Common Council - Regular Meeting

Call to order the meeting of our Common Council for Tuesday, September 15th, 2026. Clerk? All are present and logged in.

One is online.

All right. Thank you, clerk. Now please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for an invocation offered by Alderman Morgan.

Lord, as we come together today, help us to put aside our personal agendas and work in harmony towards our common goals. May our words and actions reflect the unity we strive for. Amen.

Thank you, Alder. Approval of the minutes. Motion to approve by Alder DeLee. Seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Any changes here? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, aye. The ayes have it. The minutes are approved. Approval of the agenda. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Made by Alder Presley. Seconded by Alder Orlowski. Any amendments here? Seeing none. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And that report has been approved, or I'm sorry, the agenda has been approved. Report by the mayor. Just a couple of quick notes. We've got a few items here related to the fire station, new fire station, and the apartment development that's associated with it. So, of course, asking for your approval on those items. And then just really wanted to thank our fire chief and his team for all the work that they've put into this project. Our deputy director, Matt Buchanan, has spent a long, long time figuring out The capital stack in particular, along with General Capital, who's been a great partner as a developer on this project. Attorney Cochart has spent a lot of time on this one as well. It's a great project, both on the private apartment side of things and then meeting the needs of a our fire department, which is desperately in need of new facilities. And I think what has been proposed here really does justice to what's necessary there. But also, you know, just special recognition to Chief Eaton and his team for being flexible all the way through and being willing to value engineer when necessary to meet the needs of the department, but the city as well. So just kudos and thanks to everybody involved in asking for supportive counsel on that. So with that, we'll move along to announcements. Council. Any announcements? Going once, going twice. Appointments. Alder Prophet makes a motion to approve the appointments, the new appointments, those seconded by Alder DeLee. Any discussion there? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

The ayes have it. Reappointments? Motion to approve, made by Alder Presley. Seconded by, was it Shelton? Alder Shelton, any discussion here? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Those reappointments are made. Then we have something a little new for you. So it's a Water Commission election. We've been handling these as appointments until this one here. But after a review of state statute, it's clear that there needs to be a slightly different process. So I'm just going to read the language here since it's our first time through. But the City of Green Bay Water Commission consists of seven commissioners who are elected by council for a seven-year term. The current position is held by Thomas Carman, who has indicated his intent to seek a reelection. The term will run through October 2033. As this is an elected position, the city will entertain a motion for any other candidates. So I will entertain a motion for any candidates who might be interested in this position that we are unaware of. Any nominations? All right, hearing no additional nominations, we will entertain a motion for the election of Thomas Carman. So moved by Alder Presley and seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Any discussion? Yes, Alder Morgan.

Just wanted to say I've had the pleasure to serve on the Water Commission the last three years. And Mr. Carman is really an asset to the board, has great knowledge about what's going on. So I most certainly would hope we re-vote him to be on the board.

Excellent. Well, thanks so much, Walter. Any other comments? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye.

Opposed, aye.

The ayes have it. And Thomas Carman is elected. to the Water Commission. On to public hearings. We've got three public hearings. First one is a public hearing on a request to vacate a portion of unimproved South Chestnut Avenue right of way located at the intersection of Arndt Street. Anyone here to speak on that item? Anyone here for that one? One's going twice. All right. Clerk, can you let the record reflect that there's no one to speak to item one? The second one is a public hearing on a request to amend the city's official map by removing future road between Sussex Road and future Durham Road. Is there anyone here on that item? I see one. All right.

On? OK. Brad Reimer with Veer Bikker. We're at 400 Security Boulevard. Just a little bit about this particular project here. There's a 3.29 acre parcel that fronts Sussex Road, undeveloped other than the frontage. What we're asking for is to remove a small section of the officially mapped roadway that goes between Sussex and the future Durham, future Durham being nothing exists there yet. The property owner for this parcel wants to build a home, and what their hope is is that they can build their home far enough south so that it doesn't look at the back of the other two lots that are on Sussex Road. There's a large transmission overhead power line that runs at right across their frontage on Sussex Road. So if they were going to build on the south, it needs to get pushed back. So as part of this request, we want to keep it as far south as possible. We held a neighborhood meeting. There were quite a few attendees. No one at the neighborhood meeting opposed this request. Most were actually pretty excited that they wouldn't have development in their backyard. There's a second parcel that is directly affected by this request, and that's another little over four acre parcel to the west that's fully wooded. The person that owns it lives in a home or owns a home on Wiggins Way right on the corner there. And they purchased this property to not have a neighbor, not interested in developing. Like I said, it's fully wooded. At the neighborhood meeting, it was brought to our attention that there are some drainage issues, some water issues that kind of cut through some existing homes in that area and then eventually funnel through these properties here. They all thought that the more development that happens in this area, the more issues they're going to have with water. So then we looked at the cost to put a road in. If this road were still there or were proposed to go in and requested, the cost of that road potentially outweighs any potential profit that would come from developing those. The lots in this neighborhood, I looked on Zillow. the most expensive lot I saw on there was $65,000 that recently sold. So when we talk about what their improvement costs are and then what their land costs are, we're exceeding that $65,000 potentially. So the dollars and cents of development on this particular parcel are far outweighed by what they would not make. So with this as well, it was brought up at Pine Commission. The burden for this road is also on the abutting property owners to the south. It doesn't affect them right now. They aren't going to build a home in the rear of their lot, but if this road were requested to go in, they would be on the hook for half of this new road. They would In order to pay for that, need to split off the rear half of their parcel, sell that, and now they're left with a smaller lot, which they don't have right now. Everyone on Scottwood has a nice deep parcel. So with that, going to my notes here. Like I said, the landowner simply wants to build a home in a particular spot on their land. And so we're requesting the portion of this road between Sussex and future Durham be eliminated from the official map. So I'm here. The landowners are here. I think they want to speak when the agenda item comes up. If there are questions, I'm happy to come back up here and answer them. So I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thanks for your testimony. All right. Anyone else on this item?

Mr. Mayor, can you hear me on Zoom?

Yes.

I am a resident on Scottwood Drive. Is now the time that I would talk or would it be a different time?

Yeah, you can go ahead and then we'll go back to someone in the room here.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, 3449 Scottwood Drive, and my daughter and son-in-law live next door to us now at 3455 Scottwood Drive. And absolutely, with the amount of development in this area lately, the water issue has grown immensely, especially now with east of Sussex and all the development that's going to be going in. Town of Scott had put in a culvert that diverts all of their water, goes under Scottwood Drive, Algoma Road, and comes down our drainage ditch now. And in some of the heavy rains that we've had recently, It begins to back up at my daughter's house, 3455 and her neighbors. And then that drainage goes between their houses, through their backyard, through my backyard and back into this area. And I'm very concerned that if it starts getting developed back there, being that's where it naturally wants to flow. We're gonna have a mess with myself my daughter's house and my other neighbors in this area It's quite a bit of water that we're trying to divert and that's naturally where it wants to go and if we start putting roads or other development back there, it's gonna be a mess. And I've been here since 98 and we never really had this issue until that culvert or whatever you wanna call it came from the town of Scott under County Highway I and down our side. I don't know why it didn't get routed down the farmland side where water could go into the farmland, but it goes into our backyards now. So I would appreciate this project to be, the street to be eliminated and allow the people to put their house where they would like it. Okay, thank you.

Thanks for testimony. Yeah, go ahead.

Mr. Gerber, this is Alder Grant, your representative. Just a question. I know you're at the neighborhood meeting. Your house is on Scottwood. So you are one of the properties that would technically need to release a portion of your property in order for a home to be built on the other side of that proposed road. Is that correct? And would you be interested in selling a portion of your land for future development?

Looking at the map, my property wouldn't touch the road. Okay. That four acres that's behind me, I touch that. I don't touch anywhere near the road. So it's not the cost of having to pay for the road that's affecting me. It's definitely the drainage and where this water is flowing.

Okay, perfect. I do see that cut out on the map. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Anything else for this? All right, back to the room.

Hi, I'm Mai Chong. I'm here with my husband, Jack Ying. We are the property owners on Sussex lot. So we bought this lot knowing that there wasn't a future mapped road. And we've, over the last two years or a year and a half, I should say, that we've owned this lot. We are on this lot almost every day, you could say, cleaning up this lot. The previous owners did not do any maintenance on this lot. We will go out there with our kids, teaching them how to take care of the land because this is going to be their future home. We have two elders who will be living with us in the future and they want to, I want to be able to bring this vision into something that they cannot, they cannot have afforded or were able to put forth in, in their future. The west side of the lot is where all the sun is, is a higher rise of the property. And that's where we want our parents to be able to grow their own garden. Just like how they did back in Laos. And currently they are growing a little garden, but they want to expand that on the whole left side. And we can't do that because of where we're going to place our home. We're looking, our home is pretty wide, and that's why we're looking to remove this map road. And just the feng shui of how we're going to place the home matters a ton to us. We want the sunrise, sunset. We want our home to face where the sun is rising, which is the south of the law. And in order for it to do that, it has to be a place where

current mapped road is and that is the higher ground of where the property is and that's where we like we would like to put our home in thanks for your testimony any questions uh yeah it looks like we got a couple maybe alder profit just a quick question ma'am um so you mentioned knowing that there was the mapped road when you purchased the land is there a plan b maybe if the the vote here tonight does not land in your favor

No, we will never be able to afford to put that road in. We have no future planning to put any further developments on this lot.

So you purchased the land knowing that there was a possibility you wouldn't be able to build where you wanted. And then the plan B is to just not build there, right?

Yeah. So originally when we purchased it, we tried to navigate through that. But after working on the land and seeing how the drainage is into the back parcel, where the area is better to do our gardening, it just didn't make sense in our plan anymore. And that's why we wanted to move forward with the map removal.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else? All right.

Thank you. Anyone else on this item? seeing none we'll move along to number three which is a public hearing on a request to amend the go big green bay 2050 comprehensive plan for 3290 humboldt road and a portion of 515 woodside road from future low density residential land use to mixed residential land use is there anyone on that item yes

Brad Reimer with Beerbicker again. Steve Beat is the one who submitted this and is the applicant, but he couldn't be here tonight. So I just wanted to make everyone aware that I'm here. If there are questions, I can speak to it. But this is something we've been working on for a bit where it's kind of a little plan development with some townhomes or condos, some single-family lots, and then some multifamily condos. in another area. We have, uh, map wetlands. We, we have a layout. Um, like I said, we've been working on this for a bit. So if, um, if anyone, anyone needs me to speak to it, I'm happy to do that as well.

Great. Any questions?

Yes.

All the grant.

So just for clarification for the entire council, now there is a formal plan coming forward that will require, that'll be coming. We'll be having a neighborhood meeting soon.

So there was, there was neighborhood mailing. We, um, we sent out mailers and no one showed up. Um, There really aren't any direct neighbors to this that opposed it. I think the direct neighbors are the landowners, the Bastons. They live right across the street. So should this comprehensive plan go forward, rezone would be next. This would allow us to do the rezone, which would allow us to do the development then. So yes.

Okay. And is there any issue with this update coming to us for approval at the same time as the rezone?

Um, I might direct to staff for this. Is that something they typically run concurrently or would we run them separately one before the other?

So it's possible to do them together, but I think from a development standpoint, bringing forward the comp plan amendment, looking at future land use first helps give the developer and their team an understanding of the policy direction of the city to understand if like a mixed residential land use here was appropriate. that follows some of the guidance and the comprehensive plan that says this is a future growth area, this is a neighborhood node, all those things are in place in the comp plan, but the future land use is one other piece of that. So this approval coming forward for review by the council gives some assurances to the team that as they go and spend additional dollars to plat, do engineering, stormwater, lay out the lots, all of those things that the dollars that are put towards the development of those final plans, that then they would bring back we'd have more answers about those engineering questions and then also specific lots and zoning that might be applied to those specific lots. It'll be looked at more at the parcel level once that plat is engineered and that plan is developed further. So this is that first policy step to really understand how we're implementing the comp plan in this first step. Okay, thank you.

Anything else on this one? All right, thanks again for this one. Thank you.

Anyone else on this one?

All right, I will move along to ordinance's second reading for adoption.

Motion to suspend the rules.

All right, motion has been made to suspend the rules with the exception of item four. Is there a second? Second by Alder Shelton. All in favor will say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The rules are suspended for all the items but for the fourth one.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt. Made by Alda Proffitt. Seconded by Alda Pressley. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll use the board. And again, this is for all the items except for item four.

those are adopted unanimously on item four entertain a motion um i would like to motion to hold this item until october 20th um i pulled this a month ago and mentioned the feedback i've gotten from neighbors i guess my frustration is when this came to the plan commission i point blank asked if there was a formal plan at the time and i was told no Since then, I have learned that there is a formal plan. And I think that before we make a change to the comprehensive plan that we as council members use as guidance when voting for rezoning or CUPs or PUDs, that we, knowing that things are in motion, we give time to hear from the public, let them see the formal plan. And since this can get approved at the same time, we allow the process to play out and hear from residents fully.

All right, so Alder Grant makes a motion. Second. Seconded by Alder Morgan. Maybe some comments from staff on that. Who wants it? Our director.

I guess Alder Grant, we're not aware of a formal plan being submitted. You know, this is the comp plan. I think the council looks at it like the use that you're going to have out there. The rezoning would have to come through council again through the whole process. So, I mean, I think if you would want to oppose that plan, you'd probably do that at the rezone.

Okay. And I understand that, but I guess my question is, isn't the point of having a comprehensive plan as guidance for the council when we make decisions on development? So if we're going to update this comprehensive plan, ultimately we're saying that we agree that this area should be adjusted from low to medium density. And when a plan comes forward that fits within that plan, why would we say no to the development then? So my point is we're making a pre-decision on this area, and like I mentioned last time, the surrounding properties in this area are marked for higher density. So this was marked for lower, and we're making a decision to change that. And there is a formal plan. A neighborhood meeting was held. So as soon as the developer brings that to the city, it will come before the plan commission.

All right, any additional comments on the motion to hold from council? Aldercroft.

Could I maybe get a clarification from staff? The neighborhood meeting that was held was for the comp plan amendment, right? Not a development? Okay. So with that in mind, I mean, I'm comfortable moving forward with a comprehensive plan amendment. I don't want to put taboo words into the ether, but we've heard before from developers that our municipality is not always the easiest to work with. What we've heard laid out here is BEFORE THE DEVELOPER POTENTIALLY PUTS ANY MORE MONEY INTO POTENTIALLY PUTTING SOME PLANS TOGETHER, THEY HAVE SOME ASSURANCES FROM A CITY PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH. SO I'M COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT KNOWING FULL WELL ANY OTHER POTENTIAL REAL PLANS WILL HAVE A THOROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A PLAN COMMISSION TO HEARINGS AT COUNCIL.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

Yeah, I'll just second that. If staff is comfortable with changing the comp plan to suit any potential development here and the surrounding neighbors didn't voice opposition at the neighborhood meeting, I don't see why we would hold this.

All right, thanks, Alden. Anything else? This is on the motion to hold. All in favor will say aye. Board vote has been requested. This is a motion to hold. And that fails 5-7.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt. Made by Alder Prophet. Seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Any further discussion? And we'll use the board. And this is on motion to adopt.

And that passes eight to four.

Next is report of the Redevelopment Authority. We just got the one there. Motion to approve, made by Alder Prophet. Seconded by Alder DeLee. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. Report of the Improvement and Services Committee. Abstention on number one for Alder DeBaker. There was a motion to approve by Alder Eck. Seconded by Alder DeLee. Any items to be handled separately? Seeing none, all in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And that report has been approved. Protection and Policy Committee.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Alder Proffitt. Seconded by Alder Presley. Items here to be handled separately.

Six.

Six. Any others? Hearing none others, all in favor of approving the remainder of the report, signify by saying aye. The ayes have it. The report has been approved with the exception of item six. Your wishes on that, Alder Prophet?

I'd make a motion to hold until our October 6th meeting. So I've confirmed that they'll be able to continue to operate as normal, but the school district has reached out and just wanted to have a little more time to look at this. For context, 510 South Monroe is a shell station that is very adjacent to Howe. I would definitely defer to Attorney Cochart if she wants to clarify for any elders who are interested the state law around it. But this hold would just allow the school district a little more time to review that law themselves as well so that they have an understanding of where our limitations may be in terms of approving or denying this request.

All right. Elder Proffitt moves to hold seconded by Elder Eck. Any discussion? Seeing none, all of you say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Aye. You guys have it. That item has been held over to our first meeting in October. Next up is the report of the Green Bay Police Department granting operator licenses. Motion to approve, made by Alder Presley. Seconded by Alder DeBaker. Any abstentions or names to be handled separately here? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. That item has been approved. Next up is the report of the Planning Commission. Motion to approve, made by Alder Presley and seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Items here to be handled separately. Five.

Six.

Five and six. Any others? Hearing none of the others, all in favor of approving the remainder of the report, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, any? The ayes have it. The report has been approved with the exception of items five and six. On item five, Alder Grant.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to motion to approve, and then we can discuss.

All right. Motion to approve, made by Alder Grant. Is there a second for that? Second. Second by Alder Hinkfess. Any additional comments, Alder?

Yeah, thank you. I understand that we are wanting development, but I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that there's multiple property owners involved and things that would have to happen in order for this road to go through. If the property owner to the west ever decided to sell and develop, they could do a road Halfway down a dead end, it's actually like that. Two blocks up, if you scroll up on your map, Paula Street is that way right now. This could take 50 years, and right now it's a vacant property that we're collecting taxes on. We have a property owner that wants to develop, and we would gain property taxes from that. It's possible this doesn't get developed at all. If all the residents on the East side of Scottwood where their backyard would be needed in order to put homes in if they say no You can't develop on that section of that road either and as the developer stated The cost for all of that to go in is very difficult we have a resident here who wants to build a future for their family and reside there and the residents all love their plan they've complimented the residents saying how much work and they have put into this property and how beautiful it is. And I think, you know, it'd be great to give our resident property owner an opportunity to build their future for their family for generations to come.

Thanks, Alder. Additional comments, Alder Sheldon.

Yeah. So the plan commission almost unanimously voted to deny this and city staff, their recommendation is to deny this. I was hoping we'd get an explanation from staff.

Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Director Renier-Wig.

You know, I think this is, it's an interesting concept. And I have nothing, like these owners, I'm sure, are wonderful homeowners, right? And they want to build a property. But I think it's our job, right, as our department. I mean, we're tasked to do a number of things. Creating tax base, right? providing housing for the city. We're looking at the long-term plan. This is long-term. And you're right. Maybe this street won't go in in the next 50 years, but maybe it'll go in in the next 10 years. You can't predict streets and how they're going to go. But if you take it out, it's never going to go. We know that for a fact. So I think these owners purchased the property. They knew the street was there. They have the ability, if the street stays, to put their home on the lot the way they'd like to, They could plant their garden over this land that's designated a street. It's green land. They just can't build a house over it. No one's going to require them to put the street in. So there's no cost to them to do that, to be able to use this property the way they want to. But as I remind, how long will they be there? We have to think about Green Bay in the future and our boundaries and how much land we have to develop and how we want to get the most out of the land that we can. So, I mean, that's kind of the staff reasoning behind that.

Yeah.

Thanks, Director. Any more comments?

Yeah, I appreciate that, Director. You know, I'm fully sympathetic with this family and, you know, understand, you know, you have plans and you want them to happen. But, you know, we're facing a critical shortage of housing here. And, you know, I think, you know, I want to defer to, you know, the experts in our city development department when they say that this could hamper long-term development and access to housing. So I'm planning to vote to deny the approval. Yes.

Thanks, Alder. Additional comments? Alder, act them to Baker.

Thank you, Mayor. I just have a question. I just want to clarify with staff that would the cost of the road going through be the burden for the landowner?

If they chose to develop it and put the street in, yes. But otherwise, it stays designated official street. They can't build on it and you just stay there. So it's all up to them if they want to develop that. Okay, thank you.

My question is how long has this land been sitting fallow and unattended and not maintained. The current owner has said they've put in a significant amount of effort to get it back to a presentable condition. All the neighbors are ecstatic about It's current condition now, and I would assume not so much before when it was neglected. How long has this been sitting unused before they came along? That might be an indication that is somebody going to come along and develop this? Is this lucrative?

I don't know if that's rhetorical. I'm not sure that we have.

Add some maps to your packet so you can see how long it's been vacant, at least for. It's been a pretty long time. But all of the land that Kosmosky is going to build on is vacant for a very long time. So it's one of those things where it's opportunity, right? Someone comes in and wants to develop it.

Alder Prophet.

I'm glad Director Renier-Wigg alluded to the maps, starting with 1992 and just kind of scrolling through. I think that paints the picture that tells the story for me on how I'm going to vote tonight. A lot of this was not developed, and this is just a little over 30 years, and look at what has happened. I did talk to, I mean, we who were on council last session approved that pretty sizable Kosmowski development, they will have the other side of that road as part of the connection. So I did talk to them earlier today. And while they also understand the homeowner and wanting to develop that, they also understand if that road ever were to go in, what the connectivity to that neighborhood would do. because it will connect to their development. And that will happen. That is a for sure. When you look at the 2023 aerial, all those planned on the other side of Sussex, those planned roads are happening. So I think it's important. Those pictures, as you scroll through, would just really paint a picture. Red Smith is an extremely desirable neighborhood to live in. I hear from folks who are not from Green Bay wanting to move to Green Bay. That is one of the three neighborhoods they look at first coming from out of the area. So I I am voting tonight because the homeowner knew that this was a planned road. I do think there's opportunity to not have to put in the road and do a driveway. And I think there's a way forward if it's so desired. But I cannot neglect all of the planned roads over the previous 30 years that were planned and came through with development, knowing that this is such a desirable part of our community to live in.

Thanks, Alder. Any additional comments, Alder Grant?

Thank you, Mayor. If everyone can pull up a map really quick because I think visual is something very important. So if everyone can see Sussex Road to the right where there is an existing road, that is a main artery into our neighborhood. Most people drive all the side roads to Sussex and they exit the neighborhood. So they will go either up to Bay Settlement, which is to the right, or Nicolet, which is to the left. very few people sit and drive down a bunch of side roads to get to a main road. They will leave through Sussex or Durham, which is northwest. So Kosmosky development truly really isn't going to be affected by that road going through. No one from the far right is going to drive down all these side roads. They're going to go to Sussex and go to Scottwood from there. To the left, you'll see they're are no roads developed, including Durham, a main road up there. And that could still extend down to Scottwood if desired to do so. A development could still go to the left where it's planned, but nothing is there yet. And it could still go to the right and be a dead end or a cul-de-sac. At the end of the day, development can still happen. I do want to remind council this property that we're voting on is three acres. Three, this is not, Kosmosky Development, you guys, is 167 acres. That is an impact to the budget. That is detrimental. Three acres is not. This is a family trying to build a home inside a neighborhood. Also, we talked about mixed development in areas. Isn't a nice, beautiful three-acre property mixed development across the road from 150 apartment units in an area that has major water issues? Green space is very important out here. Thank you. All right.

Thanks, Alder. Anything else from council? A couple more. Alder Presley, then. Alder Hinkfess.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just think we need to, I appreciate the way Director Renier-Wig framed it, that we're not asking them to put a bulldozer through and build a road immediately. We are putting an option for the road for the future, for future developers, for future generations potentially. We don't know what the future holds, but as Director Ranier-Wig said, if we get rid of it now, then there isn't a road. There is not that option. And I want the options to be as free and open as possible in the future, while still giving them the potential to build their home on this parcel that they own, still have their garden, still have, I think, most of the feng shui they want, but keeping that option open for what the future of that area can look like.

Thanks, Alder. Alder Hinkfuss.

This one's not an easy one because you have three acres, three acres of land that sits in the middle of a developed area that we think we'd like to put a road through in the future. Somebody now owns that land and listening to the petitioner, they're cutting grass, they're cutting, and where's the high end of the property? Where the road wants to go. And With all the water issues that we've heard about over there, at least for my two and a half years on council, that is a significant issue. As a property owner, I would struggle. If I owned the three acres, I would struggle with the city saying I might put a road in there 50 years from now. I understand housing. and development. I'm part of the RDA for many, many years, and this is not something the RDA would recommend. However, we do have a family that wants to build a couple more houses, and I think this is one of those exceptions, one of those small percentages of exceptions that we should make. So I'm going to vote in favor.

Thanks, Alder. Anything else? Alder Morgan?

I just would like to remind some of the council members that this plan was set forth as an opinion on what we want to do for the future. I know just in the last year, in Alder Hinkfess' district, we voted in favor of blocking a road just like this. help that development there. So it's something that we've already voted once that it's something possible that we can change our plan for the future, especially if it's going to help the neighbors. So I'd like to consider the neighbors at this time and I'll be voting to do this.

Yeah, I'll just point this out really quickly. Just want to remind everybody that, you know, with all due respect to these folks who are trying to build, um, uh, this house, they, they purchased this knowing that this was a possibility, right? So this, you know, this isn't the city coming in and saying, you've got this land and we want to put a road there. They purchased this knowing that that was a possibility. I just want to make sure everybody's clear on that.

Thank you. Anything else?

Mayor?

Yeah.

Uh, Alder Hutchison and Alder DeLee. Thank you. Um, this is, um, I, I totally understand that the owners, uh, wishes and desires. I'm a little bit confused because during the, uh, plan commission meeting, I asked if they moved the house out of the roadway, the house is depicted half in half out. If they'd move it like 50 or a hundred feet North, then they could just sit on the property. Then there are no road. If they don't want the road, it wouldn't happen. They'd have to want the road to have it built. So I don't think, it's my understanding, can a road be demanded on their property? I guess I'm asking staff, because if they move the house a little bit to the north, they can do whatever they want. I mean, literally. So they're asking the relief from moving a house that far for us to remove a road. To me, it's not a fair trade. you know, in a sense. So I guess I'm asking, is there the possibility the city would demand that road be built in the cost bore by the property owner?

Director?

You know, we don't, I guess we don't do that as a city. We're not condemning property. We're not requiring those roads to be put in. That's not something the city has done. Now, could the council do that? I suppose they could if they

decided they want to put all the roads in and we somehow found a whole lot of money somewhere to do that right but i i guess i wouldn't see that ever happening with the city that we would require them to put that road in okay then i would simply request the owners to simply move the house if they could that small amount and then sit on the property if that's what they want to do and we still have the road there in the future potentially So I vote against approving removing the road.

Okay.

Thanks, Alder.

Alder DeLee and Murderbush.

Do we have a map from the property owner of their proposed placement of the house? Because I don't see it in our packet at all, like what their suggested placement is right now. Question for staff.

I think Dina made it though, like just approximate. Yeah, I think, I feel like our staff might've put that together.

I don't believe we've got that. I don't, we don't have that plan. Okay.

I saw something at plan commission that showed the house half on half off. So my bet, if that's not where the house is going, but again, if the house has moved a little to the North or in some fashion, We could have both.

Okay. Any other comments from council? Am I able to clarify and answer that a little bit? Sure.

If I understand correctly, so if you're looking at, oh, I'm sorry.

If you're looking at the map, you see the two blue parcels, so the yellow outline on Sussex Road, and then there's two blue parcels. There will be two homes there. They want to build directly south of that along the road. They want to be in line with those two houses. Am I able to open the floor? Sure. Motion to open the floor.

Motion to open the floor made by Alder Grant and seconded by Alder Shelton. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, none. The ayes have it.

The floor is open. I can clarify that. No, they will not be in line. That's the whole reason for this is they want to move it back. They need to move it back. There's a large power line that comes through there. There's a certified survey map that shows all this, which probably isn't in your packet, but that's 100 foot wide easement that cuts through there that would prevent them from building in line with it. So the idea is to ship it back, but not be behind those two future houses. Does that make sense?

Right. So if we don't move or if we deny this approval where they want the house, it would have to go north. It would almost go back and up. It'd be like an L-ish instead of just straight for their back. Yes. They would be tucked in a corner behind homes to the north and homes to the east. Yes. Like very oddly placed.

The whole idea was to not have the front of their home face the rear of another home. So to keep it south, but still shift it back. That's correct.

Any other questions?

All right.

Thank you.

The home is facing what direction? West. Or east, I'm sorry. The front of the home.

I recognize you. That's right. Alderley, go ahead.

It's facing Sussex still. Okay. Yep. To the east. Okay.

Director, did you have a question for him?

Yeah, I was just going to say that the owners own the two lots, though. Correct. So they are the owners of really that whole area. So there could be some play with lines if they needed to move their house out.

You're correct. Yes. Yeah, there are three sets of laterals in there. That's why, which were put in when Sussex went in. That's the reason for those other lots.

All right. Anything else? All right. Thanks again. We love seeing you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Motion to close the floor.

Motion to close the floor.

Motion to close the floor. Made by Alder Prophet. Seconded by Alder Eck. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Floor is closed. We still have a motion by Alder Grant to approve the request. Is there any additional commentary? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Board vote has been requested. This is to approve the residence request to amend the city's official map. Yeah, this is to approve the request. That fails 5-7. Entertain another motion.

Motion to deny.

Motion to deny, made by Alder Prophet. Second. Second by Alder Presley. Discussion here? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. The ayes have it. And that motion is successful to deny the request. On to number six. Is that Alderprofit?

Yes. I'd like to make a motion to refer back to staff at the request of Director Rainier-Wick.

All right.

Referring this back, the motion was made by Alderprofit, seconded by Alderac. Alderac. Any comments on that? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. You guys have it. That's referred back. Report of the Finance Committee. Motion to approve. Motion to approve by Alder Shelton. Seconded by Alder Presley. Items here to be handled separately. Seeing none. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. You guys have it. And that report has been approved. Park Committee.

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion to approve by Alder Prophet. Seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Any items here to be handled separately?

One.

One. Any others? Any others? One and four will be handled separately. All in favor of approving the remainder of the report, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The report has been approved with the exception of items one and four. Item one, Alder Prophet.

There was someone who registered to speak before the meeting, so I'd make a motion to open the floor.

Motion to open the floor, made by Alder Prophet, seconded by Alder Eck. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The floor is open. And then if you could just state your name and address for the council.

Thank you. My name is Eric Rakers. I live at 2775 Classic Drive. So I'm here to speak in favor of this action. I live on Nicolet Drive or on Classic Drive. I drive on Nicolet almost every day. I started my contact to UWGB in 2024 with the dead ash trees. They died immediately.

Yeah, it's a tree condemnation.

Okay. So the trees died prior to 2024. I contacted UWGB, was instructed that they were going to try to budget in 2025. And nothing was done. So I recontacted them in 2025. And now they've deferred off to the Coffin Center of Biodiversity. Coffin Center of Biodiversity has no money they claim they're going to try to grant. For ash trees, they've been dead for three, four years now. And if you look it up, you'll find that in two to five years, they start collapsing. And we've already had one that hit a car just this year on Nicolet Drive. Nicolet Drive is a county highway. It has 8,500 cars on average per day that travel at. And I'm really hoping that through city action, we can get some reaction from UWGB. They overhang the road directly if you've ever driven on it. There's no option for them to fall, but to fall down. And hopefully nobody's underneath it or directly behind and hit it when it falls. So I'm requesting that and I'm looking for some assistance. I appreciate my older person bringing this forward. I've really, we've really tried hard. This has been a big discussion item in our area and it is a very serious concern. You know, from the Public Works Department here, they're responsible for making sure things don't get installed in our right-of-way that cause a safety hazard. And here we have something that grew over the right-of-way and is now dead. And I would really appreciate everybody's support in trying to get something done to get these trees removed. Thank you. All right.

Thanks, sir. Any questions? All right. Thanks again. Anyone else on this one? Seeing none.

Motion to close the floor.

Motion to close the floor. May I have all the profit? Seconded by Elder Dooley. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Opposed nay.

You guys have it. The floor is closed. All the profit.

Motion to approve the referral to staff.

Sounds good. Motion to refer staff, maybe all the profit, talking about Elder Eck, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Aye. The ayes have it. That item has been referred to staff. Onto item four, Alder Morgan.

All right, this is in my district and it's something I've been 100% for is the JBS development, but I've had Alders question me through the work of this about added costs for bathrooms and all the stuff in there. plan for this. And I'm just wondering if $90,000 couldn't be used for something better than a sculpture. If we want this to be a community place, maybe someone can have a contest and develop some artwork for it. But I think that's $90,000 that would be much better used somewhere else in our budget, not just something to make it look prettier or something like that. I think it's way excessive and we need to start getting this budget, especially for this development locked down where we're not wasting money.

Just a point of clarification, the developer for the multifamily that's being constructed currently has an obligation to devote at least $80,000 to public art. So 80 of the $90,000 is a requirement for of the developer, Alder Grant.

Can I ask staff though, with that development agreement, is it strictly for art or is it beautification or? Public art. Public art. Can it be public art that is interactive, like something tied in with the playground that is like a learning thing or something more interactive than something that's just sitting there?

Deputy Director Buchanan.

It needs to be an original piece of public art. It can certainly be interactive. We love interactive art, but it needs to be an original public art piece.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments, questions? Alder Presley?

I'll just say as somebody familiar with art, lives in an arts world, art is valuable. It's not just sitting there. So I'm in favor of it. And it's obligated that there be money for public art devoted to it. I think the additional cost from the city is a small price to pay for something that brings value to this development.

Is that a motion? Yeah. Motion to approve. All right. Motion to approve made by Alder Presley, seconded by Alder Ritterbush. Additional comments on that?

I think I just personally, I understand the value of art, but I do think if we're requiring a developer to spend that money, art can be like Alder Morgan said, we can get community involved in bringing art in in a creative way. I do think though, as developer, we talked about cost of developing and how hard it is to develop. that if it could be something that would get use out of it, like there's a beautiful playground that's going to go there. I think a lot of people realize that the cost of developing is getting very expensive. And I think if we focus more on priorities with development agreements and allow the community to get involved with the art pieces, that brings a lot of value and saves or puts money towards priorities.

Thanks, Alder. And just so, especially for some of our new members, this is an ordinance that's in place, Gold Percent for Arts. So with any development that receives assistance, TIF assistance from the City of Green Bay, this is a requirement. It was an ordinance that was brought forward by Alder Johnson and was adopted, I don't know, back in 19 or 20, probably. So just to offer that context. Anything else, Alder Hinkes, then? Profits.

From the $90,000 and what the developer has to put in, the piece that was created or established is original to that plan. And it's my understanding at the RDA, the community gave input on that, and they really liked that piece. And so we've stuck with it, and it's my understanding it was commissioned, and it's ready to go, ready to hang. Yep, correct. All the problems.

Yeah, that's what I was just looking for, for staff to maybe add anything about if this particular piece has been shown to the community that's out there. And then the other piece I was going to add to it is VT Pride Park is very close to this development and a wee bit sad. I know it's slated for some TLC from our parks department, but we recently had a grooves on the green there. The playground equipment, my kids were all over it and there was so many kids from that neighborhood there. This type of art installation at the entrance to this amazing development we have very close to VT Pride absolutely will be interactive for kids. My kids would be all over that when the sun's setting. Those displays of how that's going to kind of show the shadows. And it speaks wonders to the development itself. So I'm very much in favor. It is a requirement. And as Alder Presley mentioned, art is certainly expensive. It's been commissioned. Let's get it installed.

Thanks, Alder. Anything else? Alder Preston.

Just one last quick comment. I don't want to undermine or discredit what the other Alders have brought up as far as concerns, but it seems like those were already addressed earlier in the process, thinking about how it's going to affect the community and how it can be beneficial, and those have been resolved. So I think the time to have those concerns was in the past, and we're now at a stage where it seems reasonable to move forward with what's already been approved.

Thanks, Alder. Anything else? All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, we'll say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and that item has been approved. Report of the Public Arts Commission.

Motion to approve.

Oh, sorry. Any nays? All right. Here's the ayes have it. Report of the Public Arts Commission. Motion to approve. Motion to approve, made by Alder Crawford, seconded by Alder Hinkfess. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. That item has been approved. Traffic, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Commission. Motion to approve, made by Alder DeLee. Second. Second by Alder Hinkfist. Any items here to be handled separately? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Aye. The ayes have it. That report has been approved. Sustainability is all informational. Another informational building report in your packet for August 2026 resolutions. Motion to suspend the rules and take up these items with one roll call vote made by Alder Presley. Second. Second by Alder Hinkfess. Discussion? All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. If you guys have it, the rules are suspended.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt, made by Alder Presley. Second. Second by Alder Proffitt. Discussion here? Seeing none, we'll use the board. It's a cliffhanger. All right. Those are adopted unanimously. Ordinance is first reading. Oh, yeah. I'll just take up the first one. First, zoning ordinance number 1026, Alder Prophet. Motion to advance. Motion to advance. Made by Alder Prophet. Seconded by Alder DeLee. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Item one has been advanced to a second final reading. Alder Prophet.

Motion to suspend the rules for two through six.

Motion to suspend the rules with items two through six. Second. Seconded by Alder Shelton. All in favor, we'll say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The rules suspended.

Motion to refer back to staff as these are in relation to item six from plan commission.

All right. Motion to refer these items back. By Alder Prophet. Looking for a second. Seconded by Alder Julie. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And those items are referred back for adjournment motion made by Alder Eck. Seconded by Alder Presley. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Aye. You guys have it. We're adjourned. Thanks, everybody.