City Council - Regular Meeting

Oh, okay. Okay. Okay.

Sorry. Just start. Then we have scissors. I feel very disrespected. That's right. That's what we talked about. She's just

What's going on? All right, we ready? All right. Good evening everybody. You are at a common council meeting Tuesday, December 9th, 2025. It is 6:33 p.m. Council Chambers. Just a quick note before we get started and call to order is one announcement here and recommendation is that due to the weather for one and two for the uh December 23rd meeting uh input from staff and from council is that we tried not to have a 23rd meeting. So unless there's something we can't get through here tonight and I hope we can uh we will not plan on having a December 23rd council meeting. So I will call the meeting to order. We have a quorum present. Please join me for the pledge of

allegiance. I aliance 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. and I'll ask the clerk to call the role. We have 10 voting members present.

We have no proclamations tonight. Uh the the floor is open for nominations and nominations are now in order for uh one seat. It's an aler seat on the water commission was water works commission. Alder Watson. Um, I would nominate um, Alder Griner if he'd be interested. We have a nomination for Alder Griner. Alder Griner, would you accept that nomination? I do accept.

Okay. And seconds aren't required, but I I am required to ask if there are any other nominations. Do we have any other nominations for the water was water commission uh that meets Tuesdays at 11 o'clock and I don't remember which Tuesday? Second Tuesday. I'll second that nomination. Okay, we have a second for Alder Grer. Do we have any other nominations? Okay, I would take a motion to close nominations for Wasa Water Commission. Move a move from motion from Neil, second from Killian. All in favor of closing nomination signify by saying I. I.

I. Any opposed? Okay. So without any opposition, we would have uh unanimous consent to accept Alder Grinder position of uh wastewater or water utility uh commission effective at the next January meeting. Thank you. And thank you Alder Watson for your service. Okay. All right. We up next is presentations. I'm sorry. Where am I seeing our

Can we open the link for the I have it open. Yeah. Yeah, you can do that.

Without objection. We have a couple of pre-registered comments and to get them out of here before the snowflies. If if uh if they're willing to come up now, we'll entertain that now. So, up first is Oh, sorry. Alice. Alice Cuther. Yes.

Hi, I'm Alice Kether. I live at 116 Highland Park Boulevard and I think um my friend Carrie furnished you with a real estate advertisement that was um noticed by both of us. Um I'm I'm not an expert on on TIFF districts or how they work. Um, I'm have a rudimentary understanding of it. Um, I think that we probably need to be looking at uh phasing out some of the districts that we do have so that the promised tax revenue uh is realized at some point. Um, what concerns me though, when I read this real estate advertisement, um, without knowing the background of exactly where this property is located in conjunction to any existing district, is that the perception out there is that they're easy to get and that um, it's a relatively simple process. And maybe this realtor does know what's happening or does not, but the perception is that it's a selling point now for property in the in the city. And I think that's a matter of concern to me as a as a taxpaying citizen. So it's it's just the perception. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd just like to add we just closed TID 6. We will be closing TID 7 in 2020 six after that one additional year of increment. This is not in a TID district this parcel. So I don't know where they came up with that but it's not in the district. Okay.

Up next is K Carrie Mor. Hello, I'm Carrie Moral. I'm at 1025 Everest Boulevard. Um, I'm a realtor. Uh, I'll just disclose that I'm a realtor and it may not be in a tiffert district, but if we're now resorting to the fact where realtors are advertising, Waso kid will give you money. Um, last I looked, we're hurting. Like, everybody needs money. We can't fund everything. Um, and if that's out there, um, it's very concerning. I mean, this is on Zillow, guys. It's not something we created. It's out there for people to see, and they may be misinformed, but I mean, I think enough people here have read social media and see how the community feels about tiff into districts and to have something advertised with a assessed value. This estimate they took off of that used to be 260. It's not on there anymore, but the assessed value is 209 and they're trying to sell it for 3.5. And what's special is that you can get money from the city. That's not good. Um I just would like to see a lot of these things, like you said, closed. Um just so money can go back into the general pool and get work done. Um I also have been working a lot with uh affordable housing lately. We do have a lot of affordable housing. We have barriers to

Thank you for joining. We'll let the people in the meeting know that you're here.

Um there's a lot of affordable housing. There's not a lot of ways to get at that affordable housing. Um, it's a real problem. Um, I had a friend recently that personally owns property on Prospect Avenue, wanted to develop it into four smaller units um with at with her own money, not asking for any money, called the city and was told, "No, we're we can't help you because of the rules in place for parking spots and things like that. No, like we need to talk to the planning commission. We need to these are the steps we take." It was just a flat no. and this is a private citizen. So, if we keep just asking the developers to come in and bring the money and giving them money back like the one that just happened on Scott Street, um it's I don't think helping anyone. So, that's all I had to say.

Thank you. Thanks for pointing that out. We'll pass it on to staff. Okay. Now, are we ready for a presentation potentially? Looks like Sean Aged is on. Is that Sean? Yes. Can you hear me? Give us a mic check. Sean, can you hear me? No, we've got you now. Yes. Okay.

I'll just announce the item for Sean. We've got presentation by community infrastructure partners regarding lead service line replacement and funding for the 2026 construction. And this is under item four under presentations. Sean, floor is yours. Great. Um, can you see my screen? Yes.

Okay. Um, [clears throat] so I just wanted to give a a quick update on the lead service line progress so far for 2024 and 2025, as well as what next year will look like. So, as a recap for the last couple years, in year one, we started construction in July 2024. We replaced 605 lines. This year we were able to start in April and we've replaced 1534. So collectively that's over 2100 lines to date. And what I do want to share is I don't know of any other city that's comparable to Wasau's size throughout the entire country, not just the state of Wisconsin that is replacing this volume. So Wasau really has created a a national model on how to accelerate the replacement of lead service lines. And Wasau should be proud of itself because so far just for the first two years, WA was secured over $20 million from the Department of Natural Resources. Um you know, which is really the money is coming from the EPA with almost 12 million of that being grant funded. The other 8.7 million that you see here on the screen is at an interest rate of 0.25%. So it's heavily subsidized. Um we celebrated our thousandth lead service line replacement in July this year. So one year after we started construction and then we quickly hit our 2,000th replacement a few months after that. Um we are maintaining a greater than 96% consent rate. As you know this is a voluntary program. And there's no mandate that property owners have to buy in, which is also a very impressive metric nationwide. A lot of other programs are around 60%. So the fact that WASA's at 96% for voluntary replacements is very, very strong. And we have about a thousand right of entry agreements secured for 2026. So we can

get started as soon as uh weather allows. So for 2025, the initial scope that we agreed on was to replace 1532. We hit that metric, did two extra by uh November 14th this year. The other um important thing, which is great, is the DNR gave the city an extra million dollars to increase the scope by another 130 lines. And that's because other communities throughout Wisconsin were underpending their funding awards. So they couldn't replace as much lines as they had hoped. So there was an extra million dollars that DNR said if WA was the capacity, you know, feel free to take the the money since they've recognized that the program we have and the efficiency. So the additional 137 of those 139 will be uh completed in the spring in addition to the 2026 scope which you'll see here. So these are projections based on uh the funding application that we submitted to DNR in June of this year. The application is census tract based and you can see it's based in those four census tracks 1, three, four and seven. And the reason we targeted those census tracks is because with this weighted average distribution here, they qualify for 100% principal forgiveness for private side construction as well as water filters which are required to give out. So, including the 137 from the expanded scope for 2025, we're projecting to replace over 1,800 lead service lines next year. One of the big differences that we'll see there, it looks like there will be a lot of rock homes. So, there's a lot of bedrock throughout the different parts of the city, um, which are a lot more expensive and they're a lot slower. We've replaced a couple dozen so far over the first few years, but it's estimated that there's a couple hundred

left, potentially 250 or so. The good news is these are 100% funded, grant funded by the DNR because these are private side construction costs. And we highly recommend that we replace as many if not all of the rock homes this year because it's probably the last year that Law qualifies for 100% principal forgiveness just based on where the remaining lead service lines are. So, um, we will be bidding those those out separately over the winter and early spring to try to get as favorable pricing as possible, even though it's it's fully grant funded. The principal forgiveness calculations, just as a reminder, are calculated based on census data, which includes median household income, family poverty percentage, lowest quintile income, and county unemployment. It's a fairly complicated calculation, but we've tried to distribute the replacements in a way where we're maximizing the grant funding every year to reduce any loans that the city would have to take on. So, in addition to the rock homes, we'll be publicly procuring uh construction as we have to, you know, bid it out to the lowest responsible bidder throughout the state of Wisconsin. These projections here are based on a 3% escalator from the bids we got in 2025. So, we feel fairly confident that these are at least close to to accurate, but we can always update these once we once those bids come in. We do know that the funding application was just under 19 million. So, if we have to revise the scope, we know we have roughly $19 million to work from. The other thing to mention is there's still a lot of unknowns, which you'll see on the next slide. unknowns, meaning we don't know the material of the the water surface line, whether it's lead or not lead. And uh we're still verifying that that many lead surface lines exist within those tracks that you see here. And if we have to modify the scope, we will. And we'll expand into additional

census tracks. So with the 2024 scope within that 19 million, we're expecting about 11 a.5 million of that to be principal forgiveness and about 7 and 12% to be that same 0.25% interest rate. And then here's what the remaining inventory looks like for 2026 and beyond. There's still about 3,400 homes throughout the city that have confirmed lead service lines. So, we know there's still at least 3,400 lead service lines that we have to replace. And there's also about 3,400 unknowns. Within those unknowns, we estimate there will be about 6 to 800 lead surface lines. Um, but the good news is we when we started this program almost two years ago now, we had assumed based on a study that was done by CDM Smith and Clark Deaks that there was 8,000 lead pipes throughout Wasau. Currently, we're estimating there is only about 61 to 6,400. So, that helps obviously save the city a lot of money because there's less lead than we thought. Um, but you know, that so that that's positive. That'll save you know, probably 10 to20 million. The only other point that I want to make here is um Wasau has gotten more money than anyone in the state other than Wisconsin. And that's because WASA, you know, was really uh innovative and in move forward with the first year of funding with through with the EPA's funding. This year there's a lot of demand. So, we're waiting for an official award from DNR and um we know that the EPA provided their annual lead service line appropriations to all 50 states the week of Thanksgiving. and Wisconsin's getting about 101 million, which is about $20 million more than last year. So that's very positive for the state, but there's about $180 million of applications. So

there's a lot more demand than ever because cities like Rine and Kenosha and South Milwaukee are finally realizing they need to get moving or this money will be gone. So you have a lot more competition. The good news again for Wasau is Wasa is fairly high up on the project priority list. So I don't anticipate that was will not get funding. A lot of the communities that are not considered disadvantaged probably will not get funding. But the way that we've um calculated the weighted average census tracks to be in those disadvantaged areas as I showed it here on this slide, these are considered the most disadvantaged throughout the city. So that's why WASA is fairly high up on the project priority list, still behind some big cities like Milwaukee, for example. So, I know that was quick. That was a quick overview, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys have.

Questions for Sean? Anything to add, Eric? I don't I don't think so. There's no question. All right. Appreciate the update. It looks like we're tracking pretty nicely and it's uh it's good to be in front of it rather than behind it. Um with that, thanks Sean for tuning in and we'll be in touch.

Great. Thank you everyone. Okay. Up next is item five. It's consideration of the minutes of the preceding several m uh meeting minutes. Approval uh approval of the minutes if correct and correction of any mistakes. So I would entertain a motion. Motion from Neil, second from Watson. So we're approving all three of these. Anyone have any issues, comments, changes? Seeing none, we're approving three three council meeting minutes.

You may begin voting.

Motion passes 10 to zero. All

right. So, that was October 10th, November 11th, and November 25th, just for the record. Uh, we took care of public comments. Is there anyone here that didn't get a chance to speak? Thought they were registered. Seeing none, committee reports. We have one committee report. It's communication on the clerk's appointment to board of canvasers and absentee board of canvasers. Any comments, questions on that? That's just a a notification for the file. No vote required. Okay. Up next is the consent agenda. And I understand we have a request to remove one item.

Yes. Uh filed 231121 was requested to be pulled off consent from Alder Tierney. 23. The um resolution from the finance committee establishing the 2025 property tax equivalent for Wasa Waterworks. Okay. 2311. So with the exception of that item, I would entertain a motion. And we have a motion from Watson, second from Lucans on the consent agenda less than one item. You may begin voting. Motion passes 10 to zero.

Okay. So, first up then will be that item removed from the consent. It's item 23 or file number rather 23-1121. It's a resolution from the finance committee establishing the 2025 property tax equivalent for Wasau Waterworks. A motion from Lucans, second from Watson. Alder Tierney. There you go.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh Mr. Mayor, the reason that I had this pulled is um no, this is basically the pilot tax that we're talking about again. And um I guess Maryanne had previously, I think last year when we discussed this, talked about why we have it and how much more would end up costing people um on property taxes if we didn't have it. But I guess Maryanne, if you could explain this to me a little bit. If we didn't have the pilot tax, which I I don't think that we should or at least in this capacity, I mean, people are already paying this tax. So if we dropped it, say 2%. How would that [snorts]

so it would not impact the water users at all because you would have to go for a rate inc uh rate application to the PSC and you know uh as we have had presentations from ellers we would likely end up with an increase in the tax rate in the water rates if we go in for uh a rate in a rate review because of the formula that the PSC uses and a lot of that is because of the asset investments that we've made. Um, oh, is it not on? Okay, it's on, but I'm not talking properly. Okay. So, um, you would likely see an increase, not a decrease. So, it wouldn't help the consumer of water at all. I think the other point is that, you know, there are nonprofits who when it's on the tax bill, um, or if it wasn't on the tax bill and it was, um, no longer on the water rates, they would save money and they wouldn't be contributing at anything to um, the city of Wasa even though they're property owners here in Wasa because they're tax exempt. Okay. But it it seems like I mean our pilot tax is substantially higher than most communities in in Wisconsin if you go and you look at it. Um how do we reduce this? I mean we got this high for a reason. And if you look over the years um it really started skipping up there over the last five or six years. It's based on your utility plan asset and your supplies. So, it's a formula uh developed by the PSC and mandated by the

PSC. So, the only way you can reduce it is by setting the rate um separately by a common council which is what we're doing tonight. So, we reduced it about6 last year. Your resolution reduced it about $116,000. um acid value has gone up about and it's based on the plant value as of January 1. So we know what that value was um January 1 of 25 and it went up about 14 a little over 13%. So it would go up another 13%. So, you know, based on that, I would guess, you know, we're saving the utility another hundred plus thousand dollars this year by this resolution because it should go up to about one. Last year it was 1,600 some thousand and I'm estimating it would go up to 1.8 million if if we calculated it just based on the PSC's calculation. So, we would be saving the water utility more money this year by this resolution than we did last year.

I'm I'm more concerned about the taxpayer to be perfectly honest with you. Oh, so you don't want to forgive anything? Well, I I what I'm saying is that the one that seems to be kind of getting sucked is the taxpayer because of you know the for me if you're going to pay your water bill it should be going to your water. Your your part of your water water bill should not be pulled out for other uses. And that pilot tax is not being used to pay for a person's water bill, their water bill.

And I mean, that's why it's called a pilot. It's payment in lee of taxes. So, I mean, your water users and your tax payers are really usually the same person. Even if you have a renter, I mean, they may pay their water bill. They might not pay the tax bill, per se, but they're paying for it through their rent. Um, like I said, the only people who um through that pilot charge to the water utility that end up paying it as an additional payor are our nonprofits because they don't receive a tax bill, but they do receive a water bill.

So, tell me, what's the benefit of having a pilot at this rate for the taxpayer? Well, I guess consistency because like I said, if we if we allocate more, obviously we've already set our taxes for 25, but in 26 when we do the 27 budget, if if you said we don't want to forgive anything anymore, it would be an additional revenue source to balance the 27 budget for taxes. If you said you wanted to adjust that pilot down again, we would not be able to adjust rates unless we go to the PSC and apply for a new rate. And when Ellers did the projections on it, they said if you do that, you will it will likely result in a rate increase because it's such a small component of the rate itself. Um and because of the PSC's methodology in calculating rates, a lot of it is based on um maintaining and um replacing future assets. So when they look at all of the investment we've made between the new facility, our gak system, um it's going to go through that calculation and say our rates should go up. We were, I think, this 26 going to have Ellers just look at the rates. Not necessarily changing the rates, but just they can do a projection because they, you know, have that formula in their software and they can tell us, you know, through our capital plan whether how long they think it will be before they would recommend a

increase. So, they were going to do some tenative work for us. Um, again, that doesn't mean we're applying for a rate change. It just means we're looking at it so that we can inform the water commission. This is what it looks like now. Thank you, Alder Watson.

And I guess I look at this Thank you. Um, I guess I look at this pilot payment. We're establishing it and it's already worked into our 2026 budget, right? So, if we changed it now, we would obviously have trouble making the the two lines meet, right? We wouldn't have an equal. Now, if this is something we want to talk about, because we've talked about like lowering it, reducing it, eliminating it. I mean, we have to start talking about that early in the year. Um, and I think we already have a lot of budget hurdles in our coming year. Um, we can add this to the list. I think it would be brilliant, right? But I think we have to start talking about like with the referendum, like how are we going to afford those police officers? like if we want this to be zero, like how can we make up one one and a half million dollars to, you know, fill that hole in our budget. Um, so I mean I I I can see like it's sort of like double taxation in a way cuz like we're paying for it at the water commission or the water rates and property tax that goes to our city. Um, but if we want to like plan for this to slowly reduce over time, we have to start making that plan, right? So, if that's something as a council we want to do or the new council that comes in in April, like it has to be looked at pretty early is my opinion. So, um I I I'm way for this this year because otherwise our budget doesn't work. So, thank you.

Well, you you bring up a good point. Thank you for that. And I meant to talk to Maryanne, so I'm going to ambush you now. Is I I think they should be aligned with the if we're going to set this vote, it should be on the same night at least. I don't know why it wouldn't be as the budget. So if we have if we tinker with one it it affects the other. So I think we need to look at that at least as a minimum too. Okay. Alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you. So what I understood you to say Maryann was that if we were to use the PSC's formula that the city would be entitled to additional revenue beyond where we're setting it here. And so by doing the resolution we're doing tonight, just so folks at at home understand that we are dialing back our take of the pilot payment to make sure that it is um consistent with where we've been, but that it's not increasing. So we are rolling back that creep that happens as a result of our increased value and the fact that the PSC not only sets the water rate but based on our asset value from the investments we've made if we were to go for a rate case and we would end up then looking down um potentially another rate increase. That is exactly what we're trying to avoid. We're looking for rate stability. And so we are looking at not only um we've invested a substantial amount of ARPA to control the debt that the water utility was carrying a number of years ago to increase its financial health but also our not allowing this payment to creep further and further and further is also a benefit to that water utility. So, um, this is a best case scenario in terms of where we would go, um, with a pilot payment. If we were to look at maybe some phased reduction of our pilot payment in future years, we certainly could look at that. But a complete elimination would really put us in the minority because most Wisconsin communities have pilot assessments in their utilities because there are more to contribute to the operations of our city. there are more water rate customers and water rate payers than there are property tax payers and property owners. And so that's how you tap the population that ordinarily would not contribute anything yet uses services. So um you know this is not an

unnecessary evil but this resolution dialing it back to where we've been um really does improve the health of that utility. So I will support this. Thanks. If I can just add one more director, you know, um, Lisa mentioned using ARPA. We also use tax increment financing. I realized there were speakers here telling us they didn't appreciate the tax increment districts, but we do use our tax increment districts to fund water and sewer utility projects, too. I mean, in 2025, they're funding all of the water and sewer replacement for Fulton Street. Um they also doing did all of the water and sewer in the mall area. Uh they've done the Steuart Avenue projects. Um so they they do support the water and sewer utilities through taxes as well. So, you know, when we look at kind of how we change our money through from our right pocket to our left pocket of water and sewer to uh the city, there's a lot of exchanges that take place that, you know, if we um didn't do the water utility would have additional costs as well.

You Alder Lukans.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um the whole pilot payment issue to me is very complex. Um I spent a lot of time a lot [clears throat] of time last year and in the last few years really trying to understand it and I mean I'm still there's still a lot I need to understand. But I think one of the things that struck me is that when [clears throat] the finance director mentioned nonprofits, some of those nonprofits are large large entities um that use a lot of water. And so that really struck me that oh, if they're not, you know, if they aren't paying then that's a lot. that's a lot, you know, to make up. So, just wanted to add that I would welcome too, you know, us engaging in discussions about it um early in the year. Um so, but anyway, I just wanted to mention that because it's something that I've been trying to really just get through my head. So, thank you.

Thank you. Further comments, questions? Seeing none,

you you may begin voting. Motion passes 9 to one. Okay. Up next is file number 24-1109T resolution from the finance committee adopting 2025 budget modification for city attorney legal fees and authorization for payment of legal fees build by law. And I think that was at the last finance meeting before tonight and that was a unanimous decision. We think so.

Is it tonight? No, it was five to zero. It was five to zero. Five to zero. And it was the November meeting. Yeah. Okay. Motion from Watson, second from Martins. Seeing no discussion, you may begin voting. Motion passes 10 to zero.

Up next, file 15-1203. It's the confirmation of appointments of election officials and those were submitted by the to the clerk and inserted to the packet by the clerk. Motion from Hanky, second from Watson. Seeing no discussion, may begin voting.

Motion passes 10 to zero. Up next item 11, suspension of the rules. Uh, rule 1D, transmission of committee business to council and 6B filing. Motion from Neil, second from Watson. You may begin voting. Motion passes 8 to two.

First item up is 20 file 24-043. It's a resolution from uh the finance committee accepting funding from the Jed Alexander Foundation for the Wasaw Police Department for one downtown officer position. Motion is from Luke and second from Watson. Seeing no discussion, you may begin voting.

Motion passes 10 to zero. Next file is 05-1209 is a joint resolution from the economic development committee and the finance committee extending the life of tax increment district number seven for affordable housing. Motion is from Lucan, second from Hanky Alder Lararsson.

Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. Um I I will not be supporting this. Um I due to the fact I think for the last oh six years we have been really really aggressive in our in our housing um both affordable and let's say market rate. Um I think that we really need to take a a timeout with this with handing out our money for this. Um, I would much rather see the tiff district be closed and have the money be put towards our citizens uh public health and safety. And when I say that it it could help to go to retain our police and firefighters. Um, I don't have anything else to say, but I I will not be supporting it.

Thank you, Alder Rasmmanson.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I don't know a number of you might be surprised by this, but I feel like I'm not going to support this either. Um I have supported the prior two. Um I too feel like we have made um movements that have moved the needle on affordable housing. We have projects that are building that have not yet cut the ribbon. Um I feel like when those projects are ready to open, we'll see a substantial increase in the available available affordable units. I think we do need to see um how fast those buildings lease up and then what our vacancy rate is. And then if we find that we still are in need and short on units um we then can continue um forward momentum. Um I um happen to know that the um community development department um based on the last um uh TID that we held open for that extra year is sitting on some funding um a few million dollars that they would be able to put still towards affordable housing um and housing projects even if we don't do this. Um I did spend a considerable amount of time on Marathon County's TID task force a few years ago and it was apparent to me that um a number of our um other taxing jurisdiction partners that are um walking handinhand with us in the function of our TID districts including comments made in our in our own joint review board every year when we get those um reports on the health of our districts. Our districts are healthy. Um but there are districts um elsewhere in the county that are not and or that maybe have not developed as quickly or the projects have not come to fruition as fast as those communities might have liked them to. Um that said, I think that this is an opportunity for us to be a genuine partner um with those taxing jurisdictions by allowing the district to close on time. That revenue will return to those taxing entities, schools, NTC and county um and help them in their budgets in 27 as well. Um so um on that basis I think this is not the time for a one-year extension on this

particular district um over the next uh five to seven years. We have other districts that will be in the same situation and maybe at that time we will want that extra year of increment, but I feel like with the budget struggles that we've had and the fact that we're expecting that in the coming months we're going to go to referendum for 2027 um with some substantial expenses, we need to do everything we can do to reduce the amount of that ask um of our taxpayers. And so I think letting this district close on time um is the right decision right now. So, I also will not support the extension. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Lukans.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, maybe there's something in the air, but uh at the EG me meeting, I voted uh to move forward. I voted in favor of this um saying that I wanted to hear from the full council and forgetting that it would move on either way to be discussed with the full council. Um [clears throat] but given given the state of the economy and as I've as I was reading through you know the packet and really reflecting and had more time to think about this um thinking of the other taxing ent entities you know I know that educational institutions um systems have really taken a hit and are struggling and um so anyway um for a whole number of reasons I decided as well that I was going to um vote against this. I don't think as well that it's the right time right now. Um we do have a number of um housing uh affordable housing uh developments um that are finishing up and you know I know per the studies that we need more but again um just for right now I do think uh that for our taxing partners and also you know a lot of as the uh public commenters mentioned tonight and other public people are struggling so I think that uh this is not the time to approve this so I won't be voting for it. Thank you.

Thank you Alder Martins.

Okay. Thank you. Um we had um a bit more discussion on this resolution at finance earlier this evening and um the when this resolution came to the finance committee we were presented with three options. Uh, one of them was to uh not extend the TID for one year and uh or clo close close the TID and then the value and then the value of the TID would would go back under the levy ex in extend the TID for one year and use the increment $1.9 million for affordable housing or option number three um extend the TID for one year take the affordable housing increment and use and then take an equivalent of $355,000, which is which is what would have returned to the levy. Um if if the TID was closed from the uh reserve from the reserve fund in order to use that funding, use that money in in uh the making the budget for for 2027. uh which I guess some people could say would be it would be the best of both worlds in that you can earmark money for affordable housing but also um use our a bit of our money from our reserves. Our reserves are quite healthy. Our reserves have increased um year-over-year uh for the past five years. So we we are that that balance is in is in good shape um to tap for for this purpose. Uh the the resolution passed finance on a mix vote this evening uh 3 to one. So um I'm in uh with of that uh third option. So, I'm generally in favor of

closing the TID, either closing the TID early and not and um taking the money and putting the money into the general fund or um or or back to the levy or um using option number three where we um you uh earmark one year of increment for the um um uh the for affordable housing and then use reserves in order to cover what we would have what we would have lost on the on on the levy for the closure of the TID and that's and that's what ultimately has passed and I will probably support that uh this evening u for for this vote. Thank you.

Thank you Alder Neil.

Thank you. Well, um I I did uh support this in a earlier vote, not tonight's, but last last week, I guess it was. Um you know, and I'm hearing compelling, uh arguments tonight against extending, and I'm hearing a compelling argument for extending in the uh option three um scenario. Uh I just kind of echo what I said at our our meeting that I voted in. Um the number one or at least in the top three things that we always hear from our constituents is that this this city is short of affordable housing. It is a an ongoing uh unmet need. And yes, there are some projects underway. Uh but there are different ways to address affordable housing than just, you know, lowcost apartments. Uh there's a variety of things. Um we also know that affordable housing is an expensive commodity. Uh any any project in affordable housing uh is tough. So I mean money's short and and the need is still there. There are a variety of ways to meet that need. Um, as I said at our at the meeting that I voted in, uh, it's kind of like a darn if you do and darn if you don't scenario. Um, because that's basically $2 million that we would be saying, "No, we just we're going to let that slide. We don't need that right now." And there's a whole lot of our con constituents that would say $2 million for affordable housing and you just let it go. Um, I'm going to continue to support this with the understanding that option three

is the best scenario. because we can cover that um what we would have made had we closed uh on time, you know, from a healthy set of reserves and still have that 1.9 in our back pocket with no sunset on its use and also no uh restrictions as to where it can be used in the city. It's not a TID 7 earmark. It's for anywhere in the city. For that, I I understand the reticence to uh extend, but I'm still going to support extending for one year. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Watson. Thank you. Um we had a wonderful presentation at um Plan Commission uh by um Ben, I believe it was, right? The He talked about senior housing.

Yes. you talked about senior housing and um we may you know we're we're building more affordable units which is great but um I think it would be really eye opening for the council. We will get that report eventually, but like it sort of ramps up, he said, until about 2040 and then we start to have the decline in the need for senior housing. But senior housing is going to have a lot more challenges because it has to be, you know, something that we can get, you know, maybe like transitional like it starts off assisted, then it goes to like more home care aid if you need, but like we need to start looking at our seniors too. And I don't think a lot of the the structures we've sort of put into place now um can maybe be adaptable to that. Um, so I think it's really great that we have this like one, you know, this extra TID in our back pocket because I think that's the next challenge we're going to have to like start to look at is that senior housing gap. So, thanks.

Thank you, Alder Tyranny.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, in finance earlier this evening, we did have that split vote. I was the one person that said no to extending uh TID 7 to close TID 7. Um I still stand by that. Um closing that on a timely basis. I think that um we we have healthy tids out there. Um we have taxpayers that have been burdened uh here in Wasa for for years and especially last year when there was such a hike in property taxes. And um I think being able to give that money back to the schools uh district to NTC to um the county and uh would hopefully help in easing some of that burden. Um since we do have other um we have healthy tids out there. Um we have to close TIDs. We have we cannot keep them indefinitely open especially at a time when we have other healthy tids out there. I just um we have to start closing some of these on time. So I still will not be supporting uh keeping open to seven. Thank you.

Thank you Grinder. Thank you, mayor. Uh I have a question for the finance director. Um, and I was actually going to ask this during finance and I didn't get around to it. Uh, so the increment that we would have u available after should we close the table would be $424,52 a year that we would be estimating to get back. Do we know how many taxpayers we have in the city of Wasa? Well, I think uh Rick might I think there's like just under 16,000 parcels. Is it like 15,800? 162

162. Oh, okay. 16,200 parcels. So those are taxable parcels though, right? Yeah. [clears throat] So that's assuming if we did if we did choose to close this TI, that's a estimate of about $27.78 per person. I mean, it's based on value. So based on value, it's not equal. I understand. But so about 2728. Okay, that's that's all I have. Thank you, Alder Rasmmanson. Thank you. I guess just a question on that along that line. Didn't I see in one of the graphics that was put up in the packet that the mill rate impact was 45 cents?

That would be for all of the taxing jurisdictions, not just us. Okay. So, Erin's question related to just us. Oh, okay. Providing it by I see. I just I saw that figure in the packet though and I wanted to clarify. Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Watson. I guess I noticed Randy coming up here after I was talking about the old person or the old age report and I just didn't know. Well, no, actually they called it they said old older person now, right? It's not a senior old older adult. Older adult. [clears throat] Okay. Um but I didn't know if you had something to add.

Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. Yeah, we we it's not older person older adult study. It started as a senior housing study and it's kind of hard to quantify, but we will be having that presentation. Sam Wessel from North Central Regional Planning will be coming to you in January to share the results of that. Um, and just I respect whatever decision you make tonight and we'll work forward as we can, but want to just give an idea on some of the funding sources and what we use. So, TID 6, we got about $3.8 million allocated as part of the housing extension. 650,000 of that went to Westside Commons. 1.9 is allocated to 700 Grand Avenue apartments. It leaves us with approximately 1.25 million remaining. Some of the projects we have earmarked for that remaining funds are Thomas Street infill. We also have some money that was allocated as part of ARPA to help with that project. We're still in the DNR review. I tired of saying that, but just a result or a fact of where we are right now. And then also we have some money allocated to the North Second Street project if something happens there soon. what we're looking to utilize and some projects that we we know we have coming in the future are the MBX redevelopment and 1300 Cleveland redevelopment. We'll be able to work on some other funding sources in terms of WEDC DNR and getting some funding sources. But as you've seen, there's a reason that they're able to charge lower rates for affordable housing. is subsidized either by tax credits at the federal level, tax credits at the state level, state organizations like WEDC, and the largest part comes locally and that's where we're able to utilize those funds to make those projects work. So, just want to give you an idea of what some potential projects are that we would be utilizing the funding for. Respect whatever decision you make and thank you.

Thank you. Further questions for staff. Seeing none, may begin voting. Motion fails five to six. There was a tie and the mayor broke the tie. Next file number [clears throat] 25-0926, resolution from finance committee approving credit agreement with Jeds Alexander Foundation to borrow up to $250,000 for redevelopment of 2011 North First Avenue, former MBX property. Motion from W uh Lucan, second from Grryer, Alder Rasmusen.

Thank you. Um it bears notice that one of the best partners we have in terms of our redevelopment of our downtown and sometimes the growth of our city are our um foundations. And so when we have needed them in the past, um they have um often stepped up without hesitation and they've helped us revitalize areas of our city that we couldn't have alone. They've helped us um not only speed up redevelopment but um get projects to fruition in a very positive way that have had a great impact on our city and really help move Wasa forward. Um, but that said, um, I struggle with this one a little bit because, um, at the time when this proposal came forward, we had not only already acquired the property, um, using the funds that were available in Tidate. And when we talked about acquiring the property, we knew that Tidate had not only the cash flow, but the revenue on hand to complete the purchase. Um, we also knew that moving forward, we would need some environmental analysis. we would need to get our arms around what the needs of the site are in terms of prep and demolition. Um we also would need to then figure out what our vision is for that area. Um this is so new all of those things still are fluid and without a um some of that stuff nailed down. I feel like this that for us to undertake work with a foundation for redevelopment even on a short timeline is premature. And so knowing that we were able to acquire the property with our own funds, we didn't need the foundation funds to finish that purchase, um the last thing I would want to see us do is take money from one of our trusted partners when we don't really need it because I feel like that wastes that opportunity. um if we get our arms around this site a little bit and we have more of a plan fleshed out and there's a way at that point in terms of redevelopment that a foundation could help us with those financing

pieces put that puzzle together. I would love to have talks with them um going forward at a later time about maybe partnering with them, but I just feel like it's too soon right now and I feel like this is a time that with them the foundation dollars could maybe be more impactful in other projects that they maybe have on their docket because this is one where we don't have a genuine need today. And so, not that we want to seem ungrateful to our foundations in any possible way, we appreciate them more than they know. But I feel like this is a time that we should say thank you but no thank you. Um we should let this proposal pass. They can then focus their attention on things that have a more immediate need. And then down the line if the opportunity shows itself for some type of a partnership where we can be successful together. We would want to then reignite those discussions at a later time. So, at this point, I am not going to support this one because I feel like we would be taking advantage of an opportunity that's come to us, but we just don't have that true need the way we've had it in the past. Thank you,

Alder Neil. Thought there were other people in front of me. Thought so, too.

They must have declined. I don't know. Um, I I do support um accepting this loan. Uh, knowing that uh it's a little vague in terms of how it might be applied to uh an affordable housing element at this property. We don't know. We haven't quantified that. They the foundation hasn't quantified that. Um it's just kind of vaguely there. uh we are in a position to accept and and just give it back at some point when we feel it's not relevant. Uh but in the next you know year or two as you know we try to entertain uh possible proposals for this property um it'd be nice to have this on the shelf for any developer that would be willing to consider some sort of affordable housing element to their project. That doesn't mean it would have to be a fully affordable housing project, per se. Uh there's precedent for developers building things that have x% affordable versus x% market. Uh and you know, tiered pricing, uh let's say for apartments. Um so having this on the shelf for, you know, one, two, three years is fine. We we're not beholden to take it. And matter of fact, we can give it back with no penalty up to what the end of three years.

Okay. Yeah. Three to five. Yes.

Okay. Um our uh pay paying back on it would only happen after 3 years. Correct. So it is a bargaining chip. If you know if the foundation feels it's you know they think it's a good idea and they're you know offering it to us uh you know we could uh accept it tonight and maybe next week decide we don't want it after further discussion with the foundation. I don't want to just say no tonight. We can say yes tonight and then have it, you know, in the safe and then have continued uh conversations both with the foundation and maybe with some potential developers and have this one element be part of those discussions which we can or use or decide not to. So I just think it's u it's premature to just say no at this point. we have enough wherewithal uh to have a little bit of time to uh to keep it in our back pocket uh and see what else falls. So, I will support this.

Thank you. And director Fifick gave us some hints on what some of those things would look like earlier at finance. So if you have any questions, easier to

Yeah, if I could just follow up on some of the things we've kind of looked at. We've done a lot of work since we acquired the property already on this just due diligence um the property. We've removed the utilities um done a lot of work to winterize which really we've removed water and everything from that just to get it to this point. But we're going to be looking at demo of the building coming up soon. We're already exploring grant opportunities for that. We're working with WEDC. Had preliminary discussions with them about an idle sites grant or seeing what funding we can get. Part of that includes grant or uh matching funds for it. Uh we're also working we'll have a meeting I think it's next week with the green team from the DNR to also explore what opportunities are available for grant funding with them. But one of the great opportunities we might have with this money is to be able to use it as matching funds to cover our percentage of that grant especially early on in the demo work as we're looking at what environmental cleanup means for it. And also want to mention and echo your sentiments that it doesn't necessarily taking this money doesn't mean that we're going to do affordable housing. We have that opportunity up until September of 2028 to return that money. No interest paid. So what I really anticipate is we're going to move forward. We get to a point where all of a sudden it doesn't make sense for affordable housing. We can have that conversation. 1.2 within the agreement allows for that money to be prepaid back. No penalties. So happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Martins.

Okay. Thank you. I don't have a whole lot to say about this, but we did talk about this a bit in in finance. And the Alexander Foundation is a valued partner with the city of Wasa. I think the mayor pointed out over $55 million worth of investments since the early 1970s when the foundation was established. So they've been with us for a long time and have done and and have helped do a lot of great things within the within the city of Wasa. And um this is another opportunity to for the potential of another great thing. And I I don't think we should, you know, um turn that turn that away or look away from that because this does give us opportunity for um the the property, you know, um remediating the property like uh uh director Freick said with um you maybe the potential of using it as matching funding or um and also uh uh help uh save on the you know on the burden that this of of the the TID that this property is located on. Uh one of the things to consider though is that uh you know and that came out in our discussions is that you know the foundation does want to see us move forward on development and not sit and let you know acquire properties and let them sit and go. So, um the three-year commitment does, you know, the three-year term, five-year term, uh depending, you know, um on how you want to stretch it out, uh does give the city an incentive to move forward in development of this property. And I think that's important that um you know, they they see they see the you know, we they see the value of it. Uh they want to be a partner in in in long term. and

they also want to see the city move forward in in redevelopment, not let it not let it sit idly by. So, I will be supporting this. Thank you, Alder Larson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, is it my is it correct to assume that if we don't use this money in three years that we start paying interest on it, a certain percentage of interest, and and if we don't use it in five years, we we we're paying more interest on it. Is that a correct assumption? Randy?

Yeah. So, the way it's set up that for years 1, two, and three, there's no interest. four and five would be at a 5% interest rate and then beyond that I believe it's 12% would be considered a default. Is that correct Maryanne? Yes.

I because I just you know is I I agree with uh with mark that on the calendar again with Alder Rasmmanson that you know these people have been tremendously helpful for the growth of our city over the years. But, you know, I I just can't see um us uh you know, the way this things work in the city um getting something in stone within 3 years of getting this this done. And so, I mean, I guess I you you just I was I was told that I I mean, I didn't wasn't told. I heard that, you know, earlier that, you know, we could give this money back at any time, but apparently you can't if they're going to be charging us interest.

No. So, um, thank you. Thank you. No, there there, as we heard director Dro mention earlier at finance, if it got to that point, the TID is healthy to cover that expense and would be paid back. We would never pay that interest. That is a default interest. The city has never defaulted on a loan in its history

and we would be earning interest on it while we're holding the the funds. So, you know, we would in theory be making money during that three-year period because we would have investment income but no interest expense. I think the other thing is that, you know, through the years that we've worked with the foundation, they've been very flexible with us through these development loans. We've experienced um other extensions to loans as well as just outright impromptu forgiveness of loans. Um we had a housing loan that we were all set to pay back and they said, "Yeah, you can just keep the money. We really like what you did on Third Street. You don't have to pay us back the I think it was $600,000. Um you can just keep that money." So, they've been, you know, very generous and flexible. Obviously, they were critical in the riverfront redevelopment, um, and all of our other, you know, major development projects.

Thank you, Alder Lukans. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I just I wanted to clarify. Um I was going to vote no on this. Um I was going to vote against accepting this. Um but because I was concerned about it pigeon holing us to affordable housing, but so director, if I if I could ask you more. So is that it it doesn't necessarily have to be for affordable housing based on the agreement we would have if we wanted the 250,000 there would have to be some type of affordable housing component to it

component. So as we're moving through our process and let's say all of a sudden two years from now we're getting close to environmental cleanup and some great project that comes along it's not affordable housing we have the opportunity to pursue that as Maryanne mentioned we could simply utilize 1.2 to in the agreement, prepay that back and then pursue whatever opportunity is. The biggest goal of this is like we've talked about for as long as I've been uh with the city is that we're trying to get industrial development off the river and trying to revitalize that area. I can't predict what two years what the housing market looks like, what the new development trend is, but we want to keep some flexibility in that if there is an opportunity that we're able to pursue that and this provides us that opportunity.

Yeah. And if there was an affordable housing component of some larger thing, it would it be it would work. Okay. My experience in working with the foundation is they've always been uh very active and very willing to work with us. They want to see WASA succeed and move forward and um confident that they'd be willing to work with us. So, thank you. Thank you. Then I will be voting in favor of it. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Tyranny. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I just um have a quick question. In the finance committee, we did vote on this and did this was this the one that was a two to two? This was three to one. Three to one to one. Okay. Thank you.

Uh Mr. Martins.

Yeah. I just wanted to reinforce a couple of of items that that came up in conversation. U you know with uh interest doesn't start acrewing until year number three. So we have up to three years to return the money without any interest um penalty. So it wouldn't there there wouldn't be a cost for us to turn you know return the money uh within within three years. And the second is is with um affordable housing the in in the agreement there's no strict language on what affordable housing is. you know, not not any definition by HUD or WED or any any other state or federal agency. So the afford so the what would be considered affordable housing could be any you know just about anything that is non-market rate. So it could be as as something as as easy as some as um something middle market um you know the the missing the missing middle or or it could be um a subsidized housing like like according to the HUD definition but um there's a lot of flexibility in what would be considered affordable housing on this on this particular development.

Thank you. Seeing nothing further for discussion, may begin voting.

Motion passes six to four. All right. Up next is file number 25-1205. It's a joint resolution from the airport committee and finance committee authorizing the execution of the airport ground lease to Matthew and Karen Gas and earlier tonight that passed unanimously. I have a motion from Lucans, second from Rasmusen. Seeing no discussion. May I begin voting?

Motion passes 10 to zero. Up next is file 25-1206. It's a resolution from finance committee approving city's waiver of right to purchase 130 North First Street. That's uh Sunb Belt Refugees LLC. That's the Whitewater Music Hall and that passed unanimously earlier today in finance. Motion is from Lucan, second from Hanky. Mr. Neil, thank you. Just uh in case there's any confusion, uh that uh a yes vote basically says we're not interested in purchasing the property.

Correct. Yes, that's correct. So, if we wanted to purchase that, we would have to match the amount. We have to vote no. Is correct. Right. So, anyone else want to buy that thing? I hope not. All right. Motion in a second. No further comment. May begin voting. Motion passes 10 to zero.

Thank you. Up next is announcement from mayor and older persons. Talked a little bit earlier. I don't think anything surfaced yet that we would need a meeting for next December 23rd staff. All right. Let's hereby cancel that meeting. Uh, any announcements from alders? Mr. Larson, I just want to say merry Christmas, happy new year to all my colleagues and everybody in this room. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Comments and suggestions from citizens for public comment. Anyone here left? Seeing none, we have a motion to adjurnn or I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion from Tyranny, second from Watson. All those in favor signify by saying I. Merry Christmas. See you. No snow. Not bad. Hour and 15 minutes. Good work. It's Oh, it's snowing. Dang. But at least it started later. Wow.