I'm a bit concerned with how the Verona Area School District is trying to sell the expense of the 4-year-old kindergarten program. In a nutshell, they're saying that the program will be expensive to start up for the first couple years, but State aid will more than cover the cost beyond the third year. They put forth the lure of an "investment" that will eventually contribute to easing budget woes in other areas.
There's a very dangerous assumption built in to that argument. They seem to be assuming that the State will not decrease the funding amounts as soon as a bunch of school districts start to take advantage of it.
I would think that, by now, VASD would be all too familiar with how these sorts of scenarios end up working out. The State funds costly programs nicely until they get off the ground and become ingrained in the expectations of the communities that they benefit. State funding slowly dries up shortly thereafter. In the end, it's the local governmental units that get stuck with the tab because the local officials are the ones that look like the bad guys when they try to claim that they can't afford it. Nobody looks beyond the locals to see that the State has once again pulled the rug out from beneath them.
In a time where VASD is repeatedly telling its taxpayers that budgets are tight because of decreasing State aid and increasing costs, I find it completely unacceptable that they're looking to gamble a large amount of money on a new program with potentially false hopes.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
N Nine Mound Rd realignment
For roughly the past five years, I've been hearing about changing where N Nine Mound Rd meets up with CTH PD. The idea, which made it in to the City of Verona's Comprehensive Plan, has been to realign it to the existing intersection of CTH PD and Woods Rd. Two reasonable goals would be met with this realignment:
1) Reduce the number of access points along CTH PD. Two three-way intersections would be reduced to one four-way intersection. This is both a safety and traffic flow improvement for CTH PD.
2) Allow for the extraction of the highly useful stone resources that are under the current N Nine Mound Rd right-of-way. Notice the rock quarries on both sides of the existing road. Local extraction of this resource helps to keep costs down and provides local jobs, as opposed to extracting it elsewhere and trucking it in.
Verona's Planning Director recently shared information that the Dane County Highway Department considers the Woods Rd intersection to be unsuitable for additional capacity. I'm told that they are concerned about the curved and inclined nature of that area reducing visibility to an unacceptable level.
Giving up on this plan would likely result in development in conflict with the proposed N Nine Mound Rd realignment, and then it would be off the table forever. I'm not ready for that step yet. I drive the Woods Rd intersection on a regular basis and I theorize that some relatively simple elevation and alignment changes could provide significant improvement.
Development of both Madison and Verona will eventually reach this area and continue heading west. If nothing else, that development alone will require improvements to the intersection to accommodate increased traffic on both CTH PD and Woods Rd, possibly including expansion of PD to four lanes. This would need to happen regardless of whether N Nine Mound Rd goes there or not.
I would like to see a comprehensive look at what it would take to improve the CTH PD and Woods Rd intersection to a point where converting it to a four-way would be acceptable.
1) Reduce the number of access points along CTH PD. Two three-way intersections would be reduced to one four-way intersection. This is both a safety and traffic flow improvement for CTH PD.
2) Allow for the extraction of the highly useful stone resources that are under the current N Nine Mound Rd right-of-way. Notice the rock quarries on both sides of the existing road. Local extraction of this resource helps to keep costs down and provides local jobs, as opposed to extracting it elsewhere and trucking it in.
Verona's Planning Director recently shared information that the Dane County Highway Department considers the Woods Rd intersection to be unsuitable for additional capacity. I'm told that they are concerned about the curved and inclined nature of that area reducing visibility to an unacceptable level.
Giving up on this plan would likely result in development in conflict with the proposed N Nine Mound Rd realignment, and then it would be off the table forever. I'm not ready for that step yet. I drive the Woods Rd intersection on a regular basis and I theorize that some relatively simple elevation and alignment changes could provide significant improvement.
Development of both Madison and Verona will eventually reach this area and continue heading west. If nothing else, that development alone will require improvements to the intersection to accommodate increased traffic on both CTH PD and Woods Rd, possibly including expansion of PD to four lanes. This would need to happen regardless of whether N Nine Mound Rd goes there or not.
I would like to see a comprehensive look at what it would take to improve the CTH PD and Woods Rd intersection to a point where converting it to a four-way would be acceptable.
Friday, February 12, 2010
FUDA: Outsiders looking in, exerting power.
Yes, I was quoted correctly. I do not want to see a half-baked plan come out of the Future Urban Development Areas (FUDA) planning process that gets adopted and tries to take the place of our comprehensive plan.
I'd like to elaborate on my use of the term "half-baked."
The City of Verona spent almost two years working on the Comprehensive Plan. It involved a committee of nine people who formed as much of a representative sample of City residents as one could possibly hope for. Each committee member read every sentence of the plan, asked questions about it and took an active role in revising it. Consultants were hired to handle specialty technical areas such as traffic. Several public events were held to gradually put the entire plan in front of anybody who was interested, and to provide City staff, elected officials and volunteer committee members to accept feedback and answer questions. Several surveys were mailed out across the City, and hours upon hours were spent analyzing the results to find the messages that the community was conveying. Input was also incorporated in to the plan from the surrounding Town of Verona.
I personally was involved in each and every aspect of this and I can tell you personally that everybody involved had one goal in mind. That goal was to come up with the most responsible, forward-thinking and prudent plan for our City's next 20 years that could possibly be put together. I believe that we succeeded admirably at it.
Contrast this with CARPC's FUDA planning process. They are planning Verona's future by putting a few staff members in charge of looking at Verona from the outside for six months or so. In a year of living in Verona for the first time, those staff members might begin to form an understanding of how this community works. During that year, they would need to spend hours every week visiting City Hall, our police department, the fire station, our EMS, the schools, our public works department, the senior center and seeing the activities at our parks. They would need to conduct their lives in Verona on a daily basis, using our local businesses, traveling our streets and interacting with our residents and visitors. They would need to review packets of material and tapes of meetings that surrounded every development and redevelopment project in Verona's recent history.
I don't see any of that happening.
David Greene of CARPC says that FUDA's goal is to put Verona in a regional context, and that if Verona doesn't like the strategy then it's Verona's obligation to get involved more. Really? How about this: If an outside entity wants to dictate a community's behavior, it ought to be the outsider's obligation to dig deeply in to how the community really works so that it has a clue as to what context to put it in.
I'd like to elaborate on my use of the term "half-baked."
The City of Verona spent almost two years working on the Comprehensive Plan. It involved a committee of nine people who formed as much of a representative sample of City residents as one could possibly hope for. Each committee member read every sentence of the plan, asked questions about it and took an active role in revising it. Consultants were hired to handle specialty technical areas such as traffic. Several public events were held to gradually put the entire plan in front of anybody who was interested, and to provide City staff, elected officials and volunteer committee members to accept feedback and answer questions. Several surveys were mailed out across the City, and hours upon hours were spent analyzing the results to find the messages that the community was conveying. Input was also incorporated in to the plan from the surrounding Town of Verona.
I personally was involved in each and every aspect of this and I can tell you personally that everybody involved had one goal in mind. That goal was to come up with the most responsible, forward-thinking and prudent plan for our City's next 20 years that could possibly be put together. I believe that we succeeded admirably at it.
Contrast this with CARPC's FUDA planning process. They are planning Verona's future by putting a few staff members in charge of looking at Verona from the outside for six months or so. In a year of living in Verona for the first time, those staff members might begin to form an understanding of how this community works. During that year, they would need to spend hours every week visiting City Hall, our police department, the fire station, our EMS, the schools, our public works department, the senior center and seeing the activities at our parks. They would need to conduct their lives in Verona on a daily basis, using our local businesses, traveling our streets and interacting with our residents and visitors. They would need to review packets of material and tapes of meetings that surrounded every development and redevelopment project in Verona's recent history.
I don't see any of that happening.
David Greene of CARPC says that FUDA's goal is to put Verona in a regional context, and that if Verona doesn't like the strategy then it's Verona's obligation to get involved more. Really? How about this: If an outside entity wants to dictate a community's behavior, it ought to be the outsider's obligation to dig deeply in to how the community really works so that it has a clue as to what context to put it in.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
No need to rush new residential development
Last week, I said I would explain my feeling that the City of Verona has plenty of residential development in progress. In my mind, there are three questions to consider:
QUESTION #1: How long will it take to consume the available quantity of residential lots?
It seems that it takes between two and three years to get a new residential development ready to build houses, if the developer is hot to get it done. As long as there are three years worth of lots available, I'm not concerned about running out.
The recent draft North USA amendment application shows 525 available home sites in current open developments. This doesn't count the 117 lots that will be added by the "Zingg North" development, so the total in the pipeline is 642.
Comprehensive Plan table 2-21 suggests that approximately 96 lots are consumed in an average year. 2010 is expected to be another "down" year for new home construction in the Verona area. I'll assume that 75 lots get used in 2010 followed by 96 lots in each year thereafter.
This calculation suggests that over six years of residential lots are currently in the pipeline - well above my three year threshold for concern.
QUESTION #2: How many residential developments are open at any given time?
My feeling is that if there are at least three open developments at any given time, it'll prevent any one developer from having a "monopoly" on the new housing market. The North USA amendment application suggests that this will be the case for the next three or four years - again, not counting Zingg North. This question leaves me without any concern unless 2012 passes without new developments starting the process.
QUESTION #3: Is there - and will there continue to be - a mix of housing types available?
Simple observation around the City over the past few years suggests that there has been a mix of housing types available. One apartment complex owner successfully sued the City of a reduction in property tax liability as a result of the complex's vacancy rate. For-sale and for-rent signs are easy to find in front of condominum and duplex buildings. Buyers have sometimes had a challenge in finding the "right" single-family homes, but most of that simply involves personal preference and pricing. I don't foresee a crunch in any of these markets, based on the City's policy of including a mix of all housing types in every residential developement.
An argument could be made that the immediate Verona area lacks "higher-end" or "executive-style" single-family housing. I don't deny that argument and would welcome a development proposal that directly addresses that shortage. I wouldn't consider this to be an "urgent" situation to address, but one certainly worth looking at if the right proposal comes along.
CONCLUSION:
I feel that there is currently no urgency in getting additional residential developments through the process in the City of Verona. There is a sufficient stock of a variety of housing types, spread across enough developments, that the City should be in good shape for a few years.
QUESTION #1: How long will it take to consume the available quantity of residential lots?
It seems that it takes between two and three years to get a new residential development ready to build houses, if the developer is hot to get it done. As long as there are three years worth of lots available, I'm not concerned about running out.
The recent draft North USA amendment application shows 525 available home sites in current open developments. This doesn't count the 117 lots that will be added by the "Zingg North" development, so the total in the pipeline is 642.
Comprehensive Plan table 2-21 suggests that approximately 96 lots are consumed in an average year. 2010 is expected to be another "down" year for new home construction in the Verona area. I'll assume that 75 lots get used in 2010 followed by 96 lots in each year thereafter.
This calculation suggests that over six years of residential lots are currently in the pipeline - well above my three year threshold for concern.
QUESTION #2: How many residential developments are open at any given time?
My feeling is that if there are at least three open developments at any given time, it'll prevent any one developer from having a "monopoly" on the new housing market. The North USA amendment application suggests that this will be the case for the next three or four years - again, not counting Zingg North. This question leaves me without any concern unless 2012 passes without new developments starting the process.
QUESTION #3: Is there - and will there continue to be - a mix of housing types available?
Simple observation around the City over the past few years suggests that there has been a mix of housing types available. One apartment complex owner successfully sued the City of a reduction in property tax liability as a result of the complex's vacancy rate. For-sale and for-rent signs are easy to find in front of condominum and duplex buildings. Buyers have sometimes had a challenge in finding the "right" single-family homes, but most of that simply involves personal preference and pricing. I don't foresee a crunch in any of these markets, based on the City's policy of including a mix of all housing types in every residential developement.
An argument could be made that the immediate Verona area lacks "higher-end" or "executive-style" single-family housing. I don't deny that argument and would welcome a development proposal that directly addresses that shortage. I wouldn't consider this to be an "urgent" situation to address, but one certainly worth looking at if the right proposal comes along.
CONCLUSION:
I feel that there is currently no urgency in getting additional residential developments through the process in the City of Verona. There is a sufficient stock of a variety of housing types, spread across enough developments, that the City should be in good shape for a few years.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Slow down on Northward expansion plans
Tomorrow night, the Plan Commission will consider two items regarding northward expansion of the City of Verona.
The first item is the North Neighborhood Plan, and I'm in favor of moving forward on it. I think it's a good idea to provide plan details to the affected property owners and the general public as early as possible.
The second item is expansion of the Urban Service Area (USA) to allow sewer and water service for the 120-acre Midthun property. This chunk of land is about half-way between the existing Kettle Creek/Gateway subdivisions and CTH PD. At the moment, I'm in favor of waiting to see how the rest of 2010 goes before moving forward on it.
The big thing on my mind is that I've very clearly heard concern from fellow residents that the City of Verona is growing too quickly. There is a lot of love for the remainder of Verona's "small town" feel. This sentiment has repeatedly been communicated during both my work on the Comprehensive Plan and my campaign for Alder. By contrast, there has been very little concern that Verona is not growing quickly enough.
If the Midthun property's estimated 80 developable acres are added to the USA, there will be approximately 132 acres left in Verona's allotment until the next update. For comparison, existing development at Epic occupies almost 100 acres. I'd like to keep about 120 acres of expansion "in the bank" in case another Epic-like opportunity comes along. Thus, if this North expansion goes through, I'd consider it a road block for any other "typical" expansion unless Verona's allotment gets increased.
The next step after USA expansion is annexation. Annexation of the Midthun property would make the Backus property (along CTH M) a "town island," which is prohibited under State law. If Backus wants to join the City, that problem is solved. Otherwise, the two options are a forced annexation or avoiding annexing a narrow strip of CTH M right-of-way. I don't currently see any need to go to those extremes, so Midthun would be stuck with a bunch of USA expansion that can't be used.
My opinion is that Verona also has plenty of residential development already in progress for almost the next five years. In the near future, I'll elaborate on that point. This article is already getting a bit long as it is.
I look forward to tomorrow night's meeting and discussion. It'll be interesting to hear how the other members of the Plan Commission see these issues.
The first item is the North Neighborhood Plan, and I'm in favor of moving forward on it. I think it's a good idea to provide plan details to the affected property owners and the general public as early as possible.
The second item is expansion of the Urban Service Area (USA) to allow sewer and water service for the 120-acre Midthun property. This chunk of land is about half-way between the existing Kettle Creek/Gateway subdivisions and CTH PD. At the moment, I'm in favor of waiting to see how the rest of 2010 goes before moving forward on it.
The big thing on my mind is that I've very clearly heard concern from fellow residents that the City of Verona is growing too quickly. There is a lot of love for the remainder of Verona's "small town" feel. This sentiment has repeatedly been communicated during both my work on the Comprehensive Plan and my campaign for Alder. By contrast, there has been very little concern that Verona is not growing quickly enough.
If the Midthun property's estimated 80 developable acres are added to the USA, there will be approximately 132 acres left in Verona's allotment until the next update. For comparison, existing development at Epic occupies almost 100 acres. I'd like to keep about 120 acres of expansion "in the bank" in case another Epic-like opportunity comes along. Thus, if this North expansion goes through, I'd consider it a road block for any other "typical" expansion unless Verona's allotment gets increased.
The next step after USA expansion is annexation. Annexation of the Midthun property would make the Backus property (along CTH M) a "town island," which is prohibited under State law. If Backus wants to join the City, that problem is solved. Otherwise, the two options are a forced annexation or avoiding annexing a narrow strip of CTH M right-of-way. I don't currently see any need to go to those extremes, so Midthun would be stuck with a bunch of USA expansion that can't be used.
My opinion is that Verona also has plenty of residential development already in progress for almost the next five years. In the near future, I'll elaborate on that point. This article is already getting a bit long as it is.
I look forward to tomorrow night's meeting and discussion. It'll be interesting to hear how the other members of the Plan Commission see these issues.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
County should show better dedication to public safety
Various public safety folks have been working to develop a county-wide radio system to close critical communication gaps in emergency responses. Currently, there are problems communicating from inside buildings, and there are some communities that are "communication islands" that simply cannot talk to neighboring agencies. The proposed new system is a hybrid of various technologies that address the real-world problems.
Unfortunately, it's an expensive system. It'll cost a little over $30 million to build and approximately $1.5 million per year to maintain/operate. For comparison, the 2010 Dane County budget shows about $85,000 for radio system and mobile data system maintenance. The County has been trying to get the municipalities to absorb the $1.5 million/year on their budgets, and the municipalities have been objecting.
In my mind, it's obvious that the new radio system infrastructure needs to go on the County's budget.
The prime reason is that this is shared, county-wide public safety infrastructure. While it makes sense for each municipality to continue paying for its own radios, it also makes sense for the County to continue funding the shared infrastructure that truly benefits the entire county's safety. After all, what is the County government's job if it's not to provide the shared resources that we all need?
The other reason is that each and every municipality in the county must be persuaded to join the new system in order for it to be worth the money and effort. The municipalities will need to spend a bunch of money to upgrade radios in order to work with the new system. This isn't too hard to swallow because approximately 2/3 of that cost will need to happen anyway due to federal mandates on new radio technology. However, if the municipalities would have to also absorb the new infrastructure costs, the politicians would likely be inclined to tell the emergency responders to live without it. The "communication island" effect would be alive and well, which means that nothing would have been gained in the name of public safety.
The bottom line is that Dane County should continue to provide the shared infrastructure that benefits the public safety of the entire county. The municipalities should continue to provide the equipment that their own agencies specifically need. The new radio system is a huge opportunity for the County to make tangible improvements to public safety - it's unfortunate that they are dropping the ball.
Unfortunately, it's an expensive system. It'll cost a little over $30 million to build and approximately $1.5 million per year to maintain/operate. For comparison, the 2010 Dane County budget shows about $85,000 for radio system and mobile data system maintenance. The County has been trying to get the municipalities to absorb the $1.5 million/year on their budgets, and the municipalities have been objecting.
In my mind, it's obvious that the new radio system infrastructure needs to go on the County's budget.
The prime reason is that this is shared, county-wide public safety infrastructure. While it makes sense for each municipality to continue paying for its own radios, it also makes sense for the County to continue funding the shared infrastructure that truly benefits the entire county's safety. After all, what is the County government's job if it's not to provide the shared resources that we all need?
The other reason is that each and every municipality in the county must be persuaded to join the new system in order for it to be worth the money and effort. The municipalities will need to spend a bunch of money to upgrade radios in order to work with the new system. This isn't too hard to swallow because approximately 2/3 of that cost will need to happen anyway due to federal mandates on new radio technology. However, if the municipalities would have to also absorb the new infrastructure costs, the politicians would likely be inclined to tell the emergency responders to live without it. The "communication island" effect would be alive and well, which means that nothing would have been gained in the name of public safety.
The bottom line is that Dane County should continue to provide the shared infrastructure that benefits the public safety of the entire county. The municipalities should continue to provide the equipment that their own agencies specifically need. The new radio system is a huge opportunity for the County to make tangible improvements to public safety - it's unfortunate that they are dropping the ball.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Outdoor regulation changes coming for businesses
In the coming months, effort will be put in to revising the rules that govern the aesthetics of Verona. Business owners need to pay attention as this work will significantly change outdoor display regulations and potentially other design aspects. Citizens who care about the appearance of Verona also need to keep an eye on it. Watch the Plan Commission agenda that gets posted on the City's web site, at City Hall and in the entry area of Miller's.
Three major facets of the regulations are coming under review simultaneously:
OVERLAY DISTRICTS: There is currently a "Downtown" overlay district that covers the central blocks of Main St and Verona Ave, in addition to a "Verona Avenue" overlay that covers most of Verona Ave. These districts tack on rules in addition to the usual zoning-based regulations. The two districts overlap each other, so some properties have three layers of rules to sift through. The Plan Commission will be reviewing a potential consolidation of the two overlays, expansion of the boundaries and merging of the rules.
ZONING RULES: An abundance of outdoor displays on various properties has attracted the attention of a few Plan Commission members. The two flavors that are coming under the most scrutiny are vehicles for sale and stacks/bins/machines of products for sale at various commercial establishments. Tighter regulations are being proposed for all of these displays, particularly in the downtown area.
PROCEDURES: Currently, the letter of the law requires that even the most minute outdoor displays go through a cumbersome and costly process for approval. The Zoning Administrator has applied some common sense to certain minor requests and has been administratively approving them in lieu of the full process. The unfortunate side effect is that it is leading to some inconsistency across the City. Proposals are being formulated to codify different levels of review based on defined criteria.
The primary goal of the revisions is to keep the City of Verona looking attractive and vibrant, which keeps our economy and quality of life strong. In order to do this, there also needs to be a goal of attaining better compliance with zoning regulations. Compliance will be better facilitated by making it easier for property owners to know/understand the rules, as well as by making government more efficient/responsive.
The goals are all positive. Nonetheless, they will result in a number of changes to the rules, and it is important for affected parties to pay attention and offer feedback early in the process.
Three major facets of the regulations are coming under review simultaneously:
OVERLAY DISTRICTS: There is currently a "Downtown" overlay district that covers the central blocks of Main St and Verona Ave, in addition to a "Verona Avenue" overlay that covers most of Verona Ave. These districts tack on rules in addition to the usual zoning-based regulations. The two districts overlap each other, so some properties have three layers of rules to sift through. The Plan Commission will be reviewing a potential consolidation of the two overlays, expansion of the boundaries and merging of the rules.
ZONING RULES: An abundance of outdoor displays on various properties has attracted the attention of a few Plan Commission members. The two flavors that are coming under the most scrutiny are vehicles for sale and stacks/bins/machines of products for sale at various commercial establishments. Tighter regulations are being proposed for all of these displays, particularly in the downtown area.
PROCEDURES: Currently, the letter of the law requires that even the most minute outdoor displays go through a cumbersome and costly process for approval. The Zoning Administrator has applied some common sense to certain minor requests and has been administratively approving them in lieu of the full process. The unfortunate side effect is that it is leading to some inconsistency across the City. Proposals are being formulated to codify different levels of review based on defined criteria.
The primary goal of the revisions is to keep the City of Verona looking attractive and vibrant, which keeps our economy and quality of life strong. In order to do this, there also needs to be a goal of attaining better compliance with zoning regulations. Compliance will be better facilitated by making it easier for property owners to know/understand the rules, as well as by making government more efficient/responsive.
The goals are all positive. Nonetheless, they will result in a number of changes to the rules, and it is important for affected parties to pay attention and offer feedback early in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
