Franklin's Baleful Blogger fails at finding fault
Franklin’s Baleful Blogger (BB) stated “I thought there was another side of the story that hadn’t surfaced: (Parks Chairman) Dave Pautz’s.” so he says he asked Pautz to post about the $300,000 sidewalk, which BB acknowledges is the incorrect cost. Here’s what Pautz wrote back to him followed by Franklin Today’s (FT) comments.
PAUTZ: "A recent District Wide Letter to Constituents provided by the incumbent aldermanic representative took on the issue of false or misleading statements in a blog post dated December 23rd 2016. Apparently, the alderperson felt it necessary to let constituents know that she was addressing false statements in “a recent blog”.
He is referring to the alderwoman’s e-newsletter where among the typical news; it also addressed information on a public forum without mentioning names. We’d have to agree with Pautz that “Apparently, the alderwoman felt it necessary to let constituents know that she was addressing false statements in “a recent blog”. Constituents often call their alderman after reading things. No harm no foul here.
PAUTZ: "However, her rebuttal presented facts which are misleading and designed to deflect what was stated. My blog comments on Dec. 23, 2016, indicated that Parks Impact Fee monies were made available as could” be available for the Off Budget project championed by Ms. Wilhelm. The fact that alternative funding was achieved and project costs came in under the initial budget is a good thing. However, the use of Community Block Grant monies means some other worthy projects didn’t get funded."
He uses – “misleading rebuttal facts designed to deflect what he stated” - but tries to reword what we earlier reported on making little sense with his new statement. He capitalizes “Off Budget” to infer monies are never shifted to higher priorities needs or wants of the community. He acknowledges the alternate funding sources and gives some credit to the under budget work of Wilhelm but apparently doesn’t rate resident safety as worthy enough for funding. To FT, it sounds a bit like he values his own opinion over residents. We call foul on most of #2.
PAUTZ: "Recall also that the sidewalk was never formally budgeted in the budgeting process back in late 2015. There was great fanfare by certain aldermanic reps that the mayor’s budget needed to be slashed. They proudly announced to the world that they stood up for fiscal sanity and passed a revised, much better budget, in their own words. Then, in early January of 2016, they proceeded with a budget amendment to add the sidewalk, which was championed by Ms. Wilhelm. I have no issues with the sidewalk as it was at the time, necessary. The process of coming to fruition was the gripe."
The bulk of the project cost took place in 2016. If the Council handed Franklin a better budget that saved money but still allowed 200+ people satisfaction of safety, who is Pautz to slam the Council and residents he is suppose to be serving? He agrees it was a “necessary” project but gripes about making it happen. FT points out, leaders make things happen and leading the charge for those you represent is an elected official's job. Pautz should find other issues to pout about.
PAUTZ: "At the time of the Blog post in December of 2016, I wanted to point out the fact that the Parks Commission, which I chair, was never consulted or requested to provide input, much less recommend to Common Council, the strategy of using Park Impact Fee funds under the guise of the sidewalk being a “Trail”.
FT covered Pautz’s chair position previously but Pautz somehow believes he holds a higher power then elected officials. We learned an initial $15,000 was directed for use from excess 2015 funds into 2016 but then other funding sources were used. Park funds are not off limits for walkways but he goes there again as if he does not understand the funding aspects of the project clearly pointed out in the e-newsletter.
PAUTZ: "It is amazing how pet projects of individuals on the council seem to get pushed through without much input from affected parties. That same sidewalk, somehow managed to have the required wetlands and setback requirements that are vigorously enforced on private developers, somehow become less important to the cause. Staff has verified that some environmental corners were cut which may be interesting to private developers that had, or have business before the Council. Also interesting is how a certain someone had no issues with that. But then again, without the costly venue of impact statements and delineations reports, we suspect the project that came in well under budget had preferential treatment. Funny how that works in Franklin."
There’s significant misguided fiction in this section. The affected parties had input by submitting 200+ signatures. FT learned the wetland reports were still valid from the County and State projects underway and by acting the City was able to save project costs. If staff told a Park Chairman corners were cut, they had an obligation to tell the Council because FT found two motions** covering permits, etc. Motions also addressed design kick-start funds that were later replaced by other funding sources and project savings gained working with the State and County during the 27th St. project. A significant savings came from the State build section of the sidewalk, another from low bidding and inclusion in the TIF area. According to Wilhelm’s newsletter, she researched and presented the savings options. Because saving is not typical in government “Funny how it works in Franklin” is a positive outcome for taxpayers. Speaking of saving, Pautz may have some future explaining to do if FT continues the Franklin Fake News busting series.
**Per the November 17, 2015 Common Council Meeting:
- Alderwoman Wilhelm moved to proceed with the design, permits, and bidding for Section E of the pedestrian walkway (South 35th Street to the Woods Senior Complex) along West College Avenue for an amount not to exceed $15,000 utilizing existing 2015 Capital Improvement Fund General Park appropriations, and to authorize the City to sign a professional services agreement subject to review by the City Attorney, and to report on the status of the project including but not limited to any updates on the proposed construction costs and an anticipated construction date at the next Council meeting in December. Seconded by Alderman Taylor. All voted Aye; motion carried.
- Alderwoman Wilhelm moved to direct staff to prepare all documentation for design, permitting, notifications, public meetings, and bidding of Section A through D of the pedestrian walkway along West College Avenue, and also to immediately pursue all available Milwaukee County Community Development Block Grant funding and impact fee availability for the entire project (Sections A through E) and return the information for Council consideration on December 15, 2015. Seconded by Alderman Schmidt. All voted Aye; motion carried.