Discussion on Possible Compromise on Lake Park Plan Put on Hold

The Muskego Common Council met Tuesday with a recurring theme as its main focus: the Little Muskego Lake Park development. But a prior meeting held with a citizens group kept alderman from discussing the issue.

A letter from Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel to Aldermen Kert Harenda, Dan Soltysiak and Neil Borgman advised them that previous meetings with a citizens group constituted "governmental business." Mayor Kathy Chiaverotti had been in attendance at one of those meetings, and had sent an inquiry to Schimel with regard to open meetings laws based on the nature of discussions at the meeting.

While Schimel said while no violations of the open meetings law occurred in those meetings, the potential for a violation existed if the council were to vote with less than the full seven-member body present. As Alderman Neome Schaumberg was absent Tuesday night, Schimel's advice was therefore not to discuss or vote on any lake park matters.

A series of resolutions introduced by Chiaverotti were on the agenda, one of which suggested a compromise in the controversy over the purchase of 4.6 acres of land on the lake along Janesville Road in downtown Muskego. Others would have terminated the original resolution of necessity that started the acquisition process, and another would have delayed the offer to purchase.

John Macy, the city's attorney, read from Schimel's letter and told the council: "You must all refrain from discussion and voting or the matter would have to be tabled."

Chiaverotti said the draft resolution that would create an ad hoc committee of residents to work with the Parks and Recreation Department would return for the March 13 council meeting. The goal would be "to create a development plan with associated costs followed by public information meetings and brought back to the Common Council."

She saw this resolution, which will be posted on the March 13 council agenda, as a "compromise for everyone — the city, the property owners and the citizens."

The resolution would also delay any action on a purchase until Sept. 30. Absent from it is a referendum on the issue, which likely would have been placed on the November ballot.

Chiaverotti said the precedent of posting a referendum on expenditures that fall below the city's threshold of $10 million would mean that conducting business would be "bogged down." She cited recent projects like the and the would also have been a subject for referendum votes.

However, the formation of the ad hoc committee has left others on the council with more questions.

"The gathering of costs and a development plan should be the job of the Parks and Rec department," Harenda said. "I'm all for citizens being part of the process, but that should come from the parks department. Procedurally, this is coming from council, which is not how this should be set up."

Harenda also said he had concerns over the costs cited in the draft resolution for consulting in order to develop a plan. "I'd like to know where the money would come from to pay for that — would it be parks' responsibility?"

Soltysiak said he was encouraged that the resolution would delay a purchase, but was concerned that the efforts of residents on the committee and the parks department would be for naught.

"I would like to see there be some language in the resolution that would require a new vote at the same time in order for people to feel that their input could have some impact," he said. "Otherwise, all this new information is wasted. I want the public to feel like they're being heard."

Additionally, the resolution would authorize up to $40,000 for consulting and other related fees in developing a plan for a park. The delay proposed would also be contingent upon whether property owner and developer Michael Dilworth would be willing to keep the land off the market until Sept. 30. That contingency is also something that opponents of the purchase, including Harenda, have voiced concerns over.