Common Council - Regular Meeting

But yeah, it's the trim.

We had a lot more areas that were open. The hailstorm took a few more chunks out and sort of convinced me to finally.

Is that something you do yourself?

Oh, absolutely. They'll bring in the lifts and do everything safely and completely. The other thing that we use this trim for is actually a little bit of a small carpentry that we need to kind of keep the wood pieces maintained. So that'll be pretty key. And the wood is the

I'd like to call Jane Schmidt to come up and give an invocation for tonight, please.

It depends.

Lord, we call on your name for wisdom, guidance, strength. Lord, you are the author of faith. Bless this meeting. Bless the leaders of our town. Lord, everything we do, we want to do to honor you so that our town gives you glory. Good healing, strength, and health to everyone at this council meeting. We ask all of it in Jesus' name for your wisdom and grace. Amen.

Recording in progress.

Okay, I'd like to call tonight's Common Council meeting to order here on July 1st. It's 7 to 1 p.m. Roll, please.

Davis. Here. Lampe.

Here.

Berg.

Sorry, here.

Ntuky. Here. Blanke.

Here.

Smith.

Here.

Arnett.

Here.

Hess. Here. Moldenhauer.

Here.

Okay, can 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. Okay, first on the agenda, we have minutes of council meeting held on July 7th.

Mayor, I'll move that we approve those minutes as written.

Okay, motion by Berg. Second by Moldenhauer. Thank you, Maureen. Okay. Anything on the minutes? Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Okay, next we have comments and suggestions from citizens present. Members of the public who wish to address the council must register their request in writing before the meetings begin. Each individual who requests to address the council will be permitted up to three minutes for their comments. Members wishing to speak during a public comment section may only... Sorry, that's old. It shouldn't be there. There's another chance at the end of the meeting on agenda items only. Doris Wright. Good evening.

My name is Doris Wright.

I live at 147 South.

Thank you. 147 South Concord Avenue in Watertown. The stories that my husband and I are about to share with you are 100% true and verifiable. They prove that due to rampant fraud, the proposed massage ordinance needs to do far more than simply verify that the massage therapists are state licensed. True story number one, Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, February 23rd, 2026. The Mount Pleasant Village Board voted unanimously to revoke the business license of New Age Massage. The agent for the business, Shu Ling Zhao, held a valid Wisconsin massage therapist license. However, the local business license was revoked by the village because investigators found that Zhao secretly employed unlicensed employees performing massage therapy and engaging in all sorts of illicit activities. Moral of the story, just because someone holds a valid Wisconsin massage therapist license does not mean that the individual is operating a legitimate massage business. In this case, the individual was fully licensed, but behind closed doors, illicit activities were taking place. True story number two, Green Bay, Wisconsin, June 2025. 14 massage establishments applied for local license renewal. Half of the 14 licenses were denied. Why? All were granted a license, which means they provided evidence of a valid Wisconsin massage therapist license on their local license application. But over the course of the next year, the police uncovered information that led to the denial of seven licenses. For example, police report an employee at one business had passed prostitution convictions in Illinois and was also found guilty last year in Michigan of keeping a house of prostitution. Another owner of a massage establishment had prostitution related charges in Pennsylvania. Police also say they found six of the seven businesses were advertising on websites known for sexual services. Moral of the story, there's a strong possibility that one or more persons operating the illicit massage establishment holds a Wisconsin state massage therapist license. However, even with a state license, illicit activities can take place. This ordinance needs to have teeth to it so that the police will have legal reasons to deny or revoke licenses. Thank you so much for your time and your service.

Thank you, ma'am.

John Wright.

My name is John Wright. I live at 147 South Concord Avenue in Watertown. True story number three. Brookfield, Wisconsin, February 2022. The city of Brookfield revoked a massage business license of YL Healthcare LLC after complaint of prostitution. The local business license was revoked for the following reasons. Allowing a massage therapist to work without a state license, allowing massage therapists to perform sex acts in exchange for money on the premises, operating late at night, keeping its front and rear doors locked during the day, advertising on websites dedicated to the finding and reviewing massage establishments which provide sexual favors in exchange for money. The moral of the story, the local business license of this massage establishment was revoked for a series of local violations of the massage establishment license ordinance. True story number four, fraud, USA Today, July 2021. According to the explosive USA Today investigative report around the country, massage schools in towns large and small have suspected ties to the illicit massage industry, a billion dollar black market in the United States. Months long, USA Today investigation uncovered two dozen schools with connections to either prostitution or fraud or both. Like the illicit massage establishments, the schools are difficult to detect. Due to the regulatory structure, there is little that the Department of Education in states can do other than to ding the fake schools for low-level infractions. Prosecuting them for fraud and prostitution rarely happens. A 2017 report prepared by the Human Trafficking Task Force found a substantial amount of fraud that included cheating on the national exam, selling fake diplomas, and filing state license applications on behalf of other people. in a 2018 report by the Polaris Project found that the fraudulent schools were for a fee, will for a fee provide a fraudulent diploma so that a woman can sit for her licensing exam without any formal training whatsoever. The Massage Business Establishment Ordinance that was approved by our Public Safety Committee on June 3 represents countless hours of discussion, negotiations, and compromises. I have read this ordinance. It is fair. It is balanced. It will not harm the sex-trafficked victim or the legitimate massage establishments. Please bring this ordinance to the Council for a vote.

Let me pause that. Okay.

Linda Sullivan.

Good evening. My name is Linda Sullivan, and I live at 810 Cheyenne Circle here in Watertown. My family and I have lived here since July of 2017, and we very much care about our town and our community. I have read the proposed ordinance about massage businesses license several times. It is a necessary measure that is needed to ensure that the police can investigate true criminal activity. But why is this important to me specifically? I have a number of medical diagnoses that caused me to live with chronic pain daily. Once four years ago, I visited a massage business here in town. I couldn't get into my chiropractor and a friend suggested that I get a massage. I googled one in the area and booked an appointment. When I went, I was very uncomfortable. The building was locked and I had to be buzzed in. When I tried to explain some of my symptoms to the lady who was supposed to be helping me, she couldn't understand me because she didn't speak English. At one point she walked on my back, which is something that is never recommended for someone with degenerative disc disease. After I paid and left, I actually felt much worse. I have since visited several other massage therapists and fortunately they have really helped me with my pain management. Later, I learned that the first place I had visited was actually being used as a front to sex traffic women in our town. It was horrible to learn that I had paid for a service that keeps women enslaved. I do understand the concern that actual massage therapists have, but I believe as a citizen in our town that we have a duty to protect these women. Please support this ordinance that will give licenses to massage therapists, but will allow the police to put a stop to these criminal activities. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

Keely Sullivan.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Keely Sullivan, and I live here in Watertown over on Cheyenne Circle. As a resident of Watertown, I want my city to be a safe place for its citizens and for all who visit, a place where people can live without fear of what might be happening behind closed doors. However, the horror of human sex trafficking has sadly reached our city, and I strongly believe that as a citizen of Watertown, it is... It is my duty to advocate for whatever will help eradicate it from our hometown. It is unfortunate that legitimate massage businesses are the ones that have to pay because of the ones fronting for sex trafficking. And I recognize it doesn't seem fair to the honest, hardworking business owners who will be affected by the regulations of this ordinance. However, it is far less fair to all the victims of sex trafficking to be sold into sexual slavery at the illegitimate fronts in our city. The women who are victimized don't have a voice to speak up against their abusers. Many of them don't even know English, and those that do are forced into silence. It may be easier to dismiss it as more of a foreign issue that doesn't affect Watertown citizens rather than to realize that these women are someone's daughter, sister, mother, aunt, wife, or friend, but recognizing the problem and acting towards solving it, at least temporarily, at least in our area, is what I believe we as residents of Watertown ought to do with this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jean Schmidt.

Great to be here. My name is Gene Schmidt. I'm here to speak in regards to recent events that have made news in our city. First of all, with my brief time allotted, I want to say I know that Francine Guy spoke here two weeks ago. I want to say that I do not advocate violence against the LGBTQ community. We help many trans and gay people. They come for rehab, homeless issues, food. Each month we help almost 2,800 people with food, Our meal usually has a hundred people a month in Watertown. Every Thursday, we do use three hours of our time to help with a food outreach and several people from the LGBTQ committee to get help through us. I'm going to keep that private. I'm the father of three Air Force sons. I'm a veteran. And I just want to say that I want to encourage our parade committee to defend the dignity of our flag. And I feel in my heart that any float or any part of the parade that would desecrate our flag not be allowed in the parade. I also have heard that 30 people have died since the Iran war. And to me, every veteran deserves our flag to not be desecrated. I wrote this song, Stand for the Flag. It's been used around the country to defend our vets and our flag. I want everyone in my town to respect the flag. If we want to build a better city, let's think about the hundreds of vets we have, as well as the Veterans Vietnam Memorial, where you see 55,000 names on it. They would defend me defending the flag. I want to defend our school board. I'm a songwriter. Professionally, I write and tour. I just put out the 250th anniversary album for America, Faith, Family, Freedom. And I want to support our school board for defending not allowing a song in a program even though it didn't have lyrics that advocated revolution and violence. And I think as a result of our school board making that decision, I would urge everyone in our community to not threaten our school board. I feel they made the right decision. As a musician, songs advocate many things, even songs without lyrics. They represent movements or people, and I feel that our school board absolutely did the right thing. As I travel around the country, And I'm friends with many national leaders in the country. They as well support our school board. This is my time up already? Alrighty. And many other things have happened. We've had drag shows in our park. The first drag show in our park, there was also a group called Nuns of Perpetual Indulgence that mocked the Catholic Church. I just want to say, And we've had the school board thing in November a couple years ago where we had to fight to keep our girls' bathrooms safe at the high school. I'm just asking what kind of city some people want to build in our town. I feel we should have a city that respects our faith, our freedom, and our families and be a safe town. 800 people showed up for that meeting. And we, our school board, supported Amendment C. I could spend 10 minutes talking about other events, but I'll wrap it up by saying this. We will only build a better Watertown if we honor the sacredness of our churches, our faith, and our family. Thank you. And our veterans. Thank you, sir.

Randy Arpagast.

Randy Arbogast. I live at 301 South Washington Street. I'm here tonight to address something that might be the barn already let out of the, the horse already let out of the barn. But the free-range drinking ordinance that is coming before the council, I differ from most of you on my view of alcohol. And I'm not here tonight to change your view on that. To me, that's a faith view. Also, I think medical science is teaching us a lot about alcohol. And I know that Watertown also as well has seen its fair share of tragedies because of that. But I'm here tonight, again, like I said, not to challenge you on your view of alcohol, but to really to appeal to common sense. I'm here to vehemently protest the intrusion of what I've already labeled as free range drinking into the private district where I live. There is a purpose for the ordinance having been the way it was in a controlled area so that it can be controlled in a smaller area. I really want to Just challenge you on two things tonight. Number one, a private resident of the city of Watertown should never be forced to watch a parade or for people to have the ability to parade in front of their private residence with alcohol, hard liquor, and drinks. Those who purchase a home closer to a bar, they probably have to consider that. The city has ordinances for a reason. You all are very well aware of that as you deal with that at every meeting. If I wanted to build anything commercially, we have districts for that. We have areas for that. I can't go out in my garage and start mass producing Legos because I have a feeling my neighbor who gets up every morning at five o'clock to head off to work would have a problem with that. So would you as well. And so would the city inspector. There are limits. There are places for that in that. The same with agriculture. I can't all of a sudden have a herd of cows in my backyard. because I feel that that's best for business in Watertown. All right, there's restrictions on that. But somehow, the same should be with alcohol. But somehow, suddenly the city's determined that my residential area, which by the way, the closest place to sell liquor is Speedway. The closest bar is on the other side of the river, but somehow, my district Coming up to my house, which by the way, somebody pointed out that my address is Washington Street and that's not included in it, but Monroe Street is and I have more property on Monroe Street than I do South Washington Street. But suddenly the city has decided that it can now be a free range drinking area. For what purpose? I don't know. Apparently to drink. Number two, and here's the biggest point. How are you going to enforce this? There was a reason that you have a beer tent at Riverfest. And I'm almost done. There's a reason for that because you could control that in a smaller area. What you're proposing is six blocks north and south by 10 blocks east and west. In the ordinance, as I read through it several times, it stated this, that the organizers are in charge of controlling people not going outside of the boundaries. Seriously? You're going to cover that much. Are they going to have the city do it? Is Chief Bauer and his people now going to be the ones to patrol the boundaries of that? Are we going to compensate them? Are we going to charge the organizers to do that? To me, it's fraught with unenforceable matters for that. And then I'll just end with this. Who's checking inside? And again, I read it. You have a lot of area to cover. Is Chief Bauer going to approve the overtime for his people to go up and down Main Street and in the residential districts now? Let's just use some common sense tonight and let's narrow that district down. You're going to have your drinking event. I can't stop that tidal wave, but let's limit it to at least Main Street and take it out of my neighborhood I didn't buy a house in Watertown in a residential district to have people with hard liquor Walking by my place because all of a sudden the city determined that that was the right thing to do Thank you, sir Okay

Okay, under reports, we have licensing board minutes from June 2nd, finance committee minutes from June 8th, airport minutes from June 10th, licensing board minutes from June 10th, site plan review minutes from June 22nd, finance committee minutes from June 22nd, public works minutes from June 23rd, licensing board minutes from June 30th, tourism minutes from July 9th, ethics committee meeting minutes from July 10th, and public works minutes from July 14th. Not too many meetings there. Mr. Bird, there's like 20 meetings. Okay. Go ahead, sir.

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I just want to make the comment on, it's really the exception because in almost all cases, we typically have a beginning time and an ending time when our committees do meet. And I looked at the ethics committee and they show that they began at 102, but it doesn't show a time that they adjourned. And again, when I look at, I'm a person that writes minutes for the plan commission. I've always been asked to put a beginning and an ending time. And for me, just looking at the minutes, it gives me a little bit of an indication of time spent on the topic. I don't know under ethics on the fact that they started at 102. They obviously went through a very brief agenda and they were done. Was that a five minute meeting or was that a half hour?

I'm sure it's clerical. We can add some to that, Mr. Burke. Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. All right. I'll move on to communication then, if nothing else.

Okay. Communication recommendations. Review and take action on committee appointments.

Mr. Smith. Mr. Mayor, I would move for the approval of your committee appointment. Okay.

Motion by Smith. Second. Second by Blanke. Okay. Anything else on that? Mr. Byrd, go ahead.

I know Joe Dittman, and I think he's top notch, so I have no problem with him being on the plan commission, but he's replacing a person that we just reappointed to an extension. What happened?

Just scheduling, scheduling. She wasn't able to do it anymore.

So I think last meeting, last meeting, we actually had an appointment of putting her back for a year.

I think it might have been a different board. She was put on there reappointed recently. Yeah. But some stuff came up, so she wasn't able to continue on.

So, okay. She was a very good board member. I can make the comment on that.

I'm sure the guys the next year, right, would say that too. Yeah. Oh, and that person still remains on another board yet, so.

Okay.

Anything else?

I think we'll start with Smith then. Okay.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer? Aye. Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Berg? Aye. Nteki? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have the fire department monthly report for June.

A little bit here.

Okay, I'll move on unless there's a question.

Mr. Lampe. Thank you, Mayor. Just if you could pass along some comments. I really like the department staffing overview and the layout in terms of what the positions actually do in context. I don't know if that's new or just new to me, but that was helpful to see how we're staffed and basically how those personnel are arranged. Also, just want to echo condolences for Rich Nienow and his family listed in the newsletter.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lampe. I'll make sure I pass on the chief. Admin staff works pretty hard on this.

Okay. Anything else?

All right. Move on to new business. A review of ethics committee's proposed changes to statement of economic interest form for information only. This was approved by the Ethics Committee.

Go ahead, Mr. Lambie. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I just want to say thank you for going ahead and making those revisions. I think a few of those were highlighted here. In the meantime, having stared at the form for a while, I have some more suggestions. One is, as we're starting to come into list all corporations that you have business with or entities from, I was wondering if there's an interest there for a particular threshold of ownership. For example, I know a few years ago, I owned some Axon stock related to the body cameras. I ended up listing that even though I'm a 0.00001% shareholder or whatnot at the time. I'm interested to know if there's like a threshold we want to reach or if it is every stock purchase that we're potentially arranged from the city on. In the next area C, I still have a little bit of an issue with the confidentiality of clients, but there's also potentially other ways that people are receiving money contractually. There's leases, there's licensing. Wondered if the attempt there was to open that up. And the other big thing that seems to be missing in terms of the economic interest there, looking at it from that perspective, is basically ownership of other businesses that might be located in Watertown that we don't necessarily do direct business with. If the intent of the ethics commission is to reveal business relationships that the city's actions may adversely or negatively impact, it seems like there's a bit of a gap there in terms of ownership of other businesses that we don't directly do business with. The last thing that I think I'll mention down here is, actually there's two more. In section D where we talk about parcels of real estate within the city, kind of a same piece because we have extra jurisdictional authority over an area around us. I was wondering if there's interest in basically listing out other parcels that are essentially within our ability to control their ability to develop or not. And finally, one of the things that I think would make everybody feel a little bit better as they're filling out this form is just a quick statement regarding the confidentiality of the information. Previously, we had talked about this being essentially retained by the city, but not fully available to anybody who wanders off the street and requests it.

This was information only, but we'll use that information and relay that to the ethics. I was inspired committee. Okay. So go ahead, Ms. Davis.

Just to add on a few other things. In letter B, it looks like minor children was removed. Was it the intent to remove minor children from just letter B or was there an intent to remove it from the whole form? Because there are other references to minor children. And so starting with the instructions at the top and then going all the way down, there's several references to minor children and also the names of minor children could then be removed. My next item is the name of the spouse. I think it would be perfectly functional to be able to answer in letter B, C, and D with an X marks the spot if real estate belongs to the spouse or if there are corporations and other entities that receive funds that would impact the city. But I don't think we actually need the name of the spouse. And so my recommendation would be to remove the name of the spouse there as well. I don't know that the actual name is needed for this. This is a disclosure for the employee and the elected officials and committee members. And so the disclosure is still happening, whether it's you or your spouse, but I don't know that the name of the spouse is needed. And then to hit on what Alder Lampe was saying in letter C. I do have a recommendation to handle the client piece, particularly for professions that have recognized confidentiality concerns there. It may be better for me just to email that, the verbiage to you, than to say it here, but I did do some checking, and this is something that is dealt with at other levels, and so there is some accepted language to be able to satisfy that. So I'll email that to you separately.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Davis.

Mr. Blanke, go ahead. Mine's just a simple question that I'm hoping to get an answer on for the next time we get information on this, and that would be the reasoning for changing in letter C the dollar amount from $5,000 down to $3,000.

$3,000 is listed in our ordinance. We don't know where the $5,000 came from, so this matches up with what's set forth in our conflict of interest provisions in the ordinance. Okay.

Is it your question that I thought it would be?

Okay.

All right. I'll move on. B, convening a closed session per statute 19.85 to confer legal counsel. for the government body whose renting, oral, or rent advice concerning strategy be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved. Walmart tax assessment claim.

I would so move.

Okay. Motion by Molenhauer. Second. Second by Bergen. Yeah.

Okay. All right.

Molenhauer. Aye. Aye.

24th through July 7th paid invoices report from June of 2026 cash investments from June 30th of 2026 I'll look at those three first there yeah I'm sorry yeah I had a comment about the paid invoice report okay I was taking those three first go ahead yeah um

Just something caught my eye. It was page 55, and it was the band shell for $6,500. And I was at a Park Rec Fourth Street Commission meeting yesterday and asked about that, and that was the Riverside band shell. And there was a leak, and they were able to find money in capital improvements to be able to take care of that. And so I just thought that was a good update because I know that's been discussed. So some information there about that. Okay.

To go with that too, there was an area that kids were climbing up on top of the electrical box, so increased the soffit to go out like two feet so nobody can go on top there anymore. It was a fix that the contractor thought would work and so far it is. Okay, anything else on A, B, or C? Okay, and then D, review T-door boundary map. Yes, Mr. Lampe.

Mayor, I guess I'm unclear what we are at being asked to do here.

Well, it was thought that it needed to be at a council meeting, so we placed that at a council meeting agenda, so it's on there for record. Okay. Move on to licenses then. Review and take action application for a temporary Class B wine. Contemporary Class B beer licenses from St. Therese of the Sioux, St. Henry. Father Tim Wren's agent for the St. Therese and Luzelle Parish Picnic at 412 North 4th Street on August 16th during the hours of 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.

I'll move for approval.

Okay, motion by Berg. Second by Nateki. Thank you.

Anything on that?

Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye.

Opposed? Thank you.

All right. Next review and take action application for a temporary class B beer license from Watertown Humane Society. Heather Van Dam agent for the Watertown Auto Fest event located at 7.

Are you in the meeting here? Okay. I just saw your text.

Okay.

Sorry. I'm sorry. Review and take action application for a temporary Class B beer license from Watertown Humane Society. Heather Van Dam agent for the Watertown Auto Fest event located at 1741 River Drive on August 9th, 2026 during the hours of 930 a.m. till 3 p.m. Mr. Lampe? I would move to approve. Okay. Motion by Lampe.

Seconded.

Seconded by Berg. Okay. Questions, comments on B? Yeah. Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. All right, C, review and take action on the application for a temporary Class B wine, temporary Class B beer licenses from Barmschwefel Detachment, number 349 from Marine Corps League Annual Picnic, located at 907 Boomer Street on August 22, 2026, during the hours of 12 until 6 p.m. Vote for approval. I'm going to try a blankie. Second by Molenhauer. Okay. Questions, comments on C? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye.

Opposed? Thank you.

Finally, D, review and take action application for a Class B Molten Liquor License from Rock River LLC DBA, the River Tap, Frank or Cholski agent, located at 1022 North 4th Street for licensing year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027.

Move approval. Okay, motion by Blanke.

Second.

Okay. Second by Davis.

No. Haas.

Oh, sorry. Okay. Second by Haas. Okay.

Yeah.

Sorry. Okay. Hang on that. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. All right. Ordinances. Ordinance 26-23. Ordinance to amend section 76-4. Time for payment of taxes of the City of Watertown. General Ordinances. Sponsored by myself and the Finance Committee on second reading. Okay, motion by Molenhauer. Second by Smith. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Okay, questions, comments on A? Okay, Megan.

Molenhauer? Aye. Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Burke? Aye. Ntukie?

Aye.

Blanke?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Pass? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, thank you. Next, B, Ordinance 26-24, Ordinance to Amend Section 65-8, Disclosure of Interest of the City of Watertown General Ordinances, sponsored by Alder Smith from the Ethics Committee, on its first reading.

Mr. Smith? Mr. Mayor, I move for the adoption of Proposed Ordinance 26-24 on its first reading.

Okay, motion by Smith, second by Lampe. Okay. Questions, comments on that? First, Mr. Smith, go ahead, sir.

Well, this is just a very simple proposal to bring the council into the review process. Right now, the ethics board can use and is currently using a form that's not actually been reviewed and approved by the city council. This simply says the obligation for coming up with the appropriate form to use is still vested in the ethics board, but that before it will become effective, it needs to be reviewed and approved by the common council. And then the remaining work will simply be by the ethics board and they can complete work on a final form and submit it to the council when they're ready.

Okay, anything else?

Okay, Megan.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Molenhauer?

Aye.

Davis? Aye. Lampe?

Aye.

Burke?

Aye.

Ntuki? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Motion carried.

Okay. Thank you. Next, C, Ordinance 26-25, Ordinance to create a portion of Section 500-3, Stop Intersections of Chapter 500 Traffic Code, sponsored by Alder Davis and the Public and Safety and Welfare Committee. It's first reading.

I'll move for Ordinance 26-25.

Okay, motion by Davis.

Second.

Second by Blanke. Okay, questions, comments on C? Okay, make them.

Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Burke?

Aye.

Ntukie? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

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

Okay, thank you. Under Resolutions of Exhibit 98A, under Resolutions, Exhibit 9879, resolution to approve the updated UPS parking lot agreement, especially myself and the Finance Committee. Mr. Lampe? Approve. Okay, motion by Lampe. Second. Second by Blanke. Okay, questions, comments on A? Mr. Berg, go on first, sir.

Again, I'm aware of this topic because I know our previous mayor, David, initiated the relationship with UPS and created that parking option for them to accommodate and benefit their their business. And I know that the airport commission at one time was asking more about it, but they've bought into and accepted based on where it is in relation to the flight pattern that it is not a problem for them. My question, it's a month-to-month type of relationship, but it doesn't seem to change the amount of what's being charged. It says $500 month, beginning January of 26 and continuing on a month to month, why wouldn't you have, you know, an annual type of adjustment? Even 5% would be $25. Am I missing it in the document, or is it not meant to have any adjustment in fee? This was...

At this time, no, it's not meant to have any adjustment based on our past contracts with this entity at this location.

I just don't see any harm. I mean, in the course, this could go on for the next 20 years and it'd be probably fine with me. I just think the the value of a little bit of an adjustment makes sense. And any other lease you do with any other tenant would have some periodic, usually it's an annual type of change in rent. And it's already a very discounted, you could never get the type of fee that we're charging them of 500. And it's meant to be low. I'm okay with that, but why not adjust it? So I would be on the side of favoring... A 5% adjustment annually. Mr. Mayor? Yes.

Say you, Jeff.

The current UPS rental has been $150 for years.

Per year.

More than it has been.

It's $150 a year is what they've been paying. So now it's $500. No, per month.

$150 a month, okay.

Yes.

Going up to 500.

Going to 500 for a month.

I was confused with the next agenda item.

Anything else?

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Stevens. Okay. Okay.

Go ahead, Megan.

Lampy?

Hi.

Burke?

No.

Ntuky? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

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

Okay, thank you. Moving on to B, Exhibit 9880, Resolution to Approve the Commercial Real Estate Lease Agreement between the City of Watertown and Holtz Motors. Sponsor myself and the Finance Committee. Okay, Mr. Moldenhauer? Motion by Moldenhauer? Second. Second by Haas. Back-to-back lease agreements. Any questions on B at all? Okay, Megan.

Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Davis? Aye. Lampe?

Aye.

Burke?

Aye.

Nteki? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett?

Aye.

Hess? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, thank you. Next, City Exhibit 9881, Preliminary Resolution Declaring Intent to Exercise Special Assessment Powers under Section 66.0703 Wisconsin Statute. Sponsored by Alder Arnett and the Public Works Commission.

Mr. Mayor?

Mr. Arnett?

Move for 9881.

Motion by Arnett. Second by Lampe. Mr. Mayor? Yes, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. So, just as a reminder, everyone, this was set in motion years ago with the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Watertown and the Town of Emmett. That intergovernmental agreement specified the annexation of these properties that are addressed here. It specified a timeline for the extension of utilities by the city to those properties and for the connection by those property owners to those extended utilities. So those all set in motion by that agreement. And I also want to call the people's attention that tonight what we do is cause a final report to be prepared that then goes to a public hearing in front of council and goes to then a final assessment resolution after that public hearing. So roughly speaking, a public hearing in August, and the actual assessment resolution would not come to us until September. So one step in a multi-step process. I just want to lay those facts out there. What I would like to note is that you look at the numbers, the numbers are substantial. Fewer than 40 property owners, it's a million dollars of cost. Those end up being some big numbers. At the Public Works Commission, we have previously discussed ways to try and adjust the impact of those amounts on the affected property owners. specifically looking and working with the finance director looking at an eight year schedule and offering no interest on that i would continue to support that and in fact when this comes back to council for the final special assessment i will want to bring forward at that time a recommendation for that payback schedule. In addition, the intergovernmental agreement specifies that individuals must connect within five years of the utilities being made available to their property. There are most likely individuals who have septic and well systems that have a lot of life in them beyond five years. And I think it would be appropriate for us to consider extending that timeline to allow them more time to connect, because this is a reminder, they'll get a cost in terms of a share of the utility extension, and then they'll face an additional cost to run the lateral from the street, from the public right of way to their property. In addition to costs related to their well and septic systems and shutting those down. And so also at the time, that the final assessment resolution comes to Council, I will recommend a provision to give these property owners additional time to take on that connection piece. So, just letting you all know my intent. Thank you.

Mr. Linepe, go ahead. I appreciate the detailed explanation. That basically is what we have heard going through this for a number of years, knowing that this was on tap. I do want to call attention to the back half of there, just basically making sure we're comfortable with our own preferences in terms of subsidizing the property owners in that area. Like, for example, I can get behind the 0%, but I'm not necessarily sure what the connection timeframe does for us. I would much rather see folks to be connected and fully comply within the timeframe.

Mr. Blanke. Going back even before this annexation, one thing we've been very cognizant of the property owners in this area will be attempted to negotiate with the town of Emmett to make some adjustments to the intergovernmental agreement. We thought at one point we did have an agreement that turned out not to happen. So, I'm fully in favor of allowing these property owners some extra time and some relief to the cost. There are several property owners who have a large amount of frontage on the road and the way that the assessment will work, it's based on linear foot of frontage to the street. So there are several property owners who compared to the size of the home that they have and the impact on the system being minuscule are going to incur a very large cost. I'm cognizant of that, and I think that we should do everything we can to be a good municipality for our new neighbors.

Thank you. To comment on that, and I'm well out over my skis on this one, as we get closer to the actual assessments, I guess I am interested in understanding to what degree we have the ability to levy those based on, as you mentioned, exposure on the linear feet to a street as opposed to actual use and load expected of the facilities. I have no idea where our ability to adjust that lies today.

Mr. Smith, go ahead.

Yeah, I'd just like to make a few comments. I was very thankful for the courtesy that the Public Works Commission showed at their previous meeting where this was initially presented. I think that everybody in the city is working tremendously professionally to try to implement this intergovernmental agreement. Any fair reading of this agreement, it's extensive, about 60 pages in length. It's been effective in this iteration since 2014. We'll see that it is decidedly one-sided and the city is the loser in the application of that. big winner is the township of Emmett and the associated losers are the individuals that were annexed into the city. Now that involves 36 properties. There are 16 residences and at the time that this agreement was implemented, every single party was totally opposed to the boundary adjustment that was mandated by this agreement. They spent numerous meetings with the township of Emmett protesting what was being done. Basically, they were sold down the river for portions of this agreement that the township of Emmett wanted to bring to pass. You can read it and come to your own conclusions, but there's no question the resulting aspect of the implementation is that it is a hugely expensive public works project. The total project is just under $1.6 million. The special assessments just under $1.1 million and involve a very small amount of properties. that are going to be in a position to have to pay this result. The whole boundary adjustment constituting these 36 parcels was 56 acres of property. That's what came in to the city. And the consequence, if you were to look, and I'm sure you did, it's in the packet. The special assessments are staggering. And once these notices go out and at the public hearing, I truly anticipate that people who are going to be tremendously concerned about their capacity to maintain ownership of their property are going to be in here and just trying to lay the foundation so that people can understand the degree of opposition to things as they currently exist and are proceeding. I think that the suggestions and the intent of the Public Works Commission to make recommendations extending the period of time for the hookups for the existing properties. is very fair. I think the capacity to pay and again one thing that isn't part of the inclusions is if you were to get a document and compare the properties and the special assessments to the properties and the fair market values of those properties, you would see the tremendous unfairness that could begin to unfold. The vast majority of the homes, not counting the 20 parcels of undeveloped land, but for the 16 homes, these are modest homes. These are individuals, many of whom are elderly, many of whom are certainly not in a position to make payment of the staggering amounts that some of them are facing. Some very modest properties have special assessments of $60,000 and more. So all I am saying is recognizing the fact that this resolution is straightforward, it's fair, it's consistent with past practice, and it's something that I intend to support and vote for. I am just trying to lay the foundation for the need for the recognition that there are going to have to be adjustments for there to be fairness in this unique process. And I can address the issue more fully at a future point in time. But again, I want to thank our engineering department for their professionalism and putting all of this together, the Public Works Commission working this through, and what is envisioned as the step-by-step approach to implement a fairer outcome Um, I want to thank the public works commission and other members of our council here in advance for what I'm hoping will be something that will be, um, fair to, um, all parties.

Miss miss has once you go next.

So as Alder Smith indicated, these numbers are pretty staggering. So what happens if these people, these residents just decide, I'm just going to sell the home, then what happens? Who is responsible for the cost?

The assessment is attached to the property. So upon sale, the individual purchasing the property would know by their title research, that that assessment exists and they will become responsible for it.

Mr. Van Holler?

Well, I would just like to echo what Alderman Blanke said and what Arnett said, and also Alderman Smith. I think we've got to give these people some kind of a chance here. Like Alderman Smith said, selling them down the river I think is very appropriate from what I've been able to find out about it. The town of Emmett did come out very well on their end. I think whatever we can do to help these people we should do and if we can give them extra time, if they got a good septic and their well is good, give them extra time on the the five years even beyond that, and if we could, whatever we can do to help these people, I think we should do as a council.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Molnar.

Mr. Berg, go ahead. I was at the Public Works Committee meeting, and we had a good, healthy discussion there. And it did go forward by a 3-2 vote. I understand some of the intent on the part of the chairperson to make some offers that will be sensitive to the cost. But there's still hypotheticals that make me want to understand better. If they're going to have a cost of $1.1 million to extend that sewer and water out to those streets and to make that infrastructure improvement at a point in time, There's reference to five years before there would be a need to pay. There's another provision that if their septic system is in good working order, that there's going to be, you know, potentially eight years of allowance. And if it's still working, the implication was that they could continue on their septic system and well without having to hook up. And it implies that the kicker for making payment and for owing a bill here is going to be based on receiving the sewer water city extension improvement, infrastructure improvement. But, yeah, I want some clarity on the topic of hypotheticals where you have a a septic system working, a well working, and hypothetically, again, it might work 15 years. And if we're going to give them relief while that septic system is working and the well is working, and therefore there's not a bill owed, that's an area of showing sensitivity, fine. But we have, in looking through these different addresses, we have a lot of them that are vacant lots. And if you have a vacant lot, then this issue of... of a septic system in a well is a non-issue. It's not there. It's a vacant lot at the moment and so when they put through the city improvement and they make that type of infrastructure extension, that's where you're going to have then, it appears, some period of time before you owe that bill. There's just a lot of examples of showing sensitivity But a lot of these people are going to owe a bill sooner than later because of vacant land that they owe based on that improvement. I looked at the first page. One example was $54,000. You had $46,000, $60,000. You had $62,000. You had $47,000. 84,000, 57,000, and a bunch of them that are less than that. But these are very, very big numbers. And based on baking a lot or not, they're going to owe that bill sooner than later. And if the septic system is working and they can delay payment, I've heard reference to five, I've heard reference to eight years, and I've heard reference to as long as the septic system and the well are working. So again, in all those examples, when will the bill be owed based on a functional septic and a functional well working for, in my example, 15 years, when would they owe that improvement cost, that special assessment cost?

Mr. Mayor, may I? Go ahead, Mr. Arnett. So to clarify on the situation of a property with a house on it right now, Under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement within there's, it's important to keep in mind as I outlined, there's really two costs. So one is the cost of the public improvement, which is we're running pipes out there and all the other associated costs with that. That's what the special assessment is about. There's also the cost of the property owner to connect their house to that public improvement, what was commonly referred to as the private lateral. So keep that in mind. So speaking to the special assessment, which would cover the public investment in the infrastructure, i.e. the pipes to that location, under the current intergovernmental agreement and our prior practice, if we do nothing, Once those pipes are there, we will proceed with a special assessment. It will be due immediately. Next tax bill. It's going to be there. If we do nothing, if we do nothing, take no other action. And then with regard to their private lateral installation from their home out to the lines under the existing terms, the intergovernmental agreement, it specifies that if you have a properly functioning well and septic system and can provide documentation thereof, then you can wait up to five years, you as a property owner can wait up to five years to connect. So again, under status quo right now, the special assessment will apply immediately And if I can prove that I have water and I have a well and septic that's functioning right now under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement right now, I can wait up to five years to do my connection costs. Again, there's the two portions. That's as it is right now. As I mentioned before, I am suggesting or will suggest at a future date two things. One, that the special assessment would be stretched out over time. And two, that we consider an extension of the private connection portion beyond that five years that specified an intergovernmental agreement. But that would be proposals. That's prospective. That's not approved by council. That's not our existing rules. That may come to happen. It may not come to happen, depending on what this body chooses to do. Somebody may propose something different that council chooses to support. So if I provided the clarity of under current conditions, the special assessment becomes immediately due for the next tax bill and the connection, the private side of the connection needs to occur. If you have a properly functioning system right now, you can wait up to five years to make that connection. I'm getting nods, I got that right.

Ms. Davis, why don't you go next?

For the infrastructure work that is done, the city will borrow that money. Is that right? And then we'll be accruing interest, or we will have... payments ourselves. So that then has to be balanced in any kind of payment plan or stretching things out that may be offered to alleviate some of the costs or to allow for more time to pay the special assessment, correct? That would have to be factored in, the cost to the city versus the cost or the benefit to stretching out those special assessments.

I'm sure all of you will choose how to weigh that in.

Mr. Lampe, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. Oops, my screen just blanked out on me. I believe the ordinance that's on tap here tonight actually has, in Section 5, it talks about the number of installments for payments of the assessments will be determined at the public hearing. we also lay out a date for that public hearing on August 18th of this year. So I believe that that is the correct time where we will actually make the determination of the length and size of payments. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. The second question on mechanics is with regard to whether or not we allow them to defer that connection to the system. Does that require us to modify the intergovernmental agreement and get that passed by the other party, or is there some other mechanism we can use?

I'll just say I'm going to talk with the city attorney because I think when we're looking at the dates, I think we're going to find the five years extends beyond the life of the IGA. I will need to consult with our city attorney first.

Because the agreement would have expired if we go beyond that. Mr. Smith, go ahead, sir.

Yeah, I just have to, again, try to set the context of what's in the intergovernmental agreement. Keep in mind that the agreement... is for a limited period of time. It's been in effect for quite a long period and is due to expire in 2032. Under the terms of that agreement, for focusing on the purpose of what just has been addressed, which is this specified five-year extension for individuals with functioning septics and wells to have to hook up. That provision was added here not because it was of any concern whatsoever to the township. It was added because the city wanted that provision in there to protect these people that were coming in to the city. There was a period of time from the inception of the intergovernmental agreement, which was 2014, until the actual boundary adjustment occurred, which was in 2024. Now, this whole agreement expires in 2032. So like Alderman Arnett was mentioning, there's a one-year hookup requirement from the time that the services, the utilities are available. So let's say hypothetically that these utilities, the sewer and water, are available December 31st of 2026. There's a one-year period before they have to hook up regardless. So that would bring you to December 31st of 2027, and then there's a five-year extension from that point on and the agreement only runs through December 31st of 2032. So, A, the township of Emmett has absolutely no interest in whether or not we extend the hookup requirement or not. Second of all, the agreement is going to be expired by the time that five years has run, and The magnitude of the cost that we are looking at, when I talk about staggering, I'm talking about in excess of the value, in some instances, of the home. Now, I'll give you just one example. There are four streets that each have four residences on them that are going to be in question, existing residences. One street is particularly problematic, that is Boulder Drive, because the properties on Boulder Drive are below grade, which means there's no gravity flow for these individuals. Now, keeping that in mind, let me read you just the special assessment proposals for the four properties on Boulder Drive. One, 58,000. two $45,000, three $21,000, and four almost $62,000. Now, the $62,000 special assessment is for a property that has an assessed value of $113,000. Okay, so $113,000 minus $62,000, you're left with perhaps $50,000. If that person had to hook up to City Sewer and Water, the costs and some of the properties on Boulder Drive are decidedly set back. There's a long lateral that's going to have to be run. But if you just pull an estimated $20,000 for the hookups, add $20,000 for this one property for the existing 62, that's $82,000. Next, because these properties are all below grade, they're all going to have to privately fund a grinder pump to make the sanitary sewer effective. Now, the estimated cost of that is probably in the $10,000 range. So that brings you to $92,000. All of these parcels have effective wells and septic systems. If they had to abandon them, they're going to have to turn around and seal the wells and close down the septic system at additional private cost. Now, what do you suppose the prospect is that of these 16 properties that are going to have dealing with special assessments of this magnitude that they have these properties free and clear. Minimal. And I have no idea. I am just saying that the average home carries a mortgage. And whatever that mortgage amount is, is going to make, in many instances, these properties totally underwater. We do not want to put our citizens in a position where there is no incentive whatsoever to continue living in their home. So all I'm saying is this, these are extraordinary, unique circumstances, individuals who are living in modest homes, whose assessments are staggering, whose obligations for hookups bring huge additional costs, and are all individuals who never wanted to be forced into the city in the first instance. They were happy living in the township. So as you consider the issue of extending the option of not hooking up as long as their well and septic are functioning effective, that would be a tremendous benefit. It would cost the city nothing except the marginal fees following the forced hookup. And what I'm saying is there are individuals among these 16 homes who have reasonably recent wells and septics. In other words, a large percentage of the value of their home is tied up in an asset that would be unconscionable for us to say, hey, walk away from it, start paying sewer and water fees to the city and abandon your functioning sewer system and water. So what I'm saying is this, as long as these systems are functioning, these individuals should be able to use these valuable assets and do so during the life of their usefulness. That would give them some period of time to begin to address the other side of the equations, which are the staggering special assessment costs. It would be a tremendous help to these individuals. What I'm going to ask is that when we consider a special resolution for the for the permission to use their existing well and septic until one of them fails, that we do that with the recognition that this is going to be a tremendously helpful opportunity for them to at least continue to use something that they have put a huge amount of money in and constitute a large percentage of their home's value. Mr. Berg?

Again, the point made for those people that have existing septic and wells that are working and the allowance for additional time before making payment is That is showing sensitivity to the problem, and I would be in favor of that. Again, though, if you look at the number of people who are going to be given these special assessments, a significant number of them are people who own vacant lots. And the vacant lot, once they put the sewer water through and buy their property without any kind of an improvement currently there at that lot other than the land that they own, That's going to kick in this time period by which they are going to have to make payment so I think That's a significant number the people who own vacant lots that are going to be impacted sooner than later because of not having a current existing septic system and or well The other point though that That I'm I'm actually just bothered by is These people, as Alderperson Smith has pointed out, they were not in favor of the annexation. A lot of annexations, the property owners want to be in the city for their own reasons, and we are welcoming them into the city because they want to be here. They were not in favor of this. It happened against their will. And so there are provisions that allow for us to look at these unique circumstances and to look at how this should be adjusted or paid to be fair and to be on the side of being reasonable. I think, again, as has been pointed out, private portion where the lateral goes to the property owner's house, that is always a private property owner payment and owed by them, not us. There's no discussion on that topic. But when you go into the public area the street where the infrastructure is being taken, that is the city portion, and that is where there can be discussion about how that portion should be paid. And right now, that's the $1.1 million type of cost that we're going to borrow for to put that infrastructure through the public portion and whether that should then be billed back to the property owner in the special assessment that's being shown here. The example, a lot of them on laterals could be $20,000 or close to that number. Plus the numbers that we talked about and that you have in front of you of $54,000, $60,000, $45,000, whatever the number, they're very big numbers. In relation to the value of these properties, you're really pushing people into bankruptcy. You're pushing people into situations that are not going to be good at all for them. And if you have a lot, and you add that type of a special assessment, you are going to be trying to get that to a higher price. These lots will be unattractive. People are not going to look at them favorably because of that, in essence, a lien, because it's basically buying the lot and paying the special assessment as part of the sale. Obviously, the property owner can adjust their value down to allow that to be taken care of. but then they would get next to zero or very low in real value on that lot. So it's going to make all these scenarios very difficult because of the burden of these special assessments being added to the value of the lot for a sale and or for them to factor in for payment in some way. And we've heard the idea of having additional time but that's not in place yet. We are just hypothetically talking about that example that Alderperson Arnett made us aware of. That's not here tonight. We don't know if it's going to be eight years, what the length, if it's going to be the length of the septic system in the well. Those things are not in here for now. I think we're going to have to look at that $1.1 million, and the city is going to have to decide in the circumstances of what I just pointed out with you, on the fact that these property owners were not in favor of annexation. This is in the public right-of-way, not the private property owner's land, but the city's street. For those reasons, I would be on the side of looking at an adjustment in that amount of money that we contribute toward this. Right now, we're doing $400,000. The bill is $1.5 million. We have already agreed on what we've seen preliminarily, that there's $400,000 for the city portion on taking care of resurfacing and other things that are a typical city cost to this project. But I think our portion is going to potentially have to go much bigger than that in order to fix this problem and to be fair to the property owners that are put into this bad situation because otherwise there's going to be a lot of people who are not going to be able to pay the bill and it'll go to foreclosure. And a lot of things hypothetically are going to get real bad because of the unique circumstances that we are giving these people to deal with. I'm not in favor of voting for it as is.

Mr. Molnar.

I'd like to ask the city attorney one question. For a city to annex on property from a township, It requires a certain percentage of the people that are going to be annexed on, right? The city and the township just go ahead and make their plans and don't the people have to have some say in if they want to be annexed on to the city?

I know in this particular circumstance the IGA controls, but we can certainly look into that.

I thought in the past it was set up the people that were going to be annexed out as a group, a certain percentage had to say they wanted to be transferred into the city from the township for this thing to work. Unless I'm wrong on all that. That's true, usually.

Go ahead. If I may, I think that's referring to a situation where the private property owners are initiating the annexation process. In this case, the annexation process was initiated by a public entity, meaning the town of Emmett.

So the property owners had no say in this. The township just went ahead and did their thing.

The IGA controls in this circumstance.

Well, I think that's awful. That is really bad. Hmm.

Mr. Blanke. So a lot of what I was going to say has been already covered, how bad this intergovernmental agreement is for the people who own the property. But I just wanted to, and Alder Bird just touched on it a little bit, but Alder Haas asked a question about what happens with these special assessments to which Alder Arnott replied, they stay with the property. And as Alderberg alluded to, it makes it extremely difficult. In fact, it makes it almost impossible to get out from under those properties because trying to sell a property with a special assessment of say 60 or $40,000 on it, anyone who does title research is going to be scared off by that. So effectively, if we keep the term status quo, It puts these property owners in a death spiral. They're not going to be able to afford to live in the home that who knows how long they've had. So I'm encouraged to hear Alder Arnett exploring alternatives to immediate assessment, which is what the status quo would be. And any relief we can provide these property owners to stretch out these assessments so they can stay in their family homes, I think is goodwill by the city. And we're doing, quite frankly, we've shown a lot more goodwill to these residents than the township did.

I was going to suggest calling the question on this, but there are others who haven't spoken yet, perhaps that want to weigh in. Okay.

Mr. Lampie, go ahead. I just want to add some dates for those who are interested in researching this. One of the key ones is the plan commission agenda packet in minutes from Monday, January 22nd, 2024. Alder Blanke was present at that one and could probably provide some additional context. Also, a planning commission back on September 11th of 2023, that appears to be about the first time that this matter appeared before us, and there was a schedule in there that looked at potential dates with the city in terms of how we would have to move through this annexation process. So that will add some additional background if you're interested in buttressing what Alder Arnett started today's discussion with.

All right, I believe a motion was made by Arnett in the first place for Exhibit 9881. Take a roll then, Megan.

Arnett?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer?

No.

Davis?

Aye.

Lampe? Aye. Berg?

No.

Nteki? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Smith?

Aye.

Motion carried.

Okay, thank you.

All right, next, D-exhibit 9882, Phase 1, Hart Street Area Street and Utility Program Design Services with Rookert and Mielke for $91,232, sponsored by Alderman Nett from the Public Works Commission. I'll move for 9882. Okay, motion by Blanke, second by Moldhauer. Any questions, comments on that?

Blankey? Aye. Smith? Aye. Arnett?

Aye.

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

Aye.

Berg?

Aye.

Ntuky? Aye. Motion carried.

Okay, that was our last agenda item. I'll look then at 13 comments and suggestions from citizens present. Each individual request to address the council agenda items only will be permitted up to three minutes for their comments and must fill out the sign-in sheet provided. Okay. Okay. All right. Next we'll then look for a motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn.

Lampy. Okay. Second. Second by Blanke. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Thank you. 851.