Common Council - Regular Meeting

Yes, he does come by us. Yes. Probably this one here. For me?

For me. Okay. The next one's for me. You're busy. Good. I'm all on my break. I've got more I'm on my break. Alexa Oh, yep. What? Yeah. Okay, I'd like to call up Pastor Rev Ray from Advent Christian for an invocation. And Pastor Ray, thanks for coming uh two weeks in a row. Extra last last time as well. Hopefully I don't get tired of me. Scripture reminds us First of all then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and mayors and older people and department heads and chiefs and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior. He desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Father God, we do thank you again for this opportunity to uh share with you all of these people who have given of their lives to serve this community. For all these older persons and for the mayor for all the work that they do, for the department heads and those that support them. Father, I just uh am amazed sometimes at how much time and effort they give for this community to make it better. And so, Lord, we do thank you for our community. We are proud of it and we are glad to be here. And now, Father, I just pray your spirit would come to bring wisdom and understanding and patience to all who have gathered here. Bless their business and bless this time that they have together. Father, we give it over to you in the name of your son. Amen. Amen. Thank you.

I'd like to call tonight's Common Council meeting to order. It's 7:03 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5th. Megan, you take the roll, please. Davis. Lampi. Here. Burke. Here. Natecky. Here. Winky. Here. Smith. Here. Arnett. Here. Massie. Here. Moldenhauer. Here. Okay, thank you. Could you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. First, I need to join minutes of the Common Council meeting from April 21st. Mr. Smith. I move for the adoption of the minutes um of April 21st.

Okay, motion by Smith. I second by Berg. Okay. Mr. Smith, go ahead. Yeah, just one minor thing. Under the section election of plan commission members, uh there is a delineation of the votes of each person. While it indicates that I nominated Alderperson Berg, um the listing uh just inadvertently leaves out the vote that I cast for Alderperson Berg. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Okay. Anything else? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Okay, next comments and suggestions from citizens present. Members of the public who wish to address the council must first request in writing before the meeting begins. Each individual requesting to address the council will be permitted up to 3 minutes for their comments. Members wishing to speak during the public comment section may only speak once per meeting. Okay. All right, move on to section and reports. We have the plan commission minutes from April 13th, site plan review minutes from April 13th, finance committee minutes from April 13th, and RDA minutes from April 15th, and sorry, and public works minutes from April 28th. Okay, move on then. Uh seven unfinished business, review and take action approval of settlement agreement from C. Hamlin. Mr. Arnett, yes. I'll move for approval. Okay, motion by Arnett. Second by Berg. Okay.

Questions, comments on that? Do a roll call? Yeah, we should. We'll do roll. Okay. Arnett? Yes. Hasey? Hi. Holdenauer? Hi. Davis? Lampi? Hi. Berg? Hi. Netsky? Hi. Plankey? Hi. Smith?

Hi. Motion carried. Okay. Thank you. Next uh So, communications recommendations, we have the fire department monthly report for March. Chief's here. Ms. Davis? Um just a quick question. Uh let's see. It must be the page after your notes after your comments. It has the incident count. It says March 2026 calls is 221. And then next to that it says March incidents by year beginning with 23 and then going to 24 to 526. But if the calls are 221, so should that have been under 2026 or did are the numbers just misplaced? I may have had a typo. I usually do these pretty late at night. Um I can look it up and send you an email with the correct ones. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry about that. That's okay. I think the total is 2.5. Which is what you have under under 2026 somewhere. Give me 1 second. I can pull it up and tell you what it really was. All right. Incidents by station. Looking for March.

245 incidents in March. Okay. Sorry about that.

No, it's okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh next police department 2025 annual report. Okay. No questions and we'll move on to uh Main Street program quarterly update by Stephanie Brewer. Hi Stephanie. Hi. Good evening. Um for those of you that are new to the council, um my name is Stephanie Brewer. For the past year I've been the executive director of the Main Street program. Um just actually celebrated my anniversary about 2 weeks ago. So, um let me just tell you a little bit. I know some have already heard this, but a little bit about Main Street so that you know what we are about. Our mission um focuses on four pillars and they are economic vitality for our downtown, historic preservation, beautification and design, and promotion and community and engagement. And when I come and give a quarterly report, I focus on those four areas and give you a couple of um things of note under each of those. Um I was asked a question the last time I was here as to um how much utilization we have of our downtown properties and I have those numbers for you tonight. Um 196 businesses in 36 blocks. Right now 10 are empty. Um one will be filled in the next couple of months. They're working on a renovation. Um, so we are at 95% utilized right now. Um, so let me just go through my four pillars. Economic vitality. Um, Watertown Main Street program has remained focused on strengthening and supporting our downtown business community. Since February, um, 60 business visits

have been completed allowing for direct connection, support, and relationship building with local business owners. We've also celebrated and supported the opening of four new businesses in the downtown district contributing to continued growth and vibrancy. In addition, um, Main Street launched an ongoing marketing initiative that downtown is not dead, it's thriving and growing. And on Thursday nights, we have been featuring a social media post that highlights and promotes local businesses. And this effort, again, is just reinforcing the positive messaging and encouraging community support for downtown Watertown. Historic preservation. Efforts to celebrate and preserve Watertown's historic assets continue to grow. Um, I I had the opportunity just recently to host a fourth grade class visit, um, from Calvary Baptist Christian School to the Schantz Building. Talked to them about the history of the building. We talked about, um, the four pillars of Main Street. We talked about economic vitality, and it was interesting to hear the fourth graders' responses, um, to what they thought economy and economic vitality meant. And then I encouraged them that if they are so inclined, that maybe they would own a business on Main Street someday. So, that was a really precious, uh, time for me with them. We have also established contact with a company that specializes in historic building renovation, which could possibly open the door for future collaboration and investment in preserving the architectural character of our community. Uh, Main Street is pleased to report that $21,275 in grant funding has been committed to support local projects. And again, I uh the last time I was here I gave you kind of the process of our grant program. So, this was based on applications that were given to us by a deadline. And then we looked at those applications and established um how much grant funding we could afford to give them.

With the generous contribution of $5,000 from the city of Watertown, several impactful improvements are underway. And the ones that we've identified to use the $5,000 for is the Charles David and Sons. Um they are replacing their awnings. A door replacement and painting project for um Fiesta Las Margaritas. And a new door installation at Amato Juniors. So, those four project three project, sorry, um we will use the $5,000 from the city for. Main Street continues to enhance the visual appeal of downtown through thoughtful beautification efforts. Uh our local art banner program has officially launched, which is bringing in some unique community-inspired artwork to our streetscapes. Those will go up right before um Memorial Day. And planning is underway for seasonal downtown flower arrangements. We're working with uh Watertown Greenhouse again with a community planting day scheduled. And Main Street is also actively recruiting volunteers to assist in the watering of the plants throughout the summer. And then finally, promotion and community engagement. We remain committed to creating meaningful experience that draw residents and visitors downtown. In partnership with the Watertown Area Chamber of Commerce, uh we just co-hosted the successful whiskey and wine walk bringing increased foot traffic and visibility to downtown businesses. We had 300 participants that were walking along uh Main Street and in our district that day. We've also hosted successful events such as the Luck of the Irish Bingo, which funds our grant program, the morning mixer, and then the Main Street meet-ups, and also the Main Street Forum. We just had that last week. And that's where we celebrate everything that we've done in the last year. And then we are working with the chamber

and tourism to bring the big pop-up events on August 8th. This came when we heard that Riverfest was canceling everything but the carnival. We used tourism's placer AI to figure out who was going to be most affected by that cancellation. And it was established that our downtown businesses and restaurants would be most affected. And so our idea is to close down Main Street from car traffic, but to have vendors, a vendor fair of sorts going on, but we're also adding other activities as well. Rock climbing wall, miniature golf, possibly some basketball hoops to do some some fun um things with that. So stay tuned, more to come on all that we are trying to bring for that day. Is it a one-day or two-day? It will be a one-day event. Um Friday night and Saturday night, I believe that there's another group that's trying to get some concerts together. And then on Sunday there's a car show at the airport that is also going to have some bingo, a concert, obviously the cars, food, and so on. So community is really coming together on this weekend, and I'm very excited to see all the people wanting to collaborate and partner to bring some fun things to Watertown on that weekend. We're also underway in planning for the Music on Main concert series at Benson Family Town Square, which we are providing regular opportunities for community community gathering and entertainment. Uh the plan right now is to have our Main Street Treats food booth that we normally have at Riverfest. And then we will also be advertising QR codes to the menus for restaurants downtown as well in

partnership with those businesses. Um the farmers market continues to grow. We're now featuring over 50 vendors and the farmers market after hours events will include live music to further enhance the downtown experience. Missy's really doing a wonderful job cultivating those vendors and building relationships with them. I would like to give a sincere appreciation and gratitude to the city of Watertown for its continued support and investment in our downtown. Um together these efforts reflect a strong collaborative commitment to economic growth, historic preservation, beautification, and community and engagement in Watertown. Do you have any questions? Yeah, Stephanie, I want to give you a a nice compliment by uh you're being proactive looking at the fact that we've got a gap or a void uh during the time that Riverfest was our main entertainment and for you and for the chamber and the Main Street program and others involved to be proactive and come up with a an alternate type of activity downtown to bring people down there where the where the you were you're telling us that they were the ones impacted um in sort of a a significant way and and because of that you're trying to bring them back um some of the business they would have otherwise gotten by your involvement. So, nice job. And I I do appreciate it. I think we we need those types of uh approaches of being proactive and and and um you know, taking on a task that is not easy and coming up with ideas with other people involvement. It uh it's what tells us about our community in a positive way that we need to uh uh be proud of. So, thank you.

There's a great team at 519 East Main Street. I I'm glad you Thanks for bringing the tourism. Yeah, it's a great team.

I I I I I I think that we could have actually just uh wrote it off and said this is going to be sort of a down year and and people would have probably just accepted that as being, you know, the reality, but for you and for the people at the chamber and others involved to to react the way you have is it says a lot about you and and the other people that are involved in a real positive way and it tells about our town that they don't want this to happen. So, I'm I'm I'm I'm very pleased with what you did there. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next uh mayor presentation, role of common council. Mr. Blinky, go ahead. Mr. Welkum. Can I ask you as a uh question answer yourselves? Cuz we're all elected. What made you run? So, answer to yourself. Getting over a cold. I haven't been sick for a couple years, but I'm not have access to the schools as much, so my immune system is not as good, so can over sudden my voice horses up, but I'll see if it works here, okay. I went to uh Springfield with my wife this past uh weekend. Well, Abraham Lincoln was always kind of you know, my favorite president. All my students always knew that. And his house in the background there, I never realized that they close off like the entire block. There's like 20 houses that are are kept as historical.

I'm usually looking I will I face this way a lot. I look at the former mayors of Watertown. And they went to high school with Emily's sister and worked with her mom at the middle school. John and his wife Nora was my midweek school teacher at Good Shepherd. He was my baseball coach. I graduated with his son Aaron. Just went out with him a couple days ago. Ron was my one of my confirmation teachers. His son Ryan was a year younger than me in school. Fred I know a little bit. Serving with him. Uh he's known my dad for many years with VFW and Marine Corps League. Mayor Lenz gave me my Eagle Scout project back in 1990. Helped me connect with John Stieber their project on Main Street. The one that went back Robert White the mayor back in the '60s. He was my merit badge counselor. He had a his uh realty company was across the street. And he uh was my merit badge home counselor for citizenship community, citizenship nation merit badges. And the reason I became a teacher, I had a girl I had great teachers, but between White and Lenz, so reason I became a teacher. I'll put this back. Used to do PowerPoints standing up. I'm usually sit in town. But that's me at my Eagle Scout ceremony back in 1990 and behind my mom is Mayor Lenz and next to him is Randy Raki, at the time was our state assemblyman, and Barbara Lormor was our state senator. She went up losing. She won the election. It was October 1990, so I think they both came as elected a month later. She went up losing 4 years later, a guy named Scott Fitzgerald. My mom was the first translator in Watertown.

She started doing it like I think 1988, 1987. She was still doing it I think you you took the job here in the city, Dave. Uh but she interpreted for the city, with the police, at the hospital, even for courts. Had a the police would pick her up at sometimes 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. Sometimes for things that were maybe negative, but sometimes they're positive, things like someone having a baby. I had a connection with the city at a young age and saw departments in a different way. I was in high school, there was a a person in from Watertown that was killed in the uh Persian Gulf War. My dad was wounded in Vietnam, uh stationed in San Juan, met my mom in Puerto Rico. They moved here back in 1972. But I chose never to join the military. Uh my dad gave me a lot of stories of what he faced in Vietnam and I guess after losing a a well, person I was in Scouts with who was a couple years older than me, I chose never to go in the military at all. I got sworn in back in 2013, I believe. Ken's wearing a nice blue shirt there, I think. I had ran for council cuz I had saw some things and voice of people that I that inspired me a little bit. I thought maybe I could make a change. I always thought that this could be role models like you think in the entire city like any place that's going to be a role model for the city probably has to come from this room. I see Walt Drubers in the background of picture two. He was the first city attorney that was when he was hired. I connect with him sometimes now and have lunch once in a while. That's my connection I have with John David talking to him. And I I lost an election he said I never

to run again for council and I haven't but I was still involved in city politics and different boards. I learned to vote for the greater good. So I always thought myself like in the clouds and facing water town a little bit and I never vote my own personal opinions. Try to do what's best for everybody. Sometimes isn't easy. Which most in this room already know. My son Jayden is a pilot. He's had to join the Air Force. I watched him graduate from Lackland December 22nd and seeing that kind of inspired me more and him joining the military. And I was something I could do more and four months later someone approached me to run for mayor. Something I thought I about doing but kind of ended about six seven years ago. It kind of inspired me a little bit. Afterwards my younger son joined the army. I got two in the military right now. Jameson I can't see. He's not allowed to leave the base. I can't see him. But he joined cuz of his brother. Here's his My wife's dad was a navy pilot. And my dad's a marine and I got sons in the army air force. So, I want to be each branch. But I guess Jameson saw his own calling. I've been going to different churches for a couple of years now. I was at uh Trinity and um Faith Lutheran this past Sunday. But I think going to those churches I see the best within Watertown and things that are going on that they provide for the community. See people at their best. And over the last couple of years as

well, like I find myself even just looking at going to grocery store and watching families and thinking, "How could I help them better?" How can I help them? Sometimes I just do people watching. Kind of makes you think a little bit. Well, I took oaths that helped 24,000 lives. Plus uh Well, looking at the Chiefs, the tens of thousands who live in the neighboring communities. And I know how often the police and especially the fire department is busy going in the rural areas of our of our community. A lot of people in the city I mean, trust us to do make things happen in this room that they might not understand. They trusted all of us. And I started thinking going back to my own time on council, too, and I I had a share after our last meeting, but um I was changed on board assignments and I thought maybe I had done something wrong, but I just changed and I had a I'm going to call him Mr. Smith here, but I had a conversation with him. I remember the day was after Christmas, so it was December 26th, 2023 I met with Mr. Smith. And he shared things with me um that I think he knew from John David and made me realize it I was changed off a particular board uh maybe learn something else. And they have plans for me to do something else. To teach in my path was always kind of easy. Do what's best for the kids, for the classroom. Every I could. Try to get best out of them. I try to teach you myself right now. I got cuz it's always I was best at doing, so whether Chief's showing me around. Usually if we have students that come in

the building, they always want to see the jails. That's the first thing. But I have an engineer. So actually the picture on the left here one of my former students who was a intern this past summer was actually teaching my current class. He came here to visit us. But do anything for kids. I was just at a Pioneers group yesterday at St. Mark's and they asked to speak and they asked me some questions. Picture I was teach uh reading to first graders at St. John's a couple weeks ago. And St. John's fifth graders were I came up 2 days later. I'm trying to teach and get to know all the staff really well. Whether I get Sometimes do ice cream ordinances for the kids. I wanted to share something. Oh, see if it opens up. Yeah. I'll tell you a story after this.

I think that was March 18th. So we had that big snowstorm that happened on the 16th. The guys are salting and plowing that Sunday night for many hours, came back Monday for like a 12-hour shift, came back Tuesday for another 11-hour shift cleaning up. Went to work Wednesday, they'd already worked 40 hours before working that day. They came back that night. I had local businesses want you know want snow removed. So it was kind of cuz it was going to warm up that next weekend. So I didn't know which way to go with it. And he said to have him move the snow off Main Street. It was a pretty big process, 14 guys. I don't want to make that call and have them remove the snow alone. So I went there that night and was with them for several hours to see what that process was like. And so we hear things on social media and I really honestly think few hundred people will say things negative on social media, but I think by all means there's 23,000 people. Like my own own mother-in-law just not happy with things that happened. My way of teaching that got like 17,000 hits, something like that. Try to make it going to know all the staff. I saw I think I cut this all. Panchman came here a couple weeks ago. It was right before the election, I think. And I think I'll be there right along with you guys looking around the police station. And when I was on council, I had summers off. So, I would go to departments. I remember going down to the water treatment plant. My time was limited, but still trying to get all the departments a little bit. So, I know we got two brand I mentioned last week that we had 105 years of experience on the council. And we got two new brand new people here, but I think things have has changed. So, if you get a chance to see the buildings, it's the best way

to to learn what goes on and to meet the people. And I think a lot of the city employees would like to see what all there's going on and checking it out and see what life is like for them. The water treatment plant picture on on the left there that was empty. I was hoping to maybe take a finance meeting there and take a look, but it was getting too dark too early at that point. We'll try to make some meetings maybe on different sites at times. I'm trying to teach us the public, I guess, what goes on. So, for snow removal and fixing potholes, whatever it is. There's a lot of stuff that goes on that maybe the average citizen doesn't know. We'll try to be empathetic, but always vote for the greater good when you're in here. We have personal beliefs, but try to picture yourself what's best for Watertown in general. But, I needed everyone's help. You know, research and learn. You got ideas, share them. Oh, think uh you know, we trust each other more, we'd be more helpful, too. And my biggest goal was educate the public. Um I think during our uh ethics training Ali mentioned about it uh even social media usage, but I'm hoping uh I try to get pe- keep everything positive. Before we went on the trucks 11:00 at night, I heard one of the employees look at their phone on Facebook, and it's he's they say that what they said, that Wyatt has to do a better job cleaning up the snow from the streets.

The guy just worked 40 hours in 3 days, and went back 11:00 at night. Like I kind of thought social media, like if I hear stuff like it'd bother us, like in here. I never really thought how it'd impact the uh our workers, all of our nine or nine full-time employees that we have. So I'm hopeful, and I think we usually do a pretty good job of it, but if you do something social media, paper, comment, in any way, and try to keep things as positive as positive as possible. Be helpful. My biggest goal was to keep things online uh as uh minimal negativity as possible, so that's my biggest ask. And when you get a chance visit apartments. This building probably see often, but go down to our treatment plant, go down to the parks office, and go places like street department, if you haven't been there. Look at all the equipment. When things come up in the budget ask for replacing, you know, there's one tandem truck there that's was 1997. It's getting pretty old. So, just to give you a good idea for the budget, as well. I didn't send this out to you earlier. I don't think that would help too much, so. I'm going to share why I ran a little bit, but but you guys had your own reasons for it, so I'm happy that you did. But uh teams work better, so I hope uh so if you challenge something in here, it's hopefully it's respectful and think where it's coming from. So There's a reason things come up on the agenda and Give me back control, Mark. I'm lost in your IT guy thing. Okay. All right, that's D, all right.

Now four of you, I taught your kids. And some of the other people know me too well. Anyone can ask, I'll tell you anything you want to know. All right, we'll move on to miscellaneous business. Payroll summary from April 1st to April 14th. Okay. Next under ordinances, ordinance 26-13, ordinance repealing and creating section 65-8 and 65-9 of the city of Watertown general ordinance sponsored by myself from the ethics board on its second reading. Mr. Lampy. I move for ordinance 26-13. Okay. Motion by Lampy. I second I second by Smith, okay. Okay. Questions, comments on it? Uh Mr. Mr. Smith, go ahead.

[clears throat] Yeah, I just have a a um kind of I I think a house cleaning um amendment to a propose [clears throat]

I think when the um mayor put this originally together and it was reviewed and um forwarded to our council by the ethics board uh their effort was to try to include every conceivable combination and um one of the things that I think has has developed as a result of the addition of the special reference to the finance committee and the public works commission in three separate locations here is a redundancy that I think we should just clean up. Um the first appearance of that phrase um except for members of the finance uh committee and the public works commission is under uh pointed officials. Uh that definition excludes elected officials because of the definition of uh the following uh the following paragraph but um it excludes the finance committee and the public works commission. The reason for that is um on the public works commission is a non-elected official, a appointed official which would qualify it under the definition of appointed official. Um everybody on the finance committee is an elected official and falls under the category in sub paragraph two. And the same thing occurs uh down below as it's included in the category of

uh uh appointed officials uh when it's when every member of the finance committee is already included as an elected official and prior to that would have been candidates for that elective status. Um if there ever were to be a citizen member appointed to the finance committee or that our city code changed to allow and include that, then we could add the finance committee back into this ordinance like the public works commission is doing. So, with that as the uh underlying point uh I just like to make an amendment to delete the reference to the finance committee in the three inclusions where it is coupled together with the public works commission uh simply removing the language the public the finance committee and and then uh basically the same thing leaving in place the exception for the public works commission um in each of the three instances where this occurs. I'll second the motion. Motion by Smith to take out the three spots that says finance and we [snorts] got a second by Berg. Okay. On that motion Mr. Nick, go ahead. I think it would be appropriate for the motion to specifically mention the clauses under which that is said so it's not left to any doubt. You I can do that. I have them identified. Um under uh 65 8 A definitions

uh subparagraph one under A uh the last sentence where we remove the words the finance committee and so it would read except for members of the public works commission. Then under B uh subparagraph three uh where it lists the finance committee and the public works commission that we delete uh uh finance committee and and then under subparagraph C2 uh same thing persons to be appointed to the then delete finance committee and and then simply leave in place persons to be appointed to the public works commission. Uh I believe those are the three instances where that would clean this up. Just a quick question for a city attorney is there a reason that you can think of why that language should remain? No, I agree with Mr. Smith on this. If at a future date um council decides to add a citizen member to the finance committee, we can revisit this. Mr. Mr. Lampi. Where is it that we govern what the finance committee is made up of? Is that an ordinance? Is that I believe it is yes, it's an ordinance. I believe in chapter 114 um where it sets forth the who gets appointed to to that body. There is not a separate section that I'm

tracking anywhere else in the code that sets forth the powers of the or it's not under boards that your normal boards and committees chapter within the municipal code. And I'll just add you're correct on that and it also just says a minimum of four. Well, the I mean 114 says minimum of three with each member of the common council serving on at least one standing committee. So, I'm wondering where the language is that says that each one of these committees needs to be made up of common council members. I don't know off the top of my head, but we'll look into it for you. And yet we're voting on something that reps to modify it. I It does state that in ordinance book two. I I'd love if someone could show it to me. I'll look it up.

Yeah. Yes. All right. I have a question. I'm wondering would let's say hypothetically someone citizen member is put onto the finance committee, would that be an appointed official? Yes. Yes, but the way that we've written the Well, the way that we've written this proposed ordinance would be that it doesn't apply to appointed officials as to And that was the direction we got from both ethics board and this body that we didn't want to discourage individuals from participating on our boards and commissions because they have to file the statement of economic interest. Mr. Mayor. Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Berg. I think if you look at the history of public works commission, I at some point in time they did add a private citizen, but it was because of wanting to give perspective on the on the duties of that commission which were very broad and and we've intentionally picked people like Pete Thompson and other people that had backgrounds of expertise that were helpful in in our overall decision. Now, the finance committee is uniquely different. I don't see any scenario that's going to allow for or justify a private citizen on finance. I'm I'm at a point in time where everything is possible, but I think like we're saying at the at the moment, it's not an option. I think uh the change to reflect current status would be the wise thing to do. Um and again, there are unique circumstances that led to that individual being put on public works because of the broad areas of responsibility of public works between water and streets and and everything that they take on, uh it gave a a a citizen perspective to complement the the members of that uh board. So, it's

uniquely different. I got it's 24-8, composition of public works commission, hereinafter referred to as a commission shall consist of four alder persons from the common council and one citizen member from the community at large to take entire charge and management of the said utilities under the general control and supervision of the common council. That one and I know it's in there, too. If finance is five with the mayor and then safety's always had four. I'm I'm I'm sorry, was that was that an ordinance reference or was that a um past resolution? Ordinance number 71-61. Ordinance Okay, different section. Thank you. Yeah. And I'll just number summarize by saying I'm in favor of the amendment. The The reference you found is specifically to the unique status uh which makes it a commission. Whereas both of the other standing committees of the council are exclusively city council members. And so, if it's appropriate to include the finance committee in here, there is no distinguishing between that and the uh public safety committee, but that's not included because it's exclusively a council committee. And so too is the finance. It's a standing committee of the city council as opposed to the public works commission which includes a private citizen. And city attorney said she's familiar with it and I see no problems either if we ever were to appoint a citizen member we can just change the ordinance then. Yeah, so Exactly. Okay. Anything else we can Okay. All right. Smith. Aye. Arnett. This is an amendment only correct?

Amendment only sorry yes. Yes. Aye. Lansing. Aye. Holden-Howard. Aye. Davis. Aye. Berg. Aye. Lampi. Aye. Sentechi. Aye. Blinky. Aye. Motion carried. Okay. All right, so changes the amendment to take the word finance out all three times. Okay, that way we're back to the original resolution with that amendment in place. Ms. Davis. Packet there are series of examples of different statement of interest forms and I'm wondering what the purpose of showing us those examples is. We included those as options for other well other organizations, other municipalities are doing. We don't need to take a vote just a general consensus on what types of information you want included upon the form. Um the the the the form was created by us but just examples on what other people are doing. So the reason I asked is because of letter F. It says form of statement. The person filing any statement of interest required under this subsection shall file each statement approved by the ethics board and provided by the city clerk. I'm wondering where in the ordinance the council is given authority to approve the statement of interest form. It's not. I would say it would be similar to our other forms that's usually handled um at a staff level. So, we definitely would take your feedback. There are other code sections that specifically state throughout the code excuse me what what is specifically listed within uh a form or application. We can add that if you're looking for that. Otherwise, we would just be looking for general consensus. What kinds of information? If we're going to move forward with this

provision of the ordinance, what kinds of information you want upon the form? So, council members, that's kind of concerning that this isn't in the actual ordinance. As it stands right now, the ethics board approves the statement, and then it's provided to the city clerk, and then given to you all, and then the ordinance requires you to complete it. So, that's something we should definitely be concerned about. I think the two options would be to um require council approval, but I would even encourage us to delineate exactly what should be in the statement of interest form. And I think that statement of interest form should align with our current current uh ethics ordinance that actually says what we're held accountable to. That form should align with our current ethics ordinance. So, currently I cannot support this. Didn't we hand it out last meeting? We did. Do we have the form already?

Our current form.

Yeah, okay. Is it Is that one uploaded or It's in the pack That one's in the packet. Okay. So, in response to that, last time we had a council meeting, we voiced concerns with that form. But yet, there's no mechanism for us to change that. That is the form. Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Knight, go ahead. I appreciate the comment made by all of you. I'm still kind of still processing it. I'm not sure where I sit on that one, but a countervailing thought comes to my mind, which is there are times where it is in the best interest of the public for certain powers to not necessarily be vested with the elected officials, uh particularly when it is a matter of oversight of those self same elected individuals. And I don't know. I'm still processing it, but that's the thought that comes to mind, like, should we be allowed to write the rules under which you could you could I don't know. Just a thought. Well, Mr. Knight, be first. Yeah. So, so when we were looking at this, and I had voiced support really for uh the form as written in the overall process as it was before. If I remember the the objections from the last time we we got together, there was one specifically about agreement between some dollar amounts that were specified in in the ethics ordinance and what we saw on the form. Uh the second was a potential objection to uh people who would be serving on these bodies who have clients that uh do a significant amount of work for them in a conventional manner. Uh whether that's

an attorney, whether that's a medical professional. Uh there's a few other instances in which there were some um potential for uh revealing some information that otherwise wouldn't be exposed through a professional relationship. Those were two of the items that I do remember being raised as objections the last time we got together and I I do share um the older people's concerns that those were not necessarily addressed as this ordinance continues to move forward. It was for clan Sorry, Mr. Davis, go ahead. Um Mr. Arnett, I was also having that thought process. But something that struck me was the difference in these forms that were shared with us from a more simplistic forms from Lake Mills to very complex forms and requiring a lot of information. And if we are not to be the ones to approve the form, that's hard for me to wrap my mind around as council member. But I think having the delineations in the code as to the specific questions that will be required on the application before we vote on it should be part of this process. When we had I mean 2 weeks ago there was something like having clients, I think we talked about medical I I don't see it on here. Is it am I missing it? I thought it was taken out. It's on there. Look at page 51.

Oh, clients, okay. Mr. Mayor, so should Yeah. Mr. Mayor, go ahead sir.

Yeah, just um I think there is some value in being more general and not being so specific on the details of what goes into that that statement of of interest. I I think everything we put down at a point in time is going to be active and and accurate at a at that time, but then needing to be adjusted or changed during a period of time that you're on the council. And I I I I filled out one when I came on a year a little over a year ago. And I mean, I I think we all make a living somehow. And I think that that this form, to the extent we rely on that to be accurate and official, is going to be dated at a point in time where it's going to be applicable or not applicable. And then then who's at fault for keeping it current? The ethics board. But I mean the content. When I filled out at a point in time, that's my situation at that point in time. But if I'm on for any length of time, if I get reelected and I'm on here for I've been on for 18 years. You personally. So anytime An example. Right. So anytime and that gets to the amendment language that's in the existing ordinance. So if it's a substantial amendment where you need to add something, change something, delete it, you would just file a new one with the city clerk. When that conflict would exist. And if I didn't because of either oversight or obviously forgetting to, Um, then you're at risk of some type of a of a a violation. And And yet the the overall point is to be uh aware of uh of the risk you're taking and uh give uh disclosure and awareness.

I I I think there's value in uh more of a general type of of um awareness of your limitations and your and your disclosures you need to make people aware of. And I I I don't know if the if the value of of that kind of detail. You You You showed in your example was uh different communities with different levels of detail. It may or may not be of value. Mr. Nachtigal, go ahead. Thank you. So, I feel like much of the prior conversation from the previous meeting was focused on the citizen members of boards and commissions, which by the adjusted language here this evening are excluded. With the exception of the one person that is on public works. So, recognizing that citizen members are not a part of this process, I think that we as elected officials need to be held to a higher standard and I'm comfortable with the provisions of this on that basis. Mr. Mayor, my last comment. Um, we are currently held to the standard in our ethics code. We just went over it in our meeting. $50 gifts and so on and so forth. 10% interest, $3,000 um contract with the city. A statement of interest form should align with our current ordinance. The last time we had this meeting, it someone said, "I don't know where we got this form from." Well, it doesn't need to be that way.

Let's create a form that aligns with the current ordinance, which I we are already all held accountable to. You wish to see it a different type of form, Ms. Davis, or I think my preference would be to turn the ordinance that is already at the ethics ordinance into a form. I am very much in favor of having a vehicle in the form of a form where we declare that we don't have any conflict of interest, but that form should align with the ethics uh code as it's currently stated. So, it would be Excuse me. It would be adding to the proposed subsection F specifying what specifically the form of statement would be if I'm understanding the position correctly. Um the form Yes, approved by the ethics board, but shall include and then you list all the information by ordinance that would be included. That's what we do in other sections of of our municipal code.

[cough] [clears throat] I'm sorry. Go. It's all right, Herb. I'm still thinking through it. Never mind. So, we started talking about it after Mr. Smith made his motion, so we don't we haven't even had it on the on the floor yet really, so I'll entertain a motion to open it up. I don't think we had Yes, we have a move we have a main motion on the second reading that was done by Otto Lampy and Otto Smith. Sorry. Okay.

there was a subsequent motion for the I wrote it in the wrong spot. Sorry. You're right. Lampy did make that motion. Sorry, I had confusion with Smith's motion. Okay. Anything else? Okay. All right, Megan. Lampy. Aye. Berg. Aye. Natukey. Aye. Lenky. Aye. Smith. Aye. Arnett. Aye. Hase. Aye. Mollenhauer. Davis. No. Motion carried. Okay, thank you. I apologize. I wrote my notes in the wrong spot. Okay. Next uh be ordinance 26-14. Ordinance to amend sections 114-3 and 114-7 of the city of Worthington general ordinances sponsored by myself on its second reading. Mr. Smith. Um I would move for the adoption of ordinance 26-14 on its second reading. Okay, thank you. All right, I'm in the right spot this time. Okay. Motion by Smith, second by Lampy. Okay. Ms. Davis. Mayor Stocks, in just a minute after I provide some comments, I am going to make a motion to amend 114-3 to strike letter G. The reason, one of the reasons I plan to make that motion to amend is because letter G is policy. It's a policy statement. And the reason I know it's a policy statement is because it's a policy currently in the policy manual. And as we know, the policy manual uh has to be approved by council for every edit, for every change. The only

difference between letter G and the current policy in the policy manual is the 30-day reporting. So, because it's policy, I believe it belongs in the policy manual and not as an additional duty or responsibility added to this ordinance. If there are individuals who wish to add the 30-day reporting, then they can make an amendment to the policy. That then goes to finance committee for a robust discussion, where they analyze the pros and cons of that. Should it pass, it goes to council. So, that's one of the reasons I'm going to make amendment to strike letter G. But the most important reason why I'm going to make an amendment to strike letter G is because of the concerning and problematic nature of 114-3. This is the place where we have some description of the direct responsibilities of the mayor. I actually want to back you up to 114-2. And earlier this evening, I gave everyone a packet, and I'm kind of work through that packet, and hopefully I'll be able to show you why this is pretty concerning, these two ordinances. 114-2 describes the powers. It says, "All legislative and general ordinance powers shall be vested in the mayor and the common council as prescribed by law." Sort of. I'll explain that a little bit more. Look at 114-3, Mayor. It says, "There shall be a full-time mayor elected at the regular city election for a term of 3 years commencing on the third Tuesday in April next succeeding his or her election." City business shall be the mayor's primary occupation. The mayor shall have the direct responsibility for the following functions. And And it seems to describe some duties of the mayor. A says budgeting with the assistance of the finance committee. B says personnel administration. C says property management. Supporting services

to the common council. E administration of job descriptions. And F negotiate sale and purchase of public property. So things become muddy when you start to delineate responsibilities. Because you cannot possibly share all of the responsibilities of the mayor. That's an impossible task, right? And you could inadvertently be assigning duties and responsibilities to the mayor that should not be ascribed to the mayor. Let me see if I can explain what I mean. Go to the next page where it has Wisconsin statute 62.09 {parentheses} 8. And this is the state statute that gives the authority to the mayor. And there are five different subsections there. Look at letter A. It says the mayor shall be the chief executive officer. The mayor shall take care that city ordinances and state laws are observed and enforced and that all city officers and employees discharge their duties. B goes on to talk about that the mayor can from time to time give information and recommend measures. C is about the mayor's veto power. D is about cities that don't have a police and fire commission then the mayor's in charge of those. And then E says at the first council meeting you elect you elect a president of the council who will act as the acting mayor. Okay, now go back to the page I just showed you. So many of you have been chief executives or you've worked closely with chief executive officers. And what is the responsibility of a chief executive officer for the business or organization? What are they responsible for? They're responsible for everything, right? And that's why it says the mayor shall be the chief executive officer. The mayor shall take care of all city ordinances and state laws and then make sure that all enforced. So, what we have here is a it seems to be a description of some of the duties. But, I'm not even convinced that all of these duties should be ascribed to the

mayor. So, if you go to the next page, on page three, it has the Wisconsin statute for the common council. And it's all laid out there the authority for the common council. If you go to page four, I have it highlighted. And it has the powers for the common council. Except as elsewhere in the statute specifically provided, the council shall have the management and control of the city property, the finances, that would be the budget, highways, navigable waters, and the public service, and has shall have the power to act for the government and then the good order of the city. I'll stop right there. Let's go back to the first page. Look at number one, or letter A. Budgeting with the assistance of the finance committee. Budgeting. Well, that's something a CEO does by nature of being a CEO. But, who's responsible for the finance according to the state statute? Well, the council is. Look at letter C there, property management and inventory. Go back to the council authority. It says, "The council shall have the management and control of city property." So, what I am trying to show you is that these two ordinances, 114-2, that's describing the powers, and 114-3, that's describing some of the duties of the mayor, are problematic, and the last thing we should do is add another duty there. Let me show you some examples of other communities that are similar to us in their the way they're organized with the mayor council or mayor alderman a form of government. Oconomowoc's actually my favorite. If you you can look on page five. What's it say for mayor? I like that. It says, "See statute 62.09 {parentheses} 8." It says, "What is the mayor's duties and powers? It's the duties and powers as outlined by the state statute. Same thing for city council, it refers to the the state statutes. Go to the next one, Oak Creek.

If you look at Oak Creek on page six, it has the duties and it says the mayor shall be the chief executive officer of the city. Where have we seen that before? In the state statute. It's just copy pasted. Um I like number three there where it says the mayor shall have such other duties and responsibilities that is are prescribed by the Wisconsin statutes. Look at Fitchburg, you'll see the same pattern. It's copy paste right from the state statutes. We're not adding to it. We're not putting anything else in there as far as the duties. We're sticking to the state statute. And the Milwaukee is the last one. It's probably the least uh it's probably not a great example, but most of that paragraph is copy paste apart from the bottom where it's talking about how they're going to pay people for police actions. Okay. So, in my opinion, this these two ordinances need serious revision. And for that reason, I'm going to make a motion here to amend 114-3 to strike letter G and to have that then in its proper and only place in the policy manual. So, that's my motion to amend by striking letter G. We're on 26:14, right? Okay, motion by Davis to strike G. Mr. Lampy. I'll second that. Okay, second by Lampy. Mayor. Yep. Mr. Hang on, Mr. Bird.

This came up with a grant airport grant. That was that $400,000 $300,000. So I I I put one of these on everyone's spot. So I had a meeting today with uh couple engineers and our new park and rec director. So Uh Nathan Williams is hopefully by Monday with the grant in for this we get up to the the $8,000 per court. So before 8,000. So I I showed Andrew Bayer that and so we plan to put in front of finance on Monday. We borrowed money about 150,000 for those courts. So that's all the money we got so we'd be able to hopefully we get this grant or up to 40 grand we'd have enough money left over to maybe fix the ones on the south side. You know one damage rate a couple months ago. So on G the idea was just to make things go quicker for grants so we don't miss out on this. If uh we got one of this and say it was due by Friday we wouldn't be able to even apply for it. So that's kind of the reason for having G which I think is only thing. As far as responsibility for me it probably would be easier if staff could you know get the free money. But if it had a due date on it what's that Ms. Davis? You were speaking Ms. Lampi. Speaking of me. Okay. Ms. Berg. Um In our form of government whether you look at state government federal government local government they all have a common theme and you have an executive branch you have a legislative branch and you have a judicial branch. We have it in Watertown just like they do at the state of Wisconsin and the federal government. That's by by nature of the type of government we all work within and and we live within. And so, I think that is for a reason. Um our mayor is a chief executive officer uh

like it states here. Uh examples like Oconomowoc are not directly applicable. They have a full-time uh city administrator who uh who basically relegates that that mayor to a very uh minor type role within that uh he he oversees council meetings. He does uh ribbon cutting and other little symbolic duties, but he's he's otherwise uh been sort of taken out of the picture and it's been given to a city administrator. That's the same in one of the other examples of a community that has that form. We have a mayor form of government with a full-time mayor and and he is our chief executive. We share those same duties. That's why there is a overlap and there's duplication uh on the duties of the the council and the mayor, but we again have unique different type of role to typically uh endorse, change, or uh or obviously make uh differences that we feel are unique to our council, but our direction comes from the mayor. Um and that's by design. And I think that's the way it's meant to be. Okay. Hey, Mr. Lampy, go ahead. Uh so, I appreciate the the background in terms of of why um you see that this being important. I Most of my experience on the council here has been I I shouldn't say this is every grant application, but there's been a number of grant applications where we've had department heads who've arrived and said, "We're looking for approval to apply for X, Y, and Z. By the way, we've already applied for it." Can we please retroactively go ahead and apply for that in the past or the future? To me, one of the advantages of putting this here is that this kind of sweeps away I think some of that behavior and makes it more explicit that the mayor can go ahead and get an application moving without that sort of

coming back to council one time to see if they can apply for it and then coming back to council again on the application. Um I always thought that was kind of awkward and if this is a step toward uh removing that extra step where department heads come and tell us they've applied for something and retroactively ask for permission for it, then I think that this is this is a good step forward. Ms. Davis. Um letter G as it is currently written is identical to the current policy. It's the same. It's It's the policy right now in the policy manual with the caveat that this 30-day reporting isn't in there. So, this changes nothing. This is the current policy. My explanation to you all is that this ordinance is flawed and it would be unwise to put it here because the whole thing needs to be revised. Mr. Wright. Mr. Blanky, go ahead. So, trying to get the policy manual to open. Unfortunately, it's a very large document and will not open right now. Um but I I I agree with what Alderwoman Davis is saying. I don't like redundancy. I don't like having something written into a policy and then written into a policy somewhere else in the policy somewhere It Either it's policy or it's a not or it's not. So, I'd like the opinion of the city attorney is Alder Davis's premise correct that the mayor already has this power based on policy? Because if he already has this power, we

don't need to give him the power a second time. If I already gave you the keys to my car, giving you the spare set of the keys to my car doesn't do anything. So, if he can already do this, I agree with Alder Davis that this is unnecessary to put here. We have been voting on grants all this time, right? The council has or at finance level? But, this is just saying that you would have the power to would enter in or apply for any grants that don't require um matching funds. That's what I'm asking. It does he already Does the mayor already have that power? I'm reading it right now. Mine's still one open. I was going to throw my keys at you when you said about the car. That's the best analogy I could think of. Okay. Go on, Mr. Arnett. So, I believe it's under 8.1 grants as a revenue source. And while not exactly the same language, it's pretty darn close. I would agree. Since these are Under 8.1, we have two There's three total paragraphs. The first paragraph gets at grant requests are reviewed by the finance director and treasurer, which we don't have, prior to the application being submitted. There is no subsequent finance committee approve review and approval. Um, grants requiring city matching funds are requested

need to be requested from the finance committee. Prior to submission, yeah. Correct. Yeah. So, it wasn't the same until Cuz the park and purple rain do not require matching city funds. That's what was different. So, that was taken out 2 weeks ago. So, that makes it the same now. Yes.

so, okay. So, it wasn't the same, but that was taken out 2 weeks ago. So, I guess now it matches, but makes me happy I can sign the tennis grant then right away tomorrow. Ugly thing. So, you already have this power. The The only thing and I think that if we want to add this to the policy, um, as Alderwoman Davis alluded to, that that would go through the finance committee and then to council is to add the reporting aspect of it. Cuz currently there is no reporting aspect as I understand. Correct. So, if the council wants to add the reporting act aspect, we need to add that to the policy statement. Right. Can I So, like the task grant, we borrowed $150,000 for the courts. Is that considered matching funds right now? We Cuz we borrowed money for we get reimbursed. But, it would Right. Money, okay. So, it wouldn't. Okay. Okay. Any more comments on, uh, Ms. Davis's motion, I believe. Okay. I believe, uh, Davis made the motion, so we can take a vote on that then. And this I'm sorry, this is just to take G out. Everything else would stay in. Okay. Davis? Lampy? What was it, no? It was a no, I believe, yeah. Burke? No. Natecky? No. Linky? Aye. Smith? No. Arnett? Aye. Hasey? Aye. Moldenhauer? Aye. It's Motion passed. By four, I believe. Okay. All right, so G's stricken out.

Okay. So, we're back to the original I believe Smith made the motion, seconded by Lampy for 26-14. Any other comments? Questions? G's now taken out. Ms. Davis? So, you have another motion to amend. Um I passed that out along with that other packet. And this has to do with uh public comments and the rules that were um added to the ordinance. And so, um at our last council meeting, I asked a question, although probably inartfully at the time, um trying to get to uh a better understanding as to what public commentators' First Amendment rights were during the public comment period. Um we I had a subsequent email with a mayor and the attorney that was very helpful. And um from that, uh we discussed that the public comment portion is considered um a limited public forum. And by that, it means that the First Amendment rights of the individual speaking must be at upheld. However, the courts have also found that the presiding officer, the person in charge of the meeting, has a duty to run a controlled and efficient meeting. And to that end, can put rules in place. But here's the thing, those rules have to be content neutral or viewpoint neutral. And they have to deal with the time, place, and manner of the the comments. And so, as you look at the draft in our ordinance there, um

you'll notice that there are it says a public comments can be 3 minutes. Um the numbers wishing to speak during public comment um um can only speak once and that members wishing to speak must complete a citizen comment form. But then it goes on and it has an A, B, and C and it talks about that the presiding officer can and the presiding officer and the presiding officer. And as I was looking at that, I thought that they could be a little bit problematic. Because remember, the presiding officer has to make sure that any rules that they put in place are related to time, place, and manner. And it could be misconstrued by the presiding officer that for instance, they could give one person more time to speak than another person at that same meeting. Well, that would be a violation. If it's a 3-minute rule, then it's a 3-minute rule and everyone should be held to that 3 minutes. So, I thought it might be a wise idea to use the actual language that I think is recognized in by a lot of court cases or at least as people talk about it. And that's where this amendment comes in. So, let me just show you what it says. Um basically it says no person other than a member shall address the common council except as under except under order of business rule four subsection D five and 14. Then it says public comments are limited to three minutes. Members wishing to speak during public comment section may only speak once per meeting. Members wishing to speak must complete a citizen comment form giving their name and addresses and an explanation of the topic about which they intend to comment. And then letter D is the part that's most different. It says to conduct orderly and efficient meetings, the presiding officer may make content neutral time, place, and manner modifications to the rules in this subsection. The courts have already ruled that the presiding officer can do that with or without the council

approval. So, for instance, let's say that we came in one night in this council room and was totally packed wall-to-wall to people. The presiding officer could say that moment that night, "Okay, tonight the we're going to limit comments to two minutes and we're going to limit the total comment time to 30 minutes." The presiding officer already has the right to do that by the courts. So, what letter D does is just says that any rule that the presiding officer puts in place is going to be viewpoint neutral and it's going to be related to time, place, and manner. I hope I've explained that well and the attorney can maybe answer questions better than I can. So, that's my motion to amend, I should say. I'd second that. What? Mr. Davis, you're motioning for Amending to this language. Okay. I mean B and C, okay. Motion by Davis and second by Lampy. It actually rewrites the whole the whole thing. So, section three, yes. Not section three, but section two, part three. Part three. Uh under L. Yes, right. It's L. Okay. So, we're going ahead. Yeah, uh this is the kind of discussion that um that I thought it might uh evolve into and and we uh historically have had um discretion allowance for the presiding officer, the chairperson to to uh run an orderly meeting in their way of doing it. And obviously that worked in its own way uh for a long time. Um when you get into uh numbers like

three and two, and I saw ironically, I think our school board looking at two minutes for a a time limit. I mean, that's a joke uh in its own way, but it's meant to be in in somehow uh um a way of uh moving on from the public having comment to taking taking action as a board. Um three minutes is like I pointed out at our last council meeting, is uh you know, is adequate a lot of times, but not always. And again, our mayor uh has that discretion to allow um and so, you know, nobody wants to have subjectivity because it looks political. And therefore, it's like leave it alone, don't touch that topic because it's not good to get into things where people have discretion. They want to take it away and they want to make it numeric and you know, you know, like black and white, but that's not life in in the real world that I live in. And I like uh a governing body and I like a mayor presiding officer that that um encourages public comment, allows it to uh to filter into the overall meeting in a way that helps them in their decision-making and and that's basically what we have now. I I'm not a fan of 3 minutes. I would in fact a couple years ago under Mayor McFarland, that was a very contested topic. It was on the front page of our Daily Times because of that because of their strict interpretation and using a clock to remind people of. And it got to be uh viewed critically within our city, but with the current council at the time, it was not politically appealing to make a change. So, we got a new we got a new council and and we got new members. And to their credit, they all have their own backgrounds of experience and they I know they're all here for the right

reason. Uh but I I just think we need to be careful on trying to turn this into robots and make everything just so black and white that there's no discretion from you're you're going to turn our mayor into just a sort of a a guy who runs the meeting, but is taken out of the picture in different ways because of how we want to make this neutral and and fair. Um I think the the voters are the ones that are going to make a decision on that every 2 to 3 years on each of us and in the jobs we're doing. And that's the way it's meant to be. It's meant to be this way because they they want to have healthy discussion and they want to have good decisions made. And to limit people's ability from the public to come in and contribute toward that decision-making by making it more difficult, you will have less input and these council members will make decisions without the the benefit of of a lot of knowledge out there that is meant to be made available. But you have to make the policy and you have to make the the the way we're doing things and incentivizing for them to come here and to participate. You know, again, I gave the example of it adds to a few minutes of additional council meeting. I don't think any of us I hope are are really opposed to a few extra minutes of it allows for people to feel that they are welcomed here and can give comment to help us make good decisions. I'm not in favor of this. It's just joking. Sorry. Miss Aussie. Question for um uh Alderman Davis, you want to not make them You want to um not make the amendment at all and you want to replace it with Um Right. So, what I presented to you on

the piece of paper is the the amendment that I'm proposing. So, that's the current um motion motion to amend with this wording. And um just to clarify, it's essentially what's there. It's just uh a little more straightforward perhaps and it includes that legal language that I think might um be very helpful because the courts do I just saw a lawsuit last week that almost all the time they they go in favor of the public uh commentator and rule against the governing body because of leeway and discretion that's taken improperly. Mr. You're looking to replace all the blue and red writing, correct? Um both? That's correct.

Both versions. Okay. Yeah. Just making sure. Okay. Any other Mr. Lampy? Uh my take and this is the first time I saw this here is that one of the one of the key things that uh the proposed amendment changes here is that this um I just had it. Uh presiding it takes out the section about the presiding officer shall have the sole authority to take measures to limit repetitive comments. And so, I think one of the explicit intents of this amendment is essentially take the ability to grade on content and on and try to interpret if people are saying the same thing off the table. The rest of this, frankly, does look like a simplification to me. It continues to retain the 3-minute default speaking time, and it continues to uh put the presiding officer in charge of additional rules. So, overall, I'm I'm still in favor of this, and I I agree that this is a nice simplification. Mr. Nack, go ahead. I could like a city attorney's opinion on this in terms of where I'm about to ask. Would item D, with its current phrasing of to conduct orderly and efficient meetings, so there's the there's the whereby clause, let me make exceptions or modifications, I should say. When I read that, I read it as the presiding officer may make more constraining modifications, i.e., increased limitations. As compared to being able to make uh exceptions either way. So, for example, somebody who didn't sign up in advance and allowing them to speak, or somebody who spoke at the

beginning of the meeting would like to speak at the end of the meeting. What's your read on whether those, I'll call positive exceptions, could still be made under D as it's phrased. I don't see any I don't see any issues with those because again it's not getting at the content of what somebody is trying to say. This is a process thing. These are our council rules that we as or you as an organization and an elected body have established so I don't see issues and I don't think that this language would preclude what you're what you're looking to do. All right, thank you. Miss Hausey. Is there a reason or I I mean I assume there's a reason as to why we're removing the the second comment section? Or not section but the the public's ability to come back and make a comment um at the end. So, we've had before someone made a comment twice but generally in case it was maybe something that wasn't noticed in the meeting maybe it was something that may have no value. If somebody has I mentioned 2 weeks ago if someone's got serious concerns I'll let them I've let them speak so far a second time. And how would they have to ask? How would that process go? If they're not made aware in the beginning that they're able to make comments you know at the beginning and at the end. Yeah, generally it's supposed to be for just just once and we had a in the past just that maybe it was someone would say things that may have been inappropriate and others didn't have a chance to comment back.

I can add that the registration form says that they can only speak once and they circle which one they're going to speak at. Usually the way it comes up is we're at the end of the meeting, somebody is still here at 8:36 p.m. They pop up and say, "Oh, I wanted to talk about this, too. Um I didn't fill out a form. I didn't know about it." That's how most of the situations will come up. For the second comment. Well, what you're

really asking is I spoke at the beginning. The form says I can't speak at the end. How would I know that I could ask the chair for an exception to be able to speak again at the end? How would I know? Because all indications I've been given is that I can't. Mhm. So I I guess that's why um to um Mr. Arnett's point, I guess that's why I was asking, why are we rem removing for all intents and purposes, I mean not actually, but again, the person wouldn't know unless they asked, I guess, if they could speak at the end. Um why are we moving in that direction as opposed to having, you know, uh speaking at the comments at the beginning and then comments at the end, like we have in the past. We had someone that was coming in maybe same thing as beginning at the end and it wasn't really anything to do with the meeting. So that's where that got changed several months ago. Okay. So so the idea of having being able to modify the speaking time, I would think would be something that we could employ as opposed to just not having the second uh speaking time altogether. So if they Let's say somebody went completely off topic or became belligerent or whatever it may be, perhaps you know, then You could, yeah. that would be the case. I'm trying to think to any other committees, public comments at the beginning or are there any other committees, park and rec or anything that's got it at the at the end? I think common council is the only one. Council is, that's it. Council is the only one, so that Just the council. And I was taken away I think around 2015 or so it was the second was taken away for a while and brought back in. So I get I think between the differences Mr. Knight asked about D if it's so leaves a chance to take care of the timer cut someone off

if they're doing something inappropriate. So biggest thing between the two would be if you think someone should have public comment a second time or not. Mr. Davis. I was wondering if the attorney could speak to that about cutting people off if they're saying something inappropriate and what the law says about that. Sure. So under the First Amendment um we're giving up people the opportunity to speak in this limited public forum. So um saying things uh that you don't agree with, saying um that taking a position um or saying something negative about a city action, that's not something that we can cut that we can cut um that individual off for. Um case law even protects if they start swearing, that's permissible too, that's all protected um under the First Amendment. It's when we get into somebody who is being uh belligerent, somebody who is uh we we've reached they're threatening, being truly disruptive, that's when we generally will cut people off. Or have go gone over their allotted time limit. No. Just one more question. And could you speak to also what best practice is when you have a time limit um and should uh if you have a 3-minute time limit, is it best practice to hold people to the that 3-minute time limit? Yes. Knowing that you can make the content neutral. If there are 100 people in here, we can reduce that time to 1 minute that everybody can speak or so forth. Mr. Smith, go ahead. I like the general

um intent of the modifications or the additions of what this is seeking to clarify. I like the way that it gives meaningful discretion to the presiding officer. And over the last year, we have had many of these provisions as part of the rules of proceeding. And on numerous occasions, I have seen our chair be generous with time allocation. And anything but uh repressive in the way in which input from the public can be received. Um my interpretation of the specific language allotting 3 minutes and the later provision which specifies the ability of the presiding officer uh to modify the speaking time. You know, I interpret that to mean that uh individuals from the public have a minimum 3-minute right to speak, and the presiding officer's discretion is to allow more time if that is something that appears to be appropriate. Uh the one thing that is markedly different here from past procedure

is that on numerous occasions, people with an interest in a particular item on the agenda rise to speak in advance of the council vote. And this precludes them from speaking a second time. Which, in the instance of an ordinance where two readings are necessary, or where a member of the public just wants to give feedback I have recollection of numerous times where somebody that has spoken prior to the vote, at the end of the meeting, has gotten up to give an editorial comment, or to try to steer the direction of a second reading in a direction maybe that's uh either different, or maybe they rise to commend the action of the council. So, generally speaking, I think this is in furtherance of an orderly meeting. I think it gives the chair the opportunity to have discretion uh both on the side of promoting orderliness, as well as allowing uh individuals to speak uh longer than 3 minutes. Um what I would like to see is the sentence that says members wishing to speak during the public comment section may only speak once during the meeting. I think if that were removed we would have a continuation of the current

policy which is people can speak at the delegation section and at the end of the meeting. Which I think would be in furtherance of helpful input and uh totally appropriate. So um I'm trying to remember the specific posture of this ordinance. Is there an amendment on the floor right now? There is Mr. Smith, so we should probably vote on that one before making an I'm not going to make a a motion because the easy motion is to modify what's currently being proposed, not to modify what is in the proposed amendment. So um I will simply defer on that right now, but generally uh suggest um across-the-board support for the intent and the specifics of what this second reading of the ordinance is seeking to do. Yeah. We should Mr. Mr. Burgo, ahead. Yeah, uh Alderman Smith has made a very uh persuasive and a good um rational approach argument but it is not for the amendment Because the amendment uh if it's passed as proposed it's taken away the it talks about an orderly type of meeting efficient. And uh this amendment would institute back uh the time keeper and and enforce the 3-minute rule. And take away the discretion of that uh presiding officer to to give discretion. Which again is why

I was willing to go with the current uh ordinance last meeting. Ironically, I made an effort to delete the portion that Alderperson Smith is making tonight. Uh And it failed 3-6 if I'm if I'm right on that number. Uh but I'm pointing out that the the current ordinance that we are taking a second reading on gives more discretion and allowance for the presiding officer to to use good judgment and to still run an orderly meeting. This amendment takes away that authority and makes that that presiding officer less involved uh and basically more of a of an enforcer uh and and I don't want the 3-minute enforced. I I think Alderperson Smith has pointed out again that there are examples where it does have merit. And that is the nature of of government is to allow you know people if they're if they're having you know their point being made and they need a bit more to finish it is not using a time clock which I had against me repeatedly. Uh and and that was under a previous council and a previous mayor. So, I don't want that again. Yeah, because I I know there's people just like me and others who want to have input and and enforcing that rigidity is going to do nothing to promote good government. Um Alderperson uh Davis might have good intention, but um uh I'm all in favor of uh ideally if we had a a vote on the amendment I made last meeting and somebody that was um uh voting against my amendment could

reconsider and could uh uh you know, look at the logic that was pointed out by Alderperson Smith and point out that the examples of using of sticking twice are infrequent and not abused and the presiding officer has the ability to uh to govern that with good judgment. So, he has all that um in his um control and authority. Um uh I'm against the amendment. Uh I'm all in favor of ideally taking out the point about uh these few examples of where people need to speak a second time because of uh commenting on the action taken by a council uh and to give either a compliment and or some uh continued reservation with the action taken. Mr. Lampy. I I just wanted to uh uh remind folks that that both this amendment and the ordinance that we're considering here uh do include a 3-minute time limit and the requirement that folks speak once per meeting. They both have it. Uh this one I think I I think we're basically talking about shades of gray in terms of discretion. We believe we're providing the presiding authority. We vote on this amendment first before any new ones, right? Okay. All right. Well, Mr. Nigh, can go ahead. Echoing what Mr. Lampy just said. Further consideration, I'm going to go back to my point of view several years ago for the school board. Um I do not like limits on time. I do not like limits on rhyme.

Do not like form sublime. What was your second one, Mr. Arnett?

I do not like it one bit. Okay. Anything else other we can vote on the motion, but it sounds like we have more motions, too, but okay. Which is the amendment? The amendment only, so uh Mr. Davis and I believe seconded by Lampy to replace all of sections that are blue and red with what's here, correct? Okay. We can take a vote on that first just making sure we're ready of what we're voting for. Okay. Davis. Lampy. Aye. Berg. No. Natecky. Aye. Lanky. Aye. Mith. Arnett. No. Hassy. No. Goldenhour. No. Okay. Motion failed. It's an original one with um the red. So, Mr. Smith. Uh yes. Uh now I would like to make an a motion um to amend the proposed text, the red text, uh deleting in the red the second sentence that reads, "Members wishing to speak during the public comment section may only speak once during once per meeting. Okay. You wish to remove that line? Yes.

Okay. We have a motion by Smith for another amendment. A second by Bird. Okay. Okay. Mr. Lampy. I I believe that the proposed amendment does not do what you think it might do. If you look at the end of the If you look at the first sentence there, it says members of the public may make comments with a time limit of 3 minutes total under either or business rule four subsection D5 or D14. So, I would recommend if the intent is to remove the ability for or if if the intent is basically to to allow people to speak at both ends of the meeting that both sentences be removed, not just the first not just the second. Does So, you're suggesting rule four subsection D5 or 14 to be removed? I I I'd recommend that the amendment actually be that that first two sentences get removed for consistency. Both sentences essentially say the same thing. Okay. We have a first and second, so we'll Oh, if that's okay with the people I always will vote on this first. Are you okay with that, Mr.

there's an intent to Make sure it's not So, are you to remove an additional portion, that's an independent amendment that can certainly be made. But, in this particular instance, this one I believe categorically should be removed, and that's the tenor of the amendment. Okay. So, we'll leave it with just the one sentence right now. Yeah. Okay. Anything else on that? If I may [laughter]

add to what Otto Lamp is saying. If you look at the first sentence, since it limits time to 3 minutes total in a meeting, if I speak for 3 minutes at the beginning of the meeting, my time is up. If I want to speak at the end of the meeting, I can't because I've used all 3 minutes of my time. I believe that was his point. Is that if I use 3 minutes, I'm out, and I can't speak again. But, there's Well, Okay. Well,

we That That can be adjusted without removing that entire sentence. That's my problem. And if the issue is the word total, and I think that is consistent with what I'm trying to do, we can remove that word Yes. uh in another amendment.

Okay. I understand what Mr. Lamp is saying, and also Mr. Smith. So, we'll go with That's the way it has to be done here. So, we'll keep the sentence right now. The amendment that Mr. Smith and Mr. Burke seconded. On that individual line, any comments, suggestions on it? Let's take a vote on that first. Okay. Smith. Aye. Arnett. Aye. Pasi. Moldenhauer. Davis. Aye. Lamp. No. Burke. Aye. Nate Teke. Aye. Blanky. Motion carried. Okay. So, leaves us now that one line is stricken. Members wishing to speak during the public comment section may only speak once per meeting. Smer. Any Go ahead, Mr. Blanky. I'd like to make a motion to amend again, and strike the word total from the first sentence. Okay. I I couldn't hear. Could you repeat that? I'm making a mo- I'm making a motion to amend the first sentence to strike the word total. Mhm. Taking the word total out. Okay, we have a motion by Blanky and a second by Smith to take the word total out of the first sentence. Anything on that one? Okay. Blanky? I. Smith? I. Arnett? I. Hasse? I. Moldenhauer? I. Nappi? No. Berg? I. Machek? I. Motion carried. Okay, thank you. All right, with those two amendments taken out, now we're back to the original ordinance. Okay. Mr. Davis. Two comments. The only way to avoid um being sued is to let people speak as long as they

want to speak or to hold people to an arbitrary time that is applied um to everyone equally regardless of viewpoint. That's my first comment. Um my second comment is that the presiding officer I could be I'll let me ask it this way. Um please, attorney, correct me if I'm wrong. Is it It is correct, isn't it, that the presiding officer doesn't even need this ordinance and could um make any adjustments necessary to have an orderly, efficient meeting as long as there's time, place, and manner, and as long as there's viewpoint neutral. That's correct.

Okay, anything else on it? Mr. Blunkett. We're back to two sets of car keys again. So, once again, the mayor or well, sorry, the presiding officer because this also is for committees already has this power. Why are we codifying an ordinance? I've given you the keys to my car, you can drive it away. You don't need the spare. In our organization, we have put forth our council rules of procedures. Um, we've codified them. Uh, I I don't know the intent behind that. I've seen other organizations you do that separately as a policy document, but uh, that's neither here nor there. It's in the ordinance right now. Um, since they're there and a reminder, this body can always vote to suspend any of these rules within um, chapter 114 by a 2/3 vote. That's all the way at the bottom of the subsection. This is just the council how you operate business and it's our notification to the public. This is how we do business and how our meetings are run here. So, for for those reasons, I would recommend leaving this in and leaving the entire ordinance in um, for the clarity perspective. We could have the conversation on should this be an ordinance, should this be a policy document later on. Um, but I I do think it is good to have so that we are notifying the public um, how council does their does business. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I I I think uh, our our city attorney has given us good advice. And the the duties that are outlined

here are not meant to be all inclusive. They're not meant to be detailed to a fault. They're meant to give pertinent examples of the authority and and yet the discretion that that officer has. So, um we could always add to it, subtract, improve, but I I think for me it gives guidelines and it gives direction and and I'm I'm content with it. I I I I think we've had good discussion. Mr. Smith. Yep. Just one last comment. Um the way this is currently written moves us in the direction where we are both delegating to the presiding officer meaningful flexibility within the scope of broad outline rules. I have every confidence that our mayor will implement this in a fair and understanding and a manners that is um appropriate to the circumstances of the particular meeting. Rather than us as a council trying to go the nth additional distance to include more uh I think we should leave it exactly the way it is. And Robert's Rules has built into the proceeding that if there is something that is just not fair being part of the ruling of the presiding officer, the council can overturn that

based on the circumstances of whatever it considers to be an inappropriate ruling. So, I think this is really good, gives a good mayor meaningful responsibility and meaningful discretion and yet welcomes the kind of input from the public that will always be helpful in the decision-making process. Smith I Arnett Halsey I Mulderhauer I Davis Ampy None total. This is with the amendments, the original motion? This original now. I vote A. I vote amended. With taken total all in the line with speaking Okay, twice. I vote A. Berg I Notacki I Blanky I Motion carried. Okay, thank you. All right, next resolutions Exhibit 9858 resolution to approve the transfer of ownership of Dodge County water rescue boat from Dodge County Fire Chiefs Association to City of Watertown sponsored by myself and the Finance Committee. Mr. Smith

the adoption of Exhibit 9 9858

9858 motion by Smith I Seconded by Notacki Okay. Comments on that? Ms. Davis I did want to ask about budget line for insurance or any other repairs. Is that existing or is that going to be an add? Mark. Our vehicle insurance is actually pretty nominal. And so the add of a vehicle in the course of the year costs us nothing additionally. When we are at the point of renewal is when I'll see that first bill, but each vehicle is $100 to $200. So I I don't expect that to be much at all. I had another

a question I had a question on the similarly about fuel and do we have any idea of how much fuel the cost would be for that and maintenance. Maintenance has been rare and same with fuel. The boat is rarely used. It goes out maybe two or three times a year, mostly for training. So it's again minimal. So just let me let me clarify. This boat's already been sitting at our facility. We've We've We've been running this boat. We've been managing this boat. We're transferring the title. Correct.

Right. It's So the maintenance has already been happening. The fuel has already been happening. We're just transferring the title. Okay. Okay. All right, Megan. Smith. Aye. Ernet. Aye. Hassing. Muldenhauer. Davis.

Aye. Lampy. Berg. Aye. Nietacky. Aye. Blanky. Motion carried. Okay, thank you. B. Exhibit 9859 resolution to approve intergovernmental agreements for non-EMS fire report sharing with the towns of Shield, Shields, Emmet, Watertown, and Milford. Sponsor by myself and the finance committee. So move. Mr. Muldenhauer, I a motion. Yeah, second by Smith. Okay, questions comments on that. Okay. Molenhour? Aye. Davis? Blanky? Burke? Aye. Kentucky? Blanky? Aye. Smith? Aye. Arnett? Aye. Nossy? Motion carried. Okay, exhibit 9860 res- resolution to approve the updated ethics board rules of procedure sponsored by myself and the ethics board. Mr. Mayor, move for 9860.

Okay, motion by Arnett. Second, second by Blanky. Okay, questions comments on that. Okay, council members say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you. Next D, exhibit 9861. Resolution declaring a state of emergency in response to severe storms and flooding April 14th through 17th, 2026 sponsored by myself. Mr. Mayor, move for 9861. Okay, motion by Blanky. I second by Molenhour. Okay, questions comments on it. Okay, council members say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Next we have comments and suggestions from citizens present. Who wish to speak, please come up to the front of the room. Okay, seeing none, I will then move to motion to adjourn. Or not. Take motion by Blanky. Second. Okay. Second by Arnett. Questions comments on that. Okay, council members say aye. on that? Okay, I'll ask Parish to say "Hi." Hi. Opposed? Thank you. It's 9:06.