Common Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, everyone, it is 6.30 on June 16th, 2026. I'm going to call the Lake Mill City Council meeting to order. Could I have a roll call, please?

Ms. Curler? Here. Ms. Schmager? Here. Ms. Quednow? Here. Mr. Kutz? Mr. Bartlett?

Here.

Thank you.

Okay, we all stand for Pledge of Allegiance, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Our first item on the agenda is the correction and acceptance of city council meeting minutes from June 2nd, 2026. Any corrections? Comments? Okay. Matt, they are accepted into the record. Next, we have board and committee reports. So we have a public works board minutes from 5-12-26 and a parks board minutes from 5-11-26. So are there any comments or questions? Yes, Lisa.

I'd like to just give a brief report on behalf of the parks board. Two items. One is that the parks board voted to change their meeting start time to 6 p.m. from 5.30, so that'll be just a little bit later moving forward, still on the third, no, second Monday in the month, but at 6 p.m. And at the last meeting, the Parks Board voted to recommend approval of changes to the five-year Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, otherwise known as the CORP. So I would expect the council will see that sometime in the future.

Thank you, Lisa. Any questions of Lisa? Okay, given there are no additional discussion here, I will accept those minutes into the record. Next we have correspondence and constituent contacts. So Lisa, would you please start?

Sure, I had a couple contacts on the Sandy Beach parking fee, inquiry about the AV cable TV broadcasts, and then one correspondence I think we all received on senior congregate dining.

Thank you, Lisa. Michelle? I don't have anything to add. Jim?

Nothing.

I also received correspondence regarding the golf course, correspondence on support for the Sandy Beach Food Pavilion, so part of our park plan, parking in front of mailboxes, inquiry on level B, a memo on the rotary digger installation, I also received some Sandy Beach suggestions, a memo on damaged tree on College Street in the tree lawn, and I attended the library board meeting last evening. So I had a busy correspondence week.

Mary, I forgot, I did want to add one more thing. I attended a training that the city put on, primarily for their staff, but we were invited as well, called Real Colors, and it was a workshop teaching you your own communication style and how to communicate with others who are of a similar style or maybe a different style, so it was a great, the training itself was excellent, but it was also, for me, a great opportunity to interact with a lot of city staff and see how they're learning to work together in the workplace, so I Yeah, I know Misty kind of was championing that training, so thank you, Misty, and thanks, Drake, for sponsoring that for your team.

Nice, thank you. Okay, so next we have public comment. We do not have any people who have registered for public comment this evening, so I'm going to move on to the next agenda item, which is the city manager's report.

So Drake, thank you. The only thing I'll add to the documents that are included in the packet is We have been in contact with the golf course regarding complaints we've received We have Kind of established a protocol with them that we're continuously evaluating but it's approximately three feet from property lines of adjacent residential homes must be mowed to the ordinance requirement below the the eight inches in length and Then fronting properties along Main Street the clubhouse and the terraces and such have to be fully maintained as well. So We will it's a unique set of circumstances any unique property, so we'll continue to evaluate and find out if we need to make any changes to that but just so the council is aware that is the The protocol that we've established right now with with the golf course I

Thank you. Are there any questions for Drake? No. Okay. So there are no questions. Thank you, Drake. So next we're going to move on to council business. Our first item is a class B fermented malt beverage license application. And so this, does not have a formal resolution, but I think we would be looking for a motion and a second for granting this particular license.

I'll move to approve the Class B fermented malt beverage license application for Four Cubs Catering.

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion by Michelle Quidnow, a second by Lisa Curler. Any questions or comments on this one should get licensed. Okay, roll call, please.

Ms. Schmager? Aye. Ms. Quednow? Aye. Mr. Kutz?

Aye.

Mr. Bartlett? Aye. Ms. Curler? Aye. Motion passes 5-0.

And next we have the Bayberry Cottage in Progress Report. So I thank Barry. Barry has a handout for everyone. Drake, you had one over in your area earlier. for some pictures. So Barry, come on up. If you make sure you get that microphone nice and low so we can hear you, that'd be great.

Is it on?

Yep, it's perfect. Thank you.

Loose 406 Mulberry I hand you I took some pictures yesterday so you can see where I'm at We've been putting all the cabinets all nine apartments have the kitchen cabinets and vanities in We've worked on duplicating the woodwork throughout the building and we repaired all the hardwood floors and Harvard floor the third floor is completely ready to be resanded he's supposed to start tomorrow and then after that we'll we'll start putting the thing back together we're taking one floor at a time the third floor is done first then we'll go down in second and first you ready here yeah

Go ahead, Michelle. Barry, are there going to be appliances in these apartments?

Yeah.

When are you planning on putting those in? When are the appliances getting put in?

They're on order, so they'll be the very last thing we put in, or one of the last things.

Okay.

Yeah. But I think they look pretty good.

What's your projected date of completion?

Uh, I would like to say we could get people in there August 1st, but maybe September 1st. I'm going to try for August.

Yes, Lisa. I have a question. I see our returned zoning administrator is here in the audience, and I wonder, Drake, if he's had a chance to revisit the property and if he could share an update from the city's perspective?

Good evening, Council. Happy to be back. Thanks for allowing me to return to this great staff here. I did make it over to Cottage Hotels today, and like Barry said, there is some work to be done yet. There's most of the, like you said, drywall's done. Floors all have to be done. Air conditioners need to be installed. Exterior parking lot needs to be paved and striped. I'd say we're like that 80% would be kind of my guesstimate. I did run into the contractor who's been there for most of it, and I asked him his honest opinion. I said, your life depends on it. When could somebody be in here? And he said two months would be accurate. And I think that's kind of what Barry is saying, too. I think we're all, if we're betting on it, I'd go September. If everything, all the stars align, maybe it could be August. but there's progress.

And just a quick follow-up, Troy. So are there some tasks, certain tasks that would be required before you would allow occupancy and other things maybe can be done after?

With the commercial building, it's a little bit more, we require it to be more substantial completion before I'd start giving occupancy. You know all the there's there's fire alarm in there. There's sprinkler in there So heat electrical plumbing all that needs to be fully functional which it's it's there so it's it's got to be but you know we got to have devices and toilets installed and showers installed like all those things need to be happening and You know like he's talking about having him on third floor, which is great But I'm still going to require everything else to be done because a lot of that exiting comes through those other floors so ultimately the building interior and exterior would need to be very close to being done before we'd give occupancy there. Parking, you know, there's a hydrant outside. I'm sure Fire Chief would want to see everything there and accessible before we allow people to start using it as a dwelling.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions of Barry or, yes?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original completion date the end of this month? Like there no there was a running country days.

I remember original completion date.

No, no, no updated one Yeah, okay, I'm just feeling like we are Continuously pushing it another two months the other two months another two months and I just I really want to urge that And I'm prefacing this with love, okay? I really need you to get this done because it's important. I love seeing you, Barry, but I really don't want to continue to micromanage you. You know what I mean? Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anything else? Anybody else? Council? Jim, you're good. Okay. No, thank you, Barry.

Thanks, Mary.

Thanks, Troy. Okay. Okay, next we have an update from State Representative Joan Fitzgerald.

Good evening. Thank you guys so much for having me back, putting me on the agenda tonight. I appreciate it. Sort of two purposes tonight. I'd like to give you a little update on what's been happening in Madison. And then after I'm done with my update, the other part of this is I would love to hear from you. We're in that part of our season where we're preparing for the next legislative session. So if there are thoughts or suggestions or priorities that you have, I'd love to hear that as well. But I'll start with my update. We did meet 10 times in January and February. We haven't been in session, in full session anyway, since then, but we were able to get some really good things done, and I do want to highlight some of the great bipartisan legislation we passed. I know the women of Wisconsin and the people who love the women of Wisconsin have been fighting for six years at least to to get postpartum Medicaid expansion and Gale's Law passed. Gale's Law would require insurance companies to cover more intensive breast cancer screening. So both of those worked incredibly hard for, I give a lot of credit to the advocates in our state, finally got those through and signed into law. A couple years ago, there was money put aside for PFAS remediation. It was $125 million. Unfortunately, that money sat there. We didn't have a really good way or an agreement on who to give the money to or how to get it out the door. So we did come to some agreement on that. So that money, just this week, coming up on Friday, the DNR is having a public hearing to set up those grant programs. How is that going to work? Who's going to apply? All of that stuff. The good news there, that $125 million, and people ask me this a lot, like, do we invest that money? Like, where does that money sit? It does. It sits somewhere in an account where it's earning interest. So our $125 million is now $132 million and growing every day as the money sits there. So it's not I mean, at least it's growing, even though it would have been better to get that out the door. The federal budget bill that was passed required states to do more administration for SNAP and Medicaid, requiring either people in those programs having a job or at school or doing volunteer work. That requires a lot of extra work by DHS, extra staff, all kinds of work on our software programs. We did finally come to agreement on that, which is great. And as some of you know, I was a high school teacher before I got into politics. So I love when we do good things for kids. There was a bipartisan task force on internet crimes against children. And a whole bunch of bills came out of that. And thankfully, we were able to work quickly on those, get them passed, increasing the penalty, increasing staff enforcement, education around that as well. And so all of those bills were signed into law. So another great example of When we want to get something done, it can get done quickly. It doesn't always happen. Overall, there were probably, I don't know, 1,200, 1,300, maybe even more than that bills introduced. At the end of the session, the governor signed some of these big ones. He probably also signed maybe another 40, probably vetoed another 40. So I've been telling people, if there's an interest area that you have, veterans or housing or child care or schools whatever it might be please you know contact my office i can kind of let you know what happened with those bills but it's really hard to kind of let you know every single thing that happened but there were a lot of really good bills that got through at the end unfortunately there were some in my opinion really big disappointments that we did not come to an agreement on. Knowles Nelson's stewardship funding, never came to an agreement on that, so that is now a program with no money behind it. I just saw the current Senate Minority Leader comment that that was top of her list to get done next session when we come back, so hopefully that will happen. We also dropped the boat, in my mind, on data center regulations. the there was a bill that passed the assembly but died in the senate so in effect we didn't do anything related to that and i know there's a lot of conversation especially when i've been rural areas a lot of concern about that and i know we are you know a good spot for data centers so i think we need to do something there We didn't really address healthcare in any substantial way or childcare. So those are all kind of like on my to-do list moving forward. I would say I hear from a lot of people when I go to board meetings like this about EMS and road funding. A lot of municipalities are very concerned about that, I would say, especially the townships. In this area, if you read the paper, you probably know which townships I was at. They're all very concerned about EMS and what's gonna happen in the future for them. So those are really big issues. We did go back twice for special sessions. One was the governor called us back for A constitutional amendment related to banning political gerrymandering. Nothing happened with that. We gaveled in and gaveled out. I say we like I'm the one with the gavel, I'm not. The Republicans gaveled in and gaveled out, although I still think that is an issue we need to talk about. I think the majority of Wisconsinites would like us to do something related to that. So maybe we'll come back at some point. And then the last thing we did, we were brought in to talk about that budget surplus bill. Perhaps you heard about that in the news. A lot of talk about what to do with our budget surplus. We did end the year with a projected about $2.5 billion budget surplus. So there was a lot of debate on what should we do with that, how much of it we should spend. And I think moving forward the bill ultimately died because we couldn't agree on what to do with that money I think moving forward that's Obviously still a question that's going to be kind of hanging over the next session is how much of that do we spend? I will say Sort of my personal opinion on that is that we had this budget surplus we Part of the bill would have given a bunch of that back in tax rebates and tax cuts I'm not personally in favor of that. I think it's really bad public policy to spend our money and then we come back in the next session and we still have problems with road funding. And we still haven't solved funding for municipalities to afford EMS. And we still haven't solved the childcare crisis or healthcare affordability or housing. So some of those really big issues require us to make some investments in the state of Wisconsin. So that's kind of where I fell on the whole budget surplus bill. But again, I'm happy to answer questions about that or anything. I'll stop there. I was joking. I was a teacher, and when I taught, we had class periods that were an hour and 20 minutes long. So yes, I could probably talk for an hour and 20 minutes. I will not. No one wants to hear that. But I really do want to open it up, and I'll leave that up to you to decide how you want to proceed. But I'm happy to take questions or comments. And like I said, I would really love to hear your priorities. What could the state... in the next session that might help the City of Lake Mills.

Okay, well I'll open it up to City Council and also to staff for any commentary or questions. Yes, go ahead Lisa.

Thank you for being here, Representative Fitzgerald. You hit on a couple things that I think are important priorities for our community. The Knowles-Nelson stewardship funding, we've benefited from that. And we're currently working on one of our big priorities is redevelopment of our major waterfront park. And those are the kinds of grant programs that could help us, you know, make that more affordable to do for our community. So putting a plug for that. And EMS is on our agenda tonight to have a five-year program extension to our contracts. So just those skyrocketing costs and how municipalities can manage it. I know it's complicated, but that's definitely an issue here. Another one I would put in a plug for anything that can be helped on the state level is particularly for police officer recruitment and retention training. I don't think it's unique to Lake Mills, but we certainly have that issue too. And it's just not as many folks wanting to go into that line of work these days. And again, I'm sure it's complicated a lot of reasons, but I think that's been a challenge for us.

Yeah, I would agree. And I do hear that. And we do talk about that particular issue, I think. And there are things I do think from a state level, part of the problem is not just recruiting, but also having enough spots to train police, fire, and EMS. I mean, that is a legitimate concern. There's only so many spots, so many people who teach those classes, and it takes a long time. And I do think there is room there to improve that side of it as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for being here, Representative Fitzgerald. I have a question related to somewhat related to act 15 with that being the the main budget bill of the last session and Something that is the scope of act 15 obviously there's going to be a lot in there and there are Some mistakes that wind up creeping in because anytime you produce that many pages that's bound to happen and I understand that one thing I was disappointed with though is with Wisconsin Act 181 taking till the very end of the session to sign, with that being something that was, with that originally being a Senate bill that was just intended to correct some typos in the budget and essentially approve money that, approve, give authorization to collect money that was already approved to be collected. It just seemed like that was disappointing how that got bogged down with people's pet amendments being attached onto it and then having to go right up until literally the last day that everyone was meeting. I would just encourage, if there is any way in the future, to try and keep bills as clean as possible and not have them, cross-contaminate and have one cause bog another cause down, especially when it's something that should be relatively cut and dry. Mm-hmm. I'm sorry, I guess I don't have a question. It was more of a statement.

No, I love the comment, too. And I love the term cross-contaminated. That's an excellent description of what happens sometimes. And I know the budget repair bill, I believe, is what you're referring to. And sometimes it does, in some respects, have to take a little while before you realize all the issues. But I agree with you. We could move things along. The whole budget process. is a very slow, and this year approving the budget at, I don't know, maybe two in the morning, by three in the morning, the governor signing it so we can qualify for federal hospital assessment was not the best way to govern. Point well taken. Thank you.

Thanks. Any other comments from council? Questions? How about staff? Anything, Drake, from your perspective, yours, Dan's, the team?

It's probably yelling into the void. I would simply ask the legislature to consider returning local control over its budgeting process. The levy limit law and the additional restriction that was added to it in 2011 hampers the city council's ability to determine what level of service is appropriate for its community. With no allowance for an increase based on inflation and it being strictly tied to net new construction, it doesn't allow the community an independent level of choice over what its future may or may not look like as far as how it wants to grow, where it wants to grow, whether it wants to grow and still maintain the level of services that it has. Understanding that that's a pretty big ask and heavy lift I think that a consideration of carve outs for certain public safety activities would be would be prudent Obviously recruitment of police officers continues to be difficult volunteerism among fire department ranks continues to decline and replacement of You know those those volunteers with what needs to be full-time hours with Professionals whose cost of training and education level seemingly continues to increase, it's very difficult to maintain those levels of service without being able to adequately address your budgetary needs without making cuts to other services throughout the community. Other things that the state could consider is state statute authorizes a pilot payment from water and electric utilities, of which the city operates both, but it doesn't have the same allowance for a wastewater utility. And so there is no general fund support from those non-taxable assets that are in the ground, in which case, at least in the city of Lake Mills case, the wastewater utility is larger than the... the tax base of the city of Lake Mills. And so those are a couple of big things. Those are obviously substantial changes to how we currently operate, but levy limits continue to be a constraint placed on us that doesn't necessarily allow for the elected officials closest to the people they're governing to adequately reflect the opinions and desires of that constituent base.

I agree with you. It's the same problem schools have with the levy limit. But I have heard from a couple other people about some sort of carve out for emergency services, protective services. Since those are a requirement, they're growing faster than inflation sometimes, that cost is just huge. So maybe there is some space. to do something along that line.

Okay. Any other thoughts come to mind while Drake was sharing his perspective? Okay. Well, thank you, Representative Fitzgerald, for joining us. Yeah. Thank you, guys.

And I just throw it out to any of you guys or anyone here. I'm always happy to answer questions, contact my office. We're there. We're open all the time. So contact me if you need me. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it.

Okay, our next agenda item is Resolution 26-51. Misty?

City Council Resolution 26-51, Amending Impact Fees.

Okay, Sam, did you want to provide a brief update on this particular subject?

This is an annual increase. Sorry, this is an annual increase. We add the CIP To the water parks. Well, sorry water is no longer being collected due to in my memo and it was due to this What is the study called earth?

satisfaction of the projects within the Water utility needs assessment which we are in the process of updating But currently we have no needs for collecting the water impact fees.

So that was removed compared to last year's so it's just parks and sewer on this year's and

raised just by the cpi any questions for sam or staff i do have a question about that water impact fee so um if we update our needs assessment and we want to start collecting water impact fees again would it just require another resolution is that can it only be done once a year what how does how does that work

You'll have to approve the water needs assessment and at that time or closely thereafter, you can adopt a new or updated water impact fee. So it's simply, it's tied to the needs assessment and what that identifies and then what the appropriate impact fee to be collected in order to reflect the impact of new growth on those facilities.

Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve City Council Resolution 26-51, amending the impact fees.

Mr. Kutz will second.

We have a motion by Lisa Curler, second by Greg Kutz. Any other questions or discussion?

Okay, roll call, please, Misty. Ms. Quedna? Aye. Mr. Kutz?

Aye.

Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Schmager?

Aye.

Motion passes 5-0.

Okay, next agenda item, Resolution 26-52. Misty.

City Council Resolution 26-52, authorizing the city manager to renew an amended and restated agreement with Ryan Brothers Ford Atkinson LLC for the provision of emergency medical and ambulance services.

Okay, so. Sure. Great question. So the contract that we're currently under is currently in an automatically renewal period. So absent an approval of that, we would continue to operate under that previous agreement. This extension is a five-year agreement. At year three, we then have the option of 270-day notice for no-cause termination. So similar to the contract we had originally entered into for the initial three-year term. Some things to note is Ryan Brothers did agree to a rate freeze for the first year of the contract, and they also agreed to reduce the minimum increase down from, I believe it was 3% or 4% down to 1%, and then the maximum increase is down from 8% down to 4%. So it's tied to the ambulance inflation factor, but it is either going to be somewhere between 1% or 4% if the ambulance inflation factor is below or above that range. Chief Russ is here, if you have any questions over how his department works with Ryan Brothers and how that service has been going, I can say from my experience, I have not received I believe any contacts related to the 911 emergency service that negatively reflects the service being provided by Ryan Brothers.

Okay, are there any questions regarding this agenda item?

I have a comment.

You have a comment.

I don't know who made the flow chart, but I appreciate you. That's a very nice flow chart.

Chief Russ and the EMS service director worked on that together.

That's very nice. Easy to understand.

I would make a motion to adopt City Council Resolution 2652.

Second. We have a motion by Greg Kutz, a second by Michelle Quidnow.

Any other questions or comments?

I would just like to make a comment. I think the The five-year horizon and the parameters by which you came to agreement on, I think it was well done. So nice job getting that across.

Thank you. It was excellent working with Ryan Brothers on this. So it's been a good working relationship with them.

Okay. Roll call, please. Mr. Kutz? Aye. Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Schmager? Aye. Ms. Quidnow? Aye. Aye. Motion passes 5-0.

Okay. Next we have Resolution 26-53. Misty.

City Council Resolution 26-53, authorizing the city manager and staff to submit the Lake Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant Compliance Maintenance Annual Report to the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Okay. Do we have? Oh, we have Lucas already ready to go. Yeah, hi.

Thank you, so enclosed in your enclosed in the packet is the 2025 compliance maintenance annual report the CMIR Completed by the wastewater department and I'm pleased to report they received all A's this year on their report And just want to say that's an achievement to Bill and his hard-working team with James Ben Noah and Judy there They do an excellent job and their commitment pride and willingness just to look to improve the system You can see it every day and everything that they do so their efforts that they have contributed directly, are shown directly as a result to this report. So I'm here to answer what I can.

Do we have any questions? Lisa.

Just some comments. Thank you, and thank Bill and his team for all of this. I confess, over five years of reading these, it's always A's. So, I mean, we've got a fantastic team, and led by Bill, who, you know, we have a very experienced operator in charge who's won state awards, so we're very fortunate to have him. One of the things I was really pleased to see, so since I'm always used to seeing A's, and then I look at sort of some of the specific comments, and I noted that he... was able to document catching up on some of the inventory tasks, some of the INI things, and so that was just really nice to see, and I know it was no fault of his or others in the past when there was staff turnover, but it was nice to see, and hopefully the team feels good about that as well, that they're able to kind of catch up on some of those duties that got a little bit behind.

Thank you.

Why too wanted to just You know say thanks to the team that it's obvious that there's a lot of knowledge a lot of care and a lot of attention given to all of the parameters in order to achieve those a rating so no small task and thanks to Bill and the team for all of their their hard work, like all care and love and attention of this entire process. So I also, I did have one question only because I didn't, like Lisa, I was kind of looking through to say, okay, you got A's, but there were some really interesting comments. And there was one that was, I don't understand what it means. So I thought I would just ask that we greatly exceeded the televising goal. What actually is that? And then what do you do about exceeding it?

So the crews themselves, they have a televising vehicle, I guess, where you can send a camera down the sewers and then physically inspect them with the camera to see if there's any defects. And then from there, they can do some of these spot repairs and things of that nature to try to catch them before they ultimately fail and create a backup. So with the crew that they have now, they can utilize that equipment to its full function. So where they set their goals and how to achieve them, yeah, they definitely achieved all their goals.

Okay, so doing more of that is good. Okay.

Yes, preventative. Definitely try to catch it before it happens. That's the goal.

Okay. Okay, well, thank you. Any other questions or comments? I will make a motion to approve Resolution 26-53, authorizing the city manager to submit the 2026 CMAR. Second. Second. Okay, motion by Mary Schmager, second by Michelle Quidnow.

Just one question, just to get it on the record. I'm assuming the Public Works Board, do we have that in the resolution? Did they recommend approval?

Yeah, the Public Works Board did recommend approval. The only thing of note was a Scrivener's error that referred to the 2025 CMAR, I think. Was that this one or is that something else? That was a whole week ago at this point. But yes, Public Works Board unanimously recommended approval.

We'll do a roll call, please. Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Schmager? Aye. Ms. Kudnow? Aye. Mr. Kutz?

Aye.

Motion passes 5-0.

Next we have Resolution 26-54, Misty.

City Council Resolution 26-54, authorizing the city manager to bid the 2026 Lake Street Sanitary Sewer Project.

All right, Lucas, I think that must be you again.

Yes, it is. All right, so this is we're looking for authorization to bid to extend sanitary sewer, a 10-inch sanitary sewer easterly about 1,300 linear feet starting near Industrial Drive going East to serve some existing homes that currently do not have service with sanitary sewer. So we're looking for authorization to bid for that. And this was recommended public report as well.

Okay. Are there any questions or discussion on this subject?

Um, uh, This one, when it came up at Public Works Board, again, the Public Works Board unanimously recommended approval of this.

Lisa? So I guess I have a question. I was looking at the map and my initial thought was I was surprised that we didn't have sanitaries who were in that area because certainly we have it to the east of there for the Brookstone subdivision, but perhaps it just doesn't serve this area. So Is this kind of filling in a gap?

Right, it's filling in a gap. It sounds like there's failing septics along that route as well that has reached out to the city to see if there's opportunities to connect, and this extension would assist in providing that opportunity, and it gets the sewer a little further easterly to some of those residents that don't have sewer service right now. But you can feel free to.

thank you and i think that's that's a corridor that we have occasionally had some requests for annexation but yeah if there's if they have a failing septic and we don't we don't have a sewer then they can't really address it thank you okay any other comments or questions i'll move approval of resolution 26-54 which is the authorization to bid the east lake street sanitary sewer extension mr coots will second

We have a motion by Lisa Curler, second by Greg Coutts. Any other commentary? No, but we'll do a roll call, please.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Mager? Aye. Ms. Quidno? Aye. Mr. Coutts? Aye. Mr. Bartlett? Aye.

Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you. Next we have Resolution 26-55. Misty?

City Council Resolution 26-55, Resolution Amending the 2026 Capital Improvement Plan.

Okay, so is this you again, Lucas?

Yes.

I'm glad we just got you all in a row here.

All right, so this resolution and the next one kind of tie together. This resolution's providing funds, I guess, in order to go into the capital improvement plan to help pay for what the Public Works Board and we're recommending for the next improvements for the lakeside force main. The funds are there in other areas. It's just amending the improvement plan to have those available for the next resolution.

So you can see, if you looked at the next item and saw the map that was attached, you'd see that this, by adjusting the capital improvement plan and the subsequent design, it allows us to eventually abandon a sanitary sewer infrastructure that cuts through the Lakeside Lutheran property on what used to be considered, was considered to be a roadway extension that has been vacated and won't be occurring.

Yes, Jim.

The resolution says that the city staff recommended awarding project and the inclusion of alternate number three. What is alternate number three?

So on the next item, but on this one here, I'll talk about it. There's three different alternates that we bid out with the base bid in order to make the repairs. So during the original design, when we realized there was an issue, a concern out here, we realized a section of it had to get fixed, which was the base bid, and then alternate one that fixes kind of the immediate issue, but the remaining portion of the force main is most likely in the same type of condition that's failed. So we bid it out with three different alternates to find the best option. And what we recommend the best option is replacing the entire force main and getting it out of the school property, putting it up into the roadway, at this time versus potentially coming back later and fixing the second half of it, which would be at a greater cost.

It also says that alter number three exceeds the current amount approved in the capital improvement plan. What is the current amount, and by how much does it exceed?

Yep, so the capital improvement plan right now, the current amount approved is $385,000, so this would increase that total amount to the $436,733.70

would be the base bid plus alternate three so it's about a hundred thousand dollar increase or i didn't do the math yeah right 126. okay well it also says there were aggregate aggregate savings from previous project doesn't mention how much the aggregate savings were but i i understand that this will cover the additional expenses without city paying more to accomplish this.

That's correct. You won't have to borrow any additional funds. Correct.

So you're really not asking us for any more money.

No, we're just asking for, just take money that was in a different, basically, account, correct me if I'm wrong, and putting it here. Which projects? Projects in the past.

Switch pockets will take the money out of one side, put it in the other.

Okay. It was prior projects that came in under budget. I see. That's available for. That's good. They're borrowed funds, so they need to be spent, so.

One other thing is it says it changes in scope. I wasn't, you know, the change in project scope. I just wondered what the definition of that was.

So originally when the CIP was put together, it was to fix the failing gravity portion of the sewer and fix the failing portion of the force main that was breaking. So the area in blue on our map that we have. And then as we looked into it to evaluate what the best idea was or solution for the entire force main, which is most likely in the same disrepair, we just don't know because it hasn't broken yet. It was to replace the entire force main instead of just the failing first section. And then this additionally gets it out of the private property into the public roadway. Okay, thank you.

Yes, go ahead, Lisa.

So maybe if I can just put it in another way to make sure I understand it. So the original project scope is being expanded to take advantage of the opportunity that you're going to be out there already to remove this part of the sanitary sewer, the main that's on the lakeside property.

Correct, in essence, yes.

Abandoned in place is the only correction I'd make to that. The infrastructure within the lakeside property will be abandoned in place.

Oh, abandoned in place. Okay, thank you. So I guess that actually relates. So this is the area that shows in gold on the map in the next item. That's where that force main is located. So that's a vacated road. so the end of Key Street, what will happen there with, are they gonna need some kind of a pump station or something there, or how is that gonna work at the end of Key Street there?

Right now, everybody that lives on Key Street, it flows by gravity, so it doesn't affect them at all.

Oh, okay. That's convenient. Okay, thank you.

So making sure we are in resolution 26-55, which is talking about the capital improvement plan amendment and so on, let's see if there are any additional questions on that particular resolution. And then thank you, I know it's complimentary and goes with our next resolution, so thank you, Lucas, for allowing us to jump in there as well. But any other questions on the capital improvement plan amendment?

I'll make a motion to approve City Council Resolution 26-55, which is amending the 2026 Capital Improvement Plan.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Lisa Curler, second by Jim Bartlett. Roll call, please. Ms. Schmager?

Aye. Ms. Quidnow? Aye. Mr. Kutz? Aye. Mr. Bartlett? Aye. Ms. Curler? Aye. Motion passes 5-0.

Okay, next on the agenda is Resolution 26-56.

City Council Resolution 26-56, authorizing the city manager and city clerk to execute an agreement for the 2026 Lakeside Forest Main and Sanitary Sewer Project Rebid, Contract 3-2026R.

So we started some conversation specifically about this as we were talking about the CIP change or amendment, and so what additional questions or comments do we have regarding this subject?

I think we had talked about making the no parking situation seasonal. Perhaps there had been conversation about the, I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong thing.

We're on Lakeside Force Main in San Jose. It's okay. We're almost there. Sorry. My bad.

Not that we can't have further discussion afterwards, but I would make a motion to approve City Council Resolution 2656 as written, which includes alternative bid three. Second.

We have a motion by Greg Kutz, second by Jim Bartlett. Okay, additional discussion, questions? So I do have one question about the The bid specifically for this particular effort, I just am curious to know, I found it to be interesting that there are elements of the bid where the discrepancy is like 2x. So as an example, I think there was like pavement was 8,000 in one bid and 16 in others, like double. and some of them are larger discrepancies. And I'm just curious how you reconcile something that has such a large swing. I know the overall project bid, they have a delta, and we're choosing one that's, generally speaking, the lower side of things. But how do you guarantee or how do you ensure that when they're bidding the component and it's half of what someone else is thinking that they would have to spend, that we know we're getting the quality? of whatever that particular one is. This one seemed to have some large swings.

Yeah, right. I mean, it's tough. I'm not in the contractor's side of where they're going to put different funds on how they want to fund the project. This one in particular, right, we bid it. We didn't get any bids the first time around, so we re-bid it to get two qualified bidders. And we opened up that time frame to allow them to actually complete the work. So for some of those, it could be when they think they're going to do it. Maybe it's more expensive later in the year. Maybe they're planning on doing asphalt next year. Those type of things, I'm not really sure how they came up with their costs, but really I don't have a great answer on why there's big swings on some of those contract unit prices.

Regardless of how they cost out their bid, they're required to build to spec. And the city has either staff or a contracted engineer on site watching the certain things get installed into the project to ensure that it's constructed to the spec that we've given. So regardless of where they choose to try and where their margin might be or where their certain line items are, that doesn't absolve them of building to the spec as bid out that they're being awarded.

Thank you. That helps clarify my concern. Are there any other Questions or comments? OK, roll call please.

Miss quit now I Mr Coots I Mr Bartlett Miss Killer I wish maker I motion passes 5-0.

Thank you next we have ordinance 1292 Misty ordinance 1292 amending City of Lake Mills ordinance section 615-15 no parking zone City of Lake Mills, WI.

Okay. So I know Michelle, you have a comment or question you would like to start off this. I am so sorry. So thank you. No, you're on. Okay.

Well, I do recall that we had talked about doing this, um, this potentially as a more seasonal, as opposed to all year around, since the majority of the time, the, the issue with our concern is in terms of safety. occurs most heavily during the dates of Memorial Day to Labor Day. And so I, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, is that something that we had talked about as a, because I have a possible amendment if necessary.

Yes, we did. I think I specifically asked you, Shorter, at our last meeting about, you know, a time frame recommendation, May to September kind of an idea, and he said that that would be enforceable and appropriate if that's the direction we wanted to go.

Okay.

Other discussion on this subject?

Yes. I walked the street from one end to the other and knocked on all the doors for people who were there. And generally speaking, they're opposed to the restriction of their ability to have their friends visit them and park in front of their house, since most of them have a very small driveway and so forth. And as a general principle, I think that the residents' use of public property, including street parking, should not be restricted without a strong reason, such as traffic safety, snow plowing, and so forth. And it appears that The main reason for restricting this parking is to make money. That is, if we don't restrict it, then people won't park. I mean, it restricted people to park and pay their $12, but otherwise they'll park on the street and walk in. I don't think that's an adequate reason for restricting parking, particularly for those residents who pay taxes and live along the street. So I'd like to return to a discussion of why it's necessary to restrict the parking.

Do you want to respond?

Well, if I may, I'm the sponsor of the ordinance, and so I sponsored it for a public safety reason, and we have other streets in our city where we have no parking along certain segments for public safety reasons, so I think that is an appropriate reason. This particular area, we've had many reports from our police department, and I've heard reports from citizens that during busy summertime, The area between Sandy Beach Park and the boat launch in particular can get very crowded. It's difficult for vehicles to pass one another, especially vehicles that are towing trailers. And so I believe that I'm recommending this or putting this forward to prevent those kinds of traffic safety, pedestrian safety with people walking from the south side of the road to the north and so forth, that's the reason I'm recommending it. Now, having said that, I'm open to putting some kind of a calendar timeframe on it because I do think it tends to be more seasonal where the public safety is an issue. And also, Jim, I think we may land at the same place, but I have a slightly different take in terms of parking on a public street. I do believe that every resident, everyone is entitled to park on public streets, but they're not guaranteed to have parking available on the street right outside their door simply because they may have a shorter or a longer driveway. So, I mean, I think our streets are public conveyances and our parking is available, but we have the responsibility to limit that when we have a public safety issue, and I feel that that's what we have here.

Go ahead, Greg. Chief Schroeder, how many...

Hold on. Excuse me. Excuse me. Greg.

Yeah, I would largely echo what Lisa's saying. The ordinance right now, as it's proposed, is only from Paradise Drive down. It's not the entire length of the street. It's only that part of the street at the end where we're dealing with lots of traffic in and out of the parking lot and boats, trailers, and people coming and going. And it's a busy place, at least seasonally. It's a busy place. It is a narrow street. And I know from past conversations that this is something that has been on people's minds well before any sort of change to the parking lot. Regardless of what goes on with the parking lot, this is something that people have commented on on that particular stretch for quite a while so I Think it would be incorrect to say it's finance. It's Financially motivated at least as written right now. It's only for that busy spot at the end not the whole street Shall you have a question?

Yeah, I have a question because on the ordinance itself it does say to the western property line of 137 Sandy Beach Road, which is the bowling alley. So from what I'm reading, it's from the bowling alley.

Michelle, that already exists. Right now, there is no parking from Main Street to the bowling alley. Then it's Rotary Park. There's an allowance for parking there. Then it's the mobile home park, Pines A, B. There's allowance for parking all the way there. This ordinance starts at Paradise Drive, which is the westernmost limit of B level, and then it puts in place no parking on all that fronts the Sandy Beach Park itself, specifically the parking lot west.

Okay, so the part that I'm wondering about is, And I'm not saying I want to increase how much there is no parking, but the area that brings me a little bit of concern in general when it comes to the busy times of the year and the... There seems to be more boat parking on Sandy Beach Road between Paradise Ave and Hilltop Terrace. But I guess maybe that's more on the weekends and not so much during the week. But my impression was that we were going from Hilltop all the way down. from Paradise down is really not that long of a space. It's really, it might seem on the map as a lot, but it's really not because ultimately what will happen from my perspective, and correct me if I'm wrong, but as we do the Sandy Beach changes, right, then this is all going to be part of the pathway for Sandy Beach. So a lot of the conversation that we had yesterday, this would help make sure that there isn't anything that's going to get in the way. Am I correct, Lisa?

If I was telling you, yes. Yeah, and I wouldn't recommend, and I don't think, I think from what Chief has shared with us previously, he did not necessarily recommend between the bowling alley and Paradise Avenue of having any prohibitions there because then we're impacting Rotary Park parking as well, which is also very popular on the weekends, and so we don't wanna be excluding that entire strip, or at least I wouldn't recommend that.

So what I'm, oh, sorry. If I could add, I have three points of interest on this particular resolution. One of them, I know we've had some input correspondence regarding the seasonal. And so I feel like a May 1st or October 1st or something around the holiday, I could support. It is the summer that causes the most, I would say safety, highest safety risks down in that area. A second piece that I would like to, have you all entertained is to add a fifth to restrict parking 15 feet to the east of paradise drive this is just the section of the curb that is right where the golf carts cross in our state statue has 15 feet from a crosswalk it is the most in my one of my in my observation a one of the most uh Challenging intersections when golf carts are trying to zip across and a vehicle is parked right up to the curb corner You have no line of sight to see anyone coming and those carts are loaded with kids on laps and kids in the back and kids driving and And I think having that 15 feet to the east of Paradise Drive, along with, Lisa, the part you have recommended all the way past the boat launch to the west, boat launch driveway, I would like to just have a conversation or consider earmarking that as no parking here at a corner. The golf cart cross there to me is really, with the vehicles pulled all the way to the curb, I think one of the, a big pain, a big pain safety point. And then my third piece, I brought this up at the first reading, just my interest of eliminating boat trailer parking all along Sandy Beach Road. They are long, they are wide, and it creates a lot of narrow, extra narrow pass points when you have one parked and two coming back and forth. It is really thin in there, narrow, with all of the widths of a lot of the trailers with some of these bigger boats. And so I still have an interest in, and for other reasons that I had shared regarding the standards that are put forth by the DNR and Other safety things, the lake, that is another point of interest that I would like to also discuss and entertain as a possible amendment. So those are my three points. Okay, so Chief, I see. Oh, Jim.

Chief Schroeder, since public safety here, traffic safety is the primary consideration, What is the frequency of accidents, injury, reports to you of property damage from all along that street? The parts that we are considering making note.

I did not narrow it down just to that part, so I checked today for Sandy Beach Road as a whole, including the parking lot at Sandy Beach Park. Since 2010, there's been six vehicle accidents reported.

When you say including the parking lot, well, that would be irrelevant to this motion, wouldn't it? I'm just talking about on the street where we're proposing no parking.

Right. Yeah, I'm just saying including the lot. So on the street itself, there was one injury accident which involved a teenager jumping onto a boat trailer that was being pulled by a vehicle. The driver didn't know they jumped onto it. They fell off and got run over by the trailer.

And there was a hit and run involving a motorcycle that happened sometime between midnight and 1 a.m I guess neither one of those would have been changed by having it be a no parking area So as far as being you know a tight drive I mean I could see that Go it stands to reason that if you've got a big wide boat trailer there and then you have two cars passing one going leaving and one coming Alongside of that that would definitely affect the ability to get by But the So that if we restricted that is we limited the parking restriction to boat trailers but allowed passenger vehicles then it would at least deal with that aspect. But I'm not sure how prohibiting parking by normal passenger vehicle would change the situation. So that's just my offer. And it certainly would support the seasonal because there's no issue when it's not beach season.

So I'm wondering, can I put in an amendment? Sure. I would like to amend Ordinance 1292, Section 1. after Sandy Beach Road include between the dates of Memorial Day to Labor Day annually? And then finish is hereby amended as follows.

What about the trailers?

I'm doing the seasonal first.

OK, so we have a motion by Michelle. But now to amend in section one to add Memorial Day to Labor Day annually.

I am wondering if, Michelle, if you would be willing to withdraw that and instead of referring to the holiday dates, just pick a date at the start of the month. If we go Memorial Day to Labor Day, then we're talking about a Monday to a Monday. And we would not be including that first weekend. So I'm wondering if you would be willing to withdraw and then... make it so that it is from the start of the month to the end of the month or whatever other date gets picked.

So something to the effect of, I know that this has been said May 1st to perhaps, I don't want to say September 1st because that doesn't necessarily include Labor Day. So it feels like it would be something like almost arbitrary like September 15th or the Saturday after Labor Day.

What is that? Okay.

Okay. So let me change that slightly. I apologize, but I like Greg's idea. So let's change that from between the dates of Memorial Day to Labor Day, omit Memorial Day to Labor Day, and instead put in May 1st to the Saturday following Labor Day. Annually. I don't know if that needs to be put in there, but it seems like it might be a good idea. Yeah.

Okay, so we have a motion to amend by adding in section one that the ordinance of the snow parking zone would be in action May 1st to the Saturday following Labor Day. I see it.

Yeah, the time sensitivity of it is right now then being applied to the entire ordinance, which would include from Main Street to the western property line of 137 Sandy Beach Road.

Is it possible to add to the location description of that and put the dates in there?

That is absolutely what I'd recommend, or adding a specific section addressing the seasonality of that. As it's drafted right now, I would probably not touch the, first off, what you suggested was an amendment to the language in section one. That language isn't in the ordinance. That's introductory city ordinance 615-15, no parking zone. It's applicable to Sandy Beach Road. It is hereby amended as follows. Let's go into the actual language that is amending it. Right now we have name of street, obviously, that's Sandy Beach Road. We're talking about the north side of the road. Then the location. So it's currently from Main Street to the western property line of 137 Sandy Beach Road. Parking is prohibited there currently. You're not addressing that. So perhaps we add a period there. and then state in a new section underneath that, and then like and also, but not really and also, from May 1st to the end of September of each year or to September 15th or to the Saturday after Labor Day of each year, no parking, 15 feet from the corner of the eastern corner of Paradise Drive, if you're going to go that route, to the western property line of 345 Sandy Beach Road. I think putting the seasonality in front of a new section that you're creating is more appropriate than the broad manner in which you were about to amend it.

Okay. Then I would like to amend it as you have suggested, Dan?

Or do I have to give it up? I added the suggestion from Mary regarding 15 feet east of the eastern line of Paradise Drive. I don't know that that is necessary as it's drafted. It says the western side of Paradise Drive. As she stated already, the ordinance does prohibit parking within 15 feet of that intersection. I have no problem with that. It's going to be signed appropriately. So if you want to make that amendment as well, I think we can come up with language there. Otherwise, with regard to the reorganization of this and adding the seasonal component, what I'd recommend is dropping Paradise Drive to Western Property Line of Sandy Beach Road down, creating a new paragraph, and then right from May 1st to September 1st, the Saturday after Labor Day or whatever you suggest there, instituting no parking in that area.

I'm going to request that the City Council pick a date for signage purposes. The end of September.

Yeah, I would be in favor of September 30th to have it be kind of a full month, but that would be my suggestion.

That allows for move-out time for the residents of the mobile home park, et cetera.

Good point.

Okay, so I have a motion to amend from Michelle. Michelle, I would like to read this to you to see if this is what you are putting forward. Okay, so the section will read, from Main Street to the western property line of 137 Sandy Beach Road, period. It's a no parking zone. From May 1st to September 30th of each year, From the currently it's from the west side of Paradise Drive to the western property line, etc the rest of the Because I adding the 15 foot is it can be a separate amendment or you can add that if you would like to put that forward and so Right now you are just you just had proposed the amendment for a date Yeah, so it is from May 1st to September 30th of each year from the west side of Paradise Drive to the western property line of three four five sandy beach road and then the paragraph continues and I would like to keep it with just the dates, not include the 15 feet. Okay, so that is the motion on the table is to amend with the dates as I just read.

Mr. Coutts will second the amendment with the dates as read.

Okay, so we have a motion to amend by Michelle and a second by Greg Coutts. So what other discussion do we have on the dates?

I think we covered it.

We covered it? Okay. Then we'll do a roll call on this amendment, please.

Mr. Kutz?

Aye.

Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler?

Aye.

Ms. Schmager? Aye. Ms. Quednow? Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Okay.

Talk about 61 I mean the the ordinance itself with now with the new amendment. We're gonna vote on the ordinance, correct?

Unless there are additional amendments and so I'm looking to see if there's I would like to put forward an amendment but I want to look to come so to see what other discussion or amendments you if there's any other Items you would like to bring forward

Well, I have a question about the wording of the amended, but it doesn't go to an amendment. It goes to the major ordinance. So I'll hold it until we're ready to discuss the major ordinance as amended.

You can do that now. Now?

Okay. What's the purpose of the first sentence? From Main Street to Western Property Line, Sandy Beach Road.

You said it was already restricted. That currently exists in ordinance. There is no change to that language. When we redid Highway 89, South Main Street, the city acquired the corner property at the northern corner of Sandy Beach Road and Main Street, as well as the next property in to the west. Okay, at that point in time when they redid Sandy Beach Road at the intersection of Main Street, they took property from that for right-of-way, and they installed no parking at that location all the way to the Rotary Park. There's a plan for, as that development pattern occurs, there may be more property that ends up having right-of-way taken from it.

But if this ordinance is disapproved, does that remove the no parking from Main Street to 137? No, that language is not undermined. Well, then if somebody gets a ticket, do they get it under this ordinance or the one that's already existed? Sounds like we've got two ordinances saying the same thing. No, sir.

The ordinance exists as drafted right now that has no parking from Main Street to the boundary, the western boundary of the bowling alley. That is not proposed to change. The language has not been stricken. The language is not underlined as an addition. The only addition that's being considered is the no parking along Sandy Beach Park from Paradise Drive west.

My question really went to why do we need to include no parking at that area if it's already no parking zone?

The language is not being changed. It's as the ordinance exists right now, what I did is just draft in addition to that. No parking at this location, which currently exists, that's the current condition, and no parking in this area.

So there'll be only one ordinance that restricts parking in that area?

Yes. It is under Section 615-15, no parking zones. You can look at that language right now.

No, I take your word for it. I just was a little confused by that. All right.

Well, I would like to make a motion to amend by striking the west side of Paradise Drive and replacing with 15 feet to the east of Paradise Drive.

I'll second.

I have a motion to amend by striking the west side and replacing with 15 feet to the east by Mary Schmager, second by Lisa Curler. So any other discussion on this? Does anyone see? Go ahead, Lisa.

Well, I think I understand what you were describing, you know, and having been out there, I can picture what you're talking about with the crosswalk. I guess I was unclear maybe in what staff was saying. Is it necessary for us to do this or not? is it automatically prohibited within 15 feet of a crosswalk? So I just wanted to make sure I understood.

Yeah, it's not a crosswalk.

It's where the golf carts cross over.

So it's not a, but I was trying to see, how do you determine how far? And I just looked at the Wisconsin state statute had 15 feet for a crosswalk. And this gives the way that the carts cross to me has the same level, if not even more complex, crossing issues there and so I just chose 15 feet to use the Must have been the science or someone had chosen that is an appropriate way of appropriate distance for a car to have to be Offset if you will from the corner to make it safer. So I I And maybe chief, it would have a, or someone would have different recommendation for the offset. But I feel like when the vehicles all the way up to the corner, you have no easy way to see to cross there. And it's, I mean, it, I just found it to be maybe an opportunity while we're talking about this to just move that back so that you have a no parking sign from here to corner.

I think being able to market with a parking sign would make it very clear. So there's several statutes that may apply. 15 feet from a crosswalk, I guess we would debate whether it's a crosswalk or a golf cart crossing. 15 feet from the apex of an intersection, we would debate whether Paradise Drive is an actual roadway or if it's a driveway. Four feet from a driveway if it's a driveway. So I think you can take all of that discussion out of it. If you amend the ordinance to say 15 feet east of Paradise Drive, then it's signed from that point, no parking here with an arrow to the west, and it would be clear. Okay.

So just a follow-up question for you then, Mary, and I understand how you came up with the 15 feet. So how many parking spots is 15 feet? Was that part of your thinking at all? okay, then we'll lose two car parking spots by doing that, or how many? Yeah, Greg would know.

I think 15 feet is one.

Most vehicles may not fit in 15 feet nowadays. 15 feet. I think 20 feet is a standard.

I think 20 feet is a standard, if I'm not mistaken. 20 foot long is a standard parking spot? It varies. I don't know. But 15 would be...

It would be approximately one car. One car.

It's not a big... And then there's a, the thing that's complicated, there's also a, not far from this intersection is a fire hydrant also. So there is like a, this is a, there's like a spot and then there's a little more space and then there was a fire hydrant. So the fire hydrant obviously is a no parking zone because you need access to the fire hydrant, but this is just near that corner. I feel in the line of sight, if we're moving no parking to the west, that that was just a section that could use some additional safety approach. Any other discussion on this amendment? Okay, so we'll do a roll call on the 15 feet to the east, replacing west side.

Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler?

Aye.

Ms. Schmager? Aye. Ms. Quidno? Aye. Mr. Kutz? Aye. Motion passes by zero.

Okay. Any other, I have, I would like to put forward one additional, but I would like to look to council. Any other, any other? changes that you are seeing. Okay, I would like to add one more motion to amend by adding boat trailer parking, whether attached to a vehicle or detached, is prohibited on all portions of Sandy Beach Road. Except this prohibition does not apply within the designated boat launch vehicle trailer parking lot located in Sandy Beach Park, so I think that likely might need to be clear for clarity.

I don't believe you would need to include that. It doesn't include the parking lot. I think it's separate. This is only regulating parking on the public right of way, the public roadway.

So from a, just to structure this ordinance, would that be another new line? Sandy beach road north side and then like give that prohibition?

Yeah, so right now we have the first line from Main Street to Western Property Line, the second statement, from the 15 feet east of the eastern side of Paradise Drive to the Western Property Line of, and then under that add a new section that states parking of trailers, I don't know that you need whether attached or not. Attached or detached, okay. Parking of trailers on Sandy Beach Road is prohibited on the north side, is prohibited.

And that would be from Main Street all the way to, yeah, when you say Sandy Beach.

Yeah, yes.

The entire Main Street, including Rotary Park.

The entire Sandy Beach Road. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's what you're saying.

North side. Yeah.

Is it north side?

The north side. I mean, south side's already parking prohibited, so it doesn't matter. Yeah, well, we're talking about the north side because the south side already has no parking. Do we need to specify boat trailers or just trailers?

House trailers. Because I'm worried that someone may misunderstand.

Well, boat trailers is more narrow than trailers. So if you want to specify and you want it drafted narrowly, then state that. If you don't want it specified and you want it to be broad, state trailers.

Okay, I would say boat trailers because that seems to be our biggest issue.

I think there is an argument that can be made if there is an enforcement effort. and there is some reasonable argument as to whether or not a trailer that is parked there is a boat trailer or not a boat trailer.

Please. I would second that. Having worked in a jurisdiction where there were many DNR launches, a trailer that pulls kayaks, a regular trailer that people put a kayak or canoe on, anything can be used to haul a watercraft in general. Okay. Broader would be easier to enforce, but we can do either.

But I'm thinking about trailers, like there can be trailers that are meant to transport things, you know, like moving or not necessarily moving. I don't want to go into that argument, but you know what I'm saying? Like just a eight by four trailer.

A U-Haul trailer or a yard waste.

I wanted to be trying to be specific so that it's not, to global but at the same time not of something that is Somebody could find a loophole which you pointed out. Thank you because I didn't even think about Kayaks as a possibility.

So now I just don't know what to do So I'm going to read to rescind my amendment And I would like to restate my amendment, a new motion to amend, no trailer parking. So remove the word boat to make it broader. No trailer parking. Trailer parking is prohibited on all portions of Sandy Beach Road North or Sandy Beach Road proper.

A question. So we would, if this as amended is voted in, We would have no parking at all from Paradise to the end of the Sandy Beach. And then the people who want to park their boat trailers, because the boat trailer lot is full, they would not be able to park anywhere else. They'd have to go out, find some place in town to park, right?

Or go on the north end and launch where they have 20 spots.

And do you consider that the... Trailer parking is as hazardous up by, say, Rotary Park as it would be down where the people are walking across to the beach and have houses all along there. Because beyond a certain point, there are no houses. There are some shops, but they don't have a lot of traffic.

Yeah, there's a lot of, when you have the three lanes of trailers, so you have a trailer parked on the side and you have a trailer coming in, a trailer coming out, it's very busy. And then you have the trailers turning around in Rotary Park. That to me is one of the risks. Your park is full and they come into Rotary and they turn around to head back in to try to find their spot on Sandy Beach Road. I just think it's not an ideal location for trailer trailer parking and trailer movement. So there's a motion, but there's currently no second. Oh, yes, Lisa.

I will second. Okay. So if I understand it, this is a new line, Sandy Beach Road North, trailer parking is prohibited.

Yes.

Period.

Is it the intention that the seasonal component does not apply to the prohibition on trailers?

That's what I was gonna ask next, yeah. So right now this would be a year-round prohibition on trailers?

Yes, I think I would be open for discussion on time-boxing it. I do feel the challenges we have are summer-related when we have the highest volume. But I want to make sure that we're keeping things all so simple for Chief and his you know, group to manage as well. So I, you know, I'd be open to thoughts on the time box part on trailers. I intended it to be year-round just because of the, just, I guess I hadn't thought about putting it in a time bracket.

In my mind, this is going too far at this point. The safety component that we have where we've got the boat launch and the turnaround and all the ins and outs and even going 15 feet beyond Paradise, that all makes sense because that's where we have all of the coming and going traffic. I do know that Sandy Beach Road is narrow, especially when it gets parked up, but at the same time, at that point, you're talking about people going one direction or another. There's not as much turning around, there's not as much cross traffic, there's not as many pedestrians trying to cross there. Plus with what Mr. Bartlett pointed out, it would be going a long ways to find a place to park a trailer if the trailer spots are full. So for those reasons, this particular amendment I'm going to be against.

Can I ask whether you've actually watched the boats go through Rotary Park when we've had very large events to see all of the boats that go through there and the safety? That's where my biggest safety is, the way that the traffic patterns have flowed to make it work for those with the trailers is really not, that's, I mean, they have to go through an active park to turn around to go park. I just think that's, to me, it's one of the biggest safety issues with allowing the trailer parking to swing back through on Sandy Beach.

Oh, no, I agree that there's probably room for improvement. And with the work session that we had yesterday, I think there's things that can be done to address it in the future. But I don't think that prohibiting all trailer parking on Sandy Beach all the time, I don't think that's the right answer right now. But I'm only one person.

Lisa?

So I guess my thoughts on this are, I do think a seasonality might make some sense. I'm in support of this, and the reason I'm in support of this is not so much a public safety, but a lake capacity. I think DNR establishes the parking size for boat launches based on an understanding of what all the boat launches are on the lake, and how much the lake can really handle in terms of boat traffic and people operating boats safely on the lake and having that be a safe experience. And I think we, in addition to the number of boat trailer parking spots that we have, that DNR has allowed in our boat launch area, we rent out spaces for other individuals, and I don't remember how many it is, but I know we rent trailer parking spots in the Sandy Beach Park parking lot. So that's additional trailers that can be launching there. So that's already, we're already sort of permitting people to go beyond the number that DNR would have set. And so I feel like protecting the lake, it would be more protective of lake and boat recreation to limit or prohibit trailers, trailer parking on Sandy Beach Road. I do think, again, because to me it's tied to boat launching and boat recreation, that a seasonality would probably be appropriate. But that's the reason I'm in support of prohibiting trailer parking.

You know, Lisa, I'm glad you brought that up. One of the things that I found to be Also to add on to the DNR, they have the maximum access standards which I just mentioned in one of our earlier meetings. Our town chief shared he has 30 hours of patrol time per month. and roughly split. He didn't have an exact split between land and water patrol. But let's just say it was 50-50, which is kind of what he said. And that gives us 15 hours on the lake. And when you're on the lake, you have two officers, because that's what's required in order to manage when you have to pull up to a boat, get on their boat, check all their things. So let's just say we're roughly getting seven hours of patrol time on the lake with a current uh set of standards that we are not abiding by because we are allowing a lot of extra parking um of trailers and so you're bringing up i think a really a very relevant point also like i um i think about the safety on sandy beach park road which is what we're talking about because it's on the road but the the lake safety and unfortunately we just don't have the bandwidth. The town doesn't have the bandwidth to really patrol at a much higher extent and so I think, so I agree with you that that is a really important aspect for also considering this particular amendment.

I'm not sure I understand that. In other words, you want to reduce the number of boats on the lake?

Yes. Yeah, the DNR actually sets standards of how many boats can, like we were only given 16 parking, 16, 15 parking spaces when we were building our new launch. The town has 28. They count the number of boats that are applied to the residents on the lake and other Parameters a city with has been given a number as an example and we cannot exceed that so they control they have a very sophisticated and now there's a day like 22 criteria and so they tell lakes what they can have for density for safety on the lake and so Ours are established by the number of slots we have at our launches, formerly at our launches.

The purpose of restricting trailer parking on Sandy Beach would not be for safety purposes. It would be to reduce the number of boats on the lake by discouraging people with boats to come down and...

It's an outcome of both.

Well, I would return to my original position that we should not put restrictions on public property unless we've got a good reason, such as safety, which I don't really see on the northern, you know, with trailer. But that, I didn't even expect that we would be talking about reducing the number of boats on the lake. I mean, that seems to be somewhat of a stretch, that's all. And so I would oppose the restriction of parking.

So I've got a historical perspective that maybe might help clarify some things. One of the iterations of Sandy Beach redevelopment included on Sandy Beach Road Parking that was slanted to prevent trailers Mm-hmm and those slanted parkings were going to go along the areas that we are actually referring to and not I mean even Just I think it was even up a little bit further than paradise, but I could be wrong didn't we discuss last night increasing the parking spaces for boats and No, not boats. Cars only? Just cars. Vehicles.

Okay, not trailers.

Right. So I don't want to get in trouble with DNR and potentially, because I don't know how many people know this, but it is the town that polices the lake. We do not. So if their capacity is only so much, then we need to be sensitive to that as well as not try to cause more problems with the DNR than we can handle.

Well, has DNR requested a reduction of trailer spaces in order to cut down the number of boats? Has that been in front of us as a proposition? Okay.

It's just our... All right about it. All right. We haven't received such communication from the DNR.

You have?

Have not. Okay.

The points about the... DNR mandating spaces at a launch are true. I have talked with a number of people in the Lake Mills area over the years about the DNR's opinion of the lake's capacity, and I don't know that I've ever run into someone who thinks the DNR is correct. Most people think that the lake, most of the people in the Lake Mills area that I have talked to about this topic in general over the years have thought that the DNR is far too restrictive with their numbers. But the point is, true, it is well taken, it is true that that is what the DNR limit is.

Okay, any other discussion? We have a motion to amend by Mary Schmager for no trailer parking on Sandy Beach Road, a second by Lisa Curler. So I think we'll, no other discussion. We will take this one to a roll call, please.

Ms. Curler?

No.

Mishmaker I. Miss Quidno, no. Mr Coots, no. Mr Bartlett, no. Motion fails. OK.

So next we have the amended whether any other amendments. Or any other changes. So then we have our amended ordinance 1292 and the amendment includes we're going to have the first sentence from main street to the western property line of 137 sandy beach road next line from may 1st to september 30th of each year from 15 feet to the east of paradise drive to the western property line of 345 sandy beach road known as Sandy Beach Road Park, said property line being beyond the western limits of the boat launch parking lot as the new ordinance on the table. So did I capture that correctly, Dan? OK. So do I have a motion for the amended ordinance?

I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 1292 with the two approved amendments. Mr. Coutts will second.

Okay. So we have a motion by Lisa Curler, a second by Greg Coutts. Any discussion on the full ordinance as it's written, revised or amended, I should say.

Would like to add some comments. I'm in full support of this as amended I think the seasonality is is important to address the public safety issue. So I and I appreciate Mary Highlighting this area by the golf court cart crossing so we can refine this a little bit. I do think we should have a future discussion on trailer parking. But we've made a lot of changes in this part of the city in the last month and we're hearing a lot from citizens about it and so maybe that's just something we can save for another day. It doesn't mean we can't do it sometime in the future. So that was why I voted no on the Third Amendment.

Thanks for your comments, Lisa. Any other discussion?

Yes, Jim. With a view that The purpose of this is safety. I haven't seen enough to convince me that it's really a safety issue. We haven't had two or three a week or something, however many there might be, that would indicate it was really a safety issue. And we certainly, I don't think, should be passing parking restrictions just to help reduce the number of boats on the lake. And whose opinion is too many or not enough is not our decision, certainly. So for that reason, I would oppose this no parking. Just for clarification.

Mr. Bartlett that that amendment did not pass It's it's the ordinance is going forward with the two proposed amendments. I realize the amendment didn't pass Yep, so it's not included in the ordinance language, but the what we're voting on now is no parking Seasonality with the seasonality change stay as well between those in those boundaries as well as the change in the limits regarding the east side of Paradise Drive, correct? Correct

So I would everyone is clear on what we are voting on just make sure the ordinance that we have that's amended Okay any other discussion on the overall ordinance as amended, okay, then we'll do a roll call please Mish maker aye Miss Quidno aye Mr.. Coots aye Mr.. Bartlett no Miss killer aye motion passes for one aye Okay, thank you everyone for a very robust discussion on that particular subject. And I know that we do have a lot of work ahead of us on Sandy Beach, so I'm certain we will have a lot of discussions regarding impacts and what happens when we make some new decisions down there. Okay, our next item is announcements and recommendations for future agendas. So City Council, anything you have for announcements, recommendations, and then we'll turn it to Drake to see what he has also on his radar screen.

Yes, Michelle. I think kind of following up with what Lisa said, I think a conversation about how we can create a safer Sandy Beach Road in a different way should be discussed. Okay.

Anything else?

I would just add to that, not the next agenda, but I know staff are going to be working on some additional things for us for Sandy Beach redevelopment. And I know there's been some other suggestions regarding safety. I think Chief Schroeder received some suggestions regarding lighting, all kinds of things. So I guess I would just look forward to hearing any other ideas, you know, as we keep talking about this project on broader safety. So just, I guess, echoing what Michelle is saying.

I do have one announcement, or I should just say a heads up. I'll be working with Drake on establishing some dates. It's going to come quick, but the performance review process, as you may recall, begins in August, at the end of August. And so Drake and I will be working on getting our dates set up soon so that we have that all on our calendar. just so you know that that is in progress. And then we still have our assignment to work on our strategy work, and so we've got that still, we've been doing some small number of Exchanges to get that kind of thought out for if there's any work we need to do with citizens or otherwise this fall We will have a plan in place. Yes, Michelle.

Thank you in that for some reason reminded me The library board would like to have a work session with the City Council regarding their fundraising efforts Just so that we are all on the same page I know that the there are several of us who well I'm on the board and I Some have attended a board meeting, but I think that the library board wants to make sure that we can Get the same message at the same time So I think that is coming up as a possible date I will be checking City Council's availability on July 7th immediately prior to the City Council meeting That was the library board's request.

Okay So look out for an email from us

So, Drake, anything that we have coming up that we should be aware of on future agenda items other than our Sandy Beach update, which we will be all anxiously waiting for?

We'll have a consideration of a bridge loan for the wastewater treatment plant. to pay for costs prior to the the full borrowing for construction of the of the plant, so we're incurring costs And so the bridge loan will take us it'll be you know, essentially a construction loan that will seek authorization for it to cover costs while we wait for the Clean water fund loan timeline Okay

Well, I think that concludes our work for this evening, so I officially call the meeting adjourned. 8-16.