done to prevent magnification of the stormwater runoff issues present on our side of town (primarily those in the Larabee/Crocker/Garfield area).

If you have any questions, please call me at 284-1948 or me. I'll be more than happy to discuss any issue with you.

In April 2003, my term will be expiring. I would like to continue my service to our city and my district, so I'm going to be running for re-election in the April 1 general election. I'd like to hear your opinions about our city, and what you feel are important issues facing us. You can call me on the phone at 284-1948 pretty much any time during the day or evening -- This is my home and office phone, and if I don't answer, please leave a message and I will return your call at the earliest opportunity. Please note: If you have Caller ID blocking, causing "Unknown Caller" to appear on my Caller ID unit, I do not answer these calls but wait for someone to start leaving a message. If it's a "real" phone call, I'll grab it. Despite the new statewide "no-call" list, I still get a lot of nuisance calls from tele-marketers, making this kind of screening necessary. You can also reach me via , if you like. Please let me hear what's on your mind!

Please get out and vote on April 1 -- I'm running unopposed, but getting your vote means a lot to me.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all my constituents for allowing me to serve you.

I thought I'd take a few minutes and write up some quick notes on things that have been going on in the city...

First, after recent events in neighboring Grafton, the Common Council thought it would be a good idea to review City ordinances on various adult-oriented businesses. We wanted to be sure that we were properly protected against the undesirable effects of "strip clubs" and the like, while not opening ourselves up to possible legal action by someone wanting to set up such an establishment, who might feel that their constitutional rights were being stepped on. Our city attorney reviewed the matter and came up with a comprehensive ordinance regulating these kinds of adult businesses, with a second ordinance that prohibits alcohol from being sold or used at such establishments. Basically, the first ordinance restricts the locations of the businesses so that they must remain a certain distance from homes, schools, bars, churches, liquor stores and other adult-oriented businesses, and the second ordinance keeps liquor out of the picture. I think most people would agree with me that these kinds of businesses are extremely undesirable. We're a city that has worked hard to improve our homes and business district and these kinds of businesses only detract from the positive, family-friendly atmosphere and property values that we have built.

Second, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I thought I'd let you know how the city's finances are shaping up. We're always looking at ways to keep taxes down and services up, and one of the ways we can do this is to take advantage of low interest rates to refinance some of our long-term debt. Paying for this debt is a sizeable portion of our yearly budget, and if it's in the budget, it's in the taxes you pay. We're starting the process of refinancing one of the last remaining pieces of debt that hadn't been fully planned -- About $4 million that was used for various purposes, including the city hall renovation, the Schanen farm purchase and other items back in 2000. The refinancing drops the rate to approximately 4.07% over 18 years, rather than the 4.1% over 5 years, which had a very high payment. Once we refinance this debt, the refinancing is structured so that it evens out our debt service payments without a big "bump" in payments or taxes. This refinancing should be finished up by early July.

Finally, the mayoral race has been tarnished by an illegal "push poll". This kind of thing is incredibly disappointing. There's no place for it in any election, but to see it happen in our city's mayoral race -- For a part-time office, for heaven's sake -- is really sad. It shows how far politics has fallen, and only serves to disillusion the public from voting or running for public office. I fervently hope the person or persons responsible for this illegal poll are caught and exposed to the public.

Speaking of the mayoral race, if you've driven by my house, you've probably noticed that I have a sign out for Alderman Burt Babcock, one of the two candidates. I'm supporting Burt because he is a good, honest man with a level-headed outlook on City matters who thoroughly thinks things over and looks at all points of view before making a decision. Burt has five years' worth of experience working on the Common Council. He's a member of the Plan Commission, and has shown that he's no "yes man" when it comes to development pitches. Most importantly, he listens to residents and acts on their behalf. The best example of this was before I joined the Common Council, when Burt stood with the residents of Spring Street to fight the widening that the DOT wanted. Burt attended neighborhood meetings and worked with the residents to help their cause. He impressed me then because he cared. As mayor, I'm sure Burt's experience and good working relationship with the rest of the Council will help him do a great job. Please consider Burt when you vote Tuesday, April 1.

One of the mayoral candidates wants to make the WE Energies power plant an issue for his run for the office. There was an appearance tonight at the Common Council meeting by a number of people, all of whom appeared to ask the Council to stop the work on the plant. I appreciate their taking the time to do this, but the proper time for this kind of activism was during the public hearing process (see my earlier note on this here). Where were all of these people when we were asking for input?

In May 2002, I wrote a letter to the Ozaukee Press detailing my concerns about the plant upgrade to gas from coal. In that letter, I asked for residents to contact me with their concerns. There were NO responses to this appeal by any of my constituents except for a couple of close neighbors and friends. I did receive a letter from a city resident suggesting contractual arrangements with WE Energies, and a letter from a Town of Grafton resident suggesting the installation of wind generators. When asked by an Ozaukee Press reporter how I felt about this lack of response, I said that I hoped that it was an indication that people trusted us to do the right thing for the city.

Speaking of the Ozaukee Press, so far there has been a definite bias against our efforts to get the best deal for the city (financially, environmentally and aesthetically). After they printed the gas plant's maximum licensed pollution levels as spelled out in our appeal without mentioning the massive reductions in other areas (by over an order of magnitude), I pointed out to the reporter that she could obtain actual emissions data for our current plant from the DNR and EPA, and she shrugged it off. I also pointed out that those licensed levels for the gas plant were absolute maximums, assuming operation 24-7, 365 days a year, something that won't happen with a plant burning natural gas (the paper didn't print this). Apparently, balanced reporting doesn't really matter.

Incidentally, if you do an apples-to-apples comparison using the coal plant running 24-7/365, as well, you get (in tons unless noted):

Emission	Coal Plant 24-7 (From 2001 data)	Gas plant 24-7	Change
Carbon Monoxide	342.9	937	+594.1
Mercury	102 pounds	0	-102 pounds
Particulates	947.7	884	-63
VOC	48	90.5	+42.5
Nitrous Oxide	6,107	446.7	-5660.3
Sulfur Dioxide	36,112	20.3	-36091.7
Hydrochloric Acid	1,660	33.3	-1626.7
Sulfuric Acid	110.7	0	-110.7
Hydrogen Fluoride	118.8	0	-118.8

Look at the sulfur dioxide number, that's 36 THOUSAND tons! Compare that to the adjusted, apples-to-apples carbon monoxide increase (594 tons) -- That's only 1.6% of what we would have with the coal plant on the same basis. This is a net reduction, in properly adjusted numbers, of 43,034.7 TONS per year! Now can you see why I'm upset about the Ozaukee Press's reporting on this issue?

These are the worst-case numbers. Power plants are licensed for the maximum emissions levels that they could produce if they ran constantly. In reality, our coal plant doesn't generate the levels shown in the above table, because it only operates 37% of the time (2001 number). The gas plant is only expected to operate about 30-35% of the time, so its numbers will be factored down as well.

I'm an environmentally aware person. I drive two pure-electric vehicles, one of which is powered by solar panels. Our primary gas car is an Insight hybrid, getting 60-70MPG and polluting far less than most other vehicles. I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to these kinds of principles. Getting rid of the coal plant was backed by some of the most powerful environmental groups around, who testified before the PSC in the Power the Future case, and after seeing how the Public Service Commission (PSC) has steamrolled people who don't want gas lines or high-voltage transmission lines (or power plants) in the past, I believe we made the right decision to negotiate for a cleaner plant.

If we had fought the gas plant and won, we would be saddled with the coal plant for years to come. WE Energies has said all along that they would continue to operate the coal plant as long as possible if the gas conversion were denied. It would have continued to spew out tens of thousands of tons of pollutants, year in and year out, for many years into the future. In my opinion, changing this was important, for the health of our residents if for nothing else.

If we had fought the gas plant, it would have cost us an estimated $600,000 (out of your taxes) to do so. Money, I believe, that would have been utterly wasted. And we would not have WE Energies' agreement to work within our conditional use grant process, an important tool for keeping some control over the plant's construction and operation.

Given the chance to do this all again, looking back at the process, I would do exactly the same thing. To me, this says a lot.

One other thing. If there was a "deal with the devil" made concerning the power plant, it was made in the the 1930's. We're just trying to make the best of it now.

If you have any questions, please call me at 284-1948 or me. I'll be more than happy to discuss this or any other issue with you.

As you probably know, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) denied a request for mitigation payments from WE Energies (Wisconsin Electric) that would help offset impacts on the City by its power plant. The entire Common Council is outraged by this ruling, and we plan to fight to get the payment. A verbal opinion by two of the three PSC members killed the proposed payments, and reading the transcript of the discussion leads us to believe there are grounds for an appeal.

Some people would like to see the power plant leave its lakeside location, opening the door for a better use of the land. I completely agree that the power plant is NOT the best use for that land. However, making it go away is not as simple as asking WE Energies to take it elsewhere, or telling the PSC that we don't want it anymore. Believe me, if the Council thought it was realistic, we would have been lobbying to rid the downtown of the plant. However, you need to remember some important facts:

1) The land the plant sits on is NOT owned by the City. It is private property, owned by WE Energies. As such, we have no say in what is done with it.

2) Removing the plant would be terribly expensive. WE Energies is in the business of generating electricity for a profit. Shutting down that plant, demolishing it and cleaning up the site and coal pile land would cost untold millions of dollars, all of which would be charged to the company and ultimately would be paid for by either ratepayers or stockholders. Do you think WE Energies would want to take this kind of financial hit? I don't.

3) Building a new plant of comparable capacity elsewhere would cost HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, a cost that would once again be paid for by ratepayers and/or stockholders. A new plant located inland would require cooling towers to replace the cooling lake water, making the plant more expensive and less efficient, in turn making the electricity it generates more expensive.

4) Relocating the plant would also require reconfiguring the electrical transmission line routes, something that is never easy or cheap. Say hello to more costs.

The PSC exists to regulate all sorts of public utilities, in order to protect ratepayers and make sure they aren't paying too much for their services. They would make the ultimate decision on what to do with the Port Washington generating plant, and I'll guarantee you this -- Tearing down the existing plant and building another one elsewhere would NOT be an option they would consider. We may not like to hear this, but the PSC doesn't give a hoot about the desires of 10,000 people in Port Washington, compared to the millions of people in the state who want electricity when they flip a switch. And they want this electricity to be as cheap as possible, incidentally. The plant's been there for almost 70 years and has proven to be one of the most efficient generating facilities in history. As far as they're concerned, it needs to stay here.

And another point: Assuming we argued against upgrading the plant, and the PSC decided to rule in Port's favor and deny the upgrade, there's no guarantee that WE Energies would tear down the plant and open that land up for other uses. Demolishing the plant and cleaning up the site would be far more expensive than the land is worth, and would be a losing proposition for WE Energies. I have no doubt whatsoever that in the event they were denied the upgrade, the next thing they would do is argue to continue operating the plant as a coal facility as long as possible, then they would mothball it with the logic that the site could be needed in the future for electric generation. It's happened before in other cities. And when a plant like that is mothballed, the host city receives NOTHING while it sits idle.

Your Common Council will continue fighting to receive a fair compensation for hosting the power plant. The electricity users in this state need to realize that the power they want to run all their electric appliances has to come from somewhere, and part of that power comes from a place called Port Washington. Like gasoline taxes that help pay for road and bridge upkeep, a surcharge on electricity to compensate host communities is a fair mechanism. Only those who use the commodity pay for it, and the cost involved is truly minimal. I have asked WE Energies for an estimated yearly output of the upgraded power plant, but have not yet received a reply. A quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the plant has a capacity of generating 4.38 BILLION kilowatt-hours per year, and assuming it only generates half of that (2.19 billion kWh), the $500,000 compensation proposed for Port Washington would amount to $.00023 per kilowatt-hour -- Less than three HUNDREDTHS of a cent!

I don't know about you, but I think most people in the state wouldn't mind this kind of impact if it means that they'll have enough electricity to turn on the TV each weekend and watch the Packers.

This week, I wrote a letter to the Ozaukee Press. I don't know if they plan to run it, but here it is in case they don't, or you happen to miss it:

I've written to all three of the officials mentioned in the email. Please do the same. They need to know that there are concerned citizens for whom this is an important issue.

As always, I'd like to hear your opinions or suggestions on this issue. Please or call me at 284-1948.

Finally, I'd like to wish you and your family a safe and happy holiday season, and a prosperous 2003.

At the September 17 Common Council meeting, the subject of requiring safety helmets to be worn by bicyclists at the skateboard park was examined, and voted down. As you may know, children under the age of 16 are required to wear safety helmets while riding bicycles on any city right-of-way. This does not apply when they are in the skateboard park.

Because I felt it was inconsistent to require helmets when riding to the park and not require their use in the park, I voted to expand the helmet requirement to apply while in the park. The vote was a 3-3 tie and the mayor broke the tie by voting against the change. There had been some discussion about whether helmets should be required my all users of the park, whether using bicycles, skateboards, skates or any other "play vehicle". With no input from my constituents to go by, I made a motion to have the City Attorney draw up a draft ordinance that would require helmet use by all users. I feel that the danger of head injury in the park is a real one, given the nature of the activities there and the equipment (metal ramps, etc.) that is used. I feel that the draft ordinance is an important way to get the subject out in the open and to invite public commentary on whether such a law is necessary.

When in doubt, I tend to play things conservatively and this is no exception. Safety of our children is extremely important to me, and childhood head trauma is responsible for an estimated $7.5 billion in health care costs in the USA each year. Monetary costs are insignificant, though, compared to the suffering and other problems caused by these injuries.

I'd like to get the input of my constituents on this issue. I'll tell you now, I'm leaning toward requiring helmet use in the skate park. It would be great to see the group that got the park started set up their own program to encourage helmet use, because peer support (and sometimes peer pressure) can be a better mechanism than a city ordinance in these cases.

The Council meeting of August 20 had an item on the agenda, to approve the conditional use grant for a Shell gas station on Seven Hills Road. This was obviously a major concern to neighbors in the area -- I received a four-page petition from these residents listing concerns about hours of operation and details of the fence that is to be erected around the site. I also received a phone call from one of the members of the Plan Commission, who was unable to attend the meeting where the project was approved and wanted to express some concerns he had for the project.

First, let me explain that the fast food restaurant (a Taco Bell) is allowed without any kind of conditional use grant -- The zoning for the commercial lot involved allows it. The gas station/convenience store is another story -- It needed to have a conditional use grant to set parameters for the developers to use the property for that purpose. The conditional use grant sets restrictions on various operations, such as hours of operation (both for the restaurant and the gas station/convenience store), when trash can be picked up, and also spells out special demands that the developer must satisfy, such as putting up the privacy fence.

The fence issue seemed to be well in hand -- As the agenda item was explained to the aldermen, we found out that the developer was willing to modify the plans for grading the property and placing the fence, so that the residents' concerns would be addressed. The hours of operation were another story. While the hours of operation set in the grant application for the restaurant and gas station/convenience store were already a compromise between what the residents wanted and what the developers wanted, there was still one item on the grant that bothered me -- The gas pumps were going to be on 24 hours, allowing people to pump gas anytime by using a credit card, even when the buildings in the project were closed.

The idea of people having access to gasoline pumps when the gas station is unmanned has always bothered me. I know, the Amoco station in Port has its pumps active 24 hours, but that still is an issue to me. For this property on Seven Hills road, where it needs a conditional use grant, I felt that this kind of activity would be a disruption to the neighborhood.

People living next to commercial property need to have some expectation that, eventually, a commercial operation will move in and set up shop. To think otherwise is to live in denial. That said, I think people living next to these vacant properties should have an expectation that the commercial use will set reasonable hours of operation. To me, in this case, the reasonable hours of operation are those commonly applied to the restaurant, which is allowed by the zoning. Setting a cutoff at 11PM most nights and midnight on Friday and Saturday seems reasonable to me.

For this reason, I voted against the original conditional use grant, and when it failed, I proposed a modified grant with the 24-hour gas pump operation removed. This passed unanimously. If there are additional issues that come to light on this project's hours of operation, they can be addressed in one year, when the conditional use grant is subject to review.

I've gotten some calls recently from confused citizens regarding the new aldermanic districts. The 2000 census and realignment of the Ozaukee County supervisor districts has forced the City to redraw its aldermanic districts. It's kind of complicated, but basically the districts had to be re-drawn so that they lined up with the county supervisor districts, while balancing the number of citizens represented by each alderman. As it turned out, my district had quite a bit of growth relative to the other districts in the city between 1990 and 2000, so it was made smaller to bring the number of citizens in line with those in the other districts. As a result, district 5 now stops at Spring Street on the East side, with residents North of Grand going to Alderman Matthews (District 2) and those South of Grand going to Alderman Babcock (District 4). On the South side of the district, a number of residents Southwest of Lincoln and Summit were relocated into Alderman Jushka's district (6).

In case you missed the map printed in the city's Winter newsletter, here it is (click on the map for a larger view).

To those residents I'm "losing" to other districts, it's been an honor serving you and I thank you for your support. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call me or drop me an email. I may not be your alderman anymore, but I am always willing to help any citizen. If you're a person who I've helped with a problem in the past, and you need to follow up on the issue with your new alderman, I'll be more than happy to bring them up to speed.

If you've been keeping up with the Wisconsin news lately, you're probably aware of the Governor's plan to eliminate the state's shared revenue system in the next few years. As a member of the city's Finance Committee, which is responsible for setting our budget, I can tell you that this plan, if enacted, would be terrible for our city.

I haven't said anything about this in public until now, mostly because I've been waiting to see how the State Assembly and Senate would respond to the plan. So far, only the Assembly and Joint Finance Committee have made alternative suggestions, but they are only marginally better than the Governor's plan, which would take away over $1 million (around 16% of our budget).

Let's get one thing straight about this -- The money the Governor is taking away is your money. You pay most of it in taxes. Part of the money comes from the power plant, which we all put up with -- ash trucks, coal dust, and all. It pays no property tax to the City, being exempt, so (until now) the State gave us payments that made up for this.

Many of the services you receive are paid for with the funds the City receives from the shared revenue program -- Garbage collection, recycling, street repair, library operations, police and fire protection, park services and more all are paid for in part with these funds. If the State takes away the shared revenue, we'll be scrambling to either find ways to pay for these services or decide which will be cut. And remember, you'll still be paying for the services we cut, because the State will still be collecting the taxes!

Some vital services, like garbage collection, will probably switch from being paid for out of tax money to being paid by new fees. Think about it: You'll still be paying the taxes that used to pay for garbage collection, plus you'll be paying a fee for the same service. The Governor claims that his plan won't increase taxes, but this shows that there will be a de facto tax increase -- It will just show up as new fees.

If you don't like the sound of this, please let your voice be heard. Write to the Governor's Office, your Assembly representative (Tim Hoven) or Senator Mary Panzer. I have listed their contact information below. I'll be happy to discuss it with you, as well.

The Governor is trying to fix his budget by making it look like the various municipalities in the state are "big spenders". The state budget has a number of big-ticket expenditures that aren't being touched. Other state budget areas are having token amounts shaved from them. And the shared revenue program is being eliminated completely. Local governments are willing to take their share of cuts to make the state budget work, but we aren't willing to be the scapegoat for rampant spending by Madison.

When I ran for the office of Alderman, I said 'Government isn't "them", it's "us"' Now is the time to let your elected officials know how you feel about this issue. Please take a few minutes and write, it will make a difference.

Governor Scott McCallum
Office of the Governor
115 East State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702
(608) 266-1212
wisgov@gov.state.wi.us

Senator Mary Panzer
Room 202 South
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison 53707-7882
(608) 266-7513
Sen.Panzer@legis.state.wi.us

Rep. Timothy Hoven
Room 17 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison 53708-8952
(608) 267-2369
Rep.Hoven@legis.state.wi.us

As a member of the Finance Committee, one of my responsibilities is to go through the various department budgets and recommend a City budget to the Common Council each Autumn. This process was completed recently, after a number of meetings with the department heads. There were some challenges we were able to work around and some that we were not. The result is a budget that increases the tax rate somewhat but accomplishes some important goals. An important thing to remember is that, to a certain extent, the City, just like residents, is powerless to control certain costs that are a part of keeping the City running. We took some serious hits in several areas.

One major hit on the budget this year was escalating costs of health insurance for City employees, which is going up roughly 21% over last year. This was a major increase and there isn't a lot we can do about it.

Another hit, though a questionable one, is the cost of electric and natural gas service to various City operations. As you know, 2001 saw skyrocketing costs in these services, and City department heads made appropriate adjustments to their budget requests after getting hammered during 2001. Recent reports show that natural gas costs are anticipated to drop somewhat, so the Finance Committee made slight adjustments to these numbers. Hopefully, the costs will drop as anticipated and we'll see some savings. Even if they don't drop as much as projected, the budget allows for a reasonable increase.

We want to keep our streets safe and in decent condition. The Finance Committee added $20,000 to the Mayor's recommendation for street maintenance based on cost projections by the City Engineer so that there would be sufficient funds set aside to rework several city streets in serious need of repair.

Perhaps the biggest single item affecting this year's budget was an increase of around $200,000 in the debt service payments the city makes (payment of long-term borrowing). This is a one-time bump in the debt service, but it's the kind of thing that really affects the bottom line. It hammers home the importance of limiting borrowing to essential items only.

We were able to cut some costs, including being a bit more creative with the purchase of a new dump truck so that it could be purchased for 2002 while saving money. It will replace a very old model that is starting to bring additional maintenance costs.

As a result of some of the cost cuts we made, the Finance Committee decided to recommend that the library budget be increased so that it meets minimum state recommended levels for materials, staff and operating hours. Up until now, the library has failed on all three of these standards, falling near the bottom of the heap for cities of comparable size. This is an unacceptable situation, showing how the library has been short-changed for years.

The 2001 budget report mentions this fact and indicates that it would take several years of above-average increases for the library to catch up to where it should be funded. Given the fact that we recently expanded the library building, the Committee felt that it was time to bring the library up to its proper funding level. This will allow the library to be open on Friday, something that hasn't happened for years. And with this funding in place, the library can face future years with normal increases in their budget.

There will be a public hearing on the 2002 budget at 7PM on Wednesday, November 14 at City Hall. The Common Council will formally approve the budget at its November 20th meeting.

If you have any comments or questions about the budget, please attend the public hearing or contact me. I'll be happy to answer your questions.

For quite some time now, Mayor Gottlieb has been negotiating with the Town of Port Washington to come to an agreement on how the City and Town can co-exist. The Town is worried about losing tax-paying properties through annexation to the City, and the City would like to avoid having to deal with almost constant legal action. Recently, the City received a proposed agreement from the Town and the aldermen were asked to review it. We did, and to say the least it was a very disappointing document. Instead of a fair, give-and-take approach, the Town asked for quite a few major concessions from the City, giving almost nothing in return.

In addition, within two days of sending the proposed agreement, the Town filed yet another lawsuit against the City.

At the City Council meeting on August 7, the aldermen rejected the agreement and notified the Town that no further negotiations would be forthcoming. In my opinion, the Town is not acting in a manner that indicates that they truly want a fair agreement. Mayor Gottlieb summed up the situation very well in a letter to the aldermen on July 28, which you can read here. Once you read this letter, you'll have a good idea of why the proposed agreement was unacceptable.

When I came on board as an alderman earlier this year, I knew that the Mayor had been negotiating with the Township, spending a great deal of time trying to work out an equitable agreement. I had hoped that something could be worked out, because the almost constant barrage of groundless lawsuits costs everyone in the City money. Fortunately, our City staff is very careful with the annexation process and all have been properly carried out. With the failure of the negotiation process, we need to continue being careful to see that all our annexations follow the proper procedure, because it's likely that future annexations of lands from the Town of Port Washington will be challenged.

A few weeks ago, I was driving north on Franklin Street and noticed a person entering the crosswalk from the west side of the street at the intersection with Main Street. I slowed to a stop to allow the person to cross the street. About the time they got directly in front of me, a car came up from behind me and passed me on the right. The other driver apparently thought I had stopped to turn and didn't use my signal, and didn't take the time to look for the pedestrian in the crosswalk.

This isn't the first time I'd seen this happen. It's happened to me before, and others I've spoken to have had the same experience. What worries me is that if the person crossing the street had been a little farther along, they might have been hit by the car that was passing me.

A couple of years ago on my birthday, I was crossing Franklin Street with six other people in the crosswalk at Main Street and we were almost run down by a car traveling north on Franklin. We were halfway across the street and he barely stopped in time, yelling at us as if we had done something wrong.

As an alderman, I have a number of things show up in my mailbox in City Hall. One of these was the minutes of the Business Improvement District (BID) annual meeting, held on May 16. One item in particular, under "General questions and comments," caught my eye:

I called Merton Lueptow, BID President, and discussed the issue with him. He told how he and two small children were almost run down by a car downtown while in the crosswalk, and agreed that there was a problem. According to Chief of Police Ed Rudolph, this isn't just a Port Washington problem -- it's statewide. Drivers apparently don't realize that people crossing the street in a crosswalk have the right-of-way.

A couple of years ago, the City tried to use signs in the street to alert drivers about pedestrian rights. This program was abandoned after some of the signs were damaged or stolen.

I think this issue is too important to give up on. Our city depends on tourism for income in the summer, and many of these tourists are on foot in our downtown. We're trying to encourage residents to shop downtown. We've got kids downtown visiting the candy shop, Dairy Queen, the bike shop and marina. We need to make it a safe place for everyone. I have some ideas I'm working on that I hope will help the situation. These ideas involve new, theft-resistant signs and stricter laws regarding tampering with them, possible speed limit changes in the downtown area and banners reminding motorists about pedestrian rights.

We need to do something before someone gets hurt or killed on our streets. Do you have any comments or suggestions that might help? and let me know -- I'd like to hear from you.

At tonight's City Council meeting, members of the Port Washington Garden Club appeared to speak out about the poor condition of the gardens at various city properties. A landscape architect I know says that maintaining the appearance of city plantings is one of the hardest things to get a city to do. After working with the city of Port Washington on a number of projects through my association with the Garden Club, I believe her. Let's look at some examples:

What do we do about this situation? The City needs to plan for maintenance of their property when they design the facilities. The architect for the City Hall renovation estimated that the landscaping there would cost approximately $10,000. We need to look at the upkeep costs for any landscaping plan and either budget for it or cut back the plans so that the landscaping can be maintained. At present, one problem is that summer is the time when many personnel take their vacations, leaving the City short-handed to begin with. Temporary workers often don't have enough gardening experience to properly weed or trim perennials.

As you can see, there are a lot of options. We just need to get creative and decide that the appearance of our city is important. Would you like to help? and I'll let you know how you can make a difference.

The most recent controversy in the city has to do with the renovation of the city hall building. I've received two calls about this and have had some face-to-face discussions with constituents and thought I'd cover the subject here.

This building is probably the only city-owned building that hasn't undergone a renovation to bring it up to date with current technology, functionality and access requirements. As a result, last year the city began the process of planning a major renovation of the building, within budget restrictions.

On May 15, a seemingly minor item appeared on the City Council Agenda: "Update On City Hall Renovation Project". As there were no accompanying documents in my information packet for the meeting, I figured it would be a simple matter of looking over the plans to see where we were in terms of the overall schedule. As it turned out, we were expected to make a go/no-go decision on the project plans, which were presented by members of the architectural firm doing the plan, and send them to the Plan Commission for approval. I had spoken to various city hall employees prior to the Council meeting about the need for the renovation, and everyone seemed happy with the interior redesign -- It reworks the existing space, making the most of what we have without the need to expand the building, which would be very expensive.

The city's Design Review Board, responsible for looking over plans of this type, failed to approve the plans due to a split vote -- They didn't like the exterior facade. The architects had presented the plan with the proposed facade design to the City Council late in 2000, and it had been approved. They had never presented, nor were they asked to present, an alternative facade design (the previous Common Council asked them to come up with the "best" concept rather than multiple options, which would have been more expensive). The architects have made all their engineering and cost projections thus far based on this design.

Personally, I don't care for the facade as presented. It looks too modernistic and "tacked-on", reminding me of the "Christmas In Port" roof line. I'm surprised that nobody had ever asked the architects for alternatives prior to our meeting. The only alternative presented at the Council meeting was for a minor alteration to the facade which would include a canopy over the front door, which I feel is important. Given that the plan had been in the works for months, that the interior plan was acceptable to the city hall staff, that modifications to the plan would incur more costs to the city and delay the project, and the previous Council had approved the general plan months earlier, I moved for approval of the plan with the addition of the canopy.

Am I happy about the exterior appearance of the renovated building? Not really. If it were my building and my money, I would have sent them back to the drawing board. Instead of a modernistic glass atrium, I would have asked for an entrance that was appropriate for 1958, the year in which the building was built, and to have it built in matching brick and limestone, if possible. The Niederkorn library is a good example of how an addition can blend with the original -- It uses the same materials and style as the original and makes for an attractive building.

Some people have said that the building should better reflect the character of Port Washington -- Look more like something from a New England fishing village, perhaps. To do that, we'd be spending far more than the projected $1.4 million cost. The existing building is a characterless box with windows. To turn it into something else would be terribly expensive -- Considering that we can't afford to open the library on Fridays, I can't see spending that kind of money on the appearance of a building when what really counts is that the people inside can get their jobs done efficiently.

Based on this experience, I believe we need to take a different approach the next time we remodel one of our public buildings. Rather than let the architect take a free hand in designing a single "best" alternative, we need to take a hands-on approach and ask that the architects come up with at least one concept that is compatible with the existing building style. The architects' proposed designs should be examined by a Civic Buildings Review Board and altered as needed to match the restrictions of time and budget.

I get several calls each week from residents with concerns or other problems. Usually, the problems are of a nature that falls into my area of responsibility, as your first line of contact with city government. Examples of this are when you see a "For Sale" or other sign placed in the grass parkway between the sidewalk and street. The city's building inspector is responsible for notifying the sign's owner, if possible, that signs are not allowed in the parkway. If the owner cannot be found or won't remove it promptly, the inspector will remove it and hold onto it for the owner until they come and pick it up. If you see one of these signs and want it removed, you can either call the building inspector or me; we'll see that it's taken care of.

Sometimes, however, the complaints are in an area that city does not have responsibility for, and there's little I can do about them. For example, I got a call last week complaining about trailers parked in driveways in Spinnaker West. Apparently, this is in violation of a subdivision covenant. It is not, however, against any kind of city ordinance. As a result, this is an issue where I have no authority. I spoke to some city officials about this, and was told that enforcement of subdivision covenants is strictly up to the subdivision's neighborhood association.

Unfortunately, the caller who complained about the trailers refused to leave their name or phone number, so I have no way to inform them about this situation. This is frustrating because I have no way to let them know why the trailers are still there. I can only hope that they call back or visit this website. I can understand wanting to remain anonymous in a situation like this, where you're dealing with problems with neighbors, but if you do, please call me back in a couple of days to follow up so there are no misunderstandings.

Based on this experience, I'd like to ask representatives of the various neighborhood associations in the fifth district (Spinnaker West, Bley Park Estates, Lake Ridge, etc.) to contact me so that we can work together in situations such as these. That way, if I run into a complaint that should be dealt with by a neighborhood association, I can quickly pass it on, work with the neighborhood association, and make sure it gets handled properly.