Common Council - Regular Meeting

I would call to order the meeting of our common council for Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026. Clark. Thank you. All right. Now, please rise for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for an invitation offered by all depress. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Presley. All right, we can all sit down. Let's just take a moment of silence and then get to business. Thank you, Alder. Approval of the minutes. Motion to approve made by Alder Profett, seconded by Alder Stevens. Uh, any changes here? Seeing none. All in favor say I. Post nay. The eyes have it. The minutes are approved. Approval of the agenda. Motion to approve made by Alder Presley and seconded by Alder Hinkfist. Any changes here? Seeing none. All in favor say I.

Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it and the agenda has been approved. Report by the mayor. Um plenty of things to say, but I'll keep it to Shauno Avenue and short-term rentals. So, um just anformational item on the INS report, but um want to thank Director Houston and Assistant Director Brunette uh for both providing an update on a kind of a recap on what was done in 2025 and then also sharing with the council and the community what is planned for 2026. I think the highlight there is Shauno Avenue um being improved with our our mill and pave program. Um yes, everyone's very excited. uh we wished uh the state would have moved a little faster and um and take taken care of this obligation which which is theirs but recognizing how much this this street has deteriorated over the years um I think everybody agrees that this is the right move. Um so very excited to see that happen in uh in early summer of 2026. Next uh short-term rentals. We've had a lengthy conversation about short-term rentals um in this body here and in the community and I think we're we're at a good spot given the constraints that our council gave us, the constraints we're operating under with state law. So, just want to recognize Chief Falls and uh and our planning folks, um our alders who initiated a lot of this conversation, equal rights commission, citizens who've been very actively engaged. Um as I said, I think we we got to a good point with it. Um, so looking forward to approval on that item later this evening. Announcements from councel. No announcements. Reappoints. Motion to approve the reappoints was made by Alder Profit and seconded by Alder Galvin. Any comments? Seeing none, all in favor say I.

Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it and those reappoints are made. We have one public hearing. This is miscellaneous ordinance number 01-26. An ordinance adopting an amendment to the Go Big Green Bay 2050 comprehensive plan of the city of Green Bay related to the property located at 801 and 821 Limekill Road from neighborhood commercial to regional commercial CPA2-01. Anyone here would like to speak to that item? Anyone here who would like to speak to that item? Anyone here who would like to speak to that item? Uh, clerk, please let the record reflect there's no one here to speak to that item. Next up, ordinance of second reading for adoption. Motion to suspend the rules made by Alder Profett. That was seconded by Alder Hankfist. That's to suspend the rules, take up these items with one roll call vote. All in favor, we'll say I. Those nay. The eyes have the rules suspended. Motion to adopt.

Um made by Alder E.

Sounds good. Seconded by Alder Hankfist. Uh any discussion on that? Seeing none, we'll use the board. Bear with me or bear with it. You see it now? You may vote. And that uh those ordinances are adopted 10 to two. Report of the redevelopment authority. Motion to approve. Movement by Elder Profett. Seconded by Alder Presley. Any comments here? Seeing none. All in favor say I. Those nay. The eyes have it. That item has been approved. Report of the improvement

and services committee. Motion to approvement by Alder Delely. Second by Alder Act. Items here to be handled separately. 16. 16. Any others? All right. Hearing none others. All in favor of approving the remainder of the report. Will signify by saying I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. The report has been approved. The exception of item 16. Uh, Alder Johnson. Yeah. Just a question for Director Jen. Again, this is specifically related to the Shauno Avenue mill and pave. Uh, have has your department done an estimate of cost on what it's going to cost the city to do that stretch?

We did a rough estimate and we're looking at 400 to 500,000. It's still being, you know, the mill and pave uh contract is still um being put together. Um, so we don't have bid results yet. Okay. And then um from your professional uh experience when normally you resurface a road uh what is the average lifespan 10 years maybe on a stretch like that? Um I had that information in one of the prior INS agendas. I don't have it in front of me. Um and I'm not looking for Yeah, it was precision but I I don't know recall if it was 10 or 20 years.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And I think I've seen just through my online search results, right? 20 years can be uh common, but if you're on a sort of high impact road that a shorter lifespan uh might be more appropriate. And part of the reason I'm asking it, it's all going to lead to something. So the um the reconstruction that the state is scheduling, currently engineering, um are we about five years out on that yet? It's planned for 2031 and then in 2030 we would need to do utilities,

right? Okay. So it, you know, and and I certainly obviously appreciate the enthusiasm from the gallery here around the fact that we are resurfacing it, but uh I'm equally excited about it. I mean, this is something obviously we've been really trying to press the state on for a while. And I know when one of our more recent um meetings that we had with the DOT when we talked about this, I know I personally raised the point that I I did not think it was acceptable for this pavement to stay in this condition for the next five to six years. Well, this project uh was was engineered recognizing the uh I think it' probably be pretty universal if you pulled people what's the worst road in Green Bay. And it would obviously only get worse. And um you know my concern here now of course is that it is a state road. It is the state's responsibility. And now the city is going to spend upwards of a half a million dollars uh to get really five years out of a road when normally we'd spend a half a million dollars and get 20 10 to 20 years uh out of that that same work. And when we think about the amount of work that we have here in our community that needs to be done, um it just is obviously disappointing to me um that we can't find a path forward with the state. I know mayor's office definitely tried and and I appreciate that. Uh but I just want to put a spotlight on this because obviously we get a lot of criticism around things like the wheel tax. And just as a reminder, the will tax generates around 2 million a year. Probably nets a million a year after you take away the special assessment deferments. That means half of our annual wheel tax is going to fix this to get, you know, 25 to 50% of what normally would be the lifespan that you'd want to get out of this type of investment on a road that we're not even responsible for maintaining. But it has to be done. And I get that. And so, uh, I just wanted to make these comments to hopefully draw a little bit of attention, um, to all of

us to maybe do some outreach with our state reps, uh, to see if there's, uh, any type of way that the state can help support this. They clearly have, um, a much larger budget. This is a rounding error on some of their accounts. Uh, but it is not a rounding error to a local municipality like ours. Um, so it's certainly not the hill I'm gonna die on, but I at least want to put a little bit of a spotlight on um, what this decision means. Um, because as much as I do want to applaud, there is unfortunately a drawback to the decision that has to be made. So, can I clarify that it's going to be a mill pave though, not a resurfacing. So, if it were true resurfacing, it would be a much higher cost.

Yep. Sorry, I apologize. I'm kind of using those terms interchangeably, but absolutely right. And by the way, kudos. I mean to public works department really for uh developing that. I know Alder Hutchson was on the front of that too to really you know try to find a way for us to do more roads with the same resources and uh really excited to see that roll out and I believe the city uh Facebook page put out a video um that was created about sort of the ins and outs of Milan Page. So uh Michael uh that was a a really good piece. I encourage the public to go check that out. Okay. Appreciate comments. Uh,

uh, director Juice and I and I don't know if you have this information handy, but as I was sitting here, I was thinking back the state of Wisconsin gives us money every year to maintenance state roads. That's correct. Do you know approximately how much that is? I do not have that in front of me now. Okay. I I guess the point I'm making is I've been an alder for 10 years now. I've been hearing about Shauno Avenue for 10 years. I remember at one point I I said something on social media and I got a shot back from one of our state reps who said, "Well, we give you" and at that time it was $650,000 a year. Yeah.

Now, granite prices have gone up. But when you think about that and what we're paying just to mill it, you know, and we've got how many other miles of state roads that we have to maintain and take care of. I mean it's it's it it's not doing us justice uh what's going on in in the state and I just want to make that point also. Yeah. And I know we had some recent conversations about Shauno and you know the future design of that um

and this section of road I believe it's it was under a 100,000 that we get for that section. Um because I know we talked about if we you know we were to reduce the lanes um there would be a reduction in the amount we get from the state. Sure. All right. Thank you very much.

All right. Any other comments? Okay. I don't think we need a motion since it'sformational. So we'll move along to protection and policy committee. Motion to approve made by Alder Profett. Second by Alder Stevens. Items here to be handled separately. No one five. Any others? Hearing none others. All in favor of approving the remainder of that report signify by saying I. Post nay. The eyes have it. The report has been approved. The exception of items one and five. On item one. Alder Stevens.

Thank you, mayor. Um, we need to make a recommendation to refer this back to protection and policy. And before we vote on it, if city attorney Coldchart could uh fill us in on the recommendation for why. Okay. Alder Stevens uh moves to refer this back to committee seconded by Alder Morgan. Attorney cochair. Yes. So my recommendation to Alder Stevens to refer it back is just because some additional information records were provided to the alders just before the meeting. Um and city staff including officer Ravis hasn't had an opportunity to review that. Uh but we did also uh meet with the petitioner and he agreed to the um understanding this can be referred back and heard on Monday PMP and then a final decision we hear and we have an agreement also about um his dog as well.

Okay, great. Any uh comments or questions on that? Alder Johnson. Thank you, Attorney. Just for clarity sake, uh I know this is on here as an appeal. Was this intended to be a quasi judicial hearing? No, it's not intended to be because that was p um that was held at PNP on Monday. Um that's hence the reason for the additional documents recommendation and the petitioner brought up um just to note that he had received the uh police department's records. So just in in sort of caution about process uh that was my recommendation to refer it back so all of the records could be reviewed by the committee and then their new recommendation will come back at the subsequent meeting.

Okay. And then just part of the reason I asked the question is recognizing obviously when when it's a quasi judicial hearing at their um obviously recommendations and maybe limits on um any type of engagement uh that council should be having. Would that apply here? Yeah. So that that was my concern about the additional records that were distributed prior to the meeting. And then also, as I said, the petitioner uh brought up the point that he did not have his records or some records that he requested. I don't have all the details prior to the P&P meeting. So, in order to just make sure everybody's had a chance to review all the records that have been provided to the alders and others, uh that was my recommendation referred back.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So, there motion there is a motion and a second. All in favor say I. Nay. The eyes have it. And that item has been referred back to committee. Next up is item five to approve a draft uh general ordinance 06-26 related to designated outdoor refreshment area. Alder profit makes a motion to open the floor. Seconded by Alder Hutcherson. All in favor will say I. I post nay. The eyes have it and the floor is open. Uh if anyone would like to speak to that item, the designated outdoor refreshment area.

Then if you just wanted to state your name and address uh for the council, you have three minutes.

Hi, I'm Kristen Johnson. I live at 115 East Walnut Street in the Metro Apartments and I'm not against Dora. I've learned a little bit more after talking to Alder Profett and um I feel like my concerns are probably going to be addressed, but I just wanted to reiterate for the council that um this will be occurring right outside my bedroom window and uh my neighbors, you know, we're kind of a sleepy building and we there's not very much noise unless it's on the weekend And then you expect it on Walnut Street and Washington Street, but a lot of the neighbors that live alongside the river, you know, are used to being able to go to bed and wake up and go to work in the morning. We have a lot of medical professionals in the building that I want to make sure that this doesn't interfere with um the quiet that we're used to. Although I am in favor of fun as well and it it it seems like it would be an economic benefit to the area and I do appreciate that. But I want to make sure that my neighbors are educated on exactly what this will entail and and the rules that will be around it. specifically addressing the the time and I I worry that 10:00 is maybe too late which makes me sound really old but um and then there's another concern that I have about kids because there are a lot of people who bring their families down to the Riverwalk and I I wouldn't want children to get a hold of any empty containers that were or you know half filled containers that were left along the river or trash in the river. Um, you

know, there there's concerns like that that can probably be addressed. Um, the other bigger concern I have is safety and specifically traffic safety on the corner of Walnut and Washington. Some of you are aware that last, well, Halloween 2024, I was hit as a pedestrian while I was walking across the street and it was only 6:30 p.m. So, if there are people drinking on the Riverwalk and getting in their cars and driving through our neighborhood, that's that's a big concern for me and for a lot of the other people that walk to the next location. Um, so those those are my concerns and I would just ask that, you know, before anything be implemented, maybe there could be um a meeting for people who are interested parties to learn more about this program and to see if there's any other things that need to be done to ensure that it is safe and um good for the neighborhood. Thank you. to address my questions. All right. Anyone else who'd like to speak on that one?

Motion to close the floor made by Alder Profit and seconded by Alder Stevens. All in favor say I. I. Nay. You guys have it. Floor's closed. Alder profit. Motion to approve. Motion to approve made by Alder Profett and seconded by Alder Johnson.

And then just brief comment. Um I've been in touch with Kristen. Um I've offered a neighborhood meeting and I'm going to hold up my end of the bargain. also um been in contact with Downtown Green Bay, Inc. about um having other types of meetings with the business owners as well that are going to be affected by this. So, I'm definitely going to hold true to my word there. Um but we have a second reading coming up at our next one. Um so, going to have some of those conversations in between, but what's in front of us tonight, I still feel strongly are some really good bones to move forward. So, that's why I made the motion to approve. And Kristen, I saw your email. We will set up a date and I will make myself available to any questions and we'll bring in any staff. I know the clerk will be involved in a meeting this week um yet with um some of the business owners. So, we're we're certainly open to that. And as Alder Johnson alluded to alluded to earlier, um Michael's really good at putting out someformational videos. Uh so, we'll make sure we we got some media here, I think, that are interested in this topic as well, um business owners that could put up um um some information right within their business. Uh we'll make sure that the community is informed about how this program will work before it's rolled out this summer.

That's great. to those comments. Anything else? Alder Johnson?

Thank you, Mayor, and and thank you, Kristen, for coming out as well and sharing your perspective. It's always important to to hear maybe some of those ways that policies might impact um others within our neighborhoods that maybe aren't participating or using. Uh what that item might be. Um, in this case, I I was going to suggest the same thing that Alder Profit alluded to, which is I think downtown Green Bay may probably in partnership with the neighborhood association could likely hold some type of neighborhood meeting to really kind of talk about this. And uh, Chief Davis, I was also maybe thinking this could be incorporated into the safety summit that we do for the businesses in May. um seems like a timely and appropriate topic to make sure that those who are within that footprint um have every opportunity I guess to understand the rules and and how things will be enforced with that. Um someone who has experienced this in other communities. Um I think sometimes the just the initial idea of it uh can be somewhat overwhelming. Sometimes our our minds might drift to this idea that there's going to be a huge party in the street. And from my experience with other communities, it's it's a pretty uh low-key type of thing. And I think what it does is it helps address maybe some of the chronic challenges or issues that we've had uh with enforcement on the city deck. Um for those not overly familiar, the city deck is technically considered a park. And so um we obviously have a couple of businesses that run adjacent to the city deck that oftentimes overflow into the city deck. Second, I think we addressed one of those businesses uh with a with a lease agreement that we had done maybe a year or so ago. Um but I I think this just kind of helps create a better blanket policy uh so that way we're not running a foul of the law um but still allowing some of those um responsible fun things uh to happen. So

thanks Alder. Any other comments, questions? Seeing none, all in favor say I. nay. The eyes have it and that item has been approved. Report of the Green Bay Police Department granting operator licenses. Motion to approve made by Alder Profett and seconded by Alder Grush. Any abstensions or names be handled separately? Seeing none. All in favor say I. I.

Those nay. The eyes have it. That report has been approved. Plan commission. Motion to approve by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder. Items here to be handled separately. Any others? Three. One and three. Hearing none others. All in favor of approving the remainder of that report signify by saying I. Nay. The eyes have it. The report has been approved with the exception of items one and three. On item one. Alder profit.

Um after some conversation with both staff and the applicant, I'd like to offer an amendment to strike recommendation number four uh from the conditional use permit. So, out of those eight recommendations that came out of plan commission would like to strike four. Um, I don't know if uh director wants to add any more, but um the applicant is is here and have talked to them. They're in favor of it and staff is in favor of it. So, that is my amendment. Is there a second for Alder Profit's amendment? Second. Second by Alder Hinfus on that. Director Reneerwick, do you think?

Yep. I think this was a point at the plan commission and Alder Hutchinson, we talked about this as well. Um there was some there was a design element on the project and um our zoning administrator met with the team over there and were able to come together with a compromise on that design. So that's number four that's being removed. So very good. Any other comments on the amendment? Alder Johnson the neck. Yeah, I was just looking for clarity. So uh list of recommendations item number four uh which is uh no building addition shall extend past the front building facade. Okay. Just want to be sure we're

Yeah, the right one. I believe the agreement um was we're okay now with that coming out um with the desire to have a window there um to just kind of match the other side of the building and I believe the applicant and staff are all in agreement with with that plan moving forward. Nothing. That was it. Okay, sounds good. Any other comments? Seeing none, all in favor of Alder Profit's amendment signify by saying I. I post nay. The eyes have it. That amendment has been adopted. Motion to approve as amendment made by Alder Profett and seconded by Alder Dele. Any discussion there, Alder Johnson?

Not really discussion, but maybe just more of an extension of gratitude. Um, obviously we have a lot of need in our community and I think anytime you have um an existing facility that really has a track record of success when they're able to expand their services to continue to serve those in need in our community, uh, you'll always have my appreciation and um, look forward to seeing how this comes together.

Absolutely. Well said. Anything else? All right. All in favor will signify by saying I post nay. The eyes have it and that item has been approved as amended. Item three to approve amendments to section 44-1580J of the Green Bay Municipal Code on short-term rentals. Um that was Alder HF. I want to move to approve um but amend it to say to add um to the app occupancy that they're expecting which I've talked to planning and then if we can add if it's owner or non-owner occupied that was a request that just came in from one of our so it's basically the application and adding

okay so Alder Hanklas has an amendment can you just restate that a little um the the amendment would be that we add to to the application, the occupancy, meaning whatever they're going to market it at, the maximum occupancy. Yes. And number two, whether it's owner or non-owner occupied. So when they go out and they look on the GIS system, they would be able to know. Okay. When once that gets put out there. Is there a second for that amendment? Second by Alder Stevens, um, Director Reneer Wig, or Shirley, anybody want to comment on that? or chief als really anybody at all.

I I mean I think we should be fine with that. I think what we'll want to do before the ordinance gets approved is just verify um if someone does not put on the application that it's home owner excuse me owner occupied or not. Um if we can deny it I think it'll be denied based on the application being incomplete as opposed we can't deny if it's owner occupied or not owner occupied. So just make that clear. So we can require it. I think we can require it on the application. That's we'll have to research. But we can't deny if it's owner occupied or not. Right. That this is moreformational for the community, not not to deny or approve. It's justformational so that when they go out and look on the GIS, they know that information would be

Yes, that information would be available.

Okay. Sure. Leroy, anything on that? Note for owner occupied, if you were to rent out a room in your house, be it for short-term or for long-term, you do not need to apply for a permit for short-term rental. If and you're owner occupied, you it's just it isn't applicable to a short-term rental. Now, I do acknowledge that you could have something where you rent out your house for a weekend and you go somewhere else. So, but typically speaking, I just want to make it known that if you're living there and you happen to rent out a house or sorry, a room in your house, you do not need a short-term rental permit. A duplex would be its own individual unit. So if you're living in that unit itself and you're then traveling to go somewhere else for say a weekend, um yes, you're not living in that unit at a time. But it' be the same applicability as a single unit or two family,

but a duplex is not considered to be owner occupied if you're renting out the if it's a separate unit. It's not Yeah. whether it's owner occupied or if it's a different renter. Does this be a typical more long-term rental? Right. Okay. Has any response to that? So, what you're saying is that it if it's part of your house you're renting out, you don't need a short-term rental. So, we can basically anything that's out there is nonowner occupied.

There's a difference as far as how you would treat the house. If if you were to you own the house, you occupy it, but let's say you put it onto a short-term rental site and you want to rent it out for a packer weekend and you leave. So, you're not occupying the house at that point. At that point, you need an STR permit. But if you are, I just want to make it known if you're somebody who happens to rent out a room, whether it's short-term or long-term, you don't need to have a permit for that for a short-term rental. That's all. Just make some clarification for that.

Yeah. And I think that will even make it clearer. So then we I will remove that amendment because we can assume anything that's out there is nonowner occupied. So if we add in the maximum or whatever the occupancy, whatever they're marketing it for, that's that's it. Uh yeah, just one second. Alder Presley on that.

Alder Hank, I think you should keep your amendment. Um cuz you can have the difference there. There's three things we're talking about here. There's just the regular short-term rental where you own the house but you don't live there. Um and you rent it out. There's owner occupied which means it's your primary address um but you leave for the weekend and then you rent it out for a Packer game or whatever it is. It's your it's your address. You live there but you're just temporary time renting it out which means you do need the permit. Um, and then there's home share, which is when you have just a room in your house, if you have a spare bedroom and you're renting it out while you're living there as well. So, I think if in the interest of transparency since it is required to have a permit for owner occupied, then I I think your your amendment is good there. And uh, Mr. Leroy, am I right there?

Yeah, it sums it up. Um, Alder, and I understand how um what you're saying, Alder Presley. Um, the only thing is is at the time that it's being rented, it won't be owner occupied. They won't be there. So, it kind of still doesn't apply. I understand they own it, but if they're renting it out and they have to leave so that somebody can rent the whole house, they're still not going to be there. Does that make sense? That's what I was confused. Well, you do still need a permit, but you're still not going to be there is what my point is,

Mr. Leroy. We're looking at as owner occupied as being it's your you live there. That's your house. So, you're occupying the home. You're asking for a short-term rental permit because you're going to lease the home for a short amount of time when you're not actually there. But you won't you occupy that the majority of the time. It's just in this case, you're leaving and letting somebody else rent the place for a predetermined amount of time. Heard anything?

Right. Uh Alder Grant on the amendment. Um, and just a question I guess for clarification from Alder Henfist, and I'm okay with the amendment, but what are you hoping to be transparent about? Are you hoping that it gives the information to neighbors that if there's a complaint, the owner is there or is that I guess what is the goal behind it?

Well, the goal behind it is when they find out there is one that the information is available. They don't have to call the city. They'll know if it's owner occ well well know it's not owner occupied because it has a short-term rental um license but then they will also know how many people what is the max occupancy because one of the things within the ordinance is that we don't want to have visitors when we talk about house rules that you know there's 20 people there we don't want to invite 20 more so that will also help our police if there are any calls

yep no I was more asking for clarification on the owner occupied part because if it's uh who do they contact should they go to the owner because they should be on the premises. I don't want to create the idea that it is owner occupied when they have left for the weekend and the owner isn't there and they think oh I can call the owner they should be there. So that's the only reason that I'm asking about the owner occupied part is the goal that the person knows that if there's an issue they can contact that owner and they should be there to handle it or the owner should be keeping an eye on it so there should be less issues because if they're not there they're not there to monitor it I guess is my point. So, I want to make sure if we're adding that amendment that we're not giving a false idea to neighbors when they're seeing that information that the owner is there monitoring it because that may not be the case in some situations. It sounds like

there wouldn't be a short-term rental license for that one for what you've just said. So, it wouldn't even be out there on the This is fairly confusing, but I think if you leave for the weekend, uh John, you said if so, I I own my house. I leave for the weekend and rent it just for the weekend. That would require a short-term rental permit. Correct. Correct. But I would that would come or be registered as an owner occupied because I own it my primary residence. I live there 95% of the year. I'm leaving for that weekend. Right. Because the property would when you're questioning who's the owner, the the address is the owner who's occupying the house. Yes.

So that's what I'm saying. If you're if you if someone then were to look at my house and see that there's loud noises, Jen should be there and know what's going on, but I'm not. So, that's the only reason if we're going to disclose that information, I just want to make sure that it's consistent and makes sense is all. And then on max occupancy, um I think director Reneer Wakeake just wanted to clarify. Well, I just wanted to clarify that if you rent out a place like a short-term rental place, right? Let's say you're going to have an event or a wedding or something. There may be max capacity and usually that's referring to sleeping overnight.

So our max capacity is 20 people in this house, but you may have 50 people there during the day for that event. So I just because you what you said would contradict that. You know, if you if the max capacity on the sign said 20, I would assume that's 20 people that could sleep there, but there may be more than that there during the day, right? But when we talk about house rules, we've actually listed within the house rules that we don't want to have a bunch of extra visitors. Um, from what I understand, at least from what I read. So, mine is just putting the occupancy out there. That's the amendment. Sure. Chiefs.

Yeah. Alder Hankless, you're you're correct that some short-term rentals will say no parties or, you know, max occupancy during the day. But what director Reneer Wig is just saying is that when there's max occupancy, typically that just means the number of people that can sleep there overnight. So it could be confusing to someone if the house rule doesn't say no parties, right? And then it's basically no parties and and it I don't even want to say max occupancy. I just want to say occupancy. It's whatever they're renting it for. So when you're referring to house rules though, that's that's the private owner's house rules. under what? We don't dictate that.

So, so a private owner can say, "Hey, we don't want any parties at the short-term rental." And I think that's a fairly common rule. Yep. Or short-term rental alliance would have a better sense of that obviously, but it's something that I've seen, you know, in short-term rentals. But when you're talking about house rules, it's a private agreement. It's not something that the council is dictating. Right. Okay. Alder um I don't would it help to say maximum bed occupancy or sleeping maximum? I'm just trying to let the neighbors know how many people they can expect if when when they move in. Yeah. We just want to it's just being a courtesy to

use Alder Grants language. I don't think you want to set false expectations though either. The occupancy relates to how many people can sleep in the facility or in the residency. Hutcherson,

um, in terms of determining if it's owner occupied or not, wouldn't it be better to have just a question, is this an owner occupied? Is this a primary? Does the owner is this where the owner stays primarily instead of you know then we know okay so the owner's there and then they're not instead of you know just so just add the question so just owner's primary residence is it the owner's primary residence yes so then you know they live there but they may be gone so people know how Is that an amendment to Alder Hinfus' amendment?

Yeah, I would say I would recommend that as a to add to your amendment. Right. Alder Hutchson makes an amendment uh to change owner occupied to uh owner's primary residence. Is there a second for that? Seconded by Alder Profett. Discussion on that seeing none. All in favor say I. I. Nay. The eyes have it. Um this is to approve the amendment as amended. Um Alder Profett makes that motion. Second by Alder Ritterbush. Discussion on that. See none. All in favor will say I. I nay. You guys have it. That amendment has been adopted. L.

Okay. So I just wanted to clarify we're keeping maximum occupancy versus maximum sleeping capacity. Yes. That's what's in the amendment currently. You could amend the amendment. Can I amend the amendment? You may. I just want to make it clear, like you said, transparency so people know what to expect and not have false expectations. Um because I think that it's not unusual that if you're visiting somebody from out of town that you might be visiting family and they're going to come over to the house that you're renting to visit you. Sure. I recently had that experience. Yeah. Yeah. So, um yeah, I would like to make an amendment on that. Just on the language, I don't maybe we want to go to Mr. Leroy for suggestions.

Yeah. So, just to note what's in the initial application is to note number of bedrooms available the specific language. So, that's looking to be amended to something different. Is that to clarify? Is that what you're seeking to change that portion? Uh number of bedrooms available. Correct. Okay. But there might be four beds in one bedroom. So I I think that we have to be a little more specific. Max maximum sleeping sleeping occupancy. Is that a number that's provided?

That's sleeping occupancy is is challenging because of what it means for different ages and different ingress egress in a home. uh to where the occupancy for sleeping can vary based off of how many kids are in a play, adults are in play, and things of that sort. So, bedrooms is where uh when talking with folks from different backgrounds is where we came to a a conclusion that made the most sense. Okay. But there is not a cut and dried way to actually designate overnight capacity or

no for the sake of a living room. You could have an area where has it happens to have a below couch and that can count as sleeping area or it may not because you may not have that type of um sleeping arrangement. So, it varies quite a bit on each individual situation. That could change as simple as taking out a couch or a bed in a facility or adding one in, but there is still room. Okay. Elderly.

Yeah. I feel like we're kind of digging too far into the language on this because anytime you look up a short-term rental, it it's going to state occupancy of the place and when you add in what kind of capacity you're bringing with to that short-term rental, it's going to regulate whether you can rent it or not. So, I feel like we're digging too deep. I think occupancy is is fine on what the house is and the the regulations are after that. I just want to make sure we actually are able to designate what that occupancy number would be. It doesn't seem like staff is confident in that. Yeah. Well, thanks.

What I'm really trying to get at is whatever they're applying for. Okay. I they're not we're not saying how many they can put in house, but they are going to market that house with for so many people. So, I'm asking what are they going to market it for? So, how many people are you going to have? What's what's the occupancy you're going to market? That's really what I'm looking for. So, the neighbors know. I'm not trying to stop them from having 25 or 15 or whatever. It's just what are you marketing it for? So, the neighbors understand. Okay.

Twa. And just to add to that, if they put down whatever whatever number it is and the neighbors have a concern with it, their answer then is or their what they should do is call the short-term rental owner so they can address it and it'll be between the owner and the renter because like PD or inspection is not going to enforce that because that's a private house rule. So we have uh the motion that's been amended entertain uh on that alderly.

Can we just reread the amended motion right now? So what I have only is men to maximum sleeping occupancy, but the original motion from Alder Hingfist was men add to the application the occupancy. Seemed like we backed off from maximum um and whether um owner or non-owner occupied is informationational for community. The owner non-owner occupied was amended to owner's primary residence. And so now we're left with Alder X motion that has not yet been voted on. So just to clarify, the owner's primary residence that language replaced owner occupied.

Correct. So we have owner's primary residence and or nonowner occupied and the occ and the occupancy language. Yes. In the original motion. Correct. All right. Enter a motion to approve as amended made by Alder Profett. Second by Alder Rutterbush. More discussion. Alder Dele. No. Oh, second by Alder Dele. Sounds good. All in favor will say I. I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. And that item has been approved as amended. On to the report of the finance committee. Um I think it's just occupancy. Okay.

I'm sorry. Moved and seconded. Moved by Alder Profett, seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Items here should be handled separately. Hearing none. All in favor will say I. Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. That report has been approved. Park committee. Motion to approve made by Alder Dele.

Seconded by Alder Profett. Items here to be handled separately. Hearing none. All in favor say I. Post. Nay. The eyes have it. That report has been approved. Personnel Committee. Motion to approve. Mot by Alder Profett and seconded by Alder Hankfus. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. Post. Nay. The eyes have it. That report has been approved. Public arts commission. Motion to approve. Made by Alder Presley, seconded by Alder Profett. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor say I. I.

Nay. The eyes have it. That report has been approved. Traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian commission. Motion to approve made by Alder Stevens, seconded by Alder Presley. Items here to be handled separately. Four. Any others? Hearing none others. All in favor of approving the remainder of that report signify by saying I.

Opposed? Nay. The eyes have it. That report has been approved with the exception of item four. I was quickly trying to bring it up and I I meant to actually take a peek at this before our meeting, but under finance um there was an amendment made and the um the wording on here does not reflect the change made recommended change at finance. Can we just put that in the parking lot until we dispense with item four? Sorry, I just I wanted to make sure we Yeah, sounds good. Uh, item four was pulled by Alder Johnson. Yeah, I make a motion to approve the committee report and then I'll speak to that.

All right. Motion to approve the report, seconded by Alder Profett.

Uh, and just for clarity to approve the hold. Um, it simply because I know that I won't be here by the time this goes to traffic commission and then makes its way back to council, I at least wanted to uh kind of point out a few things. This is related to the no uh parking condition that exists on Washington Street between uh really I mean midnight and 3:00 a.m. Uh you know I supported and encouraged even traffic commission to hold this because PD hadn't had a time to uh really digest this and make uh their their recommendation. Um I do think though it is one since many of you will likely be back here in the next term when this comes back. Um I do think that there is an opportunity here for us to reconsider how this works. It's been more than a decade uh since this policy has been in place. There were obviously very specific needs that needed to be addressed at the time. Uh at the next traffic commission, I hopeful that PD will be able to provide us an update with whether or not those same conditions continue to persist or uh if if it's equitable within the area where this exists. But something to keep in mind is when we we close this down, we put hoods over those meters. I think as early as 6 PM uh our staff, you know, goes out there and does this. So that's time, but also then even though it's no parking from midnight, you're sending the message that you're blocking those spots off from 6:00 until midnight at a time when you have the highest volume of people visiting downtown. And so I I just hope that there's an opportunity for the next body to really rethink uh how this policy uh is is not only enforced, but maybe how we implement it. So even if there are portions that remain in place um that we can consider a pickup drop off zone to help with our Uber or Lift drivers um and uh and and maybe the the meters are covered at a slightly different time so as not to bring those stalls offline really before they need to. So I just wanted to take the liberty I guess to make that appeal but support the hold right now to allow the committee to continue to do their work.

Sounds good. Thanks for the comments. Anything else? The motion is to hold. All in favor will say I. I. Those nay. The eyes have it. That item has been held to the next TBMP meeting. Um, I'll direct. Which item were you talking about? Q5. All right. So, would you like to move reconsideration? Alder E moves to reconsider item Q5, seconded by Alder Dele. All in favor will say I. Nay. The eyes have it. That item has been reconsidered and it's down in front of the body. All right. Just trying to now I got to go back down to it. Um it's under four.

So was it was approved as amended. Three. Correct. It was approved amend as amended but the wording has not been changed on the document. So I just want to make sure. Uh do you want me to explain? Yeah, sure. Okay. Yeah. So, um, it says approvals allocations from the innovation fund above 50,000 require common council approval in keeping with existing city policy and it was changed to all funds must be require council approval. Correct. Yeah. Um, so I don't know if we really need an amendment. I mean, you're you're stating the record accurately. Yes. I want to make sure the record reflects that.

Correct. We need an amendment alering co-chart. Okay, very good. Um, is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Made by Alder, seconded by Alder Hinklas. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I.

Nay. The eyes have it. And that has been approved. Um, sustainability commission looks Oh, it's justformational. So, I think we're good. Um, committee of the whole, we've got a few items here that I'll just walk through. Item one is consideration possible action on general ordinance number 6-26, an ordinance amending sections 42-131 through 42-140 relating to wellhead protection. Attorney cochart, you speak to that. Okay. Uh, sure. So, this is from the water utility. Uh, we're just making some changes uh to these sections based on uh compliance with state law and some adjustments according to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Motion to approve made by Alder, second by Alder Hinfus. Any discussion? All in favor, we'll say I post nay. Have it. Um, and as I'm sitting here just going back to the finance committee agenda, we actually don't have any action items on any of the or motions on any of the items. They all say consideration with possible action. Um, so we might need motions on all of them, which is just to the

Yeah. Yeah. I think it was just transferred over as Alder Johnson said from the committee report to the agenda. So, I don't know if we just want to explicitly move that all items are approved. Oh, it's just not consistent with the rest of the packet. Okay. Absolutely. Okay, we're good. Sorry for that. Um item two under committee the whole for consideration of possible action on ordering the improvements constructed and levying the assessments of the following projects. Public hearing held 225 2026. Um just want to explain that. Director Den.

Sure. We uh held a public hearing at the uh prior INS committee meeting and it was um to receive public comment on um special assessments for the three resurfacing streets and the asphalt uh reconstruction project uh North Maple. And uh we didn't receive any um public comments at the the meeting. And this is this agenda item is to place um to have the the wording for approval to go along with that public hearing. And I believe there's also a resolution later on as well.

Instructor motion to approve made by Alder Profetted by Alder Dele. All in favor will say I nay. The eyes have it. And that item has been approved. Uh finally to grant final authority to protection and policy committee to approve an expansion of licensed premises to Irish temper 240 north Broadway for an event in March. Motion to approve by Alder Profett seconded by Alder Stevens. Any discussion here Johnson mayor Alder Johnson notes an abstension. Anybody opposed is opposed to St. Patrick's Day. All in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have it. That item's approved. Uh, next informational. We've got January municipal court report included in the packet. Resolutions. Motion to suspend the rules made by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder Stevens uh to take up these items with one roll call vote. Before we get there, um, Director Alen Becker,

it looks like we have the same issue in number three and four, which were also finance items that were carried over. They're really probably not worded um in applying with the other ones. resolutions. They just Okay, those are all resolutions as well. They are resolutions. They belong there, but they really left the consideration portion in there. Okay. So, just stating these are all actually resolutions here. Um, Alder Profett made a motion to suspend the rules. All in favor say I. Those nay. The eyes have it. The rules are suspended. Motion to adopt made by Alder Profett. Seconded by Alder Dele. Any discussion? We'll use the board.

All right, those are approved unanimously. Ordinance is first reading. Alder profit makes a motion to suspend the rules for these items with the exception of three seconded by Alder Dele. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. Post nay. You guys have it. The rules are suspended. Um

three talking about that's excluded though. We still we're just advancing the others. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Motion to advance made by Alder Presley, seconded by Elder Profit. Um any discussion there? Seeing none, all in favor say I. Post nay. The eyes have it. And those items have been advanced to a second final reading with the exception of item three. Um, uh, make a motion to amend to reflect the changes regarding primary residence and occupancy within the application portion. Very good. Is there I believe is 2 A1. Seconded by Alder Dele. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I nay. The eyes have it. Motion to advance as amended.

Second. Alder profit makes a motion to advance as amended. Those seconded by Alder Presley. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. Oppose. Nay. The eyes have it. And that item has been amended and advanced. German motion made by Elder Presley, second by Elder Rush. All in favor say I. Name. The eyes have it. We're journ. Thanks everyone.