Common Council - Regular Meeting

of tids under current law that are utilized and that's of course mixed use and industrial both of which can last up to 20 years prior to an extension as well as conservation or rehab and blighted area tids which can last up to 27 years before an extension there's three other types of tids that can be established under current law but are just substantially less utilized for example environmental remediation tids There's only 14 of them in the state because the functionality of a conservation and rehab or blight TID is just generally greater than an ER TID. But for communities that have used ER TIDs, they have enjoyed them. But again, it's pretty minimal. Here we see a chart of the annual TID creation dating back to 1977 when the first TIDs were established, going all the way through 2024. From 1976 to 2023, so just slightly outdated in this number, 2,601 TIDs had been created in Wisconsin. A little bit under half of them have been closed. A little bit over half are still active, meaning in 2024 there were exactly 1,400 active TIDs throughout the state. covering 90.5% of cities, 56% of villages, and existing in 97.2% of all counties, or 70 of 72 counties having at least one active TID in 2024. In 2024, also, the base value of all TIDs was $16.4 billion, while the incremental value, that snapshot in time, was $57.6 billion, or a 251% increase in property values. That is in large part why we've seen TID be so successful in Wisconsin. Approximately 11% of all equalized value in the state as of today was created through a TID.

Evan, were you saying that the baseline was $16 billion and it went to $57 billion?

That is correct. That was the baseline. Yep, the baseline value of all TIDs upon creation was $16.4 billion, and that current value in 2024 was $57.6 billion. Thank you. Yep. So why TID? Really, when it comes down to it, municipalities are pretty constrained. We are 6% roughly of all land mass in the state of Wisconsin, yet we hold 72% of the state's population. We hold 89% of all manufacturing equalized value, and we hold 90% of all commercial equalized value. When we want to see more of this development happening as a state, what we're generally talking about is cities and villages. So in that pretty small land portion, we're seeing these numbers continue to rise. And TIF is one way to make sure we can continue to promote that, to get over those hurdles, to get over those obstacles that would otherwise prevent some of these projects from happening. In 2017, the state of Wisconsin had roughly $75 million available for economic development in that year. Meanwhile, municipalities had invested about $370 million in TID projects. So it just goes to show that without TID, those economic development investments really can't be picked up by the state. Just want to touch on for a couple of seconds here the legislative process, because as much as a lot of you are going to be familiar with this, it really is quite crucial. When we're talking about the acts today, we're really on this step 10, this implementation. We're on the last phase of the process. It's been signed into law. At that point, I worked in the legislature for a state senator for about 10 years. It's very easy at that point to say we got to step nine, we wipe our hands and kind of get to walk away. But step 10 is really where it all happens. It comes back to city halls. It comes back to village halls. It comes back to county buildings. It goes back to businesses and everywhere else. And something has to happen with that law for it to mean anything. We'll also talk about a little later, a couple of bills that were held up earlier in the process that made it to step three or made it to step four and didn't make it beyond that. But just because it didn't make it to step nine, this session doesn't mean it can't in the future. With that, going to get into the first act we're going to talk about today, Act 235, Workforce Housing TIDs. So really just for a little bit of background, it has been roughly 15 years since we've seen any substantial TIF proposals make its way through the legislature. We've seen modest proposals, such as in 2019, there was a bill that expanded the use of environmental remediation tids that I mentioned earlier. There have been some one-off exceptions for municipalities like DeForest to be able to create a TIF for a Buc-ee's or Port Washington to be able to create a TID there. We've seen these one-off exceptions and we've seen some modest changes, but not really big like Act 235. so this uh ultimately looks to try and create a separate path for tiff because tiff as it's currently constructed is really still based on that 1975 principle of let's look at industrial development let's look at commercial development and sometimes residential development might mix in there but really when we're talking about tiff we're trying to focus on that business development Act 235 says let's create a new path for residential development within the TIF structure. Workforce housing TIDs would be outside of the 12% of equalized value cap that municipalities are subject to for TIF currently, and instead there would be a separate 3% structure established. So again, a lot of you might be familiar, but Generally, that's going to mean we picked a municipality of about 12,500 residents, which is, you know, give or take a midsize community in the state when you're looking at average population. The total equalized value of that municipality is about $1.55 billion. 3% would be $46.5 million, meaning that as long as the existing TID's incremental value, if there are any workforce housing TIDs established, mixed with the TID in value of that base value of a new proposed TID, that TID can be created within that 3%. All workforce housing TIDs have to be developer financed under that PAYGO structure. There is no municipal investment allowed within the TIF structure. additionally the costs cannot be amended after 10 years unless there is a unanimous vote of the joint review board right now a project plan and project costs can be amended by majority vote at any point under these workforce housing tids in that last 10 years of the allowable 20-year lifespan with a potential three-year extension in that last 10 years of the 20-year span. It has to be unanimous vote of the Joint Review Board. So they're trying to kind of set the plan up front as opposed to looking to amend it and expand it over time. Similar to existing TIDs, the but-for test would have to be met. That but-for test, in our opinion, could mean, can these houses be offered at the projected starting price? Because as the title insists, we're looking at workforce housing, we're looking for those more entry market homes. And as municipal officials and communities of all sizes throughout the state are very aware, getting those workforce housing, getting those entry level homes is very difficult at this day and time. So that but four test it might be a little bit easier to meet on a workforce housing TID. The residential development costs that may be covered by this is solely limited to the public infrastructure and associated costs. Associated costs being professional services, administrative costs, financing costs. But in other words, we're talking about the roads, sidewalks, lighting, traffic signage, stormwater, water, sewer, anything that's related to that public development and kind of in the public domain is but things that are on the residences themselves, the driveways, the houses, any site-specific stormwater criteria are not eligible. District-wide stormwater can be eligible. And as you'll see here, the reason it's called Workforce Housing TIDs or has been named Workforce Housing TIDs is because they put size requirements in place to try and make sure it's those entry level homes. So the lot size requirements are restricted, the lot width requirements, side setbacks, and building size requirements are restricted. A very common question we've heard on the building size requirements is what does that include? Does it include non-livable space? We've been told by legislative attorneys, by the authors, and by other stakeholders involved, no one believes that building size would include non-livable space, the garages, the attics, the unfinished basements, so it would be restricted to that livable space when you're talking about the building size restrictions. Act 235 will take effect on October 1st of this year, so it had a delayed effective date, meaning it will not take effect until October 1st, but starting on October 1st, workforce housing tids may be established. We've already heard from a few municipalities working with developers on trying to get an advance on getting one of these plans established. I've heard communities of all sizes on this, really smaller, mid-size, and large. So even though these requirements are pretty restrictive, we've still been excited to hear that there's some interest in Part of that interest does come from the roughly 111 municipalities in the state that are capped out at their 12% of equalized value right now. So this workforce housing TID is really the only opportunity, with a few modest exceptions in current law, to be able to create a new TID. While not TID, I do want to just spend a second here to also talk about Act 120, because it's very similar to Act 235. So Act 120 looks to take the Neighborhood Improvement District structure, which is a very similar structure to the Business Improvement District statutes, except for it's meant for residents as opposed to businesses, for residents to be able to say, We have a petition of a minimum of five homeowners in an area that's nearby, but not necessarily contiguous to each other. We would like to place special assessments on ourselves for neighborhood beautification or public infrastructure improvements in our neighborhood. Um, NIDS, while they've been around for 20 years, have really only been utilized in the city of Milwaukee, which has used it 14 times. We haven't seen the NID structure utilized elsewhere. What Act 120 says is let's borrow the NID structure and create a new process for subdivision development. where a subdivider can come forward bypassing that five unique property owner requirement, say municipality, I would like to place special assessments on these parcels to pay for that public infrastructure costs and recover it over time, very similar to the PAYGO, to the developer financed. Municipality can, of course, amend a plan. They can restructure the project plan and work with that developer. They can set the number of years that the special assessments would be collected. And then the developer, if it's approved by a municipality, would report it to the county. as those special assessments would be reported on any real estate disclosure. So future homeowners know that they have this special assessment. However, the principle behind it is if we can cover the public infrastructure costs through those special assessments over time that trail with the property instead of the homeowner, should they move, we can lower that upfront sticker price of the home. We can get people into a home cheaper upfront and then just get our costs back over time.

Neds are actually for single family ownership.

That is a very good question. So the NID structure, and we're still seeking a little bit of legal clarification on the extent of this allowance, but NIDs can be used for any residential development with an asterisk. So that can include multifamily where we're still seeking a little bit of clarification is there's a separate provision of the NID statute that requires for the establishment of kind of that more traditional long-standing NID that multifamily ownership is limited to eight per parcel to be able to sign and get in a neighborhood improvement district. We're not sure if that provision restricts a future developer from creating multifamily that would be more than eight units per property, but We know for sure that at a minimum, up to eight multifamily units, duplexes, rental, owner occupied, any sort of lot size requirements, all of that can qualify. It's not subject to the same lot size restrictions as Act 235. Act 173, which is known as the Truth in Planning Bill. There's a few different provisions here, and I'd be happy to talk about the other ones if anyone has any questions, but I'm going to focus on those last two, those bolded two, because those are the TIFF pieces of Act 173. which Act 173 is ultimately kind of the process of sausage making where two unrelated things get shoved together. The great old policy making process. So these last two pieces related to TIF. The first one, under current law, when a TID is expiring in a municipality, the municipal governing body, the joint review board is not required to be part of this process. They oftentimes are, even though it's not statutory required. but joint review boards not required, just a municipal governing body resolution can extend a TID for an additional up to 12 months, collect that increment and use it towards affordable housing. That must be used primarily towards benefiting affordable housing, which is defined as 30% of the area median income for the housing costs. the municipality also has an opportunity to use some of those funds to, quote, benefit the existing housing supply. We've seen that used for any plethora of things, from road repaving to loan funds to help homeowners fix up hazards in their home for older homes. It's been a wide range of what we've seen these funds used for. But as I mentioned, it's restricted to up to 12 months of additional increment that can be collected. Act 173 extends that to up to 24 months, so doubling the length of the extension. Act 173 also tackles a longstanding challenge in TIF law, resulting from an interpretation from the Department of Revenue in the early 2000s when new requirements were put in place in TIF that said TIF may not be used for newly-platted residential development except for in a mixed-use TID when up to 35% of the mixed-use TID can be newly-platted residential. What the legislature meant to enact in that time was focused at greenfield development, that we shouldn't be using TIF to build single-family homes on farm fields, effectively. What DOR interpreted that as is any new plat laid over a parcel, even one that has been previously platted, such as in a redevelopment circumstance, is considered newly platted. that has resulted in some project plans being amended or denied even though in the legislature's intent a couple of decades ago and in our interpretation their um enforcement of the newly plotted restrictions does not conform with those uh that history and that language in the bill act 173 here newly planted residential was defined to say that the parcel did not have any previous structures and if it did have structures those structures were only egg so as long as a parcel had structures on it previously such as again in those redevelopment circumstances Newly platted doesn't apply, meaning the opportunities to use existing TID types, such as a conservation and rehab, for promoting housing and residential development will be expanded. However, it's notable that both of these provisions in Act 173 do not go into effect until January 1st, 2028. Because of those earlier provisions in Act 173 having to do with amendments to comprehensive plans and rezoning requests, having a delayed effective date. The whole bill was delayed to that January 1st of 2028. And finally, I'm going to touch on just one element of Act 237 here. So Act 237 trailers legislation passed last session where the legislature invested $525 million, the largest investment in state history in housing, into three new programs at the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority, the Infrastructure Access Loan Program. the restore main street loan program and the vacancy to vitality loan program unfortunately despite that substantial investment we've only seen about 20 million go out the door so far because of some barriers to access to these programs that were put in the statutes last session One of those barriers, and from what we've heard from both WIDA and members and development partners, the biggest barrier has been allowing those loans, which are kind of meant as those closing financing gap loans, not the primary loan, but the secondary or tertiary loans. It prevented stacking those loans with any TIF investment or any historic tax credit investment. Act 237 eliminated those restrictions, allowing TIF to be stacked with these workforce housing loan programs, and we expect that we're going to see substantially more uptick in the use of these loan programs as a result.

Good.

I also want to note too, so all of those housing changes, we are currently working with the Realtors and Builders Association. This is just a draft of two-page fact sheets. We are literally in the final days of getting these things ready and they will be published soon. So we'll have five of those reference guides covering the five biggest housing changes this past session, including all the ones I just talked about. Make sure you stay on the lookout in Legislative Bulletin and other league publications as those will be coming out very shortly. I also want to talk just for a couple of minutes here about what could happen next. And I was just saying earlier to Deb that it's a little bit like looking into a crystal ball, but the crystal ball got a little foggy because you were breathing a little too hard on it. And it just really fogged it up because we don't know what the crystal ball is, primarily because we don't know what the legislature and governor's office will look like. We are facing one of the most uncertain elections that we've seen in in at least 15 years if not more for what could happen uh that starts with the fact that we are without a doubt doesn't matter what party wins or how this all works out in november we know for sure we will have a new governor a new governor a new senate majority leader and a new assembly speaker So again, that's why the crystal ball is kind of cloudy. That being said, we have seen interest from members of both parties, including Senate Bill 696 here, which didn't advance far in the legislative process, but was a strong sowing of support from some of our local government friends on the Democrat side of the aisle who want to see further revisions to TIF. including eliminating that newly planted residential restriction altogether so just taking it out of the statute as opposed to the redefining it they want to see tiff be expressly authorized to be utilized for park expenses that's been a question raised by dor where some municipalities have been able to use tiff in park investments others have not of course always within the district And primarily they want to raise that 12% of equalized value threshold to a higher number. In the bill, they proposed 18%. They are very much open for negotiation to say, let's find the right number. We shouldn't need to ask municipalities to come to the legislature and say, we're at 12%, but we have Thermo Fisher wanting to invest and keep jobs here and grow the number of jobs. But if we don't get an exemption, we're not going to be able to keep Thermo Fisher here. That's what these legislators, the key author, Senator Spreitzer, a former city council president in Beloit, actually, that's what they said is we want to make it easier for municipalities to be reactive to local economic development needs. Regardless of what party or who's in charge next session, we do expect to see further TIF proposals come forward.

Mm-hmm.

And with that, I'd be more than happy to take questions. If you can't think of them now or if we run out of time here, of course, we are always available to all of you. We work for all municipal officials.

Thank you, Evan.

Thank you. Mr. Annette, go ahead.

I appreciate your comments about the But-4 test. My observation is that its application is incredibly inconsistent and in many cases has turned into really no restriction at all, pretty much to boil down to because we say so. Did the legislature provide any additional guidance in any of this legislation around more evidentiary teeth for the but-for test?

It's a very good question. So we have heard a lot of discussion on that, both from the legislature as well as from some of your peers and other municipalities. We've heard this brought up in roundtables, for example, at different league events. The legislature to date has not proposed, at least in recent sessions, any sort of evidentiary test requirements for the but-for test. They have to date said municipalities are the best ones to be able to be reactive to that. What we have seen is some municipalities look to try and create some publications about what we expect a developer to provide. So we know that about four tests can be met. We're not going to accept, you know, take our word for it sort of thing. We've seen other municipalities even enact ordinances, but more than that, most municipalities have just handled it at these meetings at this governing body level and at the joint review board level to say, are we convinced are we convinced that this but four test has been achieved and um you know with the exception of the housing market crash something that most people couldn't predict at least you know in wisconsin people couldn't really predict and see coming we have seen tiff uh work out on the balance sheet exceptionally well in the end for municipalities and projects around the state that doesn't get to the front end of the but four test but at least in the back end we've seen um green come out of these we've we've seen everything end up in the black and and green so we're not ending up in the red i don't know did that answer to the best i can at least mr lippy go ahead

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say again, you know, we're grateful for the connection to state government that the league provides for us here.

Also going to give a quick shout out for being timely in terms of the municipality.

I got page 15. You got the article by Melissa Hunt, who came here recently to give us some economic development advice. She's the Wisconsin Economic Development Association head, of course. And then also you've got the changes to the law article coming up in the same municipality on page 17. One thing I think that we might be interested in, and I hope Alder Arnett's paying attention to this one, the Act 235 has a mention of stormwater recovery or costs built into it. I don't know that you necessarily have that on TAP, but stormwater is a huge issue in District 2. I've got a gas station that likes to go underwater here. I know we're looking at some projects to help work with that. But I'm wondering if that's something else that we could potentially leverage here in Watertown and just don't know this. That was surprising but interesting to see in the materials presented.

Yes. So the, um, first of all, thank you very much. Appreciate reading the league publications, everyone who does here and, uh, pointing that out. Cause yes, the timing is perfect. Had a little mention from one of our business partners of a couple of these new laws in the magazine and as well as Melissa Hudson, fantastic partner for us and former municipal economic development official as well. Um, the act two 35 requirements as it relates to stormwater, it's a little bit, um, up for the developer and municipality and joint review board to work together because the statutes say that if it's a district-wide stormwater cost, it can qualify. If it's individual lot stormwater costs, it cannot qualify. What we're having trouble parsing with this is if individual lots, if they're talking, say, MS4 requirements for state or municipally designated permitting, the lot size requirements wouldn't be subject as individual lots. to stormwater permitting unless a municipal ordinance exceeds state standards on that stormwater permitting, but a development as a whole would. So what we're unclear of at the moment is a circumstance where stormwater costs wouldn't necessarily be eligible. Now there is a couple of exceptions there of say a developer wanted to come forward and do French drains in property for stormwater. That wouldn't qualify because it gets to that on lot requirement versus that public domain requirement. But generally speaking, if you're talking stormwater, it's going to qualify under Act 235 because it's being planned for a district, not a lot. Uh, looking more broadly at stormwater though, that is a big topic we've heard from members is the exceeding difficulty of and costs. Um, we're currently working with the on a number of different initiatives to try and make it easier to afford stormwater locally, uh, comply with regulatory requirements, but also be more effective in that compliance be more effective in the way we can carry it out without increasing costs. One of the biggest changes that we expect to see coming soon is allowing for trading for permitting to count towards the MS4 permitting for the runoff standards within a general permit versus individual permits. So we've been making incremental but important progress on that and be more than happy to talk about stormwater generally further because it's definitely an important topic.

I just want to make a compliment to you because I can see your passion and your energy and your knowledge on the topic. And I can see we benefit from people like you that are working on our behalf. So nice job and keep up the good work.

Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate that. And as I mentioned in the beginning, I believe, really appreciate the opportunity to be here. And if you guys didn't have a packed agenda afterwards, I promise I could spend the next two hours talking about housing and stormwater.

Mr. Lampe, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. The last thing I'll say is that after this council had a chance to review, there was a particular project that came through. We did basically come back and coalesce as another committee of the whole. This is back on September 3rd, 2024. We had a chance basically to sit down and kind of talk about those types of TID or TIF that we were in support of. And at that time, I mean, obviously we coalesced in support that, you know, we were definitely in support of TIF and TID for housing. Um, I think that that might be something that we may want to do as we're starting to step into some of these larger agreements again, just take the temperature of the council and avoid developer surprises down the road.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else have a question for Mr Miller? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you all appreciate it. All right. I'll look, uh, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn that being our last item.

I'll make that motion.

Okay, motion by Berg. I'll second. Second by Davis. Okay. Those in favor say aye. Aye. It's 7 to 9 p.m. We'll just take five. Okay, I'll need two. Common Council meeting to order, 7.13 p.m. here on July 7, 2026. Take a roll, please.

Davis.

I'm sorry. We'll wait. Recording stopped.

I'm looking at that one.

I don't think, I don't see, our invocation I don't believe is here tonight. So we'll skip on that. Okay, I'll start over.

Recording in progress.

Okay, I'll call tonight's Common Council meeting to order. 7.14 p.m. here on July 7th.

Davis? Here. Lampe?

Here.

Berg?

Here.

Nitecky?

Here.

Blanke?

Here.

Smith?

Here.

Arnett?

Here.

Haas? Here. Moldenhauer?

Here.

Okay, thank you. Will you please join me in 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 on the agenda, minutes of common council meeting held on June 16th and June 30th.

Mr. Mayor, I'll recommend we approve the minutes as written.

Okay, a motion by Berg. Second by Molenhauer. Okay. Questions, comments on them? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. All right. Next we have comments and suggestions from citizens present. Members of the public who wish to address the council shall register their request in writing with the city clerk prior to speaking. Speakers shall be permitted up to three minutes for their comments.

Francine Geis.

Thank you. I've already written a letter to the paper, so I'm not going to use my own words. I'm going to use the words of a friend of mine, Julie Janowak, who wrote this after the parade. I hope everyone had a fabulous, safe 4th of July celebration this past weekend. I wanted to share some facts about what happened during the Watertown 4th of July parade. Social Justice Watertown had a float in the parade, like we did last year. We all wore white in honor of the suffragettes who helped bring the right to vote to millions of women in 1920. We had flags from all 13 of the original colonies on our truck, along with at least a dozen American flags, including a full-sized one right in the front, middle of the truck. We also had several LGBTQ rainbow flags, and I think maybe a trans flag or an ally flag. Our display of America is a land of liberty and freedom for all Americans was triggering for some as a current Watertown Unified School District school board member brought a Sun Prairie resident with her to the parade, parked in the lot at the senior center, and proceeded to stalk us for hours before the parade even started. These individuals took photos and videos of us in neighboring floats. Fine. It's a free country. We ignored them, conversed with community members, took photos with other parade participants, and enjoyed the good vibes of the day. Well, once the parade started, the Sun Prairie resident and another individual started to walk right next to us in the street and yell something about trans kids and groomers. He and his friends shoved their phones in our faces, blocked us from even walking forward, screeched at us, don't touch me, even though he was walking right into us. ran back and forth in front of the truck, and slandered and defamed us the entire length of the parade. At some point, the police officers on the parade route asked these two folks to get off the street. So they followed us on the sidewalk, filming and harassing onlookers, yelling about trans kids, and in general trying to instigate some sort of negative reaction from the crowd towards all of us with the social justice Watertown. I don't even know how to explain how ridiculous and disappointing this was. Just like in 2023 when the Nazis showed up at Pride in the Park, no one in city leadership positions condemning this blatant display of harassment towards taxpaying, law-abiding citizens in Watertown. Silence is acceptance. We are all Americans and we all love this country and all of us, regardless of our gender identity, our faith, our immigrant status, our ability or disability, or the color of our skin, have the right to exist in Watertown free from harassment, slander, and defamation, certainly by outside agitators, but also by our own community members who don't like us. These Watertown School Board members and outside groups are not done harassing us, both as a group and individual members of our group. They have proven to us that the other side is so afraid of the good work and goodwill social justice Watertown is generating that that they are willing to break the law to slow us down. While I feel another billboard taking shape, I feel increased enthusiasm at protests. I feel like we've had an influx of volunteers to help with park cleanups, downtown beautification efforts, pantry giving, gosling nest drives, treats for the teachers, and of course, political advocacy for the change so desperately needed here in Watertown. I would like to pass this along. I'm sorry, I only printed out one copy, but an example of some of the harassment I personally have been receiving online. And I, yes, it all goes together. Should anything happen to my family, my property, or myself, I want it on the record that this is happening. And I would like that entered into the files. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Josh Mueller.

Does it matter which topic we're going or is this kind of everything?

Whatever you want to say, Josh.

How's everybody doing today, huh? Me too. Anyways, this is on the subject of the T-Dora. I think it's a great positive step forward for our community to open some great events or a draw to downtown or make this city thriving and alive. Whereas we're seeing a lot of other, like every other city and town right now in Wisconsin passing one pretty much right now. Lake Mills, Janesville, Waukesha recently. And I'm sure in the next week, next week, they're all going to be, everyone but us might not have, everyone but us might have one. But hopefully we can take a step in the right direction and, you know, do this for our downtown area to and of course this involves drinking but not everyone has to drink this draws crowds live music food food trucks uh and what other kind of like you know uh pop-up shops uh craft vendors whatever it may be this brings the community together and yes drinking is a part of that and so is kind of every single fair festival in this state it's this is how it kind of is but I would love to encourage that this pass and then hopefully move to a straight up Dora. And, uh, since we have the main street being worked on, hopefully that can be incorporated. We can work some cool events also downtown while the main streets blocked off. Cause we have to try and keep our main street relevant for all of our shops, bars, all of our businesses. Cause we want to, we want to, we want to thrive here in Watertown. So I'm from here. It's my hometown. I opened up the drafty cellar here because I believed in my city and I wanted to bring something really cool here. And that's kind of basically it. I'm open to any conversation if anyone wants to throw anything at me or questions. But I think this whole thing is a step in the right direction and I'd like to see this move forward. Thank you for everybody that's moving forward so far to put it here today. That's probably good for me.

Thank you, Mr. Mueller. And happy anniversary, too.

Thank you. Eight years.

Uh-huh. Okay.

Anybody else want to go? Nope. That's it? Okay.

All right. There's a chance at the end of the meeting for any agenda items as well. Okay. I'll move on to reports. We have the plan commission minutes from June 8th. Site Plan Review Committee Minutes from June 8th. Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Minutes from June 15th. Senior Center Advisory Board Minutes from June 16th. Tourism Minutes from June 18th. Downtown Main Street Reconstruction Task Force Minutes from June 30th. And Public Safety and Welfare Minutes from July 1st. Any questions and we'll move on?

Okay, seeing none.

Okay. uh communication recommendations we have the fire department monthly report of may 2026 and then i will B, employee recognitions. It was actually, we had the same one last month. So I'm just going to move on. That was reprinted twice. So if nothing on A, I'll move on to the new business. Okay. New business, A, review and take action. Committee appointments.

Mr. Mayor, I'll move that we approve your nominations, your recommendations. Okay. Yeah. Motion by Berg.

Second by Nteki. Thank you. top here. Okay, no comments. Okay, Megan. Okay.

Berg?

Aye.

Natecky? Aye. Lenke? Aye. Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Abstain. Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Davis? Aye. Mampy?

Abstain.

Motion carried.

Okay, thank you. Okay. Next miscellaneous business, payroll summary, May 27th through June 9th, and June 10th through June 23rd. See if there are any questions on that. Move on otherwise. Okay. Ordinances. Ordinance 26-16, ordinance to amend a portion of section 500-5, one-way streets and alleys. Sponsored by Alder Davis and the Public Safety and Welfare Committee on its second reading. Ms. Davis?

On the chair-appointed ordinance 2660.

Okay, motion by Davis. Second by Lampe. Okay. Questions, comments on a second reading? Mr. Blanke, go ahead.

So I'd first like to thank Alder Davis, Chair of Public Safety, for bringing to public safety, we are going to be reviewing all the one-way streets over the course of the next several months to determine whether or not they should all be converted to two-way streets. I think that's a prudent decision and looking at them on an individual basis, I have no issue with that whatsoever. I'm hoping we make a decision to convert them all to two-way streets. That said, still think it is somewhat ridiculous to change one block of a street to two-way while the rest of that street remains one-way. I think it's actually causing more confusion and delaying this change until the main street reconstruction would be a better choice. Based on that, I'd like to make a motion to refer this back to public safety since we're going to be reviewing all of the streets. And to bring this back at a later date. So motion to refer back to public safety.

I'll second it.

Okay. Motion by Blankey, second by Berg to send back to safety for consideration. Okay. Questions, comments on that? Is this, this was, uh, such a bad streets.

Was this 8th Street now, right? This is 8th Street from Market to Main. So the one block that runs between Hardee's and Dollar General. Okay.

And I believe Alder Davis, this is the first one on the agenda, right? That you're going to look up first? That's right.

The plan is to talk about the rest of 8th Street at our next public safety meeting next month.

Okay. Thank you. Just got some clarification.

Mr. Lampe, go ahead. In the way of clarification, what are our degrees of freedom in terms of ability to batch up the one-way streets or delay them or whatnot? Do we have a large ability to do that? Do we have a minor ability to do that? I don't know what parameters we're playing with here.

Mr. Beyer, you want to say anything?

By batch up, is that bringing them all forward in a short amount of time?

By batch up, what I'm talking about is essentially the opposite of what some of us are perceiving is happening now, where we're taking them one at a time as those streets are reconstructed or bring available. To batch them up would be, for example, we get the streets reconstructed and 18 months from now, we basically flip them all to one way, as an example.

Okay, do you have any comments on that? Mr buyer?

No, I think past direction on, um, on our end in public works, you know, for for local streets that aren't arterial, like 3rd and 4th street that are 1 way. Um, our direction was to plan for reconstruction, uh, widening those streets. And convert them to 1 way traffic similar to what we're proposing here tonight. The other one-way streets that are local roadways are not in our five-year capital plan. So it would take some effort to include those or shuffle things around. They are not currently included.

Okay. And I believe you mean when you wind the streets, you want to convert them to two-way, correct?

Correct.

Okay. Ms. Davis, why don't you go first?

It's going to clarify. Right now, the portion, the only portion being reconstructed is that portion from Main Street to Market. And so now that they're going to put it back together again is the reason why it's coming before us so that they know which way to put the paint or where to do for lines and signs. So it kind of, it makes logical sense that as they put the road back together again, we make the decision to change it to two-way at this point. They're not reconstructing the rest of 8th Street right now.

If you paint lines, Mr. Beyer, if you paint it for one way right now and then 18 months later you convert it to two-way, how would that affect the looks of the streets or any more work you would put on staff?

So if we would paint lines for one way, we would have to grind them off when it is converted at a later date. Um, we do believe this could be a standalone conversion project. The roadways that connect on either side are 2 way traffic. And, you know, roadways South of main street for that 1st block are generally 2 way traffic with the exception of 3rd and 4th, which carry more traffic.

Okay, thank you. Mr buyer.

And I'll just say, I believe this is a good move to make now. I see a lot of traffic cutting through Hardee's and cutting through Dollar Tree or Dollar General there to get to market. And with this conversion now, you're going to be able to move more freely and make that turn on a road rather than through a parking lot.

Until we get to Thurn Forestry, I believe that's the only road on the south side of Main Street, that's one way. That'd be correct, Mr. Beyer? Besides 3rd and 4th?

That's correct.

Okay.

All right, we got a motion to send back to safety. Mr. Burr, go ahead.

Yeah, I'm in favor of going back to public safety because of that discussion being a healthy discussion. But I know from being a chairman of Public Works and from discussing the topic that we, again, consistently told ourselves that when we do reconstruction, we should always look at the possibility of going two-way if it is a one-way street. However, in Watertown, there's a lot of streets that change the width within the street, and that is unfortunately the reason why we go from two to one or vice versa. And those problems can be corrected through reconstruction, but until they are, it would be it would be difficult to convert, again, some of these streets in their current width to anything but the way they are. So it is confusing for people from out of town to come and to deal with this, and it is a problem. I'm glad we're doing it on 4th Street, where we're going to go north, and we're going to make that two-way at some point, because that is an area of a lot of confusion on 4th and Main, on that block going north. So we have examples where this one-way is a difficult problem, and where we can, we should actively look at, and that's why the discussion is good to have. I'm in favor.

Okay. Mr. Valiant, can you go ahead?

So, a couple of things. As Alder Lampy suggested, I'm totally in favor of batching, like doing everything that is adjacent to main street at the time of the main street reconstruction to me would make the most logical sense because traffic is going to have a lot of issues at that time getting around downtown making the streets converting them all two-way at that time would make sense and then some of the outlying streets doing those in a second group later would be fine because there is cost associated with converting from one-way to two-way. To Alderberg's comments about needing them to be reconstructed to go to two-way, City Engineering presented a study to Public Works that said that all of our roads currently meet the standard to be two-way traffic with parking on both sides with the exception of it was like two blocks and even though some of them are narrower they can still accommodate that two-way traffic even as they are now so we don't need to wait for reconstruction to do that I do have one question for the city engineer. When will this section of street open and need to be painted?

So right now the schedule to pave it would be later this summer. So we're right now working with our contractor for August. That has fluctuated a little bit throughout the season, but that's where we're at right now. So sometime late summer. There are things we can look at on a temporary basis, be it temporary pavement marking or things like that that could buy us some time as well.

Okay, Mr. Lampi, go ahead. Mayor, I hate to put somebody on the spot, but I think this lies in Aldermanic District 4, so I'd kind of like to hear a little about what the residents there think about this. Who are you going to put on the spot?

That would be me. I've been walking around and I discussed just changing that one block and a lot of people were just saying how confusing that was going to be. If we're going to do that, let's just do the whole street. I live two blocks away. I walk my dog all the time in that area. So I try to reach out to as many people as I can. I don't feel that that street is very busy now that the YMCA is left. So I don't think it's going to be a huge adjustment. Now, Ninth Street was a different situation. There were a lot of people that were, you know, talking about the road not being wide enough. And we went back and forth on this. And I think we have peace on that street now. So I think a lot of people, you know, don't want that to happen. But, you know, change, sometimes change is hard. But, yeah. The main thing is, if we're going to do this, let's make it to, let's just do it right away. Not do, you know, one block and then, you know, five months down the road, do the rest. So does that answer everybody's thoughts or questions or, yeah?

Yeah. Either good with being put on the spot, Ms. Taki. Go ahead, Ms. Davis.

I'm not opposed for this having some ongoing discussion at public safety. I would like to point out, though, to Mr. Berg's point, be careful what you wish for, because if the road is not wide enough, then they're going to lose parking on one or both sides of the street. And so that's something that we will discuss in public safety. And just to also make sure you know that the plan is for those residents to be contacted ahead of the public safety meeting. And so I would invite them to come and speak to that. What's good about this section that we're talking about right now from main to market, it is wide enough. So just, oh, and I have one more follow-up. Mr. Blanke, when you're talking about waiting until reconstruction, do you mean waiting until just prior to reconstruction? Because wouldn't we want these streets to be, someone coming out of Hardee's to be able to turn, right?

Yes.

Okay, so you're saying the timing would be just prior to reconstruction. Okay, thank you.

Okay, whatever you guys decide, that's That's probably got to be two-way to a reconstruction, that block. Okay. Anything else that we can vote just whether to send back to safety or not?

Okay.

Blankey?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas?

Aye.

Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Berg?

Aye.

Nteki? Aye. Motion carried.

At least I have to vote on that one. Okay, thank you. It's an agenda item for August meeting for safety. Okay, next, B, Ordinance 26-17, Ordinance to create a portion of Section 500-3, Stop Intersections, sponsored by Alder Davis and the Public and Safety Welfare Committee. Also on its second reading. Ms. Davis?

I'll move for Ordinance 26-17.

Motion by Davis. Second. Second by Blanke. Okay, questions, comments on B? Mr. Mayor?

Yes, Mr. Blanke. Based on the action that we took on Ordinance 2616, I believe it would be prudent to refer this back to Public Safety as well, since this is a direct... Without passing Ordinance 2616, passing this ordinance would not make sense. So I'll move to refer to Public Safety.

I'll second it.

Okay, motion. We have a motion to refer back to safety by Blanke, also seconded by Berg. Okay. Questions, comments on this motion?

Okay.

Blanke?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

Ernett?

Aye.

Haas?

Aye.

Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Davis? Aye. Lampe?

Aye.

Berg?

Aye.

Ntuky? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, thank you. See Ordinance 26-18, Ordinance to create a portion of Chapter 500-9, parking prohibited in specified places, high-profile vehicle parking. Also sponsored by Alder Davis and the Public and Safety Welfare. On second reading. Mr. Lampe.

Do you entertain a motion to suspend rules to consider...

Check your microphone, Mr. Lampe.

Would you consider suspending the rules on D, E, F, and G and considering them together?

We can, but we're on C right now. Sorry, we're on C. Then I will look at you right away after C is passed.

I'll tell you what, I'll move for Ordinance 2618. Motion by Lampe.

Second by Blanke. I think this one's good to go. Okay. Questions? Comments? Okay.

Lampe?

Aye.

Berg?

Aye.

Ntuky? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas?

Aye.

Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Davis? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. I will now look at Mr. Lampe.

Mayor, I would like to suspend the rules to consider D, E, F, and G on the agenda together.

Okay. We have motion by Lampe to consider all four D, E, F, and G together.

Second.

Second by Arnett. Okay. Questions, comments on that? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Okay. D, E, F, and G on the table, so we will now look at Ordinance 26-19, Ordinance to Amend Section 220-3, Classes of Licenses and Fees of the City of Watertown General Ordinances, sponsored by Ordinance 26-20, Ordinance to Amend Section 220-9, Regulation of License Premises and Licenses of the City of Watertown General Ordinances, Ordinance 26-21, Ordinance to Repeal and Recreate Section 420-8, Outdoor Open Container Temporary Downtown Outdoor Refreshment Area, TDORA, and Ordinance 26-22, Ordinance to Amend Section 410-52, Possession of Alcoholic Beverages on Public Ways of the City of Watertown General Ordinances. All sponsored by myself and Licensing Committee on its second reading. Mr. Blanke, go ahead.

So this was discussed extensively at Public Safety, and appreciate Alder Davis' work on this and identified some items where I believe we need a little more work, specifically how public safety will approve the special event permits regarding TDORA. That said, I think that this provides a good framework for the overall goal of what we're trying to do. Um, we will need to revisit this ordinance and add some items to it. Um, in fact, one item I would like to make a motion to add tonight, um, that was discussed when this was brought before licensing board is, uh, the boundaries of the TDORA. Um, licensing, it was implied that, uh, it would be the downtown district. However, that's not referenced in the ordinance. I would defer to the city attorney as to where the best place to put it would be, but I would like to add that we, I'm not making that motion yet, but I would like to add that we reference the Main Street District as the boundaries for the Teodora. because one of the concerns that was discussed in public safety is can this be done anywhere in the city of watertown because there is no actual boundary defined sorry miss davis go ahead my understanding mr blankey wasn't making a motion yet is that correct

That is correct.

Okay. So I do have some follow-up questions for the attorney in regards to this. This is 428-8. And as Mr. Blanke pointed out, we're looking at letter A under the definition. So this would be number two, where it says temporary downtown outdoor refreshment area to Dora.

Ms. Davis, what page are you on? I'm sorry, what page are you on?

This would be 428-8. This is ordinance F. Page 58.

Thank you.

So, Tudora means a contiguous area designated by the Common Council, Exhibit A, in which possession and consumption of alcohol beverages is permitted under 410-52C3 of the Watertown Municipal Code in public ways subject to adopted rules and conditions and only during a city-approved special event pursuant to 428-7 of the Municipal Code and within the boundaries approved as part of said special event permit. So my question for the attorney, and I'll just add on to what Mr. Blanke has said, could you please point us to Exhibit A in this ordinance?

It should be attached to the map that was previously considered.

It was not attached. And it was also not attached on June 16th when the council voted on this for the very first time. And I would also say it's probably safe to say that there are council members who have never seen Exhibit A and so have no idea what it is or what the boundaries are of Exhibit A. And so I'm also curious to know why Exhibit A was included in parentheses rather than the boundaries being written in text as we do so many other things, whether it's a no parking zone or a one-way street. So I'm curious to know about that, why it was included as an exhibit so it could be lost, and why it's not included in the text. And then I have some other follow-up questions about this.

It was just a style decision. There's no any which way on why we chose to do that. If you were to make such a motion, this would be the appropriate place to make that designation.

No. As a follow-up though, this hasn't been published then. So not only have the council members not studied the Tudora map that's Exhibit A, but it's not been published for the community. And I think there would be two alders that would be interested to know that six to seven blocks included in the proposed Exhibit A Tudora are residential blocks. So that would mean that if that portion of the Tudora is activated, than walking past residential houses and next to the post office, which it's against federal law to have alcohol on. People could have open containers of wine, beer, and then also intoxicating liquors, so that would be hard liquor. So I think it deserves review by this council before We just automatically designate it as a common council. And I think we should look to see if that area that is proposed is an area that makes sense for Tedora. So I think it's actually a major flaw in this ordinance that's been presented. And I don't think it's something that can be just rectified on the floor tonight where we just slap in the Exhibit A while we probably have council members who haven't seen it. I was able to find it because I went back to the licensing board minutes and found it there. So I think this is a major flaw that needs some additional time for us to look at to decide if we're comfortable with the Tudora being alongside residential areas. They're zoned residential. I would also point out that our open outdoor entertainment permit currently does not allow those events, open outdoor container events, along residential areas. So I wouldn't support us just putting in either. I know you're saying just the downtown area, but there's no map. We need to be able to look at it. I don't know what the downtown area street designations are.

That was a clerical mistake on my end. I just emailed it to you all.

Mr. Mayor, just as a point of clarification, though, the The downtown business district is two blocks north and two blocks south, and it does restrict itself to the commercial portion of town.

Can you tell?

Yeah, between, that was between, is it 1st Street? Water Street. Then Washington Street to 6th Street, I believe. Washington to 6th Street, and then

Yeah, Dodge to Jones.

It was to incorporate businesses in those areas. Actually, City Hall is in that area, too. At least across the street. Ms. Davis?

I do have some other comments that I think are very... that are errors that I think we need to consider. So just to go back to what we've just concluded with, it was an error that exhibit A was not included in the ordinance and it was not included in the ordinance that this council voted unanimously to support at the last meeting. But there's another serious concern and I actually have some questions for Megan Dennison, our city clerk. So this is in regards to 428-8 as well. The title of this is an ordinance to repeal and recreate section 428-8 outdoor open container entertainment event permit relating to temporary downtown outdoor refreshment area. So bring us up to speed, Megan. Tell us currently which groups have to apply for the outdoor open container event permit. Currently, who has to apply for that?

It would be any group hosting the event, sponsoring the event.

Any group sponsoring the event or if they are a license, temporary license, be picnic license holder and they're selling alcohol.

Well, the Tdora is... No, I'm not talking about the Tdora.

I'm talking about the current code for the open container, outdoor open container entertainment event permit. Who currently has to apply for that?

So that goes hand in hand with a Tempe license, which is a handful of groups, mainly nonprofits. that can apply for those.

So if you're a nonprofit and you get a Tempe license, picnic license, and you're having a special event, then you apply for the outdoor open container event permit. So in addition to following chapter 125, those Tempe license holders selling alcohol at an event also have to follow our Tempe ordinances. But in addition to that, they have to follow all of the procedural guidelines that are currently in the code for the outdoor open container event permit. And so I don't expect you to see the text, but maybe you can see my highlighting here. This is the current outdoor open container ordinance. And you see all this highlighting. These are procedural guidelines or operational guidelines for that Tempe nonprofit to have in place if they're hosting a special event. So some of those would include they have to have wristbands or they have to have signage up to designate the area or they have to have people that are watching the exits to make sure people don't carry out open containers. Interestingly, as I mentioned before, they can, an open container Event cannot be in a residential area and also interestingly they can have 16 ounce cups at open event even though that the Picnic license is for 12 ounces. Why do I bring this up? Well, it goes on to the next portion temporary downtown Temporary downtown outdoor refreshment area. That's the Tedora this 428-8 repeals the current regulations for the outdoor open container entertainment event permit and replaces it, recreates it with the Tedora. The Tedora is specific to a geographical area which is the downtown. So my question for either the attorney or for Megan is to answer this question if the council tonight goes forward and approves this 428-8 proposed ordinance what procedural guidelines what operational guidelines would be would be in place for a non-profit with a tempi license selling alcohol at a special event outside of the downtown area for instance, a nonprofit selling alcohol at Riverside Park at a four-day music festival. We know that they'd have to follow Chapter 125. We know that they'd have to follow our temporary Tempe license requirements. But please tell me what other procedural requirements would be in place for nonprofits selling alcohol outside of the downtown area.

Everything contained within Chapter 125, our ordinance cannot supersede that. That always is in effect in addition to the special event ordinance.

But what we would be foregoing are things like signs, wristbands, individuals checking the exits. We find them important enough to put into the Tudora, because if you look at the Tudora regulations, they have to have wristbands, signs, people checking exits. But if we go forward with this ordinance, What procedural requirements would be in place if a nonprofit wants to sell alcohol at a Riverside Park? What local procedural guidance would be in place for them by code?

Special events. That's what would control.

I think what I hear you saying is there would be no Guidance to require in code to require Riverside Events such as Riverfest to have wristbands signs People watching exits or anything like that. There would be local no local requirements For events selling alcohol outside of the downtown area if this is approved tonight, is that correct?

I

The Tempe does have some requirements, but not the ones I just mentioned. Also, Riverfest would go from 16 ounces down to 12 ounces. We know that they'd follow Chapter 125. We know that they'd follow the Tempe requirements. There would be no other local requirements, even though we've included them for the Dora. There would be no requirements if you hosted an event, sold alcohol as a nonprofit at any other place in Watertown outside of the downtown area.

We don't have an answer off the top of our head. We can look into it and get back to you.

So just as a follow-up, Riverfest signed an agreement with Watertown and in that agreement it requires them to fill out the outdoor container event permit And as a part of that, they had to have a lot of things in place. Why? Because we value safety. And we seem to value it because we've included it for the Hedora. But they would no longer exist if this isn't approved tonight. So there are two major flaws in the proposed ordinance. The first is the exhibit A that's been missing. And the second is the outdoor, the repealing of the open container outdoor event permit.

I was trying to follow you. Mr. Lampe, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. I've been looking at DORA's and was very happy actually to see that we made some progress on this after umpteen years. This has obviously been a priority of a lot of Main Street businesses. The Main Street program has been looking at this for more years than I've been involved in. the city. And this is, I think, a valuable step forward because it essentially addresses the core concern of a lot of establishments downtown, which was their inability to jointly participate in a community event where there were multiple existing establishments. Under our existing code, basically every single organization would basically have to either pick organization, which is exactly the structure that you saw under every Blocktoberfest to date, is there was one primary organization and they basically pulled a special event permit. This particular TDORA change actually eliminates that requirements and essentially allows two establishments on opposite sides of the street, particularly in an area like Blocktoberfest, to equitably participate in the event. So I'm very happy with what I saw in there. In addition, the area that is outlined here in Appendix A, and as Alder Davis said, that was a bit of a mystery to us when we were looking at public safety. But the area that's located here is actually an area that has held six successful starter events. Those of you who've been on council a while have heard me every year, Blacktoberfest comes up. This is like a precursor to what a DORA is going to look like in the city when it comes through. So there's been, I think, four of those now, as well as two successful downtown chamber events all in this area. all under the special event permit, which provided us with specific limitations. And we had an opportunity to review that. And all have been basically safe and successful events. So I'm overall very much in favor of this ordinance. I do want to be sensitive to a couple of the concerns that were raised with regard to specifying where the organization is. So I do want to actually make that motion. I think Alder Blanke was getting close to in terms of baking in the dimensions that were described in Appendix A into the ordinance. And then I also would like to suggest something that we've done with other ordinances and agreements, especially pertaining to entertainment where we weren't necessarily sure what was going to happen, which is basically put a time limit in there. Something again that we previously have done with the original Riverfest agreement that we did the town square and that basically this is something very similar in my mind to this basically paves the path to success. It's built on a bunch of success, but there's also a need to go back and tweak perhaps other things and look at it, but I don't really feel like slowing down the process too much at this moment. So if you bear with me, I'd actually like to make a motion then to modify on page, I want to get it right so everybody can follow along here, I believe it is on page 58. This is in 428-8, Section A. I would like to suggest an amendment to that that would strictly define the boundaries of this district to being east of Washington Street to the Rock River, south of O'Connell, north of West Madison. and then also west of 6th Street to the Rock River, south of East Madison, north of Dodge. And I believe that that essentially bakes in what was provided to us in Appendix A tonight.

Okay, second. Okay, motion by Lampe. Second by Blanke. Page 58, you said, right? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, discussion on the motion.

I have a question. I'm sorry, I didn't. I'm more visual.

Ms. Davis, I want to see if someone else wants to talk to first. Okay, go ahead, Ms. Davis.

I'm sorry, I thought you were calling me. My apologies. I'm more visual, so that went by way too fast for me. Were the dimensions, the boundaries that you just indicated, identical to the boundaries in Exhibit A? Mr. Lampey.

As to the best of my knowledge, so Washington to the far west, O'Connell to the north, that should be the one street that's north of Main, west of the river. Hopefully somebody can check that for me.

One block north, yeah.

Okay, one block north of Main Street, east of the river is East Madison. So that would go to 6th Street. Drop straight down three blocks, and three blocks, or two blocks south of Maine, three blocks south of Madison would be Dodge. Cross the river again, and the street over there is called West Madison, where it intersects South Washington.

Matches the map, I believe. I did that too earlier, Ms. Davis. Go ahead.

So Mr. Arnett and Ms. Nataki, these are your districts impacted. Those are residential areas. If you look at the hours that the Tudora can be in place, I think on the weekends, do you guys have it in front of you? Is it 11 or is it 12 on the weekends? So that would mean that going past residential houses during those hours There would be open containers and people on the sidewalk, potentially. It's a potential.

So those are your residential districts.

I'm kind of curious to hear your thoughts on that.

Go ahead and start it. That potential is not significantly different from the current state of affairs when you have alcoholic establishments in that area. I know the establishments do their level best to make sure that no activity occurs outside. But we've got that and we have retail right alongside it. So honestly, I think that we've had a good history with these type of events in the city thus far. I think that those have been housing them, have been hosting them. have been effective in controlling their customers. And I think that the procedures in place as proposed will help to ensure that that stays intact. And therefore, I again view the possible as not being significantly different from the possible that exists right now.

You're not on the spot again. Oh, no, no, no. Oh, I have to agree with, you know, Alder or not. I, have we, do we know any numbers of, of, you know, accidents or, you know what I mean? Like arrests or, you know what I mean?

For special events.

Do we have any kind of data?

Yeah, we can certainly take a look at that. Um, It would be very anecdotal. And I, yeah, I would have to go check those statistics and get back to you on that if you wanted me to.

I know several of the businesses that run these things and, you know, I don't hear a lot of bad things that come from them. I believe that they are doing a great job when it comes to these events. There are going to be a few people that, you know, are going to wreck it, you know what I mean, are going to cause a ruckus and things like that. But I don't think it's a large number of people.

When the T-Dora was approached, the idea of an actual Dora, and she was one of the first people I talked to, you referenced the Blacktoberfest. So last year, the weather was not looking good for that Saturday, and they were wondering what they could do. So right now, While you're drafting local waters, draftee has to be closed and local waters license comes out into the street. So only the establishment. Nothing changed with special event permits. The only difference would be now that draftee could then be open. So you get multiple places. If I'm correct, I'm not even asking police, I believe they just asked that if there was multiple places, if it was a different colored cup or emblems amount on the cup, that would be the only difference. Nothing else should really change in a special event except that bigger one. If there was a rain event, it allowed the establishments to have their band or something inside. So that was really the big difference. I know there's some that even someone that spoke like a full-blown Dora that was not thought to probably even to happen at this point. So I was thinking about the temporary one that would just be able to open more places to sell alcohol and meet in the middle on the streets. That's pretty much the biggest difference right now. Mr. Berg, go ahead.

I think you've, Mr. Mayor, you've actually hit on some of the main points that are behind this type of proposed change. And what you have currently under the example that they've been doing with that one business owner taking out a license and taking on the risk and everybody within that defined area not being able to participate. The whole intent here is to make this more vibrant for the defined area that's going to be involved in this activity so that they all commercially benefit. You have food and you have entertainment. Obviously, the alcohol is the area of concern, but the other businesses that are going to be within this defined area will now get some benefit from being within that defined area and being able to be open for business and receive benefit commercially from that activity. So it has a lot of upside on the side of helping the downtown defined area to have activity. It still has to be separately approved each time. It's not a blanket type of allowance on a continuing basis. It's per event where they're going to have to be reviewed and approved. Point of order.

I didn't want to cut Alderberg off because his comments are pertinent to the overall discussion. But at this time, I believe we should be discussing only the boundaries. I was thinking that earlier on the floor.

Okay.

Let's stick with the comments are pertinent overall, but because we do have an amendment on the floor, we should be discussing only that.

It's all right. The member of the map. Yes. Okay.

I have a question for the attorney. We have a requirement to publish ahead of time. Exhibit A was not included and published for June 16th. It was not included or published for tonight's council meeting. That is a serious error. Legally, is it wise for us to insert the most important part of this ordinance? This is the most important part of the ordinance, the geographical boundaries. Is it wise for us to insert that without publishing it for public to know about and to be able to come and speak about? Is that a wise move?

I'm not going to comment on if it's wise or not. I can comment on if it's legal or not. I would say this is a clerical error as the clerk previously explained. I'm also fine with the motion that has since clarified what the boundary locations are.

So let me ask the question differently then. As an attorney, you're to represent the best interests of the city. As an attorney, are you saying that you are comfortable with this council going forward by inserting the most important part of this ordinance and moving forward with that? You believe that's in the best interest of the city and the citizens?

I would say that this is legally defensible.

Is it in the best interest of the city?

She answered the question, Ms. Davis. She didn't. You asked her and she answered. It's done. We had no comment three weeks ago. I'm trying to make sure that the businesses survive downtown. We have business owners invest.

Point of order. This is only for information from the mayor, not an opportunity for you to debate. I believe the attorney can take a look at that.

I'm keeping tabs on how much time everybody speaks. Yours is done, too. Anything else on the motion to have the map? Okay. Go ahead.

Lampe. Aye. Berg. Aye. Nteki.

Aye.

Blanke.

Aye.

Smith.

Aye.

Arnett.

Aye.

Haas. Aye. Moldenhauer. Aye. Davis. No. Motion carried.

Okay. The original motion, I believe, made by Lampe, second by Arnett. Mr. Lampe.

I'd like to make my second motion, which would be the inclusion of a two-year sunset clause on this ordinance to be repealed or replaced by that time.

In the middle of reconstruction?

to have the ordinance replaced by that time. The intent is to have any other issues that people see resolved by that time.

So you're hoping that it's revisited somehow within a two-year period. Right. Gotcha. Okay.

Back to today? Two years from today? Sure.

Okay. So you want this revised, looked at by July 7th of 2028. Okay. We got a motion by Lampe. Okay. Wish me a lampy, say my Nitecky. No timeline if it's next month or next year. Okay. Any thoughts on that? Okay.

Lampy?

Aye.

Berg?

Aye.

Nitecky? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer? Aye. Davis? No. Motion carried.

Okay. The day of July 7, 2028. Okay. Back to the original motion. Mr. Burt?

Yeah, I'm sensitive to the points that are being made and the urgency. I know we have an event in August that we potentially want to have this available for, if I'm not mistaken, but the What would be the harm in meeting again on the next time we meet in July and actually taking action and letting this go into some type of coverage that will be in the paper and out in public? Anybody coming forward with a strong opinion is going to show up. I mean, I'm all for taking action, but I also see there could be value in postponing for a two-week period and taking action then.

Well, there's a lot of businesses, 120 tents coming up second weekend in August. So time is of the essence. So a lot of people are looking for something to help with losing Riverfest. So this is pretty important. And so is when that road is 12 feet deep in a hole to make sure people are going down there. In this case, it's about alcohol. It's about having people down there and shopping and encouraging them, having live music. So I guess that's the choice we make if we want to help those business survive Main Street and try to have a productive weekend when the rides from the carnival for refresh is still there. We got a nice car show going that Sunday. So I guess that's the decision you guys got to make. I know I would vote, but.

But again, at the point of order, I'm not against it. I'm in favor of, I'm just making the case for a delay of two weeks.

No. Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Blanke.

This to, to, uh, Alderberg's point, um, the only comment public comment on this so far has been in the affirmative, right? Both at the council meeting, the previous council meeting at the public safety meeting at the licensing board meeting, there has been no opposition to this at all. We've and. I don't see the point of delaying something because the boundary wasn't perfectly laid out in the ordinance. I think that, and the boundary was discussed at the licensing board meeting. I think pushing forward with this tonight is just fine. Especially with a sunset of two years, we're going to revisit this.

I think that going forward tonight is fine. It could be detrimental towards the big pop-up, Mr. Berg. So to answer your question, okay, Mr. Lampe.

I just wanted to comment in terms of the expectation here. By putting that two-year expectation on it, mechanically, if we think everything is fine, yank that clause after these events have taken place and proven to everybody else that essentially these can also be these events that have basically happened under special event. also happens safely under Tdora. Just yank the clause as a mechanism. But my expectation is that we're not going to revisit this, this year. We're going to let some of these events come through. I fully expect like Blacktoberfest to refile potentially as a TDORA as they've indicated for years that they are interested in. We definitely need this for the big pop-up as the mayor has indicated. But basically the intent here is basically after these events have once again taken place and have been a great success, we basically say this ordinance is good enough or it needs a couple of extra tweaks, but the intent here is to look at this after this season, maybe after two seasons.

I would ask, I worked for two mayors, and if I was going to make a motion, especially something significant, I'd usually let the mayor know and let the staff have a chance to look up information. So I'll ask move in the future for nine of you. If you want to make motions, things happen on the floor, I get that. But if it's something big, I would appreciate a heads up so staff has a chance to look into it. It doesn't do any good to wait until the last second of the meeting. So I ask for nine of you, if there's something that you want to make, I gave Ron and John that message and called them. So I would appreciate the same thing back at me. Otherwise, please don't make them here. Anything else on the motion? Mr. Mayor? Mr. Arnett?

I do think that Aldo Davis has a point with regard to the repeal of all of the existing language in 428.8. I think there is value in that language.

I do too, Mr. Arnett.

What I would like to understand, perhaps the City Attorney is the best person to address this initially. If we do not have those provisions in 428.8 at the moment moving forward, would it be possible, first, and maybe this is a question for the clerk first, would Any event, such as an event happening at Riverside Park that wants to have alcohol, have to go through a special event permit?

Yes, and they typically do. Okay.

So the second question is, is there anything in our code that would prevent us from adding provisions to special event permit incorporating all of the regulations that were in 428.8?

No, particularly when they're renting out city property. It's something that we, and I don't know what the rental agreement looks like off the top of my head, but that's something that we can include in just scanning our ordinance during this discussion. We do have a code section specifically for Riverfest that would address many of these provisions. We can look at incorporating that to whatever agreement that we have in place for rental of city property.

And my question was purposely... not phrased for a specific event, but really for just an event occurring, an outdoor event occurring outside of this definition. And at a few point in time, of course, we could come back and revise this and incorporate what language we felt was necessary from the prior version of 428.8 regarding outdoor and re-add it essentially back to this if we felt that was necessary, but making sure that in the interim, Again, there would be no obstacle to us adding provisions to a special event permit. That intended to have alcohol that would effectively. Achieve the same outcomes as. The existing regulations, correct?

That would be thank you.

Mr.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to address that last piece about the unexpected ordinances. So one of them I do think was a necessary clarification. As you mentioned, that basically addressed a clerical error that was essentially unforeseen by the rest of the council. But the other thing is, I'm going back through the public safety notes. did discuss at the public safety meeting, we did talk about a couple of, um, individual ordinances that folks were potentially interested in. I don't necessarily know. I see that reflected in the notes. So apologize for a lack of heads up on that.

Miss Davis, go ahead.

For the special event application, it is prescribed in the ordinance, the requirements on the application. So to Mr. Arnett's point, wouldn't those additional requirements need to then be amended in the ordinance because it's a prescribed application?

It could, we have a number of regulations as well that are not included within the ordinance just because it's too much to include in just one particular ordinance. So we could, I guess I would suggest for these few events that do occur that it goes into the regulations during the two year time period.

Okay, anything else? Mr. Burr, go ahead.

Mr. Arnett, I'm sorry. Mayor Stocks, I just want to make the comment. I always respect your input and comment when we have discussion like we have. But I know when we have a healthy discussion, we're potentially going to make amendments, changes to a piece of legislation which is typical and normal and appropriate. And the example of a sunset... is an amendment or change which made that legislation better. Again, other things we do as legislators are meant to improve legislation. And we don't all, a lot of it occurs in the context of the discussion we have. And it's not anything that can be, and obviously there's things out of line that you can't do, but there's a lot of things that are within the parameters of discussion that are allowed in an amendment which we have no necessarily heads up on. It just plays out in the course of discussion. So I just want to make that overall point.

Mr. Berg, I realize that I would hope that if you have something planned and know, it's not so much for my knowledge, but when staff's asked, it would be good for any of them. Things come up, and Mr. Beyer was online, and I didn't mean to not make motions on the floor at all. I just hope when you know you're going to make something huge to give me a heads up first. Because I like to let staff know as well. If possible. Maybe something happens at 6 o'clock. I can't tell staff. But it's a courtesy I gave Mr. Kruger and Mr. David. I would appreciate the same thing is all I'm asking. If possible. Okay. Nothing else to go. We'll go to the original motion then. Sunset Clause is in. The map is in. I believe those are two motions that have passed. Okay, Megan.

Is that Arnett then?

I believe Lampy made the original motion. Arnett was seconded if I'm correct.

This is the whole ordinance.

Oh. It hasn't ended. amendments with the map and the sunset on Ms. Davis.

Would this be a time to ask questions about the other ordinance that we brought to the floor together?

You have questions on E, F, and G as well?

I do. I have a question about one of the ordinances. It is ordinance G, which is possession of alcohol beverages on public ways 410-52. I notice that under C, number two, it says the section shall not apply to those areas designated in subsection A of the section that may be temporary closed for a city approved event. You'll notice that's been redacted. I would advise possibly taking a look at that. I believe that's the caveat that allows for drinking during July 4th events. We discussed this previously at a previous year, and I believe that's the carve-out that allows people to bring alcohol to things like the Christmas parade and the Fourth of July parade.

You have more questions, Ms. Davis? I do not. That's the last one.

I'm just bringing, Mr. Berg is asking if I'm suggesting something and I'm just bringing this to the attention of possibly the attorney or whoever else is interested in examining whether or not I'm correct that that is the carve out that allows people to bring alcohol to the 4th of July parade.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Hutt. Ms. Haas. Go ahead.

I guess my question would be why 2 was struck in the first place.

What page are you looking at, Ms. Haas?

The C. 61. 61. 61.

Thank you.

It's just true.

Davis was just referencing.

We just tried to rewrite it to provide clarification. It should be contained within, I believe, subsection one, right, Megan?

Mm-hmm. So it's just rewritten? Yeah.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay.

Anything else? We'll take a final vote with Lampy starting.

Aye.

Lampy?

Aye.

Berg?

Aye.

Nteki?

Aye.

Lanky? Aye. Smith?

Aye.

Arnett? Aye. Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer? Aye. Davis? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay.

Last one, H, Ordinance 26-23, Ordinance to Amend Section 76-4, Time for Paying of Taxes of the City of Watertown. General Ordinance is sponsored by myself and the Finance Committee. It's first reading. Mr. Smith, go ahead.

Move for the adoption of Ordinance 26-23 on its first reading.

Okay, motion by Smith, second by Molenhauer. I remind, so I believe all, everyone received a postcard or letter last year saying we'd be going to two possible payments instead of three. So, I mean, that change is happening for the 2027 year.

At the county level?

Yeah. And I think all across, right, both counties are the same. Yeah. And now the biggest change now is that people don't pay their initial bill here at City Hall, but if they choose the installments, the second install might be paid either in Juneau or in Jefferson. So that's a bigger change in They have to pay it there. Can they mail it in? Yeah, they can mail it there instead too, so. Mr. Mayor? Yes, Mr. Blanke.

I would like to propose an amendment that will provide some slight clarity. Okay. If you read the ordinance in section A, it reads that the installments may be paid to the city treasurer, but then in A1, it says to the city treasurer, and in A2, it says to the county treasurer. to provide clarity in the second line of A, where it says if they exceed $100, they may be paid to the city treasurer in no more than two installments. I would like to strike to the city treasurer from that line.

Okay, I motion to strike that. Does that work?

Yes, because in one, it tells you that the first payment, first installment is paid to the city treasurer. And in two, it says that that payment is to the county treasurer. Whereas if you have city treasurer in A, it implies that both payments can be made to the city treasurer. Okay.

I got a thumbs up on that. I liked your motion too, just making sure if that was the best route to take too. Okay. I motion by Blanke.

Second.

Same way or not. Okay. Questions, comments on the motion? Okay, so it's the amendment only. Roll on that or is this? Okay, voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. All right, with that amendment in, with that line that Mr. Blanke suggested on the original motion by Smith and second by Molenhauer, Any questions, comments on that? Okay. All right, Megan.

Smith? Aye. Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer? Aye. Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Burke?

Aye.

Nteki?

Aye.

Blanke?

Aye.

Motion carried.

Okay, thank you. Last time, Resolutions Exhibit 9878, Resolution to Combine Wards for Voting Purposes and the Report of Election Returns for the Partisan Primary and Fall General Election. Sponsored by myself. I do have a suggestion on it, too. Mr. Blanke? I'll move for Resolution 9878. Okay, motion by Blanke.

I'll second it.

Seconded by Berg. Okay. I... to request a slight change on it so i think everyone got emailed earlier no no just the ones here okay oh copies okay not that either okay um i would like to i believe in the third alliance says uh whereas the city desires to simplify election administration election night reporting for pars and primary elections and fall general elections by combining wards and already utilize a common polling place. And in that section, we have a primary coming up soon, a general election for November. And talking, I call them both the counties of Dodge and Jefferson. So just to show you a colored, Jefferson County has a blue colored on the top here. And Dodge, we were, based on the districts, whether it's one and two and six are combined and five of those MATC, we were given three different ballots and we thought that the ballots were all the same. And after speaking to Dodge County, it turns out there is a single bar on here that is different. It's confusing having, they should be all three different colors if they're different, but they wind up, they're not the same ballots on a mistake what we ordered and came up different. So if we were to do this for the primary, We're going to have to get new ballots, which is an extensive cost. So I would like to keep it just for the general election and not have it for the primary. Keep primary the way it is, the ballots already have. So hoping that if an alder can...

I'll make a motion to amend as you're suggesting.

And I would also like it to just be for the November general election of 2026, possibly might have construction as buildings, so just that we might have to move things around a little bit. So just to kind of know what the future holds. If we're renovating the building at all, there's a chance maybe something is not open. So I like this to be for this election only. And if we need, if 2020 comes in the fall election, we can bring a different resolution across. But for 2026, so I'm open for a... That was my motion. Okay. Motion by Berg to cross out the primary election and then also add for just the November general election of 2026. Motion. Motion by Berg, second by Arnett. Thank you. I spent a lot of time talking to clerks today in both counties yesterday.

Mr. Mayor, I believe that should also be reflected in the now therefore clause as well.

Okay.

I assume that was the intent.

Yes, and I guess in two places too. Yes, down below there. Okay, so we're good both places, Mr. Berg and Mr. Arnett. Thank you. I don't want to order new ballots.

And be it further resolved. It's not three times. Mr. Berger, are you good with that?

Yeah. Okay. In those three locations, does that work? Okay. Megan has good eyes. She was able to catch the single bar, which I can show you, but all three were the same color, so we just assumed they were the same ballots, but they were not, so don't want to reprint them. Okay. With that amendment, I have to put on a motion separate probably. Okay. With the motion by Berg and seconded by Arnett. Okay. Just by adding those terms, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Then the original motion. If there's any questions, comments on that, on the resolution, we can move on. Mr. Lampe, go ahead.

At one iteration, I thought we were also looking at the fire station as a polling place. Is that still in play in the near future?

It can be. So there's thoughts there. We're going to have a census coming in a couple of years. So we're going to have maybe people in different districts and different voting locations also. Okay. So we can, I think, looking at, if we wind up, there's renovations here that might be forced in a different way as well. So.

Thank you.

Yeah. We'll take some time on that, but. see how this one goes here for November election. Anything else?

Mr. Mayor, the impetus behind this recommended change is what? What is the biggest reason why?

Well, if we do this for a general election, if they're all on the same ballot, then we would require less poll workers. So like in this building, this building's hard on the people. people in walkers or wheelchairs. You have to come up the elevator or go down the elevator. And then somebody up here may want to go to the elevator and down the basement. So it clogs up the elevator a little bit. So by doing this, we can be in all one larger room and not have multiple spots for pulling places. So they could all be downstairs in a bigger area, for example. So hopefully an ease for the people coming in so there isn't a clog at the elevators and just one spot, just one floor. Go ahead, yeah.

So it's right now in our common polling locations, such as the library, we have two districts. Senior center has three. By combining them, I can do election night reporting as one and not for three times at the senior center, two times at the library. It can be one end of the night reporting. Much more efficient and results are transmitted faster, especially for these higher turnout elections.

Jefferson County.

Jefferson County, they're all listed together, all on the same ballot. In Dodge County, we have separate ones. So it's an ease and it's the same ballot then. So for fall elections, it's statewide and there's no difference in automatic votes or anything. Spring elections, obviously different, so it's got to be separate. So that's why this move is for the fall only. And next fall elections will be in 2028. Okay, anything else on that? Okay.

Blankey? Aye. Smith? Aye. Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer? Aye. Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Burke?

Aye.

Ntuky? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, thank you. Next, it opens up comments and suggestions from citizens present. Members of the public wish to address the council to register their request in writing with the city clerk prior to speaking. Speakers shall be permitted up to three minutes and shall confine their comments to agenda items only. I'm looking at Ms. Brewer. Okay. Okay. I see none then. I will then entertain a motion to adjourn. Unless Ms. Brower wants to come up.

I move to adjourn.

Okay. We'll leave the whole three minutes on you. Okay. Motion by Lampy. Second by Molenhauer. Thank you. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay.

It's 841.

Thank you.