City Council - Regular Meeting

I don't know. Is it rolling? I'm going to check and see. I know. I was

What?

Well, they got prospect yesterday. People were on our street becauseever circumvent everything else. Well, police traffic.

All right. You say when? Ready. Ready in the back.

Good evening everybody. You are at a common council meeting. of the city of Wasau. It is Tuesday, November 11th. It is what is 5:36 p.m. Wasau City Hall Council Chambers. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Ask the clerk to call the role, please. We have 11 voting members present.

Okay, we have one proclamation. It's a great and glorious day to be in Wasau. We had the governor visit today for veterans uh quilt of honor ceremony for the at the uh school district and we had the VFW celebration this morning at 11:11 and this proclamation was presented. Whereas our veterans are brave and selfless individuals who when called to duty willingly put themselves in harm's way to defend the lives and liberty of others. And whereas their unwavering patriotism and enduring devotion to the ideals on which the United States is founded can never fail to inspire us. And whereas tens of millions of Americans have served in the armed forces of the United States during the last century. And whereas hundreds of thousands of of Americans have given their lives while serving in the US armed forces during the past century. And whereas our veterans understand the critical responsibilities carried by today's American service members. And whereas today our veterans inspire new generations of Americans as we work to defeat terrorism and advance peace throughout the world. And whereas in respect for and recognition of the contributions our servicemen and women have made to the cause of peace and freedom worldwide, we celebrate Veterans Day. Now therefore, be it resolved that I, Doug Denny, mayor of the city of Wasau, do hereby proclaim November 11th, 2025 as Veterans Day in the city of Wasau. And I commend this observance to all citizens so that they can celebrate the bravery and honor and honor the contributions of our veterans to to the principles of democracy, individual freedom, and human rights throughout history. Signed, Doug Denny, mayor, city was okay. Up next is public comment. And we

have one commenter tonight. Do you want me to read this? You want to read this? I'll read it tonight. Uh, city of Wasau public comment statement. City of Wasau recognizes the value of public comment on local issues and the importance of allowing members of the public to express themselves on city matters. Please identify yourself by name and state your address. Each statement made by a participant should be limited to three minutes. Direct all comments to the chair, that's me, not to this members of staff and 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, Cooper Johnson. My name is Cooper Johnson, address 1748 Cherry Street. My intention here isn't to criticize anyone, but to represent the perspective of residents who feel unheard in the balance of growth and affordability. Tonight, I want to address what I see as an imbalance in our city's priorities. A strong determination toward economic growth that isn't being matched by equal support for longtime and lower income residents working hard to get by. While his numbers are climbing faster than the people's, the cost of living keeps rising while many locals are struggling to keep up. Residents and higher income families are being drawn in as the city continues launching major projects even as older debts remain unpaid. According to resolution 25-19, the 2026 budget sets the city's operating property tax levy what home and property owners pay at 34.2 million with tax commitment financing included.

That total reaches 38 million, up from about 28.2 million in 2020. Over the past decade, WAS's total property value has also risen sharply from about 2.6 billion in 2015 to 4.57 billion projected in 2026. Yet, even with the strong growth, the city is still paying off nearly 4.8 million in existing debt from yesterday's projects. Meanwhile, more than 22 million in new capital projects, most of it financed the new barring are being added. While funding for community programs remains near 2 million, we're also lucky to have local organizations, neighbors, and restaurants stepping up to help our community. But they can't do it alone, and that's the imbalance I'm pointing to. We're borrowing heavily for development, but investing lightly in people, all while simultaneously raising the cost of living. Please don't confuse my remarks with the national inflation of living. My statements are about WASA and its economic growth. I'm simply pointing out how local growth decisions intensify existing pressure on residents and property owners. Promised future revenue doesn't pay this year's rising bills or property taxes. And I can understand that delaying maintenance and growth only makes cost rise later. And I know a lot of the levy and borrowing is legally restricted to infrastructure and core services. My concern is that while we plan ahead for the future, we must also make sure residents today, especially those struggling with cost of living, aren't left behind in the process. And I want to be clear, I'm not stating that the budget is utterly reckless. It pays debt and keeps our core services running. And I'm not against growth either. But if growth is to mean something, it has to lift everyone. So sir, invest in maintenance and infrastructure, but not at the expense of affordability, community well-being. And I know the city is working diligently to balance long-term infrastructure needs and rising costs. My point is not to oppose those efforts, but to make sure that as we invest in tomorrow's projects, we're not overlooking the people carrying today's costs. Efforts already underway

are appreciated, but residents still seem to remain undeniably concerned and unhappy. And again, I'm not here to overthrow the budget or anything in that regard or to criticize anyone. I'm here to open eyes to the fact of the matter that true growth builds communities and not just guidelines. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you.

Anyone else missed an opportunity to sign up? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Would entertain a motion. Motion from Neil, second from Lucans. Any issues with consent? Seeing none, may begin voting. Motion passes 11 to zero.

All right. First up is item under ordinances and resolutions 25-1102, confirming appointments of the mayor of the city of Wasau to the affordable housing regional task force. And we are Meer Mua is going to be assigned to the affordable housing regional task force and she's recently been appointed to take Ben Lee's position at the United Way. I would entertain a motion. We have a motion from Rasmmanson, second from Lukans. Seeing no comments. Voting.

Motion passes 11 to zero. Okay. Without objection, I I'd like to make uh one other announcement. An appointment to finance committee would be Alder Aaron Grryer will be taking a seat on the finance committee and uh for Alder Chad Hanky whose last day was today on finance. All right. Up next is I've got one person to speak. Alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you. Um I guess I want to just begin our budget discussion tonight or deliberation tonight with a thank you to um both the members of the CIP committee and the finance committee for their work throughout this process. Um it was not easy this year and sitting through and then viewing online also the budget workshops that the finance committee went through. they really took a deliberative um and collaborative approach to um filling what were some pretty serious gaps um and protecting core services yet still getting the work done that people expect to be done um that uh that was no easy task. And so, um, just knowing the work that went into that budget and, you know, some of the trade-offs that they had to make to, um, protect those initiatives and get that work accomplished, um, I guess, uh, I would, uh, really like to thank them for their work. And I think the product that they've brought forward is, um, under the circumstances the best that it can be. um they've really done a good job in terms of um you know both analyzing the concerns and the gaps and then leveraging fund sources um you know to get across the finish line with a budget that can achieve the things that we want to achieve that's consistent with our plans. So thank you for that. Okay. Up next is file number 25-1109. Resolution from finance committee adopting the 2026 city of Wasau budget and general property tax to support the same. We have a motion from Lucans, second from Watson. Alder Lukans up first. Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Mayor, um I also would like to thank um all the the finance committee and CIP for their

work. Um, I know there were a lot of very serious discussions and I really appreciate the um, you know, the way that you went through it all with a fine tooth comb to really try to keep the costs um, down for taxpayers as much as possible. Um, I have there's uh something that I would like a change in the budget. So, [clears throat] I don't know if this is the right time to put bring that up. Yeah, I guess it would be an amendment at any time. Okay, then I would like to amend it. Um, you press your amend button.

Thank you. Thank you. Did it work?

Oh, okay. So, um I would like to remove um page 143 lists $40,000 for professional services related to the creation of a city administrator or city manager coming out of the economic development fund. Um, one, this did not go before um, CIP and I I I just I think it should because other there are other um, projects that did and are deferred. You know, I think it should be rated along with the others. Um, I also I don't know, I guess with serving on economic development, I don't know that that fits economic development. It it seems to me it's more like an HR um type of cost. And I guess right now with the um you know departments having had to cut you know on some of the deferrals in the deferrals under CCITC the third risk uh third party risk management software data tagging and data loss prevention to me those seem more urgent um than the study right now professional services uh a study to uh create a city administrator city manager. So for those reasons several reasons I would like to amend it and remove that. Um I know it doesn't I guess I don't know if I should I guess to

remove that right now. Um, we have a motion to amend to remove $40,000 on the administrator study. There was really a little more to it than that, but it wasn't a study, but I will tell you we So, we have a motion. Do we have a second to amend

second from from uh Larson? That was an earmark for contractual services and we had a a presentation scheduled for October 14th. Unfortunately, that meeting was cancelled. So, that did not happen. So, uh that didn't get laid out approp uh with enough time for you to consider. I guess I don't have any objection. Alder Watson.

Um so, looking at the the I guess the professional services, I actually I sort of liked um this project. um it it might give us some more information to present to our citizens a little bit more clearly on how a city administrator um or city manager would function. Um so like I think it's more of a long-term planning thing and perhaps maybe it's not best coming coming out of the ED fund and maybe it could have it should have went through the CIP which might have been more productive. Um, but I guess like the $40,000 contract, I think if it's fully transparent, if the bid for the RFP is open, um, and we can see who's selected to do this study, and honestly, I think there needs to be a task force attributed to it as well that's made up of, um, elected as well as citizen members. Um, because I I sort of am in agreement with some of the discussion we had about city administrator, city manager. I think it should be a ballot measure. Um, and I know we have something coming up in April referendum wise, but I mean, if we do this research and we have that plan and we can really honestly say this is what it would look like, this is how it would impact our city and then let the citizens weigh on it in 2026 at the ballot. Um, then it wouldn't be so top down like it wouldn't be like we're choosing city administrator, we would be able to provide the information a little more clearly. Um, and that city administrator would have maybe more expertise in like HR directives or, you know, different things that like elected like us, you know, who maybe aren't as connected to those individual pieces might be. But I also don't think this should be just a rash decision like let's hire a city administrator. We do need to do some background and we do need to have some voices on it. So, I would really say if we do end up keeping it in or taking it out, if we do want to

consider this, I do think there should be a task force um that we, you know, have I know, do we need another committee, but I think it would be valuable to have voices from city and elected on this to examine that report and that it would be full and open and transparent. So, I guess Alder Watson, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Alder Lugans.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I'm glad that Alder Watson um gave that input because it reminded me I Yes. It's not that I'm just against, you know, city administrator. I I think it's something that would be um good to explore. It's just I don't think right now it doesn't seem for economic development. I guess it doesn't feel to me as though that would be the fund. And I think I would like to see it go be rated along with the other um projects. So that's why um Thank you.

Thank Thank you, Alder Larson. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I support this amendment because I think that we're kind of putting the cart before the horse when you're asking for money. I think um you know the the proper way to go about doing this is perhaps uh u put forth a referendum to the community and let the people decide if they want a referendum or not and then if they do want a referendum then perhaps uh spend the money on on the uh on the service that they're that they want to get so or on the whatever. Thank you.

Thank you with a motion to amend and a second. Is everyone clear? Do you want to read it? Motion to amend was to remove $40,000 to fund a study, which wasn't exactly a study, but we would it was coming out of professional contractal services. And that's where we park all of that that money, but nonetheless, uh, are you okay with that description? Okay. for the city administrator out of the community development department budget. Seeing nothing further, may I begin voting on the amendment. Motion passes 8 to three. Motion to amend passes 8 to three. Okay, first amendment out of the way and we're back to the main motion. Alder Killian. Um, thank you, Mr. Um, first of all, the older I get, the younger people look. And I have to say that the young gentleman who spoke for public comment so diligently grounded and heartfelt on our budgeting and the way our city is functioning. I mean you have to really listen to that and I am so grateful that he took the time and the effort to come and tell us how he felt. So thank you. Um, tonight our council is dealing with many diverse issues, many of them related to money and spending. I think one of the most difficult decisions I'm going to have to make tonight is whether or not to approve the

budget that was brought forth. Our finance committee has spent long hours attempting to put forth a budget that is positive for the city. I have stated many times at various meetings that there are certain financial items I cannot support and will not support. I believe a city's budget should reflect our city's priorities which I have been told multiple times are to cut unnecessary spending. Our budget should reflect our priorities. Each year the budget in front of the council seems to be filled with millions of milli millions and millions of dollars for development that is unrelated to the priorities and needs of our people. This year appears to be no different. The budget includes $1.2 2 million for utility relocations in TID 3, $2,50,000 for developer payments in TID 8, 525,000 for developer payments in TID district 11, about 245,000 for developer payments in TID district 12. It's true the council already voted on approving certain of these things and yes these numbers might no longer be current but I didn't vote for them and for me the current numbers still aren't good enough. In addition millions and millions of dollars more are included in this budget for capital projects and tiff districts. The problem with many of the projects is not that the government is spending money, but what the government is spending its money on in the budget. I see millions of dollars for trail development and infrastructure

connected to upscale development. Am I as a concept supportive of trail development? Of course. but not while a good number of our people in Wasa are struggling just to scrape by or aren't making it at all. If a budget is supposed to reflect our priorities and if our priority is our people, then the budget should reflect the priorities of our people. For me, the answer is to use our limited resources to fund a government that satisfies the needs of our people, our everyday people. and a government that solves the people's longstanding problems. It's not the It's not that government spending is the property. It's that inappropriate government spending is the problem. I haven't and I won't support any budget that that continues to include tiff subsidies for the wealthiest with cuts for regular people. I feel that with any responsible government, it should be the other way around. With that, um, I would ask the chair to request Director Lynman to come to the podium. I would like to have him explain the $1.2 million utilities relocation. I did speak with Director Lynman this afternoon in that regard, but since this was a project of which I was totally unaware, I would like him to explain the project.

Mr. Lynman.

Yeah. So, uh this is around um the Greyel building. We have utilities that run underneath that site. Uh sanitary sewer. We also have storm sewer around that site. And so it's really to remove those uh from that site and uh redirect that sanitary sewer uh in preparation for any future development along that site cuz that property did sell. Yes. And I realize that the property sold and I appreciate the explanation, but my concern was that I had no awareness of this 1.2 million. And I'm wondering why weren't we told about that or why didn't that come before committee? And is this project primarily related to uh the project that is related to the old Greyel building? I know that there are some other streets, but is that why the development's being proposed? That's one of the reasons. Yes. Yeah.

Thank you, Eric. I appreciate the explanation for sure. Thank you, Mr. Neil.

Thank you. Well, I also appreciate all the effort that's gone into the preparation of this budget. And at first blush, um, it looked like a pretty good one. Um, at last week's committee of the whole meeting, I asked if we couldn't, I think I used the term, circle the wagons a little bit as departments, department heads and find ways to alleviate some of the burden of the the shortfall we're seeing for emergency services. Uh, not seeing any amendment that's, you know, new uh to this budget, unless there's something I haven't seen. Um, it seems like nothing happened in the ensuing week and I I still feel like there is time for an effort to be made to look at this budget by all departments and try to find ways to alleviate what might be going on that referendum in in the spring. Um, it's like 1.4 million. Um, like to shave that if we could like to see what we can do. Uh, I don't know that anything's been done in the ensuing weeks. So, at this point, I'm not uh um planning to support this. Thank you.

Can I say one thing, Director Gro?

Yeah, I just want to clarify. So, the referendum is related to the 27 budget, not the 26 budget. So, the budget that you have in front of you is 2026. the positions are funded within that budget with, as we've pointed out in the budget, one-time revenues. We definitely um can look at between now and January before the question goes to um before council um and before the residents ways to cut back on that. If you recall the timeline, the question needs to be framed and approved by council by the January 26th so that it can get on the ballot in the uh appropriate time and that the um publications can take place as far as what the ballot looks like before that April agenda. But we would have that about two months to work on coming up with alternate funding sources um and budget cuts uh to eliminate some of that 1.4 million, but it's really related to the 27 budget.

Uh could I follow up? Um

Mr. That being the case, I still it seems to me that the 2026 budget is a place where we might be able to find funding to earmark for the 2027 budget and that shortfall. Uh people that are going to be going to the polls in April are going to they're not going to be thinking in terms of the 2027 budget. They're going to be thinking in terms of, you know, their their property tax going up. um them footing the entire shortfall that we're we're looking at. Um now I don't know what the wording might look like in January. Um you know, it might be great. It might be the same as what we're looking at right now. Um so are am I hearing that that this budget before us is not one of the options we can look at to help plan for the 2027 shortfall? any spending cuts in 26 certainly will help out in 27. But go ahead.

Well, I I think um you know when you look at some of the adjustments that were made in the budget to reduce or uh hold vacant positions that was a one-time those position um positions were not eliminated from someone's or organizational chart. um they were just not filled. Some of them were not filled for a period of time. Um you know again we have a requirement to adopt a budget and prepare tax bills by a certain time period um to do a good job of coming up with proposals. I think it's going to take more than one week. um you know some an example of something that might be available. If you remember tax increment district number seven will be done in 2026. So, you know, following uh our past practice, we would bring to the common council first to the finance and ED committee and then to the common council should we extend tax increment district 7 one more year for affordable housing. That in requires us to extend that increment one more year. If when we bring that to the council in December, um, we say no, that increment then is freed up for other purposes such as funding firefighters. But again, that's not going to be something that's reflected in the 2026 budget. It's going to be reflected in the 2027 budget, and that would be, you know, a a sizable dollar amount. Um, but we can't do that work. You know, we're for example, to calculate what that savings is going to be, I have to have all of the aortionments from all of our taxing

jurisdictions and we just got the Wasa school districts. Was that yesterday? And um we're still waiting on Marathon counties, which will be available after tonight. I mean, it takes the the clerk a little bit to um complete her work on that, but we will have it in a few days. But those are the things that we will work on and communicate with the council between now and January. But certainly I think um we as an organization have a message that we should be looking to resolve the problem as much as possible uh prior to um the the question being formulated and considered by council in mid January.

Thank you Alder Larson. Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. Um I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask you on this parks and I don't know quite how to say reparian that you put in the packet repatriation.

Okay. Um I I guess why is my first question is since it wasn't in the budget book, why is this relevant? Will any any cuts, any revenues, any ads, any amendments at any point during the budget discussion become relevant? And you have the opportunity to make any of those as did Alder Lukans a few minutes ago.

Okay. My and my second question was um you know, three times now this has been voted down by committees and stuff and and yet it it keeps coming back. And so my my my next question is is is who prepared this document and why has it been he withheld from city staff? It hasn't been withheld from city staff. I prepared the document and it was not turned down three times. There was never a vote on it as far as I can recall. It was dismissed out of hand.

Well, okay then, Mr. Mayor. I I I asked that because when I asked the question at the last meeting, um I didn't really get a straight answer. Um and uh since the email I got today, city staff wasn't included in it. Um I just wondered why they weren't. So I I guess I'd like to make an amendment on this. I'd like to have this uh removed from the um from the packet as well since it's not on the agenda. So that's my amendment. [snorts] Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion to amend and we're I press my button, but I don't want

We're removing something. I just a point of order here. The item is not in the budget. It was submitted as a suggestion. It was submitted as an option. It was submitted as some staff work that has yet to be considered by council. Mr. Mayor, I would like since the numbers haven't been confirmed or anything that was which was uh decided on last meeting. Um I would still like to make the amendment to have this removed from the packet. Okay. The the numbers are the numbers and the numbers are accurate, but it is not in the budget. So I'm not sure what we're removing. So I would rule that out of order. Why

we're removing something? You're trying to remove something from the packet. It's it's sub it's supporting documentation potentially could be used to the budget. It's currently not in the budget. That's right. Because it's not in the budget book. So why is it in the budget packet? That's my question. I I don't think I'm out of order. I mean, uh, um, this hasn't been Mr. Larson, we're all here trying to come up with solutions and ideas. It's an idea that was put forth. It is not in the budget unless somebody were to make an amendment or a motion to amend and add it to the budget. So therefore, your your motion is moot and it is out of order.

Oh, maybe I should Alder Watson. Maybe I should ask the parliamentarian then.

Mr. Larson, you're out of order. Let's move on, M. Watson. Thank you. Um, I also want to comment about the young man that spoke. Thank you very, very much. And um I have a project, this is sort of off topic, but I have a project that I have my students do in my critical thinking class where they have to analyze an issue um and give a good statement of benefits, cost, you know, provide a solution. And um since it's public, I guess I don't have to ask your permission, but I'm definitely going to feature you in my class just letting you know, say, "Hey, check out this." And he did a great job. So thank you. Um, but I've been reflecting on the budget process over the last like month, few weeks, and it I have to say that it didn't feel like at first it felt like a lot of thoughtful planning, but now it feels more like politics has taken over a little bit. Um, the, you know, talking about the referendum, um, and the veto proof amendment, um, that sort of just happened in the last couple weeks. It's just, I guess, I guess it left a bad taste in my mouth. So, um, just sort of like a recap of the finance process. I think we did a really great job. Like I I'm renewed on the finance committee this seme this year. And so, it was really nice to be able to to be in that process and see how it went by. And like our city budget policy, you know, sort of outlines how that work goes, right? We have an operational budget that happens in the summer. Um, we do supplemental requests, which this time we didn't do those because we want to try to trim some fat. Um, we had the finance committee that had lots of budget sessions that all people were involved in, council, mayor, um, um, you know, committee members. Um, also the infrastructure committee looked at what we need to do to repair our roads into the next budget year. Um, so that was all in September. We received this like sort of package budget in September um, early October. And I guess the assumptions when we get that is that

the priorities we have identified are sort of looked at in this budget, right? Um and looking at just some of the the categories we have in our budget, I mean 30% of our spending goes to police department, 23% of it goes to the fire department, 24% of it goes to the public works, which that's all that's that's over 75% of our budget monies are going to things that I think our population wants and needs, right? They're really important services. Um, but sort of coming to these like last minute changes, I guess like I like it because we're all involved, but I also think we've been involved hopefully since September, right, in this process. Um, and so when we did receive that budget, we reviewed it line by line, I think, pretty meticulously, and we made some budget neutral adjustments. Even for a second, we had the budget like that we came down 2 cents, but that was erased. But it was exciting. Um, and we did vote to support the solar array, which is I know borrowing, but it's for a really long run, long vision kind of hope. Um, but now we have this like emergency. It's sort of like this manufactured emergency that we need to like jump to and and do something right now. Um, and I think it's a little rash, right? We have to slow down, calm down. like we have this these urgent needs, these public finan, you know, these public positions that we need to fill. Um, in the intro letter in the budget book by the mayor, he talks about these things. Um, but I guess I was wondering where where did this talk come in the budget that we got from the staff and the mayor at the end of September, beginning of October. Um, this transition is really important. We, you know, to keep our response rates where we need to be, we need to keep those those all those firefighters. Um, but it wasn't really talked about until the tail end of the process. And don't get me wrong, I don't I know we don't like to pay new t like taxes. I don't like to pay them. We're all taxpayers, too, right? We're city

council, but we also pay our taxes here in this town. Um, and it's not really just about keeping our taxes low because that that serves one purpose. It helps with our expenses in the here and now, but it doesn't create that long run growth, right? And that long run vision. Um, we I mean obviously by how much we use our funds for public safety, we think it's really important. We want our residents as well as ourselves if we call 911, we want people to be there when we want them and when we need them. We don't want ah we'll we'll get by or it's good enough, right? We want them to be there when we need them. Um, so when we talk about like this budget, we worked a lot on this budget. It came from the the brains of the mayor and his staff. We got this book. We did a few little tweaks to it, but now we have this this budget issue that we're going to have to look at next year. But that doesn't mean the budget we are operating on in 2026 is is bad or faulty. We've devoted the money that we want to these these departments within our organization and I think we've done it pretty effectively. Um, but I do think we do need to like focus on that referendum because maybe we don't need a contingency plan because I don't think that's the right word to use. I think we need this is what a referendum would look like. This is what it would look like without the referendum. But I also think we need to look at some other and for lack of a better word because I've heard Marian say it a lot, diversifying revenues, right? I think we should diversify revenues. We should look at those options. We should give our residents the full picture of what this would look like because we've talked about storm water utility. We've talked about like removing refuge collection from our levy. We've talked about all these things, but the numbers, like it's just abstract concepts right now. We need to actually put the numbers to it so that people can look at them and say, "Okay, this is how it affects me. This is how it's going to affect my property tax." Right now, we're just sort of like throwing stuff up in the air and just we

don't have anything tangible to it. So, we need to do the tangible work and I think we can do that over the next year. Um because I don't think it should be a matter of if the referendum passes or not and that's when we start to work. I think we're going to be working on it and saying, "Hey, this is what the referendum would do, but this is what we'll do if it if we don't pass that and this is what we're voting for." We need to have those side by sides, otherwise we don't really have a comparison. So, I guess I'm a little frustrated about the process right now because it feels like we're reacting more than being proactive. Um, we're just sort of trying to scramble at the end of this budget process. Um, and we've been doing this for I mean the staff has been doing it a lot longer than than our committees have been working on it, right? Um, but trying to do these little tweaks and changes um, and having it happen and play out in the media and out in in, you know, in the news, I don't think that's productive. Like, we're staging theater when really we just need to get to work on what we want. So, um, I don't think it's really an eitheror. I think we have a really good budget in the 2026 budget, but I do think we do we do just as Alder Neil mentioned, we need to start working on what we can like what are camera one, camera two, what are the options for people and just see how that would affect the bottom line. So, thank you.

Thank you, Alder Watson. And you hit on a good point is the process and it really is, you're correct. It should not just be a September to November process. And I think looking ahead to 27, it's it's going to be a January to to November next year process. Alder Rasmusen.

Thank you. Um first I want to thank Alder Watson for her remarks. They are spot on. Um I agree with everything she said um about the process and the goals that need to be set. Um, I did want to clarify a little bit. Um, when people read our budget, um, that may may or may not have read them before. Um, what you will see in there from year to year is developer payments. And it's important to recognize that a lot of those developer payments that you see are multi-year commitments that were made in prior years under prior contracts um that carry forward. Often when you incentivize a project, you'll have an annual payment for a quantity of years until a threshold is met. So um you know don't take old developer payments that you see year on year on year and equate those to new spending. That is us delivering on a promise that we had made before to create that growth and we need to see those projects through um to be a good contract partner. So that that does exist. The other thing with capital projects that exist in our TID districts, when a TID district is active, um capital projects occurring in a TID district and funded by TID infrastructure, things like that. Um that does allow for cost sharing among all taxing jurisdictions during the life of that TID versus the city bearing 100% of that burden alone. Um that does then often tend to um mitigate some of the um city's individual burden. Uh with that that said, our tax increment districts need to have a balance. You can't have all infrastructure. You have to have some growth to balance that. Um but there is a case to be made for infrastructure within TIDS and things like that. Um I do also think that this budget um as is acceptable. I think we can support this one. But I do also think that between November and January, we will be having some productive discussions. Um Marian Maryanne and I have already talked about um the closure of TID 7 and what happens if we decide to say no on that extra year of

increment which could be huge for us really. Um you know in the past we have extended at least two TID districts in recent years to reclaim that extra year for that affordable housing. A lot of those projects are ribbon cutting right now like to get open. So it's important but we've made a dent and we've moved the needle on meeting that need going forward. we may not need to do that again. Um, we may need those funds into our general fund worse now. And what we decide on that, you know, really could help us out a lot. The other thing we don't know yet is we don't know what the 2025 surplus looks like. We don't know what the 2025 project savings for work in progress looks like. All of those things could move forward into 2026 in finance committee and help them um offset what amount of referendum ask they end up with, if any. So, um, you know, the other difficult conversations that may have to happen depending on where this shakes out next year is do some of those position vacancies become permanent vacancies? Do any of them become position eliminations? We don't know that yet, you know, and some of those departments may have to take stock really of open positions and decide in other areas. Is there a way um that some of that that could be paired down as well? We don't know those answers yet. And that really is work to happen in HR and finance, but it's all future work. And I think before we get to that 2027 budget, we will have a lot of um productive and even difficult conversations in this chamber, but they're not really for this budget vote tonight. Like I feel like this budget has been worked really [clears throat] hard and they have found a way to meet the needs that we have now and they're going to need to have conversations going forward about the future. But I really feel like today we've got it where we need it. So, thank you for that.

Thank you, Aler Tyranny. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I just wanted to respond to uh Alder Neil with um going to the polls and the people not realizing that it's 27 and not 26. I think that's where our marketing firm, the Mueller, needs to come in and put that very clearly in their um in and their mailing so that the people that we're trying to educate on this referendum can clearly see that that's what the situation is. And I think that that has to be a big

um you know a big piece of that so people aren't thinking you know oh my god this is this year all of a sudden it's going to just spike more than it already does. So I mean I I I agree with you because I think people go think that this is immediate um and it's going to affect them right now. So I think when that uh piece of literature is being um written or crafted that needs to be one of the things that is um very clear on that piece of literature. Uh, the second thing that I wanted to address and um I'm going to ask for Mr. Lynman to come up again, please. You might as well just grab a seat in the front. Actually, I've got two things, Eric. Um, with that 1.2 million for the Greyel building, if that hadn't been purchased for development, would we be doing this?

Um, eventually we would be, right? But as we see development or proposed development, right, we want to be proactive for it. And so that might have moved the project up. But you know, when we have utilities on private property, that's a problem for us. And one of them runs underneath that building, right? So um to be proactive and to be uh you know, partners and it's our infrastructure. So, uh, and making, uh, infrastructure improvements as well as, um, getting things ready for, uh, development. We did the same thing on Fulton Street, um, for the Wanguard proposed development down there, um, you know, with the infrastructure when we did the street reconstruction um, you know, being proactive on what proposed for development is down there. So, I think this is a smart project. Yes.

Okay. Are we doing anything extra because of the development than we would normally do to get that or or No, I mean, you know, our infrastructure that's there is aged and it's old. The primary reason is to remove it from the private property. Yeah. So, that's basically what we're doing and we're not putting a little extra in there for the new development. No. Okay. No. The second thing that I'm going to ask and um it's about the uh lead service line. Yeah.

I remember when we were first starting all of this and we were looking at how much this was potentially going to cost the city over a period of time um what we could do to possibly not have this expense. And it was it was a big concern for multiple people. And we had thought about at some point maybe we were going to have to slow down this process so that we [clears throat] weren't uh settling the taxpayers with millions and millions of dollars. And I don't see that really happening that we're slowing that down. I see some really big dollar asks of this. And um what would be the harm in slowing this process down?

Oh, you know, one of the big things is we're going to miss out on the principal forgiveness, right? The grants that are available. And so, right now, we're getting over over 50% of the costs are are grants, right, to to replace these lead lines, which is mandatory or will be by 2037. So, um delaying or slowing down the project, um will put more burden on residents in the future because we won't have the grant or the principal forgiveness dollars to help offset um those costs. Okay. So, those uh loans, they're offsetting the costs of the um of the private side that

That's correct. Yes. Yep. Okay. That's what I needed. Thank you. Got it. Okay. Alder Mhaney. Thank you. Uh I have a question about I'm not quite sure Alder Killian. What TID was you were talking about. Yeah. T three to three. Yes.

I just have a question. If that's in there and we haven't talked about it in council, we had an issue last year where I was told if it was in as in a TID project and passed by budget, it is considered passed even though council didn't have an individual vote. Is that still true? Correct. All the projects that we're proposing, you know, went through finance committee, right, through the budget process. All of our infrastructure projects. Yes. Okay. I'm not going to be supporting the budget. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martins.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I was going to talk a little bit more about the budget process, but uh, Alder Watson pretty much hit the nail on the head for me along with um, a few of the comments from Alder Rasmusen. But yes, it's um, the budget uh, I was that the the preliminary budget that the finance committee received already had baked into it approximately 4% of cuts over the pre, you know, uh, versus the 2025 budget. I mean, I've I've for previous budgets, so we we've worked on in the in the committee and in the council, we've seen uh cost of continues at two or 3% and in order to hold the line for this year, uh we had to actually eliminate 4% of our spending so that when the budget was received by finance at the end of September, it had already met the um levy limit and the expenditure. restraint. So there was no extra cutting that we had to do as a committee. We could have just rubber stamped the thing and moved it forward. Um but instead we did take the time to go through um com uh department by department and analyze you know the cuts and the spending and make uh specific targeted changes in order to restore some of the quality of life things that um had initially been cut uh from the from the proposed budgets. uh we would have lost if if the budget would have passed as we first received it. We would have lost um uh the uh uh one of the pools would have been you know a on a rotating basis. One of the swimming pools would have been closed each day during the during the summer months. Uh we would have lost our animal control program. uh we would have

um lost um the um what was what was the third the third thing um you know so it's um those those were items that we were able to restore by um um shifting funding around a little bit. uh we've were able to maintain uh the be the beautifification of the downtown area with flower baskets by using uh room tax uh funds and that um so uh with what's

the off Yeah. the downtown officers. What we were able to, you know, um, one of the questions that was was un was was the funding of our downtown um, police officers that that downtown beat and we were able to maintain that funding at with in in the new budget. So, and what has happened is that with uh 4% of cuts, um we are only seeing a 3 cent increase on the mill rate over last year. Uh so basically that's in essence that's a a neutral a neutral impact to the to to the to the homeowner which is a which is a good thing. This is like I said this is a tough budget but but with 4% of cuts we also have there's also inside a lot of deferred maintenance uh unfilled you know vacant positions that will be unfilled for a good portion of of the year in order to to reach those goals. So, um, right now, you know, which which concerns me because we're focusing on as, as the mayor puts it, the the, um, the fiscal time bomb of our public of our, um, public safety, um, fire department, uh, firefighters, and it's and that's a very concerning issue. You know, we that is something that we do need to resolve for 2027. we've been able to fully fund our our our firefighters at at the proposed increase of 12 over the original uh the original number of firefighters we had um before this before this whole safer grant process started and it's um through you know through 2026 but the grants are expiring this next year. Um we've allocated some one-time funding to

um to to smooth things out. So we have we have that ability that transition uh moving from the grant-f funded role of our of of the public safety um officers to uh to full on to the levy. Our hopes initially were as TID 6 was closing that we were able to um use the in use that revenue you know from the closed tiff to to offset the expenses. But unfortunately with the economy that has been eaten up by [clears throat] cost of living um inflation and um it just it just we just hit that levy limit brick wall at this point. So that's why that's why we we're we're seeing this pinch. But um it's good to start talking now. We can't conflate what's going to happen in 2027 with what we need to pass today for 2026. 2026 is is fully funded. It meets all of the requirements. It meets the levy limits. We are we we're we're good to go. um today. Um and then as this as the ink dries on this budget, we can we can work full steam ahead on a solution for 2027. So, thank you.

All right, [clears throat] I'll defer to the clerk here. I'm showing Alder Lukans. This will be your third go without objection, Alder Lucans.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Mayor, um just two things. One, I just wanted to share that I had checked with um the finance director because when we talk about the referendum um you know, we like have this big number, but like how does that affect you know me? And I for me it really helps to have something to give to residents. So anyway, based what I was told is based on the current assessed value. So, you know, that may change by then, but it would be um $33 per $100,000 of value on a home to fund the all of the firefighters that we need. So, $200,000 home, it would be $66 per year. So, I just want to share that. And then just the other thing is um regarding the lead service line process and I know that Alder Chney got her question was answered but um but I just wanted to share something because when it comes to costs and and I appreciate the work that we are doing and the the process how fast it's moving and I just wanted to share what the the the physical harm in slowing down the process. I didn't I learned recently um is that lead is stored in our bones in our body and there's really not a way to remove it. Um if someone has a lot like they can they can do some things to try to remove some of it but because it's stored in our bones you really can't get rid of it. And for for in our brains there is no way because it can't cross the bloodb brain barrier. And so I listen I was listening

to some talks by some medical professionals that work with that. Um not because of this but anyway I learned it. And so really the the very best thing we can do is prevent it. So, um that just so I just want to share that since that came up because to me, you know, that is a very very important um cost then and I'm grateful for all the work that Mr. Lynman and his crew are are doing on this. So, thank you so much. Thank you, Alder Larson.

Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, Alder Lukans came forth with an amendment for and and it went through the parliamentarian, you know, um, stuff and I come through forward with an amendment and I'm out of order. I I don't get it. Now, you're not shutting me up. You're shutting the citizens of District 10 up by by saying I'm out of order. Um, I I I came with a with a with with a with an amendment just as Alder Lukans did and and I should be uh granted the the parliamentary uh u position the parliamentary order as Alder Lukans was or as any other alder person here gets when they amend it.

Thank you. Thank you. Would you offer your amendment, Mr. Larson, and declare record it for you? I would my my amendment is um I would like to remove the parks reparation from the um from the packet. Okay. Mr. [clears throat] Larson moves to remove the parks repatriation analysis document from the packet. Do we have a second? We have a second. No. You're going to need to push your amendment, your amend button, Mr. Larson.

Okay. So, we have an amendment and we have a second from Alder Lukans. Comments, questions. Oh, Parliamentarian Miss. Jacobson rather than a motion. I've been thinking this through and maybe the clerk can help me with this. Did we not recently amend the rules under 2.16 that required packet materials be submitted by anyone I believe by the close of business the Friday previous to the council meeting for inclusion in the packet? Yes. So this was included in the packet by 4 deadline Friday. Yes.

Okay. Then I think it would require a motion and a second and a vote by the majority of the body to remove it from the packet. Thank you.

All right. With a motion and a second on an amendment by Mr. Larson to remove a document from the packet. Do we have any questions or comments on that? Alder Kian. Um, you know, our mayor said that it was in the packet as a suggestion. It isn't in the budget. He indicated that it was there as a suggestion because we're looking at so many options as to how we can save money for the city. Um rather than saying remove it from the packet, why don't we say maybe we should do something to further taking a more significant look at it. Have appropriate numbers submitted, talk to Mr. Lynman and find out how he feels about it since he'd be a big player in that type of a um suggestion or situation. and instead of removing it, maybe we should just take a look at it and say, is it a good business decision to have more than one option? Um, it's my personal opinion that it is. So, instead of removing it from the packet, why don't we as a group of people say, let's make a sound business decision for the city. If we get the numbers on it, our staff can gather the information. our finance director can give us a wonderful spreadsheet with all of the information and we will have some information to take a look at instead of just disregarding. Um, that's my personal opinion. I will not support the amendment.

Thank you, Alder Rasmmanson. Thank you. I think that that is a valid discussion to have in the parks committee that manages parks issues. The last two times this got discussed in the parks committee, we specifically um did not make a decision on it because there was no analysis of implementation costs or logistics. Those are the missing pieces and as far as round numbers about savings, the offsetting costs was our concern. And so if we want to take that up sometime in the fin in the uh park and recck committee again with accurate and complete information, I think we're all here for it. But this like tonight is not the time to debut a plan like that.

No. So I mean I whether we remove it from the packet or not, it really was not a discussion for tonight. It's a discussion that needs to come through committee with proper staff research, not outside research. I want our staff research and I want the people to be asked that actually hold the numbers that do the work and that is what we are missing. So future absolutely but tonight like no. Well once again all things budget are Germaine.

Did you have something? I I just would like to um express and advocate for hiring an independent consultant to do a park study because I think the issue is can we save money on park services not who is going to provide the service, right? Like do we really care if it comes into public works or if it remains with Marathon County? I think that the um how big this is to separate from the county, try to move 20 positions into WASA. I do not believe that we have the skill set to accomplish that internally. We have had two positions, key positions transition at the city in recent years. one being our transit director and we failed miserably at trying to replace him because we delayed we did not have good uh continuity of information or expertise. The other is our facilities uh individual that manages all of the facilities in the city. Again, these were two people who gave 6 months notice and we could not pull it together enough to get them replaced with people who had information to do the job well and in a competent manner. And it's because they had no support. They had no documentation on how to do the job. We are going to try to bring 20 people here to be supervised by someone who has never supervised parks before. We don't know a lot about the parks department

and how it operates. To me, it makes sense to hire an outside consultant. We spend one-time money for long-term savings. There is a lot of benefit that consultants can offer. Number one, they're independent. Number two, they have broad expertise. They're doing this type of work all over and they learn hopefully through that process. None of us have done that. How are we going to know what we can save and what we can't save? And they also have diverse experience that all of these studies that they perform offer them that again we are not into operational efficiency studies or developing a project management plan on how we would move all of those employees. To me, this is, you know, when Linda Lawrence was mayor, we did several studies and, you know, we're we're talking about the future. If we don't change the way we're do business, we will get the same budget every year. And we really need the help of consultants to help us see what takes place in other communities and how we can save money. Um the finance committee knows that we have been talking to auditors because we're going and looking at uh signing a contract for the 25 through 2029 audit period. During that time, I've been talking to CPA firms about the services they provide. One of those companies is Baker Tilly who has uh very prominent experience throughout the United States and in Wisconsin about doing operational efficiency studies. And in my recent communication with

them, they offered a vision of doing even a two-part study where you could have phase one where they come in and do some preliminary assessments and give you some opportunities where they see savings could take place and then you could uh hone a phase two study based on the results of that phase one. But it's very um concerning. We're talking about services that the residents appreciate. You know, we all maybe not everyone, but you know, like I remember when we talked about going to one aquatic center and it drew the residents out. They loved their neighborhood pools. Having three pools versus one pool is real dollars because you are duplicating services. You have three um slides that have to be managed adequately by lifeguards. You have to have people at the front desk bringing people, checking, taking the money, whatever, it comes with a cost. So I think that having someone who can focus on that task, I can say personally I have so much on my plate that trying to squeeze in a wellcrafted evaluation of what it would number one look like if it came here and I don't have the expertise in parks. talking to Baker Tilly, they have ex Parks directors that they use on these studies. That's how they can offer that expertise and it's like I said independent. So I get very concerned that everybody thinks in one week poof we're going to know how to do this. I can tell you please don't have expectations like that because it's not going to happen. And it's not because I

don't care because I do care a lot. But we have to do these things correctly. Otherwise, we're going to be in the exact same situation that we're in. We were in and are in with mass transit. No director or a interim director yet again. He sounds like an argument for a city admin or city manager. You're good. You're good. All right. Reminder, we are on the motion to remove from the packet the analysis for the uh where where is it?

Repatriate repatriotation repatriation analysis. So we're removing that from the packet. Alder Watson,

I guess I just had one question like it's not part of the budget. It's just sort of extra information. I mean, we're not accepting it to pass it. I think it can still be discussed at a committee level, but honestly, if we're sort of piggybacking on what Maryann said, I mean, 8% of our budget goes to the parks department. I think if we do some kind of like cost benefit or operational efficiency, it should really look at everything. Um, I mean, 77% of it's in PD, FD, and DPW. So, I mean, I think if to not be in this place next year, I mean, it shouldn't just focus on something that only holds 8% of our our annual budget. Um, but I guess I don't see the point of throwing it out if it's justformational. But, so, thanks,

Alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you. I think it seems to me that Mr. Larson's concern is primarily focused around the fact that some of those figures might mislead the public. Um only because they are um not pitted against what the startup and maintenance costs of anything of our own might be. Um you know a lot of those numbers round numbers were taken from an organizational chart um that gets published in the budget but it doesn't take into account the work that those people actually perform. um whether it be arborists, whether it be admin, whether it be the people selling the pool pass, whether it's the people that are doing the facility rentals, whether it's the people that are renting picnic shelters, whether it's, you know, whatever it is. And so it's easy to take a flowchart or an organizational chart and just slash and burn, but those people perform some kind of function that we get build for and we have to figure out what we have to replace and who we have that could do it if we don't. And so I um I think that that all is a discussion for a future day. I think it should begin in the parks committee. Um if it begins with a um legitimate and reputable study that produces accurate information, I'm all for that. Thank you.

Just for the record, this is the authorizing document for every organization within the city. There's an org chart and the ORC chart's there for a reason. So that you can count heads and know how many people to hire. It's pretty simple. So the numbers, you may not like that idea, but the numbers do add up. And and using the same logic, the numbers, we use the same number for the referendum. We're not counting the $1,500 per per or $15,000 per person per year in training. That's not in there. Uh turnout gear, the SCBA gear, all of that. That's not in there. We're just covering salaries and benefits. So, you know, the numbers are the numbers. We have a motion to remove that. However, from Alder Larson, second from Lucans. Seeing nothing further,

you may begin voting on the amendment. Oh, it's it's not an amendment to the budget. It's a motion to remove the item from the packet.

Killian, I don't have an option of yes or no on my phone, so I'm voting no. Motion fails four to seven. Okay, back to the main motion on the budget 25-1109. Alder Killian.

Oh, I thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to say um Alder Martin Alder Martins pointed out a lot of significant issues that were resolved in the budget and I watched those meeting and I watched watched the finance committee struggle with how are we going to pay for the flowers? How are we going to keep the pool in? How are we going to allow our residents to pay their animal fees? How are we going to have humane officer services? and they literally had to rack their brains to figure out how to do all of those things and they did accomplish them. That's why when I see something like a $1.2 million utilities relocation project in our budget and it's I don't think I'm misquing director Lynman when he says we were just being proactive. It doesn't sound like it's something that is a necessity at this time. I have a difficult time after watching the struggles that were made to get those resident necessities accomplished seeing something like that in our budget. So, I certainly can't uh approve our budget. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Watson.

Um I guess to like with our finance Thank you. Sorry, by the way. Um, but I I was wondering for those that may not be wholeheartedly into this budget if there is some kind of compromise we can strike that would is it if it's the 1.2 million um like is there some way that we can all come to the same place? Maybe this isn't perfect, but what alter alterations would those the the na the nose want to make that would make this something that's acceptable for your districts? Cuz I think we can compromise. I mean, that's what we want to do is we want to we want to all be happy for this. And I know it's not like [clears throat] we're ecstatic because it's going to increase taxes, right, by 3 cents. Um, but if it's something we all can come to the table and say, "Yeah, we could compromise for that." I just would want to see what those those options are.

Alder Maney,

thank you. Um, for me, I can only speak for me. Um, I got burned last year on this budget and I am on finance and we spent numerous hours going through, but there's no way we can spend numerous hours and know every one item line item. So, I think it's disingenuous to say anything that's in this in a oneline item has been passed by council when we through the budget. That's why I'm not supporting it. Now, that doesn't mean I may not support the 1.25 million, but I think it it it's transparency as well for residents. Let's have the discussion when it comes in so residents don't feel everything's behind closed doors and underneath that. We have a perception in this community that it's done at the Greyel building. We know there's going to be development and automatically residents are going to believe that it was a handshake deal behind the thing because we didn't speak to it in this in this council chamber either in finance or whatever. That's my problem is I have if it's a placeholder, it can come back to council and have that placeholder talked about and have a vote and talk about that specific project. So that's my that's kind of my red line because it happened last year with the parking out there on um with the Y and well it was in the budget and I asked the we're not going to go backwards but I asked the question it was in the budget but I had unfortunately assumed since council did not speak to it it would come back to council but apparently if it's in a line item in the budget even under developer

payments ments um and it's a new outlay, it's considered passed with the budget. So, that's that's where um I'm having a problem. Like I said, I'm not saying that that's not a good project or something that absolutely needs to be done, but it's the process that I'm having a problem with. Thank you. Thank you. And Alder Rasmus said, "I'm showing this is your fourth bite of the apple without objection." No, it's in response to um the utility situation and with the 1.2 million

Rasmus. Thank you. Um, so our utility, we just heard that our utility stuff exists on private property where it shouldn't be. Our utility stuff whenever possible should be in the public rightway. If the stuff is old and it needs replaced and it's eventually going to get to end of life and we're looking at development in an area where we may or may not be able to get our stuff out of the way and get at it, we need to make our best effort to get that stuff into a spot where it's accessible to our utility employees. If we don't plan for it in the budget, then we end up with a series of budget mods and that makes people mad, too. So, I think planning for that on the front end makes sense. We know it's in the budget. We're anticipating it. Obviously, it's a project that's going to um go out for bid depending on its size and that. And so the timing of the project, they need to plan ahead for that because waiting until the development is ready to take flight and it's got zoning applications pending and whatever it's going to be, then we're in a rush and then we're in a budget mod situation and that's even worse. So let's plan ahead for it.

The Alder Hanky. Thank you, Mayor. I'm hearing all these things people don't like about the budget. And I haven't heard one amendment yet from any of these uh points. And um I guess if we want to just keep arguing about this, we can do it all night. But if you have a problem with it, where's your amendment? Let's let's vote on it. Thank you. Is that a call the question? Is that a call the question? No. Okay. Alder Tierney.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I I do agree with older Rasmusen where if it's on private property we need to get it off but I also think this is something that needs to go through council first. So I will place an amendment and that amendment would be removing that $1.2 $2 million uh greyel um building utility project from the budget because I think that that is something that needs to go to council before it can be slapped into the budget. Thank you.

Motion to amend from Press your button. Tyranny, could you press your amend button, please? Trying. And the motion to amend is to remove the 1.2 2 million infrastructure improvement from TID three. Are we calling it the fourth street? Are we calling it what are we calling it? Utilities relocation. Utilities relocation around four street or around property building utility. [clears throat] What did you call it, Marian? Utility

relocation. I was not able to push my amendment. I got it.

So, Alder Tierney, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Can you read that to make sure that is what I think we heard? There it is. Do you want to read it, Caitlyn?

Clerk will read it for us. Go ahead. Motion to amend to remove the $1.2 million utility relocation project near the Greyville building from the budget. Yes, that's fine. A second from Larsson. Further comments seeing no Mr. Martins.

Okay. Yeah. Um I'm not going to be supporting this amendment uh for a couple of reasons. And number one, uh while it was it was previously stated uh that uh this that these utilities are in are in private under private property and are going to need to be relocated eventually. The funding is coming out of TID number three. So that is not going to have an impact on the levy. It is not going to have an impact on the budget itself in freeing up money to do other things within the budget. That's all that's TID funded. So there's there's there's going to be no change to what we can do as priorities within the within the budget itself. Although it had I think it's it's been made uh pretty clear that this is a priority uh for for the city because like I said this is the utilities are are going to need to be relocated due to their age and their location under under private property. So I'm not going to be supporting this.

Thank you. Alder Watson I guess I have two two questions. Um, so with TIDS, uh, and this I guess this is for Marian, like the the TID plan, does these things aren't approved in that TID plan, right? The the utility, like do they have to be approved by the in a TID plan? I'm pretty sure we looked at this and we believed it was covered in the plan. Okay.

It's been a long time since we uh did that. I thought Eric and I looked at that. um that district's expenditure period ends in September of 2026. So, this would be a project that would have to be committed prior to that time. So if the development would um not occur where we could actually you know one way you could well I don't really know utilities but um if we can't get the project done prior to or a contract in place prior to September we would not be able to do this out of that fund.

Okay. And then um is there a way like for an expenditure of like 1.2 2 million. When we red light this, it's it would never see another committee again. It would just happen. Green light. Like it's not like or red light. Oh, yeah. Green light. I mean, yeah, I follow the rules of the rules or the rules of the road. I do. I promise. Um, but if we did if we didn't if we green lit this 1.2, too. It would just go because but we have like so procurement stuff is different than this.

Yeah. And I think that's I was going to mention that you know um we definitely could put that on the finance committee agenda to look at the procurement policy when it comes to these sizable expenses and uh maybe have them come um back to finance for approval before they go. Um because I think I think it's sort of silly if I mean for all of us we we budget for the year ahead, right? And I'm like, "Oh yeah, I want a new toilet in my bathroom." Well, if I find out that it like I don't want it like that earmark goes away, but it's not like I have to say, "Oh crap, like in August, I really want that toilet now." You know, like we have it earmarked, we have this tag, but then we just like to revisit it again. So I don't know if that's something like if that would be palpable by everyone like we still keep that earmark in but then we have to see these big expenditures again.

Right. Well Mr. Lynman might be able to speak to that but we do have to bid this and if it came in over budget would be a problem. Mr. Lynman could you talk to that?

Correct. Yeah. So um typically you know we we have to prep this project right. We have to plan we have to design it. we have to um and so then we have to bid it and get everything under contract. But you know I think one of the things if if there are projects that we bring forward to even finance like when we go through all the TID plans right what we're proposing for the next 5 years right we go through these projects right and so if there are specifics with this project if you want to put it in the budget and then if you just want to tell us that once you have this project moving forward we want to know about it and we want to talk about it so we could bring it back through finance you know So, we would not engage anything in committing the city until we get formal finance and council approval on that. That's perfectly fine with us. But what it does is it I think in the past we've put all of our infrastructure projects within the budget, right, for the year. And our typical infrastructure projects don't go to CIP committee, right? And so, but they do go to finance with the budget sessions and they are discussed and then um Yeah. And then typically once they're approved like our street projects and otherwise um then then we move forward with them. But if there are particular projects and and expenditures that you want to come back, we just need that direction from the council and we're happy to do that as we move forward with the project, right? Um and also with whatever development comes forward, right, publicly. Um, and then that could help us better explain too, you know, what's needed there, what's going there, those types of things. But, you know, that hasn't been made public yet. So, I don't know the exact items that are being proposed yet. So, to answer your question, okay, Alder Tyranny, and we're again, we're on your

your amendment here to remove the 1.2. Yes, it is. U Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And as Alder Melhaney said, it's not that I'm against this.

What I'm against is first finding out about something on the budget. And as Alder Melhaney said, you know, we're given this book, this big book, and you're trying to go through it and find the best things and what's questionable in there and what you want to save and what you're not so concerned about. And I think when you have a project to the tune of $1.2 $2 million and it's not going before committee. It's just getting on the budget and slammed through and not really discussed. That's a lot of money not to go in front of somebody before it goes to the budget. So, you know, for future I would like to have a dollar amount um of some sort that maybe can be discussed that before it would be on the budget. any project over x number of dollars needs to come before whatever committee is most involved with it with it. But I'm not changing my amendment. I'm just saying for future consideration that could be something that we discuss. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Asmusson. Thank you. I guess just to clarify, if we defund this now and we remove this money from the budget, that money is then gone. Um there is no uh money reserved in TID 3 or within the budget. And so then any need to reinstate that funding becomes a budget mod after the fact. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. Um and so that most infrastructure projects whether they're annual infrastructure projects or CIP infrastructure projects go to infrastructure and finance both and then they are incorporated into those workshops. So the stuff has already been um hashed out through those processes. Right. So utility projects and utility relocations I would imagine begin maybe even in the utility. Does the utility commission have a review on any of that? That no not on this one because it was being paid out of the TID. Oh, I see. So yeah.

Okay. All right. So that that is the question is removing that funding now. I mean you can give director Lynman the direction right now that you'd like to review the project design and financing plan when he's complete with it. But if you remove that funding now, um not only are you not using that TID increment for it, um you could sail right past the deadline to do so, then you're in budget mod territory. And that even has different voting thresholds. So I think that's not such a hot hot idea if we think we're going to need to do this project soon.

Thank you. With a motion and a second to amend to rem the 2026 budget to remove the 1.2 2 million utility relocation project near the Greyville building from the budget. I seeing nothing further. Is everyone clear on that? Yes is removed. No escape.

Can you begin voting? Motion fails four to seven. All right, back to the main motion. Any other amendments? Alder Watson, you're that'll hang left over. Thank you. All right. I spoke. Seeing nothing further on the main motion.

Uh this is uh 25-1109 2026 budget. You may begin voting.

Motion passes 10 to one. Okay. Next item. It's got the same file number. Is that good? Yep.

25-1109's resolution of the finance committee authorizing the modification of fees to the city of Wasau fees and license schedule and adopted pursuant to Wasau Municipal Code 3.4.01. 01 0 sub 8. It's the 2026 comprehensive fee schedule. We have a motion from Lucan, second from Watson. Seeing no comments. You may begin voting.

Motion passes 11 to Z. Next up is file 25-1110 preliminary resolution from the infrastructure facilities committee approving levying special assessments for 2026 street construction projects. Motion is from Lucan, second from Rasmusen. Alder Larson.

H thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, I know that this is in the minutes, but I I really would like to have this go on public record. Um, for the last year and a half being on the infrastructure and facilities committee, uh, the city has told the residents of 28th Avenue that, uh, after we closed the hill because the 28th Avenue Hill because it was unsafe. They were told for a year and a half that um, that road was going to get fixed in 2026 and that would be budgeted in 2026. They were also told that, you know, we we cannot put an overlay on there because of the way it is and the drainage isn't proper and we get one good rain and boom, there's $60,000 $100,000 poof down the drain just like that. So, that's why they told they weren't going to do an overlay on that. Well, now I I guess I even feel hoodwinkedked because, you know, the year and a half we we talked about this at the committee and all of a sudden they come up that well, no, we can't afford the debt. You know, um I just want to voice my disapproval on this. I think that uh that the neighborhood expected more out of us. I think the the committee expected more out of this. I I didn't I didn't expect to have the rug pulled out on this project um as abruptly as it was. And and uh the real losers of this were are the people in the neighborhood that were told for a year and a half that this road will be fixed and fixed properly in 2026 and it is not in the budget. Thank you.

Okay. I apologize. I'm not sure what this has to do with 28th Avenue, but uh Okay, you're on. Alder Hanky. Uh thank you. I just respond to that since it's my district. Um it was a it was a shock that it didn't make the budget. Uh I made the amendment to add it to the budget and it didn't make it. But, uh, I I know there are other funding sources we're looking at going out for and companies that we're reaching out to to hopefully help with some of this. So, I'm I'm hopeful in seven years we can get this street redone actually. Thank you. Thank you.

Anything further? Seeing none,

you may begin voting. Motion passes 10 to one. Up next is file 25-113, resolution of the finance committee authorizing the issuance and sale of up to 311,838,000 taxable general obligation promisary notes series 2025 second issue and providing for other details and covenants with respect there to approval of related financial assistance agreement. Motion is from Lucan, second from Sorry, I got

Griner. Alder Griner. Oh, seeing no discussion, you may begin voting.

Motion passes 10 to one. Up next, file 251114, resolution of the finance committee authorizing the issuance and sale of up to 4,596,236 water system revenues bond series 2025 and providing for other details and covenants with respect there to an approval of related 500 uh 5,47,337 financial assistance agreement. Motion is from Lucan, second from Watson and I have to speak is Alder Tyranny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've seen a lot of these um bonds uh revenue bond series going out um for uh water. And I guess my question is, if I'm not mistaken, we did win about 2.3 million on our suit for the PAS. Uh is what was reported. Why is that money not being put towards some of these water expenses? Well, the two the it was about roughly 2.8 and that that uh is currently being looked at as what we do with it for capital expenditures. This is somewhat different. If Maryanne, you want to

I would say the way the state has their um grant set up is if we don't apply for the loan, we don't get the grant. So, it's um we have to apply for the loan. It's a 0.25% interest rate. So if we if council, the water commission, whoever makes the final decision on how to use uh those are um PAS money, you could in theory invest it. Obviously, you would make more than 0.25 in interest income and then retire the debt with those proceeds. That would be one option you would be able to do. Um but it really if you don't take the loan, you don't get the grant. Well, I guess um I guess part of my confusion is when the press release went out about this $2.8 million um mayor did say it would be up to council to decide what to do with it.

So, correct. I haven't seen that. So, that's why I was wondering what was the situation with the water bonds here and where's that $2.8 million coming into play because we haven't seen it go in front of council.

That is correct. that hasn't been decided yet and there is there is it will come through committees as appropriate. Sure. But this this being the two.25% loan uh it is it is advantageous for this is the DNR funded uh loans associated with the lead service lines. So in order to get those grants we have to take this loan at two at 0.25%. So paying off and buying other capital. We have gak filter filters to replace at a million dollars a crack. We have uh other expenses that would be at a much higher interest rate to borrow for capital uh than this would be. Anything else? Seeing none, you may begin voting. Sorry.

There you go. Motion passes 9 to2. Up next is file 25-1105 is a resolution from finance committee approving budget modification for an amendment with GEI consultants for environmental consulting services for the former WASA business incubator site. It's the W and DNR Britz number 02- 37-587081 at 1300 Cleveland Avenue and Alder Killian if you're if your speak button isn't give me a hand raise. Okay. All right. I have a motion from Lucan, second from Neil and Alder Killian. discuss

I we are now

all right time for discussion. Okay. Okay. Um the GEI resolution was formulated before the November 4th ED committee meeting and there were a couple of issues that were resolved there and one of them was that uh public participation plan would guide the property's ultimate non-industrial use and future non-industrial redevelopment. And the other one was that the RA would um move forward parallel with the redevelopment plan that was decided. So I wanted to amend the resolution just to add a couple of wherees so to clarify what was decided at the ED meeting. And I did speak with Director Lynman this morning since he's going to be such a big part of it. I would like you to hear how he feels about the amendment.

Mr. Lman. Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, I did talk with Terry. Uh, she had proposed to make those couple of amendments uh that she discussed and um they're very right in line with what we're proposing to do. um to have the public information meetings, community developments already set the first meeting for the end of January. Um and then also have the RAOR um prepared in parallel with the public comments and the end use of the property uh working with our GEI consultants as well as the DNR, the green team uh once that gets established. So, yep. Thank you, Eric. Mhm.

Okay. I would like to amend that with those two wherehouses and I do have those printed out here if that would be helpful. That would be very helpful.

So you want to add these two additional whereas clauses. Okay. So a motion to amend is pending. Is is your amend is your amend button by chance? Amend button working otherwise not working. I can press it but it doesn't do anything. Kaitlyn, may mayor uh can you read the where's before someone seconds it just we will we will we'll get them teed up here. Here I'll let me read them.

Okay to get you thinking here. So whereas your economic development committee at their November 4th, 2025 meeting voted to approve public participation uh plan for 20 uh 1300 Cleveland Avenue to evaluate and guide the property's ultimate non-industrial land use and future non-industrial redevelopment. And whereas the city of Wasau's department of public works and utilities stated at the November 4th, 2025 economic development committee meeting that the RAOR for 1300 Cleveland Avenue will coincide with the end use of the property, which is the focus of the approved public participation plan, and that the redevelopment and RA processes must therefore work in parallel. help with one another. [clears throat] Thank you.

I'll second that amendment if we need a second. Amend. Motion to amend by Killian is seconded by Rasmusen. Just not doing any good anyways. Just hasn't done anything. Correct. You got off track there.

Nothing. It's just the sign and that's difficult the pro.

No, I'm sorry. Everything else is working but

thank you. [laughter] It's telling me to be quiet. [laughter] So not as whereas

So, I have the two I have the two whereas clauses um as a part of Alder Killian's motion to amend. I was informed by the city attorney that by adding these two whereas clauses we would also have to adjust the action and the therefore be it resolved clauses in the resolution as well. I don't know if you want to speak any more to that. Do the attorney, did you want to clarify?

Thank you, mayor. Um, I was just looking at the resolution, my packet, making sure it was updated because the title on the resolution didn't match the agenda item. And while the whereas clauses are fine and they should be added as part of your amendment, but they're not going to be voted on. It's just background information. It's not included as part of the action of the council unless it's included in the now therefore be it resolved paragraph. So as this resolution stands now even with the addition if the amendment is approved of your two whereas clauses it still just says all we're doing is modifying the budget. It says

period. That's all the that's all the be it resolved paragraph says. So, didn't you want to incorporate your two whereas clauses into the be it resolved portion of the amendment I mean of the resolution?

I want to do whatever will clarify the understanding of the ED committee just so that in the future there's never a question about about how it's supposed to function. So, I'm not telling you how to draft it. I'm just saying that it's I want you to understand the impact of just adding whereas clauses just provides background information in the resolution. Ultimately the only action the council is taking is to modify the budget. So in the future if this comes up will it be clear as to how the RA and the GEI consultants are supposed to function? I that's the whole purpose of my amendment. I just wanted it clarified. So that we know that those agreements were in there and there's never a question about that.

Okay. I mean, but if you wanted to mend it included in the be it resolved that the council have public information meetings and that they're adopting a budget amendment um holding public information meetings and what was the what other the other whereas clause was said and and that that's directed to be prepared in tandem or in parallel with whatever else is going on. Then you would have that also included in the action of the council not just adding history to the resolution. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. And we can just do that this evening. Okay. That's what I'm asking. If that's what you intended, that that would be fine. Yes.

Then it So it seems if I'm hearing you correctly, you if we took that last sentence that public participation, redevelopment, and ra process must therefore work in parallel with each other. should be part of the resolution now. Therefore, be it resolved. If we add that from her whereas, does that get us to where we need to be?

If that's what she wants, I'm not trying to draft it. I'm just say I'm just clarifying the difference between just adding whereas clauses and actually amending a resolution by amending the now therefore be it resolved portion of the resolution. Okay. So, we have a that motion to amend to in addition add to the now therefore be it resolved clause. Are you amendable to that? Alder Rasmusson.

Thank you. I think I came up with the wordage that we're trying to do with the action statement. Um, we would add to the end, council hereby directs appropriate city officials to undertake efforts to engage the community and develop the RA in parallel with that process because that spells it right out for what we were right. Is that Can you repeat that again, please?

Yes. Uh, common council hereby directs appropriate city officials to undertake efforts to engage the community and develop the RA in parallel with that process. Could you make sure that it says that the public engagement process will actually be what is formulating the re the end product the end use as to non-industrial that's that's what's critical is that that public input process is going to help formulate a non-industrial redevelopment. So at the end at the end where did you scroll down to where we had the end after in parallel with that process we would add to ensure that the end use of the property is in compliance with that directive. Mhm. Okay. So I I also added in the now therefore be it resolved to the beginning of Alder Rasmson's addition and then pull down.

Okay. I I think I'd like to invite uh Director Feifick and maybe Eric to come up. Can you take a look at this and see if you're comfortable with it? I I want to make sure that, you know, we're not missing something or we're getting ourselves too tight here.

Thank you for the opportunity. We've had conversations on this and this has been a focus of the uh economic development committee is incorporating these in talking about them running two parallel paths. Uh from what I'm seeing, this is our intent and following through on it. So, I I don't see a problem with it. And my clarification would be on ensuring the end use is in compliance with that directive. Oh, are we talking about the directive here to staff or are we talking about is that is that your intention? I'm sorry. What?

End use of the property is in compliance with the directive. So the directive being running in parallel. Is that what we're talking about? The directive is that it end up that it's non-industrial use and it's the RA is in parallel with that. Okay, I'm clear to you. Yep. Okay, it's clear. I'm good.

All right, it's clear to staff. We have a mo a motion to amend and it is seconded. Seeing no further questions, may begin voting. Motion to amend passes 11 to zero.

Thank you. Mavis Bacon on the keyboard tonight. So, we're back to the main motion of 25-11 05 approving the budget mod as modified or amended. And then we had a motion from Lucan, second from Neil as amended. Seeing nothing further. May begin voting.

Motion passes 11 to zero. Okay, we are approximately two hours into this meeting. One hour past our normal start time, but two hours into the meeting. Could we use a break or we keep going? All right, we're going to keep rolling. We're at suspension of the rules. I have a motion from Watson. This is a suspension to suspend rule 12A under referral of resolutions. Second by Larson. Seeing no comments, may begin voting. Twothirds vote required.

Motion passes 11 to zero. First up is filed 616-1110. It's a resolution from the finance committee accepting the 2026 beat patrol grant for Wasaw Police Department. Motion is from Lucan, second from Griner. No questions. May begin voting.

Motion passes 11 to zero. All right, we have four parts here to a Highway 52 East Wasa Avenue project. First one is 25-0910A as in alpha. A resolution from the common council approving roadway typical sections for state highway 52 East W was avenue from North 6th Street to North 18th Street. Motion is from Lukans, second from Watson, Mr. Neil.

Thank you. Well, um, first off, I want to thank, uh, members of staff and, uh, for a meeting that, uh, they had with me a week and a half ago, two weeks ago, uh, with people from, uh, Wisconsin DOT where we went over in detail, uh, some of the concerns I had, some of the ideas I had and and shared ideas that other people had. Um, a lot of them revolved around uh the use of roundabouts at a a variety of of intersections which would have maybe enabled us to have like a raised median. Um, and this could have been really great in terms of um taking care of the rear end collisions and making it easy to negotiate all the various u or the intersections involved. um had seen things like this elsewhere, felt like, well, this would be a good thing to look at. Well, it was I just want to bring up that the staff memo on this item here is a file error in our packet. So, just wasn't just me, I guess. But uh any rate uh because this is a designated state highway uh not just a neighborhood street if you will uh then we are beholden to follow uh some very strict guidelines and the uh the use of roundabouts while it's physically feasible it would also entail the takings of about a dozen houses along the route. um there's just a very large footprint that is required uh for state highway. So after going through all of that and you know somewhat frustrated at reality uh I think what we have is what we have to have. Thank you.

Thank you Alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you. Um, we'd had, I think, some detailed discussion about this, um, you know, in trying to amend it on the floor and massage it last time when we talked about it and it really got that we were pretty far down in the weeds with trying to get to a, um, design that meets those requirements. So, I'm glad that we took some time to get it the way we need it. My understanding is that the design that's brought forward today um not only minimizes those takings, but then gets us to the design um caveats that we were looking for um where we began with the original amendment at the last meeting. Is that correct? not sure where we were at. I I think there was a lot of ideas around and I think we kind of got into the weeds on different So, what we tried to do in these um is to put it into four separate amendments so we can get one for the crosssection, you know, one for the sidewalk, one for the path, and one for the light.

But the cross-section diagram really takes [clears throat] us back to where the infrastructure committee was headed before we um dove into a number of amendments. Right. Correct. This this is the cross-section that was approved at the SISM committee or the infrastructure facilities, excuse me. Okay, thank you for that. That's the only clarification I needed. All right, motion and a second on 0910A on the cross-section approval. May begin voting.

Motion passes 11 to zero. Next up, file 25 0910B. And this is a resolution from Common Council approving a multiuse path along the south side of the Highway 52 from North 13th Street to North 18th Street. So, this is just the path, the multi-use path that was discussed. Motion is from Larson, second from Hanky. Mr. Larson.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Premier, I will not be supporting this multi-use trail. I, however, will be uh supporting the sidewalk when it comes up. I just feel that the a multi-use uh trail is inappropriate in the city here. I feel that there um the land acquisition is going to is a unnecessary cost for the city and uh I I just and who's going to maintain it. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Rasmusen.

Thank you, mayor. Um, I agree with Alder Larson. I'm not supporting this either. There's way too many land takings. Um, it doesn't have connection um to anything larger and there's no plan at the MO to create any connection anytime soon. So, I'm also supporting the sidewalk, but not this. Thank you, Mr. Neil. Uh, yes, I agree with the two mentions from the two alders right now. I will add that uh snow removal becomes an issue too. uh like a 10-ft wide multi-use trail. If I were in front of my house, I wouldn't be too happy about having to maintain it during the winter. So, I would not support this. Thank you. Seeing nothing further. You going to begin voting?

Motion fails 3 to 8. Okay, up next item C to this series of 25910 resolution from common council approving a new sidewalk on the north side of state highway 52. This is East Wasa Avenue again and this would be from North 13th Street to North 18th Street. Motion is from Hanky, second from Tyranny. Mr. Neil,

thank you. Um I I will not be supporting this. I I don't really see the need for it. Uh reports from people who live there say that uh the pedestrian volume is very very low. U so we would have to um take some uh take some some land from uh people that live there, pay for our our share of the new sidewalk. Um, and all over town I can see plenty of of streets where there's a sidewalk on one side and none on the other. And you know, I get to the corner and I cross over to the sidewalk. It's pretty pretty basic. So, I don't I don't think that uh the cost uh meets the need because the need is almost non-existent. So, I will not support this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hanky. Uh, thank you. I just want to clarify because we voted down that trail there. There'll still be a sidewalk on the south side, correct? Okay. Yep. I just if it wasn't, I would probably amend this so that so that we made sure we had that in there, but I just wanted everyone to be on the same page that that south sidewalk is still there. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Alder Killian. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to agree with Alder Neil. I too have received a large amount of feedback that there are not many pedestrians using the north side. Uh so I just uh wish to echo his sentiments and I will not be supporting this either.

Thank you. Al Ald alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you. Um I guess in my experience in the infrastructure committee in the past, one thing that we find a lot is that oftenimes folks that don't want to maintain a sidewalk will tell you no one walks there. and you find out later that in terms of walkability and pedestrian safety, especially on a connecting highway where the traffic volume is elevated. Um you you find there are actually people out there. Alder Molini is nodding because it happens all the time in her neighborhood too. And so we've had this experience. Um my understanding was that the engineering recommendation was to install the sidewalk. Was that correct? City engineers nodding. So I mean we want to take steps when we can to keep our community safe and walkable. And so I will support this sidewalk. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Neil. Thank you. I just want to reiterate that, you know, uh, as uh, Alder Hanky pointed out, there is a full sidewalk on the south side of the street. Anybody that needs to do any walking can walk across at the intersection and take that sidewalk east or west. There's really no need. Again, the need should dictate what we're doing here. So, I would not support it. Thank you, Alder Lukans. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I just want to verify with engineering. So, you're suggesting there should be on both sides. Is that correct? Right.

Right. And I mean that the DOT is going to pay for half the sidewalk. I think if we can get sidewalk added in there for walkability and get the state to pay for half of it, I think it might an engineering recommendation would be to put it in. Uh thank you. Then I will be uh voting in favor of it. Thank you. Seeing nothing further on the sidewalk with a motion and second for resolution 0910C. Can I begin voting?

Motion passes. All right. Item four and this is the lighting. This is 25-0910 delta. Question question on the vote.

Oh my word. I know. Okay. Gotcha. On the on the C I on 10 C or 10 D. The lighting issue. Okay. Resolution from common council approving street lighting for state highway 52 East Wasaw Avenue from North 13th again through 18 North 18th Street. We have a motion from Hanky, second from Larsen and Alder Killian. You were ringing the bell before we got here, so go ahead first.

Thank you. Um, I know I had spoken with um, Alder Hanky about having Cobra lighting and decorative lighting at 13th and he indicated to me that it was similar to the Thomas Street lighting. But then I started thinking about it and on Thomas Street on 1 Avenue, 3M is on one side and Budge Bob the budget repair shop is on the other. So that amount of huge amount of lighting is not going to impact residences like it would on this street. And I'm wondering if this is going to be too much lighting at this point where where the decorative stops and the cobra begins. So I don't know what engineering would think about that. Is is that how it's going to be? Is that going to be a huge amount of lighting there

where one starts and the other one stops? Are you having decorative lighting end at 13th and cobra lighting begin at 13th? So you're going to have both lights? No, we wouldn't double up. I mean, we would space them appropriately so the decorative would So it's not going to be an influx of light for those properties. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. I have to point out that the heading on that resolution should should say from 6th to 18th. The resolution speaks to it in the wherees, but I noticed that the um the heading of the resolution says from 13th to 18th agenda item to the agenda item.

Yes, it does. So that that that makes sense. It should be the entire length of the street. Correct. And that's So is it is that the same for the sidewalk or No, no, this is the only one that has just lighting. Yes. All right. So, I don't know if that makes a difference with the the agenda item, but I know the resolution speaks to 13, excuse me, 6th to 18th, but the agenda item was not agendaized properly. So, I would ask attorney Jacobson, is that a scrivener's error we can fix here or can we amend this? I think we can call it that. Yes, if we've corrected it and everybody's under the same understanding that it's 6 to 18th and not 13th to 18th.

Alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you. Um, in considering this, I mean, we have two different lighting choices. One substantially more expensive than the other. Um, decorative lighting adds a substantial cost at our expense, 100% our expense in a neighborhood that is outside our central business district where the rest of that lighting basically lives. Um, the issue with those decorative lights also is when they're damaged, when cars hit them, they're very expensive to replace. They have to be positioned closer together because they throw less light than a cobra head. When we installed all those at what we thought was the appropriate distance on Third Street, they looked like a landing strip. People complained about those. Um, a lot of times people think that decorative lighting is wasteful and and wasteful looking. So, um, I think that what we have working on Grand Avenue and on Thomas and on many other operative corridors where we have the overhead Cobra lighting that throw it's consistent, it throws better light and the DOT largely covers a good portion of that cost. we would have to bear the difference if we want decorative lighting in there and I just don't see the need in this area for it. Um I think that um we should amend this item to remove all decorative lighting and replace it with standard cobrahead fixtures throughout the entire corridor. So I'm going to offer that amendment accept my amend button.

So you have pushed the amend button and you're making a motion to amend. Mhm. I will second that amendment to remove the decorative lighting entirely and replace all of the corridor lighting with standard cobra head fixtures. How do you think they're

Sorry. Is Cobra an acronym or is it No, it's Cobra like the snake. Like it's a style. Thank you. Okay. So, there's a motion to amend. There is a second to remove all decorative lighting and replace with standard Cobra lighting. Allan, does that comport with Does that work with what we're trying to do?

Yeah, I mean, yeah, standard o overhead cobra lighting is pretty typical on a corridor like this. the um idea to put decorative lighting came from infrastructure and facilities. So, okay, I mean the state is willing to pay for half the cost of the overhead Cobra lighting for the entire project which is 375,000 and the city would have to pitch in the 375,000. Uh Alder Rasmusen was correct that anything over that 375,000 is 100% the city cost. I just I did a preliminary cost estimate that additional cost is about 375,000 from 6 to 13th because because you have to space them closer together decorative and there's a lot more of them. So,

okay. All right. So, we're speaking to the amendment to go strictly to Corbrahead, Mr. Martins.

All right. Thank you. Yes, I'm going to be I'll be speaking to the amendment here because um yeah, we have um the decorative lighting already like like Alder Espositionist out on Third Street also um in my district on Prospect Street and nearby on Seventh Street and um it is those fixtures they have to be they they're spaced quite close together and they put a lot of light and the reason why we put those decorative fixtures on in those corridors is to help alleviate uh some of the crime in those neighborhoods and they they have done a very good job of lighting up the neighborhoods and I will give you that um the decorative light on Prospect Street during the winter months makes a great nightlight in my upstairs bathroom. Um so [laughter] I will I will give you that. Uh but which speaks to the point is that I don't believe that the decorative lighting is particularly appropriate in this area along East Wasa Avenue and I think the cobra lighting is going to be more than sufficient. One of the concerns I have is um maintaining dark skies and I'd like to see you know us as a municipality have a very sensible um lighting directives in order to you know max you know minimize stray lighting maximizing its it it's its throw in pla in the lights throw in places where it needs to be but not scattered in places that it doesn't. Um, you know, we've just in um right now, you know, if you if you look up towards the stars, we we're in a very uh unique point in time where um aurora northern lights are very visible, but you got to get 20 some miles out of town if you want to see them. And not that I'm saying that we should do this in order so that we can we can view, you know, view these these great um solar and astronomical um effects, but um it

helps. It's u maintaining dark skies helps a lot of things. It helps it helps us to enjoy nature. It helps with um migratory birds. It helps with animals. Um and uh and it saves, you know, ultimately it's going to it's going to save us money by using appropriate lighting fixtures. So, I'm going to support um using Cobra lighting for the entirety of East uh East Wasa Avenue. That's what I was going to speak to before the amendment was made. So, I'm glad Alder Rasmuson brought this up. Thank you, Mr. Neil.

Thank you. Uh, in a infrastructure meeting, it was it was I who brought up initially the the the discussion of u maybe using some decorative lighting for a stretch there. Um, in a subsequent meeting which I wasn't at, it it got passed. [laughter] Um, subsequently though, um, I do not support decorative lighting. um like an island as it were of decorative lighting in the middle of where there is no other. I mean if you if you travel uh um west on Wasau there's cobra type lighting all the way down like to Athletic Park and whatnot. So there's no continuity. Um on the spacing issue, I'm I'm happy to see uh the lights added to Seventh Street and Prospect correctly. Um the reason behind and I was a big proponent of the seventh street lighting plan was twofold. To eliminate darkness and to give it an aesthetic uplift in a neighborhood that could benefit from that and uh really really fought for that and and happy that it's there. Years ago when Third Street was done I I was like what the heck is going on? because they were so and and I've looked into it and found that there was a fauxpaw and spacing was not done correctly. Um so I I wouldn't use Third Street as any kind of model for what we're talking about here. Uh Seventh Street Prospect um was it Washington Street? You know what I what I like about the decorative thing is and I like to keep you know pursuing it where appropriate is sort of like the hubs of of a wheel or spokes of a

wheel coming off a central historic district into historic neighborhoods. you know, where it adds a sense of uh uh atmosphere, aesthetic appeal that, you know, a big, you know, mercury vapor LED monster from, you know, War of the Worlds, uh, you know, in the neighborhood is not really that that pleasant to see. Um, so yeah, there's there's a time and place for everything and, uh, this place is not the time for it. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Lukans.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanted to say we uh just had a speaker um at the sustainability committee meeting last week from Bird City USA and um she was going over all these things that we do um that really help meet their requirements. But I just want to echo what Alder Martins was talking about with lighting. Yes, we need it um you know safety and things like that, but I too would prefer uh no more lighting than than we need because it it does disrupt, you know, uh wildlife and migratory patterns and things like that. So anyway, I'm okay with with this whole plan, but uh thank you. Thank you. Seeing nothing further, you're good. All right.

May begin voting.

Motion passes 11 to zero. All right. I just see the video technician is back from the county. So, the county has completed their meeting tonight before we got done. might have a budget. All right, item last item on the suspension of the rules. That was the amendment for the the removing the decorative. Sorry about that. One foot in the door already. Sorry. Sorry. So, we are back to the main amendment. So, we've we amended to uh make Cobra Lighting the standard from 6th to 18th. And now we're on the

main motion and that's corrected from 6 to 18th. This was the queue prior to the amendment. So Oh, we still have some. Okay. We've got three lit up. Alder Rasmmanson, are you still looking to speak? Alder Hanky. Uh, yeah. Thank you. I'd just like to thank everyone for um tackling this at full council. We debated taking it back to infrastructure or not and um I'm glad we were able to figure this out with the full body. So I want to thank everyone for that and I will yield the rest of my time. Thank you.

Thank you. And now we're at no further questions. May begin voting. This is item as amended. The lighting item as amended. Item as amended. Correct. Motion passes 11 to zero.

Up next is file number 25-112. It's a joint resolution from the committee of the whole and finance committee approving the retention of Miller commun Miller communications for referendum services and a related budget modification. Do we need to know what the did we vote on that tonight at finance? Yes. Three to two. 3-2 at finance. 3-2 in finance and committee. The hole was 54.

Okay. Motion from Tyranny. Second from Watson. say

okay. So, are we the the final uh be it resolved on this resolution uh merely modifies the budget, but are we also authorizing the appropriate officials to sign an engagement with Miller Communications? Was that the intent? Yes. Okay. Then we should probably add that language to the end of the be it resolved. It's just budgeting for it doesn't approve entering into the contract.

Is there any objection to that or would you per Okay, no objection to that if we amend and change. Yes, there's no objection. So without objection then we're going to allow appropriate staff to sign the contract if this is approved. Okay, Alder Lucas. Oh,

well, thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanted to confirm that this still stands, right? That it's kind of a pay as you go, like we can if we wanted to adjust anything. Correct. That's what they had said last time, right? Okay. Director Gro, were you the question for Oh, I think she was asking Jeremy. Jeremy was nodding. I'm Oh, Jere. Oh, you were. Okay. Chief cop. So, if we decide to change anything else.

Yeah. So, this is a number not to exceed. Uh Maryann and I had a discussion with them. anything that we would cut out of it moving forward in case we were able to handle some things on our own would be taken out of that price so we could you know be under that price but we won't go over. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that. Alder Neil.

Oh Tom. Yes sir. Sorry.

Okay. Well, at our committee the whole we had a quite robust u discussion on this uh with a result into what five to four vote uh pretty darn close. Um there was uh talk about the optics that you know for this in the public eye. Um there was talk about oh we need somebody who you know is good at word smithing and you know putting together convincing arguments or whatever. uh there was talk about that uh this would be a a a neutral sort of document or effort not to sway one way or another but again the optics I think uh out there in in public land will will be that they're being sold to um I uh did not support it at the committee of the whole and I will not support engaging this agency tonight. Thank you, Alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you. Um, I think that there is value in neutral and informative communications. I think that there is value in getting accurate facts in front of people when you ask them to make a decision. You want them to make an educated decision. Um I think that um you know I I took to heart um some comments that were made um in the committee the whole in fact um that there is also a perception that when that information is created by staff and was released from city hall that you know it it has an optic as well um that could perhaps be negative. Um and so I think to have that um neutral party that creates that marketing piece that you know whether you call it a marketing piece or anformational piece whatever it is I think that um there's value in in someone who does not have a stake in the outcome preparing those materials using the facts. And so you know for that reason I I think that uh I will support this because the price has been reduced so far. the price that it started at um originally when it had the survey piece was a non-starter. But I think we've paired this down and we've refined the number of mailings recognized that anything that can be taken in house by the staff um you know whether it be social media engagement or whatever that that would be done. I think that pairs down the price. So um with that I can accept it. Thank you

Alder Lukans.

Thank you again Mr. Mayor. Um, I did specifically write something up. Um, posted it on our uh neighborhood Facebook page, sent out um I asked our leadership team to send it out to uh hundreds of people um by email and I got um a few yeses. I think you should move forward with that and one. No. Um, so anyway, I because I shared those same, you know, concerns, I was really torn. It's hard because I agree. I think, you know, there's some some negative press out there no matter what the city does um for, you know, against city staff. And I'm not saying that's I um deserving, but so I think that could be, you know, that's the other side of it. So anyway, I will be voting in favor of it because I did get the chance to and I I feel I mean it got sent to a lot a lot of people. So um I believe that if there there was a big concern I really would have heard from more people. So thank you

Alder Killian.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um I agree wholeheartedly with Alder Neil. I think the optics in the public are not good. Uh I believe that the cost of this is probably very poor as far as timing in the city. And I had requested to wait to talk to my constituents before voting on this. And I did I was given that opportunity from the committee of the whole and uh the overwhelming uh feeling was that it was unnecessary and I some of the older constituents actually said that I'm insulted that people have to think I have to be educated on how to vote. So I will not be supporting this.

Thank you. Mr. Neil,

uh just to add uh the the question of neutrality uh on the face of it is something that people are not going to swallow uh as as being true. Uh their client would be the city. Their client would be the staff that they're working with. their client is not any of the public. This agency would not be working with our public. Um going to, you know, neighborhood meetings or anything of the sort. Um one item was a survey which was taken out because it was unwieldy and and expensive and um I just don't see the need for this agency. They they are not neutral by definition. You know, they're engaged by the city to fulfill a purpose and that is to verbalize why we need this referendum passed. That's that's what their job really is. U regardless of how we label it. Uh so no uh I just think that we are able to put together a summarization or a summary even of um what this uh referendum is about, what are the implications and and make that public uh through our various channels of communication you like like many of the other things that we communicate to our constituents and voters. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Watson.

Thank you. Um, I guess as an educator and as someone who has a degree in educational technology and instructional design, I do feel that it's valuable to have a skilled person designing the materials. Um, and honestly, um, I'm I'm always out for getting educated about anything. Um, I think as we've noticed before today, like this is a huge book. Um, and so getting this down to something that's manageable and edible by public takes skill. And I'm not saying that our our our staff doesn't have design skill, but I'm not sure if we do have a graphic designer that's employed by us or a communication specialist. Um, so they we have great accountants, we have great attorneys, we have great customer service reps, but we need somebody to help with the design part. Um, I mean there are a lot of really great programs out there like Canva, etc. Um, but that puts a lot on the staff, um, where you have this person, this group that can do it probably very effectively and efficiently. Um, and so I guess I'm always up for getting educated regardless like just being able to be to have, you know, the outcomes side by side. Um, because again, a lot of the stuff we've talked about in council has been very abstract. Getting the actual numbers in front of them. I don't think it's supposed to be demoralizing or demeaning in any way to the residents we're sending it to, but I think it's just added information. It's like an extra piece of of literature or a website that you can peruse. So, it's something that's vetted um and vetted by our staff. So, I guess it's um I mean, yes, we're going to be hiring this this company, but they're getting information from our staff um to just put it into something that somebody can can uh can view and visually be able to to wrap their mind around. So, I'm definitely going to um approve or vote to approve this. Thanks.

Thank you, Alder Lukans.

Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. Um, I I appreciate those points that Alder Watson just brought up because we just heard the finance director earlier speaking to the need for um, you know, a study because she is so has such a full plate. And so I I do think I really, you know, I really think partly the way we approach it. I mean, we can have any kind of um information, right? And if I go to people in my district and say, "Oh my god, this is such a big waste of money. Here you go." Of course, like it's all really going to depend to on how we approach it. this is to be neutral and you know I'm thinking about at the committee of the whole when there were all the staff members there and we were all thinking them right so I guess you know from that standpoint too read read social media articles and you'll see the negatives toward city staff I think that could be a danger So, you know, I guess either way, but I think does the staff do they have the time to that's putting that on them. So, anyway, I um again, I'll vote for it and I I think that would be a good idea. I've given it a lot of thought in the time between. Thank you,

Mr. Neil. Just to close out, I mean u we are not talking about the need for a marketing campaign, uh logo design, um intensive creative work. Um the the the foundation for what we're talking about has already been put together for our review. The argument has already been made for the need. We've seen that made and and communicated. Now, I think all we're talking about is to boil it down to a summary for the public so they can read it before they go to vote. Not not some beauty piece, not some, you know, overdeveloped, you know, marketing piece. Um, we don't need, you know, little cartoons of fires and fire people. I mean, let's just get the information that needs to be gotten to the voter and and it's already there. It just needs to be summarized for their consumption. Thanks,

Alder Rasmusen.

Thank you. Um when I attended my neighborhood group, we had a room full and I talked with my neighborhood group about um the upcoming decisions um the situation that we find ourselves in um you know from a public safety standpoint and about um the potential for a referendum ask and um for the potential of communications. How you position that question and how you position your answers when you're asked about this like matters. Um, I think that if we have a tone, people will absorb that tone. I think we too have to be neutral. We are asking people to help us make these decisions. And so I think that's helpful. Everyone left the room in my neighborhood group wanting to know more about it. There was no hard no. There was no cheerleading yes. Everyone wanted to know more. I think there's a lot of folks in this community that want to know more. And I think that it is unrealistic of us to assume that every one of them is an avid and voracious consumer of local news, of the the relevant social media sites. Um that they all are as tuned in to what we do as we are. You know, I mean, on the average, we each represent over 3,000 people. There's no way that one of us can communicate with 3,000 people. like we need a uniform, consistent, accurate message. And I feel like that's what we get here. It's less about marketing than it is about communication. If we had an in-house communication person, that person would be doing this work. It would be like their assigned task. But we don't have that person and we've never employed that person. School district has one. The county has one now. We don't have one. And so in the absence of one of those folks that has those skills, we need to hire those skills. I mean, we've paired down the the method by which we'll hire them in terms of the money, but I still think we

need that help. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Larson. I'd like to call a question. Question has been called. [sighs] Do we have a second? Second from Mlehaney

just to call the question whether to call the question. Okay. And under our rules, anyone wishing to speak can still speak if they're in the queue. So we'll have We didn't have anyone. We Well, we had one. Go ahead. We're going to vote on the question. You may begin voting.

Motion passes 10 to one.

Okay. So, before we take the main vote, I just I would just like to reiterate some of the things that we've heard from Mr. Neil. for example, this is going to be a high-profile decision we're going to be asking residents to make. And naturally, it's going to drive advocates for and against. You'll have the advocates, you'll have the yes signs out there, you'll have the no signs out in the yard. The city has no part in that type of discussion. So, it's this is not going to be an unknown entity out there once we formulate the question. So it it ultimately it's going to be a political item and it'll it'll be widely known throughout the community. Um so having said that we are at the question u motion was by tyranny second from Watson.

We begin voting.

Motion fails six to five. because it needed two/3 since it was a budget modification. Why do we have one not vote on here? You you only vote in the Okay. Okay. All right. Uh item eight, announcements from the mayor and alder persons. I don't think I have any announcements tonight coming around the room. Anyone over on the one through five? Six. Anyone? Seeing none, I would entertain them.

Uh, cool. Comments. We have one commenter in the back. Do you have anything left? No. All right. We'd entertain a motion to adjurn from Tyranny, second from Lucans. All in favor? See you later. Oh boy.

Oh yum. Is that a popsicle we made for her? Cauliflower. Oh, got it. Hopefully cauliflower doesn't make her gassy. Cauliflower. Cauliflower really makes it cute. She gets so squeezer.