The hot topic of this committee meeting was a recent Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article accusing the Department of Public Works (”DPW“) of having a racial bias in their handling of pothole filling.  Jeff Mantes and Jeff Polenske laid out DPW’s process in regards to pothole repair.  Explaining that they prioritize arterial roads higher than neighborhood streets because these roads impact more drivers and have greater safety concerns because of higher speeds on these roads.

Alderman Davis and Alderman Hamilton were clearly bothered by this article’s findings and let DPW know it.  Alderman Hamilton stated that “my constituents can pay taxes but can’t get their potholes fixed on time” and further made his discontent clear saying “you have lost the benefit of the doubt”.  Ironically he also pointed out that many of his districts major arterial roads have recently been rebuilt.  This was key because representatives from DPW had explained that their priorities were to repair potholes along major arterial roads first and go into the neighborhood streets later. It was evident that the research for the article didn’t take this into account and as new roads wouldn’t need pothole filling the primarily work in this district revolved around neighborhood streets which DPW had indicated were a lower priority.

The committee as whole appeared to question the report’s validity and the mayor’s staff pointed out a variety of methodology flaws.  These flaws including errors that could over count requests or place requests in the wrong census track, both of which could significantly sway the outcome of the research.  These concerns prompted Alderman Bauman to question the article and pointed out how irresponsible an article like this is, if based on poor methodology.  Alderman Wade joined in expressing his displeasure with the article’s methodology saying “personally I think we’ve been had” and that “we are here because of an article from the Journal Sentinel with bogus data”.  Generally the committee was concerned if the findings were valid but Alderman Donovon seemed to wrap up the sentiment by repeating an old cliche, “you cant always believe everything you read in the paper”.

Senator Russ Feingold presented his upcoming legislation which focuses on encouraging innovation, growth in small business, creating jobs in green energy, linking business with education and capitalizing on research in the fresh water science.  He received input into this legislation from local business leaders, Sheldon Lubar and Joseph Zilber, with the hope of finding solutions that can work nationally but also locally in southeast Wisconsin.

The other item of note was the Common Council’s vote to override Mayor Tom Barrett’s veto of the controversial $20 vehicle registration fee.  The override needed ten votes and received eleven so the vehicle registration fee will be enacted. The vehicle registration fee will eliminate assessments, which have averaged $2500 per household, related to road reconstruction projects within the City of Milwaukee.

As part of the President’s Speaker Series, Council President Willie Hines Jr has invited Senator Russ Feingold to address the Common Council on September 2nd. There is a reception before the meeting at 8:30 a.m., followed by the meeting at 9:00 a.m. The meeting and reception are both open to the public.

Feingold recently boldly stated his support for protecting the Great Lakes

“These shippers should know that we’ll do what it takes to protect the Great Lakes, and nothing should be completely taken off the table.” Read more.

If one questions the strengths of Feingold’s convictions they need only to look at his adamant opposition to bills like FISA and the Patriot Act where he was labeled a “maverick” for standing virtually alone in protecting the rights of all of us in Wisconsin and the rest of the country.

“Gasoline and alcohol don’t mix,” says the American slogan.  Of course they do.  Our urban planners mix them all the time and in great doses.  See the zoning codes for confirmation. - Ray Olderburg, The Great Good Place

As a society we say “don’t drink and drive” but in this case actions speak louder than words.  Zoning and land use policies have an impact on the built environment that often promotes driving and limits other transportation options.  These regulations to some extent mandate how we get home from work and unfortunately how we get from the tavern, home.  Many regulations are involved in this problem but with adjustments to the three below a real reduction in drunk driving can be promoted.

• Minimum parking requirements for bars and taverns
  
• Zoning that insures separate land uses
• Zoning that promotes low population density and discourages mass transit
  

In most communities throughout the U.S. minimum parking requirements exist for various land uses.  Unfortunately these minimum parking requirements encourage automobile travel and even extend to taverns.  For example, Franklin, Wisconsin’s Unified Development Ordinance: Zoning, Development and Land Division requirements show, in the table on page 254, the parking requirements for various land uses including bars or taverns.

Clearly this indicates that a significant number of patrons have the expectation of driving to a bar or tavern and that this is an acceptable practice.  Not only does this set the expectation of available parking but it goes a step further and actually encourages people to drive because they know a space will be available.  If parking were limited this could encourage other modes of transportation such as walking, mass transit, or cab service to become the preferred method and thus reduce the number of drunk drivers.

Many zoning regulations came out of the efforts to separate polluted industrial factories from residential homes but unfortunately this was just the start of separating uses.  The separation of uses has spread to the point that now in many communities it is illegal to have a store or a tavern in the neighborhood.  Without the corner tavern that is accessible by foot, or by mass transit then people have little choice but to drive.  This has added to our long run increase of the number of vehicle miles traveled and although the Alcohol-Related Fatalities and Fatality Rates by State report put out by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration points out that the number of fatalities per vehicle miles driven has dropped we can do more.

Alcohol-related traffic fatalities per vehicle miles driven has also dropped dramatically — from 1.64 deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1982 down to 0.56 in 2005 (the latest year for which such statistics are available).

Specifically the next step in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities is to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.  This gets to the heart of urbanism, in that walking can be a primary mode of transportation. This would go a long way towards the reduction of the number of drunk drivers by simply taking them of the road.

Similiar to the problems created by the separation of land uses, zoning for low density development encourages people to drive by making the distances between home and destination further apart.  The report Urban Sprawl and Public Health, put out by the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, makes the connection between density, the availability of mass transit, and automobile fatality rates.

The NHTSA data do permit comparison of automobile fatality rates by city.  In general, denser cities with more extensive public transportation systems have lower automobile fatality rates (including drivers and passengers but excluding pedestrians):  2.65 per 100,000 population in New York, 6.98 in Philadelphia, 5.57 in Chicago, 2.54 in San Francisco, and 4.17 in Portland, compared to 9.97 in Houston, 12.55 in Phoenix, 11.53 in Dallas, 10.65 in Tampa, and 11.21 in Atlanta.

Although these numbers attest to all automobile fatality rates the connection between density, access to mass transit, and automobile fatalities is apparent.  By increasing population density and providing a variety of mass transit options people have choices of how to travel to their destination of choice.  Further by having a higher population density this generally supports the availability of entertainment options nearby and again allows for people to make better transportation choices when drinking.

I’ve touched on just a few of the zoning regulations that promote drunk driving and alluded to the solution.  The solution I propose can be called Smart Growth, New Urbanism, Urbanism or just plain old city living but all of these refer to one essential idea.  The idea of creating neighborhoods where you can live, work, and play.  Essentially we need to get people out of their cars before they get to the tavern.  To be clear I’m not arguing that city living will be the end of drunk driving.  But when we legislate that you drive to the bar and when we build the physical environment so that people are encouraged to drive to the tavern, then the end result will be drunk drivers.  So if we want to change this outcome and combat drunk driving we need to begin by changing our regulations to encourage dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.

Or as Common Council President Hines put it “What is Water Worth?” This question has been on the minds of local officials and citizens as of late because of the City of Milwaukee approving an agreement to sell water to New Berlin. 

In New Berlin the questions and complaints regarding this agreement seem to be:

• Why should New Berlin pay the $1.5 million upfront fee?
• Why isn’t Milwaukee acting regionally?
• Didn’t the Great Lakes Compact would eliminate negotiations?

In Milwaukee the questions and complaints regarding this agreement seem to be:

• Was the $1.5 million upfront fee enough to cover the potential lost economic development?
• Is selling water to a suburb who has little transit or affordable housing acting regionally?
  
• Does this violate the Great Lakes Compact? 
  

NewBerlin.now blogger JJ Blonien and Wisconsin State Senator Mary Lazich (R - New Berlin) expressed outrage over the $1.5 million upfront fee.  They argue that it fee flies in the face of regionalism, the Great Lakes Compact, and that New Berlin should explore other options to acquire water.  They even went so far as to call it “extortion”. 

For example, in Mary Lazich’s (R - New Berlin) article, “Despite an approved Compact, Milwaukee holds a gun to New Berlin” she claims the approval of the Compact should of alleviated the need for the $1.5 million fee.

Time and time again, I heard Compact proponents make the case that the Compact would address the water needs of New Berlin. The conventional wisdom was that the Compact needed to be approved quickly, and if it was, New Berlin’s water woes would be taken care of. Making those arguments were city of Milwaukee officials from Mayor Tom Barrett on down. They claimed the city of Milwaukee would no longer have issues with New Berlin getting water if Wisconsin would simply okay the Compact.

In JJ Blonien’s article, “Mayor sells out citizens in $1.5 million extortion deal“, he compares the fee to extortion as well and suggests that New Berlin should look elsewhere for water.

New Berlin has options besides Milwaukee’s one-sided extortion deal. The city utility can soften New Berlin’s water to comply with EPA standards, or it can pursue water agreements with the cities of Oak Creek or Racine. 

These arguments imply that the City of Milwaukee received all the benefits of this deal and misrepresent the history of the Great Lakes Compact.  Further the argument against the payment of a one time fee is that to support “regionalism” the City of Milwaukee should ignore its own economic self interest.  Fortunately these arguments don’t “hold water”.  New Berlin needs to remove the radium from its water and needs access to additional water to continue its growth, which this deal makes possible, so clearly New Berlin is acting in its own economic self interest.  Further it is true that New Berlin does have other options to obtain access to water.  New Berlin could purchase water from Oak Creek at a higher per gallon cost, or build a water treatment facility at a price tag of $4 million plus additional on-going costs.  But in the long run the $1.5 million price will be lower than the either of the options.  In regards to the Compact what Mary Lazich (R - New Berlin) fails to grasp is that without approval of the Great Lakes Compact no sale of water to this portion of New Berlin would of been possible under existing federal law.  Not that passing the Compact insured that New Berlin could obtain water at any or no cost. 

From the City of Milwaukee’s point of view this water sale represents a potential loss in economic development and does little to help its own citizens.  Without the $1.5 million upfront fee the estimated benefit to a Milwaukee taxpayer, according to the City of Milwaukee Water Works, is the potential of holding water bills down a couple of dollars sometime in the future.  As this benefit is very slight it in itself doesn’t outweigh the potential economic loss this transaction represents.  The City of Milwaukee Department of City Development (”DCD”) estimated that this water sale could facilitate the creation of 5000 - 6000 new jobs and the construction of 1,100 new homes in New Berlin.  Additionally much of this new economic development will be inaccessible to residents of Milwaukee due to New Berlin’s lack of affordable housing or significant mass transit options.  Of course its not to say any or all of this growth would of occurred in the Milwaukee but by making clean water available to New Berlin, Milwaukee is encouraging growth to occur in New Berlin instead of Milwaukee.  This represents a potential economic loss to the city that Milwaukee has attempted to recoup by imposing the $1.5 million upfront fee. So it is clear both cities worked to obtain a resource necessary for their individual economic self interest which to some extent is what regionalism is actually about.

But the question still remains, “What is the true value of water”?  As Jim Rowen aptly points out in his article New Berlin Alderman Questioning Parameters, Payment in Water Deal:

Early settlers throughout history choose to build close to sources of water for a reason.  You need it to sustain life.  Without access to good clean water the land in New Berlin is worthless.

So the true value of water is whatever New Berlin would of paid for it and I believe Milwaukee could have gotten more.

This meeting included three highly debated resolutions, the “Wheel Tax”, the 9to5 direct legislation regarding sick pay, the water sale to New Berlin and the retirement of one of the most highly respected government officials.  Marty Collins the outgoing Commissioner of the Department of Neighborhood Services gave an heartfelt farewell speech stating “I’m proud to be a public servant”.  Then he left with some suggestions and encouraged the Common Council and city staff to promote creativity to find solutions.

When the resolution known as the “Wheel Tax” came up for discussion Alderman Witkowiak offered an amendment that would cap the fee at $20 for the duration of the current Common Council.  Although Alderman Murphy explained that this amendment wasn’t meaningful because it could simply be overridden with a resolution in the future.  Another amendment was offered by Alderman Dudzik that would allow a portion of the vehicle registration fee to support street maintenance.  Again it was suggested that this amendment had little value because it will be up to the budgetary process to determine that actual spending.  Both of these amendments and the overall resolution passed with a veto proof majority and will no go to the Mayor for action.

Another hot button resolution was the piece of direct legislation brought forward by the group 9to5, National Association of Women by obtaining 42,000 signatures in sixty days.  The intention of the resolution is to force employers within the City of Milwaukee to give all employees paid sick time.  Alderman Donovan spoke out against the resolution saying that “this resolution may end up hurting the very same people it is intended to help”.  Alderman Bohl also expressed his concerns that this would resolution hurt business and that “if jobs leave this community there are no benefits to be had”.  The Common Council had two options regarding this resolution, either adopt it immediately without changes or let it go to binding referendum.  The Common Council voted to let it go to referendum.

The most hotly debated issue of the day was the proposed water sale and the associated intergovernmental agreement with New Berlin.  Alderman Bauman initially questioned the legality of the water sale saying that his concerns were “beyond the question of policy” because this transaction was outside the bounds of what the Common Council had approved in December of 2007.  He questioned if the sale was proper because the original authorization to negotiate was in reference to an area of New Berlin within the current Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (”MMSD”) service area while this transaction included a portion of New Berlin that is planned to be in the MMSD service area sometime in the future.  Alderman Murphy agreed that “the department made a mistake without a doubt” but that the City of Milwaukee needs to move forward with this transaction or New Berlin may find another solution.

The intergovernmental agreement with New Berlin included a non-compete clause and a $1.5 million payment to the City of Milwaukee.  The non-compete clause intent was to insure that the City of Milwaukee and New Berlin don’t compete for each others companies.  However this clause was amended to allow a New Berlin company to receive financial incentives to move to the City of Milwaukee as long as the company hadn’t been actively recruited.  It was also debated as to whether or not the $1.5 million was the appropriate payment but as Alderman Murphy said “I recognize the pricing of water currently is inadequate”.  Despite Alderman Bauman’s passionate appeals on both the legal issue and the issues regarding New Berlin’s lack of meeting the City of Milwaukee’s guidelines for water sales both files were approved and will go to the Mayor.

This meeting’s highlights included the proposed water sale to New Berlin and the reappointment of Jeff Mantes to the Commissioner the Department of Public Works.

The water sale involved two separate resolutions.  Resolution 080012 would handle the actual water sale and resolution 080011 will enact an intergovernmental agreement contingent on the water sale.  Water sales are regulated by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (”PSC“) which sets the wholesale price of water and oversees water contracts.  Because of this any additional constraints beyond the sales agreement had to handled in an intergovernmental agreement.  This intergovernmental agreement included a non-compete clause between the cities as well as a one time $1.5 million payment to the City of Milwaukee from New Berlin to offset some of the potential economic impact associated with this transaction.  Further as this agreement proposes the sale of water outside of the Great Lakes Basin it follows the requirements set for within the Great Lakes Compact.

New Berlin is seeking to obtain the additional water source to support the middle third of the city, to large extent because of high levels of the radium existing in their water and the depletion of their aquifer.  During the discussion it was brought up, that if New Berlin isn’t able to purchase water from the City of Milwaukee that New Berlin may spend $4 million on an upgrade to their facilities or pursue purchasing water from Oak Creek.  Both of these options were potentially more expensive for New Berlin than purchasing from the City of Milwaukee but Jack F. Chiovatero, the Mayor of New Berlin, indicated the pressing need by stating that “I wouldn’t be sitting in front off you if I didn’t have the radium issue”.

Alderman Bauman repeatedly made the point that New Berlin fails to meet the City of Milwaukee’s guidelines for water sales. These guidelines are based on access to mass transit and affordable housing within the community wishing to purchase water.  Further he pointed out that this resolution does not reflect the original authorization to negotiate as passed by the Common Council in December 2007.  In addition to Alderman Bauman’s vocal opposition various organisations such as the Good Jobs & Livable Neighborhoods Coalition, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council, and the ACLU spoke out in opposition to the water sale.  This opposition stems from the idea that sending water to sprawling communities without adequate housing or transit options makes access to the new jobs, that this transaction will support, near impossible for low-income residents of Milwaukee to access.   In addition to those concerns Bill Holahan, the Chairman of the UWM Department of Economics stated that “over the next 20 years the expansion out there will swamp the $1.5 million” and that “economic value of the water is probably not reflected in the $1.5 million”.  Despite these issues and concerns the resolution was approved and sent to a special meeting of the Finance & Personnel Committee held prior to July 30th’s Common Council Meeting.

The other contentious item was the reappointment of Jeff Mantes to the Commissioner the Department of Public Works (”DPW“).  The committee grilled him over communication issues, a lack of followup, poor performance and a perceived lack of leadership.  Alderman Dudzik called Jeff Mantes a “gentleman” but explained that this could be the problem as he doesn’t hold his staff accountable.  Alderman Dudzik also said that when he was in the Department of Public Works the philosophy he used was to “work everyday like there’s a thousand eyes on you”.  Alderman Murphy spoke of communication issues with the DPW and specifically with Jeff Mantes.  Alderman Murphy explained that he sent a letter from the Arts Board and never received a response from Jeff Mantes.  Further Alderman Murphy presented communications within DPW written in a unprofessional terse fashion, that to committee showed a potentially larger issue within DPW.   This reappointment was approved and will go before the Common Council.

Although the “Wheel Tax” hadn’t passed the Common Council at the time of this committee meeting its upcoming implementation spurred the reopening of resolution 080389. This resolution covered a series of road reconstruction projects that had been awaiting the passage of the “Wheel Tax”.  Numerous road projects from this resolution were approved contingent on its approval.  This resolution was approved and will go before the Common Council.

At a time when Milwaukee County is cutting transit service and neglecting our parks, Supervisor Coggs is promoting a $3,600 pay raise for Milwaukee County Board members. This raise would be in the form of a $300 per month transportation allowance and although this new benefit would only cost Milwaukee County an additional $68,400 per year, just the mere requesting of these funds is troubling. It’s troubling because it shows a clear disconnect between Supervisor Coggs and the citizens of Milwaukee. While they are struggling to pay their mortgage and fill up their gas tanks it seems inappropriate for an elected official to be asking for a raise, especially a transportation allowance.

It’s not as if Milwaukee County Supervisor’s don’t already have their transportation partially subsidized. They receive free parking at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, which according to SBT and Colliers International is worth about $120 per month, for an unreserved parking spot. Additionally, Supervisors can expense transportation costs for Milwaukee County related activities assuming they keep proper documentation. So not only do taxpayers already subsidize transportation costs, but there is already a mechanism in place to deal with Milwaukee County related expenses. Instead of finding ways for citizens to help subsidize Supervisor Coggs’ transportation costs she should be working to help regular citizens find ways to afford their rising transportation costs.

Currently the Milwaukee County Board is attempting to pass a sales tax referendum to gain support for the creation of a dedicated funding source for parks and mass transit. It is one thing to debate a sales tax to preserve Milwaukee County services that taxpayers count on and enjoy but it is a completely different thing to push for a raise. Because of rising transportation costs regular citizens around the country are flocking to mass transit at levels not seen since World War II. This proposed new benefit both distracts from the efforts and hurts the ability to pass the referendum by becoming an unneeded distraction. If Supervisor Coggs’ transportation costs are becoming too expensive she should do what regular citizens around the country are doing and catch the bus.

Resolution 080422 proposed the building of an 52-unit assisted living facility at 2195 W. State St. which will serve elderly low income individuals.  This project faced some opposition at City Plan Commission and the same resident appeared before this committee.  An additional neighbor spoke in opposition and both residents’ argument revolved around saving one tree and preserving “historic” green space.  Alderman Bauman responding to this criticism by explaining that “frankly i thought this was a very positive development” and went on to make it very clear that the hill is not recognized as “historic”.  It should also be pointed out that this green space is in private hands and that the current zoning regulations would stop the owner from removing the trees.  Despite the neighbors’ complaints this resolution was approved and will go before the Common Council.

Resolution 080195 is another resolution of interest because it proposed a variety of changes to City of Milwaukee storm water management regulations.  The overriding theme of this resolution was to discourage the construction of non-permeable surfaces.  These non-permeable surfaces increase the water flow into the sewer system and increase water pollution by reducing rain water’s ability to enter the ground soil for natural filtration.  This resolution encourages this reduction by allowing for narrower streets and reconfigured streets that include more permeable features.  Additionally it updates parking requirements to encourage less non-permeable surfaces from being developed.  This resolution was approved and will go before the Common Council.

At the June 23rd, 2008 meeting of the Community & Economic Development Committee Alderman Bauman brought forward resolution 080293 which cut off funding to the West End Development Corporation.  This was done because of the groups inability to complete the redevelopment of WestPointe Commons despite nearly 7 years of efforts.  Following that resolution the West End Development Corporation board voted to dissolve the corporation ending their efforts.  Due to the dissolving of their efforts resolution 080447 was brought forward to reallocate the Community Block Grant Development (”CBGD”) funds that had been allocated to West End Development Corporation to other organizations.  This resolution was approved by the committee and will go before the full Common Council.

Resolution 080408 approved the Funding Allocation Plan for 2009.  This plan allocates the Community Block Grant Development (”CBDG”) funds to various efforts which benefit low income citizens, by addressing urgent needs with the intent to prevent or eliminate blight.  Joe Davis made a series of amendments adjusting the allocation levels.  The amendment that stood out resulted in the creation of an entitlement allocation for Housing - Graffiti Abatement in the amount of $90,000.  Funding of graffiti abatement programs has in this past year run out prior to the summer months and this new allocation appears to be a response to that funding shortage.  This resolution and its amendments was approved by the committee and will go before the full Common Council.