City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody.

You are at a Common Council meeting, City of Wausau. It is Tuesday, September 8th, 2026. It is 6.30 p.m. Wausau City Hall Council Chambers will call the meeting to order. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll, please.

There are 11 voting members present.

Okay, proclamations up next. We have a couple of preventative in nature. Is there a DAR folks here tonight?

Yes.

Okay, first one up is proclamation... Declaring September as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, we call the attention to the disease that affects women across our community and nation. Ovarian cancer causes more deaths than any other female reproductive system cancers and is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women. And whereas women who are middle-aged and older, who have a family history of ovarian and breast cancer, have had certain cancers in the past are at an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. It is critical that scientists and doctors accelerate research into ovarian cancer while continuing to work on prevention, treatment, and a cure. Now therefore, be it resolved that I, Doug Denny, Mayor of the City of Wausau, proclaim September Ovarian Cancer Month in the City of Wausau and commend its observance to all citizens. All right, just as this one, sometimes I wonder if our awareness is really of any help because ovarian cancer is extremely difficult to get a good read on. And similarly, National Suicide Prevention Month. It's not always easy to tell who those are out there. It's easy to tell when someone is struggling, but the most stoic among us lately have been, seem to have succumbed to this. So this proclamation reads, whereas September is known globally as Suicide Prevention Month, the National Suicide Prevention and Action Month Proclamation was created to raise the visibility of mental health resources and suicide prevention services available in our community. The goal is to start the conversation about mental health and the impact of suicide to help destigmatize the conversation and help connect people with the appropriate support services. And whereas, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in young among adults and second leading cause of death among individuals between 10 and 34. More than 49,300 people died by suicide across the United States in each year in the last several years with an average of 135 suicides completed daily. And whereas each and every suicide directly impacts a minimum of 100 additional people, including family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, and community members. And whereas Wausau publicly places its full support behind those who work in the fields of mental health, education, and law enforcement. And whereas global organizations like Hope for the Day and our local mental health partner, North Central Healthcare, serve on the front lines of of a war that many still refuse to discuss, as stigma regarding suicide and mental health issues is far too prevalent. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Doug Denny, Mayor, City of Wausau, do hereby proclaim September 2026 as National Suicide Prevention and Action Month in the City of Wausau. And I commend this observance to all citizens and encourage them to take the time to understand the importance of mental health education and recognize that taking care of ourselves and others includes taking care of mental health. Signed, Doug Denny, Mayor, City of Wausau. Okay, up next is our proclamation for Constitution Week. Whereas our Constitution is founded on fundamental trust in America's citizens, and whereas on September 17th, 1787, our constitutional framers signed the U.S. Constitution at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, forging a new government for the United States. And whereas the story of the framing, signing and adoption of the epochal document constitutes one of the most significant chapters in the history of our country. And whereas it is fitting that every American should reflect upon the vision and fortitude of our forebears in creating a charter designed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and for the fortunate millions of Americans. who were to follow them as citizens of this nation. And whereas the Congress, by joint resolution approved August 2nd, 1956, has requested the President to set aside the week of September 17th each year as Constitution Week, a time for the contemplation and commemoration of the historic acts which resulted in the formation of our Constitution. And whereas September 17th marks the 239th anniversary of our Constitution, 250th of our declaration. And we celebrate this founding charter and reflect on the privilege of being an American with all the rights and responsibilities and privileges that involves Therefore, be it resolved that I, Doug Denny, Mayor of the City of Wausau, do hereby proclaim September 17th through 23rd as Constitution Week in the City of Wausau. I commend this observance and encourage all citizens to demonstrate our commitment to the United States of America and appreciation for the liberty our constitutional framers secured for us. Signed, Doug Denny, Mayor of the City of Wausau. Come on up, boy.

Thank you Mayor Denny and thank you City of Wausau for proclaiming this Constitution Week. And if you want to learn more about the Constitution, Yankee Bookstore and the Marathon County Public Library has lots of books for you. Thank you again.

All right, up next is item three is a presentation from our sustainability energy and environment committee. We have Mr. Kerns. Hey folks.

So we wanted to come together today to kind of remind everyone that we exist as a committee because we don't often engage with you folks. We're currently working on a sustainability plan for a five year action plan. We began the process in June. And we hope to have it finalized and able to be presented to the city council in April of 2027. Essentially what we're doing at this time is drawing in data. And part of that data process is a survey that we just concluded the creation of and was launched on September 1st and will run from now until October 31st. It's split out into two different formats. One is for local businesses and the other is for individuals. And the goal there is to kind of understand where the community feels we can best serve them when it comes to environmental and sustainability and also to kind of get a good read on what people's knowledge base is now so that we know where to fill in the blanks. Additionally, we have been collecting data from a community perspective on ways that we may be able to advise or put forth different methodologies for sustainability and environmental consciousness. We have Earth Week initiatives that we're looking into. We are looking for ways to promote local initiatives that already are For example, this weekend Art Fest is happening and we'll be sitting at a table Hopefully distributing the survey in addition to having a small art project for young people to come by and participate in with a sustainability mindset. We have a sustainability award that we've given out in the past. Kobe and Kobe and the Good News Project have both been recipients of that award. We had planned to have that be presented earlier in the year, but we lacked submissions. So now we'll be looking... TO DO THAT DURING THE EARTH WEEK CELEBRATION. WE ALSO WERE LOOKING AT SUSTAINABILITY IN ACTION, SO WE WERE GOING TO KIND OF REVISIT THOSE PAST WINNERS FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY AWARD AND THEN ALSO CONSIDER THINGS LIKE NATIVE PLANTING INITIATIVES OR OTHER THINGS PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE IN, TRYING TO REALLY, REALLY GIVE MORE CONNECTION TO SUSTAINABILITY FROM THE LOCAL PEOPLE. THE TREE PLANTING CEREMONY HAPPENS EVERY YEAR ON EARTH DAY, AND THAT WILL CONTINUE. uh... the farmers market we've reached out to them both at the night market and farmers market to see if it was possible for us to set up a stand and to distribute our literature as necessary including the survey and to see if we can just kinda connect with the city letting people know that we as a committee are open to public comment we have a series of art projects that we'd like to put together and we're kinda finalizing some of those now we again like we'd like to give kids an opportunity to think about these things and there are few things in the works that we hope to have more information to present on next time. And we would like to do a composting demonstration. One of the members of the SCEC currently works with Sue's, and we'd like to be able to have something to present that let people know kind of what their services are and why they're so important. Some of the emerging themes are food waste and recycling programs and composting. Again, Sue's is an amazing partner that we have in the city that I personally was unaware of until I found out from a member of the community. We are looking into ways to maybe engage with some of the local businesses to see if we can offset some of their organic waste and to give Sue's a little bit more business from that perspective. We'd also like to look for ways to get their name out in the public so that individuals across the city know that they have that available to them. Plastics reduction, we always look for any opportunities locally and particularly focusing on local businesses. If we can encourage them in any way, shape or form to reduce the amount of plastic that they're consuming, that's always an initiative for us. We do have the greenhouse resolution that the city of Wausau passed back in 2023. This is just a gentle reminder that that is a reality, and we are looking to be 100% clean energy for the city government by 2050. That was the resolution, and we're hoping if you guys have any ideas, obviously we're always open, and we are looking for ways to help the city achieve that goal. And we did discuss pollinators and native plantings. Obviously, we appreciate the mayor's monarch pledge. And we think that those kinds of public announcements are really, really beneficial to getting the city more engaged with what we're trying to do as a committee. So that catches you guys up on most of what we've put together for you as of now. And obviously, there's more to come with the sustainability plan. So thank you.

Thanks, Jesse. Question? Sure, go ahead. Thank you.

Sorry, Mayor. I don't have questions, but just to I just wanted to comment. Thank you, Jesse, by the way, for doing this, these updates. And we really would love to have input from Alders on this because a lot of the things that we're doing there you know, nice, right, like native plantings and, you know, composting. But they all have very direct effects on us as humans. And so, you know, what we're looking at is really important. And we talk a lot about, you know, how that can benefit us. the city, the budget, things like that. And then for residents too. So I hope there's a time when we can, like I hope that as we do these updates, if you are thinking about or can think about the committees that you're on and think about where some of this, what effects, where this fits in some of them, we'd really, really appreciate it and we'd really, really appreciate INPUT, SO JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM IS ITEM FOUR, CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING, AND THIS WOULD BE APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 8TH SPECIAL COMMON COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, AND THAT WAS THE MEETING WE HELD AFTER THE Regular Common Council meeting did not meet the quorum, so August 18th.

Motion to approve as presented.

Motion from Trueblood, second from Haneke. Those in favor of accepting the Common Council meeting minutes from the 18th, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that passes. We do have a couple of questions. comment tonight. So we'll read the public comment statement. City of Wausau recognizes the value of public comment on local issues and the importance of allowing members of the public to express themselves on city manners. 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. First up we have David Riedel.

Thank you all. Dave Riedel, 1200 North Mayfair Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I'm here to speak about the development agreement for Wongard, the River Life redevelopment. First, I want to thank you all for the opportunity to be here. I want to thank you for the opportunity to become part of the community. I also want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to deliver on the city's stated housing goals and really add value to an underutilized, challenging site to develop. Thank you also for your support on the term sheet. I don't want to speak for staff or for those consultants, but it is our position that the development agreement largely captures all form and function that was approved at the previous term sheet. I also want to just make myself available when the item comes up in the agenda that we're here and available to answer any questions and address any concerns that any of you may have. So with that, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Riedel. Up next is Ethel Quisler. Cody will turn it on for you.

Thank you for opening up public comment. Does that help any? HOW DOES THIS WORK? ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR HAVING PUBLIC COMMENT AVAILABLE. I APPRECIATE HOW THE CLERK'S OFFICE WAS ABLE TO WORK WITH ME FOR AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACCOMMODATION. AND THE ISSUE THAT I'M BRINGING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS Noting to you that the community that I live in, Lazy Acres, is part of Wausau proper. And there's been a situation that's been happening for a long time, but now it's become to a point of not tolerable. And I understand that there's a difference between obsolete and upgrades. What I don't understand is freedom of choice not being upheld. And it is affecting my neighbors, my neighborhood's security, safety, and protection. Access to 911 services that I thought was to be an equal access service for citizens is not equal access for us. Transitions of access, one would think, happens once another option has been successfully vetted. Traditional landlines are underground. They are more reliable, time tested, and they do not need the technology that may include data centers. Prudence tells me that the following information needs to be known and to be considered. Elon Musk, one of his goals is to place data centers into space. It is cold in space and will not need water to cool them down. So the rush for the data centers that are happening currently will become obsolete. I'm not against advancement. I'm not against AI. I just think it needs to be more thoroughly thought out and shared with the whole community to do the smartest thing possible for ourselves. The community that I live in has 190 homes. The caregivers that come to my home, as well to others in my neighborhood, this problem affects their ability to comply with reporting requirements with the state of Wisconsin for payment. I went through this situation within this past month. I've had spotty, I had a landline up until 2020, I believe, and then there were some changes within my household and the landline was taken out. I didn't want it taken out, but that's just what happened due to the circumstances. So for the past three years of me being in forced retirement, which I refer to it as, and that's why I haven't been around for like five years, I've had spotty coverage. And now in the last four weeks, I did not have coverage because this is the situation that happened. I don't know how much time I have left. Excuse me. You'll pinch me?

We'll let you finish here. If you could just describe, because I'm curious now. You're talking about not having 911, but go ahead.

Availability access, which I think is supposed to be all citizens have access to that. where to start. I have a phone program through a friend of mine, so I only pay $25 a month. And it's awesome. I've been grandfathered in with this company. The cellular use has been able to give me the affordability to use internet. But it's been spotty. Currently what happened to me is I have a flash on my screen that says hook up to the satellite. Now or later, blah, blah, blah. I don't know what I would be getting into, so I don't accept it. Then I find that a company, I suppose I could disclose it, it doesn't matter, an app shows up on my phone to hook up the satellite. Well, it doesn't tell me what it's going to cost me, but in the meantime, this situation has jammed my cellular service So I cannot call out of my home 911 should I need it. And other residents in my community have expressed this ongoing for a while. I'm the one speaking up.

Okay, thank you. So this is something significant. I mean, isolated to your neighborhood.

Yeah, we're part of Wasa proper.

Okay. Okay, appreciate you bringing that information in, and someone from our staff will reach out to you. Thank you.

You might have to stop over because I may not get the call.

Thank you.

Oh, did you need my address? I was supposed to start out that way?

I think for the record, we can take your address. Yes.

Physical address is 417 Lazy Branch Drive here in Wausau. I even got the cops called. Okay. It was in the middle of the street using the signal.

All right. Thanks, Ethel. Good night. all right next item up is item seven anyone here left to speak any pre-registered or otherwise seeing none all right item seven is the consent agenda would entertain a motion or any items that need to come down from consent i didn't see any didn't hear of any seeing none entertain a motion on consent motion from slonsky second from watson

Voting is now open. Motion passes 11 to 0.

Under ordinances and resolutions, first item under item 8 is file 26-0912. It's a resolution from the Wausau Arts Commission and Infrastructure Facilities Committee approving a right-of-way occupancy agreement with Foundry on 3rd, Phase 1, LLC, for the replacement of a sculpture at the southeast corner of 3rd Street and Washington Street. We'll entertain a motion from Neal, second from Alder Lukens. Seeing no comments.

Loading is now open. Motion passes 11 to 0.

The up next is a resolution from the Infrastructure and Facilities Committee. This is file 060909, approving non-binding letter of intent between City of Wausau and TLC Properties, also known as Lamar, for purchase of perpetual easement for advertising signs placed at 1514 North 3rd Street. Did you hear me? We'll entertain a motion on that. From Alder Slonsky, second from Alder Haneke. Alder Haneke is up first.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to confirm... We are putting forward a motion in the affirmative, and if we do not agree, we would vote no, just to confirm what had made it out of committee, because I believe this one had come not recommended by the committee, if I'm recalling that.

You would be correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Alder Slotsky.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to say the exact same thing. This was voted down unanimously in committee, but it does have to be raised as an affirmative. So I intend to vote nay, and I would encourage everyone else to vote nay as well. Thanks.

Thank you. Alder Neal.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On the last paragraph of the staff memo, I'm kind of like having a hard time understanding what is intended here, saying the staff has recommended not approving further leases over time due to restrictions the signs placement places on redevelopment options. And easement would not expire and be more permanent than a lease for a specific term. This does not make sense in my brain. It might be my brain is deficient. I feel that having the leeway through leases to maintain ownership of property which we might want to utilize in some form like traffic or whatever going forward is better than signing away a section of that permanently, which takes us out of the position of having any kind of flexibility. So I would not support this, and I really don't understand the recommendation that came forward, but I would vote no, too.

Thank you. Mr. Trueblood.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I echo everything that was said. The reason it was voted down was because it is believed that this would limit development of that parcel, and we do have active negotiation going on, I believe, with that parcel. So rather than lock ourselves into something we no longer have control over, we do feel this would be handled better in alternative ways. That's why, as a committee, we voted it down.

Mr. Martins.

Yeah, and to Alder Neal's point, a lease, providing a lease to the company gives us the greater level of flexibility. It's easier to terminate a lease than it is a permanent easement. They're effectively asking a permanent easement for 10 years of lease payments. We've owned the property since 2006. outdoor advertising is scarce. So even if we do not develop the property, this company is not going to want to give up this location. So we might as well recoup the lease as long as we can until we come to the point of wanting to redevelop it, and then we have that ability to do so. So yes, I will be voting no on this.

Thank you. Seeing no further comments or questions.

Voting is now open. Motion failed, zero to 11.

Up next is a resolution from the Human Resources Committee approving organizational structure changes and succession planning for the Department of Public Works and Utilities. This is file 060906. Looking for a motion, if one's out there. Watson. Second from Slonsky. Alder Killian.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May we invite Eric Lindman to the podium, please? Hi, Eric.

Good evening, Terry.

Eric, you recall at the HR meeting when this was brought up initially, I asked you very directly if the fees that you had brought up for water utility, garbage, and so forth, were that if your proposal and your succession planning were at all dependent on those fees, and you said no, correct?

Correct.

So I just wanted you to state for the public tonight so that I can support this that those regressive fees are not going to be a dependency issue for this proposal and for your succession planning.

They are not. These changes are within our current budget as it stands.

Thank you.

Alder Watson.

Thank you, Mayor. Hi, Eric.

Hi.

So I wasn't at the COW last week when we discussed sort of examining our organizational structure and just sort of looking at those efficiencies. So when I saw this, I was like, oh, this sort of seems like you're sort of ahead of the eight ball a little. You've been working on this for a while?

Yeah, we've made some organizational structural changes probably over the last seven, eight years. This is just another one that we've been working towards to start working on a long-term succession plan for the department, yeah.

And that's really, I mean, I think succession planning is uber important and something that I hope that if we do get this study that we can look at that because it's uber, it's really important. I guess my question would be to, would we, if we did, when we do the study, would we look at, could we maybe look at both, right? Because I guess the efficiencies you're capturing with the reorg, but I sort of would like to see and compare and contrast just to see if that would work too.

Yeah, I mean, depending on how you structure whatever you're going to look at, absolutely. I would expect that that would be looking at the structure of the departments. Mine's larger than most, so there's a lot of different divisions and a lot of diversity work that happens.

Yeah, and I thought it was pretty clear how you had the organizational chart, and I think it's pretty simple. So thank you so much for answering the questions.

Thank you. Alder Henneke.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Director Lindman. I guess in light of everything that we've discussed and something that was brought up by Alder Trueblood last week, I wanted to make reference to that we do have a consideration, obviously, of savings here for the city. And I think it's important that it be included in the discussion that we understand the level of service that our residents expect with the price tag that goes along with that. I think that's a really important consideration. So I actually just had a question, you know, with, I guess with elimination of that part-time facilities position, do we anticipate any conflicts between facilities-related work and the plowing that we need in the wintertime in terms of what would be prioritized and what's I guess what's going to be the main focus during those times of the year just to make sure that people aren't concerned about us having limited capacity for either one.

Right, yeah. Plowing would always be priority number one, and that's the way it is now with these two individuals. They work with facilities right now, but their positions to plowing is number one priority in the wintertime.

Sounds good. That was really the only question I had. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Oh, Alder Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eric, may I address the air, Mr. Chair? You've got a question for Eric. How is this going to better serve the citizens of this community?

Well, it restructures our organization to really focus on where the needs are. So we're moving two equipment operators over to facilities, and that's really what their positions are doing now. So this structure really reflects how our organization is working now. I do think it's really important to have a very structured organization in a chart. And especially for succession planning, right? And how that looks when we have management positions that become vacant. How do those services get maintained? Who is training who below them? And those individuals that are moving up in the organization, that they have an idea and can fill those roles if those roles are vacant.

So I saw that, you know, yeah, there is a slight savings to the city here, but I also saw that there's going to be added of some supervisory positions here. So does that wipe out any savings?

No. That savings that you see includes any of those reclassifications that are in that organizational chart.

And lastly, does this... What's the words I'm looking for? The Murphy report, were any of these suggestions brought out in the Murphy report?

Not these ones specifically. I think how we're working with the motor pool and the fleet, we have implemented some of those suggestions from the Mercury report already. And I think additional suggestions within that Mercury report will, in order to implement those, would create additional funding resources needed.

Okay, thank you. I think this auditor is going to withhold voting for this project until the audit comes in through this city. So, thank you.

Just a little point of information. For every director... They have their performance reviews annually, and they have goals and objectives that they put out. This is an objective, or this is a goal for every director. All nine directors who report directly to me is to have succession planning for their departments, and this was an initiative that the prior HR director and I worked on, so it's been like six months in. So at this point, they're all working toward it, It's an important piece because none of us are getting any older or younger, and we won't be here forever. So we need a succession plan that trains, that positions, and that puts people and the city in a place to be able to continue operations uninterrupted no matter what happens down the road. Sorry, Carol Alder Lukens.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think my question is, basically I was wondering what Alder Haneke, sorry about that, said. I think my biggest concern is, so this is more about supervisory positions. There's not going to be other positions cut that in the direct service to residents?

That's correct, yeah. We're cutting a part-time position under facilities, which has been rarely filled since it was created.

Okay, but other things shouldn't really be affected then by it.

No. Okay, thank you.

Yes. Seeing nothing further.

Voting is now open.

Thanks, Eric. Yeah, thanks.

Motion passes 10 to 1.

All right, up next is file 260918. It's a joint resolution from Human Resources Committee and Finance Committee to approve the reclassification of human resources specialist to human resources generalist. I'll make the motion. Motion from Wyskowski, second from Larson. Call the true blood.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one point. It seems like there's a misnomer in this discussion. To go from a specialist to a generalist, there is a fiscal impact. And unless we're only hiring them for this year, this is going to be a perpetual impact. The $40,047.60 savings is not a perpetual savings. So since the savings is not perpetual, and yet the ongoing staffing and incremental pay raises will be ongoing in theory with the generalist, assuming we're going to keep the position filled, then there is going to be a fiscal impact. So as we add ranks, I think we do need to understand that this is going to, at a minimum, increase this department's budget by $3,600. So I'm not opposed to this. If the position warrants it, I think we should support HR and give them the position with the understanding that, in spite of what the memo says, there is going to be a fiscal impact.

I guess the impact for this year is that it is covered in savings.

The impact in 27 would have to be accounted for and beyond in the next budget. And then when we hire, if I may, when we hire a director, if that is an experienced director, are they going to get the base pay or are they going to get a higher pay, which will then, of course, also cost us more additionally, right? So it's like receiving a grant to fund something and then figuring out later how we're going to keep that going. Story of our lives. Just because the money's there now doesn't mean it's going to be there in the next budget. So as we vote, I think we need to consider the true financial impact of the decisions, which seems to be a mantra. Thank you. Alder Wyskowski.

Maybe just to give some context on this decision that we made in HR committee. The HR department is currently chronically understaffed. We've determined in committee that they should be a department of four. They are a department of three. We struggled to get that fourth position passed. Now they're a department of two. While we're missing a director, somebody else has stepped up into the director's position, which means that she's straddling two jobs at once. The specialist role is actually, if you look at the two different job descriptions between a generalist and a specialist, It would limit what she's really expected to do in her job if she stays a specialist. She's currently and has been for months and months and potentially years, I'm not entirely sure. I see nods from the interim director. Conducting generalist work, which means if she doesn't get this reclassification, the expectation is she doesn't do the work that she's been doing that really belongs to a generalist. I mean, it's a conundrum. It's a big conundrum. And I think the department has a woeful amount of work to do. And I would 100% support this because she's already doing the work. And I think we need to respect the fact that we need to reclassify the position or consider alternate staffing additions. Thanks.

Thank you. Alder Slansky.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to add on to what Alder Wiskowski said. This person is already doing the work of a generalist, and they're doing that work because it needs to be done. And I want to make sure that we're not taking advantage of the good staff that we have with the city who are willing to step up and do what needs to be done. We have to recognize that they're doing that work and we have to make sure that they're fairly compensated for that work. So I will be voting yes on this and encourage everyone else to as well.

Thank you. Alder Tierney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this person that is going to be hopefully going to a generalist, this department would be lost without the work that she has been doing under a specialist's wage. Right now, they're literally one illness away from being a one person department, which would be devastational. She has been doing the work of a generalist for a long time. and has not been compensated for the work. I think it's a travesty for us to continue that. People should be paid for the work that they are performing, especially when they are performing it at a high level, which this person is. Yes, right now there's a savings, but it will have to be in their budget moving forward. So to keep her at that position, it means that they're going to have to do this in a way that stays within their budget. But I just don't think it's great to expect somebody to do more than their job current job requirements but pay them less saw i think it's the right thing to do and i think it's the thing that is one of the things that is desperately needed at this point and i think it's a morale thing to i i think that She should be recognized for the work that she is performing and should be justly compensated. I will definitely be voting yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Martins.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but this is absolutely the case where we've got a person that is classified as an HR specialist and is performing HR generalist duties and not being properly compensated for that. I find it sad that we have this happening. I think as a city, we can do better. We've There's been a, the previous director did a compensation study prior to this knowing that there is a gap here. The wages that have been submitted as the generalist, as an HR generalist, are fair within the realm of other HR generalists in municipal settings, including Marathon County. I think we should be able to easily match what Marathon County is doing for their HR generalists in in providing a generalist position in our HR department since the person is already performing those tasks and I wholeheartedly support this and will be voting yes.

Thank you. Alderman Larson. I'll be the broken record too. I fully support this. We discussed it at committee. The HR department is currently severely understaffed and I'll be supporting this. Thank you. Alder Haneke.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I would voice my support of this as well. Echoing a few of the sentiments that my colleague, Alder Trueblood, had brought up, I think one of the concerns that I just have in any questions around the financial implications of the decisions that this body is making is just looking at not, do we have a problem? Okay, let's fund it. But more so taking into consideration, like for one thing that I would have asked to have included tonight, it's just knowing what is the permanent annual cost of the proposal, you know, and what that implication is going to mean going forward with the budget. Not as a means to say, hey, that's not good enough, let's decline this, but just to be as informed as possible with all of the information and all of the financial impact that could potentially come from a decision like this, as should be with all of our financial decisions, in my opinion. Um, the one other question that I had, if I can, um, was just to confirm, I know a previous memo had referred to the minimum being, um, 63, nine 80. I think the resolution is 63 20. I just wanted to clarify, um, WHAT THE ACTUAL PROPOSED OR WHAT THE RESOLUTION WILL BE LONG TERM. I KNOW THERE WAS JUST A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE MEMO THAT I HAD SEEN AND THEN THE RESOLUTION LISTED AMOUNT. SO JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING OR WOULD BE APPROVING THIS EVENING.

INTERIM DIRECTOR KEENAN, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION?

It's the resolution amount.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Mr. Trueblood, are you in the county? Another broken record, I hope? No, I'm not a broken record.

I am not saying I don't support this. I do always wonder about the budget. So when they hire another employee, obviously they're hiring a director. And if the goal is to get it up to four, would they then be hiring a specialist or a generalist? ABC. And if it's an ABC, so yes, that's a question. It could be for the interim director, could be for the mayor.

We currently have it slotted for subordinate to this position. Okay, so it would be a specialist.

It would be a coordinator, which is below.

Okay, okay.

which is below a specialist.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Now seeing no more records.

Voting is now open. Motion passes 11 to zero.

Okay, without objection, I'd like to hop over a couple of items here. They're going to be a little long-winded, I think, and get to confirming mayor's appointments. We have a few people that might be waiting for that. So I would look at file 260902, confirming appointments of the mayor of the city of Wausau to the Police and Fire Commission, Wausau Arts Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Ethics Board. So we got four of them on there tonight. Would entertain a motion. Motion from Lukens, second from Wyskowski.

Voting is now open. Motion passes 11-0.

All right, back up to file 260507. It's a joint ordinance from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Public Health and Safety Committee, and Infrastructure and Facilities Committee amending sections 10.40.040, Rules of the Road and Areas of Operations. Slonsky's first step, Lucan's second. Any questions, comments? Seeing none.

Voting is now open. Motion passes 11 to 0.

Let's see if we can beat that record on this one. File 260921 is an ordinance from the Wausau Water Works Commission creating Chapter 13.66 Lead and Galvanize Water Service Line Replacement. Motion from Lukens. Second from Watson. Alder Killian.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our residents were told initially that there would be no fees for them. And now there is no guarantee that they don't have to pay the fees on their lead line replacements. It's not my belief that we should be mandating someone to correct something in their own home. And then if they can't do it to penalize them, so I will not be supporting this.

Alder Martins.

All right. So this item came up to the Water Works Commission this past summer, and we had two very robust meetings where we discussed the ordinance. It's... When the council first looked at the ordinance in providing a mandate to replace your lead service lines back in 2024, We had just started rolling out the program with CIP, Community Infrastructure Partners, in providing the lead service line replacements to the residents of the community. And at that time, as a body, we felt that... ordinance wasn't right until we had a little bit of time under our belt to see how this replacement plan went. Well, let's fast forward three years, 24, 25, 26. 24, we replaced over 500 lines. 25, we replaced over 1,500 lines. In 26, we're on course of producing, you know, of replacing up to 1,700 lines. It's going extremely well. And by the end of the season, we should have almost half of our, you know, over half of our lead service line, identified lead service lines replaced. And now we're getting down to the bitter ends. We've got about ten years before the EPA mandates that as a community we have to have all of our lead lines out. 2037 is that deadline. We've made great gains in the past few years in replacing you know the lines that we've been able to identify and we've done it up and to this point we've been able to do it absolutely no charge to our to our residents we focused on the census tracts that the houses that Needed this service, you know needed the ability to have those lines replaced for free to be replaced for free but I think now after after three years and With the the funding sources shifting and the costs increasing, you know We're getting to the point where we need just a little bit more Just just a little bit more effort in order to get, you know, over that finish line in a timely manner. And what this mandate will do is it will give us that tool. It will give us that ability. We're not saying that I don't know what's going to happen yet for 2027, if there's going to be a cost, if there's not going to be a cost. I think the utility, the commission has stated that we want to be able to help our residents the best we can in order to get those lines replaced. There might be a small cost. There certainly would be some amount of subsidy in the future. There will be ways in which we can spread the cost. out through several years of assessments, much like we do with sidewalk assessments, things like that, for a road project, street projects. But now we're at that point in time where we need the ordinance. in order to help secure any amount of funding we can secure to get us to the finish line and have a lead-free community. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you.

Thank you. Alder Slonsky. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've heard from a lot of residents, and I understand the concerns. Nobody likes being told what they have to do on their own property. But that said, we do that. We do tell people what they have to do on their own property. We make them pull building permits. We make them hire licensed electricians and licensed plumbers, even though those things cost money. We make them maintain their homes in... and their yards and that stuff costs money too. So I don't really see that as being a reason to not support this ordinance. Where I have a concern is that The lead lines that have been replaced already have been at no cost to the homeowners and it feels very inequitable to make the later homeowners who are late lower down on the list to get done to have to carry that cost themselves so I would support looking for grant money as much as we can. And it's my understanding that passing this ordinance is an integral part of being able to qualify for later grants to make sure that homeowners who are still waiting won't have to bear the cost all themselves in the future if it comes to it and there's no grant money left i would ask this body to look at spreading out that cost among as many people as we can so that we're not tagging people with the full cost of lead line replacement on their on the homeowner side just because they were the last folks to get on the bus But that said, I'm going to be supporting this ordinance for purposes of being able to qualify for those grants that can hopefully alleviate some of those costs to the homeowners.

Thank you. Alder Trueblood. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It seems ironic that we are asking our citizens to pay for lead lines and voting an ordinance to force them to pay for lead lines. On the same evening, we're about to offer a company $28 million to build on contaminated soil. We are saying these lead lines are unsafe, which they are. We're saying it's a federally mandated thing. We don't have a choice. It's unfunded. But we also promised there would be no cost. And yet, that doesn't seem to be correct. So, a couple questions. Will we, in some way, for those who have had their lead lines replaced already, retroactively charge them for the cost of theirs? No. For people who do not need the requirement, are we going to charge them to help cover the cost? Will these individuals who have theirs changed receive tax credit as in a TIF district or a TID to cover the cost of replacing that lead line? That's what we're doing for these businesses. We're encouraging to do something that we want by giving them a tax credit. Why don't we do that with our lead lines? If we're going to make statements as a city, we either have to stick to them, or we have to admit that we have no clue what we're doing. Because we made a promise to our citizens, and now our citizens are going, hey, we took you at your word, and now we can't trust you. And I, for one, don't like getting all these ugly emails, especially the ones with profanity. I didn't need that. They have a point. We made a commitment, and now it seems like we are going back on it. We're willing to give money to outsiders, but how are we helping our own citizens?

all the more important to think about the long-term effects of our votes.

I'd spend a little time this weekend reviewing some of those videos from that era, not so long ago, and you'll be able to see what was said, who said what, how free it would be. Now, to just... set the record straight, we did start in the low-income census tracts. So those census tracts gave us initially 100% principal forgiveness. So the logic at that point is as we move into neighborhoods that are more able to pay for it, less money would also be available because that's the way the DNR structured it, to give more to those perceived in need in those census tracts. Sorry, Alder Kelly. Alder, I'm sorry, Alder Lukens.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I just want to make sure we are giving the correct information. So it was my recollection, and maybe You're still here, good. Did we say no one will have to pay or did we say, my recollection because I was a very, very involved in this issue was, well, first of all, to clarify, the reason for the ordinance is not to just force people to pay. It's because we have a better opportunity for funding. My understanding is we have leeway there that we don't necessarily have to force people So I don't want this to go out to the media and then there be this big negative that city council is putting this ordinance on people while they're then looking at this other development. Could you clarify, did we say, do you remember, that no one would have to pay or was it that we were, you know, we got in early and we got a lot more money than other municipalities, correct?

Yeah.

And we put off the ordinance, my understanding, as long as we could. Is that correct?

Yeah. So, you know, when we presented this and this process was that our initial first couple years, we're going to do very well with principal forgiveness, right? But as time went on and as we completed the work in those 100% census tracts and 75% census tracts, on the private side, there was going to be a funding gap. And so this past year, for 2026, the council approved general obligation debt to cover that gap, right? A little over $3 million, and that was the private side. So I take a look at kind of what you're talking about, the ordinance, right, and the funding, right? They're two separate things, right? And so the ordinance does allow us to be more competitive in the grant requests, right? But it also does give us the ability to mandate the replacement, right? So if we have funding to replace those lines and we have to meet those obligations to have the lead out of the ground, right now it's a voluntary situation. The utility has no enforcement to make somebody replace their line. So I think we're up to 30-some sites where we can't get them to respond to us. Most of them are rentals, landlords, management companies and stuff. This ordinance would allow us, you know... to kind of have that ability to progressively get to a point of shut off, right? And so, and that's the other step with this, right? We have to get the lead out of the ground, right? So one is the funding issue, and yes, there's always discussion about at some point the grant money is going to run out and there's going to be a funding gap and we are at that situation right now. And so the city council has a separate decision to make, which we had one discussion with the finance committee on, on how does that funding gap get paid for, right? As we continue to do this and meet our requirements. And so... Don't know if that completely answered your question Carol.

Well, it does and that was one of my I appreciate the information about landlords I mean my parents had rentals. Okay, so I'm not like against landlords. However, I Remember at the time when we first talked about this I felt pretty strongly about this because I have personally worked with students who were impacted by lead and And I mean, you can't get rid of it. There's no way to get rid of it from the body. And it forever impacts one's learning. And so I feel very strongly that if there are landlords and they refuse, and people with young children are renting from them, I mean, in that way, yes, I would vote for an ordinance because That's being responsible, and it is a public health issue. So I guess I just wanted to, I don't think it's all negative. I mean, I'm one of the ones that my street is slated to be done next year, so I'll be one that may have to pay. But I remember that we started with the census tracts that geared toward people who would be least able to afford it, correct? So, I mean, I guess my point is I really feel as though we've tried to do the best. I really feel as though we've tried to do the best for residents to the best of our ability with something that's required and with an unknown. So anyway, I will be voting for it because I, on behalf of those who maybe aren't able to have a voice in it and People who rent and, you know, they're not going to be able to control that. So anyway, I am going to vote for this. Thank you.

Thank you. Alder Watson.

Thank you. I do have a couple questions for you, Eric. So first off, I was trying to remember about getting the let out. We have to replace the public side, but the... Private side will have to be replaced right? Yeah, we're not can't connect new private or new public rate, right?

Yeah Using this funding that we're using right now and then with the new lead and copper oil improvements What's you know, we're not allowed to do partial replacements or repairs so An example of that is even if a homeowner has a leak on their side, they can't go down, cut it, and repair it, right? That triggers that they have to get that replaced, and then that would trigger the city to replace our side as well if it's lead because we can't have partial replacements.

And we can't do partial replacements going forward ever. Correct. So we would have to get the public side to achieve the 2038 mandate?

Yes.

And then, I don't know, I guess I disagree. I think that the ordinance and the funding are circular logic. I think it's sort of I guess it puts us in a rock and a hard place, right? And it is a crappy situation for residents to be in. It's crappy for us to be in. Because, I mean, the fear, I understand the fear is real. We have an ordinance that speaks to forcing somebody to do something. Why couldn't it be enforced sometime when maybe we're not here, right? Or other people are in charge, right? So I get the fear. I wonder if there is a way, especially, like, to speak to some of the people that haven't contacted you back. Like, is there a way to put in there that if they don't accept communication or funding, like, that's when we can... start to enforce the mandates. I guess I was and I don't want to put this as a formal amendment but I was just putting it out there because I understand like I don't want to water this down because obviously that doesn't it doesn't help the ordinance if we water it down. But is there some way that maybe we can work in there that you know like if you deny you know like funding available to cover your assessment and you don't respond like then we can force mandates. mandated replacement because that would sort of Get some of those folks and then it would also open the conversation to say hey, what can you afford? This is you know, what we what program we can have, you know that kind of thing, but I Don't know if there's a way to sort of yeah I mean, I think we take the same approach that we do with meters within the city, right?

Like we provide people an initial notice that hey, we need to come in and check your meter We need to replace it We don't get a response. We send them another letter, right? Then we send them another letter. And then if they don't respond or we're not getting anything, we'll kind of send them like a 15-day notice or a 10-day notice. If they don't respond to that, then we will – it's progressive. And then we will say that you have this many days or we will shut your water off, right? We usually don't get to that last one. People contact us and they do usually after two or three of the letters. But that's how this would work. This is not something in, I would hope that it's not gonna be a lot, just like it isn't with meters. But again, a lot of that's landlords and just different things. Working with management companies and stuff like that is really where that comes into. You know, this does have other benefits as well for residents. This will allow us, you know, to set up our kind of that assessment, that loan to the residents so they don't have to come up with that money right away if that's what you decide to do. It could be over however many years, you know, if that funding isn't available anymore at some point. and the cost of their line, let's say, is $5,000, right? Like, they don't have to go out and get a loan. The city will pay for it up front, and they will pay the city back over a number of years, just like we do with assessments. Yeah.

And after our conversation in finance, I forwarded a few suggestions, and I think that would be really awesome for us to talk about as a council, like, if there could be, you know, spreading it over longer periods of time, because it's an investment that pays for generations, right? So it's not just for that person, but... I guess this is maybe for, and I don't want to put our attorney or something on spot. I should have contacted you earlier today, but is there any way that we can add something in to not water it down, but also give, not an escape hatch, but a way that we can say, hey, if your approach with a fully funded opportunity and you turn us down, then yeah, we can mandate you. Or if we have a subsidized program and you turn that down, then we can mandate you. I know that's, I don't know.

So I'll respond in a way because we've spoken with the PSC on this, the Public Service Commission, right? Because they regulate water rates. And so when we look at... THIS, RIGHT? THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A MANDATORY ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY EXPECT, RIGHT? AND SO THE INITIAL LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED WAS, IF WE HAVE GRANT FUNDING, WE WILL DO IT, RIGHT? LIKE, WELL, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE PSC, RIGHT? SO THERE HAS TO BE, AND IT HAS TO BE ACROSS THE BOARD, RIGHT?

SO COULD WE SUNSET IT, MAYBE? JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE, I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT IT. BEFORE WE HAD THE MANDATE, LIKE, THE SUNSETS AFTER X amount, and then we don't have to worry about that. Anyway, I think it's a circular logic. It's frustrating. Thank you so very much. I'll probably vote for it because it's something we need to do. Thank you.

Naturally sunset when all the lead's out. That's true, yes. All right. Let's see. Alder Haneke.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Eric. I do have some questions for you. Before doing so, Attorney Jacobson, I was wondering if you could please take a look at a part of the ordinance, because I do have a question for you related to the legal obligation or the legal implications of the ordinance. So I'm looking at page 310 of the packet. AND SPECIFICALLY SECTION 13.66.080. BUT I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR LINDMAN. I'LL GIVE HER, I ALSO FEEL BAD THAT I DID NOT BRING THIS UP TO OUR ATTORNEY AHEAD OF TIME, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE SHE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT WHILE I'M DISCUSSING THIS WITH YOU. AGAIN, THAT WAS SECTION 13.66.080. Yeah, the financing of replacement specifically.

So thank you very much for answering questions.

Very similar to what Alder Lukens had brought up, I too don't want to be in a position where the public's misinformed about the realities that the city is facing. And I think making sure that we're exhaustive, exhaustive in our approach of making sure we've answered all the questions that residents have brought up and similar to what Alder Trueblood has said in some ways in a very serious manner. There's a lot of really concerned constituents and I understand it entirely. I did want to ask, you did touch on this with WITH MY COLLEAGUE HERE ABOUT THE NEED FOR US TO BE MANDATING THE COMPLETE REPLACEMENT. WE CAN'T DO PARTIAL. RIGHT. YEAH, AND SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, NOW, THIS IS FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE BEHOLDEN TO. HAS THE PRIVATE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THAT FEDERAL REGULATION OR IS IT THAT THESE OBLIGATIONS ARE FOR THE CITY AND WE'RE KIND OF, WE'VE KIND OF BY DEFAULT TIED THE RESIDENT'S HANDS BECAUSE THE CITY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN I GUESS, ANY TYPE OF REPAIRS OR WORK ON PRIVATE SIDE UNLESS IT'S A FULL REPLACEMENT? LIKE, IS THE OBLIGATION IN THE LEGISLATURE, YOU KNOW, IN THE LEGISLATIVE WORK THAT WAS PRODUCED ONLY SPECIFIC TO THE PUBLIC SIDE, THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS, OR DOES IT INCLUDE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AROUND THE PRIVATE AND COMPELLING PRIVATE REPLACEMENT AS WELL?

Yeah, it's specific in the fact that it doesn't allow partial replacements, right? And it talks about the lead service line, both basically from the main to the house, right? Because that's considered the water service line into the home. In our situation, it's up to the meter.

Sure. So without putting language specifically saying that private owners have to do it, they have to because they've given no other option to the city. That's good to understand. People should know that, that we do not have an option. That's the law. The other thing that I just wanted to make sure, I have a lot of concerns about approving this only for a few reasons, but my biggest concern right now is that I think I have fears about authorizing mandating private side replacement before we've adopted what a payment structure would look like, what our expectations are. So my question to you would be, let's say tomorrow somebody receives a mandate to replace How do we determine precisely what the resident owes? When is it due? How do we structure the payments? Have we had a discussion around that? And it's okay if we haven't. I just want to make sure that we don't commit ourselves to compelling people to do something without having the process through which they could reasonably do that.

Yeah, no, I think that is a great, right? Like, what do we do first, right? The ordinance or the funding. And really, I mean, other than kind of through the process of the last three years on funding and how we're going to do that gap funding, our first real true discussion was at the Finance Committee, right? On looking at some options that the City Council could consider, right? Do you want to put... any of that gap funding on the residents, all of it, any of it, some of it, none of it, you know, those are decisions. And Sarah did write me an email with some other options and we're working through those and I should have some more information on the September 22nd finance meeting for the committee to consider. But in this, you know, like with the ordinance itself, I mean, you could state, you know, we want this to go into effect on January 1, 2027, right? Like, we will be sending out letters for the 2027 potential project here come up this fall. But, you know, we're really not going to know what our funding is and availability and stuff and then be back in front of you until the DNR lets us know what that is, which may not be until October or maybe even November.

Sure. I appreciate that greatly. So the next question that I had, the one question I had, Attorney Jacobson, about that section specifically, the financing of replacement, is that we have language that says mandated lead service line replacement will only proceed as grant monies are available to fully fund private side obligation for the full lead service line replacement and all related construction for the property owner. but we are also considering that they would be mandated to pay anything that isn't covered. Are those two things okay to be in there together? What was that?

That first item is struck from the ordinance.

Have you seen that line through on your copy?

Yes. My apologies for not making a note of that. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS POSSIBLE. I KNOW WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNCIL WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS. I AM WONDERING IF THERE SHOULDN'T POTENTIALLY BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE EXPRESSLY STATING THAT PENALTIES, ENFORCEMENT, WATER DISCONNECTION WILL NOT OCCUR UNTIL THIS BODY ADOPTS A FINANCING PROGRAM THAT DEFINES VERY CLEARLY FOR OUR RESIDENTS WHAT THE MAXIMUM OBLIGATIONS WOULD BE, WHAT ARE THOSE REPAYMENT TERMS, WHAT ARE THE HARDSHIP CONSIDERATIONS, AS MENTIONED BY ALTER WATSON. I guess I would make that motion to amend to include language if that's at all possible at this time. But without that, I don't know that I could support this. I understand the obligation and I think it's important that we had the opportunity to discuss this so residents understand we are federally obligated and very conveniently they chose language that tied the city's hands to not be able to engage according to law. even if that's what the private resident would want to do, we don't have the option. I support this in theory, but I don't feel comfortable moving forward with an obligation to tell residents we're going to mandate this and you're going to have to pay for it until we take steps to determine how that's done. Okay.

So that's... a motion to amend. I wanted just to review that language that we just pointed out that was struck. That did derail this. So we want to be careful that we're not now going back to that, an iteration of that. So if you would mind try to re-verbalize that amendment again. Sure. So

My amendment would be proposing that the ordinance is not, I guess is not able to be implemented or acted upon in terms of penalties, enforcement, water disconnection until the council has adopted a financing program. that would coincide with this. I think I get very concerned about previous decisions we've made where we are moving forward with what needs to happen, honestly, in order to close the funding gap without a serious consideration of how we are going to expect that funding gap to be I guess addressed by the constituents.

I don't think... Any clarification? Mr. Truble. So in asking about a funding, are we talking what the homeowner would pay over what period of time and the cap that would be? Or are we talking about coming up with total funding for the project? Could you clarify what you mean by funding?

I want us, I want this body to clarify before we would penalize a homeowner for not being able to pay, we in truth need to know what are their financing options going to be, how are we determining obligation from property to property, And what considerations would we have for repayment terms as well as hardship considerations? I don't see how we can move forward with an expectation, hey, you gotta pay this, without us having any consideration of Here's what it's going to look like. We're going to break it out into X number of payments over X amount of time. I mean, I can't support this until we have that considered.

The funding mechanism that you've already put in place is what happened last year where the city paid for that residence. So if we would have had this ordinance two years ago, plan and the work would have gone exactly identical as it has today. So the plan is the ordinance is separate from the funding piece. I know they're connected in that one forces the other, but we have many options coming up for funding to include our funding ourselves, to include that other, uh, grant funding, to include partial, uh, forgiveness to low interest loans. So we have those, those, uh, funding thoughts coming through, uh, So I guess what I'm trying to say is I think this is a potential looking for a solve a problem that doesn't exist, but I understand the sentiment. Do we have a second? Well, let's try to flesh out this amendment first. We have an amendment from Haneke, second from Tierney.

Could I ask, just for a point of clarification of everyone here, because I think this would be beneficial, can we have the amendment read back? in terms of what motion was made and what has been seconded so that we understand.

I think that would be a good idea. Do you have it written down? You could give us a take on it?

Yep, my amendment would be that the ordinance expressly state penalties, enforcement, water disconnection will not occur until this body, the council, has adopted a financing program that defines the resident's maximum obligations, repayment terms, and hardship considerations.

Sure. Okay, let's reread that again, and we'll keep ahead of you.

So the amendment, sorry, what was that? Yeah, I could forward, absolutely, let me do that.

When we get to the discussion on the amendment, we can talk about that.

And I did send that. I know sometimes there's a delay in the reception of those emails, but that has been sent.

Amen.

The amendment exceeded our word limit on the system, but we do have the full amendment.

All right. So we have an amendment. Motion to amend the ordinance expressly state that penalties, enforcement, and water disconnection cannot occur until council has adopted a financing program that defines the resident's maximum obligation, repayment terms, and hardship protections. All right, so that was the motion. Does that comport with what you seconded, Alder Tierney? It is. So we have a motion from Haneke, second from Tierney. Discussion on the amendment. Do we have our live buttons here yet? All right, we'll start here with Alder Lukens.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I just want to make really clear with what I said before, I don't want people to have to pay if possible. I don't want any of the, even though I said, look, it's coming from mine, I don't mean that lightly though. I just meant I care about getting that let out So I just want to make that loud and clear because I don't want to suck it to residents in any way. Now, so just my questions are, one, would putting any language in this Could that impact our opportunities for possible funding? And the other thing is that my understanding is it's really up to us what we want to do in terms of requiring people to pay or actually mandating it. We can have the ordinance, but not mandate it necessarily if I'm understanding it correctly. And then just the last thing, and this is in the 2024 memo, but I don't know if those still stand, but different ideas about financing and funding options, and I couldn't, it's on page three of three of the 2024 memo from Mr. Lindman to the Water Works Commission, and one thing that's in there that we could possibly think about later, whenever, but it says, A provision regarding rental property may want to be considered. Rental properties are businesses and not owner-occupied properties. Thus, it may be appropriate to separate these properties out and require the landlord pay their portion of the lead service line replacement. I mean, I don't know if that's still possible for homeowners and landlords to do that separately, but those are a few questions.

Yeah, I think the financing plans would be up to the council on how they want to do that.

And with amending it as, I won't repeat the amendment, but would that, do you know, could that impact at all our chance of getting other funding?

Yeah, you know, it's really hard to tell. I mean, I'd have to share that. It's not nearly as restrictive as what was there. You know, this is just letting people know that the council has to basically approve, you know, how this is going to go forward. And I don't know how the PSC will see that. It doesn't... You know, the one thing we have to be careful of is not to state that, you know, this only moves forward or it's only enforceable if the council approves the funding, right? Like, I mean, and that's really kind of what the last one did. So the wording on this, I couldn't tell you 100% if the PSC will approve it or not.

Thank you. I think that's just my concern. I mean, I share the same sentiments as everyone else. I don't want people to have to pay for it, if at all possible. But my concern is just that I want us to be able to get as much funding as we possibly can. And it's been my understanding all along that it is up to us as to how we mandate it or whether we want to mandate it. But having this ordinance could possibly help with funding grants loans.

Yes, we get points for it.

So I just wanted, that's all I wanted to add. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no one else on the amendment. Anyone on the amendment? Mr. Martins.

I think, yes, I wish to speak to the amendment because I guess I want, I think we need to be careful in not encumbering this ordinance in such a way that it's not going to stand the test with the Public Service Commission. We already have the ability, you know, under... In the ordinance section 9, 13.66.080, the third paragraph, the city may establish a program to provide financial assistance to property owners replacing customer-side lead service lines. If the financial assistance does not cover the complete cost of replacing the customer-side water service line, the property owner shall be responsible for the remaining balance. That gives us every ability to... to create a funding mix that could be you know the city could could share you know could provide a hundred percent of the cost uh... like we did uh... for uh... this year uh... we covered the gap with uh... the general obligation debt we could decide to do that in the future work cover the debt cover the gap with general obligation debt if we wish for this for the residents not to have to pay uh... if we feel like There needs to be some type of cost sharing. We have the ability, as the ordinance is written, to do that. We can use whatever grants we receive to cut the price down for the homeowner. And then the homeowner would make up the difference. We already have the ability to set terms like we already do with other types of special assessments. So this is not anything that's new or different to us as individuals. As a municipality, we've got that ability already. So I guess I feel like the mechanisms are already in here in the ordinance. So why do we need to further encumber it and risk potential issues with the PSC when it comes to funding our lead service line replacements? Thank you.

Thank you. Alder Ruskowski.

I actually had a similar problem with this ordinance as the alder with the motion. It all hinged on one word, though, and I'm just curious if this word was intentional, legal, or otherwise. In the second paragraph of financing a replacement says the city may establish a program to provide financial et cetera. May? Is that leaving us, like that word implies that we may not as well. So should it be will? Should it be well? My concern is that the amendment on the floor is compromised by the use of the word may directly preceding it. So the two can't stand in the ordinance at the same time. Because one says we will do something, but the paragraph before about financial assistance and planning says we may do something. So it's like they either both say may or they both say will. That's my question. And Anne, I think that's to you.

City Attorney Jacobs.

Yes, Alder Wachowski, that language is probably deliberately permissive rather than mandatory because if we have may in there, the city then isn't in any trouble if no establishment of any program takes place. If we have will on there, you have now committed yourselves to, it's no longer discretionary, it's mandatory. And then you get in bigger trouble, you lose your immunity if you violate a mandatory obligation.

Yep, so since we're wordsmithing right now, should they both say something like, Should the council adopt a repayment plan? Then there are repayment plans. I mean, this is like adding words and words and words. So I'm just, I'm confused about what to do in this scenario. What keeps us open to being able to apply for future grants and funding? What pigeonholes us into a corner, et cetera? I'm just going to put that out there and leave it.

And Eric, I don't know if, at what point the city would know if they were able to establish a funding program. I don't think you want to delay action on this ordinance until we can establish a financial assistance program, do you? I don't know that that deadline's even possible for you to await.

Yeah, you know, I mean, I think the idea would be to get the ordinance in place and then really discuss how the council wants to move forward with funding, right? Just like it has been for the last three years, it's a year-to-year basis, right? We apply for the funding. We know the funding is going to run out. It's running out now. So the next two years, we might get principal forgiveness. It looks like we will after that. I don't think there'll be any available. So I think from year to year, this council, whoever's in these seats, is going to have to make the decision on an annual basis on the financing, right? I mean, in my head, right, you establish, just like special assessments, you establish a financing plan, right, and the requirements of that. But the decisions you still have to make is, are you going to fund any of that gap? Is the city going to bear that, or is it all going to be on the property owners? So I think those are just some considerations. So you can say... We shall, you know, implement the financing plan or may, keep it at may, whatever you'd like to do. But I think the actual funding will be decided on an annual basis on how you want to do that, right? what the city's financial capabilities are, whatever the council's willingness is to do that, and what the costs are. Yeah.

To me, it feels like if there are funds available, the city will make them available in some sort of a plan. If they're not available, the city... Possibly won't be able to provide that kind of funding so the word may works for me, but then it would have to modify Your amendment would the alders amendment would have to be modified to mirror that language So there isn't a logical inconsistency within the ordinance That's my okay Let's see point of clarification

Mr. Haneke. Apologies. I need to clarify. So because this has been brought up in something that I just want to be aware of that Attorney Jacobson had just mentioned, what is the deadline we're beholden to that we're trying to get this passed so that we have the correct ordinance in place for the grant funding we're requesting?

No, for the grant funding, for 27, that's already passed, right? So we did not get credit for that. Sorry, the time-sensitive nature. A time-sensitive nature would be probably by the first of the year. So as we are sending out notices, once we know what our funding availability is, that we would have the capability to kind of go down this road if we needed to with property owners.

Is it appropriate for me to withdraw my amendment? Mr. Chair?

Well, I think we've had a motion to amend. We've had a second. We've had some robust discussion on it. I think we need to either find another way to dispense with it through a vote or tabling suggestions. City Attorney? Well, we're looking that up. Is there anyone else here who want? Alder Larson.

Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to call a question. All right.

Mr. Larson calls the question.

I have a point of order as well. Okay.

Question has been called. We're going to go right to the, since this one is the one that has tripped us up before. And you can pipe in when you get termination of debate. Any member be wishing to terminate debate, may call the question. Shall we call the question? Is there an objection? Any Alder committee member who is in the queue to speak, you will get an opportunity to speak. Once all Alders have an opportunity to speak, then we shall place the vote. Do we require a second here on this one? Okay, Alder Larson calls the question. Is there a second? All right, we will, with a motion to call the question and no objection, anyone left in the queue wants to speak? Alder Lukens.

I have a point of order.

Alder Tierney, point of order.

Yes, all people are supposed to get an opportunity to speak before we go to second and third rounds here. I have not spoken. We have some alders that have spoken several times going on a third time.

You are correct, and that's where we're going with this next is your opportunity to speak.

Yes, but Robert's Rules say that every person gets one chance, opportunity to speak before we go to allowing repetitive speakers. That's Robert's Rules.

that is our council 2.16 rules, and it does conflict with Robert's rules, so we're working through it. I believe you're next to speak. Alder Tierney in the queue for up to two minutes.

Why don't I get three like my other... Alders.

Three minutes.

My concern about this is, as we have done in the past, we've said, let's pass this and we'll think about later about how we're going to pay for it. And we know that by some of the bond issues that have come up where we've had to finance things because they were approved previously with no plan on how to be financing them. I do not feel that it is right that people who are in a lesser income situation get 100% and we're looking three years down the path saying, well, you should be able to bear some of this. Nobody knows what somebody else's economic or income or ability to pay is. We don't know that. somebody may have been inherited that home that they're in and That puts them in a higher census tract because that homeless worth more. I don't know but I don't think that that we should go into this when we're talking about possibility, the possibility of close to $5,000, saying, well, maybe we can do this, maybe we can do that, maybe we can do long-term financing options for you, maybe there'll be some assistance for you, maybe not. I just I don't think that's the best thing to do. I know that if somebody was saying to me, you have to do this, and it might cost you $5,000 approximately because unfortunately you didn't get it done in the first three years, and we're going to help you, but we just don't know how. I just, I don't agree with that. I don't agree with making somebody do something that costs that account of money, that type of money, and then saying, we're going to help you somehow, we just don't know how. That's my problem with this. Thank you.

All right, Alder.

I will make this very quick. Thank you, Mayor. In terms of that mandating, I'm going to vote yes for this. I hope others do because there are people out there, a lot of renters, as we know, with young children that can't control that. So again, I'm counting on us as a council to do the right thing later in terms of whatever with we may, I'm hoping we get funding and I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Not everything in life can be completely certain, but anyway, I thank you for all your work and all the funding we have done, we have gotten so far. So I will be voting on behalf of this. Thank you.

Okay. So we're voting on, we're on the amendment now. Just so we're clear. Nope.

Then I will be voting against the amendment. I'm sorry. And for the original thing.

All right. Alder Haneke, and I do have a potential ruling here on the motion to withdraw your original motion. If you desire to withdraw your motion without an objection, we can pull it.

That would be my ask, Mr. Chair. Given what Director Lindman has made us aware of in terms of the implementation of the ordinance being something that maybe needs to take effect, as you said yourself, January 1 of 2027, I really don't see the rush. I will not be voting in favor of this because I do still stand that I think it's important we figure out What funding options we would do and I do very much appreciate the sentiment of alder Lukens? Trusting this body to make the right decision But until we until we've made that decision I won't be supporting this knowing that we have a window of time as as mentioned by our director To consider this ordinance once we've put those funding options in place Thank you, and I appreciate you being here. In no ways did I want this to be an interrogation. I just wanted to make sure, like Alder Lukens had mentioned, I don't want things to be misconstrued. I think it's important that people know exactly the obligations the city is beholden to as a result of federal law. So thank you very much.

Okay, with Mr. Henneke's desire to withdraw the motion, are there any objections to withdrawing that motion on the amendment? Seeing no objections, we are withdrawing that amendment, and we are on the main question on the ordinance. If we need to read that again, we can. We should look and see, is there anyone else in that queue? Mr. Trueblood.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So as all this discussion's been going on, I've heard several people say that the city's already gone into debt to cover the obligation that was not covered by grants. Is that correct? Did I understand that correctly?

Well, that would be correct. Okay.

So we are already charging citizens to replace their lead lines. We're already charging them costs in the form of debt. because that'll have to come out of the general obligations of the city. So the general accounts are going to pay for everyone's lead lines anyway.

Is that correct? If it's gapped to fill up to the grant portion, that's correct.

So there are two things that I would just like to share. I will not support this. I do think it needs a little more... I agree with Alder Haneke that we need to be clear where we're going with this. It does appear, and just a simple web search, I found several news articles where former Alders and former mayors promised that this wouldn't cost citizens anything, regardless of their income. So I do think we over-promised and under-delivered here. but if we're going to go into debt anyway my question would have to be if we spread this expense across everyone in the city would it come to that five thousand when when you said the five thousand number i heard in my head and perhaps literally purses clicking shut all over the city of people who as alder tierney said inherited their homes they live they live in the boulevarded neighborhoods they live in beautiful homes but they've lived there for 50 years and they've retired and they're on a very fixed income and five thousand dollars to them is life-changing money So I do struggle with asking them, after we've said we wouldn't, asking them to do something and not offering them some sort of hope. however you want to call that program. We have these programs for every other expense. The other thing I do think we need to, as a city, as a council, whatever it may be, we need to strongly admonish our congressmen, our senators, that these unfunded mandates cannot continue. If they're going to mandate these things of us, they have to give us some relief, financial or otherwise.

You're here. Are we tracking?

Okay.

Alder Larson. Once again, I'd like to call the question.

Okay. The question having been called, we have... I'm showing Wyskowski, Tierney, Killian in the queue. Is that correct?

Did you have anyone else? Wyskowski and Tierney.

Okay, so we have three minutes for Andrew Wyskowski. Okay.

All right, back to the main motion that I was concerned about. If we don't pass this, I can see many scenarios playing out that are dark and disturbing, but one that I'm concerned about is then we have a federal body coming down on us to action this or down on residents? It would be the city, the utility. Right, so we would be financially punished. Like potentially. Yeah. Okay. So I have concerns about that happening too. It sounds like we're not really prepared to, to make a decision on this. I mean, some of us might be, but it sounds like this ordinance requires a little bit more work and I'm wondering if it's better for us to take a two week pause or a four week pause or whatever. If we have three and a half months before we really have to make this decision. Um, Is it possible for us to table this so that we can actually work in some of the things that have been discussed tonight? Mr. Chair?

Well, if that's a motion, but I would remind you that this goes back to Teagan Troutner going back maybe before that. I think maybe it goes back to when Nate was here. So three years in the making. The legal department, our attorney's office, put a lot of time and effort in it to compare it to the law, compare it to others. So if there's some tweaking, which I think we have time, but to the point, though, I don't think it's fair to say that it's far from complete.

No, no, no. That's clear. It's just these specific details and these, you know, assistance to residents' ideas that are not clear in the ordinance as it is. And as it stands right now, it still says may establish a financing plan. So we have a motion to table.

However, we are in the midst of a terminating debate. And those who are in the queue is you, Alder Wyskowski, and Alder Tierney. And I would... Defer to the city attorney if we can terminate debate from can we table from the termination of the debate clause here?

but my other question though was Right, I don't know yes Yeah Can I just ask a separate question that helps me? Go ahead.

Just for the record, we're not going to take a motion to table from this point. Not yet.

I haven't made that motion yet. Okay. So then my next question was, if this motion fails and this ordinance FAILS. THEN WE HAVE A 30-DAY PERIOD ANYWAY BEFORE IT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK, BUT ONLY SOMEBODY WHO VOTED IN THE PREVAILING SIDE IS ALLOWED TO BRING IT BACK, CORRECT?

THAT IS INCORRECT. AFTER 30 DAYS, IT COULD COME BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS. IF YOU WANTED TO BE CONSIDERED THE NEXT AVAILABLE COUNCIL MEETING, A PERSON FROM THE PREVAILING SIDE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT FORWARD. Okay, so Alder Tierney, three minutes.

One quick thing is when this was all brought up many years ago, one of the options... Eric, how many folks were doing per year before we ramped up with CIP? How many lead lines?

About 80.

About 80, okay. Because one of the things that I believe it was Alder Rasmussen that brought up that was... We ramp it down. We've got until 2037 So we don't have to do 1500 a year. We ramp it down. So it's more affordable That is an option Thank you.

Yeah, it is. I think the I think the concern about that is we're gonna in a couple years We're gonna lose out on all the principal forgiveness right right now. I We've done $35 million worth of work for $15 million with the principal forgiveness, and that's going to run out. So if we ramp this down, then it's just going to cost more per homeowner side as we do it over time. And so obviously the funding question comes up again and how the city wants to fund the gap, which we'll be working on that discussion too moving forward as well.

OK, thank you. With the motion to terminate the debate, under unanimous consent, we will terminate the debate. Are there any objections? We're on the main motion. Seeing no objections, we are ready to vote. file number 260921 as originally stated with the withdrawn amendment not there. Ordinance from the Wausau Water Works Commission creating chapter 13.66 lead and galvanized water service line replacement. Thanks. We're voting on the ordinance now.

Voting is now open. Motion failed, five to six.

Mr. Mayor, as a member of the prevailing side, I would ask that this be brought back to us in two weeks, correct? September 22nd. Yes, after discussion.

Okay, clerk's taking the note. Thank you. What's that?

Mr. Mayor, I made an error. Okay, so we've got it. Mr. Mayor, I made an error. I was supposed to say reconsideration, but I used the wrong term.

What term did you use?

Reintroduce.

Okay, let's reconsider this on the 22nd. Thank you. Okay, we've got a couple of computers that went offline. Cody's working to get them back. Can we take a five-minute bio break here? So we're going to recess for five minutes. It'll be about 43, 44 minutes. Thank you for joining.

We'll let the people in the meeting know that you're here. No I'm good, thank you. Mine is here, yeah. Thanks, Courtney.

You know what I've noticed? You know what I've noticed? That sometimes when it says current speaker, it's just a flash. And in the time, nothing. So my point is, people who are watching the live stream, which my friend in Washington is right now, it's going to be, what is this, kind of a favoritism thing?

Or is it a technology? Even if it's current, it's current should be accurate. Is it possible to put the disclaimer out? Well, I'm not... I'm always of the nature of, well, let's ask it so we know. Okay, yeah. Wow. Wow. Wow.

What's our latest distraction from ?

So when you guys talked about Congress putting mandates down?

Right, but it's all like comes from somebody else. Right? That's what I have to do.

Thank you. Mr. Six is red. My name is . My name is . There's something that .

Thank you.

I will share with you my sleep right now. Thank you. Are you ready to go? Ready to go?

All right, give me a yell and we'll get it. You heard him say that? Yes. . . .

. . Okay, yeah.

Okay, it is 44 minutes after, about 30 seconds, we'll get going here. Everybody plugged in?

Okay.

All right, welcome back. We'll recall the meeting to order. It is 8.46. Next item up is... File 260919. It's a resolution from Economic Development Committee approving development agreement with Vanguard LLC for redevelopment of 920 North 1st Street and 15 Fulton River Life South. We'll entertain a motion from Neal and second from Mr. Wyskowski. Mr. Neal.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hope this doesn't need to go too long in discussion. The fact that we dealt with the term sheet in a previous meeting and it was passed eight to three. The term sheet clearly laid out the value of this project, the lack of risk for the city, and what are the basic terms. What we have in front of us now is the fleshed out developer's agreement, which delivers on the promise of the term sheet at great length. but without changing anything of any import from the term sheet. So that being said, I'll just very quickly kind of reiterate some of my support points for this project. I mean, number one, the property in question is city-owned and has been providing us with zero dollars of revenue for decades. And If this project does not happen, it promises to continue doing that off into the indefinite future, perhaps more decades. Zero dollars revenue. This development brings immediately a hundred thousand dollars in a sales price for the property it immediately offers the base property tax payment Which goes to the other four? Taxing entities that the city the county the school district and the tech they would be getting benefit of that money which has not been forthcoming for decades and The developer has asked no money up front from the city. That's a nice zero to see. Going forward, the developer assumes the risk of achieving the value of that project and gets paid 80% of the increment. Again, that's not money that the city is going into debt for to pay them. We're not giving them a loan. their own money goes in to that grant bank, if you will, and then is returned to them to help offset their construction costs. We in turn get 20% of that increment, which stays within the TID to help pay for TID needs. Every one of the points I just made are all net positive for the city. There's not a net negative in there at all. There's no risk. There's no money out of hand. There's no taxpayer dollars being given to wealthy people. None of this is happening. So with all of these positives and total lack of negatives and a really good development in a prime location there on the river, following through on our strategic vision for that property and that part of town, i was happy to see the eight to three vote at our last meeting and i certainly hope to see it again if not even more in favor because this is a very good thing for the city and does not in any way shape or form put the city at risk thank you thank you alder watson

Thank you, Mayor. So I guess I just had a couple questions, but I guess I just wanted to talk a little bit about housing need. I sort of looked back at a couple of the studies we've had. You know, the 2022... HOUSING ASSESSMENT SAID WE HAD A NEED FOR 4531 UNITS, RIGHT? AND THAT BY 2040, WE WOULD NEED THE MORE HIGHER PRICED, MAYBE SENIOR SUPPORTED UNITS, RIGHT? BUT THEN THE 2025 CENTER IT'S CENTERGY. I REALLY LIKED HOW THAT COMPLIMENTED AND CAME UP LATER. BUT THEY WERE SAYING THAT REALLY IT'S THE SHORTAGES OF STUFF PRICED BETWEEN 1200 AND 2500. SO THAT SORT OF MIDDLE SPOT. AND I KNOW LIKE THE MISSING MIDDLE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LOT. SO I UNDERSTAND LIKE A LOT OF MARKET RATE HOUSING IS GOING IN. AND AS AN ECONOMIST, I ALWAYS AM LOOKING AT THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND MODEL AND SAYING, HEY, SUPPLY, It's going to push market prices down eventually, right? It's not an immediate price fix or price mechanism. So I always see supply, we don't have enough housing stock, we should get more housing stock. Even though it's maybe not geared towards affordable housing, it's going to maybe free up those resources, right? So one of the questions, because I was sort of reading some stuff in addition to our packet, But one of the things came up about what the assessed value of that property is. And I sort of read like 1.4 million, that kind of thing, right? So how has that calculation arrived at? And was that, like, if it was pretty and not polluted, you know, where did that figure come from? And is that how that $100,000 sort of came to be? How did that come to be?

No, the $100,000 actually is due to, I'd say, months and months of negotiation. You know, there's a lot that went into the development agreement ultimately. I'm not quite sure how, I mean, the original assessment was done. We're focusing more on what the forward assessment is. So that's part of, like, what we originally talked about on the term sheet of, what we want to achieve going forward. So we're proposing this project actually reach $28 million in assessment. So that's kind of like that negotiation where someone, you have a cost of $100,000, which, like I said, we've not counted before, but they're willing to do improvements to the site. There are significant issues with that site, so they're willing to do that, their cost. to help the project out. So we looked ultimately is what's the forward assessment on it? Vacant land, I know, is always a discussion. How do you assess vacant land, city-owned? I default to people in the crowd, but I know what the development agreement talks about is ultimately a forward-thinking $20 million assessment. Does that answer your question?

It does. Thank you. And I just have a couple more, and then I'll... So I was also looking at the projected cost versus the minimum required investment. There's about a $5.4 million gap. And I think that gap's always built in just because of design changes, that kind of thing, right? Those little cushions on what you're going to pick out. Is that sort of a common gap, the $5 million gap?

And that is in the public assistance, you say that again, in the public assistance?

Or the projected cost versus the minimum required investment, that part of it.

So ultimately, you know, there's always that, what we feel is a fair, they have to meet this as a minimum. And then there's the ultimate, what we truly think it might be. And the reason there's that gap is we can't predict prices might change, adjustments may change. So what we get ultimately is we hope we get a $36 million BUILDING, BUT THEY WON'T HAVE TO MAKE $30 MILLION ON IT. NOW, I SAY $30 MILLION. SURPRISINGLY, THIS IS A VERY COMMON THEME WE GET WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, IS THIS IS HARD COSTS THAT ARE BUILT INTO THAT. THIS ISN'T SOFT COSTS, THIS ISN'T OTHER THINGS, IT'S HARD COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION. $36 MILLION IS ALL IN COSTS. SO THAT DOES INCLUDE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, DOING SOME ENVIRONMENTAL, THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN HARD COSTS. So that $30 million would be more in the hard cost. 36 is that total project, what they see it as. We do have both, I should mention, corals online as well as alers. So if there's any questions, I could definitely figure them. Keith, can you hear me by chance? You may say no. I can't. Okay. That's accurate in your opinion, correct? That's how you see the difference between the $36 million to $30 million total project versus the hard cost, correct? Correct.

Correct, yes. Total development cost is $36.1 million, but what the provision is getting at is specifically towards those hard construction costs, not necessarily soft construction costs. We want to ensure that the quality of what they propose is the quality of what they're going to build.

Awesome. And then just one more question. So since we did pass this 8 to 3, the term sheet, you know, before, is there anything material that is really pivoted that you would sort of want to call our attention to?

Absolutely not. That's what, you know, why we kind of have the process of the term sheet really to kind of flesh out that meat and potatoes ultimately. You know, what the minimum costs are going to be, what they're going to return to the city, those things. Really what the development agreement, you know, details out is protections of the city, obligations of the city, like how we pay them. More on its, I won't say details, but it's ultimately the protections and stuff that goes into it. But that's ultimately, it's not the meat and potatoes.

Awesome. Thank you.

Mr. Martins.

Thank you. And I think I'm probably going to just ladder onto a lot of the stuff that Alder Neal said about this developer's agreement. Because this project is a long time coming. We've put several years into developing this plan that's before us today, if I'm correct. And a couple of things. You know, we've had a deep analysis on the pro forma, the numbers. They've worked it out between the parties for quite some time, and we've come up with a cost figure and price. and estimates that are both fair to both parties and fair to the taxpayers of the city. This project is definitely something that fits well down in the riverfront. It's going to be a marquee development by far. And it's been a long time coming to have more development down in that River Life District. And third, one of the metrics that the the state really judges a city on is in their in their um... levy is the net new construction and when you can provide year after year net new construction that takes a lot of the stress off Our backs in creating a budget because it gives us that financial room in order to in order to grow. So we need it. We need tax base. We need net new construction and you know this. This project is going to is going to deliver on that. So I'm I'm supporting this this development.

Thank you Michael. You did touch on something, the process. It's been a multi-year-long process. Are there improvements we can do here? Because we've got developers who come in time and again, month over month, and pushing it along. And you get to any one point and it could go away. So are we acting in the best interest of the city as we launch into these ventures and also in the best interest of our business partners who have taken this ride along with us? Anyone else looking to comment? Seeing none.

The loading is now open. motion passes seven to four all right next item is

File number 26-0992, resolution from the Finance Committee authorizing the issuance of a $6 million taxable tax increment revenue bond of the City of Wausau to the Foundry on 3rd, Phase 1, LLC. And I believe it was, do we have the score on the finance? Was it four to one? Is it? That passed five to zero at finance. Okay. Entertain a motion from Watson. Second from Martins. Alder Killian.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think it's probably no secret that I haven't been a strong supporter of this type of development, but we do have a contractual obligation to make these payments, so I will be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Martins.

Thank you. Basically, just for anybody that's confused by the wording, anybody in the audience that's confused by the wording of revenue bond, this is nothing more than a mechanism in which the city is going to use in order to uphold their contractual obligations. While it is a bond, it is just the mechanism of providing those tax incentive payments back to the developer for the specified period of time that was in the developer's contract when we, back in 2022 when we started this project, the Foundry project.

All right, seeing no further commenters.

Voting is now open. Motion passes 10 to 1.

Okay, so we have two closed sessions. We're going to vote on them separately because they are two separate items we'll be discussing. So item one, I would entertain a person to volunteer to read the adjourn, make the motion to adjourn in the closed session for that first item.

Mr. Chair. Alder Slonsky.

Sorry. Saw the hand go up first, Tom.

Mr. Chair, I would move that we adjourn to closed session pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute Section 19.85 sub 1 sub G for conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved regarding a settlement offer received in Marathon County case number 24 CV 40 green acres at Greenwood Hills LLC Versus city of Wausau a motion from Slonsky second from Neil.

This is a roll call vote

Alder Lukens?

Yes.

Alder Martins?

Aye.

Alder Killian?

Aye.

Alder Neal?

Aye.

Alder Wazowski?

Aye.

Alder Slonsky?

Aye.

Alder Henneke?

Aye.

Alder Watson? Aye. Alder Tierney?

Aye.

Alder Larson?

Aye.

Alder Trueblood?

Aye. All right, we'll follow that one with a motion on the next item. If I could get a volunteer for that one, Alder Watson.

I move to adjourn the closed session pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 19.85 sub 1 sub G for conferring with legal counsel for governmental body who is rendering oral written advice concerning strategies to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation, which it is or is likely to become involved regarding a settlement offer received in Marathon County case number 25CV245, Wuna M. Younger versus Curly Kale, LLC, et al.

Mr. Chair, I'll second that. Second from Haneke. And start back on this side.

Alder Trueblood?

Aye.

Alder Larson?

Aye.

Alder Tierney?

Aye.

Alder Watson? Aye. Alder Haneke?

Aye.

Alder Slonsky?

Aye.

Alder Wasowski?

Aye.

Alder Neal?

Aye.

Alder Killian? Aye. Alder Martins? Aye. Alder Lukens? Aye.

So quickly before we go in, any alders want to make any announcements at this point? We can dispatch with them. Mr. Trueblood.

On September the 23rd here in the council chambers, the historic commission will be having a public hearing on whether to make Yaqui Park right over here Historic landmark in the City of Wausau, so I would encourage everyone to participate in that public hearing it is a Jewel in the crown of the city the older Henneke would it be germane for us to close in?

To adjourn and close session if we don't Allow option or the ability for public comment following the meeting we can allow public comment before when I anticipate It's gonna be some time before we come out

Anyone else? Wiskowski, Mr. Wiskowski.

A personal comment. I'm having another town hall to which the mayor has said he's going to attend on the 21st of September at 6.30 at the library, and all public are welcome to come to that. I do have to say the library is not sponsoring or endorsing any of this. They're just loaning me space. Thank you. Alder Lugens.

Thank you. For all alders at your... neighborhood meetings if you could encourage people and for anyone in the public to Please complete the community sustainability survey and business sustainability survey. It's live online Through the city it went live September 1st and just to reiterate it will be open through October 31st.

Thank you Thank you any other alders I'll take the last hit here, September 15th, town hall right here, 615. Mr. Michael Ford coming up from Oshkosh. Public comment, anyone here wishing to speak to anything on the agenda or off the agenda? All right, seeing none, we took that adjournment vote. The likelihood is that we, EXCUSE ME? CORRECT. WE'RE ADJOURNING INTO CLOSED SESSION. WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT FIRST? Hey Steph, Ann's going to take a poll on who goes first here. So I think you and you two are together and Eric's on the other.