In comments responding to my Joan Rivers Resort post, Cheryl Hentz and an anonymous responder have a disagreement over the role of the city Plan Commission. Cheryl asked:
How in the world does a plan commission approve a plan for which no financing is in place? Inasmuch as there the most important "plan" seems to be missing, the words "plan commission" seem to be a contradiction in terms. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! Can we assume by their action that the plan commission is nothing more than a rubber stamp for any developer who dangles promises of the sun, moon and stars in front of the city in exchange for a huge chunk of public financing?
To which anonymous, referring to city of Oshkosh Principal Planner Darryn Burrich as an authority, replied:
The Plan Commission is not a financial review commission, they are a land use review body. Whether a developer comes in with money coming out of his ears or not a penny to his name does not, and should not, matter to the plan commission. They are charged with simply reviewing the compliance with land use statutes, efficacy of development goals and enforcement of zoning standards.
Municipal Plan Commission powers are found in Wisconsin Statutes 62.23. I think a review of those powers suggests strongly that a Plan Commission DOES have a financial review function or, at the very least, the Common Council or other governing authority can ask for a Plan Commission's recommendations on financial matters. Consider 62.23(4) on the Miscellaneous Powers of the Commission:
(4) Miscellaneous powers of the commission. The commission may make reports and recommendations relating to the plan and development of the city to public officials and agencies, public utility companies, civic, educational, professional and other organizations, and citizens. It may recommend to the mayor or council, programs for public improvements and the financing thereof. All public officials shall, upon request, furnish to the commission, within a reasonable time, such available information as it may require for its work. The commission, its members and employees, in the performance of its functions, may enter upon any land, make examinations and surveys, and place and maintain necessary monuments and marks thereon. In general, the commission shall have such powers as may be necessary to enable it to perform its functions and promote municipal planning.
Note the part that says "It may recommend to the mayor or council, programs for public improvements and financing therof," especially the "financing therof" part. How can a Plan Commission recommend financing if it is not supposed to be concerned with financial review?
Statutes 62.23(5) say the following about "matters referred to the city plan commission":
(5) Matters referred to city plan commission. The council, or other public body or officer of the city having final authority thereon, shall refer to the city plan commission, for its consideration and report before final action is taken by the council, public body or officer, the following matters: The location and architectural design of any public building; the location of any statue or other memorial; the location, acceptance, extension, alteration, vacation, abandonment, change of use, sale, acquisition of land for or lease of land for any street, alley or other public way, park, playground, airport, area for parking vehicles, or other memorial or public grounds; the location, extension, abandonment or authorization for any public utility whether publicly or privately owned; all plats of lands in the city or within the territory over which the city is given platting jurisdiction by chapter 236; the location, character and extent or acquisition, leasing or sale of lands for public or semipublic housing, slum clearance, relief of congestion, or vacation camps for children; and the amendment or repeal of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this section. Unless such report is made within 30 days, or such longer period as may be stipulated by the common council, the council or other public body or officer, may take final action without it.
I think it is clear from this statute language that a Plan Commission may be charged with much more than "simply reviewing the compliance with land use statutes, efficacy of development goals and enforcement of zoning standards."
The anonymous person responding to Cheryl Hentz and possibly Principal Planner Burich if his views have been accurately represented, are relying on the most narrow possible interpretation of the statutes--an interpretation that of course benefits developers because it means they get to ask for City Council approval of a financial plan without any prior citizen review. The reason for the creation of Commissions, Advisory Boards, etc. was to ensure that ALL elements of development, including finances, would get at least some formal citizen review. While financial review may not be a requirement of a planning commission, a Common Council can certainly request that the Plan Commission make recommendations in that area.
Indeed, Statutes require that citizen members of the Plan Commission "shall be persons of recognized experience and qualification."[62.23(1)]. If financial issues--which are often the key issues in play in determining whether a development is appropriate for a city--are taken completely out of Plan Commission deliberations, then one is left wondering why the Commission needs to have citizens of "recognized experience and qualification."
Let me close by saying that there appears to be disagreement even within the Oshkosh Plan Commission about the Commission's role in addressing financial issues. In the minutes of the January 3rd, 2006 meeting, Commission members Borsuk and Dell'Antonia have a clear disagreement about whether "good use of the land" should be the Commission's only consideration when trying to decide whether to recommend acquisition of a lot (scroll down to page 2).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Tony, excellent work in posting this. You beat me to the punch in seeking it out.
Let me ask, do you recall if the Redevelopment Authority has weighed in on the Five Rivers project at all - or if they need to? I cannot recall if they have or not. Surely they deal with financing because they have the ability to indebt the city without it even being approved by the Common Council, if memory serves me correctly on that. But I just don't know if they are involved in any way with this proposed project.
I guess the point is, (a) I think you are correct in that the definition of Plan Commissions and their duties is much broader than is being interpreted by folks here in Oshkosh, and (b) someone, somewhere along the way, as already mentioned by another poster, has got to step up and start asking questions and force developers to have some accountability. I am not suggesting Tom Doig or his partners in Five Rivers is not accountable. We don't know that yet. What we do know is (1) they seem to be having trouble meeting deadlines and (2) the city is cutting them slack, as it does with many developers. I think as citizens we are entitled to know why, on both counts.
Tony, I have since answered my own question from my previous post. The Five Rivers Resort project HAS been before the Redevelopment Authority. Here is what Mayor Bill Castle had to say about it on March 25, 2005, when he was running for mayor...
"The Five Rivers Resort proposal is currently before the Redevelopment Authority. The Redevelopment Authority is composed of citizens and city staff and is tasked with evaluating all of the nuts and bolts of projects like the Fiver Rivers Resort project. The people on the Redevelpment Authority were selected for their experience and knowledge. They meet every third Wednesday at 4 PM at city hall and the public is welcome to attend. Ultimately the Redevelopment Authority will negotiate the final package for Fiver Rivers.
Their recommendation will go to the city’s Plan Commission which meets every first and third Tuesday of the month at 4 PM at city hall. I would expect the Redevelopment Authority to make a detailed and informative presentation to the Plan Commission on all aspects of the Five Rivers Project. The advantage of doing this at the Plan Commission meeting is that these meetings are televised and the public is free to speak on specific agenda topics. This is a critical step in helping the public find out what’s going on.
The Plan Commission then votes on the land use components of the proposal. For example the Plan Commission would review how the public would have access to the riverfront. Our recently adopted Comprehensive Plan specifically directs public access to this rive front property."
Question #1: If the Plan Commission is concerned only with land use issues, why would the Redevelopment Authority make a detailed presentation on "all aspects" of the plan to the commission?
The land use issue aside (because that's been addressed in previous posts), this information begs a statement and yet another question.
Question #2: If the Redevelopment Authority evaluates "all of the nuts and bolts" of a project before making a recommendation to the Plan Commission, and this has now been before the Plan Commission and subsequently passed on to the council for its decision next month, there seem to be some nuts and bolts missing from the main engine. How did it get past the Redevelopment Authority without having financing in place?
Anyone can see where this is going and how we have gotten to where we are already with it. My final question is this: Is this city council going to have the collective courage to hold off on approving the various pieces of this project until such time that the baby steps for it have been mastered and the developer is walking instead of crawling?"
I am not saying we need to scrub the project, but it needs to be idled while the kinks are worked out. They wouldn't actually build the resort without having the proper foundation underneath. So why would they approve concepts and plans with the proper financial foundation? Having a fundamental understanding of committees, boards and procedures aside, this comes down to one thing and one thing only: Common-sense. Let's stop putting the cart before the horse. The horse can't move forward that way.
Thank you Cheryl. Let me also add that at Bryan Bain's August 30th "Fifth Tuesday Forum," relevant questions related to the topic under discussion were raised: "Status of the project – Where are we? Why do we only hear things from the developer and not the city?"
The answer from Jackson Kinney certainly suggests, strongly, that the Redevelopment Authority AND the Plan Commission would be looking at the Five Rivers Proposal in its entirety including finances:
"At an appropriate point the proposal will be brought before the Redevelopment Authority for action, as well as before the Plan Commission and City Council. The City is working hard at carrying out its due diligence responsibilities in evaluating the proposed development and in ensuring that the financial plan makes sense and the level of City funding support is appropriate, and the City is protected in the investments and obligations that are made in support of the project."
From Bryan Bain's Blog:
http://www.bryanbain.com/FTF_notes_083005.htm
This is great information!!! Thanks Cheryl and Tony. I guess this shows Stew is wrong that blogs and the internet can't be valuable parts of the information pipeline!
Jack Straw
Thanks to both Tony and Jack. I just wanted to correct one thing in the last paragraph of my most recent post. Where it says "So why would they approve concepts and plans with the proper financial foundation?," it should read "So why would they approve concepts and plans WITHOUT the proper financial foundation?"
Post a Comment