City Council - public_hearing

Press follow.

I have another question.

Hey, I left my SD card on my desk and I'm at City Hall. Magic Powerwall. Ah, you're already at it. Yeah, it was a long day. A long day. Thanks. Powerwall Street. No problem. Yeah. It's right in front of the... Yeah, just meet me up front. It's closest to the council. All right, bye.

We just got some extras.

I should have everything going. Thank you. He started building it.

This meeting of the Eau Claire City Council will come to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

and invisible, with liberty and justice for all.

City Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Brewster.

Here.

Gregor.

Here.

Johnson. Amboga.

Here.

Miller.

Here.

Orth.

Here.

Otto. Here. Reed. Here. Schoen. Serrano. Here. Werthmann.

Here.

All right. Thank you, City Clerk, and welcome everybody to the Monday, August 10th meeting of the Eau Claire City Council. We are going to have a number of public hearings tonight, and then we'll have a public comment period after that. And just so folks know how it works, we will... have a presentation on each of the agenda items from staff or from council members. And then council members will have a chance to ask questions and then we'll open up for public comment. There are sign up sheets in the back of the room along with the agendas so you can get a lay of the land for the meeting. The sign-up sheets are for if you'd like to speak. If you don't get a chance to sign up or you decide later that you would like to speak, I'll still open up opportunity after we've gone through the people that have signed up for the agenda item. And you'll have up to four minutes, but you'll only be able to speak once per agenda item. There is a lighting system at the podium where you can, well, it'll be three minutes, For three minutes, it'll be green. And then once you have one minute left, it'll turn to yellow. And then when you're out of time, it'll start flashing red. And you'll just need to wrap up your comments at that point. After you've spoken, feel free to stay at the podium for a second or two just to see if council members may have a question for you. In addition to the public speaking opportunities tonight, There are blue comment forms in the back of the room where you can write comments and leave them at the back table. That'll be then sent to the council before our meeting tomorrow so that we can hear from you in writing. Otherwise you can always email the council and our emails are on the website at EauClaireWI.gov. And then there's an electronic comment form on the city website as well where you can find the same page as you can find the council packets. So a variety of ways of getting ahold of us and we can get started on the agenda here. So thanks everybody for being here. So the first agenda item is agenda item number one under public hearings, a public hearing on an ordinance to amend title 17 land development ordinance and the official zoning map. And we have our, Community Development Director, Aaron White, here to present on this item. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Council President Greger and Council members. We're teeing up the presentation here in just a second. But yeah, the first item is just some additional cleanups on the LDO. It's something that we knew we'd be going through a process of periodically once we start implementing the change up and the October 1st implementation rollout of the LDO that we'd see Language and things we'd have to correct once we started actually applying projects on real-world cases, and that's what we're looking at tonight There's a large number of them that were in your packet, and we're not going to go through all of them I pulled out just a handful about four that are some some unique ones We'll just kind of highlight and this is kind of reflective again of what we're doing through the process is just looking at you know tweaking language and just making some adjustments to make the the practical application of the new LDO a little more user friendly for the process and So the first one I wanted to highlight, we're doing a couple of zoning upgrades. Again, these are when the zoning crossed over from the new code, the new zoning categories. There are a number of them that got missed. That should have been public. P is what we typically do for public spaces. These are ones that... got tied as a commercial zoning on the one case corridor commercial and the other one is a urban commercial when they should have been peed public because those are public spaces so we're just looking to make the adjustment to reflect actual use which is public use the uh One on the right, like that example, is in the Cantor District. That's actually part of the Cantor Park and should have been listed as public to begin with. It just didn't catch any crossover. So that's some examples of what we're looking at. This one, we're doing an adjustment related to form-based zoning or odd based lot zoning. This one came out of a couple of specific project examples where a very narrow and long, and I'll give the best example is the Riverside site as defined in the Cannery District project. It's a very narrow, very long site. And the current zoning has some frontage requirements of buildings that are indicated on the lot in terms of frontage, a percentage of frontage. and we found that that long narrow lot it's almost impossible to build to meet that because it's such an odd shape it's very long very narrow so it has a huge frontage on that space so the numbers that we're looking at here we're looking to add a couple of adjustments on this which primarily these very long and narrow outlier type lots allows for administrative adjustments to make sure that they can still be developed on so that's a simple that we're looking to do to kind of help out on some of those unique outliers that just weren't anticipated when we were going through the LDO. what we're looking at here again is just some clarification language on acus and the live work spaces and the three and four units under the zoning you can see that again they crossed out on lots instead of blocks and next to instead adjacent kind of better defines how we read and interpret these again we ran into some projects including some stuff that we're looking at home base that we hit some Language issues, it wasn't quite clearly defined the way to do that. So the language changes that we're looking in this example are to kind of clean up some of those ambiguity that we had on a couple of live examples that came forward. And then, um, again, this is another adjustment that we're looking to make. We found that the, um, the green area and the Island requirements, when you look at very small lots of existing lot structure, and then you were talking lots of less than a hack, a half acre in site. Um, you can't realistically fit in the islands and the green space within the parking space and still meet the code requirements for the parking to meet the code for requirements. So we are looking to do an exception, which in this case is these particularly small lots that are only being repaid that have less than or equal to 50 stalls are not required to make the changes as long as they're only repaying these every, no more than every five years. So again, once we looked at one of these, this is an example of a lot. If you pulled in the greenery islands, you lose most of the parking spaces, and it becomes a challenge to actually park that. So we're looking to make an adjustment to reflect, again, what are some very unique spaces within there. So this is just an example of a few, and I think that was the extent I had. Yep, that was the extent of just a couple pod examples. The changes that we proposed in there are a variety of variations of this. We're just tidying up the language. I would be happy to answer any questions or comments.

All right, thank you, Director White. Council Member Mboga.

Thank you, Council President. Director White, if you look at section 13, title 17.2, 12, 24, it says that The percentage of, what is that? The percentage would be 1,250%. Is that a typing error or? What is that? Can you guys help me out?

I would have to look that up.

You said section 13. You see, we have section nine right now on the screen, but here we go to section 13.

I don't have the code book in front of me. I can look at that and get an answer back to council before the session tomorrow. And we can, we can make sure that that's it. That's a typo.

Yeah, we can certainly.

I don't have the full codebook in front of me, otherwise I'd look it up. But I can confirm that, and we can make sure if that's a typo, we get that corrected for tomorrow.

Yeah, thank you, Council Member Amboga. Council Member Werthmann.

Thank you, Council President. Director White, my question is about this parking lot landscaping requirement. Can you remind me how much land it was determined was needed for, was it on a percentage basis or was it something else? Because I'm almost inclined if it's on a percentage basis to maybe look at reducing the percentage requested. It's interesting you bring up this parking lot too because this is in my neighborhood and you can see on here the boulevards where tree and grass would normally be are completely paved over. It's very weird. But you can't park there. So it actually is a very interesting example where there could have been some green space in the public right-of-way, but they just paved over it. So thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Absolutely. And that's something that staff would tend to look at it. Like if you look at this particular example, there's a fair amount of tree cover on the outskirts already on that area. that lower left quadrant of the space so looking at what's going on in around it if there's sufficient tree cover and the boulevards and the boundaries around it it's felt like we can achieve the the effect of getting more greenery and more shading and screening without having to eat up most of the parking spaces but we can confirm any type of of percent coverages on that

Can I follow up? You have another question? No, yeah, I appreciate that. It's just a matter of, I should have gone and looked at the full LDO for this discussion, but I assume what it is is it's probably a percentage or something. And so, yeah, I think I'm just curious to see. I'm probably going to support doing an exemption for smaller lots, but I am curious how that generally works.

And this is probably another case like we referenced with the administrative adjustments for the narrow, long lots. It's not one you're going to see a lot of. It's not typical to see ones this size. But we are seeing a couple oddballs come up forward. So we're just looking to make some adjustments to reflect some flexibility there.

All right.

Council Member Orth.

Thank you, President Grygert. Director White, my question is more broad in nature, not something specific that you just presented. I'm just wondering, I noticed in the packet that the LDL is new, and you just referenced that it started on October 1st, I believe. And I'm wondering, is the Title 17 LDL the same as the Century Code?

yes yes the the centric we've done away with the term zoning and is now the land development ordinance or the ldo was what's referred to instead of our zoning ordinance that was part of the the language change on there but yes that is the that is what we're referring to thank you all right thank you council member mboga thank you council president dr white i think i have two questions to ask you one is gone to what council whitman was saying about the parking lot

The provision says that if it says the parking lot with 50 stalls or fewer, is that right?

Correct. The change would be 50 or less parking stalls.

So how do you guys come to the five-year limitations?

The intent is to ensure that somebody's not basically rebuilding it section by section over time doing this piece. So the idea is it's just a resurfacing. It's not actually renovating or tearing up or redoing it. That's something you would not expect to occur annually. It is something that occurs periodically. So they felt that only being repaid once in a five-year period is a realistic maintenance schedule and gives them ability to flex with that for the property owners.

Then the last one is about number eight, the trails and development paying for the trails. It says here the developer may instead have to make payment towards construction, but part of the supervision agreement, either the city can devalue or waive that requirement. So my question is, how would this amount of trail payment be calculated, and where would the money automatically be spent?

That is a good question. I can look into that, because that also, part of that runs with work with engineering. So I'll hit the other departments, and we'll get an answer for you on that as well.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Mboga. Any other questions from the council? Council Member Werthmann.

Thank you. Director White, this is back to the dwelling three and four unit amendment. So as I'm reading this, this is an amendment that makes the ability to put three and four unit structures into neighborhoods, it makes it a lot more restrictive than the current LDO talks about. Am I understanding that right? Because if I remember, as it is written right now, anywhere on the block, if it includes a three or four unit, you could put another three or four unit or on a collector.

Yeah. Or if it's adjacent to existing commercial space on, on a boundary. Correct. Yes.

So this is a pretty restrictive, uh, amendment. And I just wonder how it was arrived at to go in that direction. And if you felt, This was more in keeping with the council and the ZPAC discussions around this item? How are you seeing that change?

That was what we felt was this follows kind of the context of what the ZPAC group was looking to do. The language change, what we found is some of the language the way it's written was hard to decipher when you started looking at space on the ground. Across the street, is that still adjacent to, but there's a street across and it's catty-cornered on the other side of the street. It left a lot of ambiguity. working with legal and whatnot, they felt the language changes in this adjustment could be more clearly defined and identified to an applicant who's looking to make some adjustments. So they felt this was still in line with what council and the compliant council and planning commission were looking to do through that ZPAC process.

But it is quite a bit more restrictive.

It would. It definitely doesn't give any extra leeway or, you know, really loose interpretations, which, you know, with what they're trying to do is to keep things fairly well defined. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Council Member Mbogo.

Thank you. The last one. The last one is talking about accessory commercials. So my question is, what type of business qualify as accessory commercial units? And could this create noise, traffic, and parking issues to nearby residents?

So it would be something that somebody's using their garage or an accessory structure on their property to operate some sort of business. They still have to maintain the requirements. They can't create noise. There's no exhaust. The act or operation is not leaving the property through exhausting or things like that. So they still have to have a very confined and controlled operation. It's also not a high volume traffic of folks coming in and out all day long. It is intended to be still a fairly low key operation as far as what those go. So they still have to meet all those requirements.

All right. Looks like those are the only questions we have. Thank you, Director White. We can now open this item up for public hearing. Did anyone happen to sign up to speak during this agenda item? All right. Thank you. So it looks like we didn't have anyone sign up for this item, but would anyone in attendance like to speak to agenda item number one on the land development ordinance? OK. Oh, actually, we do have someone. If you could just please state your name and address.

My name is Ross Onna. I live at 901 3rd Avenue. I just kind of want to speak in support of this amendment. I operate a small chocolate business and this is going to allow me to create a commercial kitchen, a commercially certified kitchen in my home. We're not disruptive. We don't have customers coming and going. We don't have employees. Just a small chocolate shop and this is going to allow us to continue to operate. All right, thank you so much for coming up.

Thank you. All right, anyone else like to speak to this agenda item? All right, thank you. We'll move on to item number two, and that is under the category of public discussions. Public discussion on an ordinance amending chapter 8.32 entitled Management of Waste and Recyclables of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Eau Claire to create a comprehensive organics management and composting program. And we have two council members that have been working on this. And happy to give you time to present. And if there's any staff that would like to share anything, that would be welcome to Council Member Werthmann.

Thank you, Council President. First, I want to just thank our city legal, our city staff helping to work through this process, and our sustainability advisory committee that held at least four, maybe five, publicly noticed meetings where community members, haulers, and many more had a chance to weigh in. We also did a special meeting about compost that was organized by our city manager, Dave Solberg, bringing a bunch of different folks together. So this compost ordinance, management of waste and recyclables, Essentially what this does is it helps to codify different ways that community members can engage personally in composting in the community. I think the high level thing that I like to point out and that the DNR has calculated is that roughly 30 to 35% of all waste that ends up in our landfill are organics. And so one of the things to cut down on the number of times that we need to expand our landfill and to cut down on the tipping fees because it's heavy and it costs money to drop organics into the landfill and to cut down on our methane because landfills produce excessive amounts of methane that we all breathe. We are bringing this forward as a first step toward trying to divert some of our compost in our community, our compostable materials away from the landfill. So think of that in your mind. It's a health and it's a affordability issue to make sure that we divert our compost. Now, This step essentially sets up four tiered levels of composting. You can think of tier one as your backyard compost. That's already been legal under our current code. This actually sets a little bit stricter standards around backyard compost to make sure it's set back from your neighbor, to make sure that there's no odors or things that would disrupt your neighbors. Makes it a little bit, there's enclosure to do composting. makes it a little bit more regulated and focused on health and safety. It also has a second tier, which is essentially think of maybe your church or your community garden or your neighborhood association wanting to set up kind of for members only composting opportunity where you can bring your compost to those sites. Third is a bit bigger scale, and this was something the university showed interest in, which is having, for example, students be able to compost on a little bit larger scale, 10 cubic to 30, sorry, to 50 cubic yard compost. That's a much bigger pile, but it's something that would then be regulated our city, you'd have to have a permit. It would be checked. You have to pay for an application fee. And then lastly, it sets up the ability for large scale waste haulers to also do composting. If you're trying to think of what does that mean in your mind, it's like earth bounds compost piles. You would, of course, have to have major setbacks from other kinds of land uses. It'd have to fit in the zoning. So it essentially sets up those four tiers. it also provides a pathway for our city as we have a new brush site to set up some way for community for residents to actually drop compost at a city facility and then lastly it sets up a special haulers permit now what is that well we have something like this already with some bulk items but essentially you could become a hauler just of compostables going you know home to home and picking up compostables that you might bring to your own compost site and maybe someone pays a fee for that service to happen so it does all of those things what it does not do is set up the zoning for all of this to happen so we're going to have to do some slight modifications like we we're going to do on the ldo to to be very specific about what kinds of zones can this be done in where can't they be so that piece will have to come over the next coming months but this sets up the beginning stages of a more comprehensive composting the one thing this does not do and you may have seen this in the public comment in your emails it does not create any sort of opportunity for people who have current waste haulers to request composting service of them. So if you have waste management or GFL or any of the others, unless they already provide it, you will not be able to request this service. council member Miller and I decided that that conversation, which is about composting and our broader waste hauling conversation should happen later when we accept the report later on this month or next month in terms of how do we want to structure our trash and recycling in this community. So that's a rundown, that's everything it does. I'm happy to answer questions. Council member Miller is also an expert on this and fire away.

Thank you, Council Member Werthmann. Council Member Miller?

Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Council Member Werthmann. I just want to give credit. I'm a seconder on this motion, but Council Member Werthmann did the vast majority of the work on this one. I just kind of helped him hone it and bounce some ideas off and refine it here. Just something to add that he didn't quite touch on. Some people, so the Tier 1, the at-home composting, It does define it more, but still as of now, no permit or registration is required for that one. You should still have to follow any sort of nuisance. It can attract nuisance like insects or rodents, but as of now, you don't need a permit for that. And then the other big question that we've been getting is about, as mentioned, we were trying to look at ways to find the haulers or get them involved. And we're not moving forward with that right now. Council Member Werthmann says that one can't request that of them. But also, this ordinance does not impose upon the waste haulers a need to do this. It does not touch waste haulers at all right now. So that is not in the scope of this ordinance here today. So I know some people are concerned about that. So I just wanted to add those two points.

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Miller. And thanks to Council Member Werthmann as well for bringing this forward. We'll go to the questions from Council. And first we have Council Member Mboga.

Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Council Whitman and Council Miller. I'll be supporting this one, but for my information, the people who sent me, I have a few questions. One is what material would the resident be allowed to put in their compost bin?

Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. Council Member Maboga. In the ordinance, under definitions in the first chapter, there is a title X, compostable materials, and it specifically lists the items that can go in there, such as yard waste, compostables, fruit scraps, and other acceptable materials. It defines fruit scraps and then free details such as fruit, vegetables, green meats, et cetera. I'm not going to read the whole thing here, but there is a definitions chapter of this ordinance which states exactly what you can put in there.

THANK YOU THEN THE LAST ONE SO HOW WOULD BE CONTAMINATION BE CONTROLLED

But we do have strong definitions on what can be composted and things that cannot be composted, like for instance, food scraps cannot contain slaughterhouse weight, animal carcasses, fats, and stuff like that. And as long as you're following the guideline, composting is a well understood process and there's really not problems. If any sort of problems do occur in which it becomes odorous or attracts vermin, that would then fall under a nuisance and the community services will be contacted It's one had a complaint with a neighbor that had a compost that was being a nuisance they can contact community services and that would be Investigated and of any other nuisance that occurs so is incumbent upon the operator of the compost to follow these regulations But we do have avenues if that would become problem for neighbors. I

Thank you. Council Member Werthmann, do you want to answer that?

Yeah. If I could add to that, Council Member Mboga, that through tiers two, you would have to register your compost with the city. Tier three, you'd have to not only register, but have an inspection. And tier four is DNR regulated. So there are a number of different ways that check-in would happen to make sure that you're following the ordinance. But then, as a lot of things, things are complaint basis as well. We're setting up the parameters as best we can to encourage that people follow it.

Thank you. Council Member Reed. Thank you, Council President. My question for the mover is just, since you said that the broader way study is coming, can you just help me clarify, what are we deciding tonight, and then what are we purposefully putting off to decide later once we get that study? Council Member Wood.

So the conversation tonight for public hearing and what we will vote on tomorrow is just setting up these four tiers of potential composting that people can engage in. um adding to it that special hauler and on top of it the potential of a city brush site including compost what we won't be talking about and which is not included in this ordinance is conversations around do we want compost service to be a part of the hauler experience that people in our community have do we want that to be an option or not we're not bringing that forward that part of the ordinance we felt was best left for a future discussion for when we look at the waste hauler study and decide how do we want to advance because it's it's going to be a big deal to make a change like that and we want to do it right. And I think a lot is going to depend on what does the council want to do on waste and how do we want to set that up? So we felt it was best a part of that future discussion.

All right, thank you. Council Member Orth.

Thank you, Council President. I was appointed to the Seven Mile Landfill and we had our first meeting that I was at a couple weeks ago. And as the landfill manager was giving his report, one of the things that he talked about was fires and that was part of his report. And I see that in section three it talks about public health and safety issues and it specifies fire. And I think if I understood from the meeting, because I asked about that, and it seemed like it was the methane gas from compostables that were creating these fires. Am I remembering that correctly? And maybe you don't know the answer.

Yeah, I don't know. Something we can look into.

Yeah, I was just curious.

Thank you, Council Member Orth. Council Member Otto.

Thank you, Council President. So, as I understand, and to address some concerns from my constituents, this ordinance is really granting residents something new that we can do rather than telling them it's something additional that they can't do, which I think is great. I just wanna address the concern about enforcement. It sounds like it would be based on other residents reporting violations, given the nature of this, the potential environmental concerns, which I don't think are significant at all. Can you address anything more about enforcement of this new and kind of complex ordinance if we pass it?

Yeah, Council Member Miller.

So just a clarification, are you talking about like tier ones that are going to be individuals? Are you talking about tiers two through four or all of them?

All of them, really, because I do imagine enforcement would be different based on tier.

Because tiers two through four will be easier for us because there's going to be registration and our licensing and our commercial operations. So the biggest, I wouldn't say the word challenge, but the biggest opportunity for having concerns from neighbors will be one in the neighborhoods at the... at the personal ones, but actually that doesn't change from how we are now. Because the purpose of this ordinance also, because right now you can have your own personal compost, or you can have a hauler do it. And there's no tiers two through four, and there's no community. So this actually doesn't change what we have currently. So if there hasn't been any problems currently, and a rash of people aren't complaining about composting as it goes on now, I don't foresee codifying this in tier one as this one thing. It's going to change that because it's what we have now.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you. Yeah. Council Member Mboga.

Thank you for the move. Would this one cost the resident some money?

Council Member Werthmann.

No. But the one that would cost something is Tier 3, this larger scale, 10 cubic to 50 cubic. where they would likely be, because there's gonna be inspection, that would probably cost something. There would probably be a nominal fee on the registration for tier two as well, so like your community garden or your church, but we've talked about how we don't want it to be something that is prohibitive. If it's 20 bucks or 30 bucks, something that is reasonable to be able to notice. If you do it in your backyard, there's no cost there.

Thank you. Any other questions from council or any questions for staff or clarifications? OK. Well, we'll move to the, OK, so we actually have some folks that have signed up to speak during public discussion. So we'll start with those, and then if anyone else decides they would like to speak, I can invite others. Travis, would you like to come and speak, please?

Good evening, council.

I'm Travis. I live at Gatehouse Drive. So whoever that is, you're my representative, which I do not know who that is. I guess, I don't understand, I missed all of the previous meetings, so that's on me. You did a very good explanation as well as you. What problem does this solve? Is this a problem that exists currently, we just need to change the wording of the ordinance that maybe already exists? Or is this something that's brand new, because you're trying to reduce the amount of organic waste going into the landfill? Okay, is that what it is about? Are they allowed to speak to the questions?

Yeah, we can certainly get back to you with answers, but typically we're not really allowed to speak.

Okay, so then I'll just take it from this. Most of the people that I'm following right now that are talking about this, they all want to know what this solves, because is this just to get a new headline to say something snappy? Because they don't understand it. I think there's a disconnect between what you guys are trying to do and what the citizens understand, because most of them are all complaining that now you're going to hold, like you were talking about, the individuals that are already doing this are in their own homes for their own benefit to benefit everybody accountable, and they're afraid that you're going to usurp their ability to do that, and you're going to mandate some sort of regulation that's going to take their abilities away. So... That's what pretty much everybody is saying. Most of the people are against it, like me. I'm not against it. They didn't understand what you're trying to solve because it doesn't sound like it's an actual problem to them. So I'm just bringing it to your attention. Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, and if you stick around afterwards, we can speak with you or we'll be further discussing it tomorrow as well. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, anyone from the gallery would like to speak to agenda item number two on management of waste and recyclables?

Yeah, this is on the recycling. I guess I got this wrong.

That's okay.

What is agenda item number two?

That's the one we were just discussing on composting.

Absolutely. Okay, thank you. My name is Elizabeth Spencer. My address is 1304 Lindale, Eau Claire. First of all, I'd just like to thank Council Member Werthmann and Miller for bringing this to the fore. And I hope it is, I hear you when I say it is just the first step of a series of steps to where we get to the point there won't be all these trucks roaming around my neighborhood all day long on garbage day and I have been a fan of earthbound since the day they opened so I much appreciate their service I understand this would be a burden to all of a sudden make it required for all of the other um garbage haulers to suddenly have to do it okay i get that so i hope there'll be some kind of long-term transition to make it happen i don't know whether it could ever be required or not The future will tell. But I have to tell you, I used to bike that road out to the landfill. Oh, seriously, it was beautiful. I biked out on the north and came back on the south of the lake. OK, so then all of a sudden, there were these big trucks rambling this far from my wheels, which scared the bejesus out of me. there started to be glass and garbage on the road. So that stopped. So I do think we need to have a long-term plan for our garbage hauling. But I understand this is a first step, and I encourage you and thank you to continue the journey. So thanks a lot. I think people don't understand it. We'll just need more information. I can't believe anybody would actually be against it. Anyway, thank you. Thanks for doing this. Yeah, thank you.

Appreciate you coming up. Anyone else from the audience would like to speak to this agenda item? OK, thank you. Well, we'll close that item and move on to agenda item number three. This is a public discussion on resolutions granting excess land of parcels, 2 2 1 0 4 0 3 6 7 Park Ridge drive. Uh, and then another parcel number 2 2 1 0 9 1 3 5 4. And that's at 2 20 27 vine court. And then parcel number 2 1 1 6 0 4 7 7 on Lawrence street. and part of parcel number 21160368 at East Riverview Drive. And we have a presentation from coordinator Billy Hufford on this item. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you, Council President Greger, council members. Do you have my? . um as you guys are aware we're getting presentation up um we've been working on this excess land project for a while we'll continue working on it probably for years to come um and these ones um we've had meetings with council with the public um so we're gonna go through each of them just give a little information to public feedback um and um And then I think there's public members here who would like to comment on this also. So start with, we'll go into Park Ridge Drive. Actually, we'll go back. We got the PowerPoint up. So the history of this, we had a lot of residents, developers coming and asking about city-owned property and if they could purchase it to develop on. We've done some of that here and there, but it got us thinking, what about all of this other land that we have? And along with that, when we've been looking at ideas to increase, create more affordable housing, we started thinking this would be a good plan to go hand in hand. Doing this will give us the ability to reduce the land cost. So potentially knocking $50,000 or more off of the cost of the house from the very start. So if you don't have that land cost, it can make it more affordable. This will be up to you guys. We could sell some of the homes at market rate. We had discussed this before to generate more revenue for affordable housing and create a sustainable program from it, but that would be a decision for you all. Total parcels the city owns is 433. Not all of them are developable. as we work through them. And then there's just various different things that we can do to bring more affordability with doing these different projects. So the need in the community, I think you all are aware of the Alice report. In Eau Claire County, 21% of the population are Alice household. 11% are in poverty. So total would be 35% in the county. For Eau Claire only, it's at, or I'm sorry, 32, I was looking at the state. City, we're at 35. So we're in line with the state. The county is a little lower than the state on Alice, but equal on the houses in poverty. And the pick count, numbers are coming out this week, so I don't have the most recent. I hear they're a little, they went back up. But January, the count was 19. The last three years, and this is point in time count, where twice a year, same night, every year they go out, volunteers to look for individuals who may be sleeping in their car, camping, stuff like that, to try and get counts of our homeless population. Last three years, it's ranged from 19 to 104. That was July of 24. The pick count helps to determine population, but it's dependent on many things, number of volunteers you have, what the weather might be like. Are people finding different places to go so we don't, you know, community might not know where the spots to find people are, different things. So you can see a lot of variance with that, but it is a good count to help us get an idea. Then also, there's a lot of living wage calculators out there. The MIT one, it factors in a lot more than that 30% housing rule would. It factors in all the cost of living. So if you're a single individual with zero children to afford to live, you would be making $22.23 an hour. Here's some information on housing prices and rent. Costs are outpacing wages. We'll look at that next. But you can see to buy a house, you're looking at the low end, 285 up to 334 houses that have been selling. And that puts you in a range well over $30 an hour for a household to be able to buy. Rent, you're looking at anywhere between 20 and 32, but you definitely need over 20 for the average or median cost. Wages, just a view of what different wages are. We go back and look at the cost and stuff. Federal poverty level is $15,960. Wisconsin's minimum wage is $7.25. That doesn't meet the federal poverty level. And I was curious, that's true in 20 states in the country. But it also shows you from the poverty level, from the federal, the different when you add more individuals. If you go and look at some of the other living wage calculators in ALICE, they break it down as is the child a toddler, infant, in school, because that changes cost dramatically. Here's in red the various different city owned parcels. Not all of them would come for excess land. Some of them are right of ways. Some of them are in use and there would be no intentions of changing them. But just to give you an idea of the different things we're looking at. Methodology we identified the parcels. We're eliminating the ones that don't meet the minimum lot requirements Eliminating ones that are currently in use but we do look at them to see if it could that use could still be maintained but a portion of the Property could be used for housing We look at elevations and other things to determine buildability zoning and then we'll look at selecting batches at least twice a year to to bring forward to go through this process we also send them to various departments to check many different things engineering water utilities and they look of right away buried utilities i think we talked about it before we had one property we thought would be great but there's no driveway accessibility so we look at all that before we even even bring them forward and then we did quite a bit of community outreach we held a forum where individuals could come see the different proposals acts ask questions and talk about them with that we sent notices to residents within 300 feet of the property. So the direct residents were informed and then we also communicated other ways so the entire community knew. But we wanted to make sure we specifically told the ones that were adjacent. So fine court. This is a small little piece just right on the corner there. We're not really sure why it was never built on. It's a great location right by the school. If I was a parent, I would love a house there so I could just watch my kid walk to school. It's a small lot. It can be ideal for a smaller home. maybe a duplex, but I don't think you're going to find much more could be built on that. It is near a commercial corridor and jobs. And again, although zoning would allow higher densities in this area, the lot will limit that. one thing we've talked about with the public is this will instead of these Lots not generating any tax money they will generate tax and then it also takes maintenance off of the cost of this to the city but those aren't major drivers in doing this those things are going to be very minimal When it all adds up and stuff, it can make a difference, half an employee, full employee. But some people have commented that we're going to fix our budget with this, and there's no way this is going to fix our budget. This is about housing affordability. concerns on this we really didn't get much feedback I think Dave might have talked to one person I talked to one they were overall very supportive of this location and just no negative feedback on it that we have heard Park Ridge Drive this is over by Half Moon Lake this little parcel Again, would be a smaller parcel. It would allow higher density, but we would expect probably something smaller due to the lot size and shape. Possibly perfect for a first time home buyer or somebody downsizing. The proximity to trails offers an alternative transportation option. And we've already talked about the others on the on the first one. We did have more concerns on this There were concerns about wildlife living in that area. It is overgrown And the report I sent you guys I had went out there and walked around the property. There are a lot of invasive or not friendly growth out there. So Something we would definitely take our forestry out there and have them work on with the developer if they want to do it on the trees and saving what's possible and what are high value. They were also concerned with traffic safety. There were comments that a lot of people coming down the road don't hit the curve and end up in that little parcel at the top there. We did research police records and there's only been one report and we verified that with the police department, but jumping a curb and People might not always report that to the police. So not denying that there are issues happening, but it didn't look like it was a significant concern. There were concerns about the land quality. It was talked about as being wetlands multiple times. There was a map included in the packet from the USDA, and it shows where the wet spots are there, but it doesn't label this as a wetland. I kept trying to find a time to go out and walk it, but we kept getting rain, rain, rain, and I was like, well, that's not gonna help me. Finally, we hit a period where there's about three days of no rain. I went out, walked around. It was damp, like if you're walking through a forest, how it normally would be, but it wasn't like squishy wet or anything. So I think the recent rains and stuff that probably contributed, but I didn't see a big concern with standing water or anything there. And then there was concerns that it doesn't fit with the surrounding areas. north and west are all housing and the property directly west of it is a house the one north doesn't have anything and the two below were warehouses factory type so individuals thought a single house on that road would would look odd and just wouldn't fit in The next ones, Riverview Drive and Lawrence Street, these we received quite a bit of feedback on. So we're looking at just the outlined areas in blue on the map. These areas have water and sewer stubs available, so that will even help reduce costs more because that infrastructure part's in place and it won't have to be paid for. Again, reducing the land cost can reduce the overall cost. This has the potential to add 20 or more homes depending on the density that's decided on it. And I do wanna talk about the homes that'll be built. One of the concerns brought up had both reduced housing value and increased property tax. I do wanna emphasize these homes aren't going to be low income. We just can't build for that amount unless there's a lot more subsidies added. We're just trying to figure out how we can get first time home buyers or people looking to downgrade into some smaller more affordable options you know knocking that $50,000 off you go back and look at the wages you know people making $30 an hour are gonna struggle to buy a house and this could help with that freeing up lower house for people available for people who can't afford higher cost um wildlife was a concern again it would just be i think it's like two percent of the whole well field so um yes there will be some wildlife displacement but there is plenty of area there to help with that one of the biggest concerns is once we do that that i believe will build out the entire area when we heard that i suggested we'll just put a conservatory on it and that concerns not there anymore so we are looking at doing that we can't do anything with that until this is approved if it's going to be and we go out and do the certified survey maps so that we can have the locations and everything and to go through that process so that is the intention but we have to have everything Finish with the excess land part and all that will be done before we'd start building Or worked on be working on if building starts quickly There was Information about the white prime treaty brought up. I did do some research on that. It's about hunting and fishing on public lands so I struggled relating it to this because within the laws and stuff, city wouldn't allow hunting in the city. But if we did, people would still be able to hunt per the treaty. So if there is more information, we do have a member of public that brought that up who could speak more on that. But I didn't see any concerns with that treaty reading through it. Um, plan commission reviewed these, um, the first two, um, vine and park Ridge drive. They did, uh, recommend that council approved these for excess land, um, river view drive and Lawrence street. They, uh, um, tabled that one and they would like that one to go to waterways parks. This isn't something that typically would, but with this being something new and the concerns and stuff, we're working on getting it on that agenda if that's what you all desire also. And other than that, I'll take questions.

Thank you. Let's see. So I just actually had a question right away just about a little bit more detail about waterways and parks and the history of discussions at that level. Waterways, Parks, and Urban Forestry Commission, I believe, discussed this in March. Do you think you could talk about what that discussion was like?

Yeah. I wasn't at that meeting. It went to that meeting because Cameron Park was on it. And that should have been the only property going. Once the public gave feedback that they didn't want it touched at all, we removed it. So in that case, it did not need to go back to waterways and parks.

OK, so Riverview was not discussed. I mean, you weren't there.

They were all taken, but the only reason it was taken was because of the park. They shouldn't have all been taken at that time. New people and positions and learning roles. That little curb.

you so we'll open up to other council members before I dominate so we'll go to council member Otto first thank you council president first off I was at that meeting and

yeah we did discuss all of those not just the cameron street park but if i recall we didn't pass it but i could be wrong yeah i think you guys tabled them for more information right yeah thank you um my question is about the parcel near rod and gun park is there a reason that wouldn't be brought to waterways

So reading through the waterways and parks, it's if something is adjacent to waterway, a park, or a greenway. It's near a park, I don't know, or Half Moon Lake. I don't know what the distance or anything is, but I was told that one didn't need to go. Okay.

Thank you.

Go to council member Brewster next. Thank you. Council president. I was just wondering if you could speak a little on, uh, the wellfield properties as to, um, why the order of operations has to be this before the conservation easement. I mean, I would think that once this was surveyed, we could just do a conservation easement explicitly excluding those properties, and then once that's in place, then do the properties.

Right. We we won't do surveying until it unless it's declared excess. There wouldn't be a reason for us to go out, do survey and do the build out the lots as they should be and everything. And we'll have to survey that area to define exactly what the conservation area would be. So we'll have to do surveys before we can do it. Until we know what the lots and stuff will look like, where the exact borders and stuff will be, we wouldn't be able to.

Okay. All right. Councilmember Miller.

Thank you, Council President. Courtney Hubbard, thank you for the presentation. I'm following up Councilmember Brewster's comments. So the areas at least indicated here with these blue boxes, they seem to follow existing property lines. On the southern portion going up, you see exactly where the lines theoretically would go. And then on the north side, you see exactly where the lines would go. So it seems like just declaring conservation outside of that one, we already have latitude, longitude, whatever GIS information we need to do. So I'm curious why we still just can't make a conservation area there. preemptively before we do anything else. And secondly, kind of follow up, you were saying that, you know, we can't do a survey and tell us declared excess, but why not? Why can't we just say, let's do a survey? Why can't council say we want to survey this as part of this conservation effort?

We could go out and survey it. We don't know exactly where the lot lines are going to end up and stuff. The one is already drawn out. The top one is not. So we would have to do all of that work first. And then when we do the CSMs for those two, we can do them all at once to get that information. But if you guys would prefer a CSM on that part first, but I think it'd be easier to do them all at once.

But I guess my thought of this is that I would not be comfortable at all moving forward with this one without having conservation in place first. So I think for me, they'd have to go in that order to even happen. So that's my opinion. Any other may have their difference. So that's my thought process behind my questions here.

Or you can put into it that we wouldn't be able to sell any lots before the conservation or something like that to help ensure the people who are concerned about that, that it wouldn't move forward so that we can get all of this work done and stuff.

OK, thank you. OK, thank you. Council Member Orth.

Thank you, Council President. I am wondering about, I realize that the excess property declaration is like the first step and then if it goes a different, unless it goes a different way, but that first step and then you come back to Council to find out what the development parameters would be. My question is, is there a limited timeframe between the time that we declare something excess property and before it needs to go to the next step?

I don't believe so. So unless somebody interrupts, I'm gonna say no. No.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Council Member Werthmann.

Thank you. I wanted to ask a clarification on something that you mentioned. I just didn't, I don't know if I didn't hear you correctly, but you brought up white pine, and then you brought up hunting, and then you brought up treaty rights, but I know what treaty rights are, but I don't know how it connects with, one, I know how it connects with hunting, but the white pine, is this all one related thing about treaty rights for white pine access and hunting for indigenous communities?

It's just what the treaties called, the white pine treaty.

What is it? it's it's from back in the 1800s an agreement to allow um native americans to be able to hunt on public land i understand thank you so that's the name of that that specific treaty and you're saying that that your opinion is that by it doesn't impact i mean there's obviously less places to exercise treaty rights but Your opinion was that when looking at it, it doesn't have a significant impact on those treaty rights.

Right. We wouldn't allow hunting and stuff, and I don't believe there's any streams or anything running through for fishing. We don't allow hunting in the city.

Oh, that's really interesting because I know in some places, treaty rights come first, even whether...

Yeah, I read quite a bit on that. Now that's a big controversy and stuff, but my understanding is we wouldn't allow hunting in that area. Just there's a lot of housing and stuff around it. I think it'd be concerning if we did.

That all makes sense. Thank you. Council Member Otto.

Thank you, Council President. I know last March, I think some of the confusion with Cameron Street Park is that some of the land wasn't, I guess, technically parkland, but people were using it as a park. And I know the old Wells area is used for recreational trails. I'm wondering, and I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but just to be sure, people aren't using any of these parcels for recreational purposes, are they? Like there are no trails, there are no...

There's no official trails. People have walked through and created trails. People do unofficially use it, although I do believe it has no trespassing signs up just because of the water coming from that area, but it's not an official park.

Okay, thank you.

Just to clarify, too, I believe there is an access point from Riverview Drive on the north end for the city and for public access. So that parcel there currently has an access point that is used both for utility purposes but also for recreation. And presumably, that access would be maintained even if we sold the land. Is that correct? There would still be a north entrance.

I know there were concerns about access to it and stuff. So we would work with the neighborhood on access points as we work through the process.

OK. Councilmember Miller? Thank you, Council President. According to Hefford, looking at the lots, none of them are, because they're not being used for anything right now, that they are very wooded. So then the question comes up, I don't know how well they've been checked over. Would there be any possible complication with our tree preservation ordinances? They don't seem, I can't tell just from the street views, you know, if they have any valuable trees worth saving. Has that been ascertained at this point, if any of them would have trees that would be kind of under the protections from that ordinance?

It would be addressed like any lot that a developer wanted to develop on. If there are trees that should be retained, they would either need to retain them or replace them or pay per the code. So it would be handled exactly the same.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.

Any other questions from the council? I just have one kind of clarifying question about the timeline. Since there was a recommendation from plan commission to have these two um parcels like go in front of waterways parks and urban forestry commission that would presumably be able to happen in at the end of august here and then this could come back as soon as the first meeting in september um or you know yes first meeting september because they'd go back to plan commission their first meeting so i'll say also go back to plan commission okay okay um

Well, let me check on those dates, because if I remember right, their September meeting was moved to August, end of August, because of holiday. So we might not be able to get it back to plan commission. It might have to be September, or October, I guess, before we can get it back in there if we can't get in in September.

So I guess for tomorrow's meeting, it'd be good to have that whole timeline figured out as an option. OK, definitely want to open this up to the public. Appreciate everybody's patience. We have two people that have signed up, and then I'll open it up to folks that maybe didn't get a chance to sign up or decided to speak. So first on our list for the public discussion is Mary McManus.

Thank you for joining us Thank You president Gregor council members city managers city attorney community development And my neighbors I'm here regarding the wells property being placed on these consent agenda for tomorrow's legislative meeting I wish to share concerns about how due diligence is practiced Steve it's okay. It's public administration due diligence. Not the legal part.

I

Public bodies, in my frame of reference, use practices of due diligence to ensure transparency, ensure accountability, and ensure that what they're doing or proposing is of some value to the community. The process of due diligence typically involves consultation and stakeholder engagement. For example, when a topic comes to the Waterways, Parks, and Urban Forestry Commission for presentation and the commission members ask for further information, the actions that follow should include some sort of follow-up, with the commission members regarding the information they request. The follow up should not include skipping over them in the next three to five step process of topical review on the way to city council legislative session. Commission members are volunteers who care deeply about the topics they address. Not getting back to them is not due diligence. The process needs to be followed even with advisory only commissions. On the other hand, holding a meeting in collaboration with City Council and inviting neighborhoods, two neighborhoods, to learn about proposed property sales is a great example of due diligence. Thank you, Councilman Brewster, and thank you, Mr. White. And so was the open house held at the library. The importance of follow-up with attendees cannot be stressed enough and the importance of informing every residence in and around beyond the 300-foot area is equally important. This is where they live. These folks live here. They are both interested in and concerned about any changes that may impact their lives and or property values. Just because they are not signing up for city email does not mean they are not interested. Due diligence aids in ensuring alignment with public service values. It is a proactive, evidence-based process that underpins sound decision-making, risk management, and good governance. Due diligence is not just about legal compliance, it's about ethical accountability and transparency, and reflects broader reforms in public sector oversight and stakeholder engagement. Modern public administration emphasizes ethics and accountability as core due diligence practices. It is not just procedural like meeting follow-ups. It is outcome oriented. Done well, it leads to open conversation and partnerships driving community growth. A part of democratic citizenship is the give and take of stakeholder input and feedback. It is also part of democratic citizenship to wave flags of concern when things go sideways instead of forward. Due diligence is central to building trust and ensuring effective governance. It's a cornerstone of modern public sector reform. I do not pretend to know what is covered in onboarding for city employees, volunteer commission members, or for city council members. My request that more time be spent on examining successful means of due diligence practice and on examining areas that may need support and or challenge. It's clear to me that people are working hard to raise the bar regarding due diligence. Your efforts are appreciated. Their efforts are appreciated. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Mr. Nick gave a public public presentation at that waterways commission meeting about the treaty. And so he would be your best access right now. So would Aaron Lefebvre, the chair of the commission. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right. Next on my list is John Dunn. Thanks for joining us.

Good evening. My name is John Dunn. I am a resident of the city of Eau Claire and live at 3130 Riverview Drive. I have lived there for over 20 years. I retired from the Department of Natural Resources in 2010 and shortly after that I ended up writing the urban deer management plan for the city of Eau Claire. That involved doing helicopter surveys, winter helicopter surveys counting deer in the city wells as well as six other locations around the city. Last summer, I put 800 miles on my mountain bike in the city wells alone. I think it's safe to say that I know the well field pretty well. My comments right now are really geared towards the properties associated with the city wells, not the other ones around town. There's four points that I'd like to try to make quickly. First one is the sale of that land seems to me, if it's not a budgetary issue, that there are many other places around town that either have been purchased by the city or perhaps will be that would be more suitable for low income housing. The properties south of town there on Double I, quite a few acres there and that 237 acres northeast of town in the town of Union on County Double E, I think those sites would be far more suitable for that type of housing. Okay. Second point, I think that it's really important for us to protect the city wells. With the PFAS issue, it's just a good example of what environmentally can happen. And I would think that the city would want to buffer the well field as much as possible to avoid any potential future pollution. You end up putting in multiple family housing in there and that's just gonna push everything into the middle and if you have potentially future wells to be drilled, I see a real issue with contamination of those wells if you expand private ownership around the property. Let's talk briefly about deer. Anybody that has lived down there or traveled down there knows the deer problem that we have. I mean, we're way over any type of goal that we should have to try to hold the deer in line. I think it's important to realize that if you start, again, pushing in from the outside, all you're gonna do is concentrate the deer, and you're gonna have bigger problems with not only the forestry aspect within the property, but also all of us private landowners that surround it. The last item, and I'm not sure how many of you are aware of it, but historically there is a railroad grade that runs all the way through the city wells. Actually I have a map of it right here, but it essentially runs the entire length north and south through the wells. It's a railroad line that was built in 1883, and it ran just from Eau Claire to Chippewa Falls. It was about 11 miles spur that connected Chippewa Falls with Eau Claire and some existing rail lines here. It was used primarily for...

Please wrap up your comments. Thank you so much.

Primarily for logging, but historical perspective that crossed East Riverview Drive. Thank you. Any questions for me?

Yeah, any questions for Mr. Dunn?

I don't know if this worked.

Council Member Werthmann, do you have a question?

I'm curious about the map that you brought. Just if it's possible to see.

Can you zoom in?

Yeah, maybe we could get copies of it or something in email.

Okay, this is running north and south. This is the south end of the city wells right there. This is the railroad line that ran straight north through the wells. exit the wells here on East Riverview, goes from private landowners there, continues north up along the edge of the Chippewa River all the way to Halley. And the railroad grade is still there. One of the major walking trails in the city wells right here is actually that railroad grade that is elevated above the rest of the ground, and once you see it, you can recognize it, but that grade, again, runs all the way through the wells, crosses East Riverview, and then continues north, and as you go north towards Halley, there's a grade that you can walk along that's still cut into the bank halfway up between the river and the higher ground. And again, I think that's a historical perspective that I think we need to consider. I think we need to save that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate it. Maps and history, good.

Any other questions for me?

No, I think that's it. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your attention.

Let's see, do we have anyone else who'd like to speak to this agenda item on excess land? So I exhausted the list of people that signed up. All right. So we're going to close agenda item number three. And that's the last of our public discussions. But we do have a public comment period. And this is for items that were not already covered on the agenda. Um, it could be items that are on the agenda tomorrow that are, that were not covered tonight, or it could be other topics that you want to bring up. Um, uh, this, this time is for those living, going to school or own property or replace a business in the city of Eau Claire to speak to issues, ideas, or concerns of citywide application. You'll have up to three minutes to speak and can only speak once per person. Yeah, just one person. After two minutes the light will turn yellow and then there will be a red flashing light for the final minute and then you'll just need to wrap up your comments. And this time is not for any personal remarks of city personnel or elected officials or any person affiliated with the city. Council members are not allowed to ask questions or comment during this time. There's a total amount of 20 minutes set aside for the public comment period, but it can be extended by a two-thirds vote of the council. So we do have a sign-up sheet for this as well. It looks like there's seven people on it. And then we can open it up for anyone else who may want to speak during the public comment period. And this is, again, just a three-minute amount of time. So the first person on our list is Lois Postlewaite. Thanks for joining us.

My name is Lois Postaway. I live at 110 Park Place, Eau Claire. And I'm here tonight because I want to ask you to support something that you're going to be looking at tomorrow. And it is the petition that's been out there putting a referendum question on the November City election ballot, asking residents if they favor creating a local health care action plan being developed by community members. We all know the issues with health care that are going on with affordability. I have several people I love very much that will be possibly losing their insurance. So I would like to suggest that this effort that the Community Action Wisconsin has put up, it will provide a transparent mechanism to collect data, create local plans and a way to improve things at the local level and potentially advocate for locally determined issues with the state and federal decision makers. So I am speaking in favor of putting this issue to referendum to give the city residents the choice on this matter. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, next on our list is Flo Sheridan. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you. Flo Sheridan, 1226 Taft Avenue, Eau Claire. And I also am here for that same reason. And I'm asking that the council refer the petition for healthcare to a referendum in November. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on my list is Denise Noll.

Hi, my name is Denise Knoll. I'm a resident of Eau Claire. I live at 327 West Tyler. And I'm also here asking the council to support that petition to place this item on the November ballot. I think we all know that healthcare is a big issue. I've been to different community and Chippewa Valley meetings. I've also done some Zoom meetings with people in other parts of the state about problems that different communities are facing. And I think it would be nice if we could have a committee here supported by our local residents that would have access to the information, and we could maybe offer some help to the people that are important in our lives, our neighbors, our friends, and our families. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on my list is Diana Hanson. Thanks for joining us.

I'm Diana Hanson. I live at 4538 Oakwood Hills Parkway in Eau Claire. I have been a resident of Eau Claire for, this is my hometown. I've worked in healthcare in this community for over 30 years. So I can tell you from as a provider of healthcare and a receiver of healthcare that people are having problems with a healthcare system that isn't easy to navigate to begin with. and I really would encourage you to put the healthcare local issue on that November ballot. I think it's extremely important that people feel that they have a voice in it. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next on my list is Liz Spencer.

Hi there. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Spencer. I live at 1304 Lindale. I'd just like to echo what the previous two people, maybe three, I forgot, people have said about the local health care action plan. I won't repeat all what they said, except I want to emphasize two reasons why we need to have this and have the public have a great deal of input into it. Number one is. You're well aware of what's just happened in our community in the last year or so. With the closing of Sacred Heart, gone in just a day or so. People didn't know. Employees walked out the door. They walked into work and they walked out with no job. and the loss of the whole Prevea system that worked with them. The other one is I worked in public health for 20 plus years, and there's lots of health data that comes from various sources from the different levels of government. You're all well aware. This is uncertain nowadays. We don't know what we're going to be getting in the future. So I do think we need a source of good local data based on the needs of our citizens. So thank you. I hope you'll put that on the ballot in November for a referendum and let the people speak. Reminded of the, oh, what is, how come it is? We're going to let the people speak. All right.

Thank you. All right, next I have Jackie Christner.

Jackie had to go.

OK. Jackie. Yeah, I didn't quite see her, so thank you for that. And then I have Travis as well. OK. Go ahead and cancel. Like to pass? OK. Yeah, I'll pass. Anyone else from the gallery would like to speak during our public comment period? Just have up to three minutes per person. OK. Well, thanks, everybody, for coming tonight. And if there is no objection from council, this meeting is adjourned.

Yep. Absolutely nice to meet you. Absolutely glad we could get a pass to work for you. We're slowly picking up. I'm sorry?