|
| Welcome to Pewaukee Patriot | Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 11:52 AM CDT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/03/2008 Common Council Meeting agenda
Authored by: Anonymous on
Sunday, December 02 2007 @ 08:52 PM CST The Watertown Road project actually would leave 3 properties resifential. There is 1 more property to the east thast is roughly 3 acres however it is not owner occupied and is used as a rental property. The owner has no intention on selling. The other 2 residential properties tried to work with the developers as we were originally appoached to sell our properties and later found out there was no intent to purchase us but to leave us remaining in front of their multi-tennant warehouse . We understand that the City of Pewaukee cannot force the developer purchasw our properties however the Common Council can deny approval until someone comes along who wants to delop it all at once and not leave us remaining and decreasing our property value as a residence.
[ Reply to This | # ]
12/03/2008 Common Council Meeting agenda
Authored by: Anonymous on
Sunday, December 02 2007 @ 11:01 PM CST Why would the CC allow an "island" of residential to remain in the middle of a commercial area, if it gets rezoned? This seems totally unfair to the property owners, if as you state, there is only about 1.5 acres between them.
Who will see to it that their property value is not eroded? Will the city make the commercial developers buy them out? Will the city buy them out and make a park out of the land? I would be SO ticked if they did this to me. Don't vote to re-zone at the expense of 2 or 3 residential property owners. Make the developers do the right thing. You do not want to create an island, that is the wrong way to go. It's a case of all or nothing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
12/03/2008 Common Council Meeting agenda
Authored by: Anonymous on
Sunday, December 02 2007 @ 11:30 PM CST Dale
I hate to correct an Alderman, but the ordinance as written, DOES give you the right to approve the budget. It DOES NOT give you the right to approve the levy. This year the levy is proposed at $2.49 per thousand. As of today the people who attend the Monday night meeting should get to approve that levy, if they agree with it. I notice that there is a proposed suspension of the rule, and that the first and second reading will be conducted tomorrow night. The vote will be binding, and the ordinance changed immediately, as I'm certain all of you will vote to change an obvious error made by our City Attorney when we incorporated into a City. There does seem to be one other problem. Until the minutes of tomorrow night's meeting are published and approved by the CC is any action you take considered legal? If someone were to challenge the proposed change, based on what the minutes read, would that ordinance go into effect regardless of the accuracy of the minutes, which are the only public record we have to determine whether the published ordinance reflects the actual intent of the CC? I'm a little uneasy that this has been going on forever (since 1999), and that it is being handled in what appears to be a band-aid manner. I have attended many meetings where ordinances were adopted subject to changes, even at second readings. This is not a sound policy. In our every day lives we get scammed by people who promise the moon, and then, when push comes to shove, we discover that the fine print doesn't include the promises made to us, and we end up paying for trusting those who we contract with.
[ Reply to This | # ]
12/03/2008 Common Council Meeting agenda
Authored by: dale on
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 06:11 AM CST I stand corrected. Chapter 2 of the City Code provides for the Council to approve the budget, but section 2.04 states that the electorate approves the levy. However, Chapter 65 of State Statue (65.07) states that the Council has the power to levy the taxes. I do understand your concerns regarding the suspension of the rules for ordinance adoption, but in this case, we need to do it. Thankfully we do not suspend the rules often. Also remember, it was not that long ago that we did not have two readings of an ordinance, we did not have open discussion during agenda items and public comment was limited to the end of the meeting. Oh, and please don't "hate to correct an Alderman". I know that from time to time, I need to be corrected. In my opinion, we all need that once in a while.
[ Reply to This | # ]
12/03/2008 Common Council Meeting agenda
Authored by: Anonymous on
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 12:19 PM CST What specifically is on the agenda in regards to Clinks contract?
[ Reply to This | # ]
12/03/2008 Common Council Meeting agenda
Authored by: dale on
Tuesday, December 04 2007 @ 06:16 AM CST As you may or may not know, Clink is not an employee of the City of Pewaukee. He is a contractor to the City who provides planning services. The contract is a yearly contract and states the duties to be performed and the cost of those services. The 2008 contract is for $65,820. Being as this is a contract, there are no benefits associated with this position. The contract also states that the planner will work 144 days in the year and spells out the requirements for terminating the contract.
[ Reply to This | # ]
12/03/2008 Common Council Meeting agenda
Authored by: Anonymous on
Tuesday, December 04 2007 @ 09:53 AM CST Do most part-time planners make $577 a day?
This seems like an awful lot of money, even if he is considered self-employed and pays the 15.3% to fund his SS and Medicare. That amount is about 82.00/ day. Leaving him with a net wage of $495 per day, minus travel expenses of 50.5 cents per mile. His taxable income is probably around $450.00 a day, since his SS, Medicare and Milage come off the top of his income on his Schedule C. He also gets to deduct the cost of his health insurance supplement from his income before he pays taxes on that income. Nice work if you can get it! It's no wonder he won't retire.
[ Reply to This | # ]
12/03/2008 Common Council Meeting agenda
Authored by: Anonymous on
Tuesday, December 04 2007 @ 02:13 PM CST ALL CITY TAXPAYERS ATTENTION. I think the figures above are in the ballpark and for working only 3 days a week and attending some meetings, the City Planner is committing robbery every time he gets a check. Also his accomplices are the people writing the check.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||