One last post about the Sunrise Development (now all but certain), and then we will move on to other things.  Since it became public, the discussion on Sunrise was a spirited debate, with both sides making good points. 

While I believe we could have done better with the site, I see the points made by both sides, and believe the Trustees and the CDA are acting in what they believe is the best interest of the Village.  A few notes about the meeting last night. The lengthy presentation from the CDA and Sunrise covered many angles of the project, from the history of proposals on the site, to financial and tax impact projections, to the aesthetic and "green" aspects of the project.  The proposed building we saw last night was radically improved over the version we saw at the initial meeting in December of 2007. 

The new proposal is much more eco-friendly, including pervious surfaces for the parking lot, a rain garden, native grass plantings along the river, and more green space.  A partial rotation of the building, and re-drawn set of access roads improved both the available green space, and the urban feel of the Capitol Drive frontage.  In my opinion, the building still lacks a certain character, but it is definitely an improvement.

One concern that several readers have raised is whether Sunrise will be able to pay for construction once they start, should their legal and financial challenges continue.  The Village will be shielded from any internal financial volatility within Sunrise Senior Living via the guarantees in the developer agreement that will be signed prior to construction.  What these means for Shorewood residents is that we do not need to worry about the building being left half way done if Sunrise faces additional financial concerns during construction.

I did have concerns about one specific aspect of the presentation.    (Warning: Inside baseball to follow.  Feel free to stop reading here.)  The financial picture presented at the board meeting included a $33 million condominium development on the south end of the lot, in addition to the $13 million Sunrise project.  Wangard Partners has indeed proposed a condo project of this nature for the south lots, and has options open on the relevant properties.  However, the project is on hold due to real estate market concerns.  When I objected to the use of this uncertain prospect in the financial assessment of the project that was presented last night, I was pointedly criticized by one of the trustees who appeared to believe that I was questioning the Village and CDA's accounting principals. 

While the distinction may be fine, my intent was to point out that when we present the project to taxpayers and board members, we should not use a leverage ratio or tax increase forecasts which include the uncertain condominium project.  I have no doubt that the principals used to arrive at the projections were sound, assuming this project takes place.  But while it would be nice to see these condos go in there, we should not tell taxpayers that we will be getting $1.1 million in new taxes in the future, or that the leverage ratio will be 9 to 1, when 75% of the projected increased valuation will come from a project which is not yet certain. 

One final open concern.   I am not certain that the school district will ultimately benefit from this project.  Generally speaking, large run ups in property values with no additional school children for Shorewood have a negative impact on school finances due to revenue caps and state aide formulas.  I have not run the precise numbers on this question, but was hoping to see this issue covered during some part of last night's meeting.  I am very willing to be wrong on this question, if anyone can enlighten the rest of us on how this development will impact the school district.

When all is said and done, this is an improvement over what we saw in December.  And I am very ready to talk about something else for a while.

I am opposed to the Sunrise proposal.  Having read many of the associated documents and emails related to the Sunrise project, I appreciate the amount of staff work that has gone into it.  However, built up momentum is not a reason to move forward, if Village residents would be better served by putting on the brakes and reversing course.   Why am I opposed to the Sunrise proposal?

1. Sunrise is not a corporate citizen we want in Shorewood right now.  Accounting fraud, insider trading, irregular stock options policies, and defamation lawsuits are only several of the questionable aspects of Sunrise’s corporate governance as of late.  Their treatment of their own shareholders at their annual meeting led the New York Times to publish an article entitled “Welcome to the Annual Meeting. Now, Be Quiet.”  As it stands now, we are prepared to pay $800,000 in incentives, and millions more in infrastructure upgrades to bring this company into Shorewood.  We can do better than Sunrise.
2. The plan meets only one goal, and not the most important one.  The only discernible benefit to this plan is a significant increase in the property tax rolls.  Other worthy goals, like attracting school aged children, and maintaining Shorewood’s charm and character have been elbowed roughly aside.  If the reason we have not seen mixed use or residential proposals is because of the negative residential real estate environment, as President Johnson suggested in an interview, surely we can wait several years until the market improves.  Whatever we put on this site will be with us for decades.  Temporary market conditions should not control what goes in there.   
3. The plan is not in keeping with Shorewood’s character.  Several architects offered critiques of the proposal which resonate with me, calling the proposal a “stock plan,” and “not the best design for the village,” and “out of character with Shorewood.”  I personally stray toward the more harsh assessment offered by a city planner in the UK, who called the Sunrise proposal in his city “alien, overbearing, and visually dominant.”
4. We could potentially do better by waiting.  True, the Sunrise proposal may be the best alternative to emerge to date.  The land value increase and tax advantages of the proposed Sunrise development will be significant.  However, I am convinced this proposal is worse for Shorewood in the long term than what is on the site right now, and definitely worse than what we might obtain with a little patience.  While a rejection of the Sunrise proposal may temporarily cause developer interest in our Village to lessen, this interest will return as time moves forward, and the value of our available development sites becomes apparent.  I believe this delay in new development is a price Shorewood residents will be willing to bear to keep the Village's unique identity intact.

A "No" vote on Sunrise would signify a clear return to the distinctive values and unique atmosphere that have made Shorewood a great place to live, and send a signal that this period of slip-sliding toward Stepford is over.  I urge our Trustees to vote "No" on Sunrise.

I had plans for a multi-part series on Sunrise Senior Living and the Riverfront development site, giving readers the details on everything that has happened with the issue since the beginning.  But our time grows short.  The Plan Commission hearing on the issue is tonight, and the Village Board votes next Monday.  As such, I have put together a rough outline of what happened. 

Before we get into the outline, I need to emphasize that the Village Board does have the power to stop the Sunrise development from happening.  It is not a done deal.  Yet.  So if you feel passionately that this the Sunrise Development is not the right thing for Shorewood, now is the time to email your trustees.

Ok, here is the shortened version.

1. Sunrise Senior Living first approached the Village in August of 2006 through Andy Stefanich (An SHS classmate of mine), a commercial real estate agent for CB Richard Ellis.  At that time, the Village had already gone through several iterations of planning for the site, including the original Master Plan recommendation, and early interest from several developers who later pulled out.
2. There are currently 3 properties on the site which are or have been for sale.  Milwaukee PC, the Touhy Apartments, and the Riverbook Restaurant.  Sunrise has been in negotiations with the owners of these sites since as early as September, 2006, according the Open Record emails.
3. As it stands now, Sunrise is the only property which would be put on the site.  Other proposals, including condominiums, and an Advanced Health Care Clinic have been unsuccessful.  In the case of AHC, their proposal was even more out of line with what Shorewood is looking for than what Sunrise is offering.  The condo proposals were abandoned, at least for the time being, due to the sluggish real estate market.
4. Most of the early negotiations took place with Village staff rather than Village Trustees.  President Johnson was involved in some of the earlier meetings.
5. Negotiations and planning have gone through many twists and turns, including details related to traffic control, parking, building plans, the orientation of the building, green building concerns, and subsidies to the developers, among many other details. 
6. Email records indicate that members of the Village Staff were not aware of the legal and ethical issues confronting Sunrise Senior Living until as late as December of 2007. 
7. The final proposal would be as follows.  Sunrise would buy the Riverbrook and the Touhy Apartment Building.  They would build the assisted living center, which would take up the entire Riverbrook lot, and 1/2 of the Touhy lot.  The Village has guaranteed that we will repurchase the other 1/2 of the Touhy lot from Sunrise for $800,000. 
8. Various zoning changes and parking exceptions would be required for this deal to take place, all of which will be voted on at the Plan Commission and Village Board level within the next week.

Protecting our Riverfront is a community endeavor, and therefore we should work on it together.  I have reduced the email pile from 1,800 to about 700 (about 55 pages total) that are in any way related to Sunrise or the Riverfront property.

I will be writing about certain aspects of the emails in the days to come.  In addition to my efforts, I invite you to collaborate with me, in a community research effort.  As you are reading, if you come across anything interesting, please feel free to write your own story, or piece of a story, and add it as a comment below. 

Note: Large file, may take 30-40 seconds to open.