[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6358912,"mediaKeyId","2210663-17778101c41bad9adce1b957c76848ff","parentId",2210663,"title","CDA debates removing 3900 N. Frederick Ave. from village parking-lot RFPs; no clear final tally in transcript","audioSeconds",1503,"startMs",37000,"endMs",1540000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2210663-17778101c41bad9adce1b957c76848ff&start=37&end=1540","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2210663-17778101c41bad9adce1b957c76848ff/thumbnail_37000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6358912/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/CDA-debates-removing-3900-N-Frederick-Ave-from-village-parking-lot-RFPs-no-clear-final-tally-in-transcript","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6358912-b401a1c8fd35247f93b1e06f3eb72449/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159475&Signature=fhjZOuQznVLZM2okOtHkl7WwxMpUb4ktjfvFq65vVZC0ydbsqrhZf0mfjIv5~h7kPShApRaaVEImGNb7cG0YtDws0JpRA1He2H2x5tYSauk2-q9fxJlasubLLuhBTsBpWRgNEsRqJ0MqPWTaYTjPn-WEBSkWzje6MrKuXerULDuUsP5W2iC6Wo~d3FXWdD4Nd~Pfe2bGDl-oSKruYyQvocF2BzOJ~UFs21C10ZjpSYCQbVrKccSPKvh4vCcpD8f-~c9MpIcoWrxGxKPCw2qdN0bhAbp1XGQb~OWZKrmoQkTLFc0YQ2tqP1m01o2jK4sGySXZchn5P7pwILTMg1G8pg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Village of Shorewood, WI","date","2025-02-01T17:03:26.573Z","article","The Shorewood Community Development Authority debated whether to recommend removal of the 3900 North Frederick Avenue parking-lot site from the village\u000027s rolling request-for-proposals process, with members split between preserving the opportunity for future proposals and taking the site off the table to conserve staff time and respond to resident opposition.

Members discussed the question after staff said they had met with all firms that submitted proposals and that two submissions had targeted the Frederick parking-lot site. \"Do you want it to continue with that parking lot site within the scope of the proposal? Or do you want to have us remove it?\" staff member Rebecca asked the CDA at the start of the agenda item.

Why it matters: the CDA serves as a recommending body to the village board on redevelopment proposals. Removing the Frederick site from the rolling RFP would narrow what developers may propose and signal the CDA\u000027s preference to the village board; keeping it in would allow future applicants to submit on that parcel.

Discussion highlights

- Resident and board feedback: Several members said the largest volume of resident opposition they had received was to redevelop the Frederick lot, and one CDA member noted that community members expressed concerns that redevelopment could affect access to the library and public parking. \"There\u000027s still a lot of residents that were concerned that they would never be able to get to the library ever again,\" a member said during public discussion.

- Housing trade-offs and construction costs: Members who favor redevelopment said additional housing supply helps overall housing affordability; others pointed to a practical conflict: if a redevelopment requires replacing surface parking with structured or underground parking, construction costs would rise and \"make the rents increasingly more expensive,\" a member said, reducing the ability to deliver affordable units on that site.

- Timing and staff resources: Several members urged not to spend disproportionate staff time on a site where proposals appear unlikely to gain political support. One member said, \"I don't wanna spend a lot of staff time on it,\" arguing that keeping a site in an open rolling RFP when it attracts little credible interest wastes staff resources.

Motion and procedural notes

A motion was made on the floor that the CDA recommend to the village board that the 3900 North Frederick Avenue site be removed from the village-owned parking-lot RFPs. The transcript records discussion, a request for a roll-call, and multiple members saying verbally that they voted \"no\" or \"aye,\" but the final roll-call numbers and a clear outcome are not unambiguously recorded in the transcript excerpt provided to this article. Because the transcript does not contain a clearly stated final tally or an explicit statement of the motion\u000027s final disposition, the article does not assert whether the recommendation was forwarded or defeated.

Context and next steps

CDA members emphasized that any CDA action would be a recommendation to the village board, and the village board retains final decision-making authority. Several members suggested leaving the site available for future proposals if staff capacity permits; others said the CDA should prioritize parcels with clearer momentum. The meeting then moved to the next agenda topic, land-trust options and allocation of TID-extension funds.

Ending

The record shows substantial disagreement in the CDA about whether to remove the Frederick parking-lot parcel from the rolling RFP. The transcript indicates a motion was put on the table and that members cast votes, but a clear, auditable tally and final disposition are not present in the provided transcript excerpt.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Village of Shorewood Community Development Authority - January 31, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Shorewood Community Development Authority debated whether to recommend removal of the 3900 North Frederick Avenue parking-lot site from the village\u000027s rolling request-for-proposals process, with members split between preserving the opportunity for future proposals and taking the site off the table to conserve staff time and respond to resident opposition.","taxTitle","Shorewood, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin","taxId",69871,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6358907,"CDA recommends village board explore community land trust and use of TID-extension funds",2219,1265000,3484000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2210663-17778101c41bad9adce1b957c76848ff&start=1265&end=3484","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2210663-17778101c41bad9adce1b957c76848ff/thumbnail_1265000.jpg","/articles/6358907/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/CDA-recommends-village-board-explore-community-land-trust-and-use-of-TID-extension-funds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6358907-534454e85e9fe79b170f328b92da2ed3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159475&Signature=CfO7-9RZOATV-5lOaLrcT-LB0FPwVUgAT-A~xhPeIE0mP8CdNsc82RkDcb2GePdDlyDTdQznzHTYsJAvT7WY9MRL21jTvSYx-slGqC1LZJGN1LMnt9IQNH37Qt-2Tkf7MUaNDRTJhunosTmD2H1nrWM4Rpmf~AQGmHBZbumJtmuECkvcud44lN1yC6ZMvhQk2peknf0ZGpAnY3Hs30ysFU9btDoi-2-B2lyBloqKIxsCtkydyq-gOyMd7gxv4NHTN84K2LCQZ9kXjCVE6jZXlWzo-xxTE2l8xKHhttmnhS2TxZMu-qgsCKZOTrb34MDqkO6Lz2FNQD6DZz7d8QH1Og__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Shorewood Community Development Authority voted to recommend that the village board pursue the concept of a community land trust (CLT) property and consider allocating TID-extension (TID 1 extension) funds to support the approach. Members discussed benefits, limits, and operational requirements, and several asked for additional detail and staff capacity analysis before any binding commitment.

Nut graf: CDA members framed the motion as a recommendation-only to the village board. The discussion weighed CLT\u000027s potential to create in-perpetuity affordable homeownership against concerns that using TID funds to buy existing duplexes would reduce the local property tax base and might provide limited new housing units compared with new development.

Key points from discussion

- Motion on the table: One member moved that the CDA recommend to the village board that the village pursue a community land trust property and request allocation of TID 1 extension funds for that purpose; another member seconded. The CDA then debated the concept and competing priorities before putting the recommendation to a vote.

- Purpose and mechanism: A presenter described how a CLT model would work: the land trust would purchase property and sell the improvement to an owner at a restricted resale price, with an agreed-upon annual appreciation cap (example figures in discussion cited an illustrative appreciation rate range of 1.25% to 2% per year). The land would remain in the trust so the affordable resale price is preserved for subsequent buyers.

- Costs and math discussed: Participants referenced an illustrative figure of roughly $250,000 per property (described as \"roughly 250,000\") as the amount used in the CDA\u000027s analysis to acquire a duplex-type property; members also discussed the village\u000027s existing pool of funds described in the meeting as \"210,000,0.0\" (as stated in the transcript) and a separate developer proposal referenced at approximately $950,000. The transcript records differing views on whether the CLT would remove affordable units from the tax roll and how substantial that tax-base reduction would be.

- Tax-base trade-offs: Several CDA members raised concerns that purchasing existing duplexes would likely take already-affordable units off the market and reduce taxable value compared with supporting new development that increases the tax base. One member said, \"It would be taking properties off the tax roll to provide the affordable housing.\" Another member noted that while the CLT model preserves affordability in perpetuity, the village would forego some property tax revenue and should weigh that against anticipated infrastructure expenses.

- Staff capacity and process: Staff and the presenter said that the largest staff responsibility would likely involve establishing assessment methodology and monitoring (assessor workload, bookkeeping and periodic monitoring similar to HOA oversight). Policy 40 (village policy governing use of funds) would need review because it had not been written explicitly with a CLT in mind.

Vote and motion outcome

The CDA placed a recommendation to the village board on the table that the board \"pursue a land trust property and request allocation of TID 1 extension funds.\" The transcript records members asking for clarification and then voting; multiple members indicated \"yes\" and several indicated \"no,\" and some named trustees were recorded during the roll-call exchange. The meeting transcript as provided includes voices and several affirmative roll-call statements (for example, names called and several members recorded as voting \"yes\"), and the chair then stated that the motion would be forwarded as a recommendation to the village board. Because the motion was explicitly framed throughout as a recommendation to the village board, any implementation or fund allocation would require subsequent village board review and compliance with Policy 40 and other administrative steps.

Next steps and context

If the village board pursues the CLT option, staff indicated further work would include clarifying precise funding amounts, whether to pilot with one or two properties, establishing assessment and monitoring procedures, and confirming how much of the TID-extension funds (if any) could be allocated to CLT acquisitions versus infrastructure use. Members requested timeline flexibility; staff noted communities can and do extend TID allocations over multiple years.

Ending

The CDA recommendation will go to the village board for consideration. The motion as recorded in the transcript was framed as a recommendation-only and does not itself approve any expenditure; any allocation of TID funds or staff actions will be subject to later village-board decisions and policy review.","The Shorewood CDA voted to recommend that the village board pursue a community land trust property and consider allocation of TID (Tax Increment District) extension funds to support the approach. Members debated trade-offs: permanent affordability through a community land trust versus impacts on the tax base and other infrastructure priorities.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

CDA debates removing 3900 N. Frederick Ave. from village parking-lot RFPs; no clear final tally in transcript

CDA recommends village board explore community land trust and use of TID-extension funds