Open Letter to City Council President Adler

Dear Mr. Adler:

I am writing to you to bring to your attention a matter which will come before the City Council in the near future. The Eau Claire County Board has approved the funds for construction of a new jail (sometimes referred to as “courthouse expansion” or “courthouse renovation”). The footprint of the proposed building is a rectangular piece of land extending from the east side of the courthouse building, along Ann Street, to First Avenue. I am sure that you have heard that there is a growing objection from citizens of Eau Claire County regarding the proposed building. The matter which will come before you, in the City Council, is a re-zoning request from the Eau Claire County Board, asking for a zoning variation or change for the construction of this building. I am writing to you to urge you NOT to approve this request.

First, I point out to you that the proposed building is to be built on the flood plain of the Eau Claire River. Construction of such a large and heavy building requires that deep pilings be sunk for support and the ground level be elevated above the flood plain, just as was done for the Royal Credit Union, across the river. Such a raising of the grade will directly affect the entire area around the property. The County building is constructed on the bluff and has firm footings; the proposed extension will not be on firm ground. Despite any assurances from the group which is pushing this project, the approved funds will not cover the necessary preparatory work plus the pilings plus construction of the building. In fact, the approved funds do not cover the proposed building in a completed form. Your approval of the County board’s request will lead to a building fiasco which will have to be remedied, at great expense to the taxpayer. Current estimates, without the pilings (and without the change in ground level) exceed $100 million.

Second, the proposed building is not consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. In that plan, approved in 2005, one of the overarching themes is “Neighborhood Protection and Improvement: Keep older neighborhoods attractive and vital through improved streets, parks and services, code enforcement, design standards and selective redevelopment.” Although the plan does not address this specific site and although the property directly to the east of the county building is currently a parking lot, the proposed project would expand the footprint of that site, place a large concrete block of a building on the site, affect the flood plain, and bring the building close to the riverfront. All of this affects the historical character of the neighborhood, both in the proposals to acquire property and the indications of future intent to remove houses and buildings which are adjacent to the proposed building.

In the Comprehensive Plan’s chapter on Land Use, some of the relevant objectives are:

“Objective 4 – Established Neighborhoods: Maintain or revive the traditional urban character of the older neighborhoods so that they remain attractive places to live.

Objective 7 –Waterfronts: Improve the visual quality and connections to the Chippewa and Eau Claire Rivers to support appropriate development and enhance the community’s quality of life.

Objective 10 – Parks: Build parks and interconnected greenways to enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods and commercial districts, reflect Eau Claire’s cultural heritage, and honor civic life.

The proposed project is not consistent with the plan. First, the proposed project will alter the character of the neighborhood. Second, it will mar the riverscape, which the city has recently improved with Phoenix Park. The Park “enhances the community’s quality of life.” The proposed project will be a blight on the riverscape. Third, the proposed building will encroach on both the riverfront and the riverfront parkway. Do we really want a jail building right on the border of a parkway?

In the chapter on natural resources are the following objectives:

“River and Stream Shoreline Protection: Work with the Department of Natural Resources to protect the banks and flood plain of the Chippewa and Eau Claire Rivers, as well as Sherman, Lowes and Otter Creeks by enforcing its current flood plain regulations, using natural stream edge protection techniques as described above and by acquiring additional land for public open space. (See also the Parks System Chapter and the Land Use Chapter.)

Greenway Design: Consider environmental issues in the design of linear public parks and other open space along streams or bicycle paths. Determine the basis of any greenway width by specific environmental standards, such as slope percentage, erodible slopes, soil conditions, wetlands, flood plain locations and areas of quality woodlands with their size, area, and species identified. Carefully align bicycle paths in a greenway so as to minimize disruption of the ecology of the site.

River Flood Plain Management: Continue to strictly enforce river and stream flood plain regulations, which are part of the Zoning Code. Land use plans and site development plans will be drawn to protect the streams and accomplish appropriate waterfront development.

It would require more space than I can use here to include relevant objectives from the chapter on Historical Preservation. However, a quick review of the various versions of the proposal will give the reader the very clear impression that historical preservation played no role whatsoever in the proposal for this jail expansion. In fact, the proponents often and in a very flippant fashion would refer to removing or tearing down historic homes and buildings; there was no regard for the neighborhood. The neighborhood was there before the county building. I believe that it has priority.

In the chapter on Downtown Development, there is reference to expanding the county facility; but that is directly followed by the phrase “with respect for the neighborhood.” The proposed building hardly does that. There has been a complete disregard for the neighborhood. I was part of the “Neighborhood Advisory Meetings.” We were told that the whole thing was a “done deal” and that there was “nothing we could do to change it.” I don’t think that that was a wise statement to be making to a group of voters, taxpayers, and neighbors.

I am sure that those pushing the project will find some way to dance around these objectives and make it appear as if the proposed building will comply with the Comprehensive Plan. However, I am hoping that the City Council and the Plan Commission can clearly see that the proposed building does NOT comply with the Comprehensive Plan and cannot be made to comply with it.

I have other objections to this project. Although those objections may not be relevant to the matter which is coming before you, I think that it is relevant to the taxpayers of the city of Eau Claire. The County Board approved $59.1 million for this project. Every estimate I have ever heard, including those from proponents, is that the building, when complete, will cost in excess of $100 million. It is crystal clear to anyone who cares to look at this that the County Board set the approval of funding at $59.1 million to avoid the requirement to take any funding issue of $60 million or more to the voters in a referendum. The citizens of Eau Claire Count are not aware that the County Board has already raised their property taxes by 15% this year and for each of the following 29 years. If the full cost of the project hits the taxpayer’s wallets, the increase will be as much as 30% for each year in the next thirty years. Many of these County residents are also residents of the city of Eau Claire. The City Council would not allow the Eau Claire School District to do such an end run around the voters. Why should the Eau Claire City Council collude with this plan? I want to see full disclosure to the voters. This will mean bringing ALL of the information to the public. If the voters decide to approve a bond issue in referendum and if that vote indicates voter acceptance of site of the proposed building, then I will stand away from the issue. The voters will have spoken, and it is their money (and mine).

Thank you for receiving and considering my input. I would be happy to respond to any questions or comments you may have.

Sincerely,
Nick Smiar