Common Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Yep. Thank you. You go his way. Go his way. Congratulations. You're son. Yeah, congratulations there right now. You betcha.

Good thing we did graduate this week. So that right there, it's just a dot. So you got no idea. So if you then you'll see the letters that type. What's that? Okay.

Okay. So, I I think all it was was just you had the password cap lock or whatever. I don't know what I did. I tried everything. I I I went through it several times. I went through this and then I I tried that. I I tried to do it this way, that way. area between and no matter what I did, it just it wouldn't cooperate. I must have always bent on this. I think so. Yep. And because you can't see I mean without that now I can see it. Yeah. And hit that and then you'll be able to see it. Oh, okay. Thanks, Mark. Yes.

sight of the moon reminds us that there is no other god like you. Uh you alone are the creator God who loves us. And father I thank you for this meeting tonight and for each of these uh city servants. And we do pray that you give wisdom. Help them to uh work together in such a way as to promote what is good, righteous, and beautiful here in our community. Then, Father, we pray for the uh the war in the Middle East. And we do ask that you will protect our uh troops and that you'll bring a swift end to the conflict. And that, Father, whatever is done, you would receive the glory. But bless now this meeting and the discussion in it in Jesus' name. Amen. Thank you very much. I guess I'll not quite seven yet. Recording in progress.

Recording stopped. Check on the sound. I'm sorry. Recording in progress. Okay. I'd like to call tonight's common council meeting into order. It's 7 o'clock here on uh Tuesday, March 3rd. Call order. Davis here. Lampy here. Bergs. Blinky here. Smith. Arnett. Wetzel here. Moldenhower here. Berg is here as well.

Okay. Can you please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance 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.

Okay. First, we have minutes of the council meeting held February 16th. Believe Monday, February 16th.

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Move to approve the minutes as submitted. Okay. Motion by Arnette. Second. Second by Blanky. Thank you. Okay. All favoring. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Thank you. Okay. Next we have comments and suggestions from citizens present.

Members of public that wish to address the council must register their request in writing before the meeting begins. Each individual who requests to address the council will be printed up to three minutes for their comments. Members wishing to speak during the public comments section may only speak once per meeting. Nobody. Okay. All right. Seeing none. All right. Move on to reports. We have the historical preservation minutes from January 28th, public safety and welfare minutes from February 4th, finance committee minutes from February 9th, finance committee minutes from February 12th, RDMS from February 18th, and public work minutes from February 24th. Mr. Berg, the mayor, I wanted to give a compliment to our our chairperson for uh public works and for the committee itself. They are u they're looking at uh saving our our city money and they've uh proposed obviously an alternate type of of a company that Sun Valley that in doing some of the the work which is apparently identical or close to identical can save our city of 500,000 at least roughly and I think that's a I mean that's a an impressive type of uh example that we can hopefully make happen. I I think they're talking about the possibility of delay by looking at that alternate uh type of bid or or quote, but uh I know that the chairperson and the committee is trying to make that happen along with our our city staff. And in doing so, if they can, they're going to obviously provide uh almost identical type of of materials and equipment at a at a savings which is uh quite significant. So I'm I'm just giving them a compliment.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay. Nothing else to move on to communication recommendations. A reminder, April 7th council meeting will be moved to Monday, April 6th due to the spring election. And next, under B, we have presentation reflections on Main Street, opportunities and challenges sponsored by the RDA or sent here from the RDA with a positive recommendation by Mr. David Papy.

Hello.

Good evening everyone. Um, my name is Dave Poppy. I'm here on behalf of myself and 107 East Main Street downtown in including all the other empty storefronts and vacancies in the downtown in my concern for them. Um first and foremost just to rewer your question Mr. Berg that you asked me on the RDA meeting about what I've had done with the building um downtown. Um and I answered nothing. Um that was a wrong statement on my end. Um, I have cleaned out the entire building, all four floors. Um, seven dumpsters worth. Um, and my efforts and the major contribution to the alleyway behind there as well. Um, in my efforts of waiting for the city to kind of see where the city's direction is on what they want to do with the downtown, the parking issues. Um, just upon that cleaning out, I also discovered uh some Amvets meeting minutes in the books from the 1940s to the 1980s. So, I have all the Amvets meeting minutes and the expense logs for them. So, if anybody knows them or where I can contact them to give them to, I'd love to give them out to them. There's probably about seven or eight old books um with that. They probably like to have them back. Um the reason why I'm before you tonight is because when I bought my building in Watertown 3 years ago, um I had a lot of plans, still have a lot of big plans with the building. And I was going to present the presentation to you tonight, which I think Mayor Stocks does have it. Um but I don't want to lose myself in the conversation. So, you have it. Those are the talking points, but I just wanted to talk freely about what I have experienced um with the city and the challenges that I have had. Um when I first started looking at the building concept of what I was going to do in the downtown, I started looking and asking people what are the challenges that they have, why was there empty storefronts in the downtown? Um I believe at that time there was eight or nine at that time. Um and they all said they contributed to there was parking issues in the downtown. I didn't see a lot of traffic in the downtown where there would be a parking issue present, but the the facts were that there were

still empty storefronts. I had to ask that question. Um, in doing so, I went to the city, talked to Mason Becker. Um, he said that there was no parking issue at all. Um, and that um, he handed me some parking studies from 2018 or 2022, I apologize. and I read them over and looked at there was actually a study done in 2018 as well that was taking the information from that. And so when I looked at those studies um there was a lot of conflicting information in those that I was given as an investor of the city whereas the times that they were done were really awkward. I mean when Main Street was shut down for homecoming those were the times they selected to do a parking study was kind of odd um where they just observe parking spots. Um the second time in 2022 they just did and sat in parking lots of the downtown and just sat there during Country Thunder and also Summerfest in Wisconsin, the biggest events in Watertown. That's or Wisconsin. That's when they determined to sit in the parking lots to determine an accurate parking study. So I had a lot of misinformation that I I just didn't quite believe in. And so I did my own research, went to the library, dug up why Watertown was what it was. And I had 1950s was just littered with parking issues. Um with parking meters going on, parking problems with the uh oneway, not oneway streets, but the um um time parking lots. And I didn't know why that was was. So I went deeper and went back to at the time Madison the Wisconsin Historical Library and dug all the way back to 1850 and when the town actually was was started and developed. Um, and just to kind of bring some awareness to this, um, in 1836 there was 22,000 people in Wisconsin. Now, Wisconsin in 1836 covered Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and all the way to Dakotas. There was only 23,000 people in that area in 1836. By

1838, Wisconsin became a territory and was roughly over 20,000 people. In 1848, Watertown was roughly around 1,200 people of that and it had grown to well over 5,000 by 18 in the 1850s. Um, when Watertown was first developed in the 1850s, the entire section of Watertown was developed from the river all the way down through Fifth Street. And it wasn't just developed because it was just someone traveling down a road to just say, "This looks like a great spot. Let's let's build here." There was an investor that came in from New York that landed here and he was informing people back in New York that this is the place to be in all of the Midwest. This is the place to be. Watertown was the fastest growing city in almost the United States. It was growing faster than Rochester, New York. The infrastructure- wise, that's what reports were saying in the paper, which only makes sense to why it is so vast and wide in the downtown of Watertown. It is not just a one-way street like you see in much of your small towns where you have one sections of buildings that would line it with residential behind it. It's it was a whole vast thing built in the 1850s. And so it made sense to me now why they were having problems with parking 18 in 1950 because the car was around. There was no cars around in 1850. So then we get to the the newspaper articles that I started reading about the 1968 and the parking ramp being put in in the downtown. Like why was that even a thought? and why did it get voted down and discovering all the information about that with you know the amount of research that the city did with just to get that point of the businesses all said you know we need to have parking in the downtown you had the common you had the chamber of commerce on board you had the mayor on board you had the you had the editor-inchief of the newspaper at the time which was John Clifford saying we need a parking ramp we need parking in the downtown the editor of a newspaper saying which is huge I feel cuz no editor these days will give it oh his own opinion on something based on

something that that serious. Um the city had multiple contracts in place to put that first street parking. They demolished three buildings and was given the city hall by Fiser Buildings to to say keep this parking for our downtown. We need parking because obviously we all know the parking ramp got voted down. And much like it is written in the paper in the historical paper, it was not voted down due to lack of funding like it states. It was voted down because you had a bunch of people in this room here that were all fighting amongst amongst themselves that couldn't agree on a common thing in my opinion. Um, and that being said with the newspaper clippings that I had given out and with especially this Kenneth Wilks, he stood up in the room before you today and said, "I want to take my vote in silence. I don't want anybody to give their vote out. We want to take it in silence because I'm not sure why that was, but I can only speculate." Um, there was more going on to that vote when there was 14 aldermen that all greens. We need a parking ramp than just it was just money that we had the money in the city and just we just did not put it in place. 1968 there was a parking study done in Watertown. Now all the buildings in 1968 were I believe the fullest that they could be. My building has shown a lot of historical data to this where it had closed down in 1968 in the upper floors and has not been vacated since. Uh so to understand why we are spending money on these parking studies year after year to try to predict future forecast of what our downtown is going to look like if we put pressures under it. I believe we've already had that information and we have failed to hit the mark on that to recognize it. When I when I discover letters in my buildings from banks from 1980 that indicate you will not get your loan unless the Watertown Redevelopment Authority is successful in redeveloping the downtown. When that is written in a loan document from a bank, I believe that is something that I don't know if anybody's heard of. I definitely haven't. But to have that written in for

a loan document is speaks volume to how much the city was under duress of wanting to redevelop their downtown since the 1980s. Now, this is after this is the fallout of why this didn't happen. Now, I understand that with the internet coming out and everything going from brick and mortar to to moving to internet sales and you're losing the businesses, I understand that transformation, but the facts don't lie is that you still need to have room for for businesses to come to and expand. And we just simply don't have that. And with that 90 car parking lot on North First Street that was supposed to be for parking of the downtown per the contract that was put in place back in the 60s. I'm not sure if that's going to be developed in the future, but I would like to ask that it would not be developed until we have a replacement of 90 car storage to compete with it and a lot more than that because I cannot I didn't buy a building to only use the first floor. I want to develop the entire building. That's my plan. And it showed historical data that I have that I cannot do that based on the current storage of parking in the downtown of Watertown because of what happened. Everybody else you have Bill Lindberg that has has has left his three buildings sit because he has been down here emphasizing his need for parking and his his lack of getting it as well. Um there has been a common theme with Watertown and that is as an investor if you have a parking problem in the downtown that you just don't come there and that's what I have felt as if what it is because I can't I I don't just want to throw invest in a building if I can't build the entire building out and and for me to be said I need to create a parking problem before a parking problem gets fixed. I don't believe I should have to do that because historically it is already in the papers that has shown that it's historically accurate. I shouldn't have to do that again and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove to you that there's a parking problem when there has been littered in

newspapers for the past hundred years almost 175 years and I would like to just have you all tonight have serious conversation amongst yourselves of how we are going to fix this if it's even fixable because if it's not fixable and we cannot attain any parking storage what is the direction of water town we're going to redevelop the downtown rip up the main street where it talks about this riverwalk that comes into downtown. What are we going to what are we going to show our investors like myself or even business owners of the downtown right now that we are willing to to actually make a movement of change on it? Because right now it shows more of the same. Putting water manes into the downtown buildings is yes, it may make it easier for businesses to develop based on current codes, but it's still not going to fix the everchanging fact of for future development there's going to be a parking problem. There's no main parking lot that we can park cars at in amounts of 100 or 200 or 300 cars that we could say park here and then walk to our downtown which would be essential other than that 90 car lot that was going to be taken away two years ago. Um which still blows my mind. Um the understanding of this I believe is critically important just to understand what your plan is of Watertown. Um, and I'm just very confused on what that is. Um, we have two major developments that you want to have with with the first street parking and also the one up by Benson Square. As a city, we should not be relying on investors to come in here and say, "I want to put this here. I want to put this here." And using our investors to say, "This is what we need for our city." We should know as a city what we need in our city to put there. And then we should be farming that out to our investors. say we want this year. Can you build this for us? We should have that knowledge and we don't at this point. So my knowledge by the questions that have been asked in multiple meetings, we don't know what we need there. We should know what we want there. We should be lucky that we have

places to to build these things and have opportunities, but we should know what we want there and what we need there as a city. Um, another another point that I wanted to make as well is with this with the riverwalk, which I which I do support. It's a beautiful idea, but I want to make sure there's some clarity on the room on the river on that. When I lived in Westbend for 11 years and was part of the riverw walk that not part, but I was in town with that going on. I had friends with businesses in the downtown. That riverwalk did not improve the downtown of Westbend, which is why it is today. The downtown of Westbend improved before the Riverwalk came in. Property values had went up before it went in. It was not because of the Riverwalk that now of a sudden the businesses flourished. So, by thinking that a Riverwalk is going to make your businesses flourish like you've been presented in the past, don't take that for what it is. The downtown in Westbend had a successful downtown before the Riverwalk came in. And they fixed those issues that they had by putting events in the downtown and piling people into the downtown with every event that they could to increase the traffic of the downtown to then make the businesses flourish to then have the businesses have the money to be able to invest in their in the riverwalks behind the buildings. That's how they that's how they created that concept because by putting a riverw walk in now, which is going to immediately increase our property taxes in our downtown, you are now asking us as building owners to have our property taxes increased by a a structure when we can't even barely keep our buildings afloat now with the current standards. Not to mention, I have a four-story building. If are you asking me to only keep the first floor open and then but yet have the whole entire building facade done on all four floors and have to have the property taxes because my building is now worth more to look good to the city. Um if we can't use our whole building then and if we can't touch it because it's historically say preserved, what are we supposed to do? Well, we you you have seen what people are supposed to do. You have seen the building owners down there exactly doing exactly what they're able to do. And

that is not a whole lot of anything unless they have a ton of money that they can just spend however they want. And as far as I know, we don't have a lot of people like that around. And you know, I just I just wish that there was some better direction for us to know on what the plan is for Watertown in the downtown and these buildings and the 100,000 square ft of vacant space in our downtown and why we are not trying to trigger a a a development of that and why we are not attaining to what is the problem and why they're not doing that. Because for the past 75 years, you can't tell me that someone has not come into this town and said, "I want to invest a million dollars there. I want to invest something here." For 75 years, there has been a problem that everybody seems to keep quiet that they don't want to be out there because they want people to keep spending money in their town. I don't have a tenant in my first floor because I can't lie to them. I'm not going to say, "Yeah, you bet. There's no problem in Watertown's great. Come here and take and and have my rent because I'd be telling them I I'd be telling lies because I know that there's a problem and I can't I can't have them set up shop and pay me rent based off of that. So, for those reasons, tonight is why I wanted to come before you tonight. And when I presented this back in May, May May 21st of last year to the RDA, I did an extensive research of the downtown. I did a blockby block business to I talked to as many businesses that I could and the people that I could of what they needed for parking, what they needed for customers, what they had for employees, and I did a full full presentation with all this diagram. And I was short in parking. And every single building that was vacant as your presentation had there were where the empty buildings were going crossways, not lengthwise, crossways. And I just correlate that to it's just lost my train of thought. Apologize. When I took that there and did that, it

seemed like nothing became of that. Nobody took that for what it was worth. Now, with all the information that I was given in reading in the newspapers, I called the guy who did the parking study in 2022. And I talked to him and he told me that I said, "Would you have recommended parking meters to the downtown? Would you have recommended time parking lots if you' recommended any of that if you would have known that the city of Watertown already tried all that?" They said, "No." He says, "I would have recommended a business-to- business evaluation, block byblock, to have the city do that, and they never did that." And so I did that and he told me that was going to cost $90,000 to do. Well, I did that and I presented to the city and gave it to them on a platter. And I feel like they did nothing with that. $90,000 worth of work it would have costed them for something else they sat on. And instead we have these futuristic dreams of of what the pressures could be like based on a report instead of taking our actual knowledge of what goes on. When I speak self-reflection, it's not so much when you live in a city for so long, you can become adapt to what it currently is and you could say parking's fine. Parking's fine for the businesses in downtown Watertown, parking is fine because that's where your level of that's that's your that's your full. That's all it can stand is right where it's at. When you want to add more, that's where we don't know. That's where the guesswork comes in. That's why the reason the parking studies come out. Well, we already had where downtown was full in 1968 and it showed we had parking. We needed parking. And those are the people that lived in it day by day every single day. We're not. We don't see a parking problem because there's not the businesses here to even say there's a parking problem. and you're asking us to build the business here to create a parking problem. I just I just can't see that. I I just I just can't see that. So, I'm here tonight to say to

bring the argument again of can we look into this? Can we guarantee parking for the businesses that want to build out in the downtown and keep what is currently there like that 90 car parking lot parking in for the meantime? Um cuz then I can at least start developing the first floor of my building and hopes that the plan is in the future that you take a seriously look at the parking issues of the downtown moving forward. Um but that's all that I have. So thank you for your time and being able to present this. Come here. Thank you. Yes, Mr. B.

Let me uh make I think he did a nice job of uh Mr. happy of uh of making your point and I uh it's very obvious by the presentation before and tonight that mistakes were made uh on this city council and within our city on the issue of parking and you've re reminded us of that and for some of us who haven't done your research uh we needed to be told in the way you did because it helped us to to appreciate the fact that status quo the way it is it can be uh viewed as being okay with the parking we have. But to get bigger, better, we have to address the issue. And I think our council and our mayor, we dealt with that issue when we turned down that project on first street because we felt that parking right now needs to be a priority and there was reasons why we denied the project. It made people upset at us. They viewed us as being anti-growth and that we were against development when we really aren't. But we felt again the project was not in the right place at the right time and uh so we turned it down for uh a lot of good reason and our mayor helped in his uh making that into an issue. So but I think we are addressing this topic because uh you've seen that we want to turn some of our streets into two ways instead of one way. um two ways where you can get them put in place do make traffic um moving around easier and it does promote u uh I think some willingness to uh to actually promote development by having two-way streets where you can uh I think that's one example I think the fact that we're looking at downtown looking at the the laterals being enlarged so they can uh encompass potentially uh a a sprinkler system type of upgrade in order to have their second and third or fourth floors available for

development. Uh those accommodations and those intents to try to address in a timely proactive type way are examples of where we are sensitive to the problem and we want to make sure that these buildings that aren't being fully utilized are going to have a better chance of being utilized in a in a more complete way. We're addressing it that way. I think the the work that the public works and our city is starting to do by planning for the 2028 reconstruction of Main Street, uh we're doing that with the intent of wanting to make our downtown an even more attractive asset within our city than it already is. Uh we have a unique main street. It's long and it has the the possibility of being a very strong asset that draws people to our town in in a very complimentary way. So, those are examples where I see us knowing that we have an asset and we're trying to make it better than it currently is. And in the meantime, I from what I know of our our mayor and council, we are not going to do anything with that 90 street 90 uh stall parking lot on First Street until we have uh a feeling that there is alternate parking to address whatever we take away from that number that's currently there. So, I I think we are uh sensitive to the problem and I think we're trying to uh to show that we're uh working on it in our own way. So, uh, but I I think we need to be told, uh, you did a nice job, I feel, in bringing it to our attention. And, you know, maybe it rubs us a bit wrong by the fact that we did something wrong in the past, but I think we're here for, uh, the big picture

to deal with the problem and and to make it better going forward. So, uh, I can handle being criticized because I think it's with good intent.

Anybody else on this side? Mr. Lampy, go ahead. I I just wanted to uh point out that the um information from the last couple of parking studies is as uh you mentioned in the May 22nd 2025 RDA uh packet. It's got um as all of the city's parking studies done recently 2018 2022 updates in 2021. Uh what I don't see unfortunately is u the the additional survey um that you may have provided at that meeting at RDA. Is that available somewhere?

I believe it's available with the RDA back in May. I gave it out and shared it to that point. Um I believe is it still with you guys or not? I'm not sure. But that was I believe I had shared that with them and and gave it to them to for discussion. So otherwise that was a May meeting of 25 May 21st of 2025. Okay. Anybody on the other side have questions, comments?

Okay. Sorry, Mr. Lampy if you go. Um, so, so in addition to that, the last time I know we looked at a a a parking garage for downtown, that would be the the one that, um, had potentially been cited for, uh, the library's parking lot. Obviously, I was against that one at that point. Uh, that was that was we were looking at a 200 car parking structure at that point um, for a price back in 2018 or so of about $5 million to build um, that just just as sort of a ballpark estimate. That's the last time I know that we've looked seriously at a parking structure um in in the downtown area.

Okay. Can Can I add something to to that? If the goal of Watertown is to have foot traffic enter your downtown, which I believe is a great idea to have that foot traffic walk into the downtown, are you just looking to have your 20,000 plus residents be able to walk into the downtown or are you looking to grow and expand based on new people coming to your town into your downtown? And if that is the goal with the Riverwalk and the vision of that, where are the people supposed to stage to park to start such a walk to the downtown? because in order to achieve to cover an ROI of almost I don't know how many millions dollars 21 millions I think at the end time it ends of the project to put that just on your taxpayers and the building owners would be extremely stressful if they didn't have a spot to come and park to start their journey throughout the town on the riverwalk and I struggle with seeing that as well because now you're adding extra pressure on the businesses if you don't include that into that actual riverwalk design if that makes sense cuz my I would thought would be you're going to create that riverwalk in order to encourage the town to be beautified which it looks amazing on the renderings but where are those people going to park and how is that going to impact the parking of the downtown since it's right next to the downtown as well

Davis go ahead um just some quick questions for you when did you purchase your business 107 East Main Street I purchased the building in 2020 23 2023. Yes. And um are you able to say what your plans are for that business or are you not saying?

I'm not saying yet because it's it's it's specialized just for that building which is why I don't want to let go of it because it's a very great idea. Um I believe it's everything that uh that the city would want. Um but I don't want to say it quite yet um until I have an answer on that 90 car parking lot. And if I'm getting the answer of you're not going to you're not going to uh build on that for the for an extended period of times, then I can be confident enough to to want to invest in that and build in that. So, but I do have plans. I know I did share them with Mayor Stocks as well. Um and uh but just not not yet, but hopefully soon.

So, I have a maybe a crazy question. um market demands um free market demands um usually um promote capitalizing on potential earning opportunities. And so my question is if there is a demand for parking, why hasn't someone purchased some area available lot or come up with an available plan to make money off of the need? If the need is great, why hasn't the free market corrected for that?

Because in order to qualify that, you have to have a certain amount of businesses in the area to be able to justify that. You you don't you don't build a uh you don't put a popsicle stand 3 miles from a football stadium. You put it right at the stadium. you come to the party. So

that by build by building a parking ramp before there before having someone pay money to put a parking ramp before there's a problem would would be premature to to do that to have an investor do that. But a city do that based on knowing the city's needs and where they've been deficient in the past. That shows that the city is willing to work with their businesses and investors as we are here. we've have a problem and we're going to show you that we mean business and we don't want you running away no more to California and with with your money. So, um maybe I can summarize what you what I heard you say. You're saying that it's speculative building a parking facility whether it's another lot or a garage that's speculative on potential future earning.

I'm not saying it's speculative. No, I'm saying that based off the parking study in 1968, it was well needed in the downtown and due to their disconunction back in 19 1968, it was not developed in the downtown since then has dropped as has traffic through the downtown has dropped considerably. Yes, there are some studies to show that that traffic through the downtown has dropped. But I thought I heard you say that it was um the reason it's kind of a cart before the horse thing. what come what comes first the parking garage or the businesses and that's where the rub is that's where the tension is that correct

I believe that I believe it is there is it's obviously correct because that's why nothing is being done because there's that battle that goes back and forth but at the same time you have empty buildings in your downtown 100 plus thousand square feet of empty buildings in your downtown and by if that's the look that you want to present to people then go ahead and keep it the same keep it exactly how you have it if you want to present that to the people for downtown of all the empty storefronts and all the empty upper floors, then keep it the same. Then then keep it exactly how you have it and wait for and wait for the people to come and pressure. But if you want to have an attractive downtown that more attractive than what it already is and encourage them builders to build out, you need to put the stuff in place that people have talked about before you for many years and the city has not done anything about. And like I'm not saying I'm encouraging a parking parking ramp by any means. I'm saying is that you need to at least have ideas of where you're going to put something when that pressure comes. Because right now, I've been told there's nothing. There's no land that we're leaving set aside. So, I can say, "Okay, I'm going to put a million dollars in my building, and when that pressure comes, we have this 5 acres set aside that we're going to put a a parking structure in." When that happens, there's none of that out there other than just some flat lots that have 18 to 20 cars in them. There's no space that's just sitting aside that we're leaving sit there in case we have them pressures to come. And that would be nice to know because I'm not asking you to build it. I'm saying that there needs to be an understanding between both sides that if them pressures come, we need to have the space available to be able to build it and a plan in place that okay, when you build it and you show us it's going to come, we have this spot set aside to build a structure for you if them pressures happen. But there's not that in existence. The only thing that was in existence was that 90 car parking spot that I was able to hold on to until it all of a sudden decided to get developed during my mid design. And it's like, wait a minute here. So that was that was where I had trouble with that because after that lot goes away, where else is there a big square footage in the downtown to be able to hold parking storage?

I looked at um already minutes asked I think in meeting two weeks ago on the 18th. So under number seven looks like the board members requested this be a reoccurring agenda item for discussion. Believe parking. So, it's supposed to be on the agenda, okay, for the foreseeable future. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Papy, for sharing. Thank you. Yeah.

U Mr. Mayor, I want to I'm glad you ma made the the reminder of our RDA because I'm on the RDA and we did have enough of discussion on this topic to feel that we want to keep it on as an agenda item to do updates and to discuss it uh on a recurring basis so that we do maybe help initiate some improvement in that uh apparent uh need for uh for addressing. But uh I think the the approach we took back u years ago, we acquired uh in in some different cases uh blighted uh homes and properties and we turned a lot of that into on street or I'm sorry on surface level parking in different areas to address different parts of town in in on the topic of parking. Uh we do have um you know a decent amount of parking in different areas, but u like the points been made, it it largely addresses our our current level of development to uh to do more in the downtown area is going to require more parking than we currently have. And I think once momentum occurs, once uh additional um development does happen downtown, that act actually helps spur uh the need for uh the possibility of a ramp type parking or additional acquisition of of properties that they can turn into parking uh at a ground level. Um, one way or the other, I think we will continue to make upgrades, improvements u either through a ramp or more acquisition of uh blighted properties to make that happen. U I think we are we are trying to create the momentum. I think we need to do more than we currently have. That's why the the 90 stalls on first street are probably going to be left like that until we have a a reassurance that there is a there's a a plan to address parking in a bigger better way. But, uh, I I I

think we're very sensitive, uh, to the fact that we have an asset downtown that we can do more with to make it bigger, better than it currently is, and that parking is part of the of the solution to make that happen. So, it it'll be part of RDA and part of this council and the different committees that talk about this issue to help make progress hopefully sooner than later. Um, because I I feel the need is there.

Thank you, Mr. Okay. Move on to uh miscellaneous business. A payroll summary from February 4th through February 17th. You move on to ordinances. Ordinance 2602, amend the adopted plan development PD overlay district general development plan for the Oxbow at 100 East Division Street, pin number 291-0815- 0412-029 and at 104 East Division Street, pin number 291- 0915-3343-053. Sponsored by myself and the planning commission at second reading.

Mr. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Blankie, I'll move for ordinance 26-02. Okay. Motion by Blanky. Second by Lampy. Okay. Questions on that. Okay. Blanky. I Arnett. I Wetszel. Hi. Moldenhower. Hi. Davis. Hi. Lampy. Hi. Berg. Hi. Motion carried.

Okay, good. Next. Uh B. Ordinance 26-03 adopt the plan development PD overlay district precise implementation plan PIP for the expo at 100 East Division Street PIN number 291-0815-0412-029 and 104 East Division Street PIN number 291- 0915-3343-053 sponsored by myself and planning commission.

I'll move for adoption. Motion by Berg, second by Wetszel. Okay, questions on that. Mr. I just want to again remind people of what we're doing on this project which shows a lot of u uh receptiveness to uh working with the developer uh to help make their idea viable and yet to uh to do it in a way that gives it the best chance of being successful for our city. But to have what it looks like 68 67 units of uh housing on less than 2 acres of land uh that is you know by any definition a highly dense type of development and project. But it's going to have a lot of amenities which are going to make this uh a unique type of development that will be appealing uh obviously hopefully to uh to the to the people that want to live in that type of of a project. But the the 110 parking stalls that are going to be underground and surface u is a very adequate number of stalls to be put in place on that small piece of land. And that's impressive from and it's why it's going to go up u u I think is it five stories or four stories but it's going to be a tall type of project that way and I I I I just see where there's been give and take and we've done that through this type of a of a planned unit development which was required because of its uniqueness but in in cooperating and working with the developer we are going to have uh it looks like from what I recall $15 million of valuation on that small piece of of less than 2 acres of land. And and it will be a tiff

project, but it's going to uh it's going to allow people to live uh in that area of town. And it's going to create some benefits for our city by having um uh residential growth in that area uh which is not far from downtown. and it's going to be a higherend type of um development as far as the amen the amenities that they want to put there for those that choose to be tenants in that project. So I I think there's been good g give and take and I'm uh I'm just complimenting the developer and our city uh people that have worked with them to make this happen because it it has a a lot of things that make it very unique to our city. I think Samong is Fred. I think Mr. Smith has been on the whole time. Apologize. Okay. Sorry. Anybody else on B? Okay. I guess we'll take a roll with Mr. Smith as he comes on. Berg

I Blanky. Hi Smith.

Hi Arnett. Hi Wetszel. Hi Moldenhower. Hi Davis. Hi hi. Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. It should be yet. I apologize. You probably know why I wasn't allowing people to unmute themselves, but okay. Next, see the Ordinance 2604, amend chapter 550, official zoning map of the city of Watertown to reszone 510, South Second Street, pin number 291-0815-0424-040 for multif family residential MR8 zoning district to central business CB zoning district classifications. sponsored by myself and the planning commission on its first reading. Mayor, yes. I'll move for ordinance 2604. Okay. Motion by Davis.

Seconded. Second by Berg. Okay. Questions, comments on it.

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Blanky. I know I'm sounding like a broken record on this, but I will again point out that I feel it's inappropriate to move forward at this point with this particular reasoning because the project itself has not been voted on by the council as a whole. So to reszone the land before even deciding if this is something we want to move forward with a project that will have a long-term budgetary impact on the city because it will be adding parking and a structure. I think that is inappropriate at this time. Hang on, Mr. B. We need somebody to adopt Spencer then. Oh, maybe I won't take Spencer. All right. I haven't sent one of these for like 45 years. I'd like to introduce Abby. Abby is the assistant director of the Watertown Department of Public Health. Abby, you want to talk about your seat belt program you have here? Yeah. So, our car seat program focuses on car seats for families. We do car seat checks year round to talk with families about how their car seat is installed as well as their heart of safety by appointment. Three out of four car seats aren't installed properly. So, we want to make sure families know how to utilize their car seats. So, like I said, we do car seat checks here in our parking lot year round, making sure that people are coming to the health department drive in nice and slow, look

for those families and those kiddos. Okay. Well, Abby, thanks for sharing. Appreciate everything you do here.

Thank you. Now I have to show in tomatoes. I guess I can zoom back up. Let's read across America week this this week. So I went to uh my old classroom yesterday and read to the school. In Wisconsin, we have strict laws that help provide extra safety for children. Speed limits are set for 15 miles per hour when children are present. Speeding violations are often doubled. We require caution guards and place signs to yield for pedestrians abundantly in their schools. I've said many times the government's most important job is to protect its citizens. The two biggest accomplishments from this past year's budget in terms of safety was a new police captain position and the new fire marshal position. These jobs help save lives. period. The elderly and our youth are the most vulnerable in our city. Protecting them from bodily injury is this council's most important job. I've dedicated my life to helping the youth of our community. 25 years teaching when nearly half of our car seats are misused in the state and crashing mainly in cause of child death. Structured car seat training programs directly prevent injuries and fatalities. This addition for a drive-through service will ensure children do not run out into parking lot or rolled while their parents are being trained and trained in proper car seat installation. Allow for a safe space during inclement weather. It will also serve as a place for people to obtain medical treatment while allowing our staff to be in the outside air free of viruses and bacteria. A little more I'll stop it there. I know there's facility site that was done and uh part of that having things done in this building, the street department, park and wreck and health

department on there. That was probably about 18 months ago I think. Um health department was supposed to have a lobby. It was at that point like 7 or 8,000 probably over 900,000 now what they increased costs. So having this drive-thru going in would probably make sure that that structure is probably never going to be added to it. just kind of talked to Carol a few times about it. So that was Carol's granddaughter in that video. Um I spend try to spend time getting all the employees in the city. So I um John David was on board with this project and you know other ways of having kids contained when they're 2, three years old and making sure they go out in traffic. There's other things you could do, but my biggest thought is saving lives in the city, and I can't fathom the thought of little kid getting hurt. So, I'll leave my comment there, and I'll go over you, Mr. Bird.

Uh, Mr. Mayor, thank you for um for a little bit of that insight you just provided. for me. Um, if the if the health department and the health board have recommended that we acquire that lot, which we did, to change the zoning to prepare for some eventual type of use that's going to benefit the health department at that location, uh, they are using that building to the fullest extent. right now. Their needs uh going forward are going to continue to grow in different ways. To to to have that lot and to have it available for uh you know current and future needs, including a building structure of some type that's going to uh complement uh the building that we currently have is part of being foresighted and and looking into the future in a in a way that we need to do as a city. um that that lot doesn't have a um a use for our city uh in its current zoning of multifamily and to change it to central business zoning to allow for changes that we can actually eventually use more more fully is is being um foresighted as a council and I think that's our job to do.

Mr. turn that. Go ahead. Thank you.

I think it's unfortunate the art of compromise has been more or less lost through much of our governing process. And I'd like to think that at the local level, it still has a chance. and an example of any kind of project like this. It can be portrayed as one extreme or the other. I'm not here to say it's completely unnecessary. It's not what I'm here to say, but I think there's probably something in between that would be a more suitable solution to the issues that have been highlighted. And I'd like to think that we can have that conversation without the issues being portrayed as literally life and death. And so I'd like to encourage us to look for a path forward on issues like this that aims towards somewhere in the middle and aims toward a tone of conversation that is around the middle um rather than relying on portraying the extremes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Arnut. Miss Davis.

Um, Mr. Blanky, I hear your your contention there that um, but I don't see the way that this particular project has proceeded any different than any of these other development projects. They generally are approved in pieces along the way. So, for instance, um, the health department has discussed this. It has two alders on that on I'm sorry, the um, public health commission has discussed it. two elders are on that. We've had multiple discussions, thinking through different options, thinking through the the best feasible option, the most affordable option, um using funds that are already available and not a part of our tax levy. So that has happened over a series of meetings. The finance committee has been involved in different approval processes um whether it's budget adjustments or so on. So all of these different committees working together have come to a point where now the next part is is just a change of zoning. Um the other place uh the other uh parts of the project are falling into place and it's proceeding. And so I I think that this has proceeded very similarly to any other project that even the ones that we're voting on tonight in the same way. Okay. All right. Megan

Davis. Hi. Lampy. Hi. Berg. Hi. Blanky. No. Smith. I Arnett. No. Wetszel. Hi. Moldenhower. I. Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. On D. Right. The ordinance 26-05 adopt amendments to the 2019 save water town comprehensive plan amendment from central mixeduse FLU and two family residential FLU to institutional FLU pins 291-0815-0424-43 291-815- 0424- 042 Also 291-815- 0424-4 4 0 291- 0815- 0424- 011 and 291- 0815- 0424-009 sponsored by myself and the planning commission on its first reading. Miss Davis,

I'll move for ordinance 2605. Okay. Motion by Davis. Second. Second by Berg. Okay. Questions, comments on it? Mr. Mayor, Mr. Thank you. Go ahead.

Due to the fact that this comprehensive plan encompasses several other areas and there is a cost associated with opening up the code which is why they're grouped together. Um this also includes the senior center and other parcels to get them to the correct uh zoning for the comprehensive plan. And I would like to make a motion to amend to remove 510 South Second Street, parcel pin 291- 0815-0424-40 from this ordinance. That's the middle one correctly, Mr. Blanky. Yeah. Third of five.

Okay. Yeah. Motion blankie wants to remove that particular parcel number from D. A motion by Blankie. Second. Second by Barnett. Okay. On the motion. Any questions, comments on it? Mr. Lampy, I just happen to be very confused at the moment. So, we are moving forward with zoning for that parcel, but we're talking about exempting it from the land use plan. That's That's the amendment. That's the amendment. Yes.

Why would we do that? Mr. You want to add or we can ask Mr. Zerus where that would be? for the same reasons I've stated. Okay. All right. Any more questions, comments on the motion? Okay. Roll call on it. Blanky. I Smith. No. Arnett, hi. Wetzel. No. Moldenhower. Hi. Davis. No Lampy. No

Berg. No motion failed. We have eight now with Mr. Smith. Right. Just Okay. Well, that leaves us the original one that was motioned by Davis and second by Berg. Any more questions, comments? Okay. Okay. Davis. I Lambi. Hi. Berg. I blankie. No Smith. I No Wetzel. Hi Moldenhower. No. Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. E. Ordinance 26-06 amend chapter 550 official zoning map reszone lot zero gateway drive pin number 291-0815-1631-00003 for multif family residential MR8. So in district is single family residential SR4. So ind district classification sponsored by myself and the plan commission on its first reading. Mr. Blankie, I'll move for 2606. Okay. Motion by Blanky. Second by Lampy. Okay. Questions, comments on it? Mr. Berg.

Mr. Mayor, I just want to make the the comment that I I'm a commercial broker in Watertown. I do I do a lot of residential and commercial, but on this particular uh property, I'm I'm trying to sell it. I have a listing. I have a buyer, and so I'm obviously abstaining from and I don't want to contribute toward any further discussion. I haven't had anything to do with this project up till now other than having the listing on it.

Okay. So, you're saying you're planning on abstaining is what you're saying. Okay. Thank you. We'll make sure he we'll voice a yes no and abstain. Okay. Anybody else on E? Okay. Roll call, please. Blanky. Hi. Smith. Hi. Arnett, I Wetszel. Hi. Moldenhower. Hi. Davis. Hi. Lampy. Hi. Berg. Abstain. Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. Next uh F last one under ordinances. Ordinance 26-07 adopt the plan development PD overlay district general development plan GDP precise implementation implementation plan PIP for lot zero gateway drive pin number 291-0815-1631- 003 sponsored by myself and the planning commission on its first reading. Mr. Blanky. Move for 2607. Okay. Got a motion by Blankie. Second by Wetszel. I'm abstaining for the same reason.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Blanky. I Smith. Hi. Arnett. Hi. Wetzel. Hi. Moldenhower. Hi Davis. Hi Lampy. I Berg abstain. Motion carried. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to resolutions then. Mr. Mayor. Yeah. Point of order. Um two corrections to our agenda. Um under resolutions item B. Okay. The sponsor I believe is incorrectly listed as board. It should be Arnett. Okay. So noted

and on E, the uh dollar amount is listed as $926,828 and it should be $822,963. Okay, we got a motion to make a change of resolutions which you guys will then have a chance to vote on separately, but just to get the change officially on the sheet here to change B to have our net as a sponsor and B and change the overall number of apologize here under E going from 926,828 to $822,963. Is that correct, Mr. Blankie? Yes. Okay. A motion by Blankie to make those two changes. We vote on those resolutions afterwards, but just make the changes. I think everyone's got sheets in front of them today. So, yes. Okay. Was that a second, Mr. Lampy?

That is, mayor. Thank you, Mr. Lampy. Okay. Questions, comments on that. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Okay, Mr. Smith, apolog There was uh some some small things that were found as being correct. We're making changes right now for them. Okay. Yep.

Okay. All right. We'll go to a uh exhibit 9828 resolution authorizing issuance and establishing parameters for the sale of not to exceed 4,900,000 general obligation promisary notes sponsored by myself and the finance committee. Okay, Mr. Mr. Lampy. I'll move for exhibit 9828. Motion by Lampy. Second. Second. Okay. Second by Smith. Okay. Any questions on it? You got Mr. Bird?

Yeah. I just want to uh give a reminder again to our council and the public that might be watching that we did add 400,000 to our our intent of 4 a.5 million to uh to give a higher priority to uh street repairs improvements uh this year and that added uh the additional amount to bring it to the 4 million 900,000. But um again this u resolution is showing uh not to exceed 4% but our our um our counselor adviser is giving us reassurance that the likelihood is going to be uh some percentage on interest less than 3% and he's showing an example of 2.89 89 uh% and uh and even so over eight years with that lower interest rate we're still going to end up spending on interest portion 777,000. So it clearly uh is a huge expense to take on uh borrowing to take care of these projects. But uh the rationale has always been with our city for projects that have a long-term benefit beyond a 1, two, or three type that they uh typically get borrowed funds so that the people into the future that pay for that improvement uh can be the ones that um that'll also benefit from it. And that's uh the rationale behind uh borrowing instead of having money put aside in a reserve account. Uh by doing that, you you actually put a lot of burden on existing property owners and taxpayers. Uh this approach spreads out that burden over the 8-year period and lets those that pay the bill get the benefit of that improvement. So that's the rationale behind why we consistently do borrow for projects like this.

Mayor Brad is on Zoom if we have any questions. Okay. Oh, for the the loan it was. Okay. Okay. I think so far we're good though. Okay. All right. We're good. Megan Lampy. Hi, Berg. Hi, Blanky. Hi, Smith. Hi, Arnett. Hi, Wetzel. Hi, Moldenhower. Hi, Davis. Hi.

Motion carried. Okay, thank you. Next resolution uh B, exhibit 9829, resolution to award 2026 pavement marking contract numbers 1 through 26 to Brickline Incorporated for $20,6925 sponsored by Alder Arnette and the public works commission which is the only thing changed on that resolution. Is that a motion Mr. Net or no? Okay. Motion by Wetzel. Second by Mullenower. Okay. Is this 9829 only or others?

I think. Right. I'll take the 9829 right now. I think uh let's make sure we take maybe the ones are changed. Let's just change take those individually for sure. Okay. Okay. Questions, comments on it. Okay. All right. Megan Wzel. Hi. Moldenhower. Hi. Davis. Hi. Lampy. Hi. Berg. Hi. Blanky. Hi. Smith. Hi. Arnett. Hi. Motion carried.

Okay. Next. C. Exhibit 9830. Resolution to award 2026 route and crack fill contract numbers 2 through 26 to Thunder Road LLC for $54,380 sponsored by Alderman Net and Public Works Commission. Uh slight changes you saw in the resolution that was in your on your desk when you came in. The last little part to be omitted and runway maintenance account 015453-9 for 20,000. That part was not supposed to be in there. So with that part stricken out, that's what we're looking for for this resolution. Move for 9830.

Okay. A motion by Blanky, a second by Lampy. Okay. Megan. Blankie. Hi. Smith. Hi. Hi. Wetzel. Hi. Moldenhower. Hi. Davis. Hi. Ay. Hi. Berg. Hi. Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. We're on. We're on D, correct? Yeah. Exhibit 9831, resolution to award 2026 seal coding contract numbers 3 through 26 to Scott Construction for $94,165.95, sponsored by Alderman Arnett and the public works commission. The change on that one, the numbers were were flipped. So, under the alternate bid on the top uh right hand corner should be $20,82345 and under the uh base bid on the bottom left corner should be $74,142.60. I believe those numbers were accidentally flipped around in the original packet. So, those two changes in yellow on your paper. I'll look for a motion for that resolution.

That motion. Okay. Motion by Davis. Second. Second by Blankie. Okay. Okay. Right. Go ahead Davis. Hi. Hi. B. Hi. Blinky. I Smith. Hi. Arnett. Hi. Wetzel. Hi. Moldenhower. Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. Next under E, exhibit 9832, resolution to award 2026 annual street and utility construction contract numbers 4 through 26 to forest landscaping for as Mr. Blank asked $822,963 sponsored by Alderette and the public works commission. And if you look at the resolution that was given to you in front of you, um the fifth and sixth one for Katherine Court should be stricken out. And that amount of 87845 and 16,20, those two amounts equal what Alderman uh uh Blankie made for a motion for approximately $13,000 less. Mr. Blankie,

I'll move for exhibit 9832. Okay. Motion by Blankie. Second. Second by Davis. Okay, Mr. Berg.

Yeah, I'm asking again. I I know they uh the committee works on getting competitive bidding. Tell me um you know why we we're not able to on on a very basic type of of contract that a lot of other contract would would be out to try to hopefully be considered for. What what gets in the way of not getting a second or a third contractor to uh to bid on such a large dollar amount that we're going to give to this uh forest landscaping which has been a very good contractor for us but I'd like to have him earn it by a competitive bid instead of being given that amount without. So, all I'll offer is you're seeing one, two, three, four, five, six, seven projects in front of you pretty much all put out to bid at similar times. All out to the same contractors in many cases for some of these. All right. The other contractors chose to not bid on this particular project. That wasn't uh our choice to not ask. we put out to the same ones and they chose not to on this particular one. So I it's not not because of what we didn't do, it's because of what the contractors chose not to do. Uh that said, as I put in the notes for the public works minutes, we did compare these rates to the historical rates that we've paid for this work in the last few years. And applying what we understand to be the general inflationary factors in play for this type of project for this year, it is well in line with that expectation. So, I certainly hope that come next year we have a similar contract out and we'll get more bids, but we can't guarantee that we're going to get more bids.

And nor do we know until we open that we don't have multiple bids and at this point in time we can't go. It would not be appropriate for us to go back out.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hernette. I I would say I I appreciate the the response, but I would be asking the question. I know some of the contractors that are not for the what whatever the reason bidding. Uh I would think if nothing else, our staff are asking the question. Uh at least we can't get them to to bid if they don't want to, but we can maybe understand why. And if there's something that is in the specs that are written that make them not want to uh do a bid, then we can take that into account going forward as a way of improving and incentivizing a contractor to come forward instead of giving it to a reliable contractor like forest landscaping.

Okay. Okay. Megan Blanky. Hi Smith. Hi Arnett. Hi Wetzel. Hi Moldenhower. Hi Davis. Hi Lampy. Hi Burke. I motion carried. Okay. Thank you. We on F. Exhibit 9833, resolution to award 2026 storm sewer clean and televising contract numbers 5 through 26 to Green Bay Pipe and TV LLC for $129,28853 sponsored by Alderman Annette and the public works commission for 9833.

Okay. Motion by Wetszel, second by Mullenhower. Okay, Wetzel. I'm sorry, Mr. Burton. I'd like to ask before we vote on this to maybe have our chairman give an explanation, but if we're looking at 9833, why is why the huge disparity between uh Green Bay Pipe and T and TV LLC 105,000 versus uh National Power Rotting Corporation for 418,000. Why? Why that huge uh variance between the top and bottom?

Yeah, Chicago prices in two words. It's Chicago prices and they just put out bids on pretty much a ton of things and they'll not expect to win most of them. But they're trying to hit the lottery, Mr. They're hoping they were the only bid. Okay, that's for its um Yeah. Okay. Glad they weren't okay. All right, Megan. Wetzel. Hi, Moldenhower. Hi, Davis. Hi, Lampy. Hi,

Berg. Hi, Blanky. Hi, Smith. Hi, Arnett. I motion carried. Okay. Thank you. G. Mr. Mayor, if it your pleasure. Yes. Perhaps we could take 34 and 35 together.

Okay. I'll read them together. I'll read them together. Then I'll look for exhibit 9834 resolution to W 2026 uh by Tuminous Surfacing Contract number 6 through 26 to Wolf Paving Company for $1,141,831.95. And also exhibit 9835 resolution to award LRIP 2026 27 by 2 minutes surfacing project 2026 marketway contract number 10 through 26 to Wolfpave Company Incorporated for $29,919.33 both sponsored by Alet and the public works commission. Yes.

And the committee of you know how much I love by two minutes surfacing. So I'm very happy to move on this motion. Okay. Motion by Arnette. So, Mr. Net would like to make motions for all the resurfacing jobs. I'll second it. Okay. Second by M with those two together. Questions, comments. I was looking at the numbers. Okay. All right. Thank you, Megan. Arnett, I wet. Hi, Moldenhower. Hi, Davis. Hi, Lampy. I Berg I Blinky I Smith I

motion carried. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next it comes to comments and suggestions from citizens present. Anybody wishing to speak? Uh second parts for agenda items only have anybody. Okay. Okay. And I'll look for someone other on that to uh make a motion to adjurnn. Motion by W second by Mullenhower. Okay. Questions, comments on that. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. Okay. Thank you, Fred.

Yep. Thank you. Recording stopped.