Editor’s note: CDA member Jeff Knight, during the Whitewater Common Council’s meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 17, produced a 14-page handout for distribution to council members. Following are components from the document, which include Knight’s written comments, memos between city officials, and several email chains. 

Knight’s comments, titled: “City Council CDA Concerns Talking Points,” as included in the handout and read into the record Tuesday, follow:

Thank you for letting me present the following materials.

Three reasons that I’m here tonight and hoping that the city council will review the policy on how committee members can request agenda items and future engagements to offer guidance on policy. Not just a rubber stamp, but offering transparency and collaboration.

One, after the last CDA meeting John Weidl sent out a maliciously inaccurate communication to CDA members and additional people. Not sure if the city council was included. As a result, I felt the need to respond.

Two, because of issues that came up at CDA I am responding to John’s email and additionally requesting three items be included at the next CDA agenda.

I copied Bonnie, Kristine, John and Patrick.

This led to a fair amount of back and forth that I have here for your review.

At one point I mentioned if John wasn’t willing to allow things on the agenda, I was willing to come to the common council.

This led to another terse response tweaking me saying ‘your concerns are not my concerns.’

So, I did reach out to Jim Allen as common council president and copied both Johns.

Another response leaving me feeling he is trying his best to get me not to continue asking for agenda items.

Third, I did request a written response as to why my items wouldn’t be included and asked that all my emails requesting and explaining be included in the packet. That way, I could at least have the other CDA members understand my reasons rather than just seeing John W’s hit piece.

The issues are separate but, in some cases, tangential.

The process of retaining a new commercial broker posed some problems for me as a new member returning to the CDA.

Selecting a new broker was on the agenda. When I read my packet one of the commercial brokers listed John W. as a reference. I asked John and he informed the committee that they did not ask him, but he knew them and thought they were good.

Only one broker attended the meeting, so we suggested they both be invited back to present at the next meeting.

I looked back at previous CDA minutes and could find no record of starting an RFP process. 

I also asked for a briefing on the RFP process as there were no communication records.

When the next packet came the RFP process was laid out, but surprisingly two documents that I think were solicited were critical of the current vendor.

I did some additional searches of both broker candidates and saw that John W was employed by both.

Additionally, I asked both brokers when they presented as to where they heard about the RFP, both said they got a call from John.

I believe Bonnie did a good job following the city’s guidelines, I just wished John had been more transparent about his previous relationships and solicitation.

I wanted the RFP back on the agenda to suggest any future RFP’s be discussed prior to release in case the board has some ideas on getting a broader response as clearly both brokers never saw the WW Register.

The second item on the agenda was a review of contract compliance. A critical review of the Twelve2 work was never discussed at any CDA meeting. Why two emails critical were included was hard to understand.

More importantly, Twelve2 did communicate with Jim Allen, Patrick Singer and a ton of back and forth with John W.

It was clear the city broker had different interpretations of who didn’t do their job. He said, she said. But what made me curious is why none of this was ever discussed by the CDA or staff with Twelve2.

In any case a review of contract compliance prior to the next contract should help us produce a better new contract once we select the new broker.

I do think we can move on as clearly Twelve2 had some previous relationship with Mukwonago and doesn’t want to work with John anyway.

The third item I asked be placed on the agenda is CDA attorney, not related to RFP or Contract Compliance.

Lastly, in the middle of all this back and forth, I get a call asking me what the CDA is doing developing land near the bridge to nowhere. I didn’t have a clue and again went back to CDA and City Council minutes and couldn’t find a thing. Transparency is crucial.

Spoke with both (private landowner 1) and (private landowner 2) who said John discussed City/CDA selling 100 parcels and they advised John that the price was too high. Both wondered why the city would be developing a subdivision.

As a result, I asked to have housing included at the next meeting. I searched and found three good properties with some planning already approved through city processes or new developments.

I also forwarded a listing for a large parcel adjacent to Highway 12 on the east side and suggested we include the Starin Rd city parcel.

My thoughts were to host a meeting with all property owners in the city that could be developed. Some might drop out; others may want to be included. Make it competitive for all to play.

Of all the items I requested to be included only housing made the cut, but none of my ideas on housing or proposed property designs.

I did request that all my emails with my information also be included in the CDA packet. None were included.

So again, please meet and review this packet of materials and give guidance for future committee meetings to insure transparency and collaboration.

Thank you for your time.

Additional materials 

Additional documents as produced by Knight within his handout, follow: