https://www.facebook.com/104177368246779/

Jim Arndorfer, Shorewood Village Trustee, 2524 East Shorewood Boulevard, Shorewood, WI (2026)

03/16/2026

This evening the Village Board will vote whether to approve the Phase Two application submitted by Spoerl Commercial LLC for public assistance to support a 19-unit affordable housing development at 4450 N. Oakland Ave. Barring anything unforeseen, I intend to support passage. And as I do, I likely will be thinking back to the events of spring 2021.

On March 18 of that year, the village Community Development Authority was tasked with voting whether the extend an expiring tax increment district by one year in order the generate over $2 million to support affordable housing. It was a vigorous debate. CDA Chair Peter Hammond and Trustee Davida Amenta supported the extension, arguing it gave the village a window of opportunity to support its decades-old priority of providing affordable housing and noting the village was becoming increasingly unaffordable. Arguments against the extension clustered around the lack of an identified project and reluctance to postpone the the passing of tax savings on to residents.

Ultimately Chair Hammond and Trustee Amenta couldn’t rally a majority to their side. The authority voted 4-2 to not extend the TID and not create a fund to support affordable housing (Trustee Kathy Stokebrand joined the majority as did current CDA Chair Jon Krouse, who proposed the prevailing motion.)

The backlash against the CDA’s decision was swift and substantial, with a wide range of residents decrying it on social media, in correspondence and at the board meeting where it was taken up, insisting the Village Board not follow CDA’s direction. Following this public outcry the Board voted 7-0 to support the extension of the TID to support public housing.

At the time, I was running for my first term for the Shorewood Village Board and applauded the decision. And since then the CDA and the board have explored a range of options to support affordable housing, including adding affordable units via vouchers and/or setting aside units in existing buildings (ultimately this was deemed not feasible). At the end of this journey a majority of the CDA has deemed the creation of the 19-unit affordable development as the best way to proceed. I recognize that not everyone in the Village supports the use of public money for affordable housing or this specific development. I disagree and believe a majority of residents support moving forward. That’s one of reasons why, barring anything unforeseen, I intend to support committing the funds the community insisted be set aside in 2021 for affordable housing.

03/15/2026

On March 16, the Village Board will vote whether to approve the Phase Two application submitted by Spoerl Commercial LLC for public assistance to develop an affordable housing development on what is currently a Village-owned parking lot at 4448-4450 N. Oakland Ave.

I’ve advocated for affordable housing since I was first elected to the board and after weighing the pros and cons of the development, including listening to concerns raised by members of the community, my intention — barring anything unforeseen — is to support the development.

One thing that will be on my mind is an anonymous flier that was circulated in the area surrounding the property in the run-up to a June 16, 2025 vote on the Phase One application.

The flier shared some of the same objections raised by other residents including the proportion of rentals in the Village, the elimination of parking spots and the opportunity to rescind the money set aside as part of the closure of TID 1 — a unanimous board vote in 2021 that received significant community support — and not use it to support the affordable housing.

But the first objection didn’t address any of those points. Instead it attacked the potential residents of the development. From the flier:

“The proposed new apartment building ‘low income’ or ‘affordable housing’ [sic] means the renters earn 30-60% of Milwaukee County’s median income. That means the 19 units will have renters with annual income between $21,500 and $42,900 per HUD Income 2024 Guidelines for Milwaukee County. Will these renters contribute positively to the community and financially support businesses, restaurants, and retail stores?”

Do most Shorewood residents share this view? No. Do most opponents of the development share this view? Also — to be very clear — no. But this view informed the policies in our country and in our region until far too recently in a manner that created racist and classist barriers to housing for millions of Americans that are still felt today. It’s unfortunate that someone thought this would be a good selling point in inciting residents against the development.

And that’s the history that will be on my mind for Monday’s vote. Is this development perfect? No. Do I wish that we could retain parking? Yes. Do I wish that we could add more units? Yes. But that would not be feasible to do so without going to the residents for more funding, which I find hard to do given the amount of pending infrastructure work before us.

But are these objections sufficient enough to pass up on the opportunity to provide below-market rate housing to 19 households for a minimum of 30 years? To my mind: no. I recognize that others may have a different opinion.

The Village has made the provision of affordable housing a priority for decades. The funding exists to proceed with this development, it supports our community’s values, and I look forward to supporting it.

Copy of flier in comments.

03/12/2026

On March 16, the Village Board will vote whether to approve the Phase Two application submitted by Spoerl Commercial LLC for public assistance to develop affordable housing at 4450 N. Oakland Ave. Barring anything unforeseen, I intend to support development of the proposed apartment building, which will include 19 units with below market rates locked in for a minimum of 30 years.

Our country, our state and our community face a housing affordability crisis. In 1991 the average age of a first-time home buyer was 28; it’s now 40. In Shorewood and communities across Wisconsin, homeowners have been shocked by the jump in their assessments; if you’re a homeowner imagine being on the outside looking in. Action is required to address this, now. Increasing housing supply and options is one way to do this.

For decades Shorewood has made the creation of affordable housing a priority. The problem is, it’s really expensive and it requires public subsidy. To its everlasting credit, in early 2021 the Village Board — with massive support from across the community — voted to extend the expiration of a tax incremental district to generate north of $2 million to support affordable housing. Rather than immediately see the tax benefit of the TID’s expiration, the community rallied around supporting the creation of affordable housing. The money is there. And with the proposed development at 4450 N. Oakland, we now have the opportunity to put that money to work. I believe it’s time.

When I first ran for Village Board in 2021 I applauded the Board’s decision and was very clear in my support for affordable housing. That commitment remains. I have weighed the pros and cons and in the end I believe that we should not pass on the opportunity to provide below market rate housing for 19 households for a minimum of 30 years.

Some of my considerations are below.

What’s happening?

The Village is planning to invest $1.6 million of proceeds from extending a TID to support the development of an apartment building with 19 below-market rate units on the site of a Village-owned parking lot at 4450 N. Oakland.

What’s the total cost of the development?

The total cost of the development is $7.1 million, with the vast majority of remaining funds coming from state and federal sources.

What does this mean for the current parking lot?

While the development has parking for the 19 units, the cost of supporting existing parking was prohibitive, which means that the 49 parking spots will be eliminated. Which means the amenity of parking on the lot (used largely by residents of the buildings on either side of it) will go away. I believe that the surrounding blocks have sufficient parking to absorb the displaced cars but it will be a loss of amenity and an inconvenience. That said, I think creating affordable units for 19 households for a minimum of 30 years is a better use of that property than a parking lot.

Is it true that the Village is selling the lot for below market value?

Yes, it is. And that’s a feature, not a bug, of affordable housing development. As mentioned, housing is expensive. Land acquisition costs are a big reason for that. If the developer were to pay a market rate for the property, they likely only could build a luxury development on the site for it to pencil out. Reducing the land acquisition costs helps support the development of affordable housing. If the project moves forward, the Village will sell the lot for $333,731. By comparison, Sturgeon Bay recently sold a parcel to create affordable housing for $100. This is how it works. And just to make an obvious point: If we sold the land to realize its full value we would be eliminating parking for 49 spots to establish luxury apartments.

What about working with local landlords to create housing vouchers or set aside units as affordable?

This was explored but deemed not feasible due to administrative costs and lack of interest from landlords.

Is it possible that in 30 years the current or future owner could do something differently with the property?

Yes, it is. In the best of all possible worlds we could dedicate that site for affordable housing in perpetuity. With the tools we have, 30 years is the limit. That said, 30 years is quite a long time from a policy perspective. And more housing options are needed now.

Would you do anything differently?

I wish we could create more units in that building but the only way we could do that is by asking for significantly more money from the community. Given all the other infrastructure costs we’re facing I would have a hard time doing that. This project enables us to provide below market housing for 19 households for a minimum of 30 years. I believe this project represents the values of our Village and I look forward to supporting it.

07/04/2025

Getting ready for the parade

05/30/2025

Streetlights in Shorewood have been an issue for a long time. Based on public demand for a fix, the Board last year adopted a 5-year plan to replace the existing system. The first phase of this initiative kicked off last month in the NW quad and bills started hitting households this past week.

This is a big undertaking. It’s very rare for a municipality to replace its lighting infrastructure in a narrow window because it’s complicated and expensive. Following a common practice, the Village chose to fund the project by implementing a charge by parcel based on lineal feet of street frontage.

Doing something this big means you are going to learn along the way. That’s why we have an appeals process in case you believe your charge is out of whack. If this is the case, please reach out; we want to hear from you.

Appeal.
1. Whenever any streetlight operations special charge is imposed in accordance with this section, and the person required to pay the charge feels aggrieved as a result of the imposition or collection of the charge, the aggrieved person shall pay the charge when the charge shall become due but shall pay it under protest. Within 20 days following the payment, the aggrieved person may file with the Village of Shorewood Public Works Committee a complaint to the effect that the person is aggrieved by the imposition and collection of the street lighting cost-recovery special charge, his or her specific reasons for objection, and the amount of the overcharge complained of.

2. If, upon review by the Public Works Committee, it is determined that all or any part of any street lighting cost-recovery special charge paid under protest is not just or reasonable, the Finance Director shall institute necessary procedures for a refund.

02/08/2025

The past week certainly has been a month, but before it passes into the weekend I wanted to provide updates on some proposals I brought to the board late last year.

Parking meters: As mentioned previously, given the financial challenges facing the Village I believe it’s time to explore the feasibility of metered parking as a means of diversifying Village revenues. A big question facing the Board was how to proceed. Fortunately, a Village resident with 30+ years of experience in the meter industry (but no longer in it) offered to do an analysis based on the findings of the 2020 parking study. Based on his extensive work, it became clear that the optimal path forward would be to explore digital options vs physical meters. Based on his analysis, the Village could generate >$200k in revenue annually through metered parking in the business district. The budget and finance committee voted unanimously to pass along to the full board that the Village issue an RFP to explore digital metered parking options for the business district, Village-owned lots, Lake Drive and Capitol near the beach during summer months, and Edgewood. Note that this is NOT an endorsement of metered parking in all or even any of those locations but to understand feasibility and implications. A lot of work lies ahead but I’m grateful that we’re moving forward (thanks to staff, our resident expert and trustees Stokebrand and Lynn). Worst case, we find the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. For more detail please see the meeting agenda, link in comments, starting at p 7.

Understanding what can be built on the DPW site: We are deep into exploring the future of the DPW site and one potential option is to move the entire operation and redevelop the current property. Given that, I thought it was critical that we have an understanding of what could fit there before deciding to move (look before you leap, etc). On Monday the board voted to issue an RFP for 5 “test fit” options: low density (R10); medium density (GX2 w/ row houses); high density (GX2 with general multi-unit); an option that would retain the primary DPW office, in whole or in part; and an architect’s “test fit,” with suggested zoning parameters determined by architect. Again, more work to be done but I wanted to thank staff and the board for moving this initiative forward. For more information, see p 196 of the agenda link in comments.

01/13/2025

The Future is Bright!

At their meeting on Monday, January 6, the Village Board approved bids for the Phase I program of the Village's Streetlight Replacement Program.

Construction is anticipated to begin in Spring 2025 in the northwest corner of the Village. A public information meeting will be held in February or March and impacted residents will be mailed a meeting invitation. This is the first of five phases to update the streetlight system. An example of the new dark sky compliant streetlight fixture that will be installed is currently located at the southeast corner of the Village Hall/Center parking lot.

The Village Board will be reviewing an ordinance for an annual streetlight charge in the first quarter of 2025 to fund the operation and maintenance of streetlights moving forward. For more information on this project, click the link above or visit www.villageofshorewood.org/streetlights.

01/06/2025

UPDATE: Both items passed out of committee as proposed.

Hi — as previously shared, I raised two items for future consideration late last year with the Board. One was concerning seeking proposals for potential developments if we were to redevelop the DPW site, the other regarding a study on implementing metered parking in the Village as a means of reducing our dependence on property taxes/fees as a revenue source. I wanted to share my POV re: the items as they will be discussed by separate committees at the same time tomorrow, 7 PM.

Possible scenarios for various DPW sites

— As has been discussed extensively, the DPW site is antiquated and needs replacement.

— The Village and the Board have been seriously engaged in looking at alternatives for more than two years.

— One option under consideration is relocating the entirety of the operation (DPW facilities + transfer station) outside the Village and then redeveloping the DPW site for other uses, including residential.

— Moving the DPW facility and redeveloping the site would be a significant decision with long-term implications for the Village (as would any action). And not inexpensive, as it could involve environmental remediation on two sites in addition to construction and infrastructure costs. And since we first started exploring options for the site, the significant price tab for addressing Village infrastructure costs (streetlights, lead laterals, etc.) has taken center stage.

— Given all this, I think it’s important that the board understand the parameters of what could be developed on the site.

— Given that the Village was able to solicit concepts from developers for affordable housing designs on two publicly owned parking lots, I was hopeful that we might be able to do the same for the DPW site.

— However, staff has indicated that developers may be less willing to come forth with options in this context, for a variety of reasons.

— While this may be the case, I still think understanding what could go on that site is important. Bluntly, voting to relocate DPW then subsequently discovering that the possibilities for development on the current site are less than hoped for would not be serving residents well. (Not that that would be the case, but always good to look before you leap.) Given the potential costs involved, to my mind the opportunity for development on that site is linked – and not separate – with any decision on the future location of DPW. It has to be, given the infrastructure costs we’re already facing (and these are not the only rising costs for residents).

— While I understand we may not be able to get fully developed proposals from developers as we did with Village lots, I still think it would be worthwhile to get a conceptual understanding for how much housing we could actually fit on that site, just as a starting point to understand what is feasible and to set a base and consistent level of understanding. If we could get estimates for costs (including infrastructure) that would be ideal, but if nothing else understanding what the site could actually hold would be helpful. If it’s necessary we pay to get this information, an architect I spoke with suggested the cost would not be exorbitant (tho I’m not an expert here).

— Three potential options to explore (and certainly open to more): 1) High density development (250-300 units); 2) Medium density (150-200); 3) Townhomes (2 or 3-story). While my preference would be to keep at least a vestige of the current facility onsite, for simplicity’s sake and to set a baseline I think it would make sense to assume that the site is vacant (that way we could at least know what we would not be able to do if we retained the current buildings).

— To be clear: these options are not intended to be taken as preferences but merely as parameters for what could be feasible and what it might look like. Very open to better ideas. And I remain open to potential options for the DPW site – moving the site entirely or other options including keeping the DPW facility on-site and relocating the transfer station – based on what’s best for the long-term interest of the Village.

Consider study for parking meters in the business district for alternative funding

— The Budget and Finance Committee is being asked to provide direction to staff on scope for a study evaluating the feasibility and providing a cost/benefit analysis of implementing metered parking in the Village.

— I raised this as an item for consideration given the increased costs the Village faces due to infrastructure repair. These costs will be with us for some time, and we know residents will face rising utility and other costs. Given that, I think it makes sense to at least explore other means of raising revenues beyond tax increases or vehicle fees or other fees that directly hit homeowners and renters alike. Parking meters, widely used in the surrounding area, are one way of doing this. The concept was first floated 10 years ago; given our current financial picture I think it’s time we do the work to determine what we can or can’t do.

— If we’re going to do a study, I think it should be comprehensive. Therefore, beyond looking at implementing metered parking in the business district I think the study should evaluate options for metered parking in Village owned lots as well as seasonal metered parking on Lake Drive and Capitol east of Downer when the beach is in heavy use. Again, these are not policy preferences of mine but things that I think merit study (and, depending on our future financial picture, something future boards may want to know as a reference point).

I would like the consultant to provide actionable points of view on the following.

— Based on current best practices, what sections of the business district would make sense for metered parking? All of Capitol and Oakland or just certain sections? What roadways adjacent to Capitol and Oakland would make sense?
— Based on current best practices for communities just starting to establish metered parking, what are the best options for infrastructure? Single payment meters, a few kiosks for payment by parking space number, other? Is an app the way to go (and if using an app what are the options for fees based on day part, etc.)?
— Cost/benefit analysis looking at realistic revenue estimates, costs, repayment schedules, etc., as well as any recommendations/best practices on time limits/fees based on area (business district, village lot, beach-adjacent).
— Based on current best practices, what are recommendations for enforcement for a community of our size?
— Based on current best practices, what are ways municipalities can work with businesses to help ease implementation and adoption?
— Based on current best practices, if we were to go with an app how could we ease adoption with people who don’t conduct transactions with their phones or devices?
— Based on current best practices, what are potential impacts on residents in metered areas that we should be thinking about and options for addressing them.

There may be additional questions, but I think these get at the heart of information we would need to know before making decisions. Please share your thoughts (pro or con 😀).

12/16/2024

The Shorewood Village Board tomorrow night will be taking up two future items of consideration I proposed.

The first involves considering a study for the implementation of parking meters. As has been discussed extensively, the Village needs to upgrade or replace a substantial amount of infrastructure in the coming years, from street lights to lead laterals to water mains to the DPW site. Given that reality, I think it’s appropriate we evaluate how much revenue the Village could generate so we can diversify our revenues beyond property taxes. To be sure, it won’t be a silver bullet. But I believe it’s high time we take a look — and based on responses to our survey many people in the Village agree.

The second item is to consider a release for request for proposals for development on the DPW site. This is similar to what the village did in soliciting ideas for development on village-owned lots. One of the potential options for the village with the DPW is to move the facility to a different location, which would open up the site to development, potentially including affordable housing. Were the village to take such a dramatic step, I think it’s critical we have some idea in advance of what is possible. A site analysis should be completed in the first quarter of next year and after that, ideally we could proceed.

No immediate action will take place if these proposals are approved, it simply sets the process in motion for the board to formally take up these proposals.

12/03/2024

Safe streets have been a priority of mine since I first ran for trustee, so I’m happy to share that last night the board approved the installation of temporary pedestrian safety features at a number of locations across the village.

These include speed tables on Menlo and Morris west of Oakland and south of Capitol; traffic circles at the intersections of Murray & Kensington and Murray & Beverly; and curb extensions on Kensington west of Oakland (exact configuration getting locked down). The temporary features will be installed this spring, we’ll assess effectiveness and take further action from there.

I’d like to thank the many residents who provided input on this process, including the Parks and Public Spaces Committee, as well as staff for their hard work.

09/27/2024

We still want to hear from you! Online Budget Poll Closes Monday!

The Village of Shorewood launched an online poll to collect feedback from the community so we can hear from you firsthand about your priorities going into next year.

To access the poll (which will be open until Monday, September 30) please click here: https://forms.gle/XdrusLnVA4H1V2bp7.

Jim Arndorfer, Shorewood Village Trustee

03/16/2026

03/15/2026

03/12/2026

07/04/2025

05/30/2025

02/08/2025

01/13/2025

01/06/2025

12/16/2024

12/03/2024

09/27/2024

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organization

Shortcuts

Share

Category