Common Council - Regular Meeting

meeting of the Lake Mill City Council to order for Tuesday, November 18th of 2025. Uh Misty, would you please call the role? Miss Curler. Miss Curler. Oh, Misty, we're not hearing you. Miss Curler.

Drake, do you want to call? How do we have Drake call the role and then we'll see if we can get Misty connected in. So I don't know what we're not hearing her in the room. Mr. Coots here. Um Miss Schmeagger here. Miss Curler here. Mr. Waters here. Uh Miss Quinn now here. Thank you. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, it looks like our clerk's going to be joining us in the meeting room this evening. So, yeah. Okay. Well, hopefully we can hear you in here. So, uh, next agenda item is correction and acceptance of the city council meeting minutes from November 4th of 2025. Are there any corrections or comments? Okay, seeing none, we'll accept those into the record. Our next item is board and committee reports and acceptance of meeting minutes. So, we have two sets of minutes from the parks board and one from public works. Um, and I recall, Mary, that there was one from last month that we sent back to the parks board. So, did that issue get addressed?

Uh, it was an error on my part. So, the minutes were actually accurate. My records are incorrect. So, I apologize for that uh sending them back and bringing them back forward again. So,

okay. No problem. Any other comments or um um information report outs from either of those boards? Okay. Seeing none, we'll accept those minutes into our records. Uh, so next is our public com Oh, sorry. Correspondents and constituent contacts. Um, Mr. Coots, you want to start us out? Um, yeah. Uh I did not receive much um uh uh contact today from uh uh Ben Stranger of Greenbox Compost and of um Mary Lancer from Lancer Public Affairs.

Okay. Thank you, Mary. Uh yes, I had uh correspondence on E.coli research, a question about uh correspondence about yard waste site being used by contractors on our process. Uh fence zoning inquiry. Um contact about sand migration concern from Sandy Beach. Um correspondence on Sandy Beach. Uh correspondence on the development off of West Tyranina Road. and an inquiry on the water level order timeline, a question about an upcoming donation. I had a busy two weeks. Um, and a question about the mill rate timeline.

Thank you, Greg Waters.

Yes, I was contacted by Mary Lancer. Um, Greg just referenced her. Uh, I guess there's a the golf course is looking to become a single family development. So, I asked her for more information on that and I guess that's forthcoming at a future, uh, planning commission meeting. So, uh, yard waste concerns for contractors was another issue that I saw. Uh, this was letting contractors into our yard waste, I guess, is the the question there. And then also another one on Sandy Beach planning um not incurring extra charges basically to to do our planning process. So that was it.

Great. Thank you, Michelle. Um not much else to add. Uh, I also was contacted by Mary Claire Lancer as well as the representative from Lewis Holmes who would be in charge of the potential um, golf course uh, development. Other than that, nothing else beyond what was said.

Thank you. Um, I I had most of um, what everybody else has already described. Um, I also had a contact regarding the Commons Park band stand and the group that um has been um providing some financial support for that and they have interest in um helping some more which is great. Um and uh regarding uh proposed residential development at the golf course, I did speak with um a representative of the developer with um uh the woman who emailed all of us. there is a a public um openhouse meeting that that they're scheduling for December um that they're hosting. Um and I heard from one constituent regarding that proposal. I think that's it. Okay. Thank you everybody for that. So we'll move on to public comments. So individuals who have registered to speak are invited to address the council at this time. We do have two residents who are registered. So, please state your name and address when you come up and no action will be taken for items that are not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Um, I will note that we also have three public hearings on our agenda tonight. So, if you're interested, one is regarding the wastewater treatment plant facilities plan. One is for our general fund budget and one is for our capital budget. Um and so we will um open the floor for public comment right before each of those decisions. So if you're wanting to speak regarding any of those public hearings um you can wait until that time. Okay. So um the first person who's registered to speak is Anita Martin.

Thank you. A little timer. We haven't used this for a while. So we'll try this again.

Okay. Um my name is Anita Martin. We live at 261 Pinnacle Drive in Lake Mills. Daybreak Foods Incorporated Creekwood Farm on Crossman Road in County A is up for renewal or reissuance of its 5-year wastewater permit. The permit number is WI-005 05638- 07-0. The facility will be generating more than seven u million gallons of wastewater and the waste will be spreadable on 481 acres approved by the Wisconsin DNR. The wastewater will be land applied in Lake Mills as well as land. Spray gun application will be is proposed to be approved on most of the fields and land application will take place in the Rock Lake WHED. To request the permit fact sheet, the person to contact is wastewater runoff specialist at the DNR, Eric Struck. His email address is small case or maybe it's large high big case. Eric er dot or period struck stru Wisconsin.gov. Um, public comments should be addressed to Eric using the permit number and there is a public hearing scheduled for Thursday, December 11th at 300 p.m. Right now, it's set up as a virtual hearing even though a real time in-person hearing was requested. So, one of the things um I am hoping and I know

a number of other residents are hoping could be possible too is that the city could be a site just to um view the virtual hearing um in a group setting and for those that do not have access to Zoom. So, I don't know if that could be considered, but that would be great. Um the DNR will not be permitting um people to show their faces. It'll just be um the DNR people showing their faces. And um it would be just nice to be able to have a public um meeting. So um public comments can be received until December 18th. The public hearing is scheduled again for December 11th. And in order to appear um at the public hearing virtually, you do need to contact Eric Struck and get the link. The link is link is very very long. So he could send the link and then he also could um send the permit fact sheet and other information. Thank you.

Thanks Anita. Okay, our next person registered to speak is JB Clark. Hello, JB Clark of 122 Milton Street. I want to speak briefly tonight to acknowledge the results of the new 2025 speed study and to thank the city council for passing resolution 1280 lowering the speed limit to 15 miles per hour. What stood out to me in reviewing both the 2024 and 2025 studies was the change in the 85th percentile speed. Before reconstruction, the 85th percentile was around 19 to 21 mph. In the new study, after reconstruction, the 85th percentile is now 27 to 28 mph, even with the newly posted limit of 15. As you know, it's the upper end speed, not the average, that most influences pedestrian safety, particularly for children. So, while the average speed may look similar to years past, the rise in high-end speeds after reconstruction is precisely the risk many of us were worried about. The danger on Milton Street is now greater than it's ever been. And for that reason, I want to thank the council for lowering the speed limit ahead of the new data. The updated findings clearly show that this was the right decision for the safety of the neighborhood. I'm not here to advocate for anything further. I fully recognize how politically challenging and controversial it was to merely lower the speed limit. I simply want to acknowledge that the data supports the action that the council has already taken and to express my appreciation for

that. Thank you. Thank you, Jamie. And that is uh the last person who's registered to speak tonight. So, I will close public comment and we'll move on to our next agenda item. Our next item is the city manager report. and we have lots of our monthly financial documents and from several of our departments. So, uh Drake, is there anything you would like to highlight tonight?

Um not specifically. Uh the only thing I'll note is uh the uh the mill rate calculation for the city portion uh has dropped from I'll use round numbers around $8 to 550. Um it's within a couple cents of those on either end. So, a significant reduction uh in the mill rate um following the uh revaluation. I have a follow-up question to that. I think you shared with us during some of our budget conversations that if the mill rate falls below five, it affects one of the uh sources of state funding. Um so, it sounds like that's good news at least for that expenditure restraint program. Is that right? That's correct.

Okay. So we won't we we will be able to get that expenditure retra restraint funding and about how much is that you know it's a little over $100,000. Okay. Okay. Great. Anybody any other questions on the reports or questions for the city manager today?

I just had one report on the Lake Mills Fire Department monthly update. I thought it was very interesting this NFPA 1720 chart and I was curious to note we we are an average of 8.32 but which one of these population types do we relate to? So I wasn't sure how to interpret the chart. Would you happen to know that answer? Uh which page on page oh and the Lake Mills Fire Department monthly update the chart on the chart in his report where list urban suburban rural remote areas

rural remote areas yes I don't I didn't we are at uh we had an average of 8.32 responders per incident but I didn't know are we in urban suburban rural remote or does I didn't know how to interpret the chart to know if that was good. I I Does anybody know how to interpret the the results?

We are either urban or suburban. Um I will check with Chief Russ to get you an exact answer, but we would not be considered rural. 8.32 responders per incident would be would be looked upon as being good because we're below what the No, the minimum should be 10. I I was just looking to see what that meant and if that meant we were doing great or he had something to work on or we had something to work on. They can come back to it later. Oh, okay.

It's not it's not it's not imperative that we talk about it like I just would like to understand. I think we're about 27 square miles. So, um, urban areas greater than a thousand person per square mile. So, we would be not urban, I would anticipate after that, but I'll follow up with Jason Russ and have him follow up with the council. Thanks. Any other questions or comments on the reports? Um and Mary Mary noted that there was um she had a question regarding the water level order. Have you received any update from DNR on the timeline for that? No.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So that concludes the city manager report. So we'll move on to council business. Our first item is a public hearing on the wastewater treatment plant facilities plan. Um so we have a notice of public hearing that was duly published. Um and uh we will first have a presentation from our engineer for wastewater treatment plan issues um Travis Anderson from Strand Associates and uh then we'll open up for any public comment. All right. Welcome Travis. Could you progress the slide please?

All right. So yes, so I'll be speaking on uh the wastewater treatment plant facilities planning effort tonight. Uh this is a public hearing required by the DNR for this process and I'm going to very uh briefly walk through these slides and would be happy to elaborate on anything in in further detail as needed. Uh so very uh briefly here just going to give an overview of the planning process. Uh talk about the needs that have been identified in the recommended project and then wrap up with uh some funding uh discussion and next steps. All right. So uh big picture plant overview. Uh plant was originally constructed in 1991. uh much of the facility planning effort focuses on the aging plant infrastructure along with treatment capacity limitations. There are some things uh related to regulatory changes that need to be considered such as the phosphorus rules. Um we're of course wanting to accommodate future growth in the city for increased flows and loads and um addressing sludge storage capacity and application issues. So just a quick review of the facility planning pro process. First in the early sections we focus on what assets the city currently has in your collection system and at your current treatment plant. Uh then we look at what you need based on flow and load projections for uh your population uh projections over the next 20 years along with regulatory uh requirements that we know are coming down the pipeline from DNR. And then also looking at age and condition. uh we do an alternatives evaluation to determine the lowest cost alternatives for the city and then wrap up the plan with an implementation plan and environmental impact summary. So as I mentioned uh uh many of the improvements recommended are driven by

capacity needs at the plant to serve your customers. Um, and these are code driven by the Wisconsin Administrative Code NR10. And some of the items um that are not up to code are the screens and influent pumps which are required to pass your peak flows through the treatment plant. An additional final clarifier um which is also driven by peak flows. And then liquid sludge storage expansion and I just have highlighted in the table there. there's a fairly uh significant increase in your uh peak hourly flow requirements in order to safely convey the waste water from the collection system through the treatment plant and be treated properly. And then we also looked at the age and condition of all the existing infrastructure at the treatment plant. Most of the processes are original to the 1991 construction. Typically in the wastewater industry, we expect an equipment life of approximately 20 years. So obviously um the vast majority of the equipment plant is well beyond its anticipate anticipated lifespan. This would include the oxidation ditch air raators, the final clarifier equipment, and then um there are some safety related items such as converting from your chlorination gas system to a much safer ultraviolet disinfection system. And then just uh normal items that have failed due to wear and tear and age, such as pumps and valves. Um there is a recommendation for a new controls building to relocate personnel away from the sludge thickening process. Currently the personnel and lab space share uh space with uh the process that takes the liquid sludge from the clarifiers and thickens that through a gravity belt thickener which also uses polymer chemical. Um so for health and

safety reasons along with um inadequate space a a new controls uh building is recommended and then there is there are numerous HVAC and electrical equipment that uh have have passed their useful life and require replacement. And then of course we always want to look to upcoming regulatory limits. Uh, as we've discussed frequently over over the last decade, there are low-level phosphorus limits that have been put into law in Wisconsin. Currently, the city is obtaining compliance through the multi-ischarger variants. Did just learn within the past week that that was renewed uh by the EPA uh through 2020 2037. So though the city will need to reapply every five years, there is some additional uh time for that variance which is great news. Um ultimately either filtration will be required for phosphorus or alternatively discharging to the crawfish river. Uh and then as I mentioned um sledge handling uh we will need to keep an eye on emerging uh regulatory concerns particularly related to POS with sledge handling which you've likely um heard uh heard about in in the news. So that is uh that is a watch item for the future. The recommended project uh is to complete the treatment plant upgrades in two phases. uh the first phase um proceeding uh with design next year to address the those code deficient items that I mentioned. Um so that would be influent pumping uh oxidation ditch upgrades, the new final clarifier um and the conversion to UV disinfection along with the new controls building. And then phase two would be in the future um likely within 8 to 10 years from now. Um that would be to address the phosphorus regulations once that

variance expires that I mentioned on the previous slide. And then at that time there would need to be additional um sludge storage or sludge treatment options constructed as well. And those are shown in red. And uh one of the benefits of phasing the uh phasing the project into two separate phases is to mitigate the overall rate impact and spread that out over um over a period of of 10 to 15 years rather than all at once. Um so the the first phase um you know addresses all the items here which mostly I have I have touched on uh and and totals uh approximately $28.6 $6 million and the phase 2 costs covering uh filtration and bioolids upgrades is $15.9 million. And then um just uh shifting to discussion on uh how we would anticipate this project gets funded. Um the the most viable option appears to be a lowinterest loan through the clean water fund. Uh we have completed an initial rate review to determine the the rate impact of phase one and that was a separate letter from the facility plan that is um also in your packet and is an agenda item later on tonight. Um the the on andm costs I just want to note here. So this is unrelated to the phase one project but it needs to be considered from a rate standpoint. Um on and costs have increased significantly due to inflation in the past uh 5 years. Um we have seen multiple costs increase by 50% and several costs even double such as insurance and sledge hauling costs. And these are major unavoidable uh costs that uh need to occur in order to to um maintain compliance with the

treatment plants permit. Travis, we have a question up here. Could you just please confirm what O and M stands for? Yes. Yes. Operation and maintenance. So operation maintenance costs would cover chemical use, energy, uh any repairs that might be needed along with the labor costs associated with those. Thanks.

And uh so the the uh rate letter that was developed um recommends a a rate increase again uh outside of the phase one project that I mentioned. that's really to get the utility back up to the meeting the costs that uh that you're seeing with that that higher inflation and and the the higher chemical and sludge hauling costs uh that I mentioned previously. Um so this the the simple pie chart there shows the the current typical sewer customer in the city. Obviously, this depends on how much water you use, but currently paying a monthly bill of approximately $47. This um it to kind of true up the the increased cost that the utility is seeing, that would be an additional $14 on&m increase. And that's what you're seeing in the blue pie chart there. And then if we uh shift to look at uh what what would the phase one project add to sewer rates on top of that? That's what these graphs are showing here. Uh one option the top pie chart is a the the impact to the typical sewer customer using a 20-year clean water fund loan. And then the bottom chart shows the impact uh using an option uh that DNR has indicated is viable would be a 29-year uh clean water fund loan. So there is a a range of the ultimate projected uh rate increase. Um this the it would be our recommendation that the city consider uh rates on an annual basis through construction of the project. the rates that I show in the table here uh is just one scenario that could play out and it does not factor in growth to the city. So as you gain more

as the city gains more customers, the costs are able to be spread out among more users and it's possible that these monthly um rates could go down in the future. That's why we recommend looking at this over time. So what this shows here is the current typical customer is right now is paying about $47 a month. Uh addressing the shortfall uh in revenue due to the increased onm costs from inflation would bring that to 61. And then ultimately with construction of the phase one project uh ending in approximately 2029 that would bring the typical customer bill up to roughly 92 to $101 depending on the um the funding uh that is identified by the city along with further detailed rate evaluations taking into account growth that might occur during that time that I've mentioned. So the next steps would be to um proceed with that initial 2026 sewer rate increase to address the uh the uh O andM requirements and then to proceed with phase one uh design for uh designing those improvements with construction occurring from 2027 through 2029. Thank you, Travis. So, we are in public hearing. So, I will um just open up the floor if there is anyone who would like to give public comment regarding the wastewater treatment plant facilities plan. Uh now is your opportunity. You can um come to the podium or um uh Mist, you can let me know if there's anyone online who indicates that they would like to provide public comment on this item.

Not seeing anyone in the room. Is there anyone who would like to uh speak during this public hearing on the wastewater treatment plant facilities plan? Going once, going twice. I'll just ask a third time. Is there anyone who would like to provide public comment on the facility plan? Okay, hearing none. Uh we will close the public hearing and then we'll move on to the next agenda item letter B. Um that's resolution 25-69. Misty, would you read that title out for us? City Council resolution 25-69 approving the wastewater treatment plant facilities plan.

Okay. So this is a followup on our we've had the public hear the required public hearing. We've been presented with the facilities plan back in September. uh we have some additional information before us. Um and I would note that the um the public comment period for this um facility plan is open for another month till December 18th according to the public notice. So, um, in talking, uh, contacted Travis earlier and he suggested that we have a discussion, identify if there are any questions or comments, uh, that the council would like to make tonight to make sure that um, our engineers know if there are any changes that we might be looking for and then we could approve this uh, formally approve this after the public comment period has passed. So, are there any questions uh for our um wastewater engineer or um on the facilities plan from council members?

Greg Waters. Travis, you want to come back up? Hi, Travis. Hi. I was driving home tonight and I was listening to the radio and they um they were telling me about uh Governor Ivers passing a $282 million or at least that was a press release uh related to clean water and I saw we referenced the clean water fund in your presentation. Do you know how that might relate to this? No, I I had not uh I had not heard that but I I can contact Brand new news as of today. Yeah, I can I can contact the funding folks at DNR and certainly always interested to hear if

but still 4.6 million's quite a bit for an administrative building. So I'd like to see if there's ways we can tweak that down.

Yeah, I think that there's ways that that can be economized and that that's a that's a budgetary number. You know, we want to be conservative with these costs. Um but um you know what what we're trying to accomplish with with that again is to to address uh some of the safety concerns because there are National Fire Protection Association safety concerns related to sludge thickening processes um and chemical storage, you know, especially in occupied areas like that. Um, and then there there is some very expensive equipment such as the city's back truck and other equipment that's needing to be stored outdoors. So, we're we're trying to get enough um some additional garage storage for that equipment as well.

Okay. and and uh the the workshop that the the staff has available for for working on equipment, it's actually in the sludge loadout area. So, they're having to cover that up so that it doesn't get sludge on it while they're doing that activity and then having to uncover it. So there's there's just a lot of a lot of issues that they've been making work over the past 35 years um where where we do see that there's a definite need to separate controls and laboratory and personnel space from that process space. Um but I I I certainly hear you um that um you know cost cost is always a concern. I think we will, you know, we'll work diligently with city staff to to find ways to to to reduce costs without, you know, without eliminating the the quality that the city's looking for.

Yeah, I'm a huge supporter of of phase one and uh of the phased process over doing a complete project uh at a new site with all new costs. So, I I like this approach. I just want to make sure that we're being as economical as we can be and and you know I don't want to cut corners that we'll regret in the future but at the same time I want to make sure that we're we're being fiscally responsible with the dollars that we are spending. Yeah, absolutely. Understand? Okay. Well, yeah, we could I don't know how much it'd save. We'd have to explore it. We could look at reducing the inside interior storage space. Um I think is it four bays right now, Travis?

Yes. um four bays for interior storage of materials and um vehicles and equipment. Um we could look at reducing that um some of the aspects of it to improve the safety. Other I guess you could call them quality of life. Um improvements such as right now there's only one shower um for I believe five staff members at the end of the day. Um this would increase that number. Um, so we can c we could certainly identify potential reductions in spending in the admin building. It would just be a um a cost benefit. You know, if we reduce interior storage, we'll have to store other things outside. They are currently being stored outside and have been for some time, but it's uh it's a question of, you know, of resources and and what we what what is most important to us um as we proceed down this path.

Okay. Thank you. I want to follow up on that because I I do want to highlight um Travis that you provided a two-page letter for us um with additional information to explain the building. So, I I really appreciate that. And as I was reading it, um, and I I haven't been in the the current building, but I was imagining, you know, Bill Keiesling stepping over and tripping over things, and I was imagining uh what the air quality would be like. Um, and just the the the work environment, and it um so I think there's a lot of good reasons for um um uh constructing a new administration building. So, I appreciate, you know, the information that you provided to help to justify that, but I do also agree with Mr. Waters. You know, it was a little bit of sticker shock, I think, when we first saw that that dollar amount. Um, and I guess my after all that commentary, I guess my question would be this I'm assuming this new administration building would be anticipated to last for 20 years or longer, right? I mean, it's it's a part of our 20-year plan.

That would be more of a 40 to 50 year infrastructure. Yeah. Okay. So, it's an investment um that would would hopefully we would keep for a long time then. Okay. Thank you, Mary.

Well, I'm going to add I had the same commentary in my notes uh that I I in the process I forgot that we had a few weeks to get some additional feedback because I would have asked to exclude the building as a part of the plan given its current cost. And um I'd like to challenge you. I think we're all in the same boat to find a way to achieve the objectives. I'm 100% in support of the health and safety of our employees. I think that's like first and foremost, but storage often can be done in a very economical way with other facilities than maybe hooked on. I know they're creative ways of

um possibly breaking apart storage and putting the showers and the other types of facilities in a nicer building. I don't know what the solution is, but um you can get a pretty nice uh storage building for 125 square $125 per square foot for pretty fancy place to store vehicles or less depending on what you have in there. And so I think the 4.6 was a is a something I'm I would not be able to support at this time. So I think we're at least thinking that something more um at least under or at least understanding what is uh required the the minimum requirements for that amount of money so that our citizens understand the value that they will be receiving for helping to support and pay for that facility.

Yeah. And and what I would um suggest that we do is uh maybe the the first the first step in as we start design is uh we can we can have one of our architects put together a range of options so that you can kind of see okay you know if we you know if we go on one end of the the spectrum versus maybe where we were at in this facility plan you know where where do you want to line line up along the range of options? Um we we can certainly do that so that you know at this point nothing is designed. It's a it's a white sheet of paper. Um you know and then we can we can tailor the design to a budget that's more palatable.

Are there any other comments on the administration building or any other aspects of the facilities plan from council members?

Have one more. I'm just curious on the you know following the projections of costs over the course of time um the strand reports from like December of 23 to now we had been on a much smaller percent change yearon year and it looks it appeared as if we were able to then take the cost over a much longer period of time. So I I was always looking at how long does it take to double the current rate and some of the early years we looked at it even as early like even looking at March of 25 so just eight months ago it was taking us you know 10 plus years to double the current rate so go from $54 to 108 I was just trying to like how long does it take us to double and in our new um increase we're going from 47 to 86 in four years. So, we used to we used to it used to be just a longer glide path to get to a doubled rate. And I'm if you could you help me understand like what are the influencing factors that changed the speed by which we're getting to the larger amount? So, I know the percent is higher which kind of gets us there faster, but I I could you just talk a little bit more about why how we lost that that longer glide path.

Sure. So, um, uh, I guess I'll I'll start with what was presented about a year ago. Um, phase one was bringing that typical customer, uh, from the $47 to $79 at the completion of phase one. That has now increased um from uh 79 to that range of of 92 to 101. And the the there's several reasons for that. Um, one being that in in the um the the rate projections that were presented in 2024 and 2023 um that that hadn't accommodated the uh large increase in the on&m inflation,

okay,

that we had seen there was kind of that that baseline delta that we had to make up. Um so that was a big reason and then uh those previous projections had been assuming uh because we were looking 20 years out with those we we're wanting to make some kind of reasonable assumption for growth. So we were assuming one 1% annual growth in those projections. So again, if you do see growth, um that will bring those those rates at the end of phase 1 down, but that's not in those latest numbers of 92 to 101. That's assuming you maintain flat with your current number of customers. And and the other um I guess the the last main reason would be that there were a couple items that were moved um from phase 2 to phase one um after we walked through the the plant with with Bill Keysling again this summer and and one of those being UV disinfection. Bill is just really uncomfortable with that gas chlorination system. I think he's actually been injured by it um in the past. So um he he was you know and I agree with him that um moving forward with UV disinfection now is a safer option than waiting 10 years and and that wasn't in the original breakdown between phase one and phase two. So that's the reason why you you see that jump.

Thank you. That clarified my question. Appreciate it. Any other comments on the facilities plan from council members or Drake? Anything else you want us to be aware of? Does the council have to amend the facilities plan? If they approve the facilities plan as it's drafted, as it's going through the design phase of any piece of it, if they decide on a different alternative for an admin building or a different alternative for any piece of it, do you need to amend the facilities plan or can they value engineer things down? Um

it uh I would say it depends on how significant of a change it is. If we are going to change a treatment process um then yes we would need to submit an amendment. If we're simply value engineering materials or the sizes of things um that would not require an amendment. Thank you. So, for example, downsizing the amount of storage in an admin building, that would not be something that would trigger DNR requiring us to correct

reapprove. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from council members? Okay. So, um we are on resolution 25-69. Um, given that the public comment period is open until January, excuse me, December 18th, um, I would recommend that we put this on our agenda for our first meeting in January to do the final approval so that that would take into account any public comments that might come in in the next month. Um, and then we can um to vote on the final approval at that time. That's acceptable for everyone. Okay. All right. So, no action on resolution 25-69 tonight. Okay. Our next item, letter C, is discussion on Sandy Beach Park next steps. And we had intended to have this at last meeting and um um

Oh, I'm sorry. No, that's okay. I probably should have thought of this earlier. Is there any interest in moving up resolution 25-70, which would then allow um our engineer to head home for the evening? Yes. Um, I don't have a problem with that. Is that any objections? Okay. Sorry. So, yeah, let's jump to letter E then, which is resolution 25-70. Uh, Misty, would you read the title of that resolution for us? City Council resolution 25-70 approving a sanitary sewer user charge system update.

Thank you. So, we did have a couple slides um that you talked about that briefly. Is there some more information uh staff you'd like to share? Uh just that the letter is included um which is referenced within the resolution. The public works board did review this at their last meeting and recommended uh adoption of the new rate system. It would go into effect on January 1 of 2026 and would result in on the average user an approximately $14 increase uh monthly. I would note the same thing I noted to the public works board. If the rate increase is not approved, the wastewater utility would be projected to operate at a loss in 2026.

Uh just as a housekeeping thing, um and I know that we can't update these during the meeting, but the link to the resolution, I'm not getting anything when I click on that. Oh, what? It may be an internet issue. Oh, it is. I want to Oh, you are I'm able to Okay. Sorry. Did Did you have a chance to review it? Oh, I I read it at public. Yeah. No, that's Okay. Okay. Good. Um uh so is there a motion on 25-70? I move to approve city council resolution 25-70 approving a sanitary sewer user charge system update. Second.

So, we have a motion by Miss Quinn, seconded by Missager. Um any discussion, questions, comments? Mary, I just have one question. How how do our rates compare to other municipalities with this rate change? Does it would you have a they they're I would say they're very typical of of what you would see in southern Wisconsin. Um yeah, it's you're you're like we're not we're not like way up here or way down. Okay. Thank you.

And I'll just comment. And I know this was discussed at public works board it as well, but we're playing a little bit of catch-up and not having updated this rate for a few years, but I really appreciate your recommendation to um look at it every year, especially we're in this facility planning process. We're going to be doing construction. We should sort of keep up with um things that are happening so it's not such a big jump for um you know, for our rate payers. Yeah, I would just add to that. Um, just as far as timing, uh, the the clean water fund application for that phase one project, uh, would be due in the fall of, uh, 2026. So, that kind of time frame would be a good time to look at this again.

Okay, great. Thank you. 2019, I believe, was our last 2019 was the last one. Yeah. So, it's been about six years. Yeah. Greg Waters. So it was mentioned if we don't do this increase we'll be at a loss if we do this increase. What type of percent will we be above break even?

Uh the budget that is the utility budget um does reflect the rate increase. Let me which would put in 2026 total revenues at 10.2 2 million uh and total expenditures at just under that at so 10 million expenditures at 10,98 revenue at 10,198,500 and expenditures or am I in the right utility? I think you're looking at the electrical one. This would be this would be the wastewater, right? Y

there we go. uh revenues at just under 8.1 million and expenditures total expenditures at 7 6 five. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments, or discussion? Okay, seeing none, can we have a roll call vote, please, on resolution 25-70? Miss Schmeagger I Miss Quednau I Mr. Cuts I Mr. Waters I Miss Curler I Motion passes 5 Z. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, and in the spirit of um allowing our contractors to um uh participate and then sign off, uh, why don't we go next to letter D, which is the discussion and possible action on Catelyn Drive intersection because I note that we have our highway engineer online. Is that right, Kyle Henderson was high? I'm here. Can you guys hear me? So, uh, let's go to letter D. Um, so there's no resolution on this one. Um, so Drake, you want to kick it off?

Sure. Um, the public works board discussed this item at their last meeting. They ultimately recommended to take no action um, uh, based off of the analysis completed by the traffic engineer. Um, I'm happy to turn it over to Kyle if you would like an overview of the analysis that was done and the process that they went through. Uh would council like a overview of the report of the traffic engineer? We did have that attached to the agenda. Be nice to have a quick overview. Yeah. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Kyle, if you can give us a quick overview. And we do have the uh the report and the data in front of us.

Sure. Sure. Uh first just want to double check everybody can hear me. Okay. Uh oh. I don't think we can hear you. Kyle, are you speaking? Yeah. Looks like he's trying to his lights on. Yeah, this not sure what's up. He's coming through the system, but he's not coming out here. He's not. So, something with our speakers is not working. Uh oh.

Um I can do my best. Um so the analysis that they went through it was the the piece of equipment that they used um is less an armad armadillo piece of equipment. So it's less noticeable than the um police uh speed monitor that goes up. Uh so they had it up from October 17th to October 24th. Um you can see the data. They they specifically um pulled out the peak traffic times that they believed would be attributable to school traffic. So 7 am to 8 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to uh 4:00 p.m. Um you mean they called that out, right?

Yes. Okay.

Yeah. So they pulled that specifically from the data that they that they analyzed. Um they do show moderate increases in traffic at that time. Um but not um a a huge number of of vehicular increases based on the background traffic that they identified as traffic that would have been ongoing regardless of whether school was in session um or not. Um they do give you the the speed evaluation data as well. um if the council was interested in additional data the week prior to the uh armadillo device being deployed and the week after the police department um device was deployed as well.

Um so we do have um some extra data as well if you are interested in viewing that the it does show um some adaptation. Uh the way I'd kind of describe it is that what we're likely seeing is that people who are predispositioned to follow speed limits are starting to adjust their behaviors, whereas those who um don't necessarily abide by speed limit signs as as best as others are continuing to um ignore those ignore those speed limits. And so, um, it does indicate, uh, perhaps an an increased, um, uh, level of enforcement. The police chief's aware of it and had already factored that in based on the speed limit change. Um, one specific question that I asked of the traffic engineer when we got that data was to if we looked at like the super speeders, right? You see some that are traveling at 42 miles per hour or or high much higher speeds than we would want to see on this road. and if they were correlated with those peak uh traffic times, the 7 am to 8 am and the 3pm to 4 pm. And I believe this one is from memory. There is a final chart on the last page of the analysis I believe. But that one was uh in the 10 to 11:00 time range and the other one was after 8:00 at night for the for the higher speeds. Um so it is it is open campus so it is possible that it was still from uh especially the the 10 to 11 o'clock may have been from school traffic. Um the one later in the evening perhaps less likely to be so. Um but they did not see a strong correlation between the people who were excessively speeding and the times that were um that we saw peak school traffic. Um so ultimately there's a few options that are available. Um

there is make no change um to the Catelyn Drive intersection. There is the restrict westbound through movement. So left and right turn only. Um and then there's also the restrictions of westbound movement only at the 7 to 8 a.m. and 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. only time period. Uh the recommendation was ultimately um to do nothing um largely because of the the low additional traffic that was observed at that time and the fact um that there is of course a certain percentage that will simply ignore um the signage and the controls that we put up. So we would need to either significantly increase enforcement at that area or you know accept a certain level of non-compliance um which we certainly could increase um enforcement in that area but the question would be for how long and how much resources would the city council want to dedicate um to that. So, um, the data at this point, the traffic engineer concluded, did not support changes to the intersection, which led to the public works board recommendation. Um, certainly the prerogative of the city council to take action um, regardless of that recommendation. Um, so that is the best I am not a traffic engineer. That is the best recollection I have of the presentation that the engineer gave at the poet works uh board meeting.

Thank you. Thank you for that.

Has been sitting on the on the meeting and not able to to speak with us or we're not able to hear him. Um Greg Coots, I don't know if there's anything you would want to add from public works board or any questions or comments from council members. Uh, no. Drake's summary very much uh that that matched my recollection of what we heard at public works. Um, I guess one thing to point out on the top of page five uh where it talks about because the the prop because the study was looking at rerouting, you know, traffic from Catelyn Drive and possibly making that left right turn only instead of going straight. Um it's it was a very low volume of vehicles that are estimated to be going straight through there. At the top of FA page five, it's talking about approximately 13 vehicles a day. So it's a it's a low it it the potential change was affecting a very low volume of cars. Okay. Thank you. So the recommendation from public works board and from the uh traffic engineer was uh to take no action. Um so if the any council member wants to do something different um you can say that now otherwise we can uh conclude this item. Okay. I'm not seeing any u other comments from council members. So, thank you uh to staff and our traffic engineer for doing this work and upwards for looking at it. Appreciate it.

Okay. So, we've been bouncing around a bit. So, I think we need to go back to letter C then which is uh is that okay or do you want to have another suggestion to the to our consultants that are online tonight? Thank you for attending. I don't think we're going to be able to hear you. Um, so Dustin and Evan, um, rebooted to have someone try again. If someone could try and speak. Okay, can you hear me? Oh, we can hear Evan now. Oh, we can hear Evan. Dustin, would we be able to hear you? Uh, I can hear you very well. I hope you can hear me. Okay, never mind. I was going to suggest that perhaps they log off, but since we can hear them. Okay, great. Well, Kyle, do you want to say hello? Just

Sure. Uh, actually I did have a request for you, Drake. Um, you mentioned with the city's police department data out there. Would you be able to send any of that cuz I'd be really interested to see what their data collection compared to the speeds we got just kind of as a comparison, you know, with ours being kind of nonobservable. I'd just be interested to see if there's any difference in when that speed trailer is out there versus our equipment. Yep. We will send it on. Can I can I make can I make an observation about the speed I think it was our speed data from let's see when it was from

I think it was probably our speed data that was uh in the one of the early reports maybe the one that JB had in his materials I thought that the the chart looked a little suspect and only because a lot of this people were going under like 12 miles per hour and so like if you look at the data it looked almost like there's a calibration issue or something with the particular machine. So it's just when you're look so when you send whenever you look at unless I was looking at something that wasn't um I'm trying to find the chart. Yeah. Which chart are you're not talking about the one that we got for today.

No, it was it was the it was one of the ones on Milton Street from 2024 that we used as a comparison early on. It has um a volume of like 80, this is on Milton Street for two weeks. It has 90 people going 8 miles 7 miles per hour and 40 something people going 6 miles per hour and and it has a lot of people going underneath 15 miles per hour. So to me, I'm not sure what happened, but this if this is I'm not just look at the information I think before sending because this looked a little suspect to me. this one from 2024. I don't remember us talking about that previously. So that's Well, it was online. It was on Milton, right?

I don't remember um us highlighting that question or that suspicion or whatever. So, well, I know I I can uh I have I've not received any report that we that we think there's anything wrong with the machine, but I'll bring it up to the chief. Yeah, it was just strange. Might be able to he might be able to um check calibration to see if there's anything. We have we have had it out on Prospect Street in preparation for the design phase of the Prospect reconstruction. So, it's been out on a few different um roadways recently. So, we can check it. Yeah, just check it. Now, that was 24. So, I I'm just suggesting that just look take something to take a look at because that looked really unusual. Sure.

To me, I I can't imagine that there were hundreds of people going 10 miles per hour. Yeah, we do we do intend to deploy it um probably several months from now again just to see how behaviors are being affected. Um obviously it may be different than the the unobservable device that goes out with the traffic engineer, but obviously those require resources, but we do intend to monitor it and check to see how people are adapting to the 15 mile per hour speed limit over time. Okay, thanks. Great. Thank you.

Did I Did I look at that accurately? I know you're showing Drake the chart. Yeah, I'll let them take care of it. Okay. So, let's go back to letter C on our agenda, which is that just seeing as how we do have additional people available on Zoom. Do we want to keep shuffling the Are they here for I guess which ones do we need you for, Dustin? For the zoning, the mangan. Uh, yes. Yes, I'm here if there are any questions related to the manga development. Okay. Should we do do that one next? And then Evan, I think was for the um wastewater. Evan was bar uh the Bartles Beach. Okay.

All right. All right. Well, let's keep shuffling. So, um why don't we do the Bartles Beach Seaw wall next to be somewhat in order. So, that's letter F. Resolution 25-71. Uh M, you want to read that title for us? City Council resolution 25-71 awarding bid for Bartles Beach Seaw wall construction project. Thank you. So, uh, can we have a staff overview of this one next? Um, Evan, would you be able to would you be able to assist?

Certainly, I can do that. Um I can share my screen as well um to show the plans and we can talk through it. Okay. Um this is Bartles Beach Seaw wall replacement project uh at Bartles Beach. The project location is on the southern side of the beach. Um we'll actually go we'll zoom in here um to the let's go to the site plan. This is oriented where north is to the right. Um, as you know, there's an existing seaw wall along this stretch here. And the southern portion here is deteriorated and damaged and tilted and the intent of this project is to replace that seaw wall to match um the existing seaw wall to the north. That is to remain in place. Along with that um is to redo this fishing pier with a concrete pad. Um add a decorative fence just in the fishing pad location. replace this portion of the wall with a chain link fence to match the rest of the existing chain link fence to the north. Uh as part of this project, there are two bid alternatives. The first bid alternative um is to remove this existing ped pedestrian bridge. The contractor would transport that bridge to a location of the city's choosing. Um and then city staff or other contractors would refurbish the bridge. Uh the contractor would then deliver it back to the project site once the seaw wall is um replaced. The second bid alternative was to replace the entire chain link fence on this wall um and and replace what was going to be chain link fence on this portion of the wall and have decorative fencing on the entire length of the seaw wall. So that's the the gist of work um to be done. Um, I can go into maybe an example what that decorative fence would look like or any other way we want to want to go with this discussion.

And I would note that we also have some information regarding um available funds which looks like it came um from several years. I don't know if Evan you can speak to that. Great.

Certainly. So, um, the lowest responsible bidder was Forest Landscaping and Construction, uh, with a unit price base bid of $216,779. Uh, their bid alternate one, which was the pedestrian BL bridge transport and, uh, reinstallation was $4,500. And bid alternative number two, which was to put decorative fencing on the entire seaw wall, was $57,000. $57,015 for a total of $278. $278,294. Uh available funds, we have the 2024 CIP of $145,000, the Tyranita Reserve funds of $61,000, uh the 2025 um remaining or under budget CIP funds of $29,000, and then um 2026 CIP of $47,000 for a total available funds of $282,000. Um based on discussions of this project, I believe the the the route to that we decided to go forward with was um accept the base bid and bid alternate one and not u proceed with bid alternate 2 at this time. So with that um route with the unit price base bid of $216,779 bid alternate one of $4,500. The engineering design and bidding services of $34,000 that's already been completed. And then anticipated engineering construction services of $17,000 brings us to $272,279 uh with remaining funds of $9,721. Thank you. I'm wondering if uh either you or Drake could clarify um I'm assuming the the dollars from the CIP in different years are we've been planning this project for a while and been setting aside um funds. Um but the what is the Tyrannina reserve funds? What is that?

Uh there was a a project within Tyrannina Park that came in under budget. Was that the maybe the redoing the parking lots last year? Okay. Okay. So, it was under the parks budget but for a different project and there's some extra I I can't I believe it may have been bonded for which then would require that it be used on parks related um projects. Okay.

Um and so the the dollars exist and and can be expended on a a specific use and so this would be a qualified expense for those dollars. So, is it accurate then to say that all the um available funds except for the 2026 CIP have already been borrowed? Yes, it's it's funds on hand. It's okay. Great. Thank you,

Gary. I have a scope question. Um Eric Shriner and the parks board um discussion regarding this particular project has been mentioning since October of 2024, including two meetings this year. last one being August of this year, that part of the scope of this effort was to identify a design for sand mitigation as a top priority. And I'm curious to note in this particular effort, is that has that been accomplished? I couldn't tell by the renderings when they there was some lower looking rip wrap that that had been addressed. So I just could you talk speak to that please?

Yeah. And I apologies that that goal or that intent never made it to us during the design of this project. The the designer intent for this project was to replace the damaged portion of existing seaw wall and uh refurbish the pedestrian bridge. So um Eric had never passed along that intent to help mitigate sand coming from the beach um going into that channel. Um the the rip wrap in front of the seaw wall um will protect the wall from undermining. Uh will also for a period of time I would imagine capture some sand um to the point where until the voids are filled. Um but that that's the intent or that's the the extent um that that would be accomplished. It was one of the objectives and we're talking about the mill pond and the expense and the rate by which the that channel underneath the road on South Ferry had been filled in. So I think if we haven't addressed it here, I'd be curious to know how we're going to or if we're planning on addressing that in some other alternative project. And I think that'd be a question maybe. Yeah, Evan, I think you and you when you and I had talked about this after um the public works board meeting briefly, there is likely additional projects that could be undertaken or added after this project was completed that may assist in thu those concerns. Yeah, I think um without having too much time to look into it, you could certainly put a cutoff wall um kind of perpendicular to the existing seaw wall when we go to the drawings. So the concern right is sand going from the beach and then coming into Mil Pond. Um you could look into a cut off wall coming perpendicular to the existing wall. That might help with that. Um I would imagine over time you would maybe get some some buildup of sand in this cove then. Um, and I I think maybe the other option might be dredging. Um, but

I know that's that's something that disturbs the area and maybe not necessarily preferred. Um, I can also reach out to our hydraulics engineers and see if there's any other ways we can we can investigate to to minimize sand um going into Mil Pond from the from the beach. Mary, I I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're asking about. Are you talking about when you say sand mitigation? Are you in the parks board, were you thinking about um sand that generally might be washing from the lake through the creek into the mill pond?

Yes. So when the it was before I joined the parks board, I don't know who was on the parks board prior to me, but they had started a big project looking at the mill pond. And one of the efforts that that the committee um spent a lot of time discussing is how to um mitigate the sand going into the channel into heading to the mill pond because that's the natural flow. That's where the dam is. So all of the water comes rushing through there and it's bringing sand along with it and it was filling up that channel and you have to get you know DNR permits and you spend money to get in there at some period of years to dredge out the sand which is was the plan was when we fixed the wall um based on Eric's discussion with the parks board when we fixed the wall we were also going to put in place a strategy to help with the sand migration so mitigate the you know try to mitigate it coming into the channel and trying to somehow I guess he had mentioned there are different approaches to trying to keep the sand in the lake and not running as quickly or slowing down the sand coming into the into that portion that that channel I guess I'm going to call it channel and he had he had we had just talked about it a few times and you know even in August he said it's a top priority and then I wasn't sure I couldn't tell in the renderings how that was being addressed.

Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Instead of it being out of scope, which would have been a which would have been fine if he would have also mentioned that. We could have discussed alternatives, but yeah, it was out of scope. Like we that was not um a primary objective of this project. Um and it was not mentioned during design. Okay. So, Evan, if I heard you correctly, you did say that there's some rip wrap in the design that should um uh minimize scouring of sand along the seaw wall itself. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah, that rip wrap is there to protect the the seaw wall. Okay, great. That should be good. Um Greg Waters,

yeah, this um that channel was dredged a couple years ago and I think it took about a two or three year process to to get the permits to do that. So, it did take a while. And um

and it seems like it's somebody might know the history a little bit better, but it it has been dredged over and over. Um, I'm sure there's 10, 20 year gaps in between the dredging, but it does fill back in. And of course, part of that sand is going past that channel and it's getting into the mill pond. Uh, I know the DNR has a concern about that as well. But, so, yeah, the thought has been, what can we do so we don't have to keep dredging that channel out? Is there something we can do like punt riff raff that that captures some of that at the mouth of that channel a little bit? I'm not sure how you would engineer it, but that was kind of the the terminology I I had heard in the past. Y so

and I think it would have to be studied and engineered, you know, to design something would have a different purpose than holding up the the shoreline of the park. It was a concern back when we were reviewing Katherine was on the Yeah, was it Katherine? Catholic bishop was on the parks court at that time for she was city council representative. But that was uh one of the concerns is you know how do we prevent the mill pond from from filling in any further than what it is currently because no recommendation was made at that point in that regard. But there is a concern that hey don't let any more of this happen type of thing. So

well and it was it was discussed or described that the when this scope was taken this we knew it was in need of repair that it the same engineering would be required and Eric shared that it was a top priority as a part of this effort. So I think there was a I think I think it yeah it was yeah I think what was described is not necessarily what we have really been working on but I just wanted to suggest that it it I believe should be a part of a conversation regarding is there a project that we should be addressing this issue outside of this particular bid to address it. Um, I'm looking on sheet four and I just want to make sure I'm understanding the information that's on there correctly. Um, a note here that the uh there will be the removal of the existing steel pedestrian bridge. Um, that's going to re uh remain uh intact for when things are all done. Correct.

It'll be refurbished and reinstalled. Correct. Re refurbished, reinstalled. Okay. I just wanted to make sure as that is something that a lot of people treasure and have for many many years and I would hate for things to um change in that regard. Certainly. Yep. The idea is to refurbish it and and have it for years to come. Perfect. So I had Oh, go ahead, Greg. Mary, you took one of my questions, but I still haven't.

Sorry. Um, when I uh looked at the bids, I noticed this is more a curiosity, but there was eight contractors that bid on this project. And um, we've been having troubles getting contractors to bid on projects. So, is it just a time of year that this is probably a winter project? Why was there so many contractors?

Yeah, I would say time of year is definitely a benefit, right? People are looking for winter work and this this I guess was a was a good project for for these contractors. A lot of these I'm looking are bridge type contractors, landscaping type contractors and and the scope of the work um for this project just probably seem to be in the wheelhouse for a lot of these lot of these folks looking for work to do in the winter. Okay. So, yeah, it is a winter project. Great. Um, I have a a question and well maybe a couple questions and a comment. Um, so do we already have a DNR permit for this project? Yes.

Okay. Um, and the the alternative two, I'm interested in the decorative fencing. Um um I I understand it's not being recommended because we don't have we haven't allocated sufficient funds for it and I think we could overcome that problem but Drake I wonder if you could identify any other uh reasons why we might not want to go forward with alternative 2 at this time.

Um it is a it is a question of available funds. Uh we also do believe that we could obtain better pricing on a standalone fencing project. the the the bids for that particular installation were quite high. Um so we do think that perhaps a standalone fencing project could um achieve the same result at a lower cost. Um but you know if funds were available, it might be a different conversation. If the council wanted to proceed with it, we would simply need to amend we would need to amend the 2026 capital budget to incorporate additional funding into it to make up the gap.

So, we have 9700 something that still is available from what's already been allotted, but we don't have quite enough to to do it. Well, I I'm not a fan of the chainlink fencing, but I guess we've we've had it for a lot of years. So, I think the decorative fencing at Drake, you sent me some diagrams of it, and it looks a lot like the fencing at the dam at the outlet that, you know, was designed by an artist, so there would be kind of nice um symmetry there. But u maybe that's something that we need to see if we can get a better better price on that and combine it with some other project or something. So, oh, there's a picture. Mhm. That's nice.

Yeah. Whatever we choose has to with with the stand to the big huge waves that come splashing up. That's for sure. There's a seaw wall. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Okay. Any other questions or comments regarding the um awarding the bid for Bartles Beach Seaw construction project? I will move to approve city council resolution 25-71 awarding the bid for Bartles Beach Seawell construction project. Second. Okay. Oh, I beat you to it. Sorry. You can still Would you like to Would we like to include all

with alternate one but not alternate two? With alternate one and not alternate two. Thank you, Greg, for clarification. Thank you. I will second that. Okay. So base bid and alternate one only. Yes is the proposal. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. See none. Can we have a roll call vote please on resolution 25-71? Miss Quednau I. Mr. Coots I. Mr. Waters I. Miss Curler I. Miss Schmeagger I. Motion passes 5-0.

Okay. Thank you. Let's see. We'll go to Dustin's um item next. So letter G is ordinance 1286. I don't have my glasses on. This is our first reading tonight. So Misty, would you do the first reading, please? Ordinance 1286, amending City of Lake Mills ordinance section 660-44, official zoning map, City of Lake Mills, Wisconsin. Parcel identification number 246071473425. Owner Robert Mangan, vacant land east of Brewster Drive and northeast of Tyrannina Park Road, Lake Mills, Wisconsin. Thank you. The applicant is here tonight.

Oh, okay. Fantastic. Chris, the applicant's representative. Yeah. Thanks for being here, Chris. Well, would you like to go first?

Um, I can. I think uh you've seen this before a little bit. I I think I'll concentrate on the changes we've made um both from hearing from staff and residents um and some council members. So, um some of it was some information we provided. So, if you look in detail, we provided some additional information that was requested um not only by staff but by residents. So, you'll see in the packet um some additional cross-sections that we provided um that kind of goes across the residents and then kind of showing the tiered and kind of that transition we've talked about. So, you can see the bur in there, you can see the the onestory um side by sides and then you can see the grade really starting to fall towards the back when we transition to the two-story buildings. We also gave some additional context on what um the two-story buildings look like. Um they really look like a ranch house um side by side one-story um sloped roof very similar you'd see um to a single family resident. Um so those are some of the details that are in your packet and that we presented at plan commission. um a few changes that we made to the plan um to address um comments that we got. Um there um we relocated an 8-unit building with a two-unit building. So brought a twotory a two-unit onestory building closer to the southeast corner of the development probably to the closest resident that we have. um their house is more closer to the south side of the building, but we did want to give that same treatment of a lower transition building to that resident. Uh we also provided some additional screening. We did add um an additional two-unit building to just really push um get as many of the smaller um style buildings into the development. Um so we did add that. Um and then we provided some additional burming a little bit longer

on the width um and some additional screening. Um we also relocated um there was some dumpster corral um kind of drop off area right adjacent to one of the residents um and we relocated that um so that it would have less impact on the residents. So um we've we've made a lot of continue to make good changes make it uh listening to staff. Um I did have a nice conversation with two of the members, two residents. Um and they thanked uh me for providing the additional information and I think they felt I don't want to speak for them a little bit more comfortable once they actually saw the scale of the project um and the changes and the BMS we've made. So those are were the general changes we worked through um uh at plan commission and we're here today. Thank you.

Thank you. So, this is our first reading this evening um for this proposed zoning amendment. Um and we do have our uh city planner on the line. Do we want to get any kind of an overview tonight to see if people have any questions or just to get familiarity with the project or what is the council's interest tonight? Mary,

I just want to clarify um when this particular first reading if it is approved then the plan still goes back to the planning commission for specifics about the plat itself or when we if we were to approve this the map with because the city gave a lot of recommendations that were like move twist the building around gave other they gave recommendations that are different than the materials we've received. received as from in the report. So if we repro approve this, it goes back to planning and they make the final touches. Does it come back to city council? Can you please explain the next steps?

Dustin, could you run through so the current application? There's obviously the PDD zoning change and then the general development plan has been submitted. So there's can you run through the entitlement piece of this based on if this was approved and then what the next step are for the precise implementation plan and kind of the difference between those the the um the track that they're on I think because m the most recent proposals we've had have always been the uh the uh combined PDD GDP track. So could you touch on that maybe?

Certainly. Certainly. So, um, uh, Drake hit the nail on the head there. Um, the, um, process here is, uh, kind of a two-part process. One was, uh, the reasonzoning with the general development plan and, and that's where we are at now. The second piece, if if approved here, um, you know, in time, uh, would be to come back for the details. So, the general development plan really is, uh, the formal approval of the use of the land, the site layout and density of the site. Um it's the big picture things. Uh this is to enable uh a developer to go through and um illustrate how they are um proposing to align with the context of the neighborhood, the long range plans, specifically the comprehensive plan, um any zoning exceptions that they need or how they're complying with the zoning code before they get into the details of um detailed building um architecture. So there it's we're in broad themes right now uh on architecture um and before they get into detailed engineering that that's where things start getting very expensive. Uh and the the goal here with the general development plan is to show that they are um uh aligning with the expectations of the community in relations to its codes and codes and ordinances. Um if this is approved I'll say a density number of units is approved building types are approved kind of the spatial relationships um are approved uh the combinations of building types are approved um then uh it would come back to the plan commission for all of those details u to be approved by them uh at that time there are no more public hearings uh that was uh that was held um previously Um and so uh following you know part of the

precise implementation plan is uh detailed landscaping plans, elevation plans, site and grading um and then uh any shies or contractual like developers agreements and such are all are all sorted out at that time period.

That does that clarify process? what uh I guess if there's specific components of the application that you might have questions over whether we would still be able to adjust after if this approval went forward. Maybe we could clarify for you um what pieces you want to make sure reflect the council's desires before an approval took place and then we can clarify for you whether that would be whether that would be something that would be during the PIP phase or whether it's something we need to address now to reflect council's wishes. So one so one example the the staff recommended one fewer uh duplex. So that's different than the proposed plan by the developer. So if we were to say yes, vote yes on this plan then they are locked in with the nine instead of the eight. Like the counts are different on the density as an example. So that's what when one specifically that the staff had recommended a a little modification off of what was provided to us as the proposed and so that's that that's why I'm asking if we say yes are we saying yes to the modified what staff would desire or do we have to is that we just say we like the plan minus one like I'm just I'm just trying to understand so when we get to the third reading I'm

I'm not wasting anyone's time by trying to get clarification on what specific speifically is in or out of scope or what is or is not. Yeah, Dustin, as far as there may be inconsistencies between the recommendations included in the planners memo and the application that's before us, how what would be the process for handling those? Well, the the plan commission's recommendation to the council aligned with the staff memo, the staff recommendations. So, uh, unless attorney, um, Dresser is there. Okay.

Um, what's being brought to you from the plan commission, what they have evaluated and made recommendations on are, um, aligning with the with the staff memo. So it would be one fewer uh unit um with you know limiting to 135 34 total units with a breakdown of nine duplexes 11 8 unit buildings to 14 unit buildings right and and it kind of walk through there. Um and then again there's a a a listing of things that need to be met as a part of the PIP submitt. Um, so, uh, it specifically calls out a graphic or a markup that was, um, completed by the staff and presented to the plan commission. And then that is what the plan commission has recommended to the city council.

As a planning commission member, I would agree with the summary that Dustin just made. Okay. Okay. So, what we're really if we we were when we're looking at this first reading, we are looking at page six uh with the with the noted efforts that our what we were looking at for of when we get to third reading would be to say yes to that to to the to the staff and planning commission's changes. And because I I'm just trying to make sure I'm we could adjust I believe we could adjust the ordinance to to specifically lay out

what and reference the the memo with the re recommendations within it in order to remove any doubt that the body might have that some portion of it would would not be enforceable or something like that. So the the intent behind the change is for the council, unless you choose to make any changes, is to approve is is you would be approving the plan with the recommendations that's your staff has made to you for changes.

Okay, that's what I wanted clarification on. Thank you. I think that's really good that you brought that up, Mary, because the the ordinance that be that's before us really just talks about the zoning amendment and it doesn't make a reference to the general development plan. And so if we were to want to change the plan, yeah, what would be the mechanism for doing that? That's a great question. We could clarify that before the second reading. Okay. Thank you. That'd be great. Okay. Do we have any other questions for staff or for uh Mr. Mangan's consultant this evening.

So I I do think just to call out the portion that Dustin did reference right approval of this at when we get to the third reading there is an entitlement aspect to it. So there is this is where you gain an entitlement to build something. The next phase of approvals is the detail the the the nitty-gritty details of that you know the architectural the landscaping the civil engineering. Um, but there is once the zoning change has been granted, there is an entitlement to the land owner to proceed with a a project that generally conforms with the general development plan. And just to clarify in my own mind or for all of us, the the entitlement would be to a multifamily residential zoning with a planned development district overlay. That's the amendment that they're seeking. If that's approved, then that's what they would be entitled to moving forward, right? With the exceptions and obligations that are a part of that PDD and GDP,

the PDD requirements, right? Okay. Okay, great. It's good to get reminders on these process steps. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Chris, for being here tonight.

So, we will carry this forward to our next agenda for the second reading. So, we've got all of our budget items and we've got our Sandy Beach next steps, I think, are what we have left. So, uh, let's go back to letter C for discussion on Sandy Beach Park next steps. And, um, I will just kick it off. We did have, um, some discussion in our budget work session that there I think there was kind of some general consensus around the idea that we should update um, the Sandy Beach Park plan. we've completed, you know, one of the phases, uh, made some decisions on a couple of other phases and, um, might be time to, uh, go through an update. And then we had a little bit of discussion about, well, how much would that cost and should we hire a consultant or do it ourselves or something in between. So, I just thought it might be good for us to make sure that we're all on the same page as or have some consensus on how we want to move forward with um updating the plan and we have an opportunity later if we want to um include some funds in the budget for a consultant. We would have an opportunity to do that uh later in the meeting. So, um, again, I just wanted to kick that off and I think, um, you know, we can, um, Drake's memo did give us several ideas for how we could proceed. One is to sort of do it oursself with existing staff resources. Another would be to maybe do some initial work on our own and hire a consultant to complete some key deliverables. Another would be to engage a consultant now and just, you know, go through a a more rigorous process. So, um, I guess with that, I'll just open the floor for discussion and see what thoughts people have so we can give our staff some direction.

It may if it may be relevant, there's obviously a memo under the capital budget if someone wants to amend that that ordinance to include it. And that that memo is really it's really contingent upon the process of the city council setting its priorities. And then after those priorities are set, we then amend or create new plans or existing documents to reflect the priorities that have been set by the city council, the projects that have been identified. You know, get some get an aerial view of it. Get some additional renderings, uh, 2D and 3D renderings, set up a a general kind of timeline and preliminary cost associated with it so that it kind of lays out, right? you you've established your vision and then this kind of lays out a process to both gather feedback on that vision with the materials that would be developed and then a timeline and budget to inform staff for capital improvement planning um to kind of bring it to fruition. Obviously, the different aspects of it would still need to go through design and bidding and things like that, but if we know what's important to the council and which pieces of it and kind of when they'd like to see things, we can incorporate those into our other planning documents to ensure that they're at least being discussed at the time that the council wants them to be discussed and then approved when the council wants them to be approved. So, any thoughts from council members on what kind of process we want to have for updating a plan? Well, I think there's some lowhanging fruit out there um that would be easy to knock off and um I don't know if we need a plan really for some of those things, but the three things I'm looking at that are that are pretty easy would be the continuous beach

the uh playground which is way way overdue and parking fees because the park is being overran. People are crashing the gate and um it'd be nice to have uh some structure around that and to be able to create some revenue that we could use to do some of the other park projects. So for me, those are the three lowhanging fruit. I'll second um two of your three. Okay.

Um the I love the long one long beach idea. I think that is a low hanging fruit. Easy to do. Um the uh part the the playground. Agreed. Needs to be updated. Um and I also thought about revenue not so much at the parking but the kayak rentals. I'm sure it's not the same amount as the parking idea, but it's just another revenue source. And it's relatively easy when we look at the description that was given on what kinds of things need to happen in order to make it happen. It's not very much work. So, you know, the least amount to gain the most advantage, the the sorry, the least amount of work for our staff to have to do to gain the most advantage is what I was looking for. One of the opportunities we have is to plan for an additional 3 something acres. um since we've um decided to decommission level B. So after next season uh that area is decommissioned and that gives some additional space and I know um talking to Eric Shriner after we had made that decision he said he was glad for the additional space because he felt like the recommendations of the parks board were going to be a tight squeeze in the um in the acreage that you know is currently being used for the recreational amenities. So, um I think that's an opportunity that we can um look at the parks board recommendations and prioritize those and think about how we could use that additional space.

Well, I know the parks board has a I would say has a I would a vision of having like three zones within the park. So the east side, northeast side was is the family quiet zone where they would like to put the playground and they were visualized. You could walk on this new path on your one contiguous beach and the center because we have a lot of trees there and I we haven't seen the tree study results. So I'm hoping a lot of the trees are still healthy and we still have this nice shady area to for this vision. And the center is your uh where the the vision was to have if we have food and beverage or like a beer garden style or your fancy um simple but inexpensive uh nice pavilion with some shade and cool lights strong would be in the center. And then the very sunny side would be your wreck adult zone kind of where the volleyball courts are. It's a lot of the same amenities we currently have, just if you think about replacing the restaurant with a a shelter of some sort, whether it does or doesn't have food service. Um, kind of similar to the currently similar to the the way the park is organized today, except the the the thing that was putting a lot of pressure on the space was the volleyball courts

and that there was a desire to do four. We were trying to fit in for sure three. And with the additional acreage that we have um now, uh we had kind of all just quickly said, "Oo, you could even maybe you could scoot your parking lots over. You can make a different more interesting design. Would that be better for storm water management? Move it back a little." So it so it does open up, I think, a lot of um creative thinking or different thinking of somebody how you might place some of the things that the parks board has recommended. But you may also have ideas of other things that you would like to see. Um our goal was to keep it more the discussion of the park sport I'm collectively on our was to not over um manufacture if you will add too many things to still keep it somewhat passive but yet have act the active part being the beach and beach style things like kayak launch and more swimming area and the volleyball courts. And so, um, I I think I agree with the the I would say the parks board would suggest that the new playground, the single beach, and even if we can, that's where the design comes in. Figure out we've had a lot of interest in still getting volleyball um in a place that doesn't have issues with the drainage because, you know, where we have it, it's in a temporary location. I think our are our um I think lowhanging fruit that we could I but where I'm struggling where I think we need help is a park design expert to kind of map out all the things we would want. How do you place them to meet our desires and to make parking fee um entrance and exits? How do you make that so it's smart? You know where we don't we end up with a really great design? I think I'm not sure we I think we need some design help, but I think we could I mean if you go if we were to find some time even at a working meeting

working meeting or here to just go through the recommendations and say is there are there elements of this that really fit in the lowhanging fruit and then I still feel the food and beverage would be worthy of a conversation and whether we need a professional facilitator or not. I don't know. I I feel like we all have ideas. I'm actually speaking to someone on Thursday who just did a really I saw a neat pavilion in Michigan. It was just this really little pavilion with a tiny concession in the center and you know just food for thought. I'll send you a picture if I think it's worth pursuing but I think we could drum up something that is not high cost but gives us flexibility for the future that we haven't talked about. That's the part where I think we're I'm still thinking we need some good think time together is something beyond the lowhanging fruit ideas. And I think we could do it ourselves, but having a creative if I don't know if we have someone who's a creat like a good like in parks that we could call upon that would be able to spur our innovation. I don't know.

Greg KZ, any initial thoughts? Um, I was I was disappointed when I saw the um the addition uh to the uh to the agenda of the parks board recommendation. Not because those are bad recommendations, but because those are the same recommendations we've had for several months. And those were the recommendations um before we knew what was going to happen with with B level at all. So the point of those recommendations was this is something that we can do on the existing footprint. Um, I thought tonight uh we were going to hear some council members ideas of what might be happening with the with the B- level now that it's been voted to be decommissioned. Uh, again, there's nothing wrong with the the parks board's recommendations. I think they were really well thought out. They put a lot of time and effort into them. They all make a lot of sense. Um, I like all of those recommendations and those are fine to pursue, but I don't think that says anything about the vision that uh that we have for the for the uh park as a whole. And when we voted in that meeting, um we people were talking about uh grand plans that inspire and and creative ideas and things that make business sense, but we don't have any plans like that here. No one no one's brought anything that fits those kinds of things here. And that's what I was hoping I was going to get. So, I was hoping this was going to move a little bit further forward.

So, a thought that I would I guess I would share is um I I've been thinking um Michelle since you suggested it at our budget work session that you know we could probably do a lot of us of this ourselves. I was thinking about how could we um you know sit down, go through the parks board recommendations, prioritize them. I I like the list of um deliverables that Drake provided us for something that we could um get from a consultant and I think a a two pieces are important to me. one is sort of the five-year plan kind of an idea and it it probably would align with the capital improvement plan but also just you know work tasks that um staff would be involved in or that we would be hiring contractors to do from year to year. So some of those things that we might say can be done right away there might need to be a sequence to you know do this first before you can do that. And so I think I would I would love for us to sort of prioritize those things. um that are in the parks board recommendations and also have a feel for how much they're going to cost and you know which ones do we want to do first and then how does that fit in with parking lot work, demolition of level B um you know other other um things that we might be looking at. Um but so I do think that we can do some brainstorming over maybe a couple of work sessions and putting you know taking a look at current plans and and coming up with some general prioritization. Uh the the second thing I think I would really like to see as an outcome is um a public input process. And so to me, I think that means we need um not just public comments at a work session, but an actual, you know, sort of professional diagrams along the lines of what Drake

described in his memo um that then people can react to uh rather than um you know, old diagrams with sticky notes or or handdrawn things. I think some some level of professionalism that people can comment on and then we can finalize and say, "Okay, this is our plan for the next 5 years and here's the things that we're going to accomplish." I think there definitely is um you know interest in the community and being able to weigh in. I'm going to disagree with you only because we've been down that road. We've been down that road so many years and we gave the public the opportunity to uh put their input in way way back and then again with regard to the restaurant they voted no. So that's what's kind of set us backwards a little bit in terms of what we're doing in Sandy Beach because the restaurant was going to be the pivotal moment of which where we go from there when the community said no we don't want you to do this restaurant. It it set us backwards but it didn't mean that we need to start all over and re-imagine what was intended for that space. I think it's more about we have an idea. We already have a drawn up idea that's been in place for a long long time. Yes, it includes a restaurant in there, but that doesn't mean we can't I as a as you put it put a sticky note here. I'm envisioning we have a picture of the lake and the and the and and the sorry and sandy beach and we for lack of a better word sticky where things go and play with it that way. I mean, it can be a tactile experience with discussion and it's not necessarily one that needs to

include the public. Not because I don't want their input, but because they've elected us to be in that role to make those decisions. And as far as the lowhanging fruit, I don't want to I don't I kind of I don't like that terminology cuz it feels like this is minimal work. But we have to make effort at looking like we're doing something there because we haven't. And so if the first thing and the only thing that we can do is extend the beach and and take down what things get in the way of extending the beach, I guarantee you that the community will be like, "Oh, all right. We're on the roll. Let's go." And whatever motivation that we need to be a to go to the next step is going to be there. We will then regain the faith of the community. right now we don't have it. And so if we continue to put it off and and and uh create more um discussion, I think we're going to discuss this till we're blue in the face. We're never going to make everybody happy. We do have to do something. And what I think we were expecting, or at least the expression I got from you, Greg, was like, let's just do the things that we can do that don't interfere with other plans that are going to happen. And if we can do those, then we can we can we can start planning for the other things. But let us do this first so we can look like, hey, we actually are doing something about Sandy Beach. So I agree with you. I mean I I totally agree with what you're saying. I think we need to show something on the ground.

Um a process that I would envision where we have some work sessions and we have a kind of a we make some decisions about how we want to prioritize things and what we want to get done over the next five years. I don't see a problem with giving people an opportunity to comment on that. I would see getting that done in six months because our staff are going to need to update capital improvement plans, figure out costs for, you know, the different uh pieces of the project. And as we look into them, some of them might be more logical to do sooner rather than later because of how they tie into the parking lot or changes with the boat slips or whatever it might be. Um, I guess I'm, you know, I've had enough people tell me they want to still be able to weigh in on public comment that I I feel some responsibility to produce an updated plan that everybody can look at and see, yes, this is now what we're doing. It's the 2018 plan. We finished a couple pieces, but now we have to shift the phases because we've made some different decisions. And so, we do have to update that so that when somebody says, "What are we doing at Sandy Beach?" we can show them the latest plan. So I I feel like we should have some kind of an updated document for people to look at

and that can come from our work sessions. I just wanted to make sure that the conversation about this was what are the priorities, right? And my interpretation of what our priorities are are what are what are the things that we can do now? That's a priority. We can plan for what's next. And that's what I'm envisioning what you're saying is that we we we we set in motion these things so we can we can tell city staff, okay, this is what we want to do by by summer of next year. Let's go. And then they can figure out all the details. In the meantime, we sat down and figure out what is our grand vision of this space and then based on that, what's the priority? uh what are how are we going to do this? I mean, the memo does a great job of prioritizing for us. I especially appreciate the ADA accessibility. Thank you. But I just, you know, I wanted to have something on the docket for next summer. That's all I'm saying.

Great. One of the things I liked about I'm going to throw the date out. I think it was two 2017 meeting and hunt uh was that they had the phased approach and and we did the phase one which was prior council which was the boat launch. We kind of skipped phase four which was the the lower trailer park and um it would be nice to kind of rephase things and say okay this is what's next and then and then we can move on to this and to address Mr. Jacun's uh suggestion about what are we doing with that lower trailer park that will fall probably into one of these phases

where we would plan for for that but we want to make sure that the next phase that we do doesn't interfere with the phase the phases that come after that. So I I'd like to see a phased approach and I think the workshop would be helpful to do that. I think we could set some quick priorities that hey, to do this parking lot thing, there's only one entrance coming into this into this lot. It'd be real easy to put a gate up and or whatever. We'd go to a city to figure out a way to to monetize that,

but it shouldn't be that hard because there's only one entrance. So, there's things that we can do pretty quick and easy on this next phase, but then there's other things that are going to take longer that we need to wait to fall into place. Maybe we need a certain phase to be done before we can move on to another phase. But I do like what Mary said about the different zones of the park and that makes a lot of sense and and I think the way the park is set up right now, it kind of lends right into a lot of that except for we haven't decided necessarily where those volleyball courts go. But yeah, that's where I think we just need like a park designer. If we go through and say we want four volleyball courts and we want a shelterish thing that looks like this the size. It doesn't have to be whether how big if there's going to be a little kitchen or not a kitchen. But if we have a shelter thing this size and we do or do not want the ice well we had an ice rink and we talked a lot about the ice rink whether we thought that that was the right place. We actually thought we would like to invest our money to do a cool ice rink right here in Commons Park if we had to put money in ice rink. But if you had a an area with the cool lights, you know, going across like you see in in um well, I like a lot of people have beer gardens with the big lights across and you hook it on to the side of the bathroom location. And then you have your another little shelter and you piece all the things that we want. Someone needs to design it so that that you have the right flow so people can go from the and then you have your traffic and then you have your parking lot which is the big question now that we have, you know, additional space. Do do you utilize some of the space that we're gaining from that trailer park area not um having um trailers on it to use for do you shift your parking? Yes or no? I don't know. I'm not I that's not my area of expertise. But there those are the types of things where I think ex and I believe that gets to our last agenda item where someone to help us once we

have the yes of what we want, how do you map it all together to get it? I I I I don't I think we're really close because we don't have a lot of unless you want to add things like someone suggested a roller hockey court or a well because you know we have space so people are thinking what would be fun and so there so people are suggesting other things I'm not sure that's the right park for them but that'll give us food for thought the parks parks um board for you know other locations possibly where I do think we need help is budget because that too for some reason everything that's coming in front of me right now, I think is way too expensive. So, I I'm obviously offbalance on the budget stuff, but uh but we need help with with that. Yeah.

Well, and correct me if I'm wrong, Drake, but I think when we did our budget work session, we had a big chunk of money, five years out, saying like this would for for improvements at Sandy Beach Park just as a placeholder. So, we really didn't put any funds in 2026 or the subsequent years for That's what I was You were just going to bring that up. Yeah, 80,000 right now. I'd hope to speak to I'm going to try and do something that I've told you I'm going to work on doing better and that's managing expectations.

Um, there is nothing budgeted for 2026 work at Sandy Beach. There has been no design. There have been no priorities set. there have been no um you know decisions made over what needs to be done. So the term lowhanging fruit I'm reluctant to to use that term because even if we look at one project which is making one elongated beach there are priorities within that that redevelopment of that beach that the city council may want to explore that is going to take time. You know, one of the, you know, parks board recommendations is, of course, to partner with, you know, the the generous offer from RLIA to use an to have an ecological consultant um, you know, participate in in that process and look at native plantings and geese mitigation methods and, you know, what how do we want that? You know, one really long beach is nice, but

geese really like wide open spaces with a lot of sand. And that is something that you know we've been told is is an area of concern. Are there

you know natural mitigation methods that we could incorporate into that that needs to that all needs to be explored. You know it needs to be designed. It needs to be publicly bid. It's November of of 25. we aren't on a schedule right now to to go into a good to be ready for the most competitive time to be bidding public projects before schedules start to fill up. And so, um, while I understand the desire to to move quickly, what may look like lowhanging fruit is not always as simple as it may appear when we're just saying we want one big long beach. There are other things that we may want to accomplish. um and other you know things within that park that may be a goal that we want to make sure we address at the appropriate time instead of needing to go back and redo something that we had just done you know something on. So, you know, as far as, you know, certainly planning, you know, we can amend our capital budget certainly before we go out for borrowing. We certainly have that capability. We can s the council can certainly allocate fund balance to capital projects in the middle of the year, but we are limited in the resources that are available to us to accomplish these goals. And right now I in my opinion we do not have an agreed upon plan as to what this park is going to look like. And so we can try and identify it in a peacemeal fashion, but each piece that you choose to move forward with, there is a certain amount of path dependence because you're not going to go back and redo that piece. And so if we don't have a vision for what that park is going to look like after we've completed everything, then at the time we do complete everything,

it may not necessarily reflect what we wanted it to look like um in retrospect. Um so we we do I think probably need some amount of planning to to go into this. But we certainly can move forward with projects that the council says we want to do them now. We still have to design it. We still have to bid it. We still need the resources allocated where they need to be. But I just I just want to reiterate that there's other goals that the council has has identified as far as storm water management, ecological concerns, as well as the recreational aspects that sometimes go hand inand when you're doing a project. um that we may not that if we move too quickly on we may miss, you know, that component of it and then we're going back and trying to remediate something that we just did. Um I guess that's my two cents on the matter.

Well, it was more than two cents worth. So, thank you for that. Um, and I think there's other things we could add to that list like the parking, like the revenue issues, like public safety. Um, you know, people have raised from time to time and how those all factor into the design. And I can think of like the volleyball courts is a good example. You know, we wouldn't want to start putting in three volleyball courts and then we get all kinds of public feedback that no, we really must have four. Well, then that kind of upends everything. So we need to be give some, you know, at least careful consideration to each option and figure out how all the pieces fit. And maybe that goes back to your point, Greg, of you know, trying to lay out a plan, but then doing it in phases and seeing how all those elements work together to tell us what, you know, what the phases should be or what order they should be in.

And the money is there. and the money.

Is there is is there something the pork parks board can take on to do some heavy lifting and connect in a different way back to city council to move this forward more quickly quickly holistically? Is there some a role they can play? I feel the parks board I know we're without a parks director right now and Drake is kind of playing multiple hats but we have a very engaged parks board. We have the chair is a very long tenur member so he he kind of knows he knows history kind of knows where where things have been at. I I mean it's a it's a everyone's I think very engaged. So is there a role that the parks board can play to help enable us to move forward or an ad hoc committee of some sort? I'd raise my hand to help in any way to u some sort of committee structure um in order to just get this beyond I know I I I agree with you Michelle I I am I feel like we're still spinning our wheels a bit to to move to a plan and I I am worried we have a few outstanding pieces however I know Drake I'm not sure I know you were looking for someone on the part A in pines to really understand what's going on there because that's something possibly might need some remediation there in some way, shape or form. So that opens up then what now what because you have a balance of additional large set of acreage which I don't think is necessarily material to today but it could be like to say what if and then we have to figure that into whatever plan we put into the balance of the park. But I I think we are at a a place where we know what we've got to work with and I'm just offering up is there a way to enable us to move move with using the parks board in in some way or an ad hoc committee or do we need more working sessions and we just

have to once a once a month do it? I I don't know if the suggestion that Drake brought up with um RLIA may be a good start to get the ecological piece if that's I mean you make a good point Drake the geese love wide open spaces and the geese can create the problem where people can't come and swim because of ecoli and whatever. So, what are the what are ways that we can mitigate that? that may be a good project that I would like to see happen um considering that if we're going to and I am all about um environmentally friendly practices if there's something that they can provide to help us make sure that that's we're going to be able to fit the recreation piece as well as this other mitigation of goose droppings. if at all possible. Um, I think that's a good one.

I agree that the parks board is very engaged and enthusiastic and they're getting a lot of great work done. I think we owe them a a look at at their we've never really had a discussion on their recommendations and prioritized and maybe we won't even agree with all of them but you know and may I I think as this process goes on we may have some things to send back to them like okay is there something different that we want to do in terms of trailer parking or you know when when we come up as uh Greg Coot said you know what's our vision for the future of this park there may be some details that we're going to need them to you know develop some recommendations on bolts slip rental or whatever it might be. Um, but I think now we need to honor their work by really digging into it. That's my feeling and and you know putting some priorities to it. Um, and as you said, we don't have a parks director. So that's the other thing I'm thinking about like what is our process? How are we going to dig into this and what is our staff's capacity to support it? Um that's also um a challenge and Drake I think you are trying to you know set our expectations. So it does seem like we have some general consensus that we should have a work session as maybe a next step.

Yeah. I think we need to maybe eliminate some things too. We can't do everything. So maybe if we focus in a little bit and we can uh decide then do we need to go to a consultant? Do we do it in-house? Do we do it with staff? How do we get it done? So,

are there any other thoughts that people have for tonight? Um, I have one more. I I I know Greg, you brought up um part B. one one thing that the parks board was struggling with and I think that is something that we should all be getting our arms wrapped around beyond parking or um including the parking as a source of revenue. we they we weren't asked to look we we started this before we had made the decision but um revenue sources I think we we were getting sometimes getting caught with what we would like to do versus what we think we need to do because we're trying to still get money so the it's like the boat um lifts and boat storage and so we are very very conscientious of the revenue side but yet if we were designing things and that was not an issue we would may have made a different recommendation and so So, I think that's something I just we all should be thinking about that when we are um planning for the park for the short term, but the long term that we that you recognize that some when you might see it in some of our notes, but that the the revenue side was a a po was a push pull on trying to come up with a balance between what we want to do versus what we need to do kind of thing. And that's something I think that has to be a part of our discussion as well for a work session. So it's not just what we want, but then how do you it's how do you how do you get the money to but then how do you make money,

right? I think it's a good observation because I don't I mean there's there's a um uh what's the word? there's a, you know, a tendency to maybe think, okay, well, because we terminated level B and that gave us, you know, $90,000 in revenue a year and that was coming out of a city park that therefore our city parks have to generate $90,000 somewhere else, but maybe it doesn't have to be generated out of our city parks. Maybe we, you know, come up with something else. So, um, or or shift some things. But I I agree that's we don't want that to we need to keep it in mind like you said Greg keep the money in mind but we don't want that to be a barrier to what is our vision for the long-term future of this park.

I uh I'm not saying a hard no to a work session. I don't know that we need a work session to talk about the 16 recommendations that the park board already brought us. There's no reason that each of us couldn't look look those over, come to the next council meeting, and have something like this where we each give our top three or whatever. You know, it I I I'm not saying we don't need a work session, but I've been to work sessions about this project even before I was on this council and we keep winding up in this spot where we say, "Maybe we could do this." said, "Yeah, maybe we could, but I I we just need to start I and I I I know we need the plan." And yes, I I get starting with the plan, but we need to have I think I think this body needs to start sketching something out. even if it's not a plan, a timetable of how we're going to get to that plan or something. Not just, oh, I guess we'll have a work session and see what how many things we can say maybe about in that and then we'll have another work session after that. Well, and I think one thing I would like to get out of all of this too is that staff feel and and Drake has pointed out, you know, staff doesn't have a clear direction for what we should be doing next other than we know 2026 is the last year for level B and there will there will be some logical next things to do there. Um, but beyond that, we really haven't given that direction. I think if I guess part of why I'm support a work session is because it can be a fairly long dialogue to go through those

recommendations and think about how they tie to the costs, how they tie to the infrastructure, how they tie to, you know, the parking and other things. And so it just would give us a little bit more ability to have conversation, but we could do the tactile um you know, approach that you're talking about, Michelle, and being moving around and drawing things on diagrams and really trying to lay out a a plan.

Um and that you can't really do that in in a council meeting. So I I like that idea of trying to really get in there with with the map and and figure out what we want to do. I think one exhibit that would be helpful that I feel we need to uh get to each of the city council members is the picture R. Uh I think that was the the last kind of rendition that we used as our base for the parks board recommendations. I'm visual and so all these little boxes in black and white, you know, black text on white paper is, you know, they're like a bathroom or but to see it the I think the parks board we actually had one of our members bring a whiteboard and he cut all everything to size and we were doing exactly what you were saying. You tell he has kids. Yep. Y and he we were he was putting the his like little pieces on the whiteboard and kind of trying to visualize how the how would you like the the park to feel like what would you want to see which is why we created these zones. You don't want the kids who are playing the playground being right next to the volleyball courts who are you know sometimes you know adult level stuff going on. And so I think that rendition R is the one that we worked off of that would be a nice springboard to for the recommendations and if everybody did some homework I kind of kind of trying to hear Greg on worried about the working session and we thought about whether the components kind of look like it's where you'd want to want to go as a starting point that we didn't add a lot of new features. there might be new features that you might find that have been a top of your mind or you've heard from constituents that might be worth popping in here as a for conversation. Um we did have a small number of people come to our public input session. So we

had a handful and they were very open to sharing their perspective and thoughts and um so we did have some engagement and we included their perspective in our recommendations. Um, so I I think that would be I think if we could get I'll send it to you u Misty or Lisa and you can if you wouldn't mind I'll send the R one we worked off of and we could send it to uh the city council so they have it you have it all as a starting place visually um that these were built off of kind of so you can see the layout that we were thinking about. Thank you.

All right. Any other thoughts on this? I I hear Greg um not necessarily wanting to have a work session, but wanting it to be productive, like let's actually get something done, move the ball forward. I sure that staff would echo that. Work sessions are designed to move the ball forward. Yes, we should be getting something done. Let's move the ball forward

as an outcome of it. Yes. Um so Drake, any thoughts on timing? Um No, you're you're going to be largely staffing it until we have a new parks director and I want to make sure that they are able to be brought in, you know, um into the process whenever that new person is hired as well. So, not off the top of my head. I I'll have to look at the meeting schedule um find some open evenings and

uh get those dates out to you. So maybe just a ne literal next step would be a poll for our availability for a work session and just trying to be mindful of staff's um personal lives um earliest you know time of the day that people can meet maybe identify that as well um and then we'll keep the conversation going. So I think we have a general consensus that we will be a a top priority in that work session will be going through the parks board recommendations, prioritizing those and looking at

and potentially adding or modifying or whatever. But yeah, going through those and then um factoring in or at least having some conversation about how parking, utilities, other things like that will fit in. And then timeline for what can we get started on next year and what you know how long might things take. Okay, enough on that for tonight. Okay, last but not least, our millions of dollars budgets um that we are going to be approving tonight. So, uh Misty, correct me if I'm wrong. I think we're up to H now. Is that right? Yes,

from jumping around. So, our next Thank you everyone for that discussion. So, our next agenda item is resolution 25-72. Misty, would you read that for us? City Council resolution 25-72, resolution declaring official 2026 utilities budget. Move to approve resolution 25-72. Second. Um, not sure. I think my left ear was stronger than my right. So, a motion by Mr. W, second by Miss Qued. Now, uh, staff,

uh, the budget comes to you recommended by the public works board. Um, each of them are either um very either balanced or in um a certain rate of return. Um, staff recommends approval. And I think you mentioned earlier the utility budget assumes that we adopted the rate increase which we did approve tonight. So

yeah, I do anticipate we will be eligible for a simplified water rate case in 2026. That's not reflected in the budget, but um we typically recommend when we were 0.1% off of eligibility in 2025. So I do believe we'll be eligible in 2026. So there could be some additional revenue um within that utility. Um and then we will likely start the process of an electric rate case in 2026 in order to meet the PSC's deadline of uh a 2027 um meeting. They they set a deadline the last time we had an electric rate case that we had to complete a rate case by a date certain in the future. and it's about an 18month process to get through an electric rate case and submittal with the PA PSC. So, we will start that process in 2026. That is done at no cost by WPPI um as a benefit of our membership.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions or discussion on the 2026 utilities budget? Seeing none, can we have a roll call on resolution 25-72? Mr. Mr. Coots I Mr. Waters I Miss Curler I Miss Schmegger I Miss Quednau I motion passes 5-0.

Thank you. Next item is a public hearing on the 2026 general fund budget. So this um public hearing has been duly uh published in the uh leader independent and so I will open up the public hearing for comment on the city's proposed 2026 general fund budget. There's only a couple people in the room and no one online. Does anyone have a comment on the 2026 general fund budget? Last chance. Any public comment on the 2026 general fund budget? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Our next item is ordinance 1284. M, this is our third reading. Misty, would you do the third reading, please? Ordinance 1284 2026 general government budget and tax levy ordinance.

Thank you. So this is our third reading. So we can have a motion to approve the ordinance this evening. I'll move to approve ordinance 1284. Second motion by Mr. Waters, seconded by Miss Schmaker. Um, I know we've had uh there's possibly been some modifications since our budget work session. So, are there any updates that you want to give us, Drake?

Um, largely they are accounting for uh health insurance costs. Um, you know, that is the main the main driver of the of the budget. As I stated, the mill rate will be dropping to around $5.50. Uh the city portion, the total mill rate, I believe from memory, is somewhere between 15 and $16, down from the $22ish dollar range. But um that would be the total mill rate, but the city's portion of that will be $5 and50 um give or take a few um pennies there. Um if there's questions, I'm I'm happy to answer them. Um, other than that, staff recommends approval. The city is in strong financial um, shape. We will have some probably conversations in future years as certain revenue sources begin to drop off. Um, and so we will continue to um, work through those as they come up as well as what our whatever our net new construction might be in future years in order to to balance future budgets. We are hopefully on a more sustainable path now by rejoining the Wisconsin group health insurance um program and no longer purchasing health insurance on our own as a as a small employer. So that hopefully puts us on a more sustainable path. Um but if there's any questions, I'm happy to try and answer them.

Any questions for staff on the general fund budget? Uh, I would just like to make a comment of thank you to Drake and Sam in particular and to all your staff and department heads for grappling with some of the challenges uh that you had to deal with for this year, particularly the unexpected um significant rise in health insurance along with the lower growth than we've previously had in the past. So, less um you know, lower net new construction, less dollars from the state. So, appreciate how you've been able to manage the budget and uh not have any drop in services cuz since I've been on the council, we've never had to reduce services and I I that could happen someday. So, I'm appreciate appreciating all that you have done um to prepare this budget for us. Thank you.

We will obviously we'll keep you informed as the year goes on. um you know there may if there's any shortfalls in revenue or things that are coming as as B-level um prepares for its final year. There's been some termination of leases and things of that regard. So we'll keep an eye on revenue. Um and then also just to um one quirk of the budget that I'll keep the council aware of. Um we've always come under budget so we are not um overly concerned at this time but it's the once every 11 years 27th payroll uh with instead of 26 payrolls within a year and so um we will be watching that as we progress throughout the year. Okay, good to know. Interesting.

Okay. I hope my company has 27 like I do. If you get paid every other week and depending what what week you start on that Friday falls have that one extra paycheck. Yep. Falls on a holiday which means that it comes early. All right. Okay. Any further comments on ordinance 1284? Uh seeing none, Misty, please call the role on ordinance 1284. Mr. Waters, I. Miss Kurler, I. Miss Schmegger, I. Miss Quednau, I. Mr. Cuts, I.

Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Uh, next is a public hearing on the 2026 capital budget and this uh, public hearing has been duly noticed in the leader independent. So, I will open the public hearing now. Is there anyone who would like to comment on the city's 2026 capital budget? Don't see anybody coming to the podium or online. Would anyone like to comment on the city's 2026 capital budget? Last call. Any comments on the city's capital budget? Okay, I will close the public hearing with no comments. Uh, next item is ordinance 1285, which is the third reading. Uh, Misty, would you read that for us?

Ordinance 1285, 2026 capital budget. Thank you. Is there a motion? Um, I would uh make a motion to a approve ordinance 1285, the capital budget with the amendment of uh 15 of an extra $15,000 allocated for the Sandy Beach planning as outlined in the uh staff report.

I will second that. Okay, we have a motion by Mr. seconded by Miss Schmaker to approve ordinance 1285 with an additional $15,000 for Sandy Beach Park planning. The only thing I'll add to that is as we gain clarity while the council goes through its process, it is still possible we would ask for a budget amendment to increase planning dollars if that was deemed to not be sufficient for whatever the council may be planning. But um you know this was kind of the the what we identified as potential work that the council might like to be done but not go as far as like a full in-depth master you know park plan that so this would give us you know valuable documents and valuable information and insight. But um as we learn more about what the council is looking to achieve and what the council wants is over the next uh you know several months, we can still have a conversation about amending if additional resources are necessary. Um that typically we'd want that to happen before we went to borrow um to fund our capital projects for the year which is um in the May June timeline typically. So, I just wanted to pass that along that this is a this is a does provide us with resources to accomplish a number of of planning goals, but of course, it's always reliant on what the council's hoping to see out of it.

Uh Drake, one question about that. The uh when we were looking at the uh Bartles Beach Seaw wall and the available funds, that project was coming in and it looked like there was approximately there was $9,000 some dollars left. Would that be available to help continue the planning process if needed or could Yes. Um that difference I believe comes from the difference that's being made up in the 2026 capital improvement plan for Bartles the remain the main the remaining would be brought over as reserve from 2025s. Okay. Um yeah. So I guess the short answer is yes.

Yes. Yeah. Well, thank you. Yeah,

Mary. So I really liked Drake the layout of the develop um statements that you had as a part of the $15,000 for the I would say the deliverables if you will. If you were to set a deliverable date for the city council, ideal deliverable date in order to achieve the right information, I guess it would be the last bullet, develop preliminary cost information on identified priorities to make sure that we meet or I should say or ahead of your deadlines when you are develop starting to discuss and develop your budgets. If you could help us with that date and we can work to align these deliverables to achieve that, I think that would be a great goal for the city council and I would like to ask my city council members to try to support that set of objectives so that we actually make it into the plan next year for 2027 activities um and not have where we have to adjust anything on the fly. So, and we don't have to ask the date now, but if you that would I think would be something at our planning session if we could use some date management to pace ourselves to get something done. I think that would help all of us

because that's what you're kind of talking about. I have kind of a procedural question about uh the planning sessions. Uh when we have a planning session, who needs to be present for that? Do we need to call everyone in to do, you know, do we need to have Drake and Dan and Sam and Misty all sitting there on the side or can literally can just the five of us meet to talk about our plans?

It's Lisa's decision. I believe uh that we would want to have one staff person present to document the meeting, but I don't I I would defer to Drake for who you would want to have there depending on what's on our agenda, but I don't think it needs to be Yeah. all of our staff and consultants. Um it really What do you think?

You could probably get away with just me. Um if we had a parks if we had a you know a staff a director overseeing parks right now then they would likely be present as well. But um I am perfectly capable of taking minutes and um facilitating as I as I need to. And our work sessions typically don't have a lot of details in the minutes other than sort of the start time and the end time and and who was present that kind of part of why I'm so capable of doing it. Was there a second?

Uh, we have a motion by Mr. Coot, second by Miss Schmeaker to approve the capital budget with an additional 15,000 for Sandy Beach Park planning. Is there any further discussion? You talked about I'll just maybe for everybody's understanding, uh, if we choose not to hire a consultant or spend this money, that's just borrowing that we wouldn't do, right? So, we're putting it in our budget so that we can borrow for it. If we decide to hire a consultant, if for some reason we don't, then we don't borrow it. No harm done. Correct. Okay. Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, Missy, would you please call the role on ordinance 1285? Miss Curler, I. Miss Schmeagger,

I. Miss Quednau, I. Mr. Cuts, I. Mr. Waters, I. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. So for our uh next agenda, we have a second reading on the Bangan proposal that we heard tonight. Uh we have a donation um for Rotary Park um for a bench uh memorial bench that will be on our agenda. I don't know anything else off the top of my head if there will be something from the plan commission. Um, I believe Brookstone phase 9 plat approval will be at plan commission next week which would then come to the city council. Okay,

Drake, is that the final plat approval for that? The final final phase. Yeah, I believe so. Yes, I think that's right. Yeah, a long time.

Long project. Yeah. Any other questions, comments? Mary? Um I would like to propose uh discussion on um growth for the city council. Um you know we've been approving or we have we've been fortunate enough to have some new developments come our way and we just approved the one on west eastina. We have west hyena ahead of us. We had the one that's now um had withdraw over by Brookstone by Wallace Park. um we have um an interest hopefully someday century and so I'm looking at our 20-year compounded growth projection that we had in the comprehensive plan and as I think about what we've made a decision on to date and those that are ahead of us or in front of us we are like surpassing 20 35 2040 um population projection estimates and I I don't know that we have had I haven't been a part of a discussion if there has we have any growth objectives or concerns or if we have a kind of what our plan is, our strategic plan, our goals as a council regarding smart growth for us. And so I would like to have a conversation. And so if there if there are any materials from past meetings or if any anything has decisions have been made, I would be um interested in any thing I can read to prepare in advance um so that I can get up to speed on kind of where we might all be thinking because that because it all of the this impacts, you know, our our police force and our fire and all of our utilities and I mean there's there's, you know, push and pull um growth brings a lot of great things, but it also can put pressures on others. And I I just think it'd be a a great conversation to have um so that we when

we're looking at each of the pieces, we know how we're impacting all the parts. Drake, any thoughts? Uh, it just depends what level of an information and analysis you want me to be prepared to bring as far as when I could be prepared to to bring it forward or or if it's a if it's simply a conversation at the council level, that that's one thing. If but if there's something there's information the council is interested in, um, I might need some more time. Well, I took the information you gave me in August and made a chart, made a table,

and then I'm adding because I'm, you learn my analytical brain gets caught on these numbers, but I I made a table just to kind of add

our decisions that we've made and then things that are earmarked and um and which kind of got me thinking. Greg, your your comment regarding um some of the policies in the comp plan and I just I don't know it started it got me thinking I think more strategically and deeper about some of the decisions we have currently and coming up and so I have I'll share with you what I've pulled together Drake and I I'm not sure if it's what you're thinking might be helpful but um I would just like to see where we are as a council if we have objectives goals or um on the on the more strategic front as we're facing growth because I I don't final year like last year when we weren't able to grow we didn't grow we're like in the decimals and so growth is healthy but I I just would like see where strategically we all where our boundaries are as a as a council

so the comprehensive plan does outline smart growth in a couple different spots I I'm not sure how that's encompassed or if it's even defined normally we kind of think of smart growth as like 3% growth a year but I don't think it's defined necessarily in the comp plan that way, but it is in the comp plan. Yeah, I wasn't able to

Oh, no. I I was going to I was going to say say the same thing that I know that the comprehensive plan that that was a topic that got lots of lots of attention when that was that was being assembled. I I don't think in my time on the council that we've had a focused discussion on growth outside of the comprehensive plan update, right? I think we've had like a separate thing. So, there's not materials, you know, that would be separate from that. It might have come up as our uh strategic goals

in the planning session, but I'm not sure if it got communicated into our strategic goals. I'd have to go back and look at that. I can't quote it off top of my head. I guess I should be able to do that. But uh

well, because it's not an agenda item, I'm I'm not going to go into making this a discussion, right? Because I'm I'm being mindful, Dan. Am I doing a good making sure I'm not creating an agenda item? But I I I think that looking at the numbers of of where we are, I will be important for us to see are we kind of around the plan that we we we think we're at or where we want to be is question. I'm not saying that over three is great or it's not great, but I I just want I think a strategic conversation would be important for us.

I think the topic needs to be much more focused before before it it comes up like that. I would not want to have staff spending time preparing huge broad wide-reaching things just all under the umbrella of one large topic. I think it I think I I'm not opposed to having any sort of a discussion, but I think if it's not a focused it needs to be much more focused. Um, well, I will I'm happy to meet with Mary and

Yeah, I'll work with I say I'll work with Jake on that because I I I believe it will be focused. I just this is not the discussion part. I just wanted to bring the topic up, but I was trying to frame why. And so I appreciate your input there, Greg, and we'll make sure it would be focused. Okay. Any other announcements or recommendations, Greg?

Yes. Uh, I I know several things were added to the agenda after uh after Friday. When that happens, can you at least put out an email saying things have been added? I know Sam did do that when she added some things to the to the agenda this week, but can we do that in general whenever something's added? Because I'm very busy on Monday and Tuesdays and I do my studying on on Sundays usually. So if I don't see something on Monday, Tuesday, I'm not gonna necessarily go back and look at the agenda. So yep, we can do it. Yeah. Yeah. And just some kind of

you're referring I think you're referring to attachments. So the agenda items didn't change, but there may have been some additional attachments. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further comments, uh this meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone.