By Kevin Boneske
Staff Writer
ASHWAUBENON – A tie may go to the runner in baseball, but an evenly split village board didn’t go in favor of the local professional football team.
A resubmitted site plan to construct screening along the north side of Clarke Hinkle Field to prevent people from spying on Green Bay Packers practices failed Tuesday, July 28, on a 3-3 tie vote.
A majority vote was necessary for approval after the tie vote with Village President Mary Kardoskee and trustees Allison Williams and Gary Paul voted in favor with trustees Chris Zirbel, Mark Williams and Michael Malcheski opposed.
Another motion to refer the matter to village staff to find a better idea also failed on a 3-3 tie vote with the yes and no votes being reversed.
The board now only has six members following last month’s resignation of Trustee Ken Bukowski, who was in office for more than 11 years in Wards 9 and 10 before deciding to leave prior to the current three-year term expiring next April.
To return the board to seven members, applications are being accepted by the village through Aug. 19 to appoint someone to replace Bukowski at the Aug. 25 board meeting.
Second proposal
The screening was the second proposal presented by the Packers to shield practices at Clarke Hinkle Field from view on the second floor of the Resch Expo, which is now under construction.
The team’s initial idea presented in May called for building a 14-foot high accessory structure above the existing chain-link fence to have a total of 22 feet in height along the north side.
However, members of the Site Plan Review Committee and Plan Commission objected to how a permanent wall would look and how it would spoil how a new expo center would look in the area.
The Packers decided to pull plans for the permanent wall after the two governmental bodies recommended its denial to the village board.
Then last month, the Packers presented a screening system to be raised and lowered on 33-foot high poles approximately 30 feet apart, along Armed Forces Drive from the Don Hutson Center to past the existing scoreboard.
The conditions of approval recommended July 7 by the committee and commission called for the screening to be lowered when the team wouldn’t be holding closed practices at Clarke Hinkle Field.
The proposed screening, which was modeled after a similar system used by the Pittsburgh Steelers, received mixed reviews from the board.
Mark Williams said he understood why the Packers need to block practices from view, but he questioned what the screening would look like.
“Because of what we’ve done with the expo center and Armed Forces Plaza… I am just wondering what this is going to do to the look of that,” he said.
Others on the board said the poles looked better than the wall.
“It’s the best of two evils,” Paul said. “I don’t like it, but the problems they got in the NFL, they like to steal other people’s ideas… This was the best of all the alternatives that you could come up with.”
Packers spokesman Aaron Popkey appeared before the board to discuss the proposal with the screening and the different options the team looked into to prevent spying on practices from the Resch Expo.
“This is something that we know can work for sure,” he said. “There are some other options that could still be considered, but this is the one that we know can work for sure, for all aspects.”
Popkey said raising and lower the screening is something the team can control when privacy and confidentiality are needed.
Zirbel called the screening with the poles, as depicted in a graphic provided to the board, “ugly as heck.”
“Even with the tarps down, the screens down, the poles are ugly as heck,” he said.
Zirbel said he favored helping the Packers prevent spying on the practice field, but not with the screening as proposed.
Malcheski suggested using retractable poles to lower when not used.
“You could have retractable poles and pull them back down to the normal field height, and then extend them up, along with the screening, when you need it,” he said.
Popkey said he didn’t know if those types of poles could be used for the screening.
Community Development Director Aaron Schuette said it would be difficult to determine how much of a visual obstruction the poles as proposed would be without them being installed.
“I think people will either notice them all the time, or they won’t notice them, just kind of depending on their perspective,” he said.
Next steps
After the tie vote on the screening option with poles, Popkey said the Packers will be “working internally to put together some additional information that was requested by the board regarding the screening system, as well as the other suggestions.”
“We will then work with Ashwaubenon staff on further detail to present to the committees and trustees,” he said.
Kardoskee said the village “will have to wait and see if the Packers bring a different idea forward.”