Common Council - Regular Meeting

What a wonderful little city for us to live in, to enjoy, to raise families in. We thank you for those who serve our community. Thank you for Mayor Stocks and just pray that you continue to be with him as he continues to work through learning the position of mayor. We just ask for his discernment. We know that finances are always a matter of consideration. We just pray for the Common Council as they work through finances, as they work through issues. that you would just give good discussions. All of our opinions are different, are going to be different from each other. Help us to respect each other. Help us to just be able to come to conclusions for the best of the community. We thank you so much for the fire department, police department, all of the first responders that give of themselves so generously to the community. We pray for their safety as they help us. They allow us to live in a community that is safe, that we know that there will be assistance when tragedy strikes. So we do thank you for each one of them. We ask, Lord, as the discussions take place tonight, that you would just guide the words, help us to be just lifting up and trying to encourage each other as the different matters come to light. And Lord, we do thank you for your graciousness on this great country that we live in. And we do ask, Lord, for the continued protection of our freedoms. We pray these things in Christ's holy name. Amen.

Amen. Thank you.

Before we begin, I'd like to call on Chief Brower to end. Captain Cockett, come up to the front, please. He's celebrating 20 years here in the city.

All right, so Captain Cockett is a very humble man, as he demonstrated even today, because he told me that I should keep this moment of praise short. In fact, he told me that if I went longer than two sentences or used artificial intelligence, he might leave. And so I used AI to turn this all into exactly two long, run-on sentences. Gotta stick around, John, sorry. So that was one. John is an excellent officer, investigator, supervisor, and leader, and he truly cares about the Watertown Police Department, both as a team and for the individual officers that are under his charge. But he also strives to balance his excellent work at the department with regular and careful attention to his home, where his wife and children support him. And so I am honored to work alongside him, and I know that our people respect and value him for this role. So, John, congratulations on 20 years of excellent service to the city and the people of Watertown. I'll give you the opportunity to say something as well, but please keep it to two sentences.

It'll be just a couple words. I'm just happy to serve the city of Watertown. So, when I got into law enforcement, I had no idea I'd be here this long, and it truly has gone quickly, but it is as... Pastor Kay prayed. It is a very good city to be a part of, so happy to serve. Thank you.

All right, I'd like to call... That's you, Mr. Stevens, right?

Okay.

I'd like to call tonight's Common Council meeting to order at 7.03 p.m. here on Tuesday, August 18th. Take a roll call, please, Lucy.

Davis. Here. Lampe. Here. Berg. Here. Nattucki. Here. Blanke. Here. Smith. Here. Arnett.

Here.

Haas. Here. Moldenhauer. Here.

Okay, thank you. Could you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, first on the agenda is minutes of the council meeting held on August 4th.

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

Okay, motion by Byrd. Second. Second by Molenhauer. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, Mr. Blanke. I'd like to propose a change to our agenda for this evening to move item 8A, in front of item six on our agenda in order to accommodate our fire chief who has a very busy schedule.

Okay. Do it right away or after, do it between four and five here?

We can do it between four and five. The motion was before six, so between five and six.

Okay, so after five. I'll second it. Okay. Second by Burke. Thank you. Questions, comments on that? Okay. All those favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. We'll make that slight change. If nothing else, we'll move on to next is comments and suggestions from citizens present. We have a public hearing afterwards. So if you're here for the public hearing, you can just wait and be able to talk at that point. But if you have something here that's not about annexation, this would be your time to speak. Members of the public who wish to address the council shall register their request in writing with the city clerk prior to speaking. This is for this comment section only. Speakers shall be permitted up to three minutes for their comments. Anybody here wishing to speak on something other than the annexation? Okay, seeing none, I'll move on to the next item, which is an 8A update presentation on April 2026 rain event and flood response efforts by Chief Reynon.

Hello. I wrote a memo to give an update on the flood response from our April storm event. Essentially, it's all explained in there, but I did have a couple things from when I wrote that memo. City staff have continued to work collaboratively with engineering, stormwater streets, water, wastewater, finance, and EM to document and assess the damages. As a result of those, obviously, we've gotten the declaration in Jefferson County for a disaster. This has made us eligible for funding and working with FEMA and Wisconsin Emergency Management. I just want to make sure you guys understand that those residents that are in the city of Watertown that are in Dodge County do not qualify, unfortunately. We had a meeting on Monday this week with FEMA folks to discuss the damages and determine eligibility for our list of areas that we brought concerns forward for to discover anything that would be eligible under the grant program for repairs and recovery. And we've been assigned a program manager, and we will have continued meetings with them every couple weeks as we move forward. If we do decide to move forward with any actual grant applications and move forward with the projects to get funding, that would be brought forward to you at that time and would probably be the next update to expect from us. Tonight, I do also want to introduce Rafael. He is from the Small Business Administration, and he's here to briefly just discuss, because of the declaration, the assistance that's available to the small businesses in the town, which will be really helpful for them. So, if you want to come on up.

Thank you so much. Good evening, everyone. My name is Rafael Zamora. I'm a public affairs specialist with the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Office of Disaster Recovery. I'm here to share some information about recovery resources that are still available for the storms from April 2026. Even though our name says Small Business Administration, our disaster program is not only available for businesses, but for homeowners and renters as well. For home owners and renters, the program can help with damage to their primary residence or personal property. For businesses, help is available for physical damages as well as economic losses when there was no physical damage during that storm. SBA provides this help through low-interest disaster loans, as low as 2.875% for homeowners and renters, and as low as 4% for businesses, with no payments and no interest for the first 12 months. And one more thing, I know when we hear the word loan, we automatically think that this might not be the right option for us, but after a disaster, it might be worth knowing what options are available. Our goal is simply to make sure you know this option is available if you need it. And there are two important deadlines for this declaration. For physical damage or personal property, the deadline is August 31st, 2026. And for the economic injury losses, the deadline is March 30th, 2027. I hope this information is helpful to anyone who may have been impacted during the April 2026 storms. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Rafael. Thank you.

So in summary, the city staff are working together to do the infrastructure damages that may have happened or that have happened to our city. And then there's other individual assistance programs that we're working to communicate out. And so the ask tonight was for any of our elected officials that represent citizens and people in Jefferson County, if they inquire, now you know about those options available. We did ask to send direct mailings to those in specific areas where we know that they were impacted the most.

That's it. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Chief. Okay. Move on to six public hearing. 2026 Emmett Utility Extension Project. We usually allow up to three minutes or so. There's a few people in this room, so if someone speaks and you just share the same thoughts, if you can just share that. Otherwise, it took three minutes to be here quite a while. So if you want to just say something for a few seconds, that's fine. A little bit of time. I'll now call that public hearing open at 710. I'm kind of looking maybe if maybe this side of the room, sorry, that side, if anyone wants to come up to the front, Mr. Steven. Okay. Some people are totally going to have to, we could do that first. Want to do the sheets first and see? So if you fill out a sheet, we'll call you first. If you did not, we'll just start in a room and you're able to speak after that. Okay.

Amy Schleicher.

Good evening. My name is Amy Schlicker. I live on 1611 North 2nd Street with my husband, Isaac. My husband, Isaac, has shared what our, well, actually he was supposed to go first, but he will share what our home means to us. So I just wanted to share a little bit from my perspective. First off, I didn't grow up here. The house that I grew up in, my parents built from the ground up, so it's always been the place that I've known my entire life. So when my husband called saying that, um, he needed to show me something and to trust them, I was in shock that it was a house. And to be honest, I didn't see myself living here in Watertown because I saw myself being a place that I knew that I was more comfortable with, you know, didn't have to use a GPS, all that good stuff. But now when someone asked me that if I missed Delavan where I was from, you know, I say, of course I miss my family and friends, but Watertown is now my home. Um, And I am expecting, so our son Luca will be born here. So all the new memories that I have of where I call home, our son will know as his first home as well. So I just know that with everything that's going on, you know, we've built our lives with different circumstances, thinking that we were going to be ready for our son and be ready financially and all that stuff. And now that decision that we didn't make is really going to impact us and not only him, but our future kids as well.

Thank you, Amy.

Jay Schleicher.

I know that people coming after me will speak to property values, taxes, things like that. So I'm going to skip that part. I'd like to speak to you from a different perspective. I'm a plumbing contractor, and I've been doing work like this for over 40 years. I've been converting homes from septic systems and wells to sewer and water, and I know what it involves. I would like to say some things that might be of benefit to my neighbors, but also might help you to understand why this is a major concern for all of my neighbors. When you bring in sewer and water to a property, there's trenching that's involved. When you do trenching and you bring in the pipes to the house, sometimes you run into ground water. Those are additional costs. This cost can be, in some cases, $10,000 to $15,000 just to bring the sewer to the house. Sometimes you lose trees. I happen to have two big oak trees that are beautiful in my yard. I got a price, what it would take to remove those should they die from the trenching process, $2,500 to $4,000 per tree. Very expensive. In addition, once you get to the house, then you have to connect those pipes to your plumbing system. In many cases, the septic system goes out the back of the house and the sewer comes in the front of the house. It means breaking up concrete. It means trenching from one side of the building to the other, rerouting plumbing, and then there's the water lines. Water lines come into the front of the house. Those also have to be all rerouted back to the new water meter. There are costs involved with this, and that can easily be $20,000 to connect your house inside the building. This has nothing to do with special assessments. This is just subsequent costs that we may bear. If you have a finished basement, you may be required to take down drywall and remodel your basement. If you are below grade that has to be pumped to the septics to the sewer, you now have to have a lift pump, which is somewhere near $8,000 to $10,000. That requires electrical work. Then when that's all done, you have to abandon the septic system pump the tank, fill it with soil, remove all the pumps, and then you have to abandon your well. And that is another $5,000 to $10,000. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Mr. Schlicker.

Isaac Schlicker?

My wife and I, Amy, along with Luna, our little long-haired dachshund, rent the house that my dad was just talking about. I was born and raised right here in Watertown, and when I pictured my future, I wanted my family to grow up feeling the same sense of security, love, and community that I did. Our home has been a part of that dream. I remember when my mom called me saying that this property was going to potentially be going up for sale. It had everything Amy and I had wanted and talked about, a nice backyard, a quiet road, and that country feeling while still being close to the community I've always called home. We couldn't afford to purchase the home at that time, so my parents generously bought it with the intention that we are to purchase it from them when we are able. Since then, my wife and I have poured ourselves into our home. We spent countless nights, lots of hours, weekend, and time making it ours. We've put a lot of our money into it, but more importantly, We put ourselves into it. We were making this house our home. I remember taking the fire sign down and feeling genuinely sad. It seems weird. It was just a sign, but to me, it meant a lot more than that. It represented the place we had chosen and the life that we were trying to build there. Like many here, I still have it in my garage and I display it proudly. Taking the sign down was the first moment it sunk in that we're being forced into making a choice and changes we didn't want. And now that change could carry a financial cost that my family simply never planned for. My wife and I have been preparing for years to purchase this home from my parents and are set to do so in the very near future. Now we are forced to ask this question, can we still afford this home and is it worth it? And if we can't, my parents are left carrying the financial consequences of an incredibly generous decision they made simply because they wanted to help their son and their daughter-in-law. What makes this especially personal is that my wife and I are expecting our first child. His name is Luca and he's due in December. We're very excited. And when I think about this house, I don't think about property lines or sewer and water connections or what town it's in. I picture bringing our son home I picture him playing with Luna in the backyard, family gatherings, catching fireflies together, and watching him grow up there. Seeing the marks on the wall change as he grows every single year. That's what this property means to me. We're supposed to be entering one of the happiest chapters of our lives. Instead, we're wondering whether an unexpected financial burden is going to change the future that we've worked so hard to build. Tonight, I'm not asking you to just look at a property on a map. I'm asking you to look at my family and those around us. Please understand that decisions like this have very real consequences for ordinary people. We didn't ask for this. We didn't plan for it. And when the home was purchased, we didn't know that this was what our family would be facing. I respectfully ask you to put yourselves in my shoes while you consider this matter. If the roles were reversed and you were facing a decision you didn't want being forced upon you at great cost, how would you feel and how would you want it to be handled? Thank you for your time. Thank you, Isaac.

Al Larson.

Good evening, everyone. I'm here on behalf of Fred and Jean Wraithly this evening. Fred and Jean live at 1601 North 2nd Street. um their house is a little bit differently situated than most of the other properties that are being or have been annexed into the city that is fred and gene have been in the city for 42 years since they built their house in 1984. their property is right on the intersection of robert street and north second street and they have had the benefit of city sewer and water throughout the 42 years that they've been there so they're already connected to the existing sewer and water line that runs east-west along Robert Street. So, like I think most of the other speakers here this evening, they were alarmed to receive a rather substantial assessment notice that they might be on the hook for over $36,000 for services that, quite frankly, they already have. And they've had those same services through the city through the last 42 years. So the extension of the sewer and water lines on North 2nd Street provide no benefit to their property. They've already been paying for the sewer and water service that they have through the city. And again, I realize this property is differently situated than most of the rest of the ones that you're going to hear about this evening. Uh, but I think this is a situation that calls out for different treatment, uh, in the event that sewer and water is extended. I think this particular property is going to receive no benefit from the extension of the sewer and water. As I say, it's already got sewer and water through the city along Robert street. So. If the extension is approved and if the assessment is going to be imposed, I think this particular property should be treated differently because of their unique circumstances. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Larson.

Kathleen Schlicker?

So I had all kinds of notes written up and I decided instead I'm just going to speak to you first of all from my head and then from my heart. So what do I mean by that from my head? I just want to be factual and business like I've been a real estate broker for over 30 years in Watertown. I evaluated at the end of the day, does this process help us in any way? Does it make our property value better? In my mind, the answer was no. but I thought I may not have perspective because I'm still in shock at receiving the letter with the dollar amount. So I thought I'm going to call another professional in the area that has been an appraiser for as long as I've been doing real estate here. She also happened to be the appraiser that appraised the property when we purchased it. And I asked her, At the end of the day, city sewer and water comes in, first we're ready and next. Does that increase the value of our property? She took a moment or two to think about it and she said, not only does it not increase your value, it devalues your property. Because she said, number one, your taxes must have gone up. I said, they did. They've doubled. She said, so as far as desirability to buyers, you're in exactly the same location. Your taxes are now twice as much. You and your neighbors have acreage. that could have accommodated having large animals. That right is now taken away from you because you're rezoned residential. So you have all this acreage now to maintain that doesn't have the value that it did before. You are also now paying for sewer and water, and you have a mountain system that's only nine years old. that's part of the value of the property for what you paid for it, was having a relatively new mound system. And the well isn't that old either. So I knew I wasn't, I had not lost perspective. There is no benefit to us. This process, we didn't ask for it. We don't want it. And then the salt in the wound is, but yet we're supposed to pay for it. I can't equate that in my head, the fairness. Which brings me to speaking from my heart. I'm sure we're all familiar with the saying, do unto others as you'd like them to do to you. Please switch places with us this evening and think if this was you. and you got a letter of assessment to that degree. I know special assessments, I see them all the time in real estate. They're for sidewalks, they're for things like that. They're not 30, 60, $120,000. If you were on the reverse side of this, How would you feel? Would you think that was fair or right again for something you didn't ask for, tried to object to, and yet it happened anyway? So just asking for you to be in our shoes and have some empathy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Schlicker.

Mary Dinault.

Hi.

Hi. Hi. My husband, Damien, and I live at 1617 North 2nd. And we've lived there for 11 years. And we are really unhappy that being part of the city of Watertown may result in us having to sell our peaceful place because we could not afford to add so much money to our mortgage. We would be happy to hook up to the sewer and water when our system fails. And we know it will cost us something to retire our systems, you know, our well and our sewer. But to have to pay so much for this project to even be installed is just beyond our means. And we don't want to move. We are both retired and on Social Security, and we don't believe anyone in this town has had to be assessed these kinds of amounts, but has paid the hookup from the system to their homes. Please be fair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Dinnall.

Darcy Valenzuela.

Hi, good evening. I live at 1545 Boulder Drive. My final assessment that I got in the mail was $61,709.83. Final, it said on there. My husband and my vehicle don't even add up to that much money. It's a lot of money. It really is. And that's not even half of it. What about the pump house to get our sewer up to Center Street? Where is that going to go? Who's going to pay for that? We were told a year ago we were responsible for the hookup from the center of the road to our house. Okay, we swallowed that pill, all right? But I have a feeling there's a lot more cost than what this final assessment is. We never had a vote about this annexation, we were just told it was a done deal, it's gonna happen. For us to pay that much money, I would have to work extra hours. That's time away from my family, that's time away from my kids. Would you want somebody else raising your kids? How is this legal? And how is this just? And what would you do in our shoes? All my neighbors feel the same way I do, and I feel the same way they do. I agree with everything they have said up here. So I understand all the city council members have a hard job. I'm not up there trying to be a city council member. And not very many people run for this. So you have a hard job, and I am asking you to be just for all the citizens in Watertown. Thank you.

William Liddell.

Yes.

Good evening. A lot of you know me. A lot of you don't. I got the property on the end of 2nd Street. That's four generations that had that property. I and my brother and my kids grew up hunting on that property. It took us quite a time to figure out you can't shoot east or west right straight down the marsh because the city grew up and came out to our property. A lot of our properties are just flatland. We got one house out there. I don't feel right and just because we had nothing to say about this, we were forced into it. We were also forced to pay this, apparently. I just want to throw some numbers out there to you. I got four parcels. My assessment for them four parcels is $170,000. If you guys gave me 10 years to pay it, that's $17,000 a year. I'm semi-retired. I barely make that a year. And yet to keep the property that we own for four generations, you're kind of expecting me to pay this. Like everybody says, do what's good in your heart and what you think is right. I talked to a couple of you. You said you got empathy for me. Empathy is one thing, but action is another. Let's try getting this resolved in a justful manner. I don't know if that would take putting us back in the township and renegotiating so it's a square deal or just simply giving up the special assessments because obviously nobody's a millionaire and can pay for this stuff. Like everybody says, put yourself in our shoes. How would you like to get home and find four pieces of paper when you open it up saying you're going to owe the city $170,000? for something that you've already paid for more than once, and something you grew up on, and you thought you could plan to stay there. That's all I got to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. LeBart. Okay, that was, so if anybody else wants to speak, let's maybe go on your right side. If anybody wants to come up to the stand, just say your name and your address.

So anybody wishing to speak on this side, come on up.

Good evening, Michael Stadler, 1607 North 2nd Street. Thank you for hearing me this evening. My name, obviously, Michael Stadler. I'm a teacher at Watertown High School. I'm here to ask you to vote against this outrageous and burdensome special assessment. I understand the city has infrastructure needs. I understand someone has to pay for those improvements. But I'm asking you to consider whether this particular assessment is fair and reasonable for the property owners who are being asked to bear it. Like many, I did not voluntarily ask to be annexed into the city. That decision was made for me. But as a consequence of that annexation, I'm being asked to pay, the last number I saw was around $47,000. And that's not the end of the costs. Because of this project, my particular property has two wells and two septic systems. So I was told that would be between six and $15,000. So to add that to the 47, we're talking between 53 and $62,000. My mortgage is approximately 160,000. So that's approximately 40% of my mortgage that I'm being asked to pay as a result of this project that we did not have any say so in the matter. So it's not a minor inconvenience. It's a life changing financial burden. Now I'm not standing here asking the city to ignore its infrastructure responsibilities. What I'm asking you to do is recognize that fairness matters too. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Statler.

Anybody else on the right side of the room?

Hi, Angie Heller. My husband and I live at 1523 Prospect Street. We bought our property four years ago, and at that time, the property was actually annexed in. We did not have to bear the brunt of the annexation, but the people that we bought the house for lost a great deal in the sale. They lost $40,000 to the annexation. Since that time with us buying the property and having to redo our entire front yard, And our one huge Kentucky tree is slowly dying. I mean, it's a 70-foot tree. We had somebody come in to look at it. It's going to be like $35,000, $4,000 to take this tree out when it dies. But it probably cost us about $5,000 to put our yard back together. Just because literally we bought it and it was a mud yard. It's mud. They didn't come do anything to fix our yard or the frontage yard of our house after they finished. Not to mention they totally smashed our whole driveway with all the equipment. Nobody took care of that. It's still smashed. You know, you can see where the big machines went through. We have marks in our driveway. From that side of it, we also were, the special assessment, they're trying to charge us minimal compared to what everybody else is being charged. But we're already annexed in. I don't think it's, we shouldn't have to pay, we're already annexed in for the assessment. It's just, it's a poke. It's like really, come on, really? But I do think it's very unfair. for everybody else, for all of us to be put in this position because we didn't ask for it as it was said. Yes, our end of the road, it needs to get fixed, but we don't need the brand new sewers. God, Lord, we're on a dead end street. We don't need curb and gutter. You know, I enjoy walking through the gravel of our road, you know. I feel for everybody else. That's what I just wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Heller. Anybody else on the right side?

Good evening.

My name is Holly Stadler. I live at 1607 North 2nd Street. I also had something written down, but everybody here has made it very emotional for me. I was always taught somebody's always got it worse off than you do, right? I was feeling bad for myself, and now I hear these guys. $170,000? It breaks my heart for you. I'm so sorry. I mean, we have maybe $60,000. Even if we expand that over 10 years, like, we can't afford that. It's going to add onto our home. Who's going to buy it now? Am I ever going to be able to sell it? I mean, now we're stuck with it, and it's going to go into foreclosure, and you... You know, it's not fair. I bought an Emmet because Emmet is quiet and it's peaceful and it's close to town. Watertown's great, my husband works in Watertown. But when we got annexed in, everything changed. Everything changed. Our life has not been the same since we were annexed in. I used to love coming home and being in my yard and now we go home and we stress about being able to pay our bills. I know you guys are like, boo-hoo, you know, I don't know. But it really affects us as people. And now you just see numbers on a piece of paper. But there are so many people attached to those numbers. And I just want you to remember these faces because we love our homes and we don't want to lose them due to finances that are not our responsibility or our fault. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mrs. Taylor. Anybody else on the right side? Okay, I'll move on to the left side. Anybody on the left side want to come on up and say your name and address, please?

Good evening, members of the council and the community. My name is Crystal Baumgarten. I live on Prospect Street. Ten years ago, my husband and I bought our home. here to raise our family near our relatives in watertown we wanted a safe quiet space on a dead end street tonight i'm here to tell you why this is 1.4 million dollar project and the special assessments attached to it will cause severe irreversible harm to my family our family is already at our absolute breaking point we have two children with disabilities my oldest son has severe permanent disabilities i had to reduce my work hours just to provide the care he needs I'm an able-bodied person with the ability and the desire to work, and I still do continue to work hard every day for my family. With the rising cost of living, we're struggling just to survive. To qualify for any state benefits, I would essentially have to stop working completely, and even if I did that, the assistance would be so minimal that we still could not meet our family's basic needs. We're stuck in the middle. We don't make enough to buy groceries every month, and we rely on the food pantry. We buy our household needs and clothes at secondhand stores. We cannot afford the special assessment. Even with a payment plan, the added cost would put us in deep financial ruin. I want to be clear. I understand that creating access to city water and sewer may be needed or wanted by other residents, including on Prospect Street, if they choose to hook up. But it is fair to say that we all agree on one thing. This forced annexation is absolutely not what any of us wanted when we chose the properties we live in. On my specific lot, the existing water lateral already ends parallel to our front door, as well as we are already hooked up to the sewer. If we ever needed to connect, we could easily do so without tearing up the whole entire street. We are happy with the layout of our road. We want basic asphalt repairs, but we do not want or need this extreme million-dollar overhaul. This unnecessary expansion directly threatens our children's safety. Adding a curb and gutter will cut significantly into our driveway and shrink our front yard. My oldest son has severe autism and has absolute no awareness of danger. Our quiet yard at the end of this dead-end street is the only safe place in this world. Based on past city projects, this massive construction zone means our children will not be able to safely step outside for a substantial amount of time. You're destroying the form of a child's safe haven. I'm sorry. We're an expansion we didn't ask for. City growth should not happen at the expense of family safety and basic survival. Because this annexation was forced upon us, the city should absorb the infrastructure's costs, not the homeowners. I ask this council to completely remove this special assessment for all the property owners. Please look past the dollar signs on your project plans and see the human costs to the families living on Prospect Street. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Craig Wortman and I live at 1541 Boulder Drive. These costs of engineering improvements are financially devastating. I suspect that when you first saw these numbers you thought so too. These are not abstract numbers. These are real people. many of whom have limited means. Some are retired and living on fixed incomes, simply trying to maintain the homes and lifestyles they've worked hard their entire lives to afford. I understand this is just simply untenable. I understand that utility extensions and annexations cost money. I'm not asking the city to pretend they don't. In many cases, communities have provided assistance with well and septic abandonment and with the cost of connecting properties to the new infrastructure. That support has not been offered here. It can feel like we are being told, welcome to the city. Here's your $65,000 bill. At the same time, it is encouraging to see housing development occurring throughout Watertown but those developments did not happen by accident. The city has invested significant effort in planning, infrastructure, funding, and in some cases tax incremental financing to help make those developments possible. Developers receive incentives because the city believes growth benefits the entire community. But when it comes to long-time residents who have lived in this area for decades, many with limited financial means, suddenly the philosophy seems to change. We are expected to bear the entire burden ourselves. I have to ask, when similar infrastructure improvements were made on Dewey Avenue, what were those longtime residents specially assessed? So why are we welcomed into the city in this manner? I have had the pleasure of getting to know many of you personally. in different capacities, and I respect you. I know firsthand how difficult it is to make hard decisions as an elected official, and I do not envy that responsibility. I've also told others how much of a breath of fresh air it has been to work with this city council and the current city leadership. I have told my fellow community members that this is a different group of leaders and that you have a strong sense of character. You know, when somebody is being treated unfairly, and I believe that this is a rare opportunity to demonstrate that character. I'm asking you to reconsider the special assessments being placed on these property owners and to absorb these costs across the broader city base. These residents are becoming part of Watertown. The benefits of this infrastructure extend beyond individual properties and the burden shall not fall disproportionately on a relatively small group of people who may not have the financial ability to absorb it. I believe that is the fair thing to do. Thank you for your service, your consideration, and your willingness to do what is right for these residents. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Orman.

Anybody else on the right side of the room? Sorry, left side of the room.

Good evening. My name is Monica Haiti. My husband and I, Bruce, own a property on North 2nd Street, 1600 North 2nd Street. Again, a piece of parcel that has been in Bruce's family for a long, long time, my father-in-law. Owned that for many, many years. We realized that the city was looking to expand that footprint and this whole time we're not going to be surprised that we would be expected to hook up to city water and sewer out there and that we would have to absorb that cost from the property to the main line. What hit home was that at our household, we're talking about retiring in a few years and what our finances look like. And our property on 2nd Street right now is being tax assessed at $274,000 in value. And we get a special assessment certified letter saying we owe the city $202,000. $202,000. of the over a million dollar should be our cost to extend municipal sewer and water down the city street. I agree that is not a bad thing, but that is not owned by me. That is not owned by our property or the property of the neighbors. It's owned by the city. I implore you to please consider just ending the special assessment that is putting undue and unfair burdens on all of our neighbors that are affected by this special assessment. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Mrs. Haney. Come on up, sir.

Brian Kelscher on 1527 and 1529 Prospect Street. We haven't lived in Watertown that long. I guess six years now we bought the property. We were told that we were going to be annexed into Watertown from a realtor. So we were expecting it, but obviously not. I think our two properties come to, and one of them's abandoned. There's nothing there. $42,000 for the two properties. It's even at 10 years, an extra $7,000 on our city taxes is unquestionable. It makes me start to wonder. As you listen to all these poor people here, why is the city sticking this to us? It makes me wonder, are you trying to bankrupt everybody here in this room? Does the city have some plan to annex all our land and maybe put hotels up on that end of town on 16? Why are we getting stuck with these outrageous prices? I know when they did over by Pepsi, The people didn't have to pay this kind of money when they got annexed into town. I don't even understand why these letters went out in the first place unless you have some other plan for all our property. Because you can hear from these people here tonight that's probably going to bankrupt almost everybody here. I would sell in a heartbeat, but I would not make enough money on even putting the money in escrow to make money to get out of my house. So how does that even pay? Why did I buy a house? So I could be upside down on it in six years. I refinanced at 2.5. I thought I was doing really good. And now I'm upside down on my house with these bills that are coming through. I do not understand it. I do not understand these prices, everybody here in the town, unless you have some plan for our land, because we'll all have to move and we'll all be foreclosed, bankrupt. That's it. That's all I got. I have no idea.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Anybody else?

Good evening.

My name is Jared Donner. I stand before you today as a recently annexed community member, voicing my concern regarding the recent special assessment costs while understanding the city's obligations to provide all residents with safe drinking water, safe route for waste, intact roadways, and proposed assessment charge of $84,000 against my property at 1531 Center Street presents an immediate catastrophic threat to my family and where we call home. To simply state, we cannot afford this burden. that the city of Watertown has brought forth against my family, friends, and recently annexed neighbors. My wife Stephanie and I found our house back in 2017. We were not aware of any annexation. It checked all the boxes we were looking for in our first home, the price we could afford. Taxes were quite reasonable for being so close to Watertown. I thought, can it get any better? It has not. That wasn't until we heard rumors about the annexation by the force of Watertown. My initial thought was, there goes my taxes. annexation letter stated that we would also be forced to hook up the city's sworn water. We attended meetings, asked questions, had no answers at the cost or timeline when this would happen. We currently have a well in septic that has been working great thus far. I'm thinking, why force to decommission a system that is working? These systems aren't cheap to put in. Why kill mine? Since the annex, my property taxes have gone up 77%. I pay a monthly utility bill for services that I feel are inadequate, a fire station that is now on the opposite side of town. And my property value has decreased, while gaining .1 acres. That is, sitting in the middle of the street. July 24th, I got a certified letter to my house. A welcome letter, perhaps? I made the mistake of waiting until Monday morning to open that up. That was a mistake. That drive to work, I was the bad driver. I couldn't believe what I was reading. $84,000? I thought, that's more than half my mortgage. I was livid upset. Didn't take long before I started to worry. Where am I going to come up with this money? Way to kill the American dream. They say public speaking is the number one fear, but mine was losing my home. Something out of my control. It's wrong. I can't afford this. We can't afford this. I have a family to provide, a roof to keep over their heads. How am I going to be financially possible? A second job? Probably a third. The enforced services that I have no desperate need for, none of us do. A street that should have been fixed decades ago is now a concern and I must pay for it. There's potholes in the middle of the street. We go to Emmett, you're not my problem. Go to Watertown, well you ain't mine yet. I can't help but think of my neighbors and wonder how is anybody going to pay for this? And hearing them, nobody can. This is wrong and it will put us in a financial hardship that words cannot describe. The sudden infrastructure bill completely eclipses our household's financial survival limits. We have mortgage, utility, premiums, doctor bills, tuition. I just put a roof in my house. I had to pay that out of pocket. Food. Everything around us is costing more money. It's beginning to get overwhelming thinking about where the money will come from to pay for this. Our household budget is consumed by basic necessities already. These special assessments of this magnitude leave us with zero viable paths to comply. If forced to pay under standard municipal terms, compounding interest, severe tax liens, and Watertown has a 12% city late fee, will inevitably displace our families from our home. Therefore, I am formally requesting that the city board veto the use of special assessments for this project, as a burden alone would be detrimental on all our pocketbooks, and as a board member stated, a death spiral. Thank you for your time, your public service, and your understanding.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Donner.

Okay, anybody else? Nope.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Donner. My husband, Jared, just talked. Dear council members and mayor, thank you for taking the time to listen to our thoughts and concerns. Jared and our family would be greatly impacted if this special assessment project would go through. We have owned our home. For eight years, and in those years, we have had multiple ER visits with both our kids with chronic health conditions, with one of them developing epilepsy. This has already caused a great burden on our finances. We found a great school for our kids. They are healthy and thriving there. If this were to go through, that likely would not be an option going forward. I'm also not sure if we would be even able to keep our house or if it would be even possible to sell it with this heavy disclosure. This heavy burden would almost double our mortgage. Life goes by so quickly and I want to make more memories with my family. But if you vote this through, time would only be spent working extra hours to pay this sum estimated $84,000 to pay over eight years. How can you put that on anybody's shoulders, especially families? Jesus Christ, my Lord, has gotten me through so much, not the least of which is our family's health issues over the years and continuing. Whatever happens, this verse will continue to comfort me and my family. Isaiah 41, 13, For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand. Do not fear, I will help you. Please rethink your decision and have some compassion on our families, the families of Watertown. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Mrs. Donner.

Anybody else?

My name is Warren Hallbrayer. I live at 1537 Boulder Street, Watertown, Wisconsin. I'm a retired veteran and I want to know what happened to my constitutional rights. In Congress, July 4th, 1776, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the public bondage that connected them with another and assume among them powers of nature and nature's God, that's the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, entitled them to decent and respectful opinions of mankind, and it requires that each to declare the cause that would compel them to separation. We, I hold as truth in my neighbor's self-evidence that all men are created equal, that they are involved by their Creator God with certain amenable rights. Amongst these rights are the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can I be happy at over $50,000? hanging over my head. And it says in Deuteronomy chapter 19, 14, when you come into the land that the Lord God has given you, remember that you must never steal your neighbor's land. You're stealing my land. by moving their property boundaries. I'm asking you to move my property boundary back, but my God, put it into the town of Emmett. And if you're a veteran, please stand up. I served 23 years for this Constitution, and it's very dear to me and always has been. People, we're losing our constitutional rights every day. Another thing I think that's a heck of a way to repeat a veteran. We can't afford that $50,000. Amen.

Thank you, sir. Come on, ma'am.

Yes. The city of Watertown, friends, neighbors. My name is Sheila Hallrader. I live at 1537 Boulder Drive, Watertown, Wisconsin. And the cost of this repair for the water, sewer, and et cetera, me and my husband are limited income. And we don't have that much money, and we can't afford all this cost. And this would certainly put a hardship and a burden on me and my husband. And I know the same that my neighbors also. And... I just can't see where you all came up with that kind of cost. And it's going to cost a whole lot more because everything keeps going up in this day and age. And that's why you waited 20 years to do it. And I just hope you can have a little compassion on the people and my neighbors and folks. We are private landowners. We pay taxes. We pay things. We should have our voices heard. And, you know, the last several times we ever came to these city meetings, nobody ever listened to us. They tell us to shut up and sit down, you know. What kind of a city say that to their people that live in the city? They treat them like that. You know? Or in the country. I just think we should have a lot more love and compassion. And love one another. You know? As neighbors. You know? We're all here together. And we should have a lot more compassion and love for each other. That's all I have to say. And I say thank you for your time and that you heard me. Amen.

Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else?

My name is Deborah Ebert.

I live at 1527 Boulder Drive. Like everyone said here, we didn't ask for this. You didn't ask for this. You probably weren't on the council. You weren't even born some days, maybe. I'd like to thank Fred Smith, for taking up this battle for us. And I would like you to think, what would you do if this was your district you were representing? Would you fight for them? Would you feel for them? I know you feel for us as people, but everyone has more to lose than I do. I've lived in my house for 40 years. I'm retired, but it's a big expense, and I don't think I can afford it. When it's all done, I thank this gentleman for letting me know about the plumbing. What that's going to cost, that's double what this is and this piece of paper, plus the landscaping and everything else. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, anybody else?

My name's Bruce Hady. My wife Monica spoke earlier. I only have a few things to say. The burden that this is doing for everybody is a hardship, so to speak. We all know what it does. Costs aren't getting any lower. We understand that. We understand that you guys have to do your city developments and so forth. As we Move forward, I would like you to understand that how many people are you putting the burden on for this $1.4 million? If you were one of those people, all I got to ask is, would you be very happy? That's a lot for this community to expect this group of people to pay for. And yes, my wife and I are close to retirement, but that doesn't mean that I have all the money in the world to pay for things that I didn't expect. And I understand that there is hookup charges and so forth and wells and septics that have to be taken care of. Those are expenses that are above and beyond of what the assessments are. And I don't care who you are. When you give somebody $60,000, you know, it's a kick in the face, so to speak, because it's not something that they expected. If somebody gave you that kind of a bill just because You want to be very happy about it, and I don't think that it's right for us to have them pay for it either. You go down the center of the street and the city pays for it, and we have to hook it up to our houses. Yes, I understand that. I'm speaking for myself. I understand how it works. But I'm also saying that if they have a working well and working water and a septic, Let them use it till it fails. Six acres of our property was annexed into the city for many years. So I've been paying city taxes for many years on that six acres. So I just want to say that I understand that I wouldn't have to pay if I want to put a house on that property. And when I came and I asked about stubbing in, They said, well, I'd have to pay for the whole man going up the center of the road. Guess what? I'm not doing that. I can't see me paying that kind of money for the sewer to go down the center of the road. I don't own it. If you guys want to say I own it and I own the road, then I guess I got to block the road because I don't want everybody to drive on it. Am I right? It's kind of the way it works. If I own it, then I own it. So I'm just saying that the center of the road, the city owns. It's my property line to everybody's property line. I just think it's a pretty big burden to put on the people. That's all I need to say. Thank you, Mr. Ady.

So everybody knows, too, we have, once the public hearing is closed, Mr. Blanke has to make a motion here, but there will be discussion after the public hearing as well. Does anybody else want to speak before I move on to Mr. Blanke? Okay, Mr. Blanke, go ahead.

have further discussion. But in order to do this, it needs to be done before the public hearing is closed. I would like to make a motion to extend the installment terms to 96 months.

Okay, motion by Blanke, installment to 96 months.

I'll second.

I'll second, Mr. Arnett. Okay. Discussion after, oh, a question. This part had to be done before I move on to item 9A. Mr. Arnett.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to amend the motion that is 96 months in either equal installments or in a lump sum at the end of that term.

I'll accept as friendly. Okay. Any questions on that? Mr. Lampe.

I'm not following the financing discussion here. We previously had an eight-year piece come through council. So what is it that we're doing or changing here other than adding the lump sum at the end option?

In the preliminary resolution that was heard at the last, I believe, council meeting, we did not set forth the installment terms, which is a statutory requirement. We're able to do it during this public hearing, but it must be done during the public hearing.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Mack? Yes, Mr. Blanke. So just to be clear for everyone else, so as I understand that if we do not do this before the end of this public hearing, it is all due once the assessment is made, correct? So this is like... This is the time. Okay.

Okay. Need a roll on that or no? I don't think so. Okay. Any more discussion on that? Okay. On Blankie's motion on that second, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thank you. All right. That was closed. Anybody else? I'll close the public hearing and check on anybody else want to make a comment? Does anybody else want to make a comment? Mr. Schlicker, you already spoke, but I can let you go real quick, sir.

Thank you. I would just like to ask that you look at the faces of these people here. There's no anger. There's no hostility. But they're all scared. And so am I. Please take that into consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Schultz. The discussion's not over yet. Just close a public hearing only, okay? I'll ask for a third time. Anybody else wish to make a comment? Okay. I'll close a public hearing here at 8-11. Okay. That was 6A. Move on to reports. Under 7, we have airport minutes from July 8th, licensing board minutes from July 8th, planning commission minutes from July 27th, public safety and welfare minutes from August 5th, and tourism minutes from August 13th. Mr. Berry, go ahead.

Mr. Mayor, I was looking at the public safety and welfare committee minutes, and I appreciated the feedback and the comment that came from citizens that were impacted by the proposed change of South A Street to a two-way from one way. And I, in the context of the opposition, I was surprised to see the committee vote two to one to support the idea of a two-way street when almost everybody there, from what I could see, was opposed to it. And they were directly impacted by the proposed change. So that caught my attention.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay, anything else on those minutes? Okay, I'll move on then. Next, under communication recommendations, it's okay, I'll skip answer your program. They are going to give the quarterly report next meeting in September, so I'm just going to skip that one unless there's any questions on it. Okay, I'll look under New Business. We have Review and Take Possible Action Modifications to the Report on the Estimated Special Assessments for the 2026 Emmett Yield to Extension Project. And I'm going to ask, hold on, Mr. Venk. Is Richie here? Okay.

Come up, Richie. Hang on, Mr. Smith.

There were some changes to the initial report included. Those changes are in the revised report handed out tonight in front of you. There's 10 properties that were affected or revised. Two of the properties, 201 Robert Street and 1601 North 2nd Street, They are corner properties and per city ordinance for assessment for sewer and water, we need to add both frontages and get the average frontage. And that would be the accessible frontage. So that would result in a lesser frontage for their assessment. The other properties had revised improvement links. Those are properties where the city services are extended across a portion of their frontage, but not their total frontage.

And your recommendation on these 10 things is to go to Public Works next week?

To take this back to Public Works to incorporate these changes in the revised report.

Those particular ones, okay. Yes. We need a motion on those 10 or we can wait till. Let's wait. Okay. All right. Thank you, Richie. Okay. So yeah, that report, revised report in front of you. I'll then look over towards Mr. Smith. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank every individual that came out tonight and for the presentation that you made which can only help enhance our understanding of the broader issue in front of us this evening. We had an original timeline and it was my intent to vote against the special assessments at the final resolution. But what I want to do and This is, from my perspective, one of the more important motions I've ever made in 29 years in city government. But to try to address these issues in a way that can bring the issue directly to our floor, I would like to make a motion tonight under the provision authorizing modification of the special assessments, and that motion is that we reduce every proposed special assessment to zero, that we basically end this process of special assessment tonight by modifying the proposed special assessments to none so that these folks that have come out tonight can know the end result of their efforts and their service as good citizens and not have to wait two weeks or who knows how much more to find out the answer to their petition. So my motion tonight is that we modify each proposed special assessment such that the total assessment proposed is zero.

I'll second the motion.

Okay, motion by Smith. This assessment is at zero and a second by Berg. Okay, discussion on that. Mr. Smith, go ahead.

I want to be as concise as I possibly can and I've tried to think back to the comments that I have previously made focusing upon the extraordinary cost of this project distributed among a very few properties. As we have addressed in the past, the implications of both the special assessments, the hookup requirements, the possible lift stations in individual homes, the closing of the wells and the septics, everything that constitutes costs as they are coming. And you have also heard firsthand from the people here tonight about the staggering cost of these proposed special assessments. We all have the role. We all know what they are. We know that there are many that are $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 for individual homes. And you heard two individuals tonight talk about approximately $200,000 of special assessments. So there is no question that the cost implication of this project Going the special assessment route is absolutely catastrophic. It is unaffordable for anybody. And for these individuals, it is staggering. What we're looking at is 33 parcels of land, 56 acres that came into the city, and 16 residences. The remaining non-city funded cost of $1.1 million is distributed among these relatively few people. And what I want to do is not just emphasize the untenable, unreasonable, staggering cost of what is involved. I want everybody to understand what these people have gone through, the uniqueness of this situation, and the unfairness that has been part of their life for the past many years. Every single person here tonight that has a property that was part of this boundary adjustment was happy and living their life as they chose to live it in the township in a very affordable way. Their taxes were low. They had a home where they provided their own septic system and their own well. anticipated that their life would go on as they had chosen to initiate it. And then something happened. And it happened by the vestige of governments, which is terribly ironic because the very essence of what governments were convened for is to protect individual rights, and foremost among those individual rights are property rights. The City of Watertown, to make this a quick summary, wanted all of the properties inside the bypass to become part of the city. That's what triggered this, and in concert with the township, began a process of negotiations. The end of the process was wonderful for the township of Emmett. They got a town growth area carved out in the extraterritorial zoning area that the city would otherwise have controlled. In essence, a vestige of home rule. They got $31,000 of future taxation passed by the city back to the township for these folks that were going to be annexing into the city. The city got the boundary adjustment that it wanted, and the only people that didn't get anything close to what they wanted were the citizens of Emmett who were sold down the river and forced into the city of Watertown. Now, you've got to understand, this just didn't happen overnight. It was a prolonged process, meeting after meeting at the township. These people went out to more meetings than you can imagine, begging their elected representatives in the township, don't send us into the city. And as you heard from some of them tonight, They were either ignored or treated disrespectfully or basically told that what they were petitioning their own representatives for was of no consequence. And so the intergovernmental agreement was signed. Ten years after its inception, late 2014, early 2015, there was going to be a boundary adjustment. They were going to be annexed into the city of Watertown. And they have been living in dread of the consequences of what had been set in motion for the last 10 years. Now, in the recent past, every fear they ever had has come to reality. They go home and lo and behold, there is their piece of mail, their notice of special assessments, and the staggering cost. Now, what I'm here to tell you is this. These are some of the most wonderful people I have ever had the honor of getting to know. But if you were to go through that 56 acres of land and you were to look where these wonderful folks live, you would find that their homes are modest. They are not wealthy people. The special assessments in many instances constitute a significant percentage of the value of their whole property. These people have come very close to losing hope, and their petition tonight is that our government, unlike the past government that they dealt with, would treat them fairly, which is a concept that was completely unknown in their dealing with the township of Emmett. I believe one of the most important things that we as a city should zealously safeguard is not just adherence to the law and fairness across the board and integrity in every conceivable way, but our testimony to the entire world. How does the city of Watertown treat its citizens? Heaven forbid that it ever be thought that we might treat our citizens, whether they landed on Plymouth Rock or whether they are new members of our community, in an abysmal way that basically tells them that government is not their friend, is not here to protect their interest, is not here to safeguard their rights, but rather is their adversary. There is a verse in the Bible that means a lot to me. It's Micah 6, 8, where this prophet Micah in the Old Testament is asked, what is it that God commands of you? What is it he wants from you? And the answer was very simple. To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God. tonight we have the opportunity to do justice. And that justice may be tempered based upon mercy and the compassion that we need to recognize is necessary because these people have no hope but for us and our concept of justice and our willingness to show mercy. Now, My basic view on this matter is very simple. We will always find the money to do what is necessary to get done. I have seen it over and over and over. I have seen recent projects where I was promised that it would not go over $10 million. to go up to $11 and $12 and $13 and the bonding became $14.5 million. Yet we came up with the extra $4.5 million and as was previously mentioned here tonight, we carve out TIF districts to help further interest that our city has. We have given hundreds of thousands of dollars away and have additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in indebtedness that we owe for a housing area on the west side of the river. What I'm here to tell you is this. These people should not have to pay one penny of special assessments for these interceptor lines. The city can afford it. These people cannot. We're the ones that initiated this entire process. If it was so important to get these people into the city, to even off our boundaries, and pay the township $31,000 for the honor to do it, then at least we have the duty to and the moral necessity to alleviate them from an unjust cost and pay it ourself. They'll have to pay plenty as they move forward. And there are other things we'll have to address. But what we can definitely do tonight is zero out their special assessments. Do justice, be merciful, and honor God as a city.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Blanke, go ahead.

So I want to thank Mr. Smith for his comments because it saves me going through a lot of the same raking through the coals of the town of Emmett. Um, I've gotten to know several of you. Um, you might recognize me from the plan commission meetings that you came to on public hearings when we were discussing this annexation. And I've worked through two mayoral administrations and two city attorneys screaming about how unfair this was to the citizens in that area. And quite frankly, how it was a big rosy gift to the town of Emmett and for a sliver of land, and then in the end, it was going to be put on the backs of you. So I'm pleased to hear this amendment, and I'm 100% in support of getting rid of the special assessment tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Blakey. Just a reminder for everybody that the special assessments on the agenda Maybe annexation IGA is not too much, so if we want to brush on a little bit, but we shouldn't discuss that too much, okay? Mr. Berg, go ahead, sir.

Yep, I was on the Public Works Committee when we had the discussion. It went through by a 3-2 vote to have it sent to these property owners with the special assessment information they got at their homes. So there was good discussion at the committee level, but I had hoped, and Again, I'm thankful also that Alderperson Smith represents these people because they're getting the kind of representation they need to make the case that they are entitled to on this injustice that's been brought before us. I've been on the City Council a long time too. I'm bothered by this intergovernmental agreement that was put in place that has this impact on these individual people. The reminder was that these people didn't vote for annexation. They actually went They were actually put into this arrangement without their consent or their agreement. So it's a different kind of annexation than we typically have. A lot of times people want to move in, and in regard to that type of a special assessment and that type of an annexation, it has a different merit to it. But in the context of the dollar amounts here divided by the small number of people, and the impact on these individual people and how it's going to affect their lives and their ability to move forward, there is no reasonable way that we can actually move with an assessment approach. And that's why there was a split vote. I think Alderperson Meyer and Moldenhauer and I voted against it at the time for the reasons that are being stated. But now it's at a higher level as far as the council, and that's where we hopefully need to have the same type of consensus. I think Alderperson Smith has made the case, and I think the truth is, even if we take away that assessment that they're being asked to pay, they have reminded us of their lateral cost, and they're getting rid of their septic system at some point, and their well, and other costs that are going to be related to this that are going to be theirs that they have to pay because it's on private property. So we can't go beyond what we're potentially looking at doing. And this is the right time to stop it and to not move it forward. That's why I hope there's consensus that the mistake was made. This cost divided by property owners within the city over a long period of time can be absorbed in a way that can be handled. But to turn it back to these small number of people is going to force bankruptcy and all types of economic conditions and mental stress, which we heard tonight from many people here. So it just doesn't make the case for us to disregard the rationale that's being made to actually forego and to exempt these people and to look at this as being a city project. Again, the improvement is actually being made within the city right-of-way. Those types of costs and improvements within the city right-of-way can be looked at in the manner it's being proposed. and Alderperson Smith made reference to other examples. Before I got back on the council, I was on for a long 18 years, and then I got off, and I've been back on the last year and a half. But there was a decision made, and it was for their own reasons, and it made sense, that they wanted to incentivize single-family development, and in that context, they wanted to encourage development sooner than later, and they went with allowing the infrastructure cost of sewer water so that the homes that are being built on Johnson Street could be taken care of. And that is being paid for by our city to incentivize that project and to make that an affordable type of development. And it made sense at the time. We are seeing the benefit of that by the homes that are being built. I think we had roughly 50 homes that have been built in that area And it's because of that incentivizing approach that we end up helping pay for. So there are examples we can look at, and they're done for the reasons that are unique to each case. And I think we've heard the unique circumstances here that might hopefully influence a majority on this council to look at it as the cost of fixing a problem and a mistake and not burdening people that were in large part victims of a decision that they had no ability to control.

Thank you, Mr. Berg. Mr. Lampe, go ahead.

Thank you. I think where I want to start is just point folks to the September 19th, 2023 meeting packet for Common Council. There's a memo in here that basically walks through some of the history. The agreement signed in 2000 renewed once and then, as you've heard, Emmett essentially pulled out of negotiations and caused that to lapse. And we subsequently are in an annexation situation because of the lapse of that agreement. You said September 19th of 2023? September, yes, September 19th, 2023. There's a memo in there starting on page 37. I have questions. I'm generally in support of some or all of the subsidization, the socialization of the cost of this thing. I see this as a public good. You know, public schools, health departments, social workers, libraries, parks, they're all fantastic things that we all, you know, pay a share into. This one, of course, speaks to water treatment. This one speaks to flood control potentially. And a lot of those other benefits that, again, are part of living in a city. It's one of the things that we get to enjoy the fruits of our taxes. And as many of the residents have noted, they are paying some additional taxes as city residents here. I also want to acknowledge that our housing TIV-TIF policy has essentially caused us to incentivize new residents to move into the city. There's certainly a great degree that we should go to acknowledge that we do not have to attract residents, we have residents, and that there definitely is value if we think that there's value in subsidizing through TID-TIF new residents. There's certainly value in having established residents continue to provide social good at the edge of town. So in general, I'm going to support some degree of, again, subsidization, socialization of these costs across Watertown taxpayers. I think that this is going to be a good use. I'm open to several numbers, up to and including full subsidization. Thank you, Mr. Lampe.

Mr. Molnar, go ahead.

Mr. Ballerman-Smith's motion. I think, too, that in the first place, I believe it was a meeting or two ago I had asked a question about if anybody had wanted to be annexed into the city of Watertown. And at that point in time, the city attorney had said that no one had, and that kind of disturbed me. Because usually in an annexation situation, somebody that's, I believe, 50% plus one have to be in favor of annexation. But this was called a territorial something or other. Agreement.

Yeah, yeah, Mr. Molnar, that part wasn't on the agenda, but yeah, it's an agreement there, yeah. Not to talk too much about it.

That kind of disturbed me and disappointed me a little bit that the people we're talking about didn't want to be annexed in. That upset me. So I'm going to support Alderman Smith's motion because I believe these people, they were sold down the river. I do believe that. And I will support Alderman Smith.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Molnar. Thank you.

To answer Alder Moldenhauer's question, there's a few things in there. One is called the restated inter-municipal cooperative agreement. It also looks like that we're still subject to an ongoing agreement with Emmett called the City of Watertown, Town of Emmett Cooperative Boundary Agreement. Looks like that one expires in December 31st, 2032. Is that still active? That's, yeah, all I have is figures in front of me.

31, I think. Yep.

Now, the interesting thing to me is that this was signed in 2000, and I believe... Alder Smith was mayor at that time, and so if there's any additional insight as to why we set things up at that time, I think we may have the individual here who can answer the question.

This part, this is not noticed, so we should not really be discussing the IGA in general right now. It's there. It's a 30-year agreement. Okay. Okay.

Anybody else? One other comment, please. Go ahead, Mr. Burke. I think if we follow through on the proposal and the amendment, I'm sorry, on the proposal as suggested, these individuals will, by not having been burdened by this exceptional cost, they will be in a position to to have improvements made to their homes, add value to the property, and we will see the benefits of some of that incentivizing of investment into their homes, which will add to tax base sooner than later by what we propose to possibly do here. It will have an economic and a positive benefit by helping them financially to get past this issue And to make the improvements to their individual properties. A lot of these homes, these properties actually are vacant lots that will then be purchased by people with the improvement of sewer and water. And they'll have the ability then to add a substantial type of improvement to the home. I'm sorry, to the land, to the lot. And that will be times the number of lots and properties. It will be substantial and it will add tax base that we don't have now. So it will help.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Berg. Mr. Molenhauer.

If we're going to welcome people into Watertown and we have zero assessments, I think that's the right way to do it.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Molenhauer. Thank you, sir. Okay, Mr. Molenhauer. Thank you.

So, First two thoughts. The money the city has is tax money and ratepayer money. Just so we're clear on that. There's no separate city money. So if we move forward with this, we're paying for it with taxpayer money and ratepayer money. That will have budgetary impact. So if this is passed, we need to remember that. as we're looking at the next budget, at the very least. If we're to move forward with this, I think it's very important that we have clarity on the exceptionality under which we are doing it. For example, saying, well, it's because it's on the city portion of the street. That is not exceptionality. That is the case throughout the city. And the vast majority of the city's pipes under those streets were not paid for strictly by a broad-based tax or rate structure in terms of their original construction. And I'm just talking about ancient history. I'm talking about recent history. We have recent developments in the last 10 years and the last five years where those mains were a part of the purchase price of the properties that people were buying. So that's why I'm saying we need to be very, very careful that we are not setting precedent by which everyone coming down the road for any kind of new construction is saying, I'm the same as that. And it should all be free from here on out. Because it's not free. Again, it goes back to it's taxpayer money, it's ratepayer money. So I just want to make sure we have clarity on the exceptionality. And the one thing I have heard so far this evening that is that exceptionality is the nature under which these properties were brought into the city. That's not to say they aren't under circumstances, but it's the one thing I have heard that is different than the other cases I can think of recently. So that's all I want to make sure is that if we do it, we have clarity of the exceptionalities so that we are not setting a precedent that we will not be able to afford in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Arnett.

Okay, Mr. Lampe, go ahead. So along the lines of clarity, what's the total amount that we're looking to cover with this motion? I believe 1.1 million. And that is inclusive of the city's costs, but not the lateral connections, right?

Project is 1.4 something. Okay. We have the portion.

For the road, I believe. Andrew, is that correct? 1.1 million based on Mr. Smith's motion? Okay.

Total project 1.4, I believe, $300,000 will be covered for repair work on the roads. We're talking about essentially waiving the assessment, so whatever that total is. $1.1 million, I believe. Okay. Does that assessment include the cost to the property owner of the essentially city-to-property laterals that were proposed?

No, it does not include the private laterals. Okay. Just the mains only, yeah.

So my one question around the exceptionality around the nature of the properties are brought in, is it legally feasible to basically cite the expiration of a township boundary agreement as that provision?

Yes.

There's no requirement under the special assessment process as it pertains to this.

So I could add that to make this motion more specific if the concern is that this case could be used to generalize other cases that are unlike this one.

Yes, you could add that.

Okay. We're open to it. I guess I'd like to move to amend this to include an additional clause specifying that this action is unique to the expiration of an intergovernmental boundary agreement.

Okay, we have a motion to... Would it be okay if just Smith and Burger agree to that change or...

Yes, I do have a procedural point to make to counsel as a whole. So under the statute right now, you have four options. You can approve the report, you can disapprove the report, you can modify it, or you can refer it back to staff. If the intent of council is, as discussed tonight, to stop the special assessment process, the appropriate motion in that sense would be to disapprove the report because we are not going to continue on with the special assessment process. Modifying and referring it back to staff, that would continue that process. So I would recommend disapproving the report. That would be the appropriate step here with a potential... motion regarding the precedent setting.

Okay, so since we have a motion on the floor, would you suggest that I continue with an amendment, or would you suggest that I withdraw that, which hasn't gotten a second yet, and basically we go back and we shoot down the original motion and make a clean motion for disapproval. Do you recommend a clean motion?

That would be the cleanest option as opposed to amending, amending, amending.

Then nobody second my amendment, please.

Okay, so if it stands we want to have Mr. Smith's fail and then redo it, is that what the wish is?

Let me just understand the implication of this. If We modify the assessment role to zero out every proposed special assessment. That is a final determination that gives the individuals who are currently facing the special assessments the knowledge that there are none.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. Now, you're saying that we should consider one of the four alternatives, which is disallowing the... Disapprove. Or disapprove the... Report.

report which accomplishes the same thing so if we were to modify the report that's what you're actually be doing as to change it change all this special assessment values to zero we still have to either approve or disapprove a report so you could just move forward with disapproving the report which will then stop this special assessment process well that's wonderful I just don't want there to be any possibility

that special assessments are going to reappear under some other setting, some other context on the specifics of this project. And you're saying that disallowance would accomplish that most effectively.

Disapproving would accomplish that.

Disapproving it. Okay.

Just to clarify though, there will still be an additional cost for the lateral hookup. I think we have to clarify that because people are not going to see their costs drop to zero.

We're talking about special assessments being zeroed out. Now, you talked about the intergovernmental agreement. Right now, in the agreement effective through December 31st of 2032 is a five-year deferral for the hookup. Now what I want to do at the earliest opportunity is to bring that concept back and to allow all of the individuals with existing septic and wells to continue to use them indefinitely until one of them fails. Now that's not before us tonight. They are totally covered by the Intergovernmental Agreement for five years, but at the earliest opportunity I would like to get that issue clarified so that valuable assets are not wasted and individuals can continue to use their septic and their well as long as they function. So that's the answer to the long term. Now, would you like me to withdraw and make a new motion? That would be appropriate. Okay. I will withdraw the original motion to zero out the special assessments. Are you okay with that, Mr. Berg?

I'll also withdraw.

Okay. You'll make a new motion, Mr. Smith? And now I would like to make a motion to disallow the special assessment role.

Disapprove.

Disapprove. Boy, I'll get that right one of these days. Disapprove the special assessment role. Okay.

Motion by Smith. Looking for a second, I guess.

A second. A second.

Second by the techie. Second by the techie. Cross your name out, Berger. Okay. Motion by Smith to disapprove the special assessment.

The special assessment report.

The special assessment report. Disapprove the special assessment report. Second by the techie.

And to clarify, Mr. Lampe, yes, they would... I have the same question about the... Do we need the specific about in this instance?

No.

You don't need it. You can if you want to.

Do I want it if I want to satisfy the concern that Alder Arnett raised?

I think we can ask Mr. Smith to... Include. Okay. Mr. Smith, could you include...

Would you ask Mr. Lampe if it's a special circumstance? Is that what you... A special circumstance due to expiration of the intergovernmental boundary agreement. Mr. Smith, are you willing to add that to your motion?

That's reasonable. Okay. Ms. Kentucky, you go with seconding that? Yes. Okay. Okay. Anything further? Robert, Mr. Lampe, could you just repeat?

Specific to the expiration of an intergovernmental boundary agreement.

Thank you.

Okay, is that Lucy? Okay.

Okay, anything further on that?

Just a point of order, because our chairman, Arnett, are we still going to have this come back to our public works and have a discussion on other aspects of this? As far as the special assessment goes, no. No, not the assessment, but we talked about the issue of these existing septic systems and wells and how that can be addressed. Does that need to be addressed in any way in regard to this matter?

At this point in time, no, but that is what Aldous Smith was referring to in terms of his intent, which matches my previously expressed intent, which was to address that timeline, but we need to keep in mind that right now what governs that timeline is the intergovernmental agreement, and that will extend, assuming this project is completed this fall, which it will be, that five-year period will be completed before that governmental agreement ends. So that point, not wishing to get particularly off the task here, but so it's going to, it won't be as simple as us passing a resolution to extend that. It'll come later.

All right. I just thought we had talked earlier of this going back to public works and right now it appears because of our action tonight, it will not need to go back at least for now. for discussion.

And what Richie had talked about before, I'll leave it up to staff if it needs to go, but it was to make sure that each property somewhere going to be changed the assessment. But if this goes this way, then there'll be no need for that. Probably nothing through Public Works anymore. Is that something? Yeah. It must be done internally with staff now. Okay. Anything else? Otherwise, I'll look for a vote. Make sure. Let's do a roll start with Mr. Smith.

Smith.

Aye.

Arnett. Aye. Haas. Aye. Moldenhauer. Aye. Davis. Aye. Lampe. Aye. Berg.

Aye.

Nitecky.

Aye. One more.

Blinky. Sorry.

We thought it was a couple of weeks.

My bad.

I don't usually count them either, it's okay. Okay, thank you. I think most of you are probably here for that. If you want to stick around the rest of me, feel free to go ahead and do that. If you want to leave, you can do that too, okay? Okay, I'll look at... Next, we have a review and take action on committee appointments.

I would move the committee appointments as stated in the memo.

Okay. Motion by, I'm sorry. Motion by Lampe, second by Berg. Okay. If nothing, we'll take a roll on that then. Senator Lampe?

Aye.

Speak a little louder, please. I'm sorry. Aye.

Berg? Aye. Nittucky? Aye. Blankey? Aye. Smith? Aye. Arnett? Aye. Haas? Aye. Davis? Aye. Moldenhauer? Moldenhauer.

Pass, I assume? Okay.

That Isaac in third grade is going to be a dad. Okay, next Muslim business payroll summary, July 22nd through August 4th. Sorry, let me get my notes out here. And then also paid invoices report from July 2026 and cash investments from July 31st of 2026. Anything on those three? Okay, I'll move on then. Okay, licenses. Review and take action applications for temporary Class B licenses for the Whiskey and Wine Walk event hosted by Watertown Chamber of Commerce on September 10th, 2026 during hours of 4, 3, and 8. Locations include 217 East Main Street, Radio Jewelers at 212 East Main Street, Brown Shoe Fit Company at 300 East Main Street, Central Block at 618 East Main Street. I'm sorry, I got to add, let me reread those addresses first. 217 East Main Street Barrel Jewelers, 212 East Main Street Brown Shoe Fit Company, 300 East Main Street Central Block, 618 East Main Street Drager's Floral, 14 East Main Street White Oak Builders, and 110 North 3rd Street Badger State Hydrates. More. 120 West Main Street, Rafa Bowles. 118 West Main Street, Oswald Kahn. 116 West Main Street, Sassy Sweets. Lynn, PSC agent. Thanks. Okay. Mr. Lampe.

I would move to approve all the presented applications.

Okay. Motion by Lampe. Second. Second by Blanke. Thank you. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Next we have resolutions. We have Exhibit 9884, Resolution to Approve WDNR Urban Forestry Grant for City of Watertown Parks, Recreation, Forestry Apartments. Spots by myself and the Finance Committee. Mr. Smith.

Move for adoption of Exhibit 9884.

Okay, motion by Smith.

Second.

Second by Davis. Thank you. Okay, question.

That was Haas.

Oh, sorry. Second by Haas. I apologize. Okay. Anything else on that? Mr. Berg, go ahead, sir.

Just tell me, again, I've seen it before, but tell me why we need to take this type of action. It seems like our administrative staff, why can't they go ahead and apply for it? It needs to have a council action for this to be allowing it to move forward?

According to our purchasing policy, because there is a matching requirement, it does go here.

We talked about that before. If there was no cost to the city, we can go without it, but yeah.

Mr. Lampe, go ahead. If I'm serving on Park and Rec for a couple of years, I seem to recall that we usually get this, but every once in a while, the state will not give us this particular grant. So this one is mostly reliable, I think. Yeah, it is.

Okay. Okay, anything else? Okay, we'll do a roll, Lucy. Thank you.

Smith?

Aye.

Arnett? Aye. Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer? Aye. Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Byrd? Aye. Natchecki? Aye. Blankey?

Aye.

Okay, next, Exhibit 9885. Resolution to sunset downtown Main Street Reconstruction Task Force and establish an ad hoc communications work group. Sponsored by Alderman Arnett from the Public Works Commission.

Mr. Mayor, I move for 9885.

Okay, motion by Arnett. I will second the techie. Second the techie, okay. I'll get you next, Berg. Okay, any questions on that? Okay, Lucy.

Arnett? Aye. Pratt? Aye. Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye. Burke? Aye. Natchecki? Aye. Sankey? Aye.

Smith? Aye.

Okay, next, Exhibit 9886, Resolution to Support Sustainable State Funding for Local Public Health Departments, sponsored by Alder Davis and Health Board. Ms. Davis.

I'll move for exhibit 9886.

Okay. Motion by Davis. Okay. Questions, comments on that? Mr. Planky, go ahead.

So I feel I need to start off by saying I am in no means opposed to public health or any public health entities. However, there is an item in this resolution that I find extremely disturbing. It is the same item that has appeared with resolutions or with other forms of taxes in the state before. Most famously, Wisconsin had a gasoline tax that was automatically indexed to increase every year with no vote whatsoever by any legislature, no signature by a governor. It just automatically went up every year and it completely and totally removes accountability from elected officials. In this resolution under the first, be it further resolved, the second item include automatic inflationary adjustments. There is no way I can support something that has that language in it. It removes all accountability from elected officials to actually vote on the money that they're spending. We just saw tonight in this council chamber what government taxation does to people and how much or how strongly they feel about it. Something like this takes it out of the hands of those elected officials and makes it automatic. So what you saw here tonight doesn't matter. And I don't want that to ever happen. So I can never support something like this. Therefore, I would like to make a motion to strike include automatic inflationary adjustments from this resolution.

I'll second the motion.

Okay, motion by Blanke, second by Berg to strike include automatic inflationary adjustments.

Okay, I think Mr. Lampy, go ahead. speak in favor of those inflationary adjustments. I think those are probably one of the truest ways to keep the actual cost structure and expenses close to what's there. Social Security has that. We've seen other systems that don't have it, like minimum wage. We've gotten way out of whack and things like that. So I think this is a fairly standard request for government to make sure that the revenues keep up with the expenses. Okay. Ms. Davis, go ahead.

I'll support the amendment, but I also agree that there's still the budgetary process where budget has to be approved and allocated. And so there is still a significant amount of accountability. But for the purpose of this is just to move a resolution forward to the governor of Wisconsin to request additional funding for public health. So if it means that much to you, I can support removing that one bullet from But I do think there is oversight still. I don't think that it removes all accountability.

Okay. Anything else? Vote on the amendment first. Okay. Let's take a roll on that.

Okay. Wait. What are we involved in?

Blanky started. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Haas.

Wait, what are we taking the role on right now?

I'm sorry. This is just to strike, Mr. Blanky, the second dot, include automatic inflationary adjustments. Just voting to take that out only. Sure. Okay. Redden? Okay.

Blanky.

Aye. Smith. Aye.

Arnett. Aye. Haas. Aye. Moldenhauer. Aye. Davis. Aye. Lampe. No. Berg.

Aye.

Natecky. Aye.

Okay. Thank you. So then we got the original one, motion by Davis, second by Lampe, for the resolution to pass with that stricken out. Thank you for your discussion on that, Mr. Lampe.

So my question on this one is why we were pushing this through the Wisconsin Counties Association. Is this the primary arm for funding of health departments?

Hmm. I think it was my understanding from Carol, who, by the way, regrets that she was not able to be here tonight. It's my understanding that there will be similar resolutions being sent forward to the governor of Wisconsin. So I think this is the Wisconsin Counties Association moving towards similar resolutions being sent. It's my understanding.

I was surprised you're 49th out of the 50 states too.

It's most common that health departments are at the county level.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor.

There are only 15 municipalities in the state of Wisconsin that have a health department. It is usually a task that is taken on by the county. And Watertown is unique in the fact that we are a city that has a health department in which both counties also have a health department.

No.

Go ahead, Mr. Lampe. So again, this mentions one of our lobbying arms. One of our other ones is the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. And if they are also lobbying on behalf of their 15 municipalities, why not also include them to drop a line for us?

Okay. Anything else in the resolution? We'll take a vote. Okay. Starting with Davis.

Davis. Aye. Lampe. Aye. Berg. Aye. Nitteki. Aye. Plunkett.

Aye.

Smith. Aye. Arnett.

Aye.

Haas. No. Moldenhauer. Aye.

Okay. Thank you. Next, Exhibit 9887, Resolution to Update 2026 Payroll Resolution to Add Information Technology Technician to Administration Department Grade 140, sponsored by myself and the Finance Committee. I'll move for 9887. Okay, motion by Blanke. Okay, signed by Berg. Okay. This is just to get the position on our list of employees. Okay, anything else on that? Okay, Lucy.

Blanke? Aye. Smith? Aye. Arnett? Aye. Haas? Aye. Moldenhauer? Aye. Davis? Aye. Lampe?

Aye.

Bird?

Aye.

Nitecky? Aye. Okay.

Thank you. Next, Exhibit 9888, Resolution to Update 2026 Payroll and Job Title Resolution to Add Arborist 1 at Grade 130 and Retail Grade 135 to Arborist 2. Crew Lead by the Park and Rock Street Forestry Department. Spot for myself and the Finance Committee. We always had a forester and an arborist. And our city forester... is now running the park and rec on Hiawatha. Still kind of some trees, but it left an opening. So just internally having an arborist one, arborist two, I think one grade, the 130, the person that's taking that, will take that job is remain at 130. The person that's at 135, I believe is currently at 130. That would be for next 2027 payroll. Decide adjustments, try to make things work internally in that department.

So moved.

Okay. Motion by Moldenhauer? Second by Smith. Okay, thank you. Any questions, comments on that? Okay, starting with Moldenhauer.

Moldenhauer?

Aye.

Davis? Aye. Lampe? Aye.

Aye.

Nitteki? Aye. Blanke?

Aye.

Smith? Aye. Arnett? Aye. Haas?

Aye.

Okay, thank you. Next we have comments and suggestions from citizens present. In order for the public to wish to address the council, it should register a request in writing with the city clerk prior to speaking. The speaker shall be permitted up to three minutes and shall confine their comments to agenda items only. If there's anybody here that did not fill the form out, I'll let you speak too. Okay. Come on up, Bruce. Monica.

Thank you. Honestly, just want to thank everybody here for hearing all of us tonight. Truly, truly, as a citizen of Watertown, as people who've worked in this city for a long, long time, thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Truly, thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much, Bruce.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Okay. That being the last item on the agenda, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion by Lampe. Second by Davis. Okay. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Thank you. We're adjourned at 9.15.