We had a very successful rally and meeting at the courthouse on Wednesday.
I want congratulate and thank all of you who attended and have supported this issue so far.
Keep up the letters and articles.
Volume 1 has some very good space devoted by readers to the Riverfront Jail. Stop by and leave a comment or two with them as well.
You have just begun. First we needed to reach the media and use them to make it known that saving our waterfront from this jail project is important to many many members of our community. We still need to let other community members, who agree with us, know ..... that now is the time....The issue is now in focus ..... and we need more people to speak up ...... or be satisfied with the heritage they will be leaving.
We also have successfully begun to establish our own communication and awareness network. We can not rely on the traditional media to notify and inform... let alone understand the issue ... or clearly report the message. We have begun to set up a strong email forwarding system. Please continue to make it grow and work for us.
If you have the skill and the time... you can help this communication system grow by forwarding pertinent emails and calls to action. Thank you.
Our next meeting is Monday at the 1st Congregational Church across from Randall Park. At 7PM... We welcome supporters who oppose the location of the Jail upon our Riverfront and we will use the time to review future plans, and update you on the issues. Bring 2 friends.
I wish we could say we have affected our County Board and our job is done.... but the county board is not our focus. The City Council are the defenders of our riverfront. The County just finally recognized the need for a jail and with disregard for our city efforts they just want to plop it down and move on with county business. The city council passed the Comprehensive Plan and we need to show them that there is support for them to stand up to the county and tell them the Jail does not belong on the riverfront.
Please try to attend Monday's meeting so we can outline our next steps. You are doing a great job. Bring 3 friends and it will be even better.
originated as an email by Ken
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
County Board Meeting Wedndesday!
– Your Voice is needed –
The decorative Riverfront Downtown Jail Project is moving forward & your HELP is needed. This Wednesday evening there will be an OPEN House at the County Courthouse at 6PM to view the current plans and meet the County Board supervisors, as well as the architects and planners. Following the Open House, the County Board will be voting whether to allocate $25 million dollars towards advancing this project forward.
We are marching on the courthouse this Wednesday.
Meet us at 5:45pm, Wednesday February 20, at the corner of First and Grand Avenues (also called Peace Park, in the shadow of the proposed riverfront jail). We will walk together to the open house at the nearby Courthouse to make our collective voices strong: NO JAIL DOWNTOWN.
Even if you can't make it early, please attend the meeting and speak out! You are needed to help stop this project while we still can.
Even though agendas for the Wednesday County Board Meeting have not reached the board members as of Tuesday morning, the agenda when received will call for a vote on approving a $25 Million dollar bonding issue to continue the Jail project.
The City has not yet had an opportunity to approve or reject the re-zoning of the riverfront property that the county wants to use to build it’s 4 story jail. There is a planned Protest Petition being filed with the City Council when this re-zoning reaches the Council for discussion & vote.
The Citizens for Accountability in Jail Expansion feel that the county board should table it’s bonding effort until it is known if the city will change it’s comprehensive plan for downtown improvements on the riverfront and allow property proposed for the Jail to be re-zoned.
How can you help?
Meet in peace park (first and grand) this Wedndesday at 5:45pm.
Come later to the Wednesday meeting at the County Board.
Call your friends & neighbors about this & ask them to attend
Email this website to everyone you know who might want to see this project halted (click the envelope at the end of this message to email this page to your friends now!)
Put this announcement on your facebook or myspace page, add the rally to your calendar!
Call & email all of the county board supervisors
Call AND email all of the city council members
Call & email all of the Plan Commission Members
Call & email Mike Huggins the City Manager
Write a letter to the Leader Telegram opposing the re-zoning and urging the County & the City to gain its senses
We have several sample letters posted on this site. Feel free to cut and paste. The important thing is that you write or call with the simple message: No Jail Downtown!
Jail study group seeks public input
A public meeting meant to give input to a group studying Eau Claire County's justice system will begin at 9 a.m. Thursday in Room G034 of the courthouse, 721 Oxford Ave.
The National Institute of Corrections, which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice, has scheduled a community forum and plans to reveal research results.
Today and Wednesday, NIC officials plan to visit with local officials, including those who work in the jail.
The study is expected to provide advice on constructing the county's new jail; work is scheduled to begin in the fall.
above from the leader telegram
The information below came from Bruce Willett and Tom McCarty.
Date: February 18, 2008
From: Bruce Willett, County Board Chairman Tom McCarty, County Administrator
To: County Board Members City Council Members Mike Huggins, City Manager Mike Felton, Department of Corrections
Re: NIC Justice System Analysis; Community Meeting
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) will be conducting a Local Justice System Assessment of Eau Claire County February 19-21, 2008. The assessment process will include interviews with key criminal justice policy makers and support groups associated with the jail, which will be conducted February 19-20th at the Eau Claire County courthouse, room 2532. On Thursday, February 21st the NIC consultants will be conducting a community meeting (9am-3pm) in room G034 of the courthouse to present their findings and hold an open forum discussion. You are invited to attend and participate in this discussion (a tentative agenda is enclosed). Also enclosed are four background items that have been forwarded by the NIC team for review prior to the interviews/forum. Copies of these materials will also be available in the Eau Claire County Administration office. Please contact the Administration office if you have questions regarding this project, and with your intent to attend (RSVP’s appreciated, but not required).
Phone: (715) 839-4835 Fax: (715) 839-6243 Email: admin@co.eau-claire.wi.us
Tentative Agenda
Community Meeting Eau Claire County Local Justice System Assessment Thursday, February 21, 2008 Eau Claire County Courthouse, Room G034 9am-3pm
1. Introduction of National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Consultants
2. Review of Proposed Agenda
3. Brief Overview of Services Provided by the NIC
4. Jail and Justice System Overview
a. Admissions and length of stay
b. Agency impacts on jail population
c. Managing jail (over)crowding
5. Jail Population and Bed Space
6. Seven Key Justice System Decision Points / Discussion
7. Justice System Trends in Eau Claire County
8. Comparison of ECC Justice System to Other Wisconsin Counties
9. Summary of Consultant Findings and Observations / Discussion
10. Major Choices and Challenges for Eau Claire County
11. Recommended Planning Process
12. Correctional Sanctions and Services Matrix
13. Consultant Recommendation
14. Action Planning / Discussion
15. Closing by Eau Claire County Officials
16. Adjourn
The National Institute of Corrections, which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice, has scheduled a community forum and plans to reveal research results.
Today and Wednesday, NIC officials plan to visit with local officials, including those who work in the jail.
The study is expected to provide advice on constructing the county's new jail; work is scheduled to begin in the fall.
above from the leader telegram
The information below came from Bruce Willett and Tom McCarty.
Date: February 18, 2008
From: Bruce Willett, County Board Chairman Tom McCarty, County Administrator
To: County Board Members City Council Members Mike Huggins, City Manager Mike Felton, Department of Corrections
Re: NIC Justice System Analysis; Community Meeting
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) will be conducting a Local Justice System Assessment of Eau Claire County February 19-21, 2008. The assessment process will include interviews with key criminal justice policy makers and support groups associated with the jail, which will be conducted February 19-20th at the Eau Claire County courthouse, room 2532. On Thursday, February 21st the NIC consultants will be conducting a community meeting (9am-3pm) in room G034 of the courthouse to present their findings and hold an open forum discussion. You are invited to attend and participate in this discussion (a tentative agenda is enclosed). Also enclosed are four background items that have been forwarded by the NIC team for review prior to the interviews/forum. Copies of these materials will also be available in the Eau Claire County Administration office. Please contact the Administration office if you have questions regarding this project, and with your intent to attend (RSVP’s appreciated, but not required).
Phone: (715) 839-4835 Fax: (715) 839-6243 Email: admin@co.eau-claire.wi.us
Tentative Agenda
Community Meeting Eau Claire County Local Justice System Assessment Thursday, February 21, 2008 Eau Claire County Courthouse, Room G034 9am-3pm
1. Introduction of National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Consultants
2. Review of Proposed Agenda
3. Brief Overview of Services Provided by the NIC
4. Jail and Justice System Overview
a. Admissions and length of stay
b. Agency impacts on jail population
c. Managing jail (over)crowding
5. Jail Population and Bed Space
6. Seven Key Justice System Decision Points / Discussion
7. Justice System Trends in Eau Claire County
8. Comparison of ECC Justice System to Other Wisconsin Counties
9. Summary of Consultant Findings and Observations / Discussion
10. Major Choices and Challenges for Eau Claire County
11. Recommended Planning Process
12. Correctional Sanctions and Services Matrix
13. Consultant Recommendation
14. Action Planning / Discussion
15. Closing by Eau Claire County Officials
16. Adjourn
Sunday, February 17, 2008
make signs!
(an idea of what one person can do)
I made up a bunch of the no jail downtown signs on the tongue depressors and handed them out after the Obama Rally at 1st and Water. People were very supportive, I went through 200 in no time. It will help to inform about the blog. I left some at just local as well.
Joel
I made up a bunch of the no jail downtown signs on the tongue depressors and handed them out after the Obama Rally at 1st and Water. People were very supportive, I went through 200 in no time. It will help to inform about the blog. I left some at just local as well.
Joel
Leader Telegram article Feb 16
Do you take issue with this article, with the headline, or the opinions expressed?
Make comments at the Leader Telegram website, contact the reporter or write a letter to the editor.
Jail, courthouse referendum not likely to happen
By Andrew Dowd Leader-Telegram staff
Some citizens are asking for a halt or referendum on Eau Claire County's $59.1 million jail and courthouse remodeling project, but County Board members said that's not likely.
Board member Howard Ludwigson supported holding a referendum on the project and got the County Board to vote on his proposal during the June meeting where the budget project was approved.
"The County Board turned it down," he said. "It's not that the County Board didn't have that opportunity."
The Board voted 17-10 against the referendum on June 19. To overturn that, a board member who voted against the referendum would have to request it be reconsidered, or a referendum request would have to be attached to upcoming bond issues.
Even if that happened, Ludwigson said the board's membership hasn't changed enough to request a referendum, though he feels that's still the way to go.
Kathleen Clark and other board members argued that most people did not attend open meetings and information sessions held by the County Board and don't know as much about the project as County Board members. She added that county government is not subject to the same referendum requirements as public schools.
"There is nothing in the state statutes requiring us to have a referendum," she said.
A 1992 local government spending cap does limit how much counties can borrow, but that can be overridden by a three-quarters vote of the County Board. In the case of the jail and remodeling project, the $59.1 million cost put the project just under the limit of about $60 million that would have required a referendum.
Citizens can petition for an advisory referendum, but Ludwigson said it's doubtful enough signatures could be gathered in time.
To get on the April ballot, a referendum question would have to be approved by Tuesday, county Clerk Janet Loomis said.
A special election for a referendum could be held, Ludwigson said, but that would cost a few thousand dollars if not done on a regular election day.
Bond issue reaching board Wednesday
Construction of the new jail is slated to begin in fall, and the County Board will vote Wednesday on the first $25 million of borrowing. The county originally planned to borrow $10 million in 2008, but wanted to take advantage of current low interest rates.
Clark, a member of the Finance and Budget Committee, said the recommendation is to borrow $25 million this year, $25 million the next and $9.1 million in 2010.
Lower interest rates also are expected to lower the final cost of the jail to $92 million when interest is included, Clark said. Previous projections put the final price tag at $99.5 million.
Community members have lobbed allegations that the county is underestimating costs of the jail and will go above the $59.1 million approved construction costs.
In a letter to city and county politicians and the media, Eau Claire resident Paul Kaldjian wrote that the "cost of the jail has been disingenuously underestimated at $59.1 million."
However, county Project Manager Frank Draxler said that is the ceiling set by the County Board, and the project cannot go over that price, but some parts of the plan could be scaled back if they are too expensive.
"We're not to exceed 59.1, period," he said. "If things cost more, they'll have to be cut."
After years of studies and multiple votes, Draxler noted the County Board has approved building the jail between the courthouse and First Avenue.
At the June 19 meeting, by a vote of 16-11 the County Board approved a new jail and courthouse remodeling. Spending $59.1 million for construction passed 15-12. Board member Tami Schraufnagel switched her vote.
Since then, those decisions have been reinforced by other votes including approval of an architect, construction manager, buying property for the new jail and a higher tax rate in the 2008 county budget.
Make comments at the Leader Telegram website, contact the reporter or write a letter to the editor.
Jail, courthouse referendum not likely to happen
By Andrew Dowd Leader-Telegram staff
Some citizens are asking for a halt or referendum on Eau Claire County's $59.1 million jail and courthouse remodeling project, but County Board members said that's not likely.
Board member Howard Ludwigson supported holding a referendum on the project and got the County Board to vote on his proposal during the June meeting where the budget project was approved.
"The County Board turned it down," he said. "It's not that the County Board didn't have that opportunity."
The Board voted 17-10 against the referendum on June 19. To overturn that, a board member who voted against the referendum would have to request it be reconsidered, or a referendum request would have to be attached to upcoming bond issues.
Even if that happened, Ludwigson said the board's membership hasn't changed enough to request a referendum, though he feels that's still the way to go.
Kathleen Clark and other board members argued that most people did not attend open meetings and information sessions held by the County Board and don't know as much about the project as County Board members. She added that county government is not subject to the same referendum requirements as public schools.
"There is nothing in the state statutes requiring us to have a referendum," she said.
A 1992 local government spending cap does limit how much counties can borrow, but that can be overridden by a three-quarters vote of the County Board. In the case of the jail and remodeling project, the $59.1 million cost put the project just under the limit of about $60 million that would have required a referendum.
Citizens can petition for an advisory referendum, but Ludwigson said it's doubtful enough signatures could be gathered in time.
To get on the April ballot, a referendum question would have to be approved by Tuesday, county Clerk Janet Loomis said.
A special election for a referendum could be held, Ludwigson said, but that would cost a few thousand dollars if not done on a regular election day.
Bond issue reaching board Wednesday
Construction of the new jail is slated to begin in fall, and the County Board will vote Wednesday on the first $25 million of borrowing. The county originally planned to borrow $10 million in 2008, but wanted to take advantage of current low interest rates.
Clark, a member of the Finance and Budget Committee, said the recommendation is to borrow $25 million this year, $25 million the next and $9.1 million in 2010.
Lower interest rates also are expected to lower the final cost of the jail to $92 million when interest is included, Clark said. Previous projections put the final price tag at $99.5 million.
Community members have lobbed allegations that the county is underestimating costs of the jail and will go above the $59.1 million approved construction costs.
In a letter to city and county politicians and the media, Eau Claire resident Paul Kaldjian wrote that the "cost of the jail has been disingenuously underestimated at $59.1 million."
However, county Project Manager Frank Draxler said that is the ceiling set by the County Board, and the project cannot go over that price, but some parts of the plan could be scaled back if they are too expensive.
"We're not to exceed 59.1, period," he said. "If things cost more, they'll have to be cut."
After years of studies and multiple votes, Draxler noted the County Board has approved building the jail between the courthouse and First Avenue.
At the June 19 meeting, by a vote of 16-11 the County Board approved a new jail and courthouse remodeling. Spending $59.1 million for construction passed 15-12. Board member Tami Schraufnagel switched her vote.
Since then, those decisions have been reinforced by other votes including approval of an architect, construction manager, buying property for the new jail and a higher tax rate in the 2008 county budget.
facebook / myspace
Hey - don't forget to tell your friends through your facebook and myspace pages! Let's rally Eau Claire!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
action
As of now, one of the most important actions you can take is educating yourself and your neighbors as to the impact and scope of the jail project. Once you've formed an opinion, the next greatest thing you can do is share your opinion with our elected leaders. The County Board still has the authority (duty) to reconsider the matter. Their names and emails are listed on this site under "decisionmakers". The Eau Claire City Council also has a chance to weigh in on the matter when they are asked by the County to change the zoning for whichever properties they end up purchasing. So it would also be helpful for you to contact them. It is entirely appropriate to contact all of these folks, no matter where you live, as you do not need to be a constituent in their "district" per se in order to share your opinion. Your voice does count, this is not a "done deal" as some have said! And by all means, if you are motivated, join us at our next meeting! We'd love to have you!
Dear City Council members:
I spent time on the original "Citizens Advisory Council" to the County Jail project. Bob Von Haden was also a member of this group.
We met several times over a 6 or 7 month period for about two hours each meeting.
I seems to me that "Advisory" must mean listening to the "powers that be" advise us on what things are happening between each meeting! That is exactly what happened.
Our advise was asked only when it came time to "sell" this project to the public. How can we best talk the public into buying into this very expensive project??
Objections to the location of this new jail received not a listen!! It seemed to be a "done deal"!!
This is not the way a democracy should work.
I ask, at this late date, for the city council to vote for a County-wide referendum on this Jail project and not simply rubber stamp the approval of this Hundred Million plus dollar project!
Thank you for your attention!
Thanks much,
Keep on hammerin with H4H!
Peace,
Jerry
We met several times over a 6 or 7 month period for about two hours each meeting.
I seems to me that "Advisory" must mean listening to the "powers that be" advise us on what things are happening between each meeting! That is exactly what happened.
Our advise was asked only when it came time to "sell" this project to the public. How can we best talk the public into buying into this very expensive project??
Objections to the location of this new jail received not a listen!! It seemed to be a "done deal"!!
This is not the way a democracy should work.
I ask, at this late date, for the city council to vote for a County-wide referendum on this Jail project and not simply rubber stamp the approval of this Hundred Million plus dollar project!
Thank you for your attention!
Thanks much,
Keep on hammerin with H4H!
Peace,
Jerry
To: County Board Members:
I spent time on the original "Citizens Advisory Council" to the County Jail project. We met several times over a 6 or 7 month period for about two hours each meeting.
It seems to me that "Advisory" must mean listening to the "powers that be" advise us on what things were happening between each meeting! That is exactly what happened.
Our advise was asked only when it came time to "sell" this project to the public. How can we best talk the public into buying into this very expensive project?? We were asked.
Expanding the TIP program was suggested but not taken seriously as a way to affect the building of a new jail. Suggestions of other programs: Mental Health Court, Youth Drug Court, and others were also discussed by some folks. Again, none were taken seriously as having any possible effect on the size for a new jail!
Objections to the location of this new jail received not a listen!! It seemed to be a "done deal"!! We were told that the location was a "done deal" because the County Board had voted on it!
Costs were discussed at length and that committee decided that if such a project were to be done, it should be done completely, all at once. The cost would have been in the neighborhood of 120 million dollars. However the cost of doing all of the buildings piecemeal over a fifteen or twenty year period could not even be estimated other than a guess of at least twice the 120 million.
Apparently the County Board decided to go with only the jail portion so the cost could be held under 60 million dollars. Our committee discussed that option also. Members of the committee discussed and knew that the total cost for just this jail project would probably be about one hundred million dollars. The public has not been told about the one hundred million. Nor has the public been told about the huge extra costs predicted to hire many additional staff people to make this new jail work.
This is not the way a democracy should work. Advisory Committees should have input into the meetings they are asked to attend. The public should have input through a referendum when such large costs are involved which will directly their taxes.
I ask, at this late date, for the County Board to call for a County-wide referendum on this Jail project and not simply rubber stamp the approval of this Hundred Million plus dollar project!
Thank you for your attention!
Peace,
Kenneth G. (Jerry) Foote
It seems to me that "Advisory" must mean listening to the "powers that be" advise us on what things were happening between each meeting! That is exactly what happened.
Our advise was asked only when it came time to "sell" this project to the public. How can we best talk the public into buying into this very expensive project?? We were asked.
Expanding the TIP program was suggested but not taken seriously as a way to affect the building of a new jail. Suggestions of other programs: Mental Health Court, Youth Drug Court, and others were also discussed by some folks. Again, none were taken seriously as having any possible effect on the size for a new jail!
Objections to the location of this new jail received not a listen!! It seemed to be a "done deal"!! We were told that the location was a "done deal" because the County Board had voted on it!
Costs were discussed at length and that committee decided that if such a project were to be done, it should be done completely, all at once. The cost would have been in the neighborhood of 120 million dollars. However the cost of doing all of the buildings piecemeal over a fifteen or twenty year period could not even be estimated other than a guess of at least twice the 120 million.
Apparently the County Board decided to go with only the jail portion so the cost could be held under 60 million dollars. Our committee discussed that option also. Members of the committee discussed and knew that the total cost for just this jail project would probably be about one hundred million dollars. The public has not been told about the one hundred million. Nor has the public been told about the huge extra costs predicted to hire many additional staff people to make this new jail work.
This is not the way a democracy should work. Advisory Committees should have input into the meetings they are asked to attend. The public should have input through a referendum when such large costs are involved which will directly their taxes.
I ask, at this late date, for the County Board to call for a County-wide referendum on this Jail project and not simply rubber stamp the approval of this Hundred Million plus dollar project!
Thank you for your attention!
Peace,
Kenneth G. (Jerry) Foote
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
