City Council - Regular Meeting

Where'd you go? Hi.

How are you? Good. How are you? It sounds like your voice is coming back. Good. Oh, those people in the front row are Yeah, he's he's here. Yeah. Okay. Good evening everybody. We're going to call the meeting to order here. It's a common council meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2026. It is 6:30 p.m. Wasaw City Hall Council Chambers. Please join me for the pledge of

allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'll have the clerk call the role, please. We have 11 voting members present.

Okay. I don't have a proclamation to read tonight, but I will be reading this. I'm going to enter it to the file for the clerk. Friday is MLK event at Eastgate Hall 5:30. So, if you're available, we'll be reading it there. Up next is presentations. We have Mike and Maddie here from GEI Consultants regarding a regulatory case update for the former Wasau incubator site 1300 Cleveland Avenue.

Do we have Okay, floor is yours.

Awesome. Well, good evening. Um, we've been asked to present an updates on the environmental regulatory case for the 1300 Cleveland Avenue site. Next slide, please. Today, we'll briefly go over the prior work completed by GEI at the site and the associated costs to date. We will give an overview of the status of the regulatory case and discuss the remaining effort anticipated for case closure. We've also been asked by the city to present considerations for remedial action options as part of case closure. And we'll go over some preliminary options and the estimated costs. Just as a brief overview, uh the 1300 Cleveland Avenue property is located in District 3, Ward 8, south of Thomas Street between South Thirdrd Avenue and Cleveland Avenue. The Cleveland AB site, also known as the Wasaw Business Incubator, was historically an industrial property occupied by a manufactured wood veneer and finished finished wood cabinry business. The site currently consists as of a concrete slab foundation of the former manufacturing building and a storage shed. We understand that the site has most recently been generally used by the city for temporary storage of yard waste and general parks department use. GEI um involvement with the site so far as uh we first got involved in the site in 2020 to complete a phase 2 subsurface assessment the results of which indicated that there were environmental impacts on the site. GI presented these results to the city and shared them with the DNR. GI then submitted a site investigation work plan which was approved by the DNR and completed the work as outlined in the plan. GI submitted a site investigation report

in 2022 to which the DNR responded that the site investigation was incomplete and requested a groundwater sampling for POS to be completed. GI sampled the existing monitoring well network for POS for two rounds in 2022 and 2023 and submitted a status report to the DNR. Um based on the POS results for the site, the DNR determined that the POS investigation in groundwater was not complete. GI presented these results to the city in 2023 during which we presented our opinion that the POS results in the site represented a background condition. Therefore, with city approval, we recommended an investigative approach to the DNR to confirm our opinion. The DNR approved of our approach, which resulted in GI installing two off-site groundwater monitoring wells in 2024, one to the north along Thomas Street and one to the west along South Third Avenue. GI completed two rounds of groundwater monitoring for POS in 2024 and submitted a status report to the DNR. The DNR agreed with our assessment that the additional POS monitoring supports the opinion that POS and groundwater on the site represents a background condition. The DNR determined that the POS investigation in groundwater was complete and therefore the site investigation was complete. GI then returned to the site in 2025 to abandon the monitoring well network including on-site and off-site wells. This slide presents the current established city approved budget on the left and a summary of GI's efforts on the right. These fees are current as of December 2025. The current status of the regulatory case is that the DNR confirmed that the site investigation is complete as of July 2025 and that remedial action will be

necessary for case closure. Based on the regulatory submitts and DNR correspondence to date, we anticipate that the remedial action necessary or remedial action will be necessary for soil only and only to address the direct contact exposure pathway. This would be for metals specifically arsenic and semivolatile organic compounds specifically phahes. Based on the current status of the regulatory case, the next steps will be to identify and evaluate remedial action options. We will then submit a remedial action report to the DNR for approval. At this point, following DNR approval of the proposed remedial action, there's an opportunity to look into potential federal or state funds or grants available to assist in the implementation of the approved remedial action. However, the selected remedial action will need to be completed regardless of grants or funds procured or not procured. As stated, the city selected and DNR approved remedial action will be completed and documented. We would then submit a remedial action completion report to the DNR with the objective obtaining DNR confirmation. Following confirmation that the remedial action is complete, we would then submit a case closure request with the objective of obtaining DNR approval. Following case closure approval, the city would be subject to continuing obligations, including an operation and maintenance plan associated with the selected remedial option if applicable. And the continuing obligations would be applied to any future redevelopment of the site. So, I'll hand it over to Mike to discuss the rest.

Good evening. GEI was asked to prepare a presentation that outlines a few preliminary remedial action options to address the environmental impacts at the Cleveland Avenue site. The following set of slides provide preliminary information on four potential options that are generally influenced by the same set of objectives and considerations listed on this first slide. I won't go through each one of these items, but a few key objectives and guidelines are that the completion of the remedial action will reduce risks to human health and the environment sufficiently to support DNR closure of the regulatory case and allow for various end uses of the site including residential. Additionally, the remedial action options being presented do not consider currently or integrate currently a specific redevelopment plan because we understand that is still in discussion. And then also the costs being presented do not consider um any post remedial action operation and maintenance so on and so forth depending on the remedial action that's chosen. And then finally, all of the options discussed tonight would be subject to DNR review and approval. Ultimately, GEI is tasked with preparing a report for DNR review and approval that includes an evaluation of a at least a few remedial action options and provides a recommendation for the implementation of the option desired by the city. Next slide. The following two slides provide information for the first remedial action option that was considered. However, the assumptions lifted listed on the right hand portion of this slide will apply to the other remedial action

options as well. So you'll see these repeated. Uh so before I begin getting into this specific remedial action, I'll just discuss some of the assumptions that you'll see on on the additional slides. So, a few of the key assumptions here are that the existing data is reasonably representative of current site conditions and as Maddie stated, we're assuming that a remedial action will be required for soil only and only for the direct contact exposure pathway. That is, we assume that a remedial action will not be required for groundwater and it also will not be required to address the soil to groundwater pathway exceedences in soil. So it's strictly for direct contact. And then finally on the assumptions um our opinions of cost for each of these options are presented as a 90% confidence interval. So the lower and upper ends of the ranges should not be viewed as theoretical minimums or maximums. Um so just keep that in mind. So onto the left portion of this slide. Nope. Go back. Thank you. Um so so this option as it states assumes that a soil performance standard in this instance an engineered barrier or cap would be used to support DNR closure of the regulatory case. It assumes that the cap would be constructed with earthn materials with the upper portion being seated top soil and it assumes that soils would only be removed to the extent necessary to install the engineered cap. Based on DNR guidance, currently we have assumed that that would be a cap with a thickness of no more than 2 ft. And it should be noted here that the DNR can approve alternate caps. And in the past they have approved earn caps with thicknesses in some situations less than

two feet. Therefore the opinions of cost presented in herein um include a possibility for DNR approval of a thinner cap. Next slide. This slide presents an aerial view of the property with the shaded area being an estimate of the area excavated for the remedial action and the smaller hatched areas being an estimate of the areas basically site features current site features building foundations that we anticipate could be used as part of the engineered cap. And then it should be noted just for ease of presentation that the shaded area shown for remedial excavation is based on the area presented in the site investigation report. Um in the end the final geometry might be different than this. Um it could be slightly bigger, could be slightly smaller. Um and our cost estimates include some consideration for slight increases or decreases in this geometry. And then in our view this option presented herein is likely a baseline action that would be required to pursue regulatory closure. The other three options that will be considered after this are different approaches that in our view may not be necessary to obtain closure but may be pursued by the city depending on the city's desired outcome and the goals and objectives with respect to future redevelopment. So this option here, as it shows on the left, we've developed an opinion of soil quantity that would be excavated and hauled offsite for disposal of 3,800 to 6,000 cubic yards

with an associated opinion of cost between $500,000 and $850,000. And that would be a cost inclusive of on-site contractors, off-site landfill disposal and fees associated with GEI to um direct and uh document the remedial action and also pursue regulatory closure. And the anticipated result for this option would be that you have a site with soils containing levels of contaminants above non-industrial industrial standards at depth shallower and deeper than 4 feet, but they would be under an engineered cap. So that would be the result of this option.

Hate to interrupt you at this stage, but can I ask you a question on your assumptions? It looks like they all indicate evacuated soil is nonhazardous. Yes. Can you explain that?

Yes. So, um, current data that we have for the site suggests that it's non-hazardous soil. So, there are various categories of waste. One is solid waste and one is hazardous waste. So, the materials that we anticipate would be excavated from here would be classified as just a solid waste. which would allow off-site disposal at any facility that would be accepting of a solid waste. If it were hazardous waste, it would need to be disposed of at a DNR approved hazardous waste facility. And there are obviously different costs affiliated with disposal of solid waste versus disposal of hazardous waste.

Okay. And and don't we already know that hazard is we have some hazardous profile in there. And what? Yeah, there are hazardous there are hazardous materials. Yes. Just just to jump in there is

you have to come to the mic please. Kevin Fable, environmental engineer. There are hazardous materials in the soil, but in order to meet the definition of a hazardous waste, those certain materials would have to reach levels higher than what we anticipate would be in the soils that would be removed. Thank you.

Thank you. So option number two again the assumptions on the right are the same. This option assumes that a soil performance standard would not be used to pursue case closure. Therefore, soils would be removed to eliminate the direct contact exposure pathway, which based on current DNR guidance would require excavations to a depth of four feet within the area defined. And then finally, similar to the other option, we've assumed that following the remedial excavation, the void created by the excavation would be backfilled with soil and seated. But in this instance, the materials used to backfill the excavation would not be considered an engineered cap. It would just be backfill. Aerial slide. Next. So again, the areas on this slide present the areas that would be excavated to implement this option. Um the areas now however would be excavated as indicated to a depth of 4 feet versus on the previous slide it would be to a depth necessary to install the cap which could be 2 feet or less. And then it should be noted on this slide, the hatched areas that previously were just hatched are now shown as being shaded, which would be a potential requirement to complete some type of demolition of those features to allow access to soils beneath them to remove the direct contact exposure pathway. Um, however, additional sampling and testing could be completed before or during a remedial action to demonstrate that soils with impacts requiring remedial

action do not exist beneath those structures. Currently, we've interpreted them to extend beneath the structures, but we don't actually have specific data beneath the buildings to confirm that. So, just be aware. So, the next slide. Oops, sorry. Previous. There we go. Okay. So, for this option, the opinion of soil quantity is 12,000 to 16,000 cubic yards. The associated opinion of cost is 1.4 to 2 million. And the anticipated result again is soils with non-industrial industrial standard exceedences again direct contact at depths greater than four feet. So, that would be the difference than with the previous option. Then the next slide. The third option is essentially option number one where we are relying on a soil performance standard an engineered cap. However, this option would include the removal at several locations of soils to depths of up to 8 feet, possibly more to remove soils that exceed industrial direct contact standards. Um and then finally, you know, similar to option one, we have assumed that the selected cap for areas that are not excavated to depths of up to 8 ft would be earthn materials finished with seated top soil. Following slide. So this slide uh looks similar to the prior slides except now that uh we were excavating uh to greater depths to remove industrial standard exceedences. Uh we have darker shaded areas at a few locations representing locations where this deeper excavation would occur. uh one in the northern portion of the site for phahes,

one kind of central of the site for metals, specifically arsenic, and then one lower at the site for uh die to exohalate, which is uh with the acronym DEHP on the on the slide here. um outside of the darker shaded areas again and just the uh lighter shaded areas those would be excavated to depths just required to install an engineered cap. So those again would be two feet or less. And one of the assumptions on all of these slides um I don't know if this question is being thought about is um we were given at least an initial suggestion to assume that site grades are not significantly altered so that we can't initially just come in and install a cap on top of what's there. So any type of cap that's installed, we're removing a commensurate amount of soil to allow for cap installation. So this option has an opinion of soil quantity of 5,300 8500 cubic yards. Opinion of cost is 750,000 to 1.1 million. And the anticipated result would be soils with non-industrial direct contact exceedences only, but those exceedences would still exist at depths shallower than four feet. And then the final option, this option is essentially option number two with additional excavations to remove soils with analyte concentrations above not only industrial but also non-industrial standard exceedences. This option assumes that again a soil performance standard would not be used to uh achieve DNR closure. uh soils would be removed to variable depths up to four feet in most locations and up to

8 feet or more in some locations to remove the soils with industrial and non-industrial direct contact exceeded. Finally, similar to the other option, we've assumed that the void created by the excavation would be backfilled with earthn materials and and seated. And again uh on this slide I use the term cap but um this earthn material that would be used to fill the void would not be considered an engineered cap. Following slide. So this looks similar to the previous slide. Um darker shaded areas being a little bit larger to remove the soils that exceed non-industrial standard exceedences. uh outside of the shaded areas. Again, those would be excavations to a depth of four feet to remove the direct contact exposure pathway. And for this option, I did not highlight the uh hatched areas to present a scenario in which perhaps additional sampling is completed and it confirms that we do not need to complete a remedial action for soils existing under those structures. Um it finally it should be noted for all of these options that none of them result in a scenario where you obtain what's called an unrestricted closure for the site. Um following implementation of each of these options, some soils with concentrations above background threshold values and also some soils with val with concentrations above soil to groundwater pathway values will remain. Um therefore any closure letter submitted to the city uh would identify it as having residual impacts and identify a requirement for those soils to be managed as a solid waste if

excavated during some future redevelopment. And then that was the last slide. Thank you. questions for GEI.

Mr. Martins. Yeah, I I think you answered this in your presentation. Um maybe not completely, but um in all of these options, you're not really doing anything to, you know, what's underneath the concrete slab. Is it an assumption that we're going to keep that slab on the site for future development or do we really not need to worry about what's underneath the slab?

Yes, it's a good question. So, it would if we rely on that slab as part of the engineered cap, it would need to be maintained until some future time where a redevelopment is completed. And if those slabs would need to be removed at that time, it would be through an approval process with the DNR to install an analogous cap or at that time to complete testing to prove that you do not need a remedial action to address those soils. Um, but yeah, it it would basically remain it would need to be maintained until a future time when you would either install something different that serves as a similar cap or prove that you do not need a cap at all.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Polar Lugans. Thank you. U Mr. Mayor, um could you just explain one more time the difference between do not rely on soil performance standard and does so that has to do with capping? Correct.

Yeah. So yeah. So within DNR regulations, they define a potential exposure pathway through direct contact with soils as being direct contact with soils within the upper 4T of the horizon. So if you would excavate soils to a depth of 4T to remove the direct contact and then fill it back with soil, you would no longer have that exposure pathway. If you install If you do not do that, then the DNR would require you to install some type of barrier between occupants of the site and the impacts that remain. And that's where that engineered cap would come into play. Anyone else? Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Up next is a presentation of North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission on the City of Wasa Housing for Older Adults report from 2025. Good evening everyone. Sam Wessel, North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. I've been working closely with Carrie Edmonson on this project. So, um I've already presented it a couple of times, but I found some more information since then. So, let's go to the next slide. So, in 2022, we did that housing study that projected 4,500 plus new units by 2040 being the demand for the eight municipalities that were part of it. WA was share of that was 898. Although we noted that um any units help meet that regional total even if we were to exceed that. And since then there's been more interest in okay what do we do about the growing 55 plus population. Um you've got a greater variety now than you used to maybe of where someone might retire at 55 and still be pretty active but then also you've got people living longer who might need more intensive nursing care. So this is just a start. I wish I had all the answers, but no one had really done anything on it from this uh city level approach um related to housing specifically. So hopefully this can help in discussions with developers or other sort of um departments or uh people you collaborate with on a daily basis. So right off the bat, affordability and staffing are going to be the biggest concerns, which shouldn't be a surprise, but we'll get into the numbers in a bit to explain why that is. Next slide. So we split it up into three age groups. 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and then 75 plus. As you work through those age groups, the different owner occupancy versus renter occupancy rates change. And you know, as you get into those upper age groups, a higher percentage of people need assisted living or independent living or

something like that. We're not adding projections to the 2022 study, but we're showing what proportion of our future housing stock is going to be occupied by people in 55 plus households. There are new state population projections which we used. They didn't give us household projections. So I just took the current household size for 55 plus households and divided the population projections by that. Next slide. Here's some numbers. Um really the big takeaway is that first, you know, 2020 through 2040 that's going to be your baby boomers. And then once you get into that 2040, 2050, you see the millennials start to trickle in, which is um scary thought for me. So, uh, you see there's kind of that two- wave. And why why I bring that up is it's a challenge when you need to build all this housing and then it shifts to a different kind of demand where, um, you know, it comes in waves. So, part of it is being flexible so that if you build something new or re repurpose something that it can go back to like a normal apartment if it was a nursing home or something like that. Next slide. So, here's the housing continuum. No services on the far left. That would be just like your normal apartment or house you'd find on the market. Once you get into some services, it's also called independent living where maybe you're getting your meals or um some other things like snow shoveling, lawn care, and then long-term care uh encapsulates those three, you know, assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing care, and the state of Wisconsin licenses them in those four terms at the bottom. So, basically, moving from left to right, it's how much assistance do you need? And then you get more and more intensive care the farther to the right you move. Next slide. So the median household income, you know, 50% of people are above that or below that. But if you look at this age group, 70% of the county and 75% of city households earn under 75,000. So that shows you because many of them are past their working years, um, incomes tend to

be lower. And people are also living longer. So that's kind of scary. um if you're living on fixed income, people are staying in their homes longer. There's more technology that allows for that to happen and we haven't really seen this huge demand in um you know, a change in demand in housing yet. People are just really staying in what they already have, but uh we anticipate that that will change pretty rapidly. Some concerning trends are that debt is increasing for older adults and there's growing gaps between, you know, the people who are able to save pretty generously are doing okay for the most part, but those who didn't have as much are falling farther behind. And once you get into that oldest age group, 75 plus, you're uh the rate at which you start moving into different forms of housing starts to accelerate. The good news is people like retiring here. Um, I mean sometimes there's a more fun place to retire that's somewhere more touristy, but then once you, you know, get a nice decade or two in of that, you start to think, well, I want to be closer to my kids or my grandkids and I want lower maintenance. I want to be closer to the store or the hospital and that sort of thing. Next slide. So, challenges are affordability and staffing. Um, there's huge staffing shortages predicted for home health aids, certified nursing assistants, and RNs. Uh our commercial areas are a lot of them are outside of Wasa which aren't connected by transit for those who don't want to drive anymore or want to drive less. New housing is really expensive to construct and a lot of people earn too much to get public assistance but are still struggling to meet that basic household budget. We think that that demand for older adult services and housing will rapidly increase and then come back down in that wave pattern I described before. Condominiums are historically thought of something that would appeal to this age group, but they're just not being built anymore um based on a lot of financial reasons and a lot of HOA reasons. And um we might be a magnet for surrounding areas outside of Wasau too because we have that proximity to the healthcare

infrastructure and the grocery shopping. And then finally, dual cost burns a concern when you might be paying for a house or apartment, but then your spouse ends up in like a memory care facility. Now you're paying for two kinds of housing, one of which is very expensive. So things to keep in mind, but we do have a lot of opportunities. The landing is getting national recogni uh recognition for how um wide its programming is and how it keeps expanding and that's kind of been a draw for some of these households to move here or just visit for the day. We've got the health care systems, the walking trails. We're good size where people like that we have stuff to do, but we're not an overwhelming city that is intimidating to navigate and we're still relatively affordable compared to some other areas. And there are some emerging trends that can help us even if we can't build exactly what these numbers suggest we should um that can help retrofit some of the stuff we already have. And we do have a mix of lifestyles too. If you want to live downtown or in a suburb or out in the country, you can do all three of those things within you know 15 20 minute drive. We do have transit and walkability in certain neighborhoods. And um I'll get into a little bit of that aging in place stuff, but that's basically like adding a ramp or a a special kind of shower so people can stay in their homes longer or that tellahalth where you can access a doctor's appointment without having to physically be at a clinic. And then multigenerational is basically different forms where either you're interacting with different um generations through volunteering or community activities or you're living with your kids or your grandkids in a special kind of setup. Next slide. So, this is a new one. Um, at the last meeting I was here, I was asked to look at what peer communities are doing. Um, we actually are designated by ARP as an age friendly community since 2018, which I didn't know the last time. So, our score is 62 out of 100 and the recommendations from that designation were to keep expanding the bicycle pedestrian infrastructure and some more of those intergenerational activities.

Um, one of them that came to mind is I think the new YMCA edition, um, or the the landing edition has more visibility between the daycare and where the older adults hang out because they want more of that interaction with the kids, which is kind of cool, and they do other activities that facilitate that interaction. I looked up some big age friendly plans. Uh, Washington DC and Los Angeles have some pretty robust ones, and it was good to see that a lot of what are in those plans are already being done here um, in this study that I wrote. and then some of the other ones ethnicity or AP and some of the other organizations have done. Next slide. This is another new discovery uh recently. So this is called Levvesu. It's um a dementia village based off a model in the Netherlands where they take these manufactured homes and they're pretty affordable. They're under 175K. Um they're,00 ft at the most. They're not very big, but you can live with your um significant other as you age even if you don't need the services uh yourself. and it's less institutional feeling and it's more garden-like where there's activities and there's landscaping that keeps you on site and there's cameras and monitoring but you don't feel like you're being closed off from society. So, it's a really cool model. It did take a lot of front-end costs with the 14 million fundraising for phase one, but it's an interesting one to watch because it's being done in Wisconsin, which means it's not that far out of reach. Um, yeah, and you can see the various amenities on the screen and there's an example of one of the units on the next slide. Um, they designed the units too to help you navigate them better if maybe your site isn't as good or um, you know, high contrast surfaces, lots of lighting. Next slide. So, we did countywide projections because the state only does those age groups by county. They don't do it by municipality, but that's still important because we're all sort of the same housing market. And we're just keeping those current trends constant. We added 20% in case there is outside demand because there are so many rural counties surrounding ours. But if you think maybe

that's overshooting it there, just mentally take 20% off the projections. And we've got three main categories. The owner renter housing, which is the general housing market, independent living, which you can see uh the different percentages of which age groups require that, and then the long-term care. Next slide. So here's a change in demand. We've got owner occupied on the left, renter occupied on the right. We can come back to these numbers. They're kind of hard to see on a screen. Uh but let's go to the next slide. And then independent living. So this one's interesting because affordability is 30% of your income, but a lot of times independent living can cost 65% of your income, but that's partially offset because you're no longer you might not have a car anymore. You don't have to cook your meals anymore. So it does look like sticker shock, but it is offset for some reason. So you can see the demand really spikes by 2030 430 units and then another wave um by 2040 another 341. Next slide. And then the long-term care facilities we just base that on how many per capita we have for those age groups. And those really um again between now and 2030 is where that huge surge occurs and then a little more in 2040 but then tapering off after 2040. Next slide. So here's a summary of all that data in one slide. Um so basically we expect that initial surge and then continued demand and then after 2040 stuff we might uh will will start to taper off just based on the current trends. Next slide. So I won't go through those highest priority and second priority because I already have several times and I'll save you some time but those are in the original housing study from 2022. Um but they're there for reference if you ever want to steal that slide to use in another presentation. And then in the next slide, these are the new ones. So, recruiting developers and working with them who have an experience with these various types of housing, working with your healthare systems, education systems to get more people trained to staff these

housing types. Developing and maintaining the transit, parks, other amenities that you already have, supporting uh maintaining and rehabilitating the existing housing because that's going to be cheaper than new construction in most cases. and retrofitting it with some of those aging in place and tell health capabilities when they're needed. And then finally, finding your vacant sites and structures, which you guys have already done a pretty good job of. Um, and um, especially if they're located near transit or the other services where they can be walkable to provide more options. And I think that's all I have. Um, do you have any questions? Thank you. Questions for Sam. Alder Lukans.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um so taking this into consideration the changes um with the older adults if we look at the um 2022 metro housing study the number was that 4531 new units would be needed regionally by 2040 and in Wasa 898 by 2040. I know that you didn't have that. you know, we don't have the city amounts, but I hear, you know, sometimes people say like, "We don't need anymore. We've got enough housing." Now, is that Can you Can you speak to that? Like, do we still need, you know, we have a few developments that have gone in and so do you have an opinion on that? I guess I'm just wondering.

So, right before the meeting started, I looked up vacancy rates because someone had asked me about them. And the newest data set is 2023 from census. 2024 comes out at the end of this month. So I'm curious to see what it says. But said owner occupied housing vacancy rate 0.0% is the estimate which it census that those years between the you know 2020 and 2030. They have to just estimate based on that data they have. So they're never perfect. They're never exactly on but there's still low vacancy rates. Um I agree with you. It'll be interesting to see in a few data sets once some of these bigger developments come online what that will do to those numbers.

But um I think as far as we can tell prices are still elevated compared to 5 10 years ago. I moved here 5 years ago and it's you know what the prices were back then are quite different than what they are now. Um so so far

keep an eye on it. Um and a good way I was going to say a good way to explain this is here's the projection from the first study. I'm looking at the projection within that projection of who's how much of that's gonna be 55 plus. It's not adding to that one, which is hard to explain in words and I maybe should have put it in a graphic, but so of the 55 plus like um so they they would not be having needing probably or as much of a demand as owner occupied, right? So given that and given the new developments we have,

yeah, it's surprisingly owner occupancy rates are still pretty high in a lot of those age groups and a lot of people don't want to move until they have to. Okay. Or they want to move and it's like I need to fix all these things before someone can even get a mortgage to buy this and I can't afford to fix those things. So then they're kind of stuck. Everyone's situation is different, but um yeah, we we try to base it off of what are the current trends. You know, how many are percent renter or owner occupied in each category of those different age brackets? And that's how I base those numbers off of. So, I really like the shabuan model for that would be I mean, how nice what for quality of life for people. So,

and even if you did it in a different context, too, where it was just the high quality manufactured housing, I think maybe would fill a gap regardless of if it if it's an intense, you know, care or not. It could just be a independent one. So, I I'm really glad I found that one because it it's proven that it can happen in Wisconsin. It's not like it's from, you know, a place that has two, three times the median income we do. So, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Alert tierney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of my uh guest questions concerns is for people who need some assisted living or you know, is your mic on?

Pardon me. Sorry. One of my concerns is for people who need a higher level of care, uh assisted living, um you know, nursing home. I think that's where we really have the shortages. Um I think people the owner occupied a lot of people stay in their home because they feel like they can't afford because their house is paid for. Uh so you know to go to a rental facility it's like having a house payment again. But um as far as people who need assisted living um you know they need help with those meals, those medications but still could be independent to some degree or you know they need a CBRF or something like that. That's where I'm concerned. Um and I'm concerned with being able to staff those types of facilities too. You know you have about partnering with healthcare to get those uh staffed. our our health care systems here in Wasa are struggling with staffing situations themselves. So that's kind of the one where I have concern is our older adults that that need a little more help.

Yeah, that one's particularly concerning because you know the city can work with a developer to get something built, but you're you're not going to start a school to train people. It's you know whatever the existing system has for you. And so, and a lot of those I mean there's there's waiting lists at some of these places so that's concerning as well. And lots of sticker shock too for people especially who have a payoff house. Yep. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you, Sam.

Thank you. I'll post this to our website, the the final draft of it for viewing. Up next is con is is item four, consideration of the minutes of the preceding meeting, approval of minutes if correct, and corrections of mistakes if any. This would be for December 12th. That was over a month ago, regular common council meeting. Looking for a motion. There's no motion button. Motion to approve. Motion from Neil.

Second from Killian. Barring any changes. No. Seeing no comments or amendments. All those in favor of approving the minutes signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? All right. Do we have our buttons back? They were. We can move on to the next item.

Okay. Uh, we've got one pre-registered commenter. So, we will read the city of Wasau public comment statement. The city of Wasau recognizes the value of public comment on local issues and the importance of allowing members of the public to express themselves on city matters. Please identify yourself by name and state your address. Each statement made by a participant should be limited to three minutes. Direct all comments to the chair, not to members, staff or other participants. People addressing the council shall not disrupt the orderly course of business. The chair values civil discourse and may interrupt, terminate, or prohibit public comment that do not adhere to these rules. Up first and only tonight is Curt Hazy. Good evening. Kurt Hazy, 700 block West Street on WASA's uh fashionable west side. Um, I'm here tonight um because I'm concerned about the ethics board and I'm also concerned about elections because now we're in the uh midterm elections and it looks like it's going to be very heated. Uh I my family's been here for about 100 years in Wasa Wineoff's Cafe was downtown where they uh uh used the power of imminent domain to take the place and put the uh new mall in there. We were there for 90 years. Um the mall was uh the mall was there for 37 or something like that. Um as a pole worker um I just want to let you guys know because I've been a pole worker for the city for 10 years now. Uh this will be my 10th year going on uh as a um as as somebody. So I'm I guess I'm a city employee part-time. Um, I've been

dealing with uh these elections and I just want to let you guys know a little bit of what what's going on out there and what I've seen especially heating up in the last couple years. This was the uh sign that I had out in front of my place on West Street. Um, somebody came by and I've had in the past where people have taken thrown them in the d in the bushes and sometimes they they do other things to them, but this was the first time I've ever seen somebody where they actually came and lit the thing on fire and then mangled it and threw it in the street. You notice that the name on there is Harris. That was the black woman that was running against for president. The other signs were just thrown into the bushes, but this one intentionally. I was sleeping upstairs that night. Thankfully, they didn't light my place on fire. Two, I've been working out at uh Marathon Park, um East Hall for the election, 16 hours. It was the biggest election I've ever done. I heard that the city clerk worked overnight. I didn't get home till about 11:00. 8 o'clock in the evening, I had to go out there and we needed to close the doors and get everybody inside because officially if you're not in line, you not can vote, but we have to take care of you. We went till 900 9:30 or so. Um, so that uh it made it very difficult there for us to get that done. When I got back, oh jeez, I don't have enough time. So anyway, um the uh I am one of the complaintants on the uh the situation with the ethics committee. I was very angry when I found out that uh that uh they took that sign out, the box out from underneath there. Um I it has affected me as a pole worker. I've

worked over in this corner over here and had people come up and ask me whether or not I was going to take the the metal box where I asked them to put them when I verified their signatures whether or not they were going to take that upstairs into the mayor's office. Very embarrassing. My concern going forward is we have a very difficult job to do. Things are heating up right now. We have uh the the patriotic front out there that's showing up at uh the elections in Marathon Park and uh those guys were very difficult. I found out from the guy that came back, one of the observers, he was up in from Alabama with the uh Justice Department. He says that's the patriotic front. I can tell by their insignas on there. They were wearing white masks. I wrote up an uh an incident report that's available for you to read on there. But be prepared, folks. there's a chance that we're going to have people that are going to interfere with the election. The thing I'm asking is, and the reason I step forward and put through that complaint, and we were justified, we were vindicated, is you, you start messing around with this, you're going to affect people and they will take action there. So, be prepared for this kind of stuff that's going on here. Anyway, I wish I had more time to talk to you. If you have a committee that you want to look into uh dealing with this in the future, I'd be happy to. But again, what they said about whether or not uh this was for security and uh and for uh not enough lighting, if you look at the that AM uh radio station, there was a statement by the mayor who said, "I don't agree with that being out in front of there along those lines. I I haven't got my hands on it yet, but I've let it be known that I don't want that out there." So, I know there's still a criminal investigation going on on this thing. And so, we have to have a cover story, but a person what they tell you, what a

person says, believe that that's the person that they are. So, I'm very concerned going forward into this election. Do not mess around with this election and what's going on and support the people that are working at it. More than likely, we're going to see some terrible things happen in the country. Um, it is my hope that that h does not happen in Wasa. In finishing, I'll say right now, my hope is that nobody does the same thing to my simple election sign to the dropbox that's out in front of this building because it's happened in other places in this country. So, be prepared for this the next election. Thank you.

You're welcome. And thanks to the ethics board and I'm hope that the people that are new on the ethics board believe in democracy and if anybody messes with the election that they can see clearly that something has to be done. All right. Up next are any any other comments? Done. Is the consent agenda. We've got one item that will be pulled from consent and that is 25-1110. The resolution on the infrastructure and facilities construction projects and authorization to let bid. Everything else stays. Have a motion from Watson, second from Neil. We have again voting.

Motion passes 11 to zero.

Okay. So, we'll take that one that we pulled and and part of the reason that was pulled for a couple of reasons. Uh that last resolution in consent was to modify the procurement policy and that was an ask from council to have uh the bids from TID districts. So a TID plan may have five items in it that don't come to fruition for a number of years potentially and council wanted to see that come back before we let the bids. So that's why this item is is in there. Um, and it's to it's to give you an opportunity to to to see what was passed in the budget on a TID to see that final product uh when it comes forward and if it complies with what the original intent was. So that is do you have it pulled already?

This is the single item. Yes. Okay. So motion this time from Hanky, second from Watson. Any discussion? Seeing none, may begin voting.

Motion passes 10 to one. Okay. Under ordinances and resolutions, we have file number 20 uh 26-04. It's an ordinance from Infrastructure and Facilities Committee amending section 10.20.080 subc. No parking and restricted parking areas designated by excluding angled parking on Mechondo Street between third and fourth streets. Franklin Street beginning at the intersection with Fourth Street Ex and extending east 150 ft. the west side of Fourth Street between Grant and Franklin Street and the east side of Fourth Street beginning at the intersection with Franklin Street and extending north 130 ft. Is that clear? Motion from Watson, second from Larson. Mr. Neil,

thank you. Um, you know, although I I do I think it's my understanding that the Y itself is in favor of these parking changes. Um, I find maybe that it's defeating partially their own purposes. Um I've noticed recently that in those parking stalls where we're going to have unlimited basically parking except for overnight which wouldn't be allowed. Um that uh you know people that are working there on the construction crews park their pickup truck there the whole working day. They're not there for the landing. They're not there for the Y. But it's very convenient for them to park their pickup there all day long. On the way here tonight, I I you know turned along that street and somebody was parked there and although you know the existing sign which is kind of a moot point uh says two-hour parking and and no reparking. I was coming along and I had to stop because somebody pulled out of their spot, drove down two spaces and went back into a spot, you know, to repark. Um cuz they thought, you know, they could get away with it even though they could have gotten away with anything based based on what we have going right now. Uh this is our downtown. It's not the wise. Um the whole intent when we talked about having that limited parking there was um to make sure that people didn't abuse it. Downtown workers, what construction workers? Uh heck, you know, city hall workers, I don't know. Um that was the intent. At a recent meeting about this, I did bring up the point though I understand the concern about the Y and landing

users and I put forth why not have some kind of compromise in which people can have a a back window sticker from the Y, you know, I'm a I'm a landing user and then they're off the hook. and anybody that doesn't have that or some other form of permit from the Y that we've approved then they could be ticketed for overp parking. I don't know why that has not been looked into. I don't know why it doesn't seem to be a feasible thing. I still remain opposed to this uh accommodation we're making for a city street and a downtown area. I think we should be consistent with our parking um restrictions down there unless there's some larger thing involved like access to uh emergency vehicles or school buses or something like that. But that's not the case here. This is just a selective and I feel it's counter to you know what we intended. So I do not support this. Thank you.

Thank you Alder Larson.

Uh thank you Mr. Premier. Um, I'm the one that kind of brought this forward. Uh, the first of all, the YMCA paid for half the cost of these new spots. And so they it was it was my understanding too that without expanded parking for the landing would not expand. YMCA would not expand. So we worked and and we got this done. But but what happened was is they just put these twohour no parking signs up because it's it's it's the standard it's this it's the ordinance for downtown. But what they don't realize is is these programs that the landing offers are are are a lot longer than two hours. And this got brought forward because I got a ticket down there. And I believe when I talked to Matt Barnes, he says, "Well, yeah, we issue about three tickets a day down there." So I can't see um you know if if you're in there say having lunch and then you stay to play cards and then you're down there for three hours and you come out and have a ticket on your car and because you can't move two spaces down to repark. I I I I think that u that you know you're encouraging seniors to use the landing but then again you're going to exploit them because they're parked past two hours. Um and so uh I I brought this forward um this passed the committee 4 to one and and you know I will be fully supporting this. Thank you.

Thank you Alder Asperson. Thank you, mayor. You know, I think it's important to recognize that this entire situation with parking surrounding the landing. Um, I think we should have known that the landing would be wildly popular and want to expand sooner than later when it was conceived of because there wasn't that type of offering for seniors. And I think we knew within the first three months it was going to be a serious asset to our community and to our downtown. But the problem that exists at the Y with off- streetet parking is a problem that we made. Um, a couple years ago, the Y acquired a building to the east of their facility that at one point was a church. It's not historic. And at most recently, the person they bought it from, it was an office with living quarters on one level. They had planned to demolish that building and create off- streetet parking. And as complaints came in and the we essentially stepped in this chamber, stepped in front of a zoning change to create a parking lot that would have solved this whole thing. And so they needed a plan B and and Alder Larson is right. No expanded parking meant no expansion of the landing. That was that was firm from the donor. And so they started to try to figure out how we could partner with the Y. They did offer to pay half of the cost to install public parking which really expands all the parking offerings downtown for everyone and they didn't really have to. But recognizing that some of that programming does um come in, you know, 3 4 hour increments, I think it makes sense for us to try to try to accommodate them. Obviously, this change any change we make, we can unmake. Any change we make, we can modify. If we find out that there is a habitual problem and that we need to maybe tweak and refine this some, the INF committee can do that at any time. So, I think we should try this. The the as far as the construction trucks parking, the facility is really still under construction. We can't get a real read on, you know, whether or not that

behavior would continue. Once the facility's up and running and done and fully open and and all of that stuff is cleared out of there, we might see something different. So, I really think we should try this and try to accommodate those needs because our denial of the zoning change on the site where they would have created parking that wouldn't have affected any streets that really has backed them into a corner and forced this situation as a plan B. So, let's support this and try it and if we need to make adjustments, we will go forward as we need to. Thanks. Thank you, Alder Killian.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I just want to briefly say that I agree with the sentiments of Alder Neil. Uh, I believe consistency in our parking is important or we're going to create issues for other people who have parking restrictions downtown. I think the sticker idea is a great idea, but I think most importantly is is consistency in our parking policies. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Tyranny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yes, that uh I do agree that the um Y did put funding towards this these additional parking spaces, but they are still city parking spaces. They are still maintained by the city, plowed by the city, cared for by the city. And um I do know that there are programs at the Y that do have a longer than a 2hour time frame, but if we allowed everybody to park there from the landing all day, there's people that come to that landing at different points during the day. So what is their opportunity to pull out and park? When do they get that spot? Because, you know, Joe has been there to get his programs in and he's been there for 4 hours. That means Mary may not have the opportunity to park there. Uh because she's coming in for programs that start at a two hours after Joe started and he's still there. So, I think that itself is an issue and I do agree with consistency as well. So, I won't be supporting this. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Neil. Thank you again. I wonder if uh we might get Chief Barnes up to the deis to join us. Get a little work out of you. Let's get it on. All right. Okay. First of all, am I crazy?

That's a loaded question. would uh would parking officers acknowledge coming down Mackeno or Fourth Street uh issued um decals or signs or whatever on rear windows parked along those streets as being, you know, landing Y approved, you know, uh exempt from parking restrictions. and then those without that kind of, you know, signage would be having to follow parking restrictions. Is such a thing feasible in the world?

I mean, if you ask me, is it possible? I mean, we put a human on the moon 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 years ago. So yes, it's possible, but I would encourage the council to heed the wise words of Alder Killian that says consistency is important and consistency and enforcement and me having to hold accountable individuals. The frequency at which there are issues with part of a license plate is covered up or it snowed that day and now someone gets a ticket and then those individuals are upset and they come to city hall or they come to the police department. So, I would ask this policy body to create policy across parking and the enforcement of it that's consistent. If that means there's a sticker in the back left window of people's vehicles, then so be it. We can operate within that. But what I would ask you not to do is create sections of the city or blocks where there's a different set of rules than for other areas. If as a policy you decide it's open parking without an hour restriction, that's fine with us. If you decide to limit it to a certain amount of hours, that's also fine. But the lack of consistency would be if you change that period of hours cuz it's 2 hours everywhere else in the city. So if now we make it 2 and 1/2 hours here or 3 hours here, because we use um license plate recognition cameras, it's no longer someone getting out and chalking a tire and getting out of their car to check that. This is very automated and very efficient. It allowed us to go from two parking um enforcement employees down to one to be able to take care of the city. So those are my concerns as you guys as a policy body discuss how to handle this.

All right. Thank you. Well, can I just add on then? You know, this u project of adding this parking does represent a sort of partnership between the city and the Y. You know, the Y has uh an assumed responsibility towards their visitors. We have an assumed responsibility towards people that are just here downtown, whether they're using the Y or not. Um I propose that we do not um allow this restriction uh taking away these this restriction and I think that we should look at uh a partnering type approach where the Y does implement stickers works with PD to make them know what they're doing. keep the two-hour uh restrictions like we do everywhere else for consistency and uh that's where I stand on it. So, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no further discussion, oh, question from uh Alder Lukans.

Thank you. I just want to make sure I understand correctly. So, um, Alder Neil's proposal is that it be kept that what what Alder Larson wanted is not passed, but that it be kept the same, but those who get stickers can park for longer periods of time. Is that correct? My my proposal is just to vote no on this um and to you know communicate with the Y that you know we've rejected this uh taking away of restrictions and are suggesting that they look into uh a program uh with their clients and they you know uh communicate with PD uh for you know stickers whatever uh and maintain the twohour limit like everywhere else and Um, but those stickers would not be, you know, having to be restricted to that two hours. That's the reason for the sticker idea. So, that's what I'm proposing. But what I'm really proposing is voting no right now.

Right. And to to offer an amendment like that on the floor would it requires a little more staff work. So, I think you're you're correct in your thinking. No would then give us other options down the road. Thank you, Alder Rasperson.

Thank you. Just to recap, um we essentially um a couple years ago ruined the off- streetet parking opportunities for the landing on a property they own that they're still stuck with because of our zoning decisions. And now we're going to also ask them to manage parking permits. I just don't get it. So, I am supporting this. I hope the rest of us do. And if we don't, then I certainly hope we can find a reasonable plan B. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing nothing further,

get voting. Motion passes seven to four. All right. Up next is a is item nine, suspension of rule 11A, referral of ordinances, and 12A, referral of resolutions, and 1D, transmission of committee business to the council, and 6B, filing, requires two/3 vote. Motion from Neil, second from Martins. May begin voting. Motion passes 9 to2.

All right. First item up under suspension of the rules is file number 26-01 02 confirming appointments of the mayor of the city of Wasau to the ethics board of Tara Alonso. She is here this evening and I'll give her an opportunity to speak after we have a discussion. would entertain a motion. No motion buttons. Motion from Tyranny, second from Kellian. Mr. Neil, thank you again. Um, I'm not going to support this uh this candidate. um acknowledging uh her uh wide experience that's relevant to this appointment. Uh along with that is what I would just call history which is uh a little troublesome in terms of relationships uh upon leaving her employee here and wondering how that might play out in the future in terms of possible recusal or possible uh material witness uh or whatever. It just seems like it comes with baggage that I don't want coming to the ethics board. So, all due respect to the candidate, uh, I would like to see another nominee. Thank you,

Alder Killian.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, we've had such issues with appointments, it seems. And the last time uh the mayor made an appointment, it was strongly stated that we needed a priest or an attorney. They were concerned about someone that did not have ethical values. We now have an appointee who is an attorney with a tremendous amount of experience with municipal knowledge. And when we leave our employment, I think we all have opinions about how we've been employed or do we have positives or negatives about our employer and so forth. But those are personal issues and I don't really feel that those should be the consideration with this appointee or with any appointee because we all feel either positively or negatively about a place that we leave for one reason or another. Whether we agree with her about her opinion of her employment situation isn't the issue. The issue for me is, is she a qualified candidate to be on the ethics board? And I don't think I've ever seen anything about Miss Alonso that says she's not an ethical, honest person. And it was just like the last appointee of the mayor. I recall the conversations that we had on council. And um we need to just be appreciative of the fact that someone is willing to step up who has a good background and a professional background and who knows our city. So I will support this

appointee. Thank you, Alder Larson. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um marked this on the calendar because I'm going to agree with Alder Neil on this one. Um, I just believe that uh this candidate um although is very qualified, I believe um it would be a conflict of interest for her to be serving on this board and I don't think she would serve the citizens of my district very well in that capacity. So, I will not be supporting this candidate. Elder Griner.

Thank you, Mayor. So I have a question but first I have a statement. So in the city ordinances 2.03.040 subsection 3A it says there is created an ethics board with five members appointed by the mayor and subject to confirmation by the common council. Members should be from diverse segments of the community. That's what I wanted to point out. Members should be from diverse segments of the community. Should Miss Alfonso be appointed, over half of our board members on the ethics board will either be currently practicing or retired attorneys. I'm not exactly sure of the demographics of the city of Wasab, but I'm pretty sure over half of us aren't attorneys. And also noted that her application was submitted in December of 2025. My question is, were there any other candidates that were considered for this position uh before you brought this before us today? Thank you. There have been numerous candidates who have come forward and offered their services, many of which were presented to this council and were rejected. And and I would I would add to that I this could be one of the most qualified that we have had. And if you've watched any of the ethics hearings over the last two ethics hearings that we've had, you would see that uh it could use somebody who has very specific city municipal experience. Uh up next is Alder Tierney.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um actually there was recently a candidate that you had brought into this council for um the ethics committee and it was and they weren't an attorney or a physician or anything of those types of qualifications and it was suggested by a council member that normally people on the ethics committee have uh a status in the community as far as a lawyer or a clergyman or physician. something of those natures. And uh I agree with Alder Grryer because my thought during that process was I don't think a person has to be of a certain professional occupation be ethical or to make ethical decisions uh or to be able to research something. So I I agree wholeheartedly with you in in that uh opinion. And then uh also I can't think of many people who have been able to say that every employment opportunity that they've ever had has been positive. I know um many people who have not had positive employment um situations in in their opinion. But I don't think that that disqualifies them for a volunteer voluntary experience. I don't think because um Miss Alonso had worked here before and um had some negative opinions about her experience as an employee is means that she will not be an important and valued and um experienced

person for our ethics committee. I just um I think that uh with her education, her knowledge of municipal law, um she would be an asset to that uh committee. Thank you.

Thank you. And for the record, the last appointee was a is a business owner and the one prior to that was a physician. I I don't know the makeup of the rest. uh the one the one who has resigned or has has left that that Miss Alonso would be replacing was an attorney. Um Alder Watson Oh, I'm sorry. Uh Alder Lukans,

thank you. My my app isn't working. So, um I uh I will not I don't have a personal opinion on it, but I have a number of constituents have reached out to me, called me, emailed me, and um for several reasons. Um their concern was the recent employment, the some of the issues that have been mentioned. Um, one constituent said they would really appreciate having no recent employees um, serve on the ethics commission, but I am um, so I'm going to vote according to what I've been asked by constituents, but I do have a question. How many people are on the ethics commission? How many serve?

There are there are supposed to be five. supposed to be five. There are two alternates and the board has not been properly filled in in over two years. And so how many have been filled recently? Is it three? Like this year? I've appointed two. Two. Okay. And then about the alternate. What about the alternates? like do they have they asked to serve at all? Do they get to move?

There's current there's currently a vacant alternate seat as well and that will be coming forward uh maybe the next time. And the other alternate is uh Jesse Karns, as far as I'm aware, he's not an attorney or a physician either, but he is an alternate. Did he has he shown any interest? Has he applied or asked at all? He he had shown an interest apparently back uh prior administration and they appointed him as an alternate and he actually served and filled in a recused position for the last hearing. So he did serve in that capacity. Okay. But he has not shown any interest in serving on this board now.

He hasn't reached out to me. Okay. Um and then do you know how many uh people have applied in this term? I imagine the clerk might have record of our laser fish uh six or eight. I I I'd be guessing. I don't know. Okay. Thank you, Alder Watson.

Um I guess that Thank you. I guess to piggyback on Carol's question, um I think we've had a few that have come across the council floor and at the time we had tabled them um to be considered at a future date when there was an appending investigation. Um and I've never seen those guys andor ladies. I can't remember all the people that were sort of tabled um come back. So, I didn't know if those people had withdrawn their applications or because I know at least I want to say two to three people. We said, "Hey, we don't we don't have anything about them now. We just don't want them to be on the ethics commission during this, you know." So, are we going to see those guys again?

Well, I did put Deb Hadley forward twice and she was rejected twice. So, I mean, some people are getting worn out of being coming up in here and getting embarrassed by this board, by this council. So, the others have withdrawn their applications. I wouldn't say they withdrew them, but when I got this application, I felt she was highly qualified and as I mentioned, maybe the most qualified. So, that's that's my judgment. Alder Killian.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I've heard the concerns about past employment issues and other concerns and I'm wondering if it would be wise to ask Miss Alonso to come forward and tell us how she feels about these concerns that have been expressed and about her desire to be on the ethics board.

Sure. I think we should do that. I we've got if we've got just one more comment from Mr. Neil, we'll take that and then we'll invite Thank you. Um, I thank Alder Lukans for sort of u rattling my brain a little bit to so I could recall something I wanted to bring up. You know, I don't know how many times in all my years on council I've heard various council members um when they're making their argument one way or another say, "Well, my constituents are telling me and therefore I'm going to vote this way." Now, I don't know what the other 10 people on this this council have received, if anything, from their constituents about which way they would like to see their representative to vote. Uh, my constituency has reached out to me. I have had several and it was 100% saying, "Please do not approve this." Um, so I'm just going to say that like I said, I've heard this a million times from council. You know, I'm going to vote with my constituents and what they're saying to me and 100% is a pretty strong majority. Thank you.

I can say that I as the appointment authority, I've had zero people reach out with any concerns. Uh I would invite Miss Alonso to the speaker piece.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to address this potential appointment. As uh a now retired attorney, I spent over 40 years under the framework of legal ethical rules and regulations. the requirements and experience of which translate well into a volunteer municipal ethics position. As a former attorney, I well understand the seriousness of any application of the law and ethical principles to allegations of unethical behavior. I have always committed myself to following the rules set forth in the law. Always I've handled hearings, advocated clients positions, and provided honest legal advice and guidance with integrity, without prejudice, and without personal feelings. That is what good attorneys do. I have heard that there might be some concerns by members of this council or others about nomination, my nomination to the ethics board in particular as it may relate to letters to the editor written by my husband and that this somehow may translate into unfairness or prejudice on my part. Were any allegations to be brought up before the ethics board against people I may know from my former employment? First of all, my husband clearly has the right of free free speech under the Constitution. He has his opinions and I

have mine. And notwithstanding that in the fair and just application of the law, opinions have no place and they do not matter. It's the words of the ordinance and the statutes that matter in applying the law. That's what must govern always and without exception. I am and have always been committed wholeheartedly to this view. It has always been and continues to be my guiding principle. If I was appointed to the board, this is what you could expect of me. The fair, honest, objective application of the city's ordinance. Now, to address this employment issue, the city of Wasau when you leave asks you to provide an exit letter. If you do not want an ethics letter, change your personnel policies so that everybody can just leave and everybody can act like we don't have to improve or make any changes. That's up to you. But you asked and I provided a private letter to the personnel department to my former supervisor and the mayor. How that thing got to the pilot, I don't know. And it's not my responsibility. Other people had it. I don't know what they did with it. But if you don't want that type of thing, you're the council. Change the rules. As far as Alder Larson's position about conflict of interest, I don't even know what that means. You can't have a

conflict of interest with an ethics board. What you can have is a point of order. No, no, no. Mr. Larson, you're out of order. Actually, isn't it in the guidelines that she is to address the chair and not the not the duly noted? Duly noted.

M Mr. Mr. Mayor, regarding conflicts of interest, you cannot have a conflict with the whole board, but you can have conflicts with individual cases. I've addressed already how I would view the law and the application of the ordinance regarding situations. Were there a problem and I uh felt I could not fairly and with integrity follow and apply the ethics ordinance, I would recuse myself. Lawyers are wellstudied in the responsibilities of recusal in the situation of conflicts. Now, since you bring it up, I happened to watch some of the former hearing and I did notice there was a board member who was involved in the filing of the complaint that was under consideration and that person was allowed to sit on the board for quite a while in the beginning of the handling of that complaint without any comment. And that was a clear conflict of interest and the only way that got resolved was because of pressure I believe in the media. So we have a worry about a conflict of interest but apparently it's only with me and it's because I followed the city's request and filed my exit letter and perhaps because some people don't care for my husband's constitutional rights. I'm happy to serve. I have experience. I know I would do a good job. It doesn't matter to me if I don't get this or not. I was offering you the benefit of my knowledge and experience. If if you don't want that, that's fine. It does

not bother me. I have no hard feelings. I leave it to the wisdom of the council. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion may vote.

Motion passes six to five. Congratulations. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Up next is file 26-06. It's an ordinance from the common council amending sections 2.03.020 definitions 2.03 2 uh 030 standards of contact and 2.03.04 040 organization composition and authority of the board which I believe they're talking about the ethics board and 2.03.060 violations and complaints. Motion from Hanky, second from Grryer. Alder Neil,

thank you. Um, I have a question about uh a change highlighted in uh section three uh paragraph B. The highlighted words are upon its own motion or upon the properly filed writing written complaint of a third party. So we've dealt with u verified complaints from citizens as you know a acid test to come before the ethics board and then the ethics board then can look at that complaint and decide if you know what is brought forth merits investigation or not. Um, this is this absolutely new now that the the ethics board could have just make its own complaint, bring it forth without uh the merit of a a citizen complaint. I mean, what does it mean upon its own motion? If that was the case, I I don't just like a explanation.

I would uh defer to the city attorney, but that's the way I read that. That is correct. and it's provided for by state statute that says that a council once it creates an ethics board may give them that authority. It's not required. I searched about 8 to 10 different codes and I found it in rine in New Berlin. So a small minority of them. Just to follow up if I may. So what brought this change forward? I mean, was there somebody who championed this change in particular or how did it occur?

I'm not entirely sure, but I know that uh the chair did a lot of research and I believe he found that in reviewing the statute and so wanted to put in and the committee voted to recommend that. Alder Grinder.

Thank you, mayor. I actually have it here. It is 19.54 sub1 M sub3d. It says in addition to the requirements of sub one, any county, city, village or town may enact an ordinance establishing a code of ethics for public officials and employees of the county or municipality and candidates for county or municipal elective offices. A board created under this paragraph may issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and investigate any violation of the ordinance on its own motion or upon complaint by any person. Thank you. Thank you. Alder Neil, you're looking to amend or did you mean to amend?

Yeah, my my button doesn't seem to be uh you know acknowledging that here.

I did receive it. So I um I guess my proposed amendment is to strike that particular highlighted uh phrase in section 3 uh subb uh as it just seems kind of like out of the blue to me and I'd like more discussion on it. That doesn't mean we couldn't uh add that going forward, but I I just haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it's there and so I won't support that. So my motion is just just to approve um the uh all the changes but to uh strike the the aforementioned section 3 paragraph B uh highlight.

So we have a motion to amend by striking that. Is that listed only one time in there or is it in there more than once? Once. Okay. I don't think they can and I would entertain a second to that. I don't know if the buttons are working

second by Rasmusen. Discussion on the amendment. Uh you're still it up Griner. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, this question is for attorney Jacobson. So, by removing this from this resolution, that doesn't override any authority granted in the board by the state, would it? Yes. Because it's not mandatory in the state statute. It's permissive. I got you. So, it says the state may I got you. Okay.

Grant this authority to the board. They don't have to. And in fact, as I said, the majority of the ones I looked at required a third-p partyy complaint from either a citizen or some said resident citizen. City of Lacrosse actually said in the ordinance from any person except a member serving on the ethics board. It it prohibited individual ethics board members from filing complaints while they were serving. Okay. Thank you, Alder Rasmusson.

Thank you. Um I hadn't planned to discuss this at length, but traditionally the trigger mechanism for the board to convene and review was a um verified complaint by a resident citizen. Um I think that that's a fair approach. I think that knowing the time and the cost and the impact of investigating complaints, I really think that if we would empower that board to just launch into an investigation on their own and take stuff up on their own initiative could be a very very expensive proposition for this city. I think when they convene and consider complaints in response to a citizen action, that's one thing, but I do think that it opens up um some very expensive possibilities um if we were to empower that board um to take up their own causes. So um I will um support um Alder Neil's amendment to strike that language.

Thank you, Alder Larson. This is on the amendment now.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, yes, I I I I do support this uh amendment. Actually, I was going to vote against the whole thing, you know, um because I don't see where there's any um precedence or any um pressing uh to pass any of this new uh stuff that's been that's been uh placed on this agenda. Um there there's no pressing issues. There's no there's no reason for it at this time. I don't see. So, I I will support the amendment and if we go back to uh voting for the rest of it, I I will not support it. Um I I agree with Alder Rasperson. I think that that, you know, given what the last uh uh ethics board cost the city, I I think that that just giving this their own authority um uh could be actually a tool of retribution, you know, say like if I didn't get along with Alder Neil or something and he went to the he went to the ethics board and and complained about it. Well, then there's a big investigation wasting all their time and money, you know, and that's that's not what the ethics board is about. And so I I will be supporting um the amendment and if we go back to voting on the rest of it, I will not be supporting that. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Melhaney.

I have nothing to say on the amendment. Sorry, I have something else after. Okay, so we're on the amendment. Seeing nothing further. This is the amendment by Mr. Neil to strike the U. And to make sure that a yes vote is just for the amendment uh as edited by this striking edited by the striking of the verbiage that allows

section 3B highlighted upon its own motion. Or you may begin voting on the amendment. Motion on the amendment passes 11 to zero. Okay, so we're back to the main motion and we had a few in the queue. I believe Alder Molaney is next.

Can't pull it back up. Um, okay. I have a question about another um another I section two or to unlawfully cause or attempt to cause physical harm or economic or reputational damage to another person. I my question is reputational damage to another person even economic. How is that quantified? I I mean I that worries me a lot. I don't want an ethics board member to decide what's reputational damage. I mean, we take a lot of heat as council members and that's what we step into. And so I I'm not I I I agree that I'm really not for any of this, but reading this, there just seems to be a lot of minutia in here that worries me and that that you know I I am not going to be here after, you know, in April. But I worry for the rest of you because if you somebody decides that you have caused reputational dam, you know, damage to somebody and they go to the ethics board, you're going to be hiring an attorney. I mean, I I just think that that is it's not quantifiable. And we have civil laws as well. If somebody feels their reputation has been damaged by some liel or slander, we I don't think that's an ethic ethics board decision. I think that would be a court's decision. So, I'm seeing really a And here's another one. Unlawful reputational damage. I I I guess I'm

going to agree with Alder Larson. There's enough red flags in this for me that I don't think I'm going to support the entire thing. Um I think it's too deep in the weeds and it I think it opens a lot of unnecessary doors. Um because I think the my understanding and I have read these ordinances over and over. I thought my understanding was if you, you know, a real true ethics is if you're doing something for your financial gain, it's some fiduciary gain, you know, that you're going to get something. And we are now talking about attempting to cause economic damage, attempting to cause reputational damage. And I think that that's not quantifiable. So, I'm just not going to support because it's over and over and over. Um, again, and I I just I feel like we're really going down a rabbit hole that could cause a lot of issues going forward.

Thank you, Alder Kellian. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with alders Mhaney and Larson. I think that there are many items in this proposal for the ethics board that are questionable. um who's going to determine these things? I mean, it's like with anything we see. If you say something about someone or somebody did something to somebody, um it hurt my reputation. Well, who's going to decide if if it hurt your reputation or not? So, I cannot support this entire thing as well. Thank you, Alder Lukans.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to say the same. I agree wholeheartedly with Alder Melhaney. Um those were my concerns that it's subjective. Um so I would prefer to just vote no on this whole entire thing myself. Thank you,

Alder Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um one of the things that was brought to me, too, is is you know, when you start writing up all this stuff, um who's going to want to run for office? I mean, if if if if I may be condoned for a Facebook post or something and the ethics board is going to tear me apart and spend all kinds of the city's money and stuff like it's like Alder like Alder Melhenny said, what's what's the quantification here? I mean, it's it's who determines what? You know, I I think, you know, I've been around here long enough to know that, you know, we as council members and stuff, we we pretty much know how to handle ourselves and and and we don't need this cloud of this stuff hanging over us. Thank you,

Alder Asmusson.

Thank you. I think the first time some of this talk of these provisions started was a number of years ago when the ethics board was grappling with a complaint that was filed by a citizen against a former alder um where his employment was dragged into the mix of whatever was happening. And at that point I think the board had decided that while they didn't like the behavior the letter of the ordinance didn't provide the latitude for them to find in his favor essentially. I do think that modifying the rules or creating new rules or you know rewriting the policy to fit a situation that where you just didn't like that situation that is not good policym. So I agree with everything that's been said here tonight that when things are subjective and they're difficult to measure and quantify that's usually a red flag that we're creating bad policy. So I will not support this either. Thank you.

Yeah. 95% of this ethics code is pecurinary in nature. So it's you can tie some financial or some personal gain to it. That's pretty clear-cut. Uh this adds a lot of subjectivity. Seeing no further discussion. You may begin voting.

Motion fails 0 to 11 as amended. Up next is file 25-0427 is a resolution. Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Don't we have to vote on the original uh resolution? That's what you just But that was as amended. As amended. It was as amended. We have not voted on the original resolution because you you voted on the amendment which passed and then you voted on the original resolution as amended. The main motion as amended.

Okay. So, all right. So, we don't have to go back to the original original. No. Okay. Thank you. He had me thinking. All right. So file 25-0427 is a resolution from the common council approving the second amendment or second amended and related declaration of easement uh for 700 Grand Avenue. Motion is from Watson, second from Hanky. Any discussion?

Seeing none, may begin voting. Motion passes 10 to one.

Up next, file 05-1209 is a resolution from the finance committee terminating tax increment district number seven. This came forward from finance tonight 4:1. And as discussed there, this is if you recall that the last council meeting on December on December 9th or 12th Uh the decision was to not extend the the TID district 7 assuming that we were terminating it, but we are required to to file a formal uh termination resolution with the do. So this is a formality for the most part. Mr. Neil,

um yeah. Uh this is a formality. I mean, we can still vote against it, can't we? Well, I think you could.

I mean, I I've spoken numerous times, at least, I don't know, two or three about this u u extending or not extending district 7. Um, I thank uh El Alder Lukans for uh forwarding to us some information about other uh communities in the state and other practices uh and how common it is it to use uh TID extensions to help uh fund um uh low-income housing efforts. Um, this is roughly a half million dollars that we're talking about saying we're not going to accept a half million dollars for use for low-income housing projects. Not just in District 7. It could be used anywhere in the city and not with any uh sunset. It could be done at any time into the future. Um, I think half million dollars is a that's a a sweet little, you know, bit of money. It'll help us work with developers for any, you know, sort of uh project from um possibly single family infill to multi multif family something somewhere. Um without that half million dollars, we're a half million dollars down that we could have had. I think one year of extension in order to get that half million is a pretty small price to pay for the city and taxpayers. uh since uh low-income housing remains one of the number one, two, or three top concerns of our constituency. Thank you.

Okay. Just just for the record, I I don't think that's Germaine, Mr. Neil, because we're not here to vote on the extension. We're here to vote on termination. Um Alder Rasmusen,

thank you. Um, we have twice before in recent years taken advantage of our opportunity to extend a TID by one year, collect the increment and use it for affordable housing. And I think doing that with a number of our new projects that we see in the community has really it's moving the needle. But I also think that there's a time to recognize that it's okay to take a pause and see what the impact of that really is. Measure its occupancy, measure its impact. If you need to do more later, there's other districts coming up within the next 5 years. We can maybe look at that again. But I think economically right now in our community, this is not the time um to extend a TID. I think letting TID 7 close on time um makes a lot of sense and I hope that we will support this. This really is I feel like it's ceremonial or formality as well. I mean, we did vote to close the district. Um this is just really the official closure per se um resolution. So hopefully we will um continue forward and let the district close and let those funds flow not only back into the general fund but into um the other taxing jurisdictions as well. Um I think that will um help us um at least in this economy be a good partner with them too. Thank you.

Thank you Alder Larson.

Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I've heard you say many times over the last few months about the economic or the physical cliff we're heading off of, you know, and and I am going to may stay by my uh by my last vote and and vote to close TID 7 because I I honestly feel that we could use that half a million dollars right now uh in the general fund to perhaps uh help fund our firefighters where we have shortcomings there. Um, we've we've been rather aggressive in our in our housing efforts in the last six years for both uh affordable housing and and and market rate housing. Um, I' I'd like to take a time out here and and see uh where we're at, how this is all developing and stuff. I mean, we've got um one project that's just opened. We've got another project that's in the in the works. and plus we've got the Kobe and KBY project over on that side. So I will be voting uh to close TID 7. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Lukans.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I just want to say that I do agree with uh, Alder Neil um, especially with in light of what I just found uh, the white paper by the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the Wisconsin Realtors Association and the Builders Association about, you know, the wisdom and extending um, TIDs to use for affordable housing. So, I know we did vote on this, but I really do hope that you all do read that because moving forward, although we have um you know, some in the works, some different housing developments, as we just heard tonight from a speaker, there are a lot of seniors who don't have a lot of money. So, we do still need housing and I hope that in the future we, you know, we we will consider this. So, um, thank you.

Thank you, Alder Tyranny. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, if nobody's supposed, I would like to ask the city attorney a question or two regarding this. Is that okay? Yes. Okay. City attorney asked the question. Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. Um, Anna, if if I'm not wrong, a reconsideration of our no vote would have had to been done in a more timely manner. Is that correct? It's rule 10. Rule 10. Any member who voted with the prevailing side on any question may move for a reconsideration of the vote immediately after the vote or at the next succeeding regular meeting of the council. Okay. Um, so but was a reconsideration actually asked for? I don't believe so.

No. Or it would have been agendaized. Right. So this is not a reconsideration. There has been a no vote and it has been it has gone through as a no vote. That's that's on the record. So, if it's not if I'm not understanding this wrong, this vote is to get a termination date for this TID. It's not whether we're going to change the vote on this TID. Is that correct? Well, it is also to satisfy a DO department of revenue requirement which is to give

to formally notice that it is closing. Correct. As of a date certain. Correct. I'm looking at the be it resolved and and it does say so it is a resolution to terminate the district effective January 10th of 2026 notify the department of revenue and execute the appropriate forms termination forms so I would agree with you that we are not reconsidering whether to close the TID but that still doesn't mean you can't vote against this resolution ution. Okay, thank you.

Good point. Any further questions, comments? So, it's clear, Mr. Larson. Um, so a yes vote would be to close the TID and a no vote would be to leave it open. Is that correct? Well, a yes would be to to approve this resolution to send the closure termination to uh the do terminating the kit. Yes. Thank you. Is that the right term? Terminating. Yeah.

Termination. Yes. To terminate, no to uh do something else. And we'll have to decide after that what that is. Seeing nothing further, we begin voting. Motion passes 8 to three.

All right, see you later, TID. Up next is file 2601 09 is a joint resolution from the committee of the whole and finance committee authorizing a referendum and related question for the city of Wasa to increase the property tax levy in the amount of 1,450,000 on an ongoing basis to retain 12 firefighter paramedics and offset expiring grants.

Oh yeah, pass five to zero. Okay. And it pass finance 5 to zero. Committee of the whole I think it was nine to zero. Correct. Alder Rasmmanson. Oh, we've got a motion from Watson, second from Hanky. Alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you. I guess if we could just um go through a little bit of clarification. And I understand that this maybe was talked about at finance as well. Um with the referendum ask being 1.45 million. Um as far as the impact to an individual taxpayer on a $100,000 property or whatever, what is the difference between that current ask at 1.45 million and perhaps reducing that um in part by the amount of revenue that we're gaining from the TID 7 closure? We they

I think it's important for folks to recognize, you know, if it's the difference between $27 and $38, like does that make a difference in the public's decision making? So, we did talk here. She's got it. So, if the 1,450 was $33 per 100,000 of value, okay,

the finance talked about well deliberated over reducing that. Oh, I'm sorry. Reduce reducing that by the amount that the T7 savings. So reducing that from the million450 to a million25 that would be $23 per 100,000 of value. So $10 now and of course this is based on our current values um which of course will change once the assessor is done with his work and the state is done with their work on determining values. as of 126.

Okay. I just as a followup, I think there's value in a little bit of discussion on whether or not we believe that the public's decision- making and their vote on the referendum could be influenced by this amount. It's roughly $10 difference. Um given the average price of a house in this community, it's probably not 33 and 23. It's probably 66 and 46. So, you know, is it appropriate to reduce that amount and reduce the amount of that ask so people can see that we are capturing the savings from letting the TID close, which was our exact goal, um, to find to let that revenue flow back in to cover operating expenses and then ask the public for less. I mean, I get the fact that we might want a little cushion there because there's some uncertainty, but that amount of uncertainty shouldn't be so great that we could not meet that uncertainty with some sort of um either added revenue or cuts like we meet our budget every year. So, I don't know how my peers feel about that, but I just feel like if we're going to go out to the community and ask them to approve such a thing, asking them for less would be a smart move. I feel like I don't know how the rest of you feel. Alder Tierney.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm just going to kind of summarize this because now that I see um Alder Merren is up there to speak, I know he's going to be able to uh fill in some of those blanks much better. Uh one of the reasons why the finance committee went for the 1.4 million is because of the upcoming fiscal cliff. Uh we know that it's going to be very much much much more difficult this next uh um financial the budget uh session and that's why we kept the four um $100,000. basically we thought it would be better not to use that uh and reducing that ask but to have that 400,000 to assist us with um the budget. So, but like I said, I know that uh Alder Martins will be able to um give much better detailed information. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Neil. Thank you. Well, when we discussed this uh was it late November, early December, something like that. Uh I think we still had the 1.45 four, five million number then and we agonized over that and we uh I heard in these chambers well I mean that's what we're saying right now but when it comes time to approve this in January we'll have had some time to look at it maybe shave something off of it find ways to make it less hurtful etc etc and here we are ready to vote and it's still the exact same number two also in discussions I recall hearing well you know we do this to get us through next year and then in the course of putting together a budget for next year which we'll start early and really look at it hard uh we'll find other ways to address this no I have something here that says on an ongoing basis institutionalizing it. And um I'm sorry, but I think that our taxpayers when they look at a referendum, it's not going to say, "And this is going to cost you maybe $66 a year or $48 a year." They're going to see $1.5 million added to the levy. What's your prediction on the vote? How are we going to sell that? I totally am against this. Um I I I just think it's a bad idea all the way around. um it's it's putting it right in the taxpayers's lap without us figuring anything out, you know, to uh take care of it either this year or in ongoing years. It's a it's a bad way to address it. Uh the taxpayers will not like it and I will not support this. Thank you. Thank you,

Alder Martins.

Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um thank you, Alder Tierney. I think you did you you you hit most of the pertinent points on the head. Uh, but I just want to fill Yeah, like I said, I just want to fill in some of the details because we did have quite a robust uh conversation on whether whether the referendum should stay at 1.45 million or 1.025 million 1,225,000. It's hard to say. Um, and it it really comes down to this is that um we, you know, we know we know how much it's going to cost to um for the for the fully staffed fire service, the 12 firefighters that fully staffs our fire service. And to do that, it requires one $1.45 million. Um the with our previous vote for closing TID number seven, we'll return $368,000 to the general fund.

And just quick question. I think it's four. Well, that's with the shared revenues, too. He's just talking about Okay, I'm just talking. Yeah, it's it's $424,000 with the state aids, right? Um, but 368 derived from the from the Well, it's it's 300. Well, it's actually a little bit more, but it it increases our it gives us the power to increase our levy. $368,000. There you go.

It gets the numbers get really confusing for me, too. So, um, but it it is it is $368,000 worth of of of money that that can be levied that would go into the g that would go to the general fund. That's that's from the that's from the the increased value that that TID gave us over the over its 20-y year lifespan, which is which is great. And but the reality that we are looking at with our bud with the budgeting is that um the our 2026 budget had a uh over 4% cost to continue increase uh from from the previous year. And we had to cut a lot of stuff in order to hit our goals. and not and and keeping the increase down to as much as, you know, as as low as we possibly could, you know, u uh 3 cents. Um three, you know, was was was the was was the increase. Um which is great. When I when I opened up my tax bill and I saw my my prop my the city share my property taxes only increased eight dollars, which was which was amazing. Um so um what so what we decided at the finance committee is that we want to make sure that the referendum covers the the needs of the fire service and that the the returned the the the with the closure of the TID that money that that that that value that is returned to the general fund will help mitigate offset whatever our cost to continue is going to be in 2027. It could be as high as 5 and a half%. I hope I hope it isn't. Um I hope we can you know I remember the days when our cost to continue was was 2 or 3% but

we're not you know it's that's that's long ago and we've got inflationary pressures and we need to we need to be mindful you know on a more holistic level. Um, is it, you know, um, what's the difference between, uh, you know, the 1.45 million and asking for 1,ion25,000? Um, well, as as Maryanne says, you know, it's it's a three it's a three and a half% increase versus a 2.2 uh increase. Uh, $100,000 home, that's $33. Uh, my modest 168,000. My modest house assessed it's $168,000 would would would result in about a $5560 $60 increase. Um if we ask for $1,ion25 my modest house will have you know my my my property taxes will increase approximately $4850. You know we're talking we're talking a difference of 10 or $15. um which is not which is not bad for the quality of level of of of service that we're receiving from our from our fire department. Um you know, we're we're an aging community. Uh we've got a fire service that is um state-of-the-art and it meets it it it it we need to invest in it in order to meet those needs. As I was coming to council this evening, there was a call and they had to run the rescue truck and another and a battalion and and the battalion truck and you know that took what that took three firefighters out of central fire. What happens if there's another med call? Well, with with a fully sapphire service, we can roll another engine, we can roll another med. So, it's things like that you got you need to think about. Um but uh it's uh so looking forward you know this

um 1.4 you know we at at finance decided to go with the $ 1.45 million because it assures us that we will be able to if the referendum passes we will be able to fund a fully staffed fire service. Thank you.

Thank you Alder Mlany. Um I just want to explain you know again from the finance side we did look at this but I will tell you there are pressures that we need that TID7 money for in our regular budget. We were cutting flower baskets. We were this close to cutting a pool. Um, and we are either going to cut every damn service that we can give our people or we're going to um we're going to have a problem because we're our health insurance goes up 6% every year. That's that's a big issue that's in back of Maryann's mind. We we talked about that this year um or or at the meeting at finance. So, we know coming into 26, we're heading into the headwinds. And that was our discussion. We're going into the headwinds. We're not here to try to say we're going to ask for a lot of money and hopefully it it goes down, but we have to be realistic because what the alternative is, let's say we go with the 1.025 025 and then that passes and then budget comes and we hit them with a 25 cent mill rate increase to try to keep services up or whatever, they're going to get hit double. And so we really thought about it and and felt that in order to be transparent, let's do this. let's ask for what it costs and then we have a little cushion because we don't want to hit them on both ends. And that was our our thought process. So, um I will support the 1.45, but if anything goes down, I'm not going to support it because I think that we're kind of playing a shell game and saying

here you can do this. you're only going to be charged $33, you know, but God help you when the the 26 budget hits because it's really scary. Thank you. We have a motion to amend. Yes, that's calling right now. Motion to amend from Neil. Please offer your amend amendment, Mr. Neil. Sure. I wasn't uh my button is not really showing that I'm being acknowledged over here. Uh so I don't know if I'm in line to speak or because I hit the amend button I jump to the front. I don't know. Is that how it works?

Amendments. Amendments I think jump you up.

Okay. Well, I'm sorry for jumping everybody. That wasn't my intent. But um I make a a motion to amend. I'm really concerned about the open-ended uh eternal nature of this when we say on an ongoing basis. We're saying that we're never going to address this in any other way than by coming back to you every year because you said it was okay. Um especially when part of it is referring to offset expiring grants. A lot of people are pushing back because hey, you know, that was temporary, but now you're making us pay for it forever. uh these are the kind of things that are going to be in the discussion going into uh if we have this referendum. So my motion to amend is to take out on an ongoing basis and say you know for a period of one year because as I said I heard right here in this chambers that well this can get us through this and then we will do the budgetary process for 27 and we will look at it and and see how we can address it. you know, we'll start early and we'll really go at it. Well, all I'm hearing now is no, we're not. We're just going to go on an ongoing basis, period. I cannot buy into that. Taxpayers will not buy into that. We might be able to sell them a one-year band-aid while we try to figure it out, but uh I just uh that's where I'm at. I cannot support this unless unless we amend it.

Okay. So, the motion is to amend to a one-year band-aid, and I would defer to finance director Gro as to whether we can do that or not. Well, we would need a second, but I don't know if it's a if it's a valid motion yet. Well, I I think you certainly the law allows you to either do ongoing or one year. Sure.

So, I think it's allowable by the law. I think the problem is, can we accomplish finding $1.5 million in a future budget to absorb these positions? And I would say no, that's not likely possible. And I you know my recollection of that meeting is different than Tom's because you know as has been already discussed every year when we go through the budget process based on levy limit um requirements based on the fact that we do not have a diverse revenue source to help us fund our expenses each year. We're relying on property taxes. That's basically what we have to fund our operations. And when levy limits do not allow us to increase our budgets sufficiently to absorb all of our costs. This is the predicament we've been in. You know, I know there were council members who were disappointed that we have made basically no progress in absorbing these over the three years that they've been in existence. But we couldn't because we the challenges that we have in the budget each year are that our expenses are growing faster than the small revenues that we have combined with the limitations on the levy. So what you're saying is that that um

so I we would need a second for that to guys discuss it much further. Yeah. Seeing no second on that motion to amend does not it does not hit the floor. So we are back to our queue on the main motion. Oh, right here. Yes. Alder Asmusson,

thank you. Um, before the amendment hit, um, I guess I just want to say I don't want to get to a situation where we find ourselves compromising the quality or the service delivery that happens in this community from public safety. We've worked so hard um to address the long deferred needs of the fire department and get that department to not only be a destination department, but a department that um engages in training that that um is able to attract candidates that they never could have 10 years ago. I mean, they really have in terms of recruitment and retention um they have transformed themselves. Um, I don't think that a one-year cap on the referendum is going to get us where we needed to go. The question I had was, you know, we're coming around to close, I believe, another TID in 2030. That flows more money to the general fund. I mean, at some point, the TIDs that we have are going to close. The general fund will be infused with with money every time that happens. Now, I don't know what those future economies are going to look like in terms of our costs, but was there any discussion in finance about perhaps capping this at 5 years? The the idea of perpetuity, I think, is a really tough cell for the taxpayer. One year is probably too too short, but let's say five years would get you to 2032.

I don't know. Was there discussion of that? I think that if you're going to go to the community and ask them a question like this and there's a finite end to it, that's a different conversation than asking for this exceedence without end. I mean, you know, think of the bitterness that exists on a smaller scale with wheel tax. We all thought that was going to be a one-year deal, and I just paid two of them today. So, and people are bitter about that. But it's shining up roads. Okay, fine. But the idea that it didn't go away when it was supposed to, people are mad about that. So, you know, if if there's no end to this and we're asking for this exceedence forever, you know, is there value in capping that ask at 5 years? Was that discussed? I mean, I do think that a referendum is the way to go. letting our community make the choice is the fairest way to decide. It's just a matter of what we ask them for and for how long. I mean, if the feeling from our finance department and from the finance committee is that the TID 7 revenue capture is needed for other things, I totally get that and okay, maybe we don't micromanage the amount then, but does a time limit then make sense? I think we should talk about that. Thank you. Anyone? How about Alder Watson?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so about the referendum, I think, um, Alder Molini probably voiced it the best on why we sort of chose the 1.45. Um, but I also think it's just our capacity's increased. We haven't increased the capacity of that since what, the 70s, right? So, our community has grown. Yay. Right. But we have to protect those in the community. And so, it's not like we're going to regress our population backwards. We need these positions permanently. And so, having like a cap on it, I think would only be a disservice to the the strides that they've made and like making homes um safer for our seniors, which we already saw as a really important thing as our aging population, you know, continues to live and stay in where they need to be. Um, I mean, if we had perhaps a marketing team that would help us, you know, share how this is going to impact community citizens, they wouldn't look at the 1.45 million. They would say, "Oh, it's $33 per $100,000. You know, that's like $1 to $2 a month. Um, I think I could maybe be okay with paying that extra for the safety and knowing that I'm going to be well protected." Um, so I mean, not that an agency might have helped us with that before, but it would have been a good option to have something that would have helped us maybe educate our citizens a little bit about what the implications are about this. Um, but is $10 really a big enough deal for a person to vote? Yes or no? I mean, $400,000 looks like it. I mean, if that was coming on my paycheck, yes. But I mean, if there was a way that we could do it to like really explain what it's going to cost them versus just saying it's $1.5 million. Um, which I'm hoping we'll do that in the newsletter. But I mean, we can't go backwards. We can only go forwards and that's where we we need those 12 firefighters and paramedics. They're important to our quality of

life. Thanks. Thank you, Alder Tierney.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As far as um Alder Rasmusson's idea of coming back to this, capping it for five years and coming back to this um I don't agree with that because in five years when we come back and look at this again, they're going to want more firefighters. Um and it's going to be more money because there will be more people. Uh well, maybe not. was been pretty stagnant there, but um we all know that the people in favor of this want it in perpetuity. It's I mean this would just be doing going through this whole process again in five years. Um I know my personal um thoughts on 1.4 million. I think education can be done in the newsletter. Um but I think that the decision needs to be made by the community because they are the ones that are being asked to pay for this and they are being asked honestly to pay for this in perpetuity. I mean in 5 years we would be going back asking for this this if not more. So um I think it needs to stay there the way it is. I think that we have to realize that um a good portion of our citizens out there um understand that this is not going to go away and I think there can be an article in the newsletter about this is what it breaks down to but in reality um you know we're going to be asking them for this and uh and we are going going to be asking them for at budget time for increases or reduced services. And I think that we need to be completely

transparent of what that's going to cost them and let them make that decision if that money which is more important to them. I know my answer, but I know that it should be put out there the way it's going to be and let the citizens make their decision based on the real numbers. Thank you, Alder Hanky.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just reading through this, I see a lot of April 6th comments. Uh, the date is actually April 7th. Okay. cover that. Okay.

All right. Um I um I also uh am in favor of the perpetuity. Um I don't I can't imagine how hard it was to hire firefighters on a three-year FEMA grant. Um and now to throw another five-year deadline on it. I think that'll add a big headache to hiring and retaining firefighters. And um I think we've talked about this um more than enough in multiple committees and meetings. And I will call the question. Alder Hanky calls the question. And Alder Hanky knows the rules better than the rest of us on this one. Uh but I we have two in the queue. We need a vote on calling the question.

Do we need a second? We need a second. We need a second. Second from Watson. All right. The vote is on calling the question and that will cut off comment to Martins's or it will allow Martins and Griner and no further comment. May begin voting. Oh, says motion. Uh, I hit my motion button. Two3 vote. Oops. Yes.

So, you vote yes if you want to end after the next two speakers or no if you have further comments. Clarify. Yes. If what? If you support the motion. No, this just you may vote on calling the question and the two people that were up to speak will still be able to speak. That be it. I'll be the last one to talk. Yes or no? Do motion passes 11 to zero to call the Okay. And according to the council rules, the two remaining in queue is Martins. Mr. Martins.

Okay. Thank you. I'm and I'll make this quick. Um you know in the finance committee we didn't we didn't talk about the merits of extending the um the refer you know the time frame of the referendum to 5 years or perpetuity. Um I but I I believe that although 5 years gives us a large enough window to expect that um you know maybe another closed TID would give us the ability to um you know uh pay though you know um to to absorb those costs uh for a fully staffed fire service. I don't believe I I think that's um not not the best u or or prudent measure to take in that we don't know what the what what our what our um fiscal outlook is going to be in five years and there's going to there might be other other cost constraints because everything's going to go up in price nothing's going to go uh down in price. So um but if we do but if if the economic situation changes and things look great in 5 years all this you know the what the referendum does is it allows us to exceed our levy limit by a a certain amount. Just remember, just remember a levy limit is is an our is a number that is imposed on us by the by the state based on formulas. And um if we are able to generate sufficient levies without going over our levy limits, our tax, you know, the tax rate will be less. So um it's like we, you know, it's a ceiling. We're raising the ceiling, but we can always stay below the ceiling if our num, you know,

if if if we have the ability to um to raise, you know, to to levy the funds to pay everything below below that below that ceiling ceiling price ceiling amount. So, um keeping keeping this um referendum in perpetuity is would be the most prudent um measure going forward since this is an increase of staffing. Thank you. Thank you. And the clerk informs me that Alder Killian was in the queue unregistered. Alder Killian and then Grae.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I greatly respect Alder Martin's knowledge about finances and taxes and the state. And I heard Alder Tierney say she thinks the people should speak. Well, to me, the people have spoken. I can't walk around my neighborhood. I can't go into a grocery store. I can't go anywhere without having someone come up to me, and that isn't an an exaggeration, and say, "I can't pay my taxes. I'm going to have to leave Wasau. It's too expensive for me here. I can't pay my water bills, and I will not support this referendum because I will not ask the residents to pay another penny in taxes. I respect our fire department. I know this is a question of safety, but I don't believe our population has grown tremendously. Not according to statistics that I've seen. And I'm not doubting that uh Chief Cops knows what he needs and what he doesn't need. But I literally think our residents have spoken about taxes and I will not support increasing our tax levy at all at this point in time, especially not forever. So I will not support a referendum. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Grainer.

Thank you, Mayor. So, I have expressed my opinion several times in meetings over this that it's unfortunate that we were ever put into this situation since we knew from the get-go that these grants were not around for forever and we should have been planning for this. That being said, you can't change the past. So, I hope we take this as a learning experience moving forward in case we ever get put in this situation again. I can say personally I do not like this. However, I believe that referendums are one of the most democratic ways of dealing with our problems in this regard. So, I think it's time to let the people speak. And I think I'm glad that Alder Hanky called the question because if he didn't do it, I was going to since we've all should know by now what we're voting for.

Thank you. So, the question being called on the referendum uh for $1.45 million. Turn it over to the clerk. The dates changed to Oh, okay. Let's correct that for the record. The date on the information was uh April 6th. They should all be April 7th for the April 7th election. File 260109. You may begin voting.

Motion passes. Motion passes 9 to2. Okay. Up next, announcements from the mayor and older persons. Just one announcement in that city hall will be closed for regular business on Monday in observance of Martin Luther King Day. We it's an inservice day and training day for staff. Any alders uh have question or announcements? Seeing none, uh, comments and suggestions from citizens present during public comment occurring be both before and after the business meeting. Please state your name.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Tom Killian, 133 East Thomas Street. And uh speaking of uh wasting a bunch of taxpayer money unnecessarily, let's talk about the manner in which the city and GEI are approaching the Cleveland Avenue options and financial estimates. So tonight's Cleveland Avenue presentation states it does not integrate a redevelopment plan or provide a full review of all options. So in the context of the defined process options presented tonight actually leave out some of the most effective and coste effective remedial options there could be rendering much of the presentation's financial estimates meaningless. And compared to the alternative of an integrated approach with the redevelopment and construction process, the uh the estimates will ultimately be inflated in this uh manner. So this makes this presentation premature because it does include an incomplete set of options and the environmental committee of the city should be watching this. To do this right, the public should expect legitimate options and estimates based on a strategically designed layout of the ultimate redevelopment concepts. The approach would include a mixed set of remediation tactics which produce and factor in construction redundancies. The non-industrial use should dovetail with funding incentives. In this way, some of the most thorough remediation options may actually end up costing the city very little. But instead of pursuing these best practices, the options and estimates presented tonight uh appear

essentially worthless in that regard. Two things in this con uh in conclusion. First, in October, the government explicitly stated it was done pursuing industrial development on 1300 Cleveland. That does not mean something like the majority becomes a park and then a portion of the land is given to 3M as was suggested in 2021 in emails between 3M company and the economic development department. What it means is that there is no industrial. Second, the January 29th meeting is to get residents ideas for specific non-industrial development, not summon government going to the historical society and compiling history on industry and 3M park so it can juice forward a pre-made plan to do a park and then give 3M some of that land in the future. Maybe it'll even pay for some of that. that would make these artificially high numbers even more interesting. But those optics would be poor, especially when the recently retired head of 3M Wasaw is now running for city government. But with major polluters, I guess uh even better than advocating to government is actually being the government. Thank you.

Thank you. We don't have an we don't have an agenda item for adjournment, but I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. We cannot adjourn. It's not agenda. Help me here. Motion from Hanky, second from Grryer. All in favor? See you. Yeah. So, we can That'll make me feel better. That was a long meeting.