City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know. Thank you. I don't know. what do you think um Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

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 of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

City Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Brewster.

Here.

Gregor.

Here.

Johnson. Mboga. Miller. Here. Orff.

Here.

Otto. Here. Reed. Here. Schoen.

Here.

Serrano.

Here.

Werthmann.

All right. Thank you, City Clerk. And welcome, everyone, to the Tuesday, September 8th meeting of the Eau Claire City Council. We kind of have a combined meeting today where we have three public hearings first, and then we'll have three public discussions. We'll go into our public comment period, and then we'll go into our legislative session where the council will discuss and vote on items, followed then by a closed session. So we're kind of packing a lot in here. So I appreciate everybody being in this space tonight. So we'll start with the public hearings on the agenda here. But just so you have a little background on how you can participate in the hearings, staff will present on the agenda item. Council will then have an opportunity to ask questions. And then we'll open up the item for public comment. We will prioritize folks that have signed up on the sign-up sheets in the back of the room. So you can find both agendas as well as a sign-up sheet for each of the items for public hearing or public discussion at the back table. And then if you didn't get a chance to sign up on the agenda item you want to speak on, you can always have a time after the after that for you to come up and speak if you didn't get a chance to sign up. You'll have up to four minutes to speak. And you'll only be able to speak once per agenda item. The lighting system at the podium will shine green for the first three minutes of your time. And then it'll turn yellow for your last minute. And then it'll flash red if you're out of time. And we'll ask that you wrap up your comments. If it's possible that council members will have a question for you based on your testimony. So please stay at the podium for a couple seconds after you speak to see if anyone has any questions. In addition to speaking before council tonight, there are other ways to reach the council. There are blue public comment forms in the back table that you can fill out and leave at the back table. You can also email council members. And then you also can use the electronic comment form on the city website, which is EauClaireWI.gov. So if you, yeah, council.

I'll wait until you're done. Yeah.

So and just kind of a note, I know a lot of folks are here for the welcoming week proclamation. So that's actually going to be a little bit later on our agenda after the public comment period for the agenda items that we're going to discuss. But great to have you here. So we'll go into our public hearings. Agenda item number one is public hearing on an ordinance to amend the comprehensive plan for properties Oh, Council Member Miller.

On point of order, Council President. I'm just curious, because these public comments and session probably going for a while. People are here for, it's a proclamation that's. OK. I was wondering if it's permissible, Deputy City Attorney, to move the consent agenda. That way we can do a proclamation in order to facilitate that portion of the meeting tonight.

So the public hearings are noticed for a specific time. So I would prefer if we at least get through the public hearings. And after that, the public discussions don't have the same notice requirement. So after that, if you wanted to move a proclamation up, you could do so.

OK, thank you for the clarification.

OK, I think that we can plan on doing that. So we'll just go through the first three public hearings. Thank you, Council Member Miller. Council Member Werthmann? That was what I was going to ask. OK, thank you. So agenda item number one is public hearing on an ordinance to amend the comprehensive plan for properties from industrial land use to low density housing, medium and high density housing located at 2209 County Line Road. And we have our community development director, Aaron White, to present on this item. Welcome.

Thank you, Council President Greger and council members. We're getting my presentation loaded up very quickly. For committee's sake, the item one and two are linked on the public hearing and then item number 24 and 25 in the business agenda. They are separate voting items, but I will address them both consecutively in the presentation and be happy to answer questions for relates to either item. So what we're looking at on these first two items are a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning for parcels in... Do you want to go ahead and pick that for me? Actually, would you re-plug that? Thank you. So these are related to projects referred to as Linden Hills. This is the land that was owned by the city and also by the Gateway Industrial Board that was moving forward with the first phase of it was sold to CNM Builders. They are moving forward with their approval to do their project as presented which is a mixed use of housing Low to mid density to high density plus some commercial mix The comp plan amendment is required because this area through the the 2015 comprehensive plan was identified as industrial space Reality is it was never suited for industrial space grounds entirely to rolling to be able to develop any of that for industrial and So we're looking to shift it over to residential, which is the more appropriate use for that. This is the general development plan that is proposed for the full development at multiple phases. The areas we're talking about right now are the areas identified as phase one for the first steps of this development, but this is kind of what they're looking to do across the change. From a comprehensive plan use, the comp plan does allow for a shift from industrial or commercial use to residential if it meets a number of criteria. Development needs to be an urban residential, an attractive urban residential environment is created. A comp plan and holistic approach is key to planning the vicinity and make results over time. In addition, an additional retail office or residential investments. Commercial and residential components of the area are designed to appear and function as an integrated whole through the building, location, size, orientation, materials, et cetera. Negative effects on existing housing are mitigated. Nearby roads and intersections can accommodate the increased traffic while maintaining an acceptable level of service. So as you can see, this is a well laid out general development plan proposed for the future use. As we look to the next step, this is the phase one site plan that they were looking. This is the proposed preliminary plat. There is still some work to be done in the area. It's highlighted in red. They're looking to do some alterations on that to adjust some fittings into that space. But this is what we're looking then to propose on the phase one development. So it does meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan to be able to look to shift the comp plan from industrial commercial over to residential commercial. Again, this is another look at the areas we're talking about within the change in zoning. This is some of the examples of housing types they're looking to put in this first phase. Everything from single family to twin homes with some town homes or row homes, excuse me, that are identified within that area. These are the findings of facts and recommendations that will be required to be part of the approval on this. Comp plan amendment and rezoning requests are compatible and consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the plan, meets city engineering requirements in the attached report, which you should have received, submit a revised preliminary plat meeting conditions of the city, including the southern row house lots to meet the MR district dimension standards, which will be coming forward at a later date. Planning Commission approves the 44% of one units with the NR district for this phase due to the amount of two units and row homes being proposed. Submit row house designs to verify meeting use and building design standards, includes doors, garages, et cetera. meet anti-monotony standards established in the 17.10.06e for twin homes that was passed in the new LDO. The subdivision is within the existing park service area and thus is subject to the residential park space fee for new dwellings. and the tree preservation requirements of the ordinance, which the developer is working with planning staff to incorporate and make sure that the tree preservation elements are met through there. So these are what are required to look to do the comp plan change and then also adjust the zoning going from what is currently, I believe it is, go back to the report, Current zoning is neighborhood residential, planned development, and then present land use shows this as industrial density. We're looking to move this to, NR, which neighborhood residential and mixed use residential, this rezoning would also get away from the, would eliminate the general development plan that was in place as part of Gateway's development space in here. So we're zoning out of the old GDP that went with the prior use requirements or the prior expected use. So with that being said, we'll go back to the site. Again, this is the area that we're looking at. I'd be happy to answer any questions. The Planning Commission did recommend approving the comprehensive plan change and the rezoning change as submitted by the applicant.

Thank you, Director Wood. We have a question from Vice President Schoen.

Thank you, Council President Gragert, and thank you, Director White, for this presentation. I have a question. This is one of the first large developments coming forward since some of our more substantial changes in our zoning code rewrite. I'm wondering overall if staff have any feedback about the process going back and forth with the developer on this plan, and in particular, I'm interested to know about the tree preservation ordinance. Just looking for any insights you might have.

Absolutely. This was a complicated project. We've been at this project for about four years now, negotiating out the land purchase, etc. This is the first crack at the tree preservation. We found that there are a large number of trees within that space that were impacted. And it's complicated because, again, none of this is old growth type of development. This is all... whatever came up wild after this land was sold and stopped being pastured. We were able to work, planning staff was able to work with the developer to find a route to allow phased in options for tree preservation because some of their future phases in development will require boulevard trees and meet landscaping requirements. They're still factoring in how the credit process works. It was potentially very expensive. I don't have the specific numbers, the initial numbers, but it was potentially without the credits, et cetera. It was potentially a very expensive tree removal. So it is... it also shows how challenging it's going to be to to manage something like this for this particular area had a lot of of young trees 12 inch trees 13 inch trees along the western edge as the land slopes to the west so it it is a learning lesson for us and it means there's going to be a lot more staff a lot of staff time involved in in doing those types of portions moving forward And again, looking at opportunities to work with the developers to implement those changes. We were able to come up with an acceptable route to get there on this project. We'll see how other projects work moving forward. But overall, the phase design, How they intend to lay out the various lots as it moves forward. It's a it's a really a very Well laid out well thought out application of a broader development includes elements of what would be potentially neighborhood commercial Different types of housing types incorporates trail spaces, etc They're looking to use some unique tools to help manage some of these these green spaces and proposed spaces so it was a very well laid out very comprehensive general development plan a

Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Director White, for the presentation. So the item before us right now is just the comprehensive plan and the adjustment and then also the rezoning. Also provided was this master plan, which is a very nice-looking layout. It's got a little bit of everything, mixed-use development, single-family homes, communities, facilities. So... is what's moving first will only be the phase one, which is the portion there on the west, which is a little less diverse than the rest of it. I'm just kind of curious when they put the master plan in this portion of the packet, you know, this kind of future looking, you know, and then we come and we see this and we're thinking, oh yeah, we're going to, working this as phase one to get this full thing. How committed or tied or locked down is this master plan? Because you get this presented, this very lovely layout, but then we want to ensure that as this proceeds along over the five, 10, however many years it takes to build this out, that what's the probability that this master plan presented today is going to be actually what's developed out in the coming years?

No, that's a great question. So the the land purchase you recall when it was approved, there were options for purchase of the remaining phases that went along with that. So it does have some benchmarks and tie-ins. The phasing was intended to be broken out on areas to where Should the should the options not be executed we're looking at different development We have some opportunities to change that it could be that this is this plan is acquired and and is still Executed forward it could be integrated into something else that change should the developer choose not to do the additional options But it does provide some it will require some work to to integrate everything but the City staff between engineering and planning are working to make sure that we can do it seamlessly regardless of how that stretches out timelines to be determined if these go well and go quickly we could see you know a greatly accelerated timeline in terms of executing the different phases and moving forward okay thank you Council Member Mboga.

Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Director White. My question is so I won't be looking at you. I'll look at my screen here. Before approving this rezoning, could you explain to me and anybody in the arena here and the listening, The total number of houses and the price range of the homes, the projected traffic impact on the county line road, where the existing utility public service have enough capacity, and what improvement the developer know the existing taxpayers will be responsible for funding.

so in terms of what's planned already the first phase is what this is really built around and i will go back to that site here so really this is what we're we're laying out first there's adequate utilities we're talking the the mainline utilities that run along county line road and there's work going right now that is is continuing with is finishing out some blank segments in terms of the broader utilities that are being done uh currently There's capacity to serve the full build-out. The final numbers are going to be a little flux depending upon how they lay out the types of units, but they were looking at upwards of 1,300, 1,400 units total across the entire build-out through all phases. There is adequate utilities to do that, to serve those types of needs. As the phases are implemented, engineering will determine if there's a traffic impact analysis that needs to be done. engineering and planning will be working closely with the developer to make sure that the roads and the design movements through there keep traffic moving in an appropriate way for ingress and egress and um that they'll have to get approvals of each of those phases as they move forward and engineering and planning will have their their review of those and bringing those forward as needed While that goes forward. So there'll be a lot of opportunities to assure that it still meets all the requirements in the city can serve what's looking at this hasn't seen you engineering department and planning has been a part of this process for quite some time. So there's no concerns at this point in time about being able to service any of these sites moving forward.

Thank you. Council Member Otto.

Thank you, Council President. So who has jurisdiction over County Line Road? Is it a mix of Eau Claire and Township?

I would defer to City Manager Solberg with his former engineer hat.

All of County Line Road is within the city limits of Eau Claire.

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

Thank you, Council President. Director White, if we could go back to the master plan. I just have a question with the development summary box. It was too small for me to be able to tell at all what any of that says. Could you just kind of review the key down at the bottom? Sure. Billy, could you try to blow that up a little bit?

I don't have the key in front of me either, so I'm going to try and read it off a very fine print.

So you understand my problem.

Absolutely. But you can see some of what the key is listed in there. You can see the different types that they're looking to do. The yellow is identified as single-family homes. The blue is a community facility. They've kind of left that open. Could serve multiple potential uses when you're talking about development of that size. Maybe it's... something related to a school district or a community center because you're talking about creating a very large ecosystem of new units in there. So that's, you know, twin lots are identifying those tan sections and I think a lot of what they're Referencing are some unit potential unit counts within those those keys you know have that hardcopy document in front of me, but That's a lot of what's intended to identify the specific key to that general development plan, but We'd be happy to also provide a breakdown on that can provide that separately to you as well Thank you

And we will have time before we vote on this for more questions during our business agenda, too, so we can probably move along to the public hearing, I think, here. So thank you, Director White. Thank you. So yeah, we'll move now to open this both. We'll just open agenda item number one for public hearing for now. So... Did anyone sign up in the back? OK. And then for agenda item number two, I can read that one as well, just so folks are aware. Agenda item number two is public. Or maybe I'll just ask, is there anyone in the gallery that would like to speak to agenda item number one? Because we don't have anyone who signed up. Okay, so I will read agenda item number two, even though it was already covered by Director White. So agenda item number two is public hearing on an ordinance to rezone properties from NRP and NR to NRMR and P public located at 2209 County Line Road. So did anyone sign up to speak on agenda item number two? It doesn't sound like it. Would anyone from the Would the council chamber and the gallery like to speak at the public hearing for agenda item number two? And we have one person, thank you so much. If you could please state your name and address, please.

Sure, good afternoon. Sean Bohan, E5055 Interlochen Boulevard. I'm here on behalf of the developer. I'm a civil engineer on this project. Mr. White did a great job of explaining what we were looking at, not only with the change to the comprehensive plan, but also with the rezone. So this first phase ends up having 130 units. We were looking at 48 twin home units, 38 single family, and then 44 row homes. The single family portion, we end up having a number of different lot sizes to be able to accommodate some customs and then also some more of the homes that CNM would put up. Twin homes, we'll end up having varying styles and stuff like that with the twin homes. And then the row homes is something that's somewhat of a new product and stuff that they're looking at. Mr. White had pointed out that there was one block in there that we were still working through for plans and stuff. But a new product that the developer's excited to bring to the Eau Claire area. We also end up having multiple storm water facilities. We end up having four different stormwater facilities. Three of them will be taking stormwater runoff not only from the site but from city streets. They'll end up meeting not only the city requirements but also the DNR requirements. And then we have one access into and out of the site at this point, but we end up having three other that end up actually being stubbed into the future phases. So connectivity is gonna be crucial on this and very important. We end up realizing that you end up having a big neighborhood, I believe it's over like 160 something acres that you wanna make sure that you have multiple entrances into and out of the development. As far as the question on just the general development plan, I do not have a large site plan in front of me that explains the different breakdowns, but what we're looking at, you end up having your residential portions that are broken not only to a single family, the row homes, twin homes, we also end up having some mixed use, which would end up being a commercial aspect on the bottom floors with some apartments above that. We have areas where there could be the potential for senior living facilities or campuses. And in addition to that also some mixed-use areas and stuff and and some more areas that we're gonna kind of more a public or community facilities type of thing that That they're looking at but they're mixed. They're very excited about you know a town center type of style Especially on this side of town and stuff You know we're excited about that so with that I'll answer any questions that council may have I

Thank you, Mr. Bohan. Any questions from the council? Thank you, Mr. Mboga, please.

Thank you, Council President. Thank you, President. Is there affordable housing in this project?

Not by, I think the, it's, I'd have to have probably the developer and stuff like talk about it. We do end up having a section that is set aside that we're looking at potentially. I think on the general development plan we had like a tiny home area type of stuff. Right now on the first phase that we're looking at and stuff ends up just basically being more of your market rate and stuff.

Can I?

Sure.

I realize I forgot to reference that part of your question previously. So this first phase is going to be closer to market rate, although they are bringing their costs down much lower than the current average price that CNN has identified. And this was at the direction from council during one of our work sessions when they thought this first phase would be better to go – direct route and provide opportunities for affordability in the later phases we are looking at some tools that are coming forward that were approved by the state particularly residential tid as some options and some other programs that were passed by the state to help move new developments forward for more affordable levels so we're looking to see how those could be implemented to help bring some additional affordability in the later phases But those prices in later phases haven't been fixed yet because the housing types haven't been fully determined. And we're a ways down, so costs are not really available yet when you're talking about construction a couple, three years down the road.

So my question is for transparency. How much one unit would go for? Or like you said, one house, how much would that cost?

I do not have that information. I know that it was discussed at Planning Commission when the developer was here. I think he had some numbers that he was looking at and stuff, but I don't know off the top of my head. I don't want to put something out there that was not correct with what he had stated at the Planning Commission. But note that the row homes, you're looking at something that ends up being 30 feet in width is what the city requirement would end up having. So you have something that ends up being smaller. It's also for sale. They're not looking at the row homes as rentals and stuff. So those will end up being much more affordable than maybe your single family homes. But again, our lot sizes, um have come down substantially even for the single family we have some lots and stuff in here where our footprint of the building would be like it's like maybe 52 feet normally when we'd end up having a single family we might have something that ends up being you know 72 74 with the with a bigger custom so we are using the lot sizes the new the new zoning that allows us you know with the setbacks smaller lots and we're taking, we're gonna be utilizing some of those tools and stuff, so.

All right, well thank you for joining us tonight.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Anyone else from the gallery would like to speak to agenda item number two for the public hearing? Okay, so we'll move on to agenda item number three, public hearing on an ordinance to rezone property from LIP to CC on Music Road. And Director White is here to present, thank you.

Good afternoon again. What we are looking at is a space adjacent to or what is part of the Country Jam site and they are looking to do a rezoning for the area that is in the yellow hash space. That space has been sold or is in the process of being sold to a development project that's looking to do an entertainment venue within there. The blue area identifies the notification area for the rezoning and the surrounding radius and then the red area is the is the primary subject property the project site is about 8.7 acres they are looking to down zone it from industrial down to corridor commercial the project and we're we have not seen the or we haven't gone through the formal site proposals yet but the preliminary ideas It's looking at an entertainment-driven venue, which is consistent with the entertainment district that's being created in and around Country Jam. So the corridor commercial zoning is the appropriate zoning for what they anticipate doing. So it is intended to be an activity-related venue that would be open to the public. The slide here shows the surrounding zoning. The frontage lots were all zoned commercial by the Country Jam ownership group. The rest of the space was industrial and again the proposed use is better fit for commercial space versus light industrial that the rest of the area is zoned in. This is the CSM created and we'll be fitting that space in there. I believe the facility is about a 15,000 square foot facility plus some additional space coming forward as part of that project plus parking space that will be part of that. The finding of facts related to this, to the rezoning consistent with the following finding, the applicant has submitted a complete application, which they have. Applicant's request is consistent with the City of Eau Claire's comp plan, land use and growth management chapter meeting, objective number two. Proposed zoning and corridor commercial allows for the proposed land use and future site planning will be reviewed by staff. They have met all the conditions as required. Site plan obviously will have to be approved. With the rezoning, the site plan would be administratively approved, but they'll have to meet all the conditions set by council to go through administrative approval process. It is determined to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the intended use in that area. Planning Commission did recommend approval of this rezoning as presented to the group. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions.

All right, looks like we have a question from Council Member Werthmann.

Thank you, Council President Gragert. Director White, one of the things that makes these kinds of rezones tricky is what will go in this space in coming months and years. And I say that with an eye toward things like lighting and what sort of lighting might be present, the height of a potential use, things like that can affect property values for nearby. So how do we put those kinds of things into context without knowing fully what this is going to be? Or maybe we do know what this is going to be at this stage.

We know what their intended use is. Again, they haven't brought forward a formal plan, so we can't go into a lot of any detail at this stage. But what they're intending to use is consistent with the area as it's being defined. When it comes to noise, light pollution, etc., Our LDO will govern those requirements. They're already requirements related to, and this is not going to be a terribly noisy venue. It doesn't create, it's not music related venue or anything like that. From a light standpoint, they will have to meet our code in terms of controlling light as it bleeds out from the property. They'll have to show that they can meet all those requirements before site plan can be approved. That's built into part of the checklist that's required for administrative approval. There's a significant number of elements they will have to provide to staff, and staff will ensure that they meet all those elements before any type of approval would be made.

And I raise that because we already do get, you know, some calls from neighbors about current impacts of this site. And I want to be mindful of what may happen here so that we don't cause further impact on residences nearby.

Absolutely. There's commercial space that has gone in in those red areas on what would be the east side of Music Road. So that actually will be, they will screen some of this development from those spaces. Again, there's some overall... Requirements that were built into initial use the initial approval for the country jam concert venue In terms of screening and noise control. So those things still come into play And they'll have to like I said, we'll have to meet all the requirements to specify how they control their space if there's looking at When they do come forward their final, you know final site plan and approval will have to go through the process to and now to analyze if they'll need to do a traffic impact analysis will make those determinations and as we see their site come forward. And if that's required, then they'll have to submit all the required documentation as well.

All right, thank you. And we'll be able to go into more questions during the business agenda for this as well. So I think we can move to the hearing. I appreciate the presentation. So did anyone sign up in the back to speak? They did not.

I'm going to bring you the sheets.

OK, thank you so much. All right, anyone from the gallery like to speak to agenda item number three about the rezoning? All right, welcome.

Sean Bohan, E5055 Interlochen Boulevard. I'm here on behalf of The owners, I don't have a lot of additional information to add to this from what Mr. White's presentation was. It's just a family entertainment center. It fits well with Country Jam that's there and kind of like what they're looking at for the event district area. With that, I'll try to answer any questions maybe you have.

Okay, thank you. It sounds like there's a question from Council Member Brewster.

Thank you, Council President. So one of the things that's interesting about the broader site there is there's a lot of parking that doesn't get used super steadily, like when there's events there and things like that. And I'm wondering if there's a way to utilize some of that for what might be here instead of, I mean, I guess maybe this is more a question for planning. at the city, but is that something that we could cross-pollinate the parking with that?

Absolutely. So the developer is talking with the Country Jam ownership about a potential parking agreement to do some sort of level on what will be surface parking to serve their space specific. But their operation and their influence will be solely confined within the yellow diagram, which is the land they're building. The Country Jam ownership group has some things in the works for other space. So they will be just operating within that CSM that's created within the yellow footprint outlined.

All right, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Bohan?

All right, thanks for coming up. Thank you.

Okay, so we're going to reorder. Oh, Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. Well, I was going to move that we now take up the consent agenda, that being items 7 through 18 and the proclamation ahead of item number 4 in the agenda.

Thank you, Council Member Miller. Miller, any?

I'll second.

Second from Vice President Schoen. I'm not sure if we, I guess city clerk, please call the roll on the reordering of the agenda.

Council Member Brewster. Aye. Gregor. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Invoga. Aye. Miller.

Aye.

Orth.

Aye.

Otto. Aye. Reed. Aye. Schoen.

Aye.

Serrano.

Aye.

Werthmann. Aye.

All right. And that passes unanimously. So we will move to the consent agenda as part of our legislative items. And then we'll go back. later to our public discussion. So just so folks have a little background on this, that's agenda items number seven through eight. So if your agenda item is one of those and it passes as part of the overall, it'll basically just be on one vote, then you're welcome to leave the meeting, but you're also welcome to stay. Do council members have any questions about the consent agenda or wish to remove any item for separate consideration? All right. Then on a motion by council member Serrano and seconded by council member Brewster, the consent agenda has been moved. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda? All right. Seeing none, city clerk, please call the roll on the consent agenda.

Council Member Greger.

Aye.

Johnson. Aye. Mboga. Aye. Miller. Aye. Orth.

Aye.

Otto. Aye. Reed. Aye. Schoen. Aye. Serrano. Aye. Werthmann. Aye. Brewster.

Aye. All right, and that passes unanimously. So now we will go to our proclamation for this afternoon. So I will ask Ginny Close and Yua Vang to come up and accept the proclamation for welcoming week. And I know we have a lot of other folks here in support of that. I think if Ginny and Yua could come up, that would be great.

Thank you.

So whereas at the heart of a successful community are its people who have a sense of belonging and feel welcome to freely be themselves. And whereas new residents are a vital part of our growth, bring fresh perspectives and new ideas, starting businesses and contributing to the vibrant diversity that we all value. And whereas By working together, we can achieve greater prosperity, making our community a place where people from around the world feel valued and welcome to put down roots. And whereas regardless of where we are born or what we look like, we are neighbors, united in our efforts to build a stronger community. And whereas this year's theme, when neighbors become friends, communities thrive. reminds us that welcoming begins with connection, by getting to know one another, building relationships across differences, and creating a community where every neighbor has the opportunity to belong. And whereas by recognizing and encouraging the contributions that we all make to create a vibrant culture and a growing economy, we become more prosperous, resilient, and more inclusive to all who call it home. Now therefore I, Jeremy Greger, President of the Eau Claire City Council, on behalf of the Eau Claire City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of September 10 through 19, 2026 as Welcoming Week in the City of Eau Claire and call upon residents to recognize and welcome new neighbors in our city so that we may celebrate a spirit of unity and build a stronger and more prosperous community together.

thank you president jeremy and the city council and i just want a little bit of background this is the third year that we've asked to have a proclamation issued this is an initiative of welcoming america it's a national initiative and has gone international So for at least 15 years now, communities all over the country during a September timeframe bring particular focus and build more awareness to the welcoming in their communities through events. That being said, you was representing, as you know, we have celebrating 50 years since our new new and not so new among neighbors have joined us in this area and since then we have a growing hispanic community as you know and probably not for those 450 years but maybe early some of the early hispanic settlers may have come that long ago So representing newer neighbors, one of our new women who basically fled with her family from Nicaragua has become a shining star already in the few years she's been here. And recently she wrote a little reading about a bit of her story coming to Eau Claire, and I thought I would read that for you as celebrating our not so new neighbors welcoming, but also our newer neighbors in welcoming. And this is called Blooming Once Again. I arrived in July and found her vibrant and lively, joyful and radiant, singing and dancing barefoot on the green grass in the parks or in the bustling squares. Jazz, blues, country, overflowing with culture and grace, and with kids laughing, singing, and running around her. It was the second time I had visited her, but this time I would stay and give her my heart. soon after i marveled at seeing her in her yellow orange and red attire in all their shades plus a beautiful brown at her feet she taught me that it was time to let go renew myself and transform but little by little it grew almost silent almost pale almost isolated in stark contrast to the bustle of the colorful lights and gingerbread houses she loved so much The days grew shorter and the nights more endless, inviting us to sit together by the fireplace with a cup of hot chocolate and a good book to read. It was a time for reflection and self-discovery, a time for connection. and she grew colder and lonelier at night. She enjoyed watching a family of deer playing. They were the only ones wandering among the snow-laden green pines. The weeks passed slowly, almost endlessly, but she gradually regained her scent. She adorned herself with pastel colors, Tulips, violas, daffodils, begonias, butterflies, and cardinals returned to her garden. It was a time to bloom, to start anew. I began to picture more people on the street smiling and greeting each other kindly, people running and crossing bridges, people fishing, children playing, and she went back to wearing her colorful flowery summer dress and her golden sandals. She enjoyed once again a spectacular tan, the rivers she crossed, and the mirror-like lakes. She always surprised me with small, sweet gestures, a flower I'd never seen before, a beautiful landscape, a river that invites you to gaze at it in silence and quiet your mind for a moment, birds in a free concert, and in contrast, silent nights with beautiful full moons or solar auroras. She taught me to live life more calmly, to enjoy every experience with gratitude, to flow like her beautiful rivers, to fly high and believe that anything is possible. And so I fell in love with its peace and its light, and now it is like a refreshing balm for my restless soul. She is my present and the place where I can now imagine and build my future. Now she is my home. Her name is Eau Claire, a city where I found friends who become family and a warm support of a community that embraces and sustains me. Here, surrounding by new opportunities and generous hearts, I was reborn and learned once again to flourish in freedom by Hazel Garay.

I know there's a lot of people in this community who do extraordinary things to

to minority groups, the new people who have arrived in town. I want to tell you a story about Gene. And I know you don't want to be in this portrait, Gene. So me and Gene, we were talking and then we were somewhere. This is what I knew about Gene. He has a heart of the servant. She gave this new rifle to America, her own car, so they can go shopping, which most Americans ask, we cannot do that. She trusts them. So there's all kinds of people I can see later, I can see Joyce and Dave, what do you guys do to the community? On behalf of the city council, you guys, we cannot thank you enough. Keep doing that one, and may God give you strength after strength, and thank you for what you do to the community. That's why wherever I go, people love Eau Claire, because we are the community type. That's what I would say. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And I just want to, you know, recognize that there's a lot of events this week, obviously for welcoming week coming up and like the kind of the marquee event I know is on, on Saturday or Sunday, September 13th. And that's the Chippewa Valley Multicultural Festival. And I think it's from 1130 to 430 at Phoenix park. So, so certainly welcome everybody to come down there. And I did want to acknowledge on this day too, that, you know, we have, a new sign that some of you maybe haven't seen in the council chamber. And that's kind of a legacy of our former council president, Emily Berge. And to have a sign like this, I think, is very important throughout the year, obviously, and for our future. So I appreciate you all being here for the welcoming week proclamation. And enjoy the week. So thanks. All right, so we're going to get back to our, thank you all for coming. I want to get to our public discussion part of our agenda. I appreciate the patience for everybody as we kind of juggle through a long agenda here. So we're going to agenda item number four, public discussion on a resolution accepting and appropriating an Edward Brand Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, or JAG, formula program funds from the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Because this item amends the budget, a two-thirds vote or eight affirmative votes is needed for passage. And we have our Deputy Chief Derek Thomas to present on this item. Welcome.

Thank you, Council Member, or Council President Gregor, and thank you, Council Members. This item is a public discussion for the annual J grant that we received. The funding allocation is based on factors including community crime rates and population. As part of the J grant requirements, there's an opportunity for public comment. For this grant, we split the fundings with the Eau Claire County Sheriff's Office. The split is 75% for the Eau Claire Police Department and 25% for the Sheriff's Office. We have MOU in place that outlines that agreement. The total amount for the grant is $10,982. Of that amount, $8,237 will go to the Eau Claire Police Department. Those funds will be used to purchase two e-bikes and four replacement PBTs. The remaining $2,745 will go to the Eau Claire County Sheriff's Office for technology upgrades to its training room. There are no matching funds required for this grant, and I'm available to take any questions.

Thank you. Any questions from the council? We have one from Council Member Orth.

Thank you, President Greger. Chief Deputy Thomas. Yes. Hello. Perhaps, I mean, I did not read through all of the certifications and assurances that were in the packet and perhaps it said there, but I was wondering if this is a grant that we get routinely or just how often and what our experience is with it.

Yes, this is an annual grant that we receive.

All right.

Any other questions? All right. Well, thanks for your presentation and your work on the grant. Thank you. OK. So we want to open it up for our public discussion. And I don't have anyone who's signed up for agenda item number four, but would anyone in the gallery like to speak to this agenda item? OK. Thank you. We'll move on to agenda item number five, public discussion on resolutions granting excess land of parcels 221-04-0367 on Park Ridge Drive, 211-60477 on Lawrence Street, and 221-60368 at East Riverview Drive. And we have our community development project coordinator, Billy Hufford, to present on this item. Thank you, Billy.

Thank you, council president, council members. Don't have a whole lot tonight. We've been through this quite a few times. We've talked about why we started bringing the excess land forward, discussed some of the properties that the city owns. Not all of them would be looked at for excess land. Discussed how we got to this stage. you know, identifying them, looking at code, reaching out to the other departments, engineering, utilities, to make sure there's no concerns or anything with it. And then getting into the sites that haven't been approved yet, Park Ridge Drive, this is the one by Half Moon Lake. It is currently zoned as mixed residential. A lot of different benefits to this area, but about it on that one, unless there's additional questions. Riverview Drive and Lawrence Street, again, the map showing where they are, and it would just be the outlined areas there. A little closer, just showing the land. I feel like I'm missing something. We did have a image in there of the wells, but we did send out an email earlier, too, that shows the wells. Can you turn the, can you turn it over here? And utilities manager is here if there's any additional questions. But here you can see where the current wells are and then future plans for building. So they would be just outside of the areas that are planned for excess land. And in the email we shared today from Ben, there are regulations, and property lines can't be closer than 50 feet from a well. But we can also explore at a later time other options if desired. And that's about it from me. I think I've done this many times. I think I did it once in my sleep.

All right, thank you, Coordinator Hufford. Council Member Werthmann has a question.

Thanks, yeah. If I could just follow up on this map so I'm understanding this. So help me understand what the F6453F2, what are those future wells?

I'll let Ben come up so I don't misspeak on anything. I didn't just want to stick my nose in there.

Are those future well sites, or what do those represent?

Okay, so the map that you're looking at right now is from the 2016 water evaluation, the one that we are currently updating right now. You can see 23, 22, and 23 of our newest wells in that report that they brought to us. You can see the F2 future well. The F means future. And so that's kind of where they were expecting the next wells to go. Well, 23 and 22 are just top-notch wells as far as producing water, quality of water. So we're actually... replacing well 13. So we'll be starting to do some test wells kind of in that area probably this winter or early next spring. You can see there's a B in there. There's an unsuccessful test well. There was other issues behind that. That just wasn't what we expected. The yellow line kind of depicting the unexplored future well site area. There is nothing that is just there's nothing Special about that line that kind of just highlighting where we don't have wells right now And where we would certainly explore new wells. I made a note in the memo that I did send to Billy the further we get to the west You guys know what kind of all we got the PFAS bloom that is coming through there I can kind of just see the edge of the airport runway on the right hand side of the screen there and The plume is kind of coming through well 19 and into 14. And you can see where the lagoons were. Oh, there you go. So you can kind of see the PFAS plume. The one nice thing is the further we get to the west, kind of keep your fingers crossed, hopeful that if we do put wells to the west side of the well field that we'd be pulling more water from the river rather than from that PFAS plume. Great. I'm gonna stop there for a second.

Could I ask a question back to the other map, which is, those future well sites, those might just be like, possible sites, but they look awfully close to where a potential residential could go under this excess land if we go down that road. How far away are those potential locations from where a residential could go?

Dean Arco says 50 feet. 50 feet from a property line is where you can put a well. Oh, those are much more than 50 feet apart.

No, 50 feet from the excess land proposed, excess land site?

They're really just random dots. There's nothing specific about those green dots there at all. I see.

That was my question.

This area is where the next potential well will go.

That helps. Thank you.

All right.

Council Member Serrano.

Thank you, Council President Gragert. I have a question for Project Manager Hufford on a different, the Park Ridge property. So we do have in our packet, and I think we had it last time, but I just didn't know if there was any follow-up an email from Cheryl Leonard talking about that particular property and saying that there was a person whose family donated that land to the city and that this proposed part is part of what their family had donated and he mentioned that it was, well, he said possibly swamp and I know you addressed that, but that perhaps wouldn't be acceptable, but he said he would buy it I just didn't know if there was ever any follow-up on reaching out to the family that donated that property to see is there interest in them purchasing that property?

We have not. We talked to them at the open house. They didn't express an interest to purchase it then. My understanding is that the city received it in different circumstances. So it would be a final decision would be up to you guys what to do with it. But we haven't reached out at this point.

Thank you. I was just wondering if there was any update to that. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice President Schoen.

Thank you, President Greger. And I'll try and, I have a lot of questions actually, but I know we have the public discussion to get to and we'll have an opportunity later to ask more questions, but... On the Lawrence Drive and Riverview Drive properties, excuse me, Lawrence Street and Riverview Drive properties, could you share like total number of possible units and then also I've heard a lot of questions about whether utilities are currently already subbed in for potential future development or not and just give us an understanding generally of what potential future development would look like if this type of project were to move forward?

Yeah, the utility stubs are there. You can see them on this map, kind of, in the materials. There, I believe, was a map, too, showing them. So there are stubs. The housing, we'll talk about that with you guys later. We don't really, it depends on what you all want to see, Bill, if it is declared excess.

Does that help? Yes, yeah, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the council before we move to the public discussion? OK. Thank you. All right. So I do have two people that have signed up on the sign up sheet. And then we can move to people that maybe didn't get a chance to sign up that would still like to speak. And the first person I have on our list is Mary McManus. Welcome.

Hello Council and President Greger, thank you. Mary McManus, I live at 3905 Riverview Drive. I'm here once again to ask for your no vote on the request by city staff to sell properties in the city well field as excess lands. Over these months I have spoken to you and to the Waterways Parks and Urban Forestry Commission. I've shared pages and pages of written comments as well. The comments I've written come from my own beliefs and from prior years experience listening to and reading comments from the 230 plus members of the Friends of the Wells group, as well as from the 223 members of the Facebook group for the neighborhood of North Riverview. I found it interesting to read a copy of a memo sent this week to Billy Hufford by Mr. Spinell, the city utilities manager. The memo was about the well field protection area, which you've just seen. Two maps were included, which are being reviewed at this meeting. While Mr. Spinell verified that the wellhead protection ordinance does allow for residential construction, including sewer and water, he also referenced the maps which show plots of land on the north side of the well field and on the west-northwest side of the well field that are identified as future and potential well sites. This plotting was completed in 2016. As I understand it, it may be under review again. And a new well has been scheduled for construction for the current CIP budget. Like everything else in life, wells wear out. Our system is a bit complicated by the PFAS issues discovered five years ago. The second map shows the extent of the PFAS plume across wells and surrounding residential areas as well as into the airport property. It is strange to me that a plotting of a map done in 2016 was not available for review and consideration at the front end of this planning effort, but I guess better late than never. Meanwhile, a committee of the Eau Claire County Board is determining across the river today whether to recommend release of a portion of the Eau Claire County Forest to GFL for the purposes of disposal of waste or to place a moratorium on the decision. So if it is any consolation to all of you who've been through this, through commissions and committees, you're not alone as being the only government body in the area working to address these issues of the use of what should be protected lands from other purposes. the long and the short of it is that yes there is permission by ordinance to build that's not the question the question is why on earth would this be even remotely considered when it is clear that the next section for exploration of future well potential lines are right up behind and next to the potential lots for sale. The lots on East Riverview are already indicated on the map as the next set of wells to be constructed. Mr. John Dunn will share more data today about the soils. Others have shared other rationale. This should not be a hard decision to make. We need to stop the infill. We need to hold on to the green space. People have been sharing their concerns with you about the water and protecting the water for months now. Protecting the green space does go hand in hand with that. I suggest you move rapidly toward writing an ordinance or similar vehicle that is a conservation easement with release protections for any area that may be considered for well development. I suggest you move away from any consideration of selling this land and I ask that you vote a hard no. on this issue thank you for your time your attention and your service to this community questions concerns comments it's only two pages thank you mary yeah thank you appreciate it okay next on our list is john dunn welcome

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm John Dunn. I live at 3130 Riverview Drive, and I'm here as a concerned city resident, but I also am a member of the Water Waste Parks and Urban Forest Commission. I hope that most of you have had an opportunity to look over the information that was sent to you by Andrus A lot of information there that I hope you had a chance to look at. I have some maps here that are straight off the U.S. Department of Agriculture website, and it's indicating the soil types in that area. If you see right here, it's a 3100B. What that symbolizes is the Managa Nomi San soil type. that soil type is characterized by being excessively drained and highly permeable. In other words, you pour a gallon of water on it, it goes down. It doesn't spread out, it goes down. And you can see that this is Lawrence right here, East Riverview right there. Also on that website, Department of Ag website you can check off certain activities and it tells you whether that land is suited for those activities That's not my granddaughter with a red pen coloring things in Again, that's straight off the website what the red means is that? the particular activity listed there it has very limited opportunity if you look at the title at the top and It's overland flow treatment of wastewater. I have another one here that essentially shows the same thing that is titled manure and food processing waste. What it's telling us is that that area, again, is very permeable and anything that you put onto that Land is going on head Straight down now. We're not going to be spreading manure out there, but if we do have new houses out there We are going to have herbicides pesticides Fertilizers that are going to probably be applied to the grass again those things are going to head head down How many of you are aware of the fact that in 1984, the EPA created a priority Superfund site in the city wells? The city wells was contaminated by VOCs, volatile organic compounds that came from National Presto. National Presto is two and a half miles away from the city wells and those VOCs ended up contaminating and shutting down the wells in 1984. The city had to build a plant to remove those volatile organics and it was called an air stripping plant and it still is out there today. The cost of that plant.

Mr. Dunn, you're out of time. If you could wrap it up, please.

My goodness, okay. Anyway, it indicates what kind of soils that is out there just like PFAS has indicated the type of soils out there and that came from a mile away. So I guess in conclusion, I think we need to err on the side of caution with this and try to buffer those city wells as much as we can because we have no idea what the future holds for that area. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Questions for me?

Council Member Miller has a question.

Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Mr. Dunn, for presenting that. So I have some questions. I don't know your expertise. You presented some maps here. If you want to pull up that very red map, if you could put that back on the screen. So The proposal here is to have lots that are contiguous with existing lots. Like you have, you know, on the inside of the wells, you have some houses, then there's blank area where there's more houses to go, and then around the edge. So, you know, the proposal isn't for the middle. It's for around the edge where existing homes are. But in your map here, there are existing homes already in this red area. So in this exhortation, would you say that it was a mistake even to build these homes there in the first place and then no more should be built there because there are existing homes in the red? So was that kind of, you know, was... I guess my question is, we're building homes next to where existing homes are, but there are already existing homes there, so should those homes not have really been built there? Yeah, they are there, and we're not going to take them away, but why can't we have homes that are bordering, but then does it extend the line? I'm just trying to wrap my head around the information that you presented here.

First of all, just so you understand, the red area is a rectangle. It's called an area of interest that I created on there. So those are not any physical boundaries. Those were boundaries that were put on by me just expanding the area. So just so you understand that. Right now, there are... 13 homes along Lawrence, and there are nine homes along East Riverview, so a total of 22 homes. We're looking at 20 additional lots. We have not been told whether those are gonna be single family or multiple family. If you take sort of the worst case and put in four plexes, that's 80 new residences out there. I think that the situation just compounds itself and just creates more potential. you're you're right there's nothing that has shown up up up to this point that that's correct but again nobody can predict the future and we're just not sure what's going to happen and if we have multiple homes out there we just have more opportunity for something going down and getting into the groundwater thank you thank you for expounding on your imagery there thank you thank you council member miller um vice president show

Thank you, Council President Greger, and thank you, Mr. Dunn, for the information you've presented. I'm very familiar with the Web Soil Survey tool, and I appreciate that you brought these maps forward. I'm curious, I actually, as you were talking, I pulled up the Web Soil Survey to take a look at the property, and I'm wondering if you could share with us what the suitabilities and limitations filter feature you used to assess this. I wanted to take a look at the key and make sure I was understanding what this reflects.

I thought I had some more information on the legend, but I don't. I guess could you just offer the question again?

I'm just wondering what, so on the web soil survey, for example, I pulled up building site development and I looked up suitability for dwellings with basements. And I'm seeing a very different result than what this is showing. So I was just curious what suitability feature you were assessing the site for that we're looking at on your map.

I ended up going to the drop-down boxes. And there's quite a few that you can open up. And I went down to the ones that I felt were probably most suitable or most representative of potential spillage out there. So those are the drop-down boxes that I use that included wastewater surface runoff and manure.

Okay, thank you. That helps answer my question. I appreciate the map.

Thank you.

Thank you. I don't believe there are any other questions. Thanks so much for speaking tonight.

Too much to say and not enough time.

No, I appreciate it, John. OK. So we don't have anyone else on the list, but would anyone else from the gallery like to speak to this agenda item? This is agenda item number five on the excess land topic. OK. Well, we'll move on to agenda item number six, public discussion on an ordinance amending chapter 10.09 entitled Motor Scooters of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Eau Claire to update electric scooter regulations. And we have our deputy city attorney, Janessa Stromberger, to present on this item. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll keep it short and to the point here. So this is a relatively simple code update. What it does is align our ordinances with what is already permitted by state statute as far as where scooters can operate. Our code doesn't even really currently address e-scooters. There's an outdated motor scooter definition in there that isn't found in statute. And so what The proposed amendment before you does is adopt the state statute definition of electric scooters and then parallels what state statute says as far as where they can operate. So it's not changing anything about where they can operate, it's just making our ordinance in alignment with state code. So as far as where they would be permitted to operate, they could operate on trails and on streets and on sidewalks outside of the downtown. So as far as anyone's concerned there, they will still be prohibited on downtown sidewalks. The ordinance also then has updates regarding off-road cycles that they would not be permitted on trails or sidewalks. And I also want to clarify that the ordinance before you is not related to any sort of request from Byrd or any expansion on where they can operate. It's just a simple code update on our end. So happy to take questions if you have any.

Thank you. We have a question from Council Member Brewster.

Thank you, Council President. So by removing motor, that doesn't like accidentally, or like turning motor to electric, that doesn't like accidentally let motor scooters be there.

No, so I think we have other provisions in our code that speak to prohibiting like motorized vehicles on our trails, that sort of thing. So I'm not concerned that we're opening up this big loophole. I would prefer that we have a definition in our code that is paralleled in state statute that we can enforce on.

Follow up? So, like, would it not be suitable to just have motorized recreational vehicles of any kind? Like, just because, I mean, an electric scooter still has a motor. It's just an electric one. So wouldn't that be covered already?

Because e-scooters are called out specifically by statute, they're treated differently. So I think it's worth having a specific section in our code related to them.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brewster. Council Member Amboga?

Thank you, Council Chair. I think my question was related to Council Brewster. My question, I have to, one is why are e-scooters permitted on trails? Thank you. Where electrical scooters are permitted on the trails while offload cycle are prohibited? How would the officers distinguish between them?

Yep, so e-scooters are permitted on trails because state statute says they have to be. Our trails are, some of them are state trails. and then they are designated as the bicycle way. It's a term that's used in our code and in state statute, and all our trails fall under that definition. And the state statute says that where there's a bicycle way, there can be an e-scooter. And so we don't have a choice, essentially, to allow them on our trails. We have to comply with state statute in that respect.

Thank you, thank you. So the last one is, which trail or location will be prohibited? Will it prohibit scooters, and will the city publish a clear map or a list?

We do have maps that show the bicycle way. So, you know, we could make that more publicly available. We had to dig for it as staff. It was not easy to find necessarily, but it does exist, and it's basically a trail map. Okay, thank you.

Thank you council member Boga any other questions from the council. Yes I actually have a question just about like where this the language update has gone so far in terms of boards and committees and commissions and then also like if there's been any outreach to like neighborhood groups or business improvement districts or anything.

Yep, so BPAC took a look at it, didn't express any concerns, and it also went to waterways and parks, and they recommended approval.

Okay.

Yep, and since it's not changing, you know, it's just making our code compliant with state law, so we didn't roll it out to neighborhood associations or anything like that because it's not changing anything as far as what scooters are allowed to do.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. So this is our last public discussion item. So I want to open it up for the public. And we have one person that has signed up to speak, and that is Deb Marshall. Thanks for joining us.

I'm sorry. I didn't make enough comments.

I always have comments.

Okay, I'm Deb Marshall. I live at 315 Riverfront Terrace in Eau Claire. I also chair the Downtown Neighborhood Association. This is about bird scooters, not about the statute, but just about the scooters in general, and this is a good time as a public comment period to let you know what we think. So as a 16 year resident here in downtown, other than the continuing noise issue at the Galloway ramp, which is another story, nothing has been more negatively discussed by the vast majority of the residents that I regularly talk with. than these bird scooters. There are three main issues. First one is a safety hazard to both riders and pedestrians in the downtown area, especially on sidewalks, but also on streets and sidewalks around Phoenix Park. The only requirement, and I checked this out on the app yesterday, If the renter says that they're 18 years old and have a credit card, there's no driver's license, training needed, no to operate on the city streets, there's no helmet requirements, and to my knowledge, there's very little, if any, traffic enforcement by the police. Research tells me that yes, we can totally ban them from sidewalks if the city wants to, all sidewalks. The police do not currently track scooter citations or accidents separately, but it seems reasonable that police ought to be included in discussions on whether or not these scooters should even be allowed to operate here due to safety concerns, let alone expand their territory, because we've heard to talk about that as well. Second, a reputational risk to the city, and this is probably the most important one, to the city by downtown residents and the business taxpayers and visitors who have been negatively impacted by the reckless operation of the scooters. You all got a second? uh... email from susan wolfgram about some of the issues that she has with this as well so but reckless operation of the scooters why does the city even allow them do we have to uh... they're quite different from the ones that are rented at say volume one as they must uh... be returned to that location there's a control point for renting them and all of that whereas the bird scooters people just get on them Birds personal liability waiver seems pretty tight. But what about the city? I'm assuming that they were that they provided a certificate of insurance to us and Also since City Council voted to limit the speed on our bike trails to 15 miles an hour Seems to me the scooter should be limited to that as well as governing Governing them third thing a noise and negative impact to city property problem I'm not sure Again, why they were allowed in the first place, but if the intent was to encourage people to use them for short trips versus using their cars, in my estimation, it's failed. The vast majority of riders are kids. They're high school and college age who are just joyriding on them. If you'd like to visit Phoenix Park and the farmer's market on a Friday or Saturday afternoon and evening, you can see that. The kids rev up the scooters to a full speed, 20 miles an hour, slam on the brakes, and they make skid marks on the concrete sidewalks. I have photos I could show you. And create loud screeching noise in the press that they're rarely, if ever, being used for general transportation downtown. So, our downtown residents completed the Neighborhood Association's Livability Survey in November of 25. 63 of the responses on the topic of scooter, e-bike, skateboard control were negative on a sample size of 51. Second only to traffic control and speed noise at 65%. That's on the attached survey, you can see that. We are gonna conduct this again in November of 26. And President Greger, you'll be at that meeting. We're gonna be talking about that. October 6th Tuesday October 6 at 6 o'clock upstairs at the Menominee market If they are allowed to stay in Eau Claire I know there are some potential issues with geo fencing then when our research found that out, too But there are some very very real benefits we think in restricting access to certain areas like parking ramps they've got no business being in the parking ramps by statute or necessity as they are not parking and The same should at least happen at the farmer's market. Private scooters and other similar electric transporters are still an issue, but not as numerous or egregious in their operation as the bird scooters are. So I call to action here. It seems to me that the city should ask the people who pay taxes, who are constituents, and are most impacted, the downtown residents, including DECI, I'm also on the DECI board, and the bids for their input before allowing bird to renew their permit, let alone expand their territory. All just for a cost of an annual permit. So that's what I have to say about birds. Any questions?

I actually do have a quick question for you. Could you email this to us as well? I can. I can.

I have not.

I would be happy to. So I'll send it to all of you. Any questions from the council? All right. Thanks for coming up. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, so I don't have anyone else on the sign-up list, so would anyone from the gallery like to speak to agenda item number six on the updates to the electric scooter regulations? Welcome anyone to come up from the gallery to speak on this as well if you'd like.

Okay.

I'm going to close the public discussion on agenda item number six, and then we will move into our public comment period. So this will, I'll just kind of explain.

Oh, thank you.

So I'll explain what the public comment period is so that folks can decide whether they want to speak. And we do have one person that has signed up already. So this is for items that have not already been covered by the agenda so far today. You could technically speak on an item that hasn't been discussed yet but is on our business agenda today or really other topics that come to mind to you. Um, so this is a, a time for those living, going to school or own property or a place of business in the city of Eau Claire to speak on issues, ideas or concerns of citywide application. You will have up to three minutes to speak and can only speak once. After two minutes, um, the green light will turn yellow and then the red light will flat start flashing after three minutes and you'll need to wrap up your comments. Uh, and uh, also this, Time is not for personal remarks of city personnel elected officials or any person affiliated with the city Council members are not allowed to ask questions or comment during this time and this time is For 20 minutes unless extended by a two-thirds vote of the council So well so for The one person that we have signed up for our public comment period, I believe it's Jeff Smith. Is that correct? Just can't quite read the name. Maybe the person's in the lobby, too. All right. Yeah, please come up. Thank you so much. You'll have up to three minutes to speak. And I'm not sure if you heard the presentation of the parameters, but of, uh, Oh, what I, of the parameters of my speaker.

Yeah.

But yeah, if you could, um, yeah, just keep your comments to, to less than three minutes.

Oh, it'll be very quick. Thank you very much. Council president, everyone else, uh, here. My name is Jeff Smith. I'm from upstate New York, but we're renting a house. It's 228 West Lexington Boulevard, right by the Quick Trip that's over there. I just wanted to take the chance to introduce myself to the council. We've been reaching out to the different people in the community. We're part of a company that's going to be shooting an independent film in town from about now until just before Halloween. And then... TBD on when we come back, but the movie takes place over decades and seasons with an Indian American family that owns a motel in the town. It's based on the story of Sagar and So Hills, the writer and directors. Growing up in town, they went to Memorial High School, who we're also hoping to film a prom scene at. I really just wanted to say we've done this in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Billings, Montana, Doylestown, Pennsylvania, upstate New York, northwest Washington, basically on the Canadian border. And of all the places we've been so far, this has been an incredibly successful. friendly and like accessible place and as we keep going in the steps and in speaking with director al for example or excuse me director aaron white and al with engineering and i think it was officer brandon at the police station who got back to me just everyone's been tests at the reception desk amazing like everyone's been really really helpful but one thing that has come up on our end that i just wanted to relay and say that i would be a great point of contact for is as filmmakers might want to keep targeting this area in the future the permitting and incentive processes kind of getting worked out in a way that you guys feel is the most beneficial to you and then we can also just kind of explain from our point of view like you know what our highest fixed costs are what are some of the things that would be extremely attractive like for example like some of the waterfront stuff and what is and isn't accessible for general film permitting as well as where the line and the distinctions are between special events permitting and temporary encroachments, which I feel like I'm starting to get a good sense of with Al down in engineering, as well as Ty Fadness, I believe, has been extremely helpful. So really just very introductory. I have one of my flyers I'll leave here, but it's just we're working right down at the Coven co-office space. And we're really excited to be filming the area. If you have any questions, if this would be a time to talk, great. But like I said, we're trying to be as accessible to you guys as possible with this whole process. And thank you again. All right.

Thank you so much. And yeah, this is not a time for us to be able to ask any questions or comments, but I'm happy to follow up with you. Thanks for coming down. Thank you guys.

Yeah.

All right. Anyone else from the gallery like to speak during the public comment period. OK, so we'll close the public comment period. And we'll move into the rest of our business agenda, because we already covered. Oh, yeah, we'll go right into our business agenda, which starts with agenda item number 19. And some of these items we've just covered with questions and presentations. But certainly, if council members have further questions, we can provide that opportunity. But we may not need staff presentations for all of these for obvious reasons. But I'll read them in full just so people know what we're talking about. So agenda item number 19, resolution accepting and appropriating the Edward Brin Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Formula Program Funds from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Because this item amends the budget, a two-thirds or eight affirmative votes is needed for passage. And we had Deputy Chief Thomas present earlier and had some questions. Are there any further questions about... about this item before we move it for discussion and vote? Okay, so on a motion by Council Member Werthmann and seconded by Council Member Orth, this item is moved. Is there any discussion on agenda item number 19? Okay, seeing none, City Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Johnson.

Aye.

Mboga. Aye.

Miller. Aye. Orth. Aye. Otto. Aye. Reed. Aye. Schoen. Aye. Serrano. Aye. Werthmann. Aye. Brewster.

Aye.

Greger.

Aye. That passes unanimously. All right. So we'll go into agenda item number 20. resolution approving appointments and reappointments to various boards committees and commissions And we have our chair of the advisory committee on appointments councilmember Brewster to present on the site of Thank You chair.

We had a meeting and filled some spots I'm just gonna go through and read them off want to apologize in advance if I mispronounce anyone's name and For bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, we appointed Ben Smazzle and Derek White. For equity, diversity, and inclusion, or EDI commission, we have a reappointment of Efren Martinez and two new appointments of Haley Brown and Kelly Murray. For housing advisory board, we have one reappointment of Cicada Rogers. For the RDA, Redevelopment Authority, one new appointment of Brian Christensen. And for Waterways, Parks, and Urban Forestry, one new appointment of Jerome Poling, or Pooling? Poling. And that is it for that. I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Council Member Brewster. Any questions on this agenda item? OK, so on a motion by Councilmember Miller and seconded by Councilmember Johnson, this item is moved. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, city clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Amboga. Aye. Miller. Aye. Orth. Aye. Otto. Aye. Reed. Aye. Schoen. Aye. Serrano. Aye. Werthmann. Aye. Brewster. Aye. Granger.

Aye.

Johnson.

Aye. And that passes unanimously. OK, so the next agenda item is number 21, resolution granting excess land of parcel 221040367 on Park Ridge Drive. And we just had a presentation on this. Any questions from council about this proposed excess land? Vice President Schoen.

Thank you, Council President Gragert. I did want to ask staff about the proposed parcels along Lawrence and East Riverview about just public access to the wells and if development of those parcels would restrict, or to what extent would they restrict public access to the wells property?

No, there's. I just wanted to make sure we focused on the Park Ridge Drive.

I'll hold my question.

OK. OK. Thank you. Sorry. So yeah, this is just focused on the Park Ridge Drive item. So if there's any questions on that, otherwise we'll move it. So on a motion by Vice President Schoen and seconded by Council Member Mboga, this item is moved. Is there any discussion on the Park Ridge Drive excess land?

OK.

Seeing none, city clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Miller. Aye. Worth.

Aye.

Otto. Aye. Reed. Aye. Schoen. Aye. Serrano. Aye. Werthmann. Aye. Brewster. Aye. Greger. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Mboga.

Aye. And that passes unanimously. Okay, agenda item number 22, resolution granting excess land of parcel 21160477 on Lawrence Street. And then the next one is on Riverview. So, you know, if there are any questions, we can probably talk about both, but. Sounds like Vice President Schoen has a question.

Thank you, Council President Greger. I do have a question about both this agenda item and the next. I'm wondering, staff, Coordinator Hufford, if you could speak to public access impacts with these proposals.

There's some formal areas where individuals can enter now. There's also been some trails created. So if it is approved, depending on your guys' direction, our intention would be to work with the neighborhood to identify places that may remain as informal access points.

Can I have a follow up question? Yep. Would that look like an easement on a proposed division of parcels? Or could you explain what that might look like more formally?

Yeah, it could be an easement. We haven't got that far into looking at it. But we would look at and work with the neighbors on that. Because we know there's multiple access points. We might not be able to retain them all, but we'll definitely work on it. Thank you.

Any other questions? Council Member Mboga.

Thank you, Council. Dr. Peel, can you talk about the waterways and the parks and up in the forest? No. Can you speak on that?

Yeah, waterways, parks, and urban forestry voted no. Their main concerns were the green space and the water quality. And then plan commission has voted yes on all of them. I apologize for not sharing that earlier.

And my understanding is that on the plan commission, there were three no votes. Yes.

Yes. Waterways and parks was unanimous. Plan commission had three no, but they all passed.

Okay. Thank you. Council member Miller.

Thank you, council president. According to Hufford. So. Right now it's just declaring excess land, so this is very early in consideration for anything in the future. But maybe being on staff in the city, knowing what plan might be forthcoming. If this were to be declared excess land, what would the city anticipate housing behavior be like? Would it be single family homes to match what is there? Would it be like duplexes? Or is that a bridge not yet crossed and there's not even comments on that?

Yeah, we'll come back to have a work session with you guys to get some parameters, and then we'll have public meetings to further that out before any decisions are made on that.

OK, thank you.

Council Member Werthmann. Thank you, Council President.

Coordinator Hufford, is it your understanding that once or if the council approves an excess land designation for this, that it can then be purchased by, like if someone were to want to purchase this, not for development of residential, they could potentially? How does that go? Do we lock in what kind of purchase happens? Or is it just open?

That would be your guys' decision. If you want them to be able to be purchased to remain as they are, we couldn't necessarily guarantee that in the future. I don't know if we would contract that they can't build anything on it. But we haven't discussed just let people buy them and leave them. And that would be a decision for you guys, whether you want to allow it and at what cost.

Can I ask a follow-up? Sure. So what is your understanding about, this is a very unique parcel of land in the sense that when you look on our comprehensive plan, or yeah, at our comp plan, most sizable green spaces within our community are either designated as park, land, or green space, greenway. this isn't kind of in either bucket but it is our wellfield area and so it does hold a certain significance in terms of thinking about we want clean water so we want to be careful how we use this space but then also there's been over however many decades a growing use of this area as recreation and i just wonder like is there sort of guiding documentation about what the vision of this space is. Is it primarily for clean water? Is it partially like a recreation focus? I wonder if you might be able to enlighten our council about how you think of this space in terms of what our documentation says this space is or what it's about.

I believe in zoning, it's public. So that just indicates typically utility or something like that. Nothing I'm aware of anywhere else that puts a designation on it outside of the well-filled protection. So far as I'm aware, there's nothing else that would designate something, not being able to use it for recreation or being able to or...

I actually have a question about some of the discussion over the last couple of weeks that I've heard at least informally has been about conservation easements and just like the possibility of using that tool for some or all of the wells land. Could you maybe describe if that has been a conversation within the city or what kind of work has been done to explore that?

There's been some initial conversations. There's multiple ways that that can be addressed. So I think coming back later to present you guys the various different options for you guys to make the decision on which one. Some might protect it quick, or some might take a couple of years with a bunch of study costs. So we want to get that more in line before we present it to you guys on what to do.

Okay. Thank you. Council Member Orth.

Thank you. So would we need to take this step of declaring this excess land to go to that next step that you just addressed?

Yeah, until it's declared excess, it's city land, so we can't really start planning or do anything with it. We wouldn't have the surveys, any of that done, and it would need to be declared excess before we start splitting off the lots and stuff.

Just to follow up, I didn't mean to develop it for housing. I meant for the conservation easement that we were just talking about right before.

Yeah, you know, they are two separate things that would be handled separately. Can they be worked on at the same time? Probably. If you guys tabled this again, if you vote no, it would be able to come back for a year. You are voting them on individually. So if you want to vote on one, not the other. But if you want to wait, then that would be a possibility, and it's up to council.

Council Member Mboga.

Thank you. My question is related to the NEPO. Has there been people who are against it, and the people are for it?

I'm sorry?

I'm saying that the people live around here, the neighborhoods. Are there people who are against the access of this for us to prove it, or are there people against it?

The letters that you received I believe are primarily people that live right in the area. There was one from Scott Rogers who I know doesn't live in that area and he supports it but I couldn't tell you everybody that's emailed in or everybody that came to the open house if they are directly in that area or other places.

So when you are trying to, as a city staff, try to do stuff like this, do you guys consult the people who live around there?

Yeah, we sent out a notice within 300 feet of the two areas being proposed. So all surrounding neighbors would have received a notice for the public hearing. And we've been sending emails about the next steps along the process to anybody who left their email address with us.

OK.

I don't think there are any further questions. So we can move this item so we can discuss it. So on a motion by Councilmember Otto and seconded by Councilmember Reed, this item is moved. Looks like if there's any discussion, looks like we have Councilmember Otto.

Well, thank you, Council President. So, thinking that housing markets fluctuate, housing stock fluctuates, maybe it's five-year cycles, maybe ten-year cycles. The thing is, what we have here is a really large, contiguous piece of city land that is more or less natural space, green space, more or less. And once we sell off parts of it, it would be difficult to buy these parts back. So we're talking about a really long-term decision. And I understand the short-term need for additional housing stock right now, but we would be looking at long-term consequences. And for this reason, I intend to vote no.

Council Member Otto, Council Member Brewster?

Thank you, Chair. I've been working on this one for a while. I'm not actually opposed to the idea of putting housing on the spaces in the long run. I think we have a sensitive area that has a lot of neighbors that are very... The term I've used is ferocious. And I think moving forward in a way that has... like great care in our orders of operations, I guess makes the most sense to me. For example, if we were to come up with some sort of easement policy or whatever, or develop our own municipal natural area like the state has for Putnam Park, for example, that we could use on this space and also continue to allow the water utility to take advantage of the ability to pull water out of the ground there. I guess I would be much more in favor of just postponing this and continuing to work with the neighbors and staff on coming up with some sort of conservation sort of thing that we can do there. And also, this is one area that I think would not make necessarily a lot of sense to try to focus on an affordability component with regards to housing. I guess if I had the magic wand and all the rest of the well field was in an easement, these parcels were declared excess land and we were to sell them, probably advocate for doing that at market rate and then taking the money and using a portion of it for restoration of the the well fields like getting out the buckthorn and getting you know natural planting in there and then perhaps the other portion could be some sort of fund that subsidizes water connections to for low-income in other portions of the city that would be more suitable for that, places with services and mass transit. I guess I don't want to necessarily vote no, but I would definitely be very in favor of tabling this for an extended period of time. But if nobody else is, then I'm content to vote no.

Thank you, Council Member Brewster. Vice President Schoen.

Thank you, Council President Greger. I feel really conflicted about this agenda item. I would be in favor of tabling the item for additional conversation to take place. I feel, on one hand, pretty strongly about increasing public access to our green spaces and have concerns around privatization of some of the exterior portions of this really large hidden gem that I wish wasn't quite so hidden to the whole community and also I at the same time recognize that we spent a lot of time in our century code zoning update talking about infill development understanding how infill promotes denser residential living and and decreases the need and likelihood for urban sprawl into some of the more rural areas on the edges of our community. And so I understand that infill development is really important to the conversations we're having and these decisions have consequence in many areas. If we don't approve housing within are the center of our city you know that pushes the need for housing elsewhere which may have in some instances greater environmental impact so i feel very torn i don't know that i fully have a strong opinion yet and it's really difficult having this conversation i think not having a clear development plan to look at and i know that's part of the process that's not a a failure of anyone involved up to this point, but it's really challenging to be able to make a very informed decision and feel good about it without really knowing what might come next or what development might look like. And so I feel very torn and would be supportive of tabling for further conversations to be had.

Thank you, Vice President Schoen. We'll go to Councilmember Miller next.

Thank you, Council President. Looking at the maps here and what we're talking about, and then reading the emails and some of the comments here, some people are saying large tracts of land, but the area proposed here, it's already buffeted. It's like you have a strip of Legos, and there's a piece where there's Legos, Legos, and this would be filling another Lego. Some of the emails we got were concerned about large tracts of land. Speaking of the entire wells, which is definitely not the case, it's just... A street already exists there. There's housing on both sides. We have the opportunity to, if we want to, sell this land and have it developed and possibly sell the land for lower cost because housing costs are, the land is a large portion that no one really thinks about. People think about the housing and the fees associated with that. So, and houses already exist there, so that's my husband's question earlier, that, you know, there's a strip of houses running north in the gap, and then another strip, and this would fill in that. So, from my point of view, it doesn't seem like we're not taking over the well, we're not invading it, we're connecting where existing houses are on a street that's already there. So I don't have necessarily the same concerns as have been raised, and some of the emails, you know, like I said and mentioned, like, protecting this gem of like a central park, but like, maybe the scope is not well understood by some of the people who wrote in. As far as the housing aspect, you know, people are saying about, like, low-cost housing. In the packet itself, it doesn't say anything like that one. It definitely says market working for housing, you know, 80% CMI. And then so I just... I do understand concern about, you know, people afraid of creep and like, you know, if you build here and then you build there and you build there and then eventually you are building into the wells. I don't have a lot of concerns with Lawrence Street, but, you know, perhaps if we were able to pair this with some sort of protection and that we designate more officially, you know, the wells of public land right now, but if we were to put some sort of protection, maybe declare it parkland, maybe do something that protects the vast 90% of the wells are there in exchange for allowing the strip to connect existing homes. So I wouldn't necessarily vote no on this one. I would support perhaps postponing it to maybe build in some protection for the wells as a whole so then that any concerns about future encroachment will be alleviated, but then we can use the opportunity. Because the other part I was thinking about is that When you're looking at developments, you have people who might not like it, and that's understandable and reasonable, and they express that. But what we have to remember is who's going to benefit from this? Well, nobody here can speak that they will benefit because we haven't built a house there. And there's not a person who can buy this home that maybe is less. And we have to think about who can buy these homes at 80% of CMI. They're not here to speak for themselves. So we have to think for them. That's why we're future thinking. So we have to keep in mind what benefits this will bring and not just maybe some of the things people don't like about the exchange we get for that one. So don't forget the future. Don't forget about who might live in an affordable house here if we do do this.

Thank you. Council Member... I think it's me. Council Member Werthmann.

Thank you, Council President. I was also torn about this decision. I serve on Waterways Parks and Urban Forestry. One of the reasons I was torn about this is because of the fact that East Riverview Drive essentially, it seems, was stubbed in for residential use. Development in the 1980s. I think that's the right date sometime in the 80s there. This was imagined to have Residences it has since then grown a forest and as part of an overall recreational area that If you check your emails the neighborhood clearly loves and utilizes and wants to see continue I actually, I think that the council member shown and Miller make really decent points about thinking about future residential need and families that would enjoy the space. And this was a reason I think. You have heard this story potentially, but I voted no on excess land designation on the corner of Galloway and Birch Street, what is now the Galloway Flats, I think it is. And my concern there was that as Altoona and Eau Claire are growing, there was gonna be less and less potential green space for people to access. um and it was a really nice river prairie area with um actual prairie and uh to me it at the time made sense that we would think forward as others have done before us about where do we want to continue to see these important green spaces for for um for neighbors so i voted no on that now families live there and I'm glad they do, but these are the hard decisions that we have to make. I would be in favor of pushing this off. At this point, I'm probably more of a no vote, but I could get to a postponement. The only other thing I want to mention on this is the Wellhead Protection Ordinance, which I was a part of as a council member when we developed it. What it does do is it says we want to not allow new oil and gas and metallic processing and those kinds of heavier industries to exist not on top of our well field, but not in the something like 600 acre vicinity of our well field. So it goes well beyond the well field because of the issues that were brought up about VOCs and because of PFAS. In fact, I don't even think PFAS was as known back then. But we knew that protecting that area made sense. Residential is not in the Wellhead Protection Ordinance. residential can happen within that area because it's considered lower impact so it's just something to keep in mind that the wellhead protection ordinance does not have anything about residential i think the points brought up about use of herbicides pesticides and fertilizers synthetic fertilizers or any fertilizers frankly is a valid one but at the same time you know these are the kind of balancing act we have to consider when there's an there is an entire neighborhood that is in this area. So I'll probably vote no, but I would be open to postponement. Oh, lastly, to Councilmember Schoen's point, Infill, yes. And I want to say that I feel our community, Eau Claire, has done a good job. And our council, all of you, have done a good job of helping to get more infill in our community. And I think about the Cannery District. I think about our downtown. I think about Shopko, where we literally have hundreds, hundreds of new homes for people. And now we are talking about a potential of like 20 new homes in this area. So it's something to also keep in mind is like we have 20 new homes. They may be 80 to 120% CMI. But is that positive impact of 20 new homes outweighed by potential negatives that we see here? And I think that's why we wrestle with this. Because we could add an extra floor on any of these apartments, provide another 20 homes in an instant. So it's something to kind of keep in our minds about what are we getting for what are we giving up in this area? Thanks for letting me have the floor.

Thank you. Council Member Orth.

Thank you, President Greger. Yeah. I've been very conflicted on this as well for quite a while now. I did walk the property yesterday and I had not been there since I was a junior, senior in high school, something like that. And of course the land has changed quite a bit. It was kind of just an open area. I don't remember being so many trees and such but I did enjoy my time there yesterday. And on the other hand, I think this kind of development opportunity could be advantageous because it has the potential to bring down the cost of home ownership for a few people. So I applaud that the city brought this forward to us so that we could have this conversation. And yeah, I have those concerns and thank you for explaining about the well field protection because that was one of them that I have concerns with and the other potential environmental impacts. But I think the thing that really stood out to me was that waterways and parks, voted no and that, to me, that sent a strong message. And so I would be voting no on this based on that. But I certainly would also support a postponement so that we can continue the conversation and talk more about enforcement protect environmental protections and How we can you know do this really right?

Thank You chair, I would like to move to postpone this item until the second meeting in March I

Okay, we have a motion to postpone until second meeting in March of 2027. Yes. Okay.

That is the next March, I believe.

Okay.

Do we have a...

I'll second.

Okay, I have a second to that from Vice President Schoen. Okay, so discussion on... The postponement. Do you want to speak to that?

Yeah, I think that gives us enough time to continue to work with the neighborhood and staff and see if we can get to a point where maybe people are kind of like, mostly okay with the moving forward of the excess land declaration.

Okay.

Thank you, Council Member Brewster. Vice President Schoen, do you want to speak to that as well?

I would, thank you, Council President. I would say often I find myself questioning the value of postponements, especially when there's timelines that we should be sensitive to. Access land declarations, in my personal opinion, are not one of those things. It's one of the areas where there's no, and in staff I would welcome a correction if I'm misstating something here, but it's property that the city owns and we can really set guidelines the timeline on our own terms, which is very rare for us, and so I think there's a lot of value that could be gained between now and March, and I appreciate that it's a realistic timeframe for community engagement to happen, whether that's myself as this district representative talking to the community at neighborhood association meetings or otherwise, having special meetings, et cetera, but to really understand, hopefully being able to reach a place of compromise where the community can understand the larger overarching community needs that we are tasked with addressing will also be insensitive and thoughtful about the immediate impacts to the neighborhood that they live in every day. So I ask you all to support the postponement.

Thank you. Council Member Otto.

Thank you, Council President. I always welcome ongoing discussion about conservation and any topic related to the city development in particular. I don't see too much difference between a postponement and a no vote because we're not, if we vote no on the main motion, we're not saying no forever. We're saying no until circumstances change, until planning changes until say a TIF district. One year. One year? Okay, one year. So no vote means a one year postponement. Thank you. I don't see much harm in this, but also not much utility either. So I'm not sure how I'll vote.

Hey, Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. Yeah, so definitely echoing Council Member Schoen's comments that I also don't like postponing, but this is nothing with the timetable on it. I would suggest related to this that if city staff... go forward with this, that we perhaps, if and when this is brought forward again, that we look at giving some sort of designations to protect the rest of the well fields. Like I said earlier, I'm not against developing this one because these are contiguous lots that touch existing homes, but everything else, I think it would be better served if we had some sort of protection in ordinance on the rest of the well fields.

Thank you. I just want to I guess share some thoughts myself as well. I appreciate the motion to postpone because I think it is taking some time for me to get my mind around it and I do think that there's a lot more community engagement that could occur as well and I appreciate the fact that we've had neighbors and folks throughout the city really that have reached out and that our staff have been as responsive as they can as well just like trying to work through this. And, and, um, I do think it is a special area and it's a special place to live as well. And I think that's, that's, you know, partly what, you know, folks want to protect, you know, like whenever there's change, there's concern about, um, you know, whether that's going to be positive or negative. And it's, um, I think more neighbors generally, in my experience has been, been positive, but, um, at the same time, we have a, We have an area that we saw some maps earlier that show that we need to be planning ahead, and we do plan ahead already with regard to the future of our water supply. And from my perspective, we need as many options as we can get, especially when we have things that do happen, like a Superfund site, because of industry in our community that has impacted our wells, and then also know the pfos and who knows what's next so i think having having some extra space or you know as much space as we can is beneficial we've seen that especially considering the pfos your retention ponds took up a lot of space as well so i think in the context of any sort of conservation easement we also need to be prepared to to do things that maybe don't seem so helpful from a conservation standpoint, right? Because the number one thing is protecting our water supply. So I do think that on the border of a piece of green space, and this is the largest one in the city. We actually saw a map earlier to that effect. And having some amount of border that is very accessible and visible to the public can be helpful to make it feel welcoming. You know as technically a public space to visit and also something that people that maybe don't live right along it can can enjoy. So that's one of the things that I've considered in this process is like you know if you're on Riverview Drive like you're not you're not just among houses. Right now there are houses all along the river except for a little sliver or you can see out on the river, right? But you can go along the wells for a good distance. And so that's something that everybody can enjoy, whether you live there or not. And so sometimes if you put houses all along something, it feels like it's only for those people. So I think Waterways, Parks, and Urban Forestry Commission's unanimous rejection is meaningful to me. They probably were thinking of some of those same things. And really, we haven't had a lot of support from the public for this one. So if that's going to change, we need to make sure we're engaging and looking at what could make this a better proposal. So time can help. It also can add more stress. So I know there's been a lot of stress on the neighborhood, right? you know, over the issues of housing as well. And like, that's, that's not an issue that's going away either. So, so yeah, just, just some thinking out loud for everybody, um, before we vote on this postponement until, well, this, this, this is something to note too. Oh, uh, Just wanted to give a chance to our city clerk to clarify.

Just to clarify, is this a motion to postpone both 22 and 23 until next year, or just the one?

I mean, I can combine them. And I hope my second would be supportive of that, if it'll save a little time. But I was planning on doing them independently, hoping for the same thing. But yeah, we can do it together.

Yeah, we haven't moved 23. So I think we'll just do them individually.

All right. Sounds good to me.

So this is just to postpone until the second meeting in March, the Lawrence Street excess land. And city clerk, please call the roll.

Council member Orth. Aye. Otto. Aye. Reed. Aye. Schoen. Aye. Serrano.

Aye.

Werthmann. No. Brewster. Aye. Greger. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Nboga.

No.

Miller. Aye.

And that passes 10 to 2. Oh, sorry. 9 to 2. Sorry. 9 to 2. And then we'll move on to agenda number 23. Resolution granting excess land of parcel 22160368 at East Riverview Drive. And we will just move this item so we can discuss it. So on a motion by Council Member Serrano and seconded by Council Member Brewster, this item is moved. Is there any discussion? Council Member Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to move to postpone this item until the second meeting in March 2027.

I'll second that motion.

OK. Thank you. So we have a motion by Council Member Brewster, seconded by Vice President Schoen to postpone agenda item number 23 to the second meeting in March. Any discussion? I see none. City Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Reed? Aye. Schoen? Aye. Serrano? Aye. Werthmann? No. Brewster? Aye. Behringer? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Mboga?

No.

Miller?

Aye.

Wirth?

Aye.

Otto?

Aye. And that passes nine to two. So both items 22 and 23 will have another six months or so to work on. So thank you. Our next section of the business agenda are ordinances for action. Agenda number 24, ordinance to amend the comprehensive plan for properties from industrial land use to low density housing, medium and high density housing, located at 2209 County Line Road, Z1765-26. And we have a presentation on this as well as the next agenda item from Director White earlier. Are there any further questions before we move into agenda item number 24? All right, so I will move this item. So on a motion by Council Member Werthmann and seconded by Council Member Orth, this item is moved. Is there any discussion? Council Member Brewster. Yeah.

The same thing I would say for the next one as well, as somebody who's kind of a urban design and architecture nerd, it's nice to see plans like this coming forward that really look like they will result in a very livable space and a nice space to call part of Eau Claire. I will be wholeheartedly supporting this.

Thank you, Council Member Brewster, Council Member Serrano.

Thank you, Council President Gregert. I'm also quite enthusiastic about this particular plan and really excited about the row house configuration that now our new century code is really kind of making available for us. And I think also couldn't be a very interesting model for us as we continue to think about infill, you know, just kind of thinking about how that particular configuration of housing can be useful for us as we get creative with squeezing housing into, you know, maybe other kinds of shaped possibilities. So I can't wait to see what the sunset's looking like.

All right, thank you, Council Member Serrano. Any other discussion? Oh, Council Member Serrano.

Sorry. Thank you, Council President. I forgot to say two more things. I know we're not voting on the plan itself. We're just voting on the zoning today. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. But the other thing that I am excited about is that these row houses are for sale and not rental. And, again, I think that's an important offering that we don't have – that much of here in the city of Eau Claire. So I'm, again, very excited about it.

All right. Thank you. Any other discussion on agenda item number 24 before we move to a vote? All right. Seeing none, city clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Schoen. Aye. Serrano. Aye. Werthmann.

Aye.

Brewster. Aye. Greger. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Amboga. Aye. Miller. Aye. Orth.

Aye.

Otto.

Aye.

Reed.

Aye. All right, that passes unanimously. The next item is number 25, to rezone properties from NRP and NR. to NR, MR, and P public located at 2209 County Line Road, C-1766-26. And we had a presentation and questions about this earlier. But are there any other questions from council before we move the item? All right, then on a motion by Councilmember Miller and seconded by Councilmember Johnson, item number 25 is moved. Is there any discussion? All right, seeing no discussion, city clerk, please call the roll on item number 25.

Councilmember Serrano. Werthmann. Aye. Brewster. Aye. Greger. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Mboga. Aye. Miller. Aye. Orth. Aye. Otto. Aye.

Reed. Aye.

Schoen.

Aye.

That passes unanimously. On to agenda item number 26, ordinance to rezone property from LIP to CC located on music Road Z dash one seven six eight two six and We had a presentation earlier from director white on this item Are there any further questions councilmember I

Yeah, thank you so much, Council President. I kind of want to get, I want to figure out if I can get more clarity on what is planned for this space. And I want to share my, I want to put my cards on the table, is that this is obviously golf-related, which is great. But the difference between what golf, what that could be, is part of my concern. So if this is more oriented toward, like, putting range or something along those lines with family friendly, I would see that as one kind of thing. If it's a driving range with the sort of huge monstrosity of nets that go up, more lighting, potentially more sound involved, then I would see that as a I would see that as a very different kind of a use. And I want to know if you know, what are we talking about here on this? Because I'm concerned about what this would be.

Certainly. So what they're proposing, and again, we've just seen preliminary concepts, it's a mix of both. It is not going to be something like you would see a five-story Topgolf type of thing. So we're not talking about one of those large developments, but we are talking something that is a combination of some outdoor driving and then some indoor hunting activities plus some, whether it's going to be a barn grill or some type of activity that is intended to be used in the wintertime as well as in the summertime. So it is going to be a bit of a combination of both.

Could I ask a follow-up? Yeah. What would be the process and how would the public or other community or elected leaders have a say going forward on this if this is approved? Will there be other check-ins on like a site plan or things like that or a chance for the public to be involved or the council? Or is this just purely administrative after this point?

so it it does become administrative when this moves forward with the zoning change um it'll have there's an extensive checklist that goes along anything that's administratively approved they have to meet and show proof of meeting all the requirements that's the reason when the ldo was passed that anything that was administratively approved had a significant list of material that has to be submitted and shown that they're meeting any parameters requirements before going forward but It does accelerate the process and change that process. I'm guessing this would be something that we could check with the legal department on. I'm guessing that some of the other conditions that apply as relates to the use of our country jam, I assume would they still come into effect? I'm putting Assistant Attorney Stromberger on the spot with that question, but there were a number of conditions that were required in terms of noise reduction and cancellation that were tied with the Country Jam facility and that development. Obviously, any downward lighting, that is all defined by ordinance, and they would have to show that any lighting and equipment that they're using meets those requirements as well.

Anything that was tied to the parcel would still be in effect regardless of the owner or change in use. So any of those conditions would still apply if that was part of the parcel at the time.

So I'll just share one of my concerns, and this may not be a concern for other council members or even the public. Well, there's a few, but the driving ranges that you see when you go into other communities, and I think about the one near Madison, DeForest area. There's one in western Twin Cities. They're huge, and the whole skyline is filled with a net. And that's something that I would want there to be some discussion around. If I'm a person living nearby, I want to be a part of that discussion about whether a five story, you say it wouldn't be, but that's one of my concerns. The other part of this is we have bird friendly design standards. a huge monstrosity of a net is not going to be bird friendly so there's a wildlife implication that i would want us to have a conversation about at council who's responsible when hawks and eagles get trapped in there who gets them down what if there's injuries how do we deal with that other communities usually set up a plan for how to deal with this it's not a huge issue that people may think of but for me i'd want us to be thinking about wildlife impact of driving range nets. And then on top of it, obviously, would be like, what time does it close down? When do the lights get turned off? Some of those other kind of logistics. It's just a lot. This could be pretty impactful. And I don't want to say yes on a thing when I'm not exactly clear what the final, what it looks like. So thanks for letting me have a few words on that.

Thank you, Council Member Werthmann. Vice President Schoen.

Thank you, President Gragert. I have similar concerns to Council Member Werthmann, but perhaps on the other end of the spectrum with traditional golf courses and application of nutrients and fertilizers to those areas. I happen to know that this part of the county is sensitive to groundwater contamination for nitrates. Actually, I was thinking like the driving ranges are a better alternative to traditional golf courses from that lens. But I'm wondering if I know that in our packet it says the current land use right now is vacant, but an aerial photos wondering one if it's farmed and then two If this were converted to more of a traditional golf course, does the city have any ordinances that would require the property owner to apply nutrients in a specific way that's not excessive in contaminating groundwater?

So it's currently not farmed. We were talking about an 8.7 acre parcel and none of the country jam spaces is farming the entire development. This area currently serves as parking during the festival events that require that parking under their temporary use of that use. As far as requirements applications on the expectations, they'd have to apply versus any labeling. If there was some sort of grass product that they were fertilizing or whatnot, it'd have to be applied according to appropriate label. There's no wetlands. This is outside of the wetlands, the floodway, and the floodplain. There's a corner that does catch in the floodplain, but they are the way we would anticipate something laid out. It would have to reflect that it's kept out of the floodplain to the extent it would be required by the DNR and the process that follows along with that. As far as operations, I think we just don't have enough information at this stage to be able to answer a lot of the questions that you have. because again, it's early in a process. They're looking to move this forward. It was always anticipated when this was brought over that a lot of the zoning would change throughout the parcel because light industrial was not intended to cover a lot of the areas that they're looking to do. And as they adjust uses, it was anticipated to see a lot of zoning change going out throughout this parcel. But again we're early enough in the process and I understand that you have a lot of questions on use but unfortunately there's there were not to the point where we have an answer for those and I'm not sure what an appropriate route to try and get other information would be through that process because our LDO has changed how these are handled at this point moving forward I don't know, it'd be hard to come up with an answer on the spot, I think, on that.

Yeah, I mean at this point, if I may, the only issue in front of you is the rezoning. So if it's an appropriate switch in use in your minds, then that is the vote in front of you. If the use is not in your minds appropriate, then that determines your vote. Any future project design or what it might look like down the road isn't your decision point tonight, so.

All right, thank you.

We'll go to Council Member Mboga. Today I have an opportunity to go to this place called Pin Club. Do you know Pin Club?

I am not familiar with that, no.

Do you know Pin Club? It's open in the Memorial High School. There's a joint. is a small like reveal bank there is a small joint there they have the same thing like what you're saying so they have like a simulation golf people do i think is this almost the same thing this this is not intended to be simulations uh my understanding is going to be a combination of driving range and interior space Thank you. That's fine.

Okay. Council Member Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. If they do request any exemptions from any component of the LDO, that will go to plan commission, though, will it not?

Correct, if they ask for any special conditions or ask for anything special from the tax increment district or anything that's outside of standard use, then there would be some other level of approval on that. But we wouldn't know that until it was made.

So what are the, I guess in the commercial, in the zoning that is being proposed, is there like a height limit for fencing or buildings?

Um, not that I am aware of, um, based on use there, obviously they're your, your standard building instruction requirements. Um, and they'd have to be meet all appropriate state building codes, uh, in terms of design and how it's erected. Um, and again, any lighting that's related to would have to meet our LDO in terms of directional lighting and how that's controlled. Um, We have you know our our Noise ordinance related to the zoning is not real well defined. It's hard to define noise, but There is some routes to be able to have some guidance on that as well or provide some guardrails on that as well Do you know that if if we were to postpone this we would have the potential of having additional information that

Or is that unlikely?

That I don't know. We could certainly go back to the developer and ask for the project proposal, ask for additional information on that. But I don't know how much they would have available at this point. And again, is there any negative impacts to postponing this in terms of does it kick in any type of automatic approvals with the act at this point in time? I know some things do, but I don't know if a postponement on this does. That certainly would be an option for council to look to postpone for 30 days. I believe most times decisions are in areas where failure to take action meets an automatic approval. Typically, I think that does allow for 60-day postponements in those circumstances for additional information. So take that as a guidance for what you will, I guess.

OK. All right. Well, thank you. I think those.

Thank you.

All the questions for now. Thank you, Director White. So on a motion by Vice President Schoen and seconded by Council Member Mboga, this item is moved. Is there any discussion? Looks like we have Council Member Otto first, and then, yeah.

Yeah, thank you, Council President Reagert. So this really, as I understand, is just the first decision point out of many. And a yes vote, please correct me if I'm wrong, but a yes vote doesn't commit us to any particular development and in a way we're kind of trusting the century code which was really well developed uh thoroughly developed so i'm inclined to vote yes to this but maybe maybe this is a commitment okay i'm just trying to keep track of who's the order of speakers here uh vice president shown

Thank you, Council President. I will say, although I have the concerns I shared and asked a couple of questions related to future use of this property if this rezone was approved, I also recognize the only decision that is being asked of this council tonight is a rezone and whether that's appropriate and consistent with our expectation of development in this part of the community, and I have to say it is. I don't think this area is best suited as light industrial, so the decision before us is whether this is better suited as commercial. I am supportive of that, but I do have concerns about, in particular, golf-related development in Eau Claire and its impact on the environment. I will admit that I think I really do have a lot of faith in our Century Code update and our staff and the administrative expertise they bring to future approvals as next steps in the process. So I'm torn and I do have concerns, but I do think the decision before us tonight I'm supportive of.

Thank you. Council Member Jones.

Thank you, yes. I'll second what Council Member Schoen said. It is a rezoning matter in front of us, and I think it meets perfectly the zoning matters. And as has been said, we put so much effort into the zoning code that there's a reason why it wouldn't be coming back to us after this portion right here. And I do just have to call it out because it seems to be like one of the big concerns. But I can think of three driving ranges in this city right now that don't even have any nets at all. So just because there's going to be a driving range doesn't mean that there's going to be a five-story net with lights and lasers illuminating the city from miles to see, right? Like you could probably see nothing. And I've also never gone to a driving range where it's so loud and so noisy that it's going to be disrupting neighbors along the premises of this grounds. So I just, I think that needs to be called out because when you think of like driving range, you think of Topgolf, you think of what's outside Woodbury over in like Madison, I really highly doubt that that's what's going to be here because if they have that in that market there, they're not going to be coming to a smaller market like Eau Claire to build something that expansive and just finally it is the zoning matter in front of us so i think for me it is a pretty clear yes vote and that's how i plan on voting thank you uh council member worthman thank you council president um i'm so glad that other council members have a very clear idea of what this is going to be because i don't

I don't know if it's a two-story netting, a four-story. I mean, we have Director White sharing that it won't be five stories, and that gives me some hope. But we're supposed to be voting on the intended use of this land, and it's not clear to me the intended use that's about to happen. And this is our last check-in on this item. From here, it goes forward for staff approval. And my concern is, again, impact to the nearby neighbors, because I don't know exactly what we're voting on, the wildlife concern that I have, the lighting, and now I forgot about golf courses and how much water and how much fertilizers and all the things that go on to them, because I assume this is going to be turf and not astroturf. And so I just don't feel, without having a lot more information to put me at ease, I don't feel good about it. I'm doing this. And I also don't want to get all the calls that we're getting from people saying, this is across the way from me, and now I have a problem with it. I just don't feel like we've had enough community input, neighbors' input on this. So I won't be supporting this. I won't be supporting this.

Thank you. Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. The century plan, the LDO, we did spend a year and a half on that one, but since it was passed, we've had numerous times where, you know, correction was made to it because every law ordinance is imperfect and there can always be gaps and holes and places that weren't thought of, weren't covered. And we are the final legislative body to make decisions. So I'm not saying one way or another. I'm just saying that the LDO is not perfect and things can get through that maybe you didn't intend. And if you don't think something should happen, then vote no. And if you think something's fine, go ahead and vote yes. But the LDO is not to dismiss any of the effort put into it over all the months. But if you find something that kind of slips through the cracks, vote what you think you should do.

Thank you. Any other discussion or... Oh, Council Member Serrano.

Thank you, Council President Greger. Yeah, kind of piggybacking off of what Council Member Miller just said and what others have said, and I do see that this is just a zoning matter changing from like industrial, makes sense. If our concern really has to do with what is allowed to be built, because suddenly we're now thinking about, oh my gosh, what are all the possible Gulf-related things that we didn't think about, maybe, Regarding the LDO, it seems that there's an opportunity to propose changes also to the LDO. I think as best I understand it, that was intended to be something that could get, and we have seen modifications, and that we could continue to entertain modifications. So for me, the zoning isn't problematic, but suddenly a lot of the conversation around oh there are some items maybe that we might want to look at a little bit in more detail in the LDO related to other things that we have seen in other communities that we might you know I'm particularly concerned about the bird migration and the wildlife concerns and also fertilizer concerns on a really huge scale in newer areas and I know farm farm farming fields also use a lot of fertilizers as well but anyway just just I think we have an opportunity to make changes I think my understanding in the LDO so I think that would be the more appropriate Avenue for laying some of the concerns here or at least discussing them all right

Any further discussion by the council before we move to a vote on agenda item number 26 on the rezoning property from LIP to CC located on Music Road? Seeing none, city clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Werthmann? No. Brewster?

Aye.

Greger?

Aye.

Johnson?

Aye.

Mboga?

Aye.

Miller? No. Wirth?

Aye.

Otto?

Aye.

Reed? Aye. Schoen?

Aye.

Serrano?

Aye.

All right, and that passes 9-2. Sorry. OK. Sorry. Thank you. So yeah, nine to two. So I'll go to the next agenda item, number 27, ordinance amending chapter 10.09 entitled Motor Scooters of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Eau Claire to update electric scooter regulations. And we discussed this earlier, but if there are any Council members that have further questions, I would certainly be welcomed. Might as well move into, oh, Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. Yeah, I have a question for Deputy City Attorney Stromberger. So last year at some point we passed a speed ordinance for bicycles, and the speed limit defines, I pulled the ordinance here to be able to find it, I'll just read it and then to make sure that this is compatible with what's already existing. So on speed limits, it says the speed of any bicycle, electric bicycle, scooter, electric scooter, skateboard, electric skateboard, or any other personal transportation device. It seemed like that umbrella would cover items defined in this ordinance, so then they would also be limited to the 50-mile-per-hour speed limit on bikeways. Is that correct?

Correct. I think that ordinance was comprehensive enough to include these amendments here.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions before we move this item? OK, so then on a motion by Councilmember Otto and seconded by Councilmember Reed, this item is moved. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Brewster. Yeah, actually I don't. OK. So I, yeah, I just, I think this is a big topic actually, but I, I recognize that this is a relatively narrow, you know, focus for this ordinance change to bring it up to date with this, the state statutes, which I believe were updated like somewhat recently with the emergence of electric scooters, um, as well as rental scooters that are electric. So, so I think like there's a lot, there's some work to do for sure. Um, to but i think like this is a good you know first step is to is to make sure we understand what the state statute says and make sure that our ordinances reflect that i i think there's a legitimate concern about you know where exactly they may be allowed to operate like you know as as we have more experience with them and uh know sidewalks are definitely a question for me like we already don't technically allow them on downtown sidewalks but like it virtually is impossible to enforce as far as i can tell um at least hasn't been perhaps attempted um and you know i know that there's future just future decision that i don't even believe comes to council as far as i know about expanding the range the geographic area for the bird scooters. But that's another matter coming up. But I also, I found some parts of this to be interesting where it's, there's specific pieces of it, maybe I should bring my computer up so I can see it, but there's 10.09.040C, That section of the ordinance was kind of interesting to me because it was talking about I think I can bring it up. Thank you. It was talking about connecting scooters to each other. It says no person operating an electric scooter shall attach himself or herself to the electric scooter or the electric scooter to any other electric scooter, bicycle, or motor vehicle. And I see the employees who are moving bird scooters piling them on to their scooter and driving them around to relocate them or reapportion them in the community and stuff. It's an impressive feat, I'd have to say. But it doesn't seem like that's really allowed under our ordinance. And it doesn't seem to inspire good behavior, to be honest. So just want to flag that. Maybe we can work through that. The other thing, there's 10.09.080 entitled operating on a highway shall be created as follows. Operating on a highway pursuant to Wisconsin's statute section 3460805, every rider of an electric scooter shall, upon entering a highway, yield the right of way to motor vehicles. Well, shouldn't they also yield to non-motorized vehicles? Maybe that's implied with this. But maybe that's just exactly what the state statute says, and we have to go by that. But it just doesn't even seem like the state statute is really where we want it to be as a state. So just want to flag some of these little intricacies. But I'm not sure if there was any reactions to that from our deputy city attorney to either of those points. But I just thought I'd flag those.

I was nodding my head to your last one that it's from statute. So, you know, we're just adopting that so that we have an enforceable standard, at least with respect to the motor vehicles. The other one, you know, I don't recall exactly when the motor scooter ordinance was put into place. Obviously, I didn't propose any changes to that. But I wonder if at the time there was a... Fat, you know like tying the scooters together and you know going down the trails or something To like block access to pedestrians or something like that that would make it hard for other people to get through I wonder if that was the the spirit of the ordinance there.

I'm not sure exactly I don't think it was for the transport that you're describing from the staff Because they're just like stacking them like three or four high sometimes. So I don't know. Let's see random aside But yeah, I'm supportive of these changes. Any other discussion? All right. Seeing none, city clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Brewster.

Aye.

Greger.

Aye.

Johnson.

Aye. Iboga. Aye.

Miller. Aye. Wirth. Aye. Otto. Aye. Reid. Aye. Schoen. Aye. Serrano. Aye. Werthmann.

Aye. And that passes unanimously. Okay, so now we're into a section called ordinances for introduction. So I will read item number 28, ordinance amending title 9 and chapter 9.59 of the code of ordinances of the city of Eau Claire with respect to paid parking for special events. Do any council members wish to suspend the rules to take up this item tonight? We have council member Brewster.

I would like to move to take up this item tonight. OK.

I'll second it. So motion by Council Member Brewster, seconded by Council Member Johnson to take up this ordinance for introduction number 28. It requires a two-thirds vote. And I do not believe that it allows for debate. So I think we just move into a vote. Um, so city clerk, please call the roll on, on, um, on taking up item number 28 tonight.

Council member Gregor. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Amboga. Aye. Miller. Aye. Orth. Aye. Otto. Aye. Reed. Aye. Schoen. Aye. Serrano.

Aye.

Rothman. Aye. Brewster.

Aye. Okay. And that motion passes unanimously to take this up tonight. Um, or that proposal to take it up tonight. So that also means we need to move the item in order to discuss it, but maybe we should have a presentation and questions first. So do we have a presentation from Council Member Brewster? It appears we do.

I can give you a little bit of background. I wasn't able to remember exactly when it happened, but there was a question that I asked about whether or not the city manager or the parking manager would have the ability to allow for you know parking holidays for special events or anything like that and i was told that that would be possible um several other people i talked to remember that particular line of questioning and as it turns out that didn't make it into the ordinance um and so this allows um uh the fall fest fall festival that's that's coming up as well as any other events that are happening on the 12th. of which there are several, to have people use the streets for parking without requiring payment during those events. Because hopefully the idea is that people will spend a lot of time out doing things at these events and therefore would encourage ongoing utilization of the public events. So that's where this is coming from.

Thank you, Council Member Brewster. Any questions from the council about this proposal? Vice President Schoen.

Thank you, Council President Greger. I'm wondering if we have information about the potential budgetary impact of supporting this ordinance amendment.

I don't, but I could defer to City Manager Solberg who might have a thought.

The first day that paid parking was in effect, there was about $1,100 to $1,200 worth of revenue gathered that day. A number of the parking spaces would be taken up anyway because Barstow Street and the side streets are closed. So... It's hard to give an exact number, but given a lower utilization that first day, trying to get up to speed and not everybody paying, you're probably in the $1,000 to $2,000 worth of lost revenue range, I would estimate, for that one day.

Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. Question for the movers. So I guess this is written this way for legal reasons, but my understanding of this is that Section 1 is that parking during specified hours, there will be no parking should be waived on Saturdays from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. But then Section 2 says the change should not be effective upon publication and through September 16, 2026. So basically... We have one Saturday in which this is active and then it dies thereafter. Legally it had been written that way. You couldn't just say no parking September 12th. You had to say no parking forever except the very next week it's gone. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Great. I guess I had a question actually about why it ends at 7pm as opposed to like at 11pm for the exemption of paid parking. Did I read that correctly?

Most of the events that would be taking advantage of that are done by then and Barstow Street will be back open by that time but I'm totally fine with altering that to 11 p.m. if the rest of the council desires so.

Okay I guess I'm just is there a plan for like how to communicate that other than just saying it's from this time. Would there be anything, any additional information, I guess? Not from me. OK. All right. So would there seem to be a reference actually about organizers of events not being aware of paid parking in the rationale perhaps in the whereas clause? Could you maybe describe that a bit more?

I don't know. I think it's definitely not so much an awareness of paid parking, but rather the inability of the city manager and or parking administrator to declare parking holidays, as was something that was originally discussed.

Oh, OK. Thank you. Council Member Miller.

Actually, I think I should wait until we move to. OK.

So I think we're probably ready to. So I'm assuming the movers are those that proposed. OK. So on a motion by Councilmember Brewster and seconded by Councilmember Johnson, this item Is moved. Is there any discussion? Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. I think my question is probably best directed for the city manager as the parking administrator is not here. If somebody tries to pay for parking during this time frame, do we have an ability in the system to turn it off and say there's no parking in the app or at the kiosks?

Yeah, there is the ability to not charge during specified times. Like if we're having problems with parking lots, you won't be able to physically enter in a code number for that zone to pay for that. It's kind of like City Hall parking lot right now.

Okay, so we can basically turn it off from 1 to 7 that day and no one will have to pay. No one will inadvertently pay for something because it will be turned off. Correct. Okay, thank you.

Council Member Amboga.

Thank you, Council President. Thank you for the . I'll be open. Is that a motion? No. Like an amendment? It's just a comment.

Thank you, Council Member Moga. Vice President Schomer.

Thank you, Council President. I feel conflicted about this. I think I'm supportive, but I will say I have some concern about how this is communicated out to the organizers of this event, about if this is something we intend to do every single Fall Fest and we will repeat for other events, or if this is a one-time event. Decision by this council considering how recently paid parking went into effect And I will also just share I have a different recollection actually of that question about whether the city manager their designee would have the authority to make like parking holidays and I seem to recall it was sort of with that same line of questioning or concerns was You know I think that's a decision that this council should make it's a budgetary has budgetary impacts and also at the discretion of one administrative person there's so many different competing interests and many groups might request that type of exemption and so I I actually recall that that was a decision we wanted to come back to this council. So again, I think if we adopt or if we have that philosophy, I can understand why this very first fall fest after paid parking went into effect pretty recently, I could be supportive. I'm just, I have concerns, I guess, about the future implications and the precedent we might be setting and expectations of our partners.

Thank you, Vice President. Council Member Otto.

Well, thank you, Council President Gregert. I would like to make an amendment to replace instances of 7 p.m. with 11 p.m. That's when paid parking ends.

I would consider that friendly.

Okay.

Would the seconder consider that? Okay. So it's a friendly amendment that's been agreed to to create paid parking on Saturday, September 12th from 1 PM to 11 PM, then it'd be the whole day. So that's the new, that's basically amends the agenda item number 28 automatically. So that's what we're discussing. Council Member Miller.

Thank you, Council President. I'll be supporting this particular ordinance here, but I do share Council Member Schoen's concerns about this being applied in many other circumstances. Mainly I have to be supporting this one because we implemented paid parking about five weeks ago, and Fall Fest will probably attract many people who have perhaps not even parked downtown yet. So this will... I'm given an opportunity to be downtown, yet see the kiosks, see the signs, become aware, but given the fact that this is going to be our first large event downtown since paid parking, I am sympathetic to those who might not know about it or know how to deal with it, but would probably be hesitant to do this in a future date.

Council Member Otto. Thank you, Council President. I'm in support of this in part because when the city hosts big events like this, the city does invest resources into making sure these events are successful, be it extra police presence, taking effort to close roads. The staff do get involved with many changes. They do a lot, actually. So I consider waiving parking fees a part of this overall investment in making these Public events successful one concern. I do have is that You know if this passes then we'd be giving just a couple of days to say hey guess what now there's Parking free parking for it But that's not a big enough concern for me to vote.

No Councilmember Brewster Oh, Council Member Johns.

Yeah, obviously I'm in support of it as I seconded it. But I just want to respectfully disagree with some of the other concerns. I'm not worried about this setting a precedent. And I think that we all have our opinions on paid parking and I don't think that it was meant to capitalize on large events like this that are naturally going to draw a lot of folks to our downtown and experience our downtown. I think it's in our best interest to waive parking on a day like this to encourage folks to come down and gain more reason why they should be motivated to come back when paid parking is in effect. And that's what an event like this is going to do. And I think it's very important that we incentivize folks to come down and experience this incredible fall festival that we're going to have going on. I don't think that because it might be a higher traffic day and revenue might be a little bit higher that that's a reason to be hesitant of removing paid parking. And even if it is $1,000 lost, I personally think that that will be made up in the future by encouraging folks to come downtown, and maybe some folks who won't come down for various reasons, and this is the first time they'll be coming down, they get to experience what we have to offer with our businesses that we have heard are struggling just in the nature of the economy and with the implementation of possible paid parking. This is a good reason to encourage folks to come down, and I think...

am in support of this one and if it were to come forward again i'd be in support of others thank you um council member umboga thank you guys a quick note so if for those my city council members if you guys you have concern about the implication of the view like I think it would be nice for us to encourage anybody who wants to have a big event like this one. Sunday is no packing. So they will come, they will have the event on Sunday, and enjoy the time, no packing. Sunday packings, you don't pay. So we encourage people to pack, to do this event on Sunday, then on Saturday. That's what I want to comment on.

Thank you. Thoughts? I mean, I'm still trying to adjust myself to, you know, I wasn't involved in the decisions around paid parking so much because I wasn't on council yet, but I know that some of it was about the revenue, you know, because we want to be able to support our parking infrastructure and our staffing for that. My understanding is that the revenue is coming in pretty steadily already, so it's probably not going to be a make or break thing for our budget if we were to not charge for parking on one day. But I do think another major reason, which I hope is really the main reason for paid parking, is access to parking. And when you're kind of encouraging people to take up spaces all day, it's sort of the opposite of that. So I think we all need to figure this out somehow. But I think it's fine to. I mean, I'll be supporting this because I think we also need to, this is just gonna be a process to figure out how we need to adjust in the long run to make sure that paid parking works for our community. And we need to make sure it works for events and it works for businesses. But I agree with some of the council members that have mentioned that this is not necessarily about setting precedent, this is about, Just moving forward here, at least for the next week. And there's going to be a lot of discussion in the community about this issue. And I think we all need to be as responsive as we can and figure it out. And appreciate the work gone in to try to figure this little step out. So any other discussion by the council before we move to a vote? And again, this has been friendly amended to include an all-day parking holiday on Saturday, September 12. So city clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Johnson.

Aye.

Mboga.

Aye.

Miller. Aye. Orff. Aye. Otto. Aye. Reed. No. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. So now we are into our announcements and updates from the city manager and the city council. And yeah, does any council member Mboga, you want to go first?

Yeah. This Saturday, me and the council, Yeah, so they're at Fall Fest.

There's the dunk tank I'll be in there at noon and that and I'm raising money for the Northside Hill neighborhood associations efforts to to fund a bathroom at the at the north part of Mount Simon Park by the new

Playground Thank You councilmember Mboga councilmember Brewster I know everybody's already

Probably very well aware that Fall Festival is coming up this Saturday from 10 to 5, although there will be, I believe, music in the beer garden going a little bit later than that. But Barstow will be back open around 5. There's also the Party for the Parks that's going on at Lower Mount Simon. I believe that goes from noon until 7, as I recall. And that, as Jeremy... President Gregert mentioned is an effort by the Northside Hill Neighborhood Association to raise money to have a pavilion and bathrooms in Upper Mount Simon. As far as if anybody is interested in volunteering for either of those events and hasn't yet done so, you can get in touch with me. plug you in to the Fall Festival one and connect you with somebody who is one of the main organizers for the Party for the Parks. So, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Brewster. A couple things I want to mention that on Saturday night at Phoenix Park, starting at 5, I believe there's going to be a night market hosted by Power Up Eau Claire, so yet another thing downtown. And I wanted to just... Make sure that folks spread the word about the community health assessment that the local hospitals and the health departments are working to get the word out about so that people can share their experience with access to health care or other issues that they face in terms of their health in our community. This is done every three years, and it helps set priorities and action that can take place And it really happens all around the country as well. So it's a good way to see how we maybe have unique challenges as well. And I believe there's an email from the city manager about the details from that that was sent out over the weekend.

Yeah, it contains a link for the community health assessment. We're working on getting that on the website as well. Some of the stuff I had on my list was covered already, but I just wanted to mention that the L.E. Phillips Senior Center is having their annual senior resource fair Tuesday, September 15th from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the L.E. Phillips Senior Center. September 18th, Friday. Again, we're back on the Friday schedule for eggs and issues beginning at 7.30. So if anybody would like to be registered for that, let the manager's office know and we'll get you signed up for it. And one more reminder that the 2026 League of Wisconsin Municipalities Civic connection event. It's a Wednesday through Friday, October 7th through 9th in Appleton. Still taking registrations. If you're interested in going, let us know in the office and we'll get you signed up for that.

Thank you, City Manager Solberg. Any other announcements, updates? Okay. Well, we have a closed session that's next and I'll read the statement about that and we will take a vote on that, and then we'll take a little bit of a break, like five minutes, so folks can get out of their room as well as just get ready for that session. So upon a motion duly made and carried, the city council may go into closed session to conduct the three-month performance check-in and establish performance objectives of the city manager, an employee over whom the city council exercises responsibility which is permitted in closed session pursuant to S19.851C of the Wisconsin statutes. Do I have a motion to go into closed session? So moved. Moved by Council Member Brewster and seconded by Council Member Amboga. City Clerk, please call the roll on going into closed session.

Council Member Amboga.

Aye.

Miller. Aye. Orth. Aye. Otto. Aye. Reed. Aye. Schoen. Aye. Serrano. Aye. Werthmann. Aye. Brewster.

Aye.

Rager.

Aye.

Johnson.

Aye. All right, and that passes, so we will take a five-minute break. Wait!

I just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful conversation and consideration. As a fierce person, I really appreciate it, and I'm looking forward to working with the dog. Bye. Thank you, Mary. Bye, Mary. Thank you.

I still haven't technically adjourned yet.

Yeah, thanks Jeremy. Jeremy, thank you.

And then there wasn't a later.

We need to fix that in the LDO.