[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6188083,"mediaKeyId","5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1","parentId",5064123,"title","Votes at a glance: Capital asset policy referral, safe‑streets demo, contract amendment and affordable‑housing phase‑1 recommendation","audioSeconds",6850,"startMs",1210000,"endMs",8060000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1&start=1210&end=8060","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1/thumbnail_1210000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6188083/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Votes-at-a-glance-Capital-asset-policy-referral-safestreets-demo-contract-amendment-and-affordablehousing-phase1-recommendation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188083-8eda6e9d4f345a3ab861c520de1b3cf4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775407436&Signature=QUhmwMBmn05z8S7Lu7r1cuh0ck6boHKm0C2jNey1ekFk1vrj3Snf7BvEbH7aiAj~fokCHtb1UJBrGbpMU4836GbVdh9~GBMkvcxlFEdoLVdfu951QuigGjcfTElIBGvydCr3JKQnSALPBURvE8KWWqKvqX8wYL32TuMEAQaikw0DbG5fYuVjiI~Lk3cfX-CUl-gW75HFDuzABpv~-JrqhkxylakAFkqfymqmctN8YTTInKCgxR1n7Q7F63FyuI1cLqSqrNsi8FCbjDEGhhwRlsoterLrV-28NV5Nnffizx-nDO7HTLQ-XALUKdTiiStoNSJCpon8WizHMNmylAxKsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Village of Shorewood, WI","date","2025-06-23T17:25:45Z","article","Key formal actions taken during the evening session (motions, brief details, and outcomes):

1) Budget & Finance Committee: fixed asset funding policy — recommendation to Village Board
- Motion: Committee moved to recommend the proposed fixed asset (capital) funding policy to the village board, with staff adding background on the current accounting policy. (Committee motion text: “I move to recommend that the fixed asset policy move to the village board, referencing background on the current policy.”)
- Outcome: Motion passed at the committee, 3–0 in favor. Staff will forward the policy to the village board for consideration.

2) Village Board: P‑1 zoning amendment (commercial kitchens / expanded GX uses) — public hearing and deferral
- Subject: A request originating from North Shore Presbyterian Church to allow commercial kitchens in P‑1 institutional zones; the Plan Commission recommended expanding the change to allow multiple GX commercial uses in P‑1. The village board conducted a public hearing, heard public comment and Plan Commission testimony.
- Outcome: The board held two floor motions (an initial motion narrowly failed 3–3 on a roll call, and a broader motion was withdrawn) and then voted to defer final action to the next meeting to give the Business Improvement District and other stakeholders time to provide input. No ordinance change adopted at this meeting.

3) Safe Streets demonstration extension
- Motion: Direct staff to keep the Safe Streets demonstration equipment installed through the summer and remove it prior to September, in time for leaf collection and winter operations.
- Outcome: Motion passed (voice vote). Staff noted there was no added cost for the extension and that Strand Associates is preparing a final quantitative report; the final report is expected to be delivered in August.

4) Contract amendment — Lake Drive (Kapoor & Associates)
- Motion: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Kapoor & Associates Lake Drive Bridal service line replacement agreement, in the amount of $8,400.
- Outcome: Motion approved (voice vote).

5) CDA recommendation / affordable housing (4450 N. Oakland; Spruill Commercial LLC)
- Motion: The board was asked to consider whether the project warrants further exploration; the CDA recommended that staff and the developer proceed to a phase‑2 application for the village’s policy for public financial assistance for affordable housing.
- Outcome: Board voted to advance the concept to a phase‑2 application (voice vote; one board member voted in the negative). Staff will work with the developer to assemble the phase‑2 submission for CDA review and a subsequent return to the village board.

No other formal ordinances or final land‑use actions were adopted tonight. Several agenda items were informational (the DPW test‑fit presentation and the long‑range financial plan review) and will return for future consideration or action as needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Budget & Finance and Village Board Meeting - June 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Short summary of formal motions and outcomes from the meeting — committee referral of a fixed‑asset policy, zoning public hearing deferred, safe‑streets demo extended, a small contract amendment approved, and the CDA‑backed affordable‑housing project advanced to phase‑2.","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},6188087,"Board defers decision on allowing commercial kitchens and broader commercial uses in P‑1 institutional zones",1784,5311000,7095000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1&start=5311&end=7095","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1/thumbnail_5311000.jpg","/articles/6188087/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Board-defers-decision-on-allowing-commercial-kitchens-and-broader-commercial-uses-in-P1-institutional-zones","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188087-7e513f2f3f2dd28c57e96d2d62275848/orig.mp4?Expires=1775407436&Signature=ZqFxEnEyZyrqjE6SS6JkNTREu4hniN5bWSPOSINadC3fFJeIprTqljAvvE4ub-Yprji44SQ-ijbkUUQW2SoXxOjGlL10x1UA7pboY67092JiHA3Q01r9AGRhvPRs41O~gGK414ofg6yfYI~LPS~KvSYKjNBrYF3AePjUsbG14Kfj~HN9T3KEMq2AIAEI4cXBC2QwvwpEgBvD8f9dn-W2ki57LDNU~KCl2ISjaLCa60OHYzsSxcEfy5nKE5h82ty1tRG-M9teDDZS6sF3WDVp~9bkwgQufEOfpMVWTkQwE94aWlWkU5wrFxG0O78fJA8fLNi09TXthA1qPkNUwzztKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The village board opened a public hearing on a plan commission‑originated request to allow commercial kitchens and other commercial uses in the P‑1 institutional zoning district (the village’s institutional and school block zoning). The request began as a single applicant’s effort to allow a church to lease an existing commercial kitchen to food entrepreneurs; at the Plan Commission the scope was broadened and commissioners recommended allowing a range of GX district uses (consumer services, limited eating and drinking, artisan manufacturing and production, medical/dental offices, limited retail sales, funeral and mortuary services and lodging) in the P‑1 district.

Director of planning staff reviewed the zoning table, the definition of “artisan manufacturing and production” (the applicant’s original category) and the comprehensive plan consistency test under state statute. Staff reported outreach to other P‑1 property owners (schools, village and religious institutions) and said no other property owners submitted requests but the Plan Commission had asked staff to explore the broader GX‑use option.

Trustees and commissioners discussed benefits and risks. Supporters said limited additional commercial uses would increase flexibility for underused institutional buildings and help local entrepreneurs; some highlighted a church-owned commercial kitchen that would host cottage-scale bakers and caterers. Dissenting trustees and several public commenters raised concerns about neighborhood impacts — especially the loss of local oversight for change-of‑use (if the uses were permitted rather than conditional), parking impacts for adjacent blocks, and potential competition with the village business district. The business improvement district did not submit written comments by the deadline; BID representatives requested time to review and respond.

After an initial motion narrowly failed on a proposal to allow only commercial kitchens (3–3 on a roll call), the board’s second, broader motion — which would have allowed GX‑class uses in the entire P‑1 district — was withdrawn, and the board voted to defer action until the BID and other stakeholders can weigh in and staff can return with any recommended refinements. The item will return as new business at a future meeting after the BID and staff follow‑up.","After a public hearing and Plan Commission recommendation to expand allowed uses in the P‑1 institutional zoning district, the Village Board deferred action to get input from the business improvement district and other stakeholders.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6188092,"Architects show six ‘test-fit’ concepts for Shorewood DPW site; higher-density options would raise assessed value",1630,3130000,4760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1&start=3130&end=4760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1/thumbnail_3130000.jpg","/articles/6188092/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Architects-show-six-test-fit-concepts-for-Shorewood-DPW-site-higher-density-options-would-raise-assessed-value","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188092-1473801277308cce04585b71a9d024c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775407436&Signature=B~EIzxKDFTbru4EaPo7KfLX7mfsKFVAaWkIHeYZHhUiH7XCpIah8vEtUt~MXnoCs53SJQwIG4aPSOuJo1Be0M8H8m~~7sHvauEGPXZn4yUxbhOnsU~kcVSW9cZKWIwyuuIu3ATMe70j3LziM6tlzoSqNmYmZi1eXBFMyofMiWJD5SFST8fLrho2kamWFGVHIk6Xw5OQqbyt7ZQmQmd75BQ8UdtaDm7tYWNS65mDEmib-Jf3CRlioNO-bNw0X86hY~0OpL1SvVuokEHM6YZiYL1QCu09pnj-9HckoVRu3SVfvBflHqYoCTcU7Wo8aK4kfm4-ys4TI6RVwqco8s~buJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Epstein|UN Architects presented six conceptual “test-fit” options for development of the village’s Department of Public Works site, showing a range from low-density two‑unit buildings to higher-density mid‑rise apartment schemes with podium parking.

Presenters said the exercise is a high‑level study to illustrate what could fit on the parcel if the village chose to move DPW operations to an alternate site. The study modeled several product types: duplex-style two‑story flat/flat buildings (34 units), suburban “walk‑up” buildings (roughly 48 units in the concepts shown), mixed podium buildings that preserve one or two existing site structures and add an elevator building (about 80 units in one scheme), and larger mid‑rise apartment bars (more than 100 units in the largest concept). The architects emphasized these are conceptual site fits, not final designs.

Engineers and cost consultants presented opinion-of-probable-cost numbers. For the lower-density scheme the team estimated a round construction cost in the low‑tens of millions (a representative option cited was roughly $15 million); a single mid‑rise option the team priced at materially higher amounts per unit but with a larger overall assessed value. The presentation noted a significant east‑side retaining wall and site grading that influence cost and layout choices; reusing one of the existing warehouse or office buildings reduces demolition costs but adds renovation expense.

The team also modeled parking strategies. Low-density layouts included one‑to‑one enclosed garages; higher-density plans used a mix of enclosed podium or structured parking plus surface visitor parking. Architects explained underground parking would be cost‑prohibitive on the site because of shoring and foundation expense; podium parking with ramping and multiple levels was deemed technically possible but costly.

The presentation concluded with estimated assessed‑value ranges per option and a reminder that the test fits were intended to inform discussions of site capability and potential value to a developer, not to propose a specific redevelopment. Board members asked about unit sizes, parking, and development feasibility. The board did not take action; presenters said the materials and a written summary would be posted to the village’s project page.

Speakers from the consultant team included Michael (Mike) Oates and Scott Kindness from Epstein|UN Architects, and a construction cost representative who gave the cost overviews. Staff and trustees asked technical and programmatic questions during the presentation.","Epstein|UN Architects presented six conceptual site layouts for the Department of Public Works site ranging from duplex-style units to multi‑story mid‑rise apartments; higher-density options produce larger assessed-value estimates but require costlier demolition and structural work.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6188097,"Shorewood finance team presents 10-year long-range plan; board urged to focus on 2026–2028 window",194,1364000,1558000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1&start=1364&end=1558","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5064123-1d6b2dfe19a80dd27f5f4a92175adfe1/thumbnail_1364000.jpg","/articles/6188097/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Shorewood-finance-team-presents-10-year-long-range-plan-board-urged-to-focus-on-20262028-window","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188097-e2d51e239fe2fbe6f2fb7d5a8740ed99/orig.mp4?Expires=1775407436&Signature=VKTJIy9CeG~HNdTUPj6HOL2nenj0cU0YW-D~sccq4ZaOtOjdVM9WNWzWKizsnXF872pPm~XCwyLwPGErBQ6J2rOQDsWeWFijdpQsaqI5LK68jA09ORH1CWaIUQS8jH~sTBJNdO2BPll95cwzn7oO~HQQAYeBBuDlNszH06lxw~MGTYofdizrQSaoh2FRxRnPmLCD0nzBmmxm00uzovWZ0sZUIdxb53X4IoV7M1X9iWGtNaRxwUtIVfBLsbQB7u-s6trwBCGxUD8KZjT3OjkLopyvSJ-7XrN1Z2KThjbrgnpZXLfxmTy4u18RcPTNVtSiTiekNSnfLIOjbpUnfvPjyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Village of Shorewood finance team reviewed its 10-year long-range financial plan with the committee of the whole and the full board, asking trustees to focus deliberations on the near term (2026–2028) while retaining a bird’s-eye view of projected needs through 2035.

Finance staff outlined the plan’s assumptions and projections, saying a significant expenditure scheduled for 2027 — the public works building, currently planned to be financed with general obligation debt — produces a pronounced $20 million spike in projected expenditures that year. Staff said other capital projects will be financed either by bonds or with property tax levies and reminded trustees that fund balance could be used to offset future levies if the board chooses.

The presentation urged trustees to treat years beyond three as illustrative: “If you start going out beyond, these are just projections,” a finance presenter said, noting that projections become less accurate the further they extend. The memo included a range of levy scenarios: continuing recent practice near 2 percent or using more of the village’s levy capacity (up to about 5 percent in staff scenarios).

Trustees pressed staff on service-level reviews, staffing comparisons with peer communities and timing. Staff said department heads have reviewed operations and will present narratives during the 2026 budget process describing service lines and any potential efficiency or service-reduction options. Trustees requested clearer choices be presented in budget materials (for example, discrete options that would reduce service, close hours, or reorganize department workloads) so the board can make informed tradeoffs at budget time.

Trustees and staff also discussed utility rates, noting a table in the plan that compares Shorewood’s water and sewer charges to peer communities; staff said a water rate case is in process and that the next budget will include a 10‑year retrospective of rate changes to give historical context.

Staff said the next deliverable will be an updated schedule and a compiled report of department-level efficiency work that feeds into the formal 2026 budget timeline. Trustee comments at the meeting emphasized short-term budget discipline and transparent presentation of options to the board and public.

The discussion was advisory only; no formal budget vote was taken at this meeting.","Finance staff reviewed a 2026–2035 long-range financial plan, warning of a steep spending jump in 2027 tied to the public works building and urging the board to prioritize short-term (1–3 year) decisions while continuing long-range monitoring.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Capital asset policy referral, safe‑streets demo, contract amendment and affordable‑housing phase‑1 recommendation

Board defers decision on allowing commercial kitchens and broader commercial uses in P‑1 institutional zones

Architects show six ‘test-fit’ concepts for Shorewood DPW site; higher-density options would raise assessed value

Shorewood finance team presents 10-year long-range plan; board urged to focus on 2026–2028 window