Common Council - Regular Meeting

Testing, one, two.

So that's partially why we... Okay. Okay. Okay.

All right, sorry.

It was like a big move or something. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Brian told me you ordered that for me. Thanks. All right.

Yeah, no, no, no.

Yeah, no, that would be, I mean, they went to, they went to planning commission, planning commission approved all of them, or recommended all of them.

Well, they're under,

They are what they are.

I didn't realize we're missing Michelle today.

Yeah. Yeah, she mentioned last time that she wasn't going to be here. Her cruise. Remember, she was going on their anniversary cruise. Yeah.

Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Are we going to be on video? I don't know. We don't know. Okay.

I think we're going to start it.

Wide shot only still.

In case any of the staff doesn't know who we are, we've got our name tags up here. It doesn't look like we have any non-staff tonight.

Okay, I have 630 I am going to call the Lake Mill City Council meeting for August 4th 2026 to order Can we have a roll call please?

Curler here Ms. Schmager?

Here. Mr. Kutz?

Here.

Mr. Bartlett?

Here.

And Ms. Quednow previously informed staff that she'd be unavailable for this evening's meeting.

Thank you. Can we all please stand for Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

So our first item for this evening is the correction and acceptance of the city council meeting minutes from July 21st, 2026. Are there any comments or questions for those? Okay, we'll accept those into the record. Next we have the board and committee reports and we have two, the planned commission minutes from April 28th and library board from June 15th of 26th. Anything on those two items? Okay. Sure.

I was contacted by the operator of the food truck at Sandy Beach about the possibility of changing the hours for the fee for entering the beach. So that may be the subject of a future resolution. Thank you.

I had largely the same things that Lisa reported out there was one that I wanted to call out to about South Ferry Drive parking Thank you, I also had correspondence regarding an interest in learning about public nuisances and

Manasha, we've sent one more up who's pairing with somebody from Columbus to continue providing aid to Manasha. The last update we received is about 75% of their service area has had power restored, but the remaining 25% will be the most difficult area in which to bring back online. Other than that, I will be going to the Chief Executive's meeting, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities here, I believe August, 20th or 21st for a couple of days. For the update to the city council, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities does have a new executive director. The longtime executive director, Jerry, has retired, and Emily McFarland, the former mayor of Watertown, has been hired as the executive director of the league. So looking forward to that. Otherwise, if there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Any questions? I would like one update. Can you share how we're progressing on the new technology for meetings?

We're still probably several weeks out. I believe we're hoping to be able to get a crew in to begin installation at the end of August here. We are trying to We're trying to schedule around meetings that are occurring in the room since they'll have to pretty much take over the room for several days in order to complete the installation. So we're still optimistic for yet this fall that we'll be fully back online and we're still working with the company. I just met with them today. So we have done final tech checks and compatibility checks for AV and in preparation for them being on site. So we should be in August or September having them on site to begin the process of installation.

Thank you. Okay, so we're going to move on to council business. And our first item is Resolution 26-64. So Misty, could you read that please?

City Council Resolution 26-64, Confirmation of City Manager Appointment of Andrew Crisler as Cemetery Sexton.

Drake, is there a question?

Okay, thank you. I'm pleased to bring forward Andrew Crisler as the appointment to the Cemetery Sexton. In years past, this role has been filled by a part-time individual that has been paid through a stipend. We're incorporating it into the roles of our current parks foreman and bringing that to a full-time position as part of their duties. Andrew has been doing much of the work already in the interim since our Sexton retired and he's made a lot of progress and improvements on how we are operating out the cemetery out there and I think he'll do an excellent job for us. He's in the audience tonight if you have any questions of him as well as Brian but my recommendation is to approve the appointment.

Thank you.

Greg? Drake, I think he'll do an excellent job as well. Just for the record, because most kids don't grow up and say, I want to be a cemetery sextant, could you please just give a brief summary of what the sextant does?

Sure. Essentially, they're responsible for coordinating of burials, selling of plots, the administrative function of managing the cemetery. Also involved in maintenance of the cemetery, communicating with our contractors as well as the individuals that are scheduling for services. So that is in general that, and also managing the records of the cemetery. That's a general overview.

Thank you. I can also provide some history on that. Some people wanted to donate some cemetery plots to the American Legion. And there were three brothers and sisters and so forth in the previous sexton. It was very helpful in providing some quick claim deeds, doing the research on the title and so forth to put it all together, make it go smoothly. And so we received those contributions. We appreciated the work he did on that.

Lisa. Just a couple comments. I'm also in full support of Andrew. He's certainly got the skills to do this work, and it sounds like he's already been doing some of it. And there's a lot of beautiful, mature trees in our cemetery, so I think his skills as an arborist will also come in handy there. I guess one comment I just would like to make for the record and for us to think about as a council is we frequently have a lot of needs from our community for our parks and forestry staff. And so this will be a little bit additional work for Andrew without adding a new person. So I just want us to be mindful of the level of staff resources that we have for parks and forestry and make sure that we're not overtaxing them or that we think at some point about when we might need to add to those staff resources.

One remark I like to make about cemeteries is I've read an article in the newspaper about a rash of thefts from cemeteries of brass and metal markers. Brass in particular, which is popular for veterans' markers and all, have been stolen because they have good salvage value. Do we have, I mean, I've been there many times, visiting graves and so forth, Is there, there's no particular access restriction and have we had any problem with theft or vandalism?

We haven't had any, I haven't received any reports of theft or vandalism out there. You are correct that access isn't, is largely unrestricted for people who are looking to visit, to visit. So yeah, Certainly is possible, but it's not an issue that we've come come across currently. I haven't had a problem with it.

That's good I'll make a motion to approve resolution 26-64 which is confirmation of the appointment of Andrew Chrysler as our cemetery Sexton Mr.. Coutts will second We have a motion by Lisa curler a second bright Greg Coates So if we do a roll call please mish maker

Aye. Mr. Gutz?

Aye.

Mr. Bartlett? Aye. Ms. Curler? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Our next item on the agenda is Resolution 26-65.

City Council Resolution 26-65, acceptance of donation of $5,250 from Crystal Farms for the installation of a water bottle filler at Wallace Park.

So do we have commentary on that?

Representatives from Crystal Farms reached out to me as they were looking for a way to celebrate their 100th anniversary through a donation to the city for a project that we had. The Parks Board had in the past discussed how they would like to have a water bottle filler at Wallace Park. Um, it's one of those things that's, that's nice to have, but can be difficult to incorporate into our, you know, day-to-day operating budget. So Brian did find, uh, did get receive a quote. That's where the $5,250, um, amount comes from a quote for a, the installation of a water bottle, um, filler. So, um, the, the, um, committee that was overseeing this at crystal farms did approve the donation and asked to move forward. Um, So obviously we'll be responsible for maintenance of it after installation and they did ask that a plaque be put up commemorating the donation so we would work with the donor, Crystal Farms, for an adequate plaque with the appropriate language and then obviously citing it appropriately at Wallace Park. But staff recommends approval and thanks Crystal Farms for their generosity.

Any questions or comments about this donation? Lisa?

Just a quick question. I'm assuming this will be at the concessions building and we already have water service there. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Well, I know as a former city council representative on Parks Board that I'm going through the comprehensive outdoor recreation plan, which I know is on our agenda a little later on. this evening that Wallace Park was looked upon as being a really well outfitted park except for this missing water feature, water bottle feature. And so super appreciate Crystal Farms donation of $5250 and then also the work that was required to get that quote and consider it as an enhancement for the park. I do know that Jacob Slobby, who's the current chair of the Parks Board, was really advocating for this amongst many great, wonderful opportunities we have for improvements in our parks. But I'm certain it'll be used quite extensively with what this park has available in it. So super appreciate the donation.

I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2665, acceptance of a donation of $52.50 from Crystal Farms for the installation of a water bottle filler at Wallace Park.

And I will second. So we have a motion by Greg Kutz and a second by Mary Schmager. Roll call, please. Mr. Kutz?

Aye.

Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Schmager? Aye.

I motion passes for zero.

Uh, next we have resolution 26 dash 66.

Misty city council resolution 26 dash 66 conditional use permit declarations and findings petitioners lakeside Lutheran high school amendment to conditional use permit for site improvements. And in addition to 31 Woodland beach road, Lake mills, Wisconsin parcel number 2 4 6 0 7 1 3 1 4 4 4 0 0 0.

Okay, so is Troy this one? Yep.

Good evening, council. Lakeside Lutheran is proposing to make some improvements to their existing parcel there, including a couple additions to the building, a concession stand, and some improvement to their parking, adding a few stalls, but kind of relocating a little bit there. And in keeping with our ordinance, if a property has a conditional use on it and they make... some adjustments, uh, enlargements additions. Um, they're required to come back to city council for an amendment to the existing, excuse me, conditional use. We've done a few of these recently with some other places. So, um, there is some representatives here from lakeside. If you guys have any questions, but this was more of a, um, ordinance fulfillment. We'll still go through the whole BSO process for all the building process and the requirements by ordinance.

Are there any questions from council? Lisa?

I have some questions related to parking and I don't know if Troy can answer them or if maybe there's a representative here, but I guess I just Greg mentioned that we had had some correspondence constituent correspondence regarding challenges with parking and impacting mailboxes when there's events at Lakeside Lutheran and it looks like this project is going to have a net increase in parking spots But during construction, you know, maybe a reduction in that and so I'm just wondering if there's been any conversation with neighbors or how Parking concerns are going to be addressed during construction.

Do you guys want to take this one?

Thank you. You may need to turn the microphone on as well.

Yep. I think it's on, yeah. Yeah, Jason Day with Accel Engineering, and then Kirk. with the school representing this project tonight. In regards to the parking, the first phase of the project is going to be installing the parking off the bat and getting the parking installed before the building projects start, just so there isn't a loss in parking. So the parking project's gonna happen first to shift the parking to the east so it's out of the way of what would be the multi-purpose room expansion on the east side. I think it's about 13,000 square feet and some change. So we don't lose that parking during construction, if that answers your question.

So you're saying that there isn't gonna be a time when even a short term during construction where there'll be fewer parking spots for students and teachers?

That's what we're trying to avoid. It's going to be an equivalency of parking that we're shifting over, plus we're trying to add as much as we can as well. So there will be a net game in parking, but to avoid losing those stalls, like I said, the parking's going to move first, and then the other projects will follow that.

Okay, thank you. And then I appreciate that there will be a net increase in parking, and is it your hope that that would reduce... some of the pressure on the neighboring streets when there's big events?

That's the hope. I mean, we want to try and maximize off-street parking as much as we, excuse me, as much as we can, and provide the parking on site, and that's what we're trying to accomplish with the area that's left between the school and the athletic fields to the east.

Great, thank you very much.

Any other questions?

I would just to make sure the city council receives the Same information I provided to the plan commission. The city stormwater, the new ordinance does come into effect on the addition on this. So the addition must comply with the 80% TSS. That ordinance does not apply to the existing site, so it makes it for kind of a blended TSS removal of 63.5%. It is my opinion that you are able to place a condition on on the conditional use to require compliance with the 80% to the greatest extent possible within the physical confines of the site for where the pond is located. It is an improvement over existing conditions. Right now, essentially, there's no TSS removal for it, so it is an improvement to 63.5%, but because of the conditional use, it is within the council's authority to place a condition Upon the project in order to to meet the 80% threshold that if I if this site was undeveloped Currently and was being developed right now that it would be required to meet but it does meet the existing code as written and approved by the City Council

So any, go ahead, Lisa.

Just a follow-up to that for Drake or Jim. Was there any public comment or any discussion at the plan commission, and what was the plan commission vote?

There was one public comment. The plan commission recommended approval unanimously. They did discuss the stormwater issue, but ultimately decided that the compliance with the ordinance as written was adequate for the project.

Okay.

Any other questions? OK. I'll do a roll call, please.

I think we need a motion.

Oh, we need a motion.

Excuse me. I'll make the motion to accept Resolution 2666 as written, amending the conditional use request for Lakeside Lutheran.

I will second the motion. So we have a motion by Greg Kutz, a second by Mary Schmager. No further discussion now. Let's roll call, please.

Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Schmager? Aye. Mr. Kutz? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Resolution 26-67. Misty.

City Council Resolution 26-67, approval of the City of Lake Mills Comprehensive Outdoor Recreational Plan 2026 to 2030. So do we have Brian or Drake?

This is the result of months of work by the Parks Board. Staff did go through it after the recommendation and did attempt to find any spelling errors or grammatical errors. Those types of things can be resolved if we find them in the future as well, but it does reflect the recommendations of the Parks Board. The comprehensive outdoor recreation plan is required for eligibility for certain grants, which is why we went through the update process for it. So this one will be... in effect through 2030, so it'll make us eligible throughout that time period. Not that updates or amendments can't happen in the interim, but this is a roadmap of sorts for desired amenities and expansion of park space and what the recreational amenities within the community we would target for potential grant opportunities or improvements over both the time period that's listed as well as kind of a 20 year planning horizon for recreational amenities within the community. So the Parks Board recommends approval.

I would like to make a comment regarding the comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. A big thank you to all of the Parks Board members and those community members that came to the open sessions to provide input and feedback and also to Lisa Curler for getting it over the finish line. So thank you. That was a lot of work, but there were some loose ends when you joined on the parks and super appreciate you Getting it to conclusion.

Oh, yeah, very happy to finish it up, and I I guess I would Give a shout out right back to Mary. She Helped lead the effort at the parks board and also created the summary document Which I think is really handy if you already had some familiarity with the previous corp that was a quick It's a quick and easy read to see what's different and maybe what some projects that we'd envisioned five years ago that we're no longer thinking about and and and then new things I also really appreciate how The goals that we established last winter for Sandy Beach Park, the timing was perfect to put those goals into this document. And so now people can refer back to that and see our goals for that redevelopment project.

I guess I would clarify just for anybody who may be watching or reading this plan that this is not like a parks capital improvement plan. This isn't a schedule of improvements that are going to happen within this time period. It's a list of desired amenities, amenities that if funding were to become available or if growth were to occur in certain areas and a new park was dedicated, the types of things that we would be targeting for improvements or new amenities in new parks that we may have. So this makes us eligible for grants, but it does not obligate us to a schedule or a need to complete any project that may be listed within it. And it doesn't prohibit the city from undertaking a project that may not be listed within it.

Yes, Jim. I'd like to know if there are any contentious issues or disagreements among the parks commission members, or any input from citizens objecting to what the parks board decided.

There was a number of sessions that the board received public comment at. I can't say that there was never any disagreement or conversations during it, but the Parks Board was certainly working towards consensus as they were building the document. So I don't remember anything particularly controversial that came up during their deliberations.

Was the Parks Board unanimous in their vote to approve?

Yes, they were unanimous in their recommendation.

There are a couple of Remarks here that say consider and consider adding by adding by corrective when when there are considerations What what's the effect of that of adding consider? I mean you can always consider anything but is this is stronger than the merely you know consideration that is a proposal and

I think for those items, it was intentional to use that language to soften it as something that if the opportunity arose, that a conversation should occur over whether to pursue such an item. Its inclusion in the corp does make it eligible for potential grants, even listed as a consideration.

But it would still take a vote?

That's correct, yes. Anything within here that was going to happen would require City Council approval.

And based on our actions we've already taken tonight, we've already checked off one of the items that's in the corp with having the new water bottle filler at Wallace Park. So that was certainly on the list of desires.

And I will answer your question about as far as debate. I would say the number one conversation that I think causes continually the most debate is just Timetable by which to achieve all of these wonderful improvements that you know are noted in the court plan and more so in the in the spirit of boy, it sure would be nice if we had a lot of donors and a lot of you know additional funding sources because our our parks really are great but we have a lot of a lot of other things that we'd select to do to make them even greater and so it was more i think just uh... you know did that push and pull around it so it i would say it's a well and i'll call a wish list but it is a very comprehensive uh... like set of ideas and ideals that if we actually could have an unlimited budget we would love to pursue all of these in the and if we had enough st staff and whatnot. So I think it was, I would say the disagreement on what is in it, most all, or what the components are, I feel there was strong consensus and direction and a lot of great input from the citizens. And it's more the how do you get all of this done kind of makes that the challenging part of the conversation. And that's where I know Brian, as he gets working on is the budget and the CIP coming up will be choosing and helping to frame what Investments we make in which aspects of the things that are in the corp And I think sandy beach will be a big player on with a lot of the money But then what else would be the highest priority and it'll be stuff that I'm certain is listed in the court There's one item here under forestry.

It said added promote community outreach and education does that cost money? What's what sort of education are we talking about holding meetings or? publicity in the newspaper or website with what kind of Community outreach and what sort of education are you proposing or are they promoting?

What page are you on Jim?

So I can I know this is chapter six. It's it's the Comprehensive outdoor recreation plan.

It's one of the changes that's listed in this summary I can take a stab at that. I know Some of this came from parks board discussion and also council discussion i think in the last couple of years there's been increasing awareness and interest in our urban forest and protecting mature trees and so i think it's just kind of a bullet point to say let's you know let's try to um communicate to our citizens more about what the city is doing with our you know how we're managing our forests but that wouldn't involve hiring an arborist or something like that we're i'm just

thinking about spending money.

Right, I don't, I mean, I think it's written in sort of an open-ended way, so it's really just kind of encouraging that communication, and Brian and his team can, you know, be thinking about that as they're doing different projects, how, you know, is there an educational component to this? Could we put an article in the newspaper as we're doing a project? I don't think it was envisioned as anything that would, you know, require hiring a staff person, for example, or requiring a cost.

Okay.

But good question. I'd like to make a motion to adopt Resolution 26-67, which is approval of the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan for 2026 to 2030.

Mr. Kutz will second.

I have a motion by Lisa Curler, second by Greg Kutz. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Ms. Curler?

Aye. Ms. Schmager? Aye. Mr. Kutz? Aye. Mr. Bartlett? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Okay, our next item, E, is Resolution 26-68.

City Council Resolution 26-68, authorizing the city manager to execute a task order with the city engineer and city planner for the design of the Sandy Beach Improvement Project.

So I'll turn this to you. Sure. This is, we could call it the kickoff of the The calendar for our Sandy Beach Improvement Project. So this would, Action Tonight would authorize me to execute task orders with both Meat and Hunt and Strand Associates for the design of the Sandy Beach Improvement Project. There are a number of attachments included. One from, jointly from Strand and Meat and Hunt and then one from each of them with more detail on the different responsibilities within their scope of work. I will note that in the, which one is it titled? The Sandy Beach redevelopment design fee proposal, you will see some items in red. So there are some items that the city council can remove from the design scope of work in order to reduce costs. One of them that came up frequently was the designing of the second parking lot. We don't have to design that now. We will design, for example, the stormwater management as if that would be constructed in the future or as if essentially impermeable surface would be included in it, but it does not need to be incorporated now. There are other items, and some of these items, we can, as we get to decision points throughout the process, maybe they become more more clear as we decide whether or not, for example, we want to repurpose the existing shelters down there instead of installing two new shelters, things like that. So that is the proposal before you. There's likely adequate capital funds to take us through the end of the year, ideally. There's probably, $460,000 in funds dedicated towards Sandy Beach that we have on hand for design-related purposes, and then the balance, either we'd have to, if it was all being billed in the remainder of 26, if we got to that point and made enough progress there, then we would Like we come back for a recommendation for use of fund balance for the remainder of it, or we would incorporate it into the capital improvement plan for 2027. So some of that is dependent on how, if there's any scope reductions tonight, but they're both representatives from both Strand and Mead and Hunt are here tonight. If you have any questions regarding their proposals, otherwise, as I said, in order to meet the aggressive timeline that city council has stated that they'd like. We really do have to continue moving forward and we can't do so without executing a work effort from the designers of it. So I'm not saying that you have to make a decision tonight, but each time we don't make a decision, the implementation of the project does get delayed and makes that aggressive schedule less feasible.

Question. They've already done a lot of work on this project, as we saw in our work session. How is that authorized? And you're asking for new authority. Right. What authority do you already have?

Well, previously the city council had asked for the concept planning stage to be completed, and so that's what they've completed and been paid for tonight. This is hard design of the project, so getting to the 30%, 60%, 90% plan sets with design decisions made by the city council to eventually create a biddable package to bid out for actual construction. So this is... This is taking it from the concept stage that we've been at for the last couple of months to hard design for an eventual project to take place to be able to solicit bids and solicit pricing from the producers of prefabricated products, things of that nature.

So we already exhausted the funds that were allocated for the design? Exactly.

We've completed the concept design work, and so they've executed on that work effort, and they've been paid for that work effort. This is for the actual design of the concept plan.

So I kind of look at this, Jim, as I'm going to remodel my kitchen. And so we kind of have a schematic of how we want our kitchen to be laid out. And so we paid for that. And now we're going to have to pick, we'll make sure the plumbing works in the right, make sure we can put our sink exactly where we think and where we can put our exhaust where we think. And then what are we picking for our cabinets and picking for our things and for our countertops. So we've got the blueprint and the general concept, and now this is taking it to the next level where it's actually starting to pick materials and design actual, does it fit actually between the trees of when we laid on the tree plan, which they started to do? Does it work? And then do we need to shift to this or that? So it's getting to the point where we're actually going to execute on getting a bulldozer in there and being prepared to get the bulldozer in there and start putting improvements into the park. So that's how I look at it. We've done the kitchen schematic, and now we're working on the nuts and bolts about actually bringing it to life. Is that a good way, a fair way? I don't know. I should look to our stranded mean nun folks, but I kind of look at it as we're next in that phase of the paper is just the high schematic, and now we're ready to get into the details of figuring out the exact measurements in the right spot and the colors and look and feel and all of that starts with this next.

I think you know everybody here. Brandon was trained Dustin with Meat and Hunt, this is Mark Sauer with Meat and Hunt. I think it's a great analogy as to, you know what you want to build, but now you've got to make sure that it fits in the space and you can turn it over to someone to actually build it the way that you're expecting. I'm sorry?

And that we can afford it.

Well, that was what we had talked about in some of the concept level, and then you had some kind of order of magnitude on costs, on presumed costs for element items. And those were things that we were working from in developing the details that you see before you. So obviously, Strand was working on a lot of the site civil details. We were working on landscape architecture, the fitment of facilities, the coordination with the various vendors, helping you with product selection, et cetera. That's all a part of this package. But ultimately, Strand, as they've done with many engineering projects, need to get a plan set together that can be provided to potential contractors to evaluate and bid on to build what you want built in the kind of order that you want it or the timing that you want it. I'm looking at Brandon on.

I just thought I'd elaborate a little bit on the items that are in red that some of the ways that we were looking at this is like, what are the elements that are critical to like accomplishing the goal and the nature of this concept? You know, one of the things that Drake had pointed out and Lisa pointed out is that parking lot B we're calling, it doesn't really need to be built to accomplish the over in the short term, you know, the next year and a half, let's call it, or two years to accomplish the overall goal of the park redevelopment. Some of the other things in red was like the restroom building that there is a restroom building there However, if when one of the exhibits on the packet tonight had the concept line work Overlaid that if you were to build the concept line work exactly where it is shown you would be overlapping the existing restroom We could shift say the pavilion slightly and leave the existing restroom You know I did read through the parks board recommendation on Sandy beach many times and I know they were recommending a new restroom. Um, however, you know, are the design fee for bringing in a new restroom, citing it, grading it, selecting pro likely a pre manufactured structure going through all the design options that are kind of outlined in the meet and hunt memo for the main pavilion be kind of similar for a pre manufactured restroom. you know, the $17,000 that we have in there could go a long way towards, say, renovating the existing restroom. You know, these are just some of the things that why these things were in red is that Drake already pointed out you have existing pavilions that we could, you know, in the next two years leave in place and have the concept kind of marry up to. And if you wanted to build something new in the future, say, three years from now or two and a half years from now, you know, we wouldn't necessarily have to work on those things right now. And it was also in an effort to, all of these red design items come along with associated construction costs that if you were to start stripping things out of the design effort, those construction costs would be stripped out as well.

I think also, Jim, to your point about cost is one of the things that both me and Hunt and Strand will be helping us with is product selection and what what's kind of the base that we can do and then what can be added to different amenities throughout the park that may add aesthetic value or maybe recreational value or something like that, but also comes with increased cost. And so as we go through this process, that'll be some of the Decision points is where does the council want to invest its dollars? What is not? considered worth, you know an extra and Kind of what product selection we need to do in order to marry our vision with our budget and so that is kind of something that they'll help us with as well as they're coordinating and just talking with with vendors and Yeah, looking at potential products is, you know, if we get to a point where we say, you know, this might be nice, but we don't need it, you know, what we can back off of that or, you know, what can be added, what's important to the council ultimately.

When you're putting together your designs, do you take into account life expectancy? You know, you say, like this building, well, how long is it going to last before we have to replace it? I know that most public buildings have an expected date of, know it's past the point of repair we're gonna have to replace it or the use is expected to expand to such great amount that it won't go any longer accommodate what the expected use is have you any of those considerations yeah hi Mark Sauer meeting hunt yeah absolutely that's part of the kind of the cost-benefit that's run during the design process I think adding into what they said

The biggest gap between the concept and what we'll move into schematic design is alongside the tree survey that's being done is actual survey on the ground, right? So that puts things in real perspective as to where they are. And so marrying those two together, that's the big jump between concept. But we review the different building options that are out there. Generally speaking, new buildings, depending if you go cedar or if you go steel or if you go some composite, those are going to have different lifespans. That's something we can help you advise. I think that's why there are line items in there for all of the Mead and Hunt architectural services, because that takes a specific architect. Or if it's on the inside, it takes an interior designer, right? Lake Mills does not have those staff people that can necessarily review all of those things. And so in that way, Mead and Hunt and then Strand on the civil side are acting as your representatives to get you through this process. So part of that as well is the evaluation of the existing buildings, as Brandon's talking about. Our scope currently looks at replacing that restroom building, but if we want to evaluate it for its potential use, Certainly we have those services, we can bring people out and have them do that, provide you with a cost, and then that's something that you all can weigh. That comes with time and potential amendments to the current scope in front of you. The current scope looks at the potential to eliminate it and provide a new building per the plan that was discussed previously, so.

I have a couple thoughts. Just kind of continuing on what you brought up, Jim, which I thought was an excellent point. Related is the maintenance requirements for any new structures. We would want them to be ideally low maintenance so that they don't require a lot of work for our staff to maintain them over time. I'm looking at the first page of the combined memo where it has the four line items in red. for our consideration and I expressed this at previous meetings so I guess I'll repeat it here. I would suggest that we not go ahead with design of parking lot B area, that's the east area which is currently coincidentally level B of the manufactured home community. I don't think I know yet whether we need that much more parking or maybe we're going to want to put in a place for trailer campers. Maybe that's going to be a new revenue source. Maybe something else entirely that we haven't thought of yet, but I would recommend not funding the design of parking lot area B at this time, but as Drake and Brandon have shared previously, assume that approximate surface area will be impervious and so that our stormwater design is done right the first time, and so then we can build something impervious there, whether it ends up being a parking lot in five or 10 years, or whether it ends up being something else that involves hard surfaces. So that would be my leaning, is to not design the parking lot B at this time. I'm kind of torn on the restroom, because it was a strong recommendation of the, Parks Board do have an updated restroom with showers for people to rinse off after swimming, and that's very appealing to me and I think would be a nice amenity to have. The maintenance garage I also think is a must-have. Right now our maintenance garage is quite small, and it's close to the lake, and it's not in a good location for our staff to work on, and it doesn't have water Service so I think the new the concept plan and where the maintenance garage would go to me. That's a must-have So I would hope that we would keep that in And then the two new shelters, I'm not sure what to think about those that I guess I didn't occur to me that we could Sort of redeploy the current shelters in a different location That maybe that would reduce some design costs. So I'm not I'm not sure on that one but I guess I would lean toward maybe not having the parking lot be designed at this time.

Yeah, no, I appreciate all the work that a lot of people have put into getting it this far. I do appreciate, Drake, what you were saying a couple minutes ago, and I do agree that there's going to come a point where deciding what materials and what things look like is going to be a key decision point. But I don't think that we're at the point right now with design where we need to start making those sorts of cutting back decisions. I guess I largely agree with Lisa in my mind. parking lot B is the only thing that was kind of up in the air after all of our planning sessions, that that was kind of... It's an unknown, and... we don't even know how long it's going to take to reclaim that land even, so I guess I would agree with Lisa and I would lean also towards not including the parking lot B red line item, but all the rest of them, those are things that have been talked about that have been parts of the plan that are important to someone somewhere along the way You can debate how integral any one of those things would be but those These are all things that have come up repeatedly and things that have made it into that last concept plan and I am Very excited to move ahead with all of this Mine and I'll eventually make them make a motion to approve this when we're done with discussion minus the parking lot be line item I

On the parking lot design, it seemed like designing a parking lot is pretty simple compared to buildings. You know, you've got a big flat space out there, and we're going to pave it, I suppose, and paint it, you know, and put a fence around it and whatnot, but it would not seem to be very expensive as compared to structures. So how much would we be saving by... by not putting in a design, which doesn't have to be executed, but just adding the design. I'm not sure I know how much.

The line item is $33,800.

Okay, I can see the line item, but you want to speak to that?

You're correct. That was the design fee for the parking lot B specifically. Um, in terms of designing the parking lot, you know, what we had built into our fee is there's going to be stormwater features. Um, there's likely going to be lighting. Um, there, there may, depending on if we stick with the same parking, uh, payment features, there might be some elements of that in the design. Um, it, it is, you know, a lot of grading. Sure. You're taking a surface, you're flattening out, making sure the grades and the stormwater work. Um, there's, there's subsurface storm sewer that you have to lay out. Um, But there's more to it, like in the parking lot A area, that included this food service, or food truck pedestal area, that there's gonna be some element of a pedestal with electric service, and you gotta design the electric lines that go out there, and do those pedestals have any lighting on them? These are all the things that we're sorting through when we design it. Parking lot a item and I'm only saying this because it's you know twice as much as the parking lot B included the the two entry Boulevard little roadways and so, you know, there's quite a bit more there to the parking lot a area But yeah, the parking lot B was the the 30 sometimes you can save money by going ahead with an economy of scale You say well, we're going to do parking lot a anyway.

It's the same design questions are going to be asked about B. Would we save money by doing the whole thing now or waiting and doing a piece later? Or as Mary suggests, maybe we don't, or as Lisa suggests, maybe we don't even need that later. And so then we'd be wasting the money if we designed something we're not going to use. But is there a savings to be achieved by designing the whole thing now, even though B is not executed, the design is not actually put in place?

I would say the biggest savings would be If you were to do, say, parking lot B on its own in the future, we would have to compile a whole bidding package just for that. And so compiling a project manual of specifications and contract documents and putting it out to bid and receiving the bid and distributing the contracts and all that stuff, that would be the biggest savings. If you did it all as one big package, There might be some small, let's call it a 10% design increase to design it separately, but it wouldn't be a substantial increase in design effort to design it separately, in my opinion.

So we're just saving $33,000 in effect. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

At least as it relates to the services proposal that they put forward, so that would... Because all of the costs to actually build it on are different document that had a high level estimate for what they could all in cost. And so that would be a line item that eventually would be removed if we pull it out here, it'll pull it out here. And as we refine the scope of the elements together, then this is a moving document on.

Right how much it actually costs all in I think that's a very important point that if we were are authorized to move forward today You know at various intervals We would come back once we get to the love higher level of detail with what we think the costs are and so we'd start trimming You know we will had previously been provided was like a planning level you build some contingency And you know you're you're kind of guessing to some degree at what all these things but then as you start to truly design it's those contingencies start to narrow down and And so we would be coming back to you with, you know, we think this element is going to cost this, and this element is going to cost this, and then maybe that's at that time, say you were to move forward with some of the red items today, we could bring those forward to you and say, hey, we think this element is going to cost this, you know, $100,000 or whatever, and you'd say, well, looking at the total budget, maybe we do want to pull that one out. So we could, you know, this will be an iterative, like, cost estimating exercise as we come back to you guys with improved plans.

Also, in addition to the initial cost of building the structures design, we have the recurring maintenance cost. Do your designs take into account the difference in maintenance cost over what you install? And I think you mentioned, well, if you install wooden Bleachers that be different than steel, you know where steel would cost more to install you wouldn't have the constant Repair that would be necessary if they were made out of wood. Sure Yeah, so in your design, do you inform us of what you think that would be?

I think we're always working from the foundation that longevity is and low maintenance is a priority along with, you know, functionability and aesthetics, right? And so one of the things that we're working through is bringing you material samples that, or choices for design elements that meet those criteria and winnowing it down from an infinite number to two or three that align with your design intent and then the budgetary components of that. So, yes, wood on its own, a lot of maintenance, looks nice, weather's, you know, in a kind of nice character way, but, you know, are there elements that need composite siding, or is it stone, is it, as someone had said, steel or metal, depends on those elements, right? And if there are steel elements, it's not raw steel, are they powder coated, are they, like, all of those kind of pieces come into, you know, that, as Brandon said, an iterative process of bringing materials that align with your vision and your intent and then with budget. But it's always looking at ensuring longevity, that kind of commercial grade elements. These are, whether it's door handles or lighting fixtures or whatnot, they have to handle the elements and the rigors of public use. So we're always working through that and working with your staff on what's Easily maintained versus, you know, someone could say, well, you really should have permeable surfaces. Well, that's a great idea. However, can you maintain them? Do you have a vacuum to maintain permeable surfaces, right? That's a concern, right? It's better to have a permeable surface, but if you need a $150,000 to $200,000 piece of equipment you don't own to make sure that you can maintain it the way it's intended to be, I don't know if that's a good design choice, right? So those are the things that we would be working through with you and the staff on making sure that it can be maintained in a proper fashion without being onerous to your staff.

If I could just follow up on that last point. You started to touch on this, Dustin, but to me it will be very important. I would expect that our consultants here will be working with staff and getting their input on what it's going to take to operate any changes and new things that we do because we don't want to be making decisions that are inadvertently creating a greater workload that we don't understand. So I do want to make sure that staff are fully engaged and being given the opportunity to have input on those things as it goes along.

Absolutely. I think the kind of proposal that's been brought forward kind of assumes working with a select kind of committee to winnow things down and then things come, looking at Drake on this, that come to the council when design decisions have been made by kind of a more nimble committee. But in that is being evaluated by the city staff to make sure it aligns with their expectations and their ability to maintain.

Yeah, so we'll be meeting regularly with Meat and Hunt and strand from a staff perspective involved I've also asked Mary to sit in on many of those meetings just to keep the council perspective in there and so I you know, I think Another thing to note on these proposals is that generally they're I you know, I'm not to not to exceed amount So I'm there's not gonna be you're not gonna see We'll obviously keep costs down wherever we can, whenever possible, but on the flip side of that, I just want to reiterate the importance of decision-making when it comes time for decisions to be made. So when we're working with them, we will kind of start with design principles of longevity, maintainability, value, what is it that we can bring forward, whether that's good, better, best options, or we're starting from this and then the council can add on to it, add amenities. Structure supports, do you want to clad them in brick, things like that. We would start at the base level and then bring decision points to the council that might add budget to something for something. The easiest thing for me to think about is plazas. Plazas can look like lots of different things, lots of different materials, from a standard concrete to pavers to colored concrete, all of those things. So some of those decisions, we're going to make we're going to have recommendations with then potential options for you that to kind of decide upon when we will bring we'll go through the process that kind of that staff that that committee went through how we got to a point and have a recommendation for you but there of course will always be the city council's final decision on what something's going to look like and what's going to be incorporated. Now with that said, as far as not to exceed, that's couched in that we're meeting the timelines that we've set for ourselves. we can't hold our, we can't hold, if we're not making decisions and we're adding work and we're telling them to go back and look at things and redesign things and redo things, that'll affect our timeline and that will affect our costs. And so I just want the council to be aware that it is incumbent upon us as the city, as the client, that we've set this aggressive schedule. It is, we will have a lot of work in order to meet that to keep our costs in line as well as as well as get to implementation at the point that the council has said that they'd like to get to it.

But this resolution tonight is just to authorize you to execute task orders. I mean, we're not making these decisions as we go along on what materials we're going to use and what the design is.

There will be design decisions as you go along. This kicks off tonight. That's correct. On this particular resolution. This is the first decision of many in the design and implementation phase that we're entering. It's giving you the go-ahead. Correct. That's right.

Mary, we haven't heard, I'm sure you've got questions.

Well, sorry, I have some seasonal allergies and I was over here trying to catch my breath for a while, so I was listening intently. But first of all, I super appreciate the amount of work that's gone into providing path forward in the roles and responsibilities. There are some overlap pieces that I know I'm expecting the two of you will have to work out because I see vendors in two places and I see some things that are not clear from the materials exactly when there's a problem. Who is the one who's accountable for ensuring it's done? Although I would say that Brandon, you're kind of overall project manager, so I guess the overall big thing kind of goes with you. I think I can support pushing off the parking lot B, as a secondary set of conversations at some point in time, provided that we can find an economical way to get the parking lot. If I had to put our money somewhere, it wouldn't be making the parking lot. I wouldn't put my money there. How do we maximize the number of spaces in the spot we have and use our money to do the colored stamped concrete instead of concrete or to make it more on the citizen centric amenities of the park. And so I think those are the design things I'm sure that we'll be addressing as we move forward. I would really like to challenge, I'm going to be in support of moving forward so I appreciate Greg that you're kind of waiting for a motion here sometime. I'm going to support moving forward am concerned about the overall cost and I'm finding ways and so I appreciate the conversation around to the shelters our our goals say Updated and you know, it doesn't say everything doesn't say new but it's updated so I I think the vision for me is refreshing and new can be the way we refresh if there is a remodel and that is cost effective and smart, I'd like to hear about it, but I don't know that I'm opposed to new bathroom as an example. And so I'm intrigued by other possibilities to make things, do things to get what we want, but do them in a less costly fashion. Again, the things that are not citizen centric amenities. And then even those citizen centric ones, we are a very small city and I am worried, that we, I want to start modest in cost and add bells and whistles versus starting big and then having to dial back. I'm being very mindful of the, I know this was really high level and it had a large, the initial numbers that we proved the concept on, but we can start in a position of really being mindful on our spend and then adding as we find that we want to Enhance I think that would be my recommendation on getting when we get down to the points of detail And speaking of detail, I just wanted to share City Council we're gonna have some running to do if we're going to stick by the schedule and I should say City Council I know it's this group out here and Drake but the 30% design Milestone actually is end of September And so that in the sheet had a lot of items that I don't know what specifically, if I had to look at a timeline, what needs to be stated. But I think we all need to be prepared that each meeting we should or could have things that we need to rally around to make sure we don't miss the timeline. Because every time that we miss a meeting, it's two weeks. And that puts, because we have end of September and then we have middle of November for 60. And then our... January is 90%, middle of 90, so that's a lot of refinements so that we're ready to go with some work in 27. So I'm excited, I think we have, I'm worried about the money refinement of the investment, but I'm confident we're gonna have a really great work product when we're done, if we can get all of our, the things you're all managing buttoned up and pulled together.

Well, assuming we give you the authority under 2668 to execute task orders, how often do you have to come back and say, okay, I'm going to give a task order for this, but I need to get city council approval for it, or do you have a great deal of discretion about what orders you issue?

It won't be a task order that'll come back to you. What'll come back to you is what should ultimately be incorporated into the design. So, for example, for the, I guess the food service pavilion is the easiest one, right? There might be different products or different amenities or different features that could be added to it from a base model that we're looking at to what should that look like. Mark might be able to expand on it more, but what we'll need to do is regular check-ins to make sure that our kind of design committee isn't going in the wrong direction, kind of a check-in with the city council that we are heading in the direction you want us to head in, and that the bid package that's ultimately being created here is reflective of what the goals and vision of this body are.

Mark, did you have anything? So I was going to add to somewhat address Mary, your initial sentiment there was one of the first things we're going to do, and we've already undertaken it to help reduce our costs to understand what architectural services we need to include or not include is we're going to look at that concessions pavilion. And we've already got the request out for a couple of quotes on the building with a, uh, restroom attached. So concession one end, uh, a covered seating area and a restroom on the far end. So it's all attached linearly. We have a second request out for take the restroom off of that. So that's a starting place for us to start to evaluate the building itself. That'll help lend the conversation to, well, if we're within price and we think it can be delivered on schedule and under budget or on budget, then maybe we proceed with removal of the existing restrooms. if we're way off, which we don't think we will be, but that would start the conversation of, okay, should we look at preserving the existing restroom and what does that mean then? So those are the types of decisions that'll probably come back, but they'll hit the committee first. Our job is to bring you guys good news, so that's obviously our target.

Yeah, we like good news.

This is a very small issue and maybe this is something that comes forward when we get to 30% 60% so forth but in the volleyball courts There was a reference I think Brandon in the strand think to lighting and we don't currently have lighting and I don't think that was recommended by the parks board as although it was discussed and I think some of the volleyball players would like it so I I'm assuming that isn't anything that would have to be clarified tonight, but I just wanted to know if we can talk about moving forward.

We're going to start from a base level of simply courts, and then there will be a conversation at some point in the future with the City Council on whether you want to add lighting, whether you want to add fencing, whether you want to have four courts, reduce it to three courts.

So we can talk about all those elements as we start moving forward.

My... general stance on this will be starting as a committee is starting at a base level and then trying to bring to city council these are the amenities that you can add, but making sure that we're not starting at a point where we're bringing you the high end and then backing off of that, but showing you this is what we can do and then is there room or is there a desire to add amenities to a feature as we continue on? Perfect, that sounds like just the right process, thank you.

Yeah, fences were another one on viable courts because that was out of scope for the Parks Board, but that doesn't mean we all don't think that they're needed or wanted. Same thing with lighting.

Well, to get this moving along, I'd like to make a motion to approve Resolution 2668, authorizing the city manager to execute task orders as read.

We were... You can... If a second is made, you can offer amendments if someone was interested in removing parking lot B. I'll second the motion and I would like to make an amendment. At the end of the now therefore be it resolved at the very end after it says for the design of Sandy Beach Improvement Project, I'd like to add the words removing the $33,800 engineering design services red line item for parking lot B.

So then that's a motion to amend, which then requires a second.

I'll second that.

Okay. So we have a motion to amend and that is on in the resolution. I'm going to pull up the resolution. in the now therefore be it resolved section to remove the $33,800 line item reflecting the part B. Could you please read it?

Yeah. The whole thing then would be be it resolved by the City Council of Lake Mills, Jefferson County, Wisconsin that the city managers authorized to execute a task order with Strand Associates and Meat and Hunt for the design of the Sandy Beach Improvement Project removing the $33,800 engineering design services red line item for parking lot B. Okay.

So now you're voting on strictly the amendment.

Just the amendment. May I just also comment that I think the number is incorrect in the resolution. It should, it says 25 and it should be 26. So just to correct that.

You had caught that. Yep. I think you have that Misty.

Yes, I did catch before the meeting and correct it on this one, so it's just online. Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion by Greg Kutz for the amendment and a second by Lisa Curler on the amendment. So a roll call on the amendment, please. Ms. Schmager?

Aye. Mr. Kutz? Aye. Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler?

Aye.

Motion passes 4-0. Okay.

And so now do we need to, you have a motion as amended emotion from Jim Bartlett as amended?

Correct.

Okay.

So we have, I just have one other question on the lines of whether this is a scrivener's error or not. The final resolution says execute a task order. Would there be one task order or is it one for each firm?

There'll be separate task orders with each firm. So, just execute task orders.

So, just execute task orders. Oh, task order with Meat and Hunt, so it can... Sure.

Make sure that's clear that it's two task orders. I think the other parts of the resolution say that, refers to it in the plural.

Right. But the title doesn't. I suppose I wrote it as a task order with Meat and Hunt and a task order with Strand and Associates, so... It sounded different in my head.

Do you want an amendment, or can that be? I think Dan would say that would be . So refer to plural task orders.

The penultimate paragraph, whereas these task orders will be funded, indicates there is more than one.

Yeah, we'll make that correction in the language. We'll call it grammatical. OK.

So right now, we have a motion by Jim Bartlett for the amended resolution.

And you already have Mr. Coutts' second. And Greg, you get a second.

OK, thank you. And I have a second by Greg Coutts. Thank you. Roll call, please.

Mr. Coutts?

Aye.

Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Schmager? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Well, thank you for joining us this evening and for very excited for this to see this moving forward. Yes. So excited.

Okay. So, um, next we have ordinance, uh, 1293 Misty.

Ordinance 1293 and ordinance annexing territory to the city of Lake Mills, Jefferson County, Wisconsin.

I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 1293, which is the petition for annexation from John Zimmerman.

Mr. Coutts will second.

Okay, we have a motion by Lisa Curler, a second by Greg Coutts. Any discussion on this petition for annexation?

Is there any other information from staff that we need that we haven't heard before?

There's no new information from the first reading. If there's questions, we're happy to answer them. It's largely for the plans of what they'd like to do. Annexation is essentially necessary as it would be impractical or impossible for them to accomplish it under county zoning in which they're under as well as there are connection to the water utilities as well. So staff recommends approval.

And then I can also add that the Department of Administration did respond back and found it in the public interest. They did note it in the legal description. They found one directional error, which has been resolved. So everything's set on our end.

Okay. Then we'll do a roll call, please.

Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Schmager?

Aye.

Mr. Kutz? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Okay, our next item on the agenda is Ordinance 1294. Misty.

Ordinance 1294, amending City of Lake Mills Code Chapter 660 Zoning Regulations, Section 660-52 Sub A Sub 1 Sub A, Single Family Districts and Chapter 660 Attachment 2, Table of Bulk Regulations, Lot Minimum Area and Lot Minimum Area per Dwelling Unit.

Okay, this is our first reading. I would like to make a motion to move, skip the second reading and move this to third reading this evening.

Mr. Koontz will second, but I believe we're gonna have discussion still on this, right?

Yes.

Okay, yes, Mr. Koontz will second.

Okay, so motion to move to third reading by Mary Schmager and a second by Greg Kutz.

Now you can have discussion on the merits of waiving the readings, but not necessarily discussion on the ordinance itself. So the matter before you is whether to waive the readings, at which point then you would proceed to discussing the ordinance if you waive the readings.

So what is the... What is your interest in waving readings and voting on it tonight?

My interest in waving the readings and actually all four of, oh no, three of these, the next three ordinances, 1294, 95, and 96, is that they are, in my viewpoint, not citizen-centric. They are, I would say, cleaning up some language that is very confusing for citizens contractors or others who are trying to do business with the city and with the word approximate in there and so I

Just moving them to make a decision so that we can have them recorded in Controversy about in fact we spent time in plan commission going over these things So it's a it's a it's it's a it's my routine revisiting it tonight for me anyway, but it's just sort of cleaning up these wishy-washy words, you know of approximately and which are always tricky to put in a legal document when you don't know what approximately means and So it got a full vote of the Planning Commission, of course.

So I see two different proposals within this ordinance proposal, and one of them meets what you just described about getting rid of the word approximately. The other one does not. And so that's where I guess I'm trying to understand why we need to move them forward.

I would have preferred doing the discussion in a second order. The two discussions, the two go together and I will explain how they go together. Okay.

Well, I do have a question about these number, the numbers of readings. What's the purpose of having, you know, if you have 50 people in the room all with different opinions and all you, you want another reading and another reading to make sure that the public is fully informed, but we're essentially, it's just a wording cleanup. What's the point of having three readings?

So I think that's, I'm channeling Greg waters here because he was always a fan of making sure that we had all three readings. Um, It's to make sure that there's full opportunity for the public to be aware that we're making these changes and have an opportunity to comment, I think.

And to that point, I can't imagine that there would be citizens who would object to this. But who knows? Certainly if it was something that were likely to be controversial, like golf course or something of that sort, then you want to have as much opportunity as possible. But for something, it's essentially a cleanup of... wording to make it more clear.

Well, maybe we should proceed with the voting on the motion to waive the second reading and go to the third reading, and then we can discuss further. We can discuss the subject.

Yeah. Okay.

Okay, so then roll call on the motion to move to third reading on Ordinance 1294. Ms. Curler?

No.

Ms. Schmager?

Aye. Mr. Kutz? Aye. Mr. Bartlett? Aye. Motion passes three one.

Okay. So then could we read ordinance? I think we have to read the ordinance and then, um, we will be discussing the ordinance itself as a third reading.

Ordinance 1294 Monday in city of Lake mills code chapter six 60 zoning regulations, section six 60 dash 52 sub ACE of one sub a single family districts. and Chapter 660, Attachment 2, Table of Bulk Regulations, Lot Minimum Area and Lot Minimum Area per Dwelling Unit.

Okay, so discussion. Yeah, I'll... I'll start off with this one, I'll take this one. There's a series of three of these ordinances. This one was directly because of some of the comments that were made in council meetings where when staff has had contact with people who were with developers. There was debate over what the word approximately meant. Initially, I think the idea might have been, well, you know, approximately 12 might be, you know, 12.1 is approximately 12, and you would get developers pushing and saying, you know, 14 is really not that much more than 12. And when you have the word approximately, it has the idea, you know, there's a there's wiggle room there, which is tough to define. So this was an attempt to help give staff a clear line that they can very clearly say to developers, no, this is where we're sitting at. So the changes in section one, the changes to the text of the ordinances is literally just removing the word approximately every time it appears. When you go down to section two, this is where it's revising the table of bulk regulations. And there is a bit of history behind this too. This is something that I've learned is, was a fairly common practice that when some of these calculations were being done, you would kind of use round numbers and say, oh, that's close enough. which is kind of how you get the word approximately because one acre is approximately 40,000 square feet. So then, you know, 40,000 divided by four is approximately 10,000 square feet. All this is doing in this section is replacing the approximate numbers with the exact numbers that you get when you use a 43,560 square foot acre. So it's just doing that and replacing the math with the exact number instead of an approximate number. That originally, actually it originally wasn't in my first draft, and as it went to staff, that was something that staff came back with and said, you know, if we're removing the word approximately, we can also clean up this calculation to help better define approximately because otherwise you have, well you're saying exactly but then you still have some wiggle room with this measurement and this measurement becomes exact as well then.

Yeah, Dustin did have some input at the plant commission as far as when the zoning code was kind of implemented and that, you know, it's not uncommon to use a 40,000 square foot acre, but then it does lead to these kind of rounding errors and approximations. And so it's kind of. you know, as it's been brought up a decision of the city council, you know, approximately 12 can cause issues. It was asked at the plant commission, I believe by Mr. Bartlett, you know, what could a downside be? And it would really, the downside is, is that if you got a proposal that was 12.2 units per acre, that's clearly prohibited now, but it remove the flip side is that it removes any argument. So 14, most people would say, is certainly not approximately 12. Is 13, is 12.5? Does it stop at 12.4? That's kind of the conversation that is ongoing. And I think where this might be important to the city council is that if someone is applying for development under straight zoning, meaning they're not asking for anything, then the interpretation is ultimately, vested in the city manager's office. And so what does approximately mean to me or to the next city manager, whoever that might be? And so those projects get approved administratively because if you meet all the requirements of zoning, it doesn't need plan commission or city council approval. They have an entitlement to build something. And so I think this is by removing approximately, the city council is making clear that these are, this is the density per acre that we are comfortable with. So does it remove some discretion? Yes, but it also provides clarity. So I guess that's how I would describe it.

But also, even though you don't have the discretion, if a builder comes in and said, well, I'm going to have 10,895 square feet, and you say, I don't have the authority to permit that, but you can go to the Zoning Appeals Board, correct?

That's correct. You can apply for a variance, or you could submit for a planned development district and request relaxation.

It doesn't take away. It's not a hard and fast number. It just makes it clean for... decision-making purposes, and there's still a route to a difference of opinion by going to another board.

That's correct. There is a process available to individuals looking for relaxation or exceptions.

Louisa?

I'm absolutely in support of Section 1. That just gives clarity and certainty to anyone who is applying and to our staff and enforcing the regulations. I just want to understand further about the changes in the square footage. So this would apply to, say, a large subdivision that somebody's coming in and that would, you know, 10,890 square feet would be the minimum lot size for a single family lot. Would it also apply if somebody has a two-acre property and they just want to split it in two or they want to carve off a piece, that they would need to now meet these new bulk regulation lot sizes, whereas in the past, 10,000 would have been what was allowed? And then I guess one other thought before Dustin answers is... Is it creating any nonconformity? Are we creating now a whole bunch of 10,000 square foot lots that don't conform to our ordinance? And does that create any problems for those lot owners?

I'm going to start with the last part on the nonconformity. I'm not sure. That's the short answer. By and large, I don't think we'll have a lot of nonconformities because we didn't really get close. I'll pick on the Mangan Development that just had their PIP approved at Plan Commission. That is our 312, and though it's a planned development district, And could have under the old rules up to 14 and a half if you're really being like on the the square footage per unit They came in under 10 For example, and that's 134 units. Okay, that has typically been the issue with With multifamily development the new code has certainly raised the bar on the requirements for site design right amenities that are required there are certain setbacks green space requirements etc it really is hard to push the envelope on that um the only one that's going to be very close would be the um the new tyrone park apartments they will be on because you sold them an acre of land they'll be under 12 um units an acre I think that's gonna be the closest one of the ones that I can think of in recent years that have been approved, right? We have Paul Giusti's Summer Ridge. You have the North Oak down south on 89. You have next to that the, I don't know, Drumlin Crossing, all of those are well below that acreage standard, that density standard. So I don't believe so, but I can't say with certainty what it's done to some Cherokee path or something along those lines where you have an eight unit on a piece of property. We haven't done that math. So it's possible on that. As Drake said about the overall with the square footages, it is much more definitive now. Right, it's a very clear math problem to work with a developer and say this is the requirement, you must be below this threshold unless you go one of these other avenues. I don't think it's gonna stifle development at all, but it is very clear on what you can and can't do, right?

Do you anticipate any, would we have any issues on the single family home side? I don't think we have. Our recently approved subdivisions I don't think would have an issue with a 10,890 minimum square foot.

Where it started skewing is when you get to higher density requirements, like the 12 units an acre in the R3-12. When you're at 4 units an acre, it was technically 4.3 units an acre, and your single family developments have readily come in under four units an acre. That has not been an issue. We don't have that much two family development, so that usually isn't the problem area. I know there's a couple of three units out there. The new one that was built by the elementary, it's being built by the elementary school. That may be one, because it's on a smaller piece of land. Usually when you have larger tracts of land, it has not been an issue, especially for the duplex properties. We'd have to go back and look. Again, that would make them legal non-conforming by area. The setbacks aren't changing. That's usually the bigger issue that you would have on a non-conformity issue. So hypothetically, if an existing development, I'll just pick on a duplex somewhere in there, now finds itself not meeting the density requirement but meets all the setback requirements, it would be allowed to rebuild under the current codes and under state statute.

Thank you.

I have one question. I'm always interested in opposing views. I mean, we represent all the citizens of the city. And if there are strong opposition to something and they're not discussed, then we may not Take that into account if you were arguing again in favor or against this resolution Well, are there any good reasons? Why not? It seems to me to be common sense I voted for it on the Planning Commission I didn't hear any reason not to so is can you know of any reason why a Drake mentioned it latitude is sometimes nice on you know when you're

a tenth or a couple tenths of points of density away. It's nice to have a little bit of latitude, especially with how the code has functioned with getting the type of character of development that you've expected. But when you're talking the R1, 4, 6, and 8s, those are such negligible amounts. It would be very surprising if they were They're not going to stifle. Developers are going to go, oh, now it's 800 square feet more for a single family. That's not the issue. When they're trying to hit a market, they're usually trying to be larger than that anyway. So I don't see that as being a problem for you. Our R18s are in the, I'll say the kind of historic kind of around the downtown area. Those were smaller properties when they were planted 75, 80 years ago. So no, I don't think we're going to have, I don't think we're going to have a developer that's going to say, well, now that's just, ridiculous. I don't see those issues. It has really been in the time of one, maybe two projects, let me hit Drake on this, where somebody on the multifamily side has kind of pushed the density issue. And I'll say for the one project specifically that's under construction now, the density number was the difference between being able to provide a clubhouse or not being able to provide a clubhouse. Right, and having on-site full-time management. Those are amenities, they need to hit a certain threshold on number of units to support that kind of administrative cost and operational cost. So I'll say it didn't negate the project, it just, and they didn't say they were gonna walk away from the project, it just meant that it doesn't pencil out to have a full-time on-site person or to maybe build a very expensive clubhouse for those residents.

By the way, did the decision of the zone review board come to us after they meet? Let's say a developer says, well, I need this much more space. And normally it would have been the city manager's discretion to allow it because it's approximately what it was before. So they go to them and they say, yeah, we would approve that. Does that come to us then?

It does not. No, when something's at the administrative design review level, They meet all the code requirements. It gets handled by Drake, under Drake, with all the department managers for the various disciplines. But it wouldn't come to you. Same if someone went to Board of Appeals. That is separate from you. That's a quasi-judicial body.

So essentially it's just shifting a decision from city manager to the Board of Appeals if somebody disagrees with it.

The city manager says or well not it what he says but what it is in the which has been the case for all bulk regulations elsewhere it was just that The use of a 40,000 square foot acre just because that was very common right people if I polled people in the room How many people know how many square feet are an acre maybe a lot, but it's not a common doesn't roll off the tongue 43 560 it just doesn't it's like feet in a mile and so communities across the country just used 40,000 square feet. And then you, as Jake had mentioned, you have these rounding errors on ease of application more than anything, so.

I guess, well, the one addition I'd give is The City Council retains the right to challenge a Zoning Board of Appeals decision in Circuit Court. So they're a quasi-judicial separate entity. I can't say it's common that it occurs, but it has occurred. And so if the City Council thought the Zoning Board of Appeals was improperly approving variances to something, the City Council can challenge that in Circuit Court and essentially defend its zoning code.

I've seen it one time in 30 years. But any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Appeals can appeal to the circuit court. It's not just city council. It could be anybody in the community.

I'll call the question and ask that we move to a vote.

I don't believe we have a motion on the table for this particular ordinance.

You are right. Correct.

Then I will make a motion to approve ordinance 1294.

Okay, we have a motion by Lisa Curler, a second by Jim Bartlett. So we'll do a roll call, please. Ms. Schmager? Aye.

Mr. Kutz?

Aye.

Mr. Bartlett? Aye. Ms. Curler? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Next we have ordinance 1295. And this is a first reading.

Ordinance 1295, amending City of Lake Mills Code Chapter 660, Attachment 2, Table of Bulk Regulations, R3-12, Minimum Floor Area.

Can we have discussion on the first reading before? You can. Yep. Okay. So, Ordinance 1295, let me get my tabs up here. Oh, yeah, there. Thanks. This one was something that, as I served on the plan commission for years and years before being elected to council, this was something that would come up relatively often. Right now, it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison because there are the overlay districts on top of the projects right now, but When we look at something like the century redevelopment or the bayberry those multifamily developments they have apartments that are smaller than 800 square feet. With the century redevelopment, the developer even told us that those studio apartments, those are the most popular ones, we sell out of those first and those are the ones that we have to have. So this ordinance is an attempt just to allow for a little more flexibility and allow for a greater variety in housing products that we're offering by offering being able to offer smaller apartments. The old border of, the old division, sorry, I don't have the right word, but the 800 square feet per dwelling unit that it used to be, that still is in there, but as an average for the overall development. So it keeps It keeps someone from building just a whole bunch of really small apartments. There's still, which again I think matches up with some of the council's long-term goals of having the variety of products available to people. 500 square feet was picked because that was the size of some of the, I don't know, non-traditional dwellings that are in our code. The mother-in-law units or the, I think, trailer homes. There's something like that. Some of those things. 500 square feet seemed to be kind of a minimum of this is how small we want to go. So that seemed like a good minimum for any one apartment as long as the overall development stayed at 800 square feet per dwelling unit. So that was the concept behind this one. Something that developers, I saw for years on Planning Commission developers asking for this sort of thing.

Can I ask a quick question? Go ahead, Lisa.

Or staff. I'm just curious if you had a chance to look at how other communities deal with this, because I think one of the things we learned through a couple of these is that there are other communities that have more modern ordinances, and I don't know if this was a way of handling it with having the averages or just making a smaller number generally. Yeah.

Dustin may have some information on other communities. I think what I'll say is our current code doesn't really contemplate that the market was looking for studio apartments. And so those smaller square footages weren't something that had been coming to the city until recently. And so this is kind of a market-driven kind of a reaction to what the market is telling us as to what they would build. But Dustin, do you have insight on other communities allowing smaller square footages by right?

You are seeing that more and more, especially when people are trying to have a more urban product. It's not as much in, I'll say, the traditional suburban apartment complex, but when you want a more urban, something more vertical, yes, it is a much... Connemawock, Wauwatosa, you're seeing it in Mequon even, that they're allowing this. I would say that the standard that was in there, you have a, I'll say a more contemporary code, we updated it a few years ago. Yes, once in a while there's some patches to it, but previous community sentiment or council sentiment was bring forward the previous code on apartments, which is why you see the minimums that were established in it and also the parking requirements, which I know is another item in here. So I do think lowering it to 500 square feet, we saw that. I know the Vanguard project didn't go forward, but it had that, again, with much larger one-, two-, and three-bedroom products in there. Same with the century development by Hubdy. There are other projects I think that this could really benefit where someone might be looking to do, maybe it's a triplex, but two regular kind of size and a smaller mother-in-law. I think this really does enable some flexibility, especially trying to capture some missing middle. But communities have been going in this direction about looking at the overall project rather than saying, this is the minimum threshold and everybody's got to fit within it. Because everybody's socioeconomically is very different and their needs are different. So let's accommodate that.

I do really like this, Greg, and I think that, like you said, it does give a lot of flexibility. I think there also, quote-unquote, relief valve might be a planned development district. So, like, the Cottage Hotel would not meet even with this change because I think all of theirs are under 800, but then they were able to accomplish their project through a planned development district. So that still is another mechanism. Thank you.

I also want to take this opportunity to throw Mr. Ryan Grady under the bus because I was looking at other cities' codes and I honestly don't remember what it was that I saw because Planning Commission didn't meet for the last three months. So it was a while ago and I blame Ryan. I don't remember what I saw when I was looking at those.

I have my standard question. It seems like a very good idea. I know you voted for it at plan commission, but what do you know, either you or staff, about who would be opposed to this and why? We've got the pro. What's the con?

I think there are just some that are opposed to apartment projects generally. I think that comes into play. I think sometimes we forget that at different stages in our lives, maybe you're looking for a certain housing product or a certain location and you're not there, don't need a one bedroom or two bedroom and, you know, young, young person, this is very appealing, and it could even be very appealing to an older person who just wants a nice contemporary space.

What do you think would be the result if we had no minimum standard and the ordinance was just revoked, repealed, so there's no minimum standard? Would people be building little cubby houses?

I'm looking at Troy first. There are minimum requirements for habitable space in per the state building code. So there wouldn't be, there's still a minimum, but yes, it could open the door to some things I don't think you might be prepared for. Small cottages aren't bad, but if suddenly someone wants to buy a piece of land that's zoned appropriately, and wants to stick a bunch of 120 square foot tiny houses on there, not that that's bad, but that does need a certain amount of planning and kind of other design criteria. I think that's the potential for the abuse to the application.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, so this was our first reading. Thank you for the conversation, everyone. Anything else on this particular item? Okay, next.

Did you want to?

No, we'll just move it on. All right. But thank you. Next, we will have Ordinance 1296. It's also a first reading.

Ordinance 1296, amending City of Lake Mills Code Chapter 660 zoning regulations, Section 660-41, off-street parking, Table 2.4, specific off-street parking requirements, apartments, minimum required spaces.

and this is another one that came from my time on planning commission this was a very common request that we that you we would hear um again this is something that with the uh the the overlays that get put on this you know this is a pretty common thing that gets adjusted for um This is just moving the required minimum spaces of two per unit down to one and a half per unit. This also does not factor in the fact that there also is a half space per unit guest spot that also is still in place. So effectively it's moving from two and a half down to two, but the way it's written, it's moving from two down to one and a half. The reasons for doing this it's just in general parking regulations are written for in the past have been written for the busiest possible time and trying to pack as many cars as possible in and this we've this is a trend that you see in cities now to roll back some of these parking restrictions and not requiring quite as many spaces. As I was looking around, I found lots of studies, but most of them were from much larger cities and not really comparable to Lake Mills. most of the larger cities were pushing parking requirements back much further than a space and a half. Most of them were pushing it down to 1.2 or one. I think I saw one that was even like .8 spaces per unit. So I think that's probably too far. but the types of requests that staff seems to get and that developers come to us with usually wind up in this kind of a ballpark where you're looking at about a space and a half per unit. So this would just be changing the code to kind of better match that. Again, I think having less impermeable surface is going to be good. Not having to pave quite as much is going to allow, it's going to be a slight cost savings. It's going to allow for a slightly more flexible building plan of what a developer wants to do with the space by not tying it up just with paved parking lots. So that's the genesis of this one. That's where this came from.

I have a question about the apartment complex we've already authorized, approved here at Century.

What are their, how many parking units do they have per? They come in right around, I'm working from memory, they come in somewhere around a little, maybe slightly over one and a half stalls per unit. Again, they have studios to three bedroom. They have is it 99 units, but I think they have about 80 underground and then they have the remainder on, on surface parking. Um, I think this is a place where relying on the developer to know their market, but still having a floor, like there's still a minimum for you, um, that someone's not trying to not build, um, any, uh, um, enclosed parking. Um, We are seeing communities go down to three quarters of a covered stall because of that. Transportation choice has changed so dramatically the last 10 years and especially in the last five years Not every household is a two-car household anymore. But for across the street, they would fall into this threshold. The Wongard development would have fallen in this threshold. They were about 1.47 stalls per unit. And that seems to be the direction that many communities are going in. I think this is a safe direction where you're not, as Mr. Cruz said, you're reducing the need to kind of pack in stalls where they aren't necessary. Developer's gonna make sure his project is profitable and enticing to his customer base. So they're gonna make sure he has the amenities they need. But overbuilding just to overbuild is not a great plan. And I think our developers, I think you've seen that with the recent development and the park developments. I think they're a good mix. But they meet the existing code requirements. But producing that I think opens the doors to projects.

One other question here. It says required spaces. You don't define what a space is. I was at a hotel A couple days ago where you could hardly open your doors. The spaces were so narrow that you're hanging into it. Obviously, they wanted to pack more spaces in there.

There is a minimum requirement elsewhere in the code that spells out 9 foot by 18 foot is the minimum.

That's in a different...

Yes. That's a different code section on the... It defines drive aisles. It defines space length by whether you're a 90 degree, 60 degree, 30 degree angle parking. So all of that is elsewhere in the code. Okay.

I have a question. Just as I'm thinking about specifically the change from your comment about a lot of households not having two cars any longer. Is it influenced by the other alternative transportation modes? I think of Lake Mills. We don't have Ubers. We don't have, well, we have a taxi, but we don't have a bus line. We're a commuter city. A lot of people drive out of the city to have their occupations, and so In my mind, I'm asking myself, is two plus... And kids are all driving to school these days. Nobody takes the bus, especially when you're in high school. It's not cool anymore, at least in the Midwest. But is it really dependent on city specifics or... Can it can it apply? How does this apply it to like in our situation?

I because I would think two or more is more what we would need but But we're going to one and a half which is the opposite direction just in my when I'm trying to rationalize It's it's a few things one single family development is very different than multifamily development, especially with children multifamily does I look at the Mangan Rock Creek apartments the first three phases and 144 units and had about a dozen kids, right? That's very different than what you would see in single family, right? So that's one issue where, yes, if you're in a single family product, single family home with two adults and a child or two and then their driving age, Yeah, it's very common for, that's gonna probably be a three vehicle household. People who are looking for a certain type of multi-family product, I'll pick on the HVDE development, they're looking for people who want urban living. People wanna be downtown, they wanna be, approximate to entertainment, but they may work from home predominantly. So they don't need to go somewhere. Or one works from home and one commutes, right? And so, right, you're down to one car and they don't need it. Many people choose the quality of life that Lake Mills provides to them, right? Where if you had to bicycle across the community, it's not that far. I mean, you want to be able to get to certain things. So people are, just by choice, we just didn't have a housing product for people who wanted to live in the downtown. We just didn't have that. You only had apartments out on the periphery. We still have that, but now bringing stuff downtown is very exciting for housing choice. And not just for young people, but for older people who, you have a lot of people in the community that are choosing to rent Because they want to be in this community, right? And so that product, it's not that they want to drive everywhere. They do want to be able to walk or bike.

Yeah, I'm just thinking about realities around people's occupations. We don't have the largest industrial and e-commerce in our city. And so people have to get out to get, many people have to get out. And so I was just asking the question about our specific situation, given that we are

lovely lovely in between Madison Milwaukee and You know more of a commuter city in some regards that that one-and-a-half just it just it's just something I've been just pondering about as I can just I can read Discover I believe I did this a couple years ago but I believe even in Jefferson County and in comparable kind of situated communities we have a more strict parking requirement than most of them. And because in, in practice, what we're requiring right now is 2.5 stalls per unit. Okay. What this does is it takes us to essentially two stalls per unit because of that half a unit of guest parking. And so you can imagine not every unit has a guest every, every day. And so, um, functionally we are building in over capacity of what we're kind of expecting from the people who live there in order to accommodate a certain number of visitors. So we still, this code still requires two stalls per unit to be built because it's not changing the requirement of a half stall per unit for visitors. So I can bring that back and dig it out of my files. But when I did the, when I looked at Jefferson County specifically, we were on the more, we were requiring more parking than most of the region did.

Well, that's helpful that we really are more two with the half. That really helps clarify kind of my thinking. Thank you.

That was a legacy code requirement that came from the old code and was just brought forward because that was what was expected when we updated the code, that that's what the community was expecting for multifamily at the time.

I think this language change or this situation could also be paired with the prior ordinance that we looked at related to apartment sizes. And so just like with Hovde, we've had other projects that have come forward where there's a variety of unit sizes. And if some of those are studios at 600 square feet, they're probably only going to have one car. And so then to say two per unit, I mean, I had one developer say to me a couple years ago, if you require it, we'll build it. But our experience is, they'll be vacant and then it's just a bunch of concrete. So like to Greg's point, you know, why, why have more impervious surface built than what really is needed?

Yeah. Points. Thank you. Any other discussion on this? This again was a first reading. Okay. Then we will move on. We have another first reading ordinance, uh, 1297 Misty.

Ordinance 1297, amending City of Lake Mills Ordinance Section 660-44, Official Zoning Map, City of Lake Mills, Wisconsin. Parcel Identification Number 24607141814000, Owner Real Hope Community Church, 1345 Stonehenge Lane, Lake Mills, Wisconsin.

Trey, do you want to share some ideas?

Yeah, I'll give you a little bit of history here. Real Hope. submitted this application to us. They are in the concept stages. They're gonna probably propose an addition to the building and to some parking. What this did was triggered us to try to bring this parcel into compliance. When this church was built, it was prior to or right during when we were redoing our zoning ordinance, and it still holds the designation of rural development. And to be honest with you, even if this project doesn't come to fruition, it would benefit the city to have this parcel be brought into compliance anyway with the R14, with the PIO overlay. But that's really what's triggering this is they are have we leaning towards doing in addition over there? Uh, plan commission did, uh, approve this unanimously. There was a little bit of discussion. There were some people here that were thinking the R one four was meaning they were going to start building homes on that property, which I completely understand. I probably should have made that a little bit clearer, but, um, And then there was a couple of questions about storm water. There were some people that were saying they lived on Crestview there that said they have a drainage easement and they'd had some water issues when they first moved in. And we're gonna just try to make sure that we, as a city, make sure that the storm water management didn't affect those homes when the addition in the parking was built.

Lisa? So just a follow-up question for clarification. So if I understand this, we have these from time to time. This ordinance is just to change the zoning on the property to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan, right? So we're not Any action that we take on this ordinance, we're not approving the building expansion or the parking lot expansion or anything else that would be?

100%, yeah, there's nothing getting approved building-wise. This is just changing the zoning designation.

Just changing the zoning, and it would bring it in line with our comprehensive plan.

And with our zoning code. Churches aren't permitted under rural development. So it's actually a legally non-conforming use.

That's funny how that got missed. Mm-hmm.

So I guess for anybody who was concerned, if there was a decision to cut off, you know, parcel out for single-family home residential development, there would be another process involved in that. So you'd have to plat that if, you know, a piece of this was sold in the future or something like that. So there would be another process. opportunity for someone to comment on it that's not what's contemplated by the applicant they're they simply they need the overlay in order to do an expansion without the overlay they cannot expand because they are not allowed to expand their non-conformance are they under any kind of a proposed schedule of when they would like to get going on their expansion

I have not seen any time frame yet. I think they were going to try to baby step through this, get through the zoning, and then once this process was done, they were going to get a little bit more serious about the concept. I believe he said it was going to be a next summer, next spring project, so they got some time.

Okay, so we have this one moving on to our next agenda along with several, the last two ordinances as well, all as first readings moving on to our next agenda.

I would like to make a motion on ordinance 1297 to waive the second reading so that then our next meeting would be the third reading in the vote.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Lisa Curler and a second by Jim Bartlett to waive the second reading and move to third reading at our next meeting. So can I have a roll call on that, please?

Mr. Kutz? Aye. Mr. Bartlett?

Aye.

Ms. Curler? Aye. Ms. Schmager? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Okay, so correction on what's moving to our next agenda. We'll have a third reading on the Real Hope Community Church zoning ordinance, and then we'll have second readings on the two ordinances that preceded this one. And so we are on the announcements and recommendations for future agendas. So what else would members like to bring forward? Or staff?

I just wanted to double check. I think we're having a work session with the library before our next meeting. Is that correct?

That is correct. Yes. Thank you. Yes, that is correct.

And Missy, can you remind us the time that was five 30? I believe it was five 30. Okay.

Well,

It was five o'clock or five. Send us a notice or something.

Yes. I know that I did send an email asking everybody to put on your calendar because it appeared we were moving forward. I just did not have confirmation because it was pulled over here, but I think we had to check with the library board too.

Okay. So likely work session with the library board before the next council meeting. Okay.

I pulled up this last email. It says with an anticipated start of 5 or 5.30. Mm-hmm.

Well, I have. to like to share that we will have or do have upcoming committee openings. So we do have a library board opening that I will be needing to fill. And then I was just received notice that one of our parks board members will be departing this person's term actually concludes in 2027, but is looking to finish their term by December at the end of December of this year or earlier. For a variety of reasons and so I'm just to let you know that that there will be a parks board opening as well and so please You know if you have any recommendations for people who might be of interest and be great contributors to these particular boards to ask them to apply and Love to see a lot of applicants for these roles. I Any other agenda topics, Drake, that you want to bring up for our next meeting or any other members that would like to ask for agenda topics?

I'm intending to bring forward an update to the dam management policy to reflect the new water level order. It's possible that we will have a precise implementation plan That was before the plan commission come before you. That one is tentative. We're still working with the developer on some items there as well and working on a development agreement for that. And then I believe we will be bringing forward a resolution and recognition of service for Sean Bollig after he's concluded his service on the library board. Oh, and Officer Jess Johnson, who has retired from the city after 27 years of service.

Okay.

If there's nothing else to add on this item, I'm going to call our meeting adjourned. It's 838. Thanks, everyone.

Good. This is two hours.

Two hours. And you know we have a three-hour max. Oh. Oh, that's good. Okay, that's a hard line. Hard line, three hours. Except if it's a full session, then we don't have a timeline. Well, I'm sure you've got a lot more to open than that, but those are good pieces to do that.

I want to say thank you to everybody. So excited to see this moving forward.