[0:00] for

[1:16] I can hear you

[1:21] yes we can't there's no image of it for

[1:25] the city or anyone but

[2:29] for

[4:07] far as I'm concerned you can go with

[4:09] audio as long as everybody can

[4:22] hear

[4:24] okay good evening everyone and welcome

[4:26] to tonight's Columbus common Council

[4:28] regular meeting mayor Hammer is on

[4:30] vacation tonight so I will be leading

[4:32] both meetings

[4:33] tonight um it is Tuesday January 23rd

[4:37] and it is uh 6:34 p.m. and Pat if I

[4:41] could have a roll call

[4:45] please

[4:47] gray present motive present Reed here

[4:52] Roki present Steiner

[4:54] here

[4:56] okay uh mayor hammer and Alder finkler

[4:59] are EXC used and then uh if you could

[5:01] please join me for the Pledge of

[5:07] Allegiance I pledge alance to the flag

[5:10] of the United States of America and to

[5:13] the Republic for which it stands one

[5:16] nation God indivisible withy and justice

[5:20] for

[5:24] all tonight's meeting has been properly

[5:27] noticed and uh at this time I will will

[5:29] take a motion to approve tonight's

[5:33] agenda Alder Motif will make a motion to

[5:36] approve tonight's agenda Steiner can

[5:38] second thank you I have a motion from

[5:40] Alder Motif and a second from Alder

[5:42] Steiner any

[5:45] discussion all those in favor I I any

[5:51] opposed all right uh at this time uh we

[5:54] will open the floor up to correspondence

[5:56] and communication looks like I did have

[6:00] one person signed the signin sheet David

[6:03] did you want to speak at the regular

[6:05] meeting or at the Cow

[6:07] um okay go ahead and step up to the

[6:10] podium the mic is on if you would please

[6:12] just State your full name and your

[6:13] address of residence absolutely uh David

[6:15] J St 551 West Harrison Street Columbus

[6:18] Wisconsin um as new residents of

[6:20] Columbus Brian and I are still staunchly

[6:21] opposed to raising the historic Dy Farm

[6:23] in favor of uh 2 and a half acres or

[6:25] less of housing um anyone who fails the

[6:27] same I I encourage them to visit saved

[6:29] .org U that's a website we created to

[6:31] help save the farm um The public's kind

[6:34] of still waiting for an explanation from

[6:36] the mayor as to why the deal was dead uh

[6:38] it was said that there was a stalemate

[6:40] negotiation any stalemate must have been

[6:41] internal to the city government because

[6:43] as far as we could tell negotiations

[6:45] were proceeding well and in good faith

[6:47] um the mayor also said that public

[6:49] support was split on that topic uh he

[6:51] may recall a meeting that he attended in

[6:52] September with our attorney where he and

[6:55] the city staff said that public

[6:56] involvement and the discussion was not

[6:58] productive um so as a result when people

[7:00] would ask us what can we do to help we

[7:02] would say hey just let let the process

[7:04] run its course right uh and then

[7:07] essentially we were told to tone down

[7:09] public support and then the mayor

[7:11] claimed that the public wasn't

[7:12] supportive enough which seems a bit

[7:13] paradoxical to

[7:16] us finally concerns about arpa look

[7:19] nothing changed about arpa between July

[7:21] 25th and November 7th and furthermore

[7:23] our attorney called us the day after the

[7:25] vote happened and said that arpa wasn't

[7:26] discussed a single time during the

[7:28] negotiations not once

[7:30] um and the question remains like what

[7:33] was so compelling in the mayor's own

[7:34] research that his view completely

[7:35] changed from July 25th to November

[7:39] 7th so now we here are again with the

[7:41] RFP for the dingi farm appearing on the

[7:43] city's website on 16th January uh this

[7:45] RFP was never voted on um at the

[7:48] December 5th meeting the RFP was

[7:50] discussed but no action was taken and in

[7:51] fact the motion was tabled to discuss at

[7:53] the January 9th meeting and then at the

[7:55] January 9th meeting it didn't appear on

[7:57] the agenda and it also wasn't discussed

[7:59] again

[8:00] um and then despite this the RFP

[8:02] appeared in the city website on January

[8:04] 16th and is still up right now I I

[8:07] suggest that the council and mayor

[8:08] consult with the city staff about

[8:09] whether or not posting this RFP

[8:10] constitutes a violation of open meeting

[8:12] law um if I remember correctly at the

[8:14] conclusion of the last RFP process

[8:16] council members stated the process was

[8:17] rushed and therefore somehow flawed from

[8:19] the start it seems this time around the

[8:21] solution is to somehow go faster I I

[8:24] don't quite understand that this new RFP

[8:26] aims to have a contract awarded by the

[8:27] April elections assigned contract within

[8:29] 3 mon months I mean let's put aside the

[8:31] fact that this city strung us along for

[8:32] 5 months but how about some honesty

[8:34] about what the goals are here and why

[8:36] the pressure to move so quickly um our

[8:39] ask is simple that this decision on the

[8:40] farm be put off until after the election

[8:42] let people vote the way they feel about

[8:44] the farm it's become a hot button issue

[8:45] we understand that um that's all I'm

[8:47] here to ask about thanks so much for

[8:49] your time thank

[8:54] you I do have a letter to read in that

[8:57] was sent to the council as well um dated

[9:01] January

[9:02] 22nd and this is from uh Nathan R

[9:05] anenson address 253 Meadow Lane uh the

[9:09] letter States dear members of the

[9:11] Columbus city council I write to express

[9:13] my deep concern and frustration over the

[9:15] handling of the dingy Farm which has

[9:17] brought negative attention to Columbus

[9:18] due to the Reckless decisions of the

[9:20] city council and the misuse of taxpayer

[9:22] money the rushed decision to purchase

[9:24] dingy Farm using federal arpa funds

[9:26] without thorough consideration of its

[9:28] historical significance and suitability

[9:29] for housing development is deeply

[9:31] troubling discovering that only 2.5 of

[9:34] the 7.55 acres are usable for housing

[9:36] raises questions about the city

[9:38] council's due diligence in this matter

[9:40] such hasty decisions not only jeopardize

[9:42] the city's Financial interests but also

[9:44] risk the destruction of a valuable

[9:46] historical asset the public outcry

[9:49] underscores the community's strong

[9:51] opposition to Housing Development on

[9:53] that property and the potential

[9:54] demolition of dingi farm particularly

[9:57] disheartening is uh the dismissal of the

[10:00] only wellth thought out proposal

[10:02] submitted through the RFP process a

[10:04] Visionary plan presented by Dave and

[10:06] Brian The Proposal outlined a

[10:08] comprehensive timeline and vision for

[10:09] the farm that positioned it to become a

[10:11] destination in Columbus fostering the

[10:13] community engagement and cultural

[10:15] appreciation it is crucial to note that

[10:18] there were was a discussion in December

[10:19] to hold off on further action until

[10:21] February but no vote was taken to send

[10:23] the property out to RFP the timing of

[10:25] the release of the RFP or the property

[10:27] last week raises serious his concerns

[10:29] about the transparency and fairness of

[10:31] the process adding to the concerns is

[10:33] the lack of transparency regarding the

[10:35] rejection of the only submitted proposal

[10:37] I urge the mayor and the City attorney

[10:39] to release a detailed report explaining

[10:41] why the RFP from Dave and briyan was not

[10:43] selected the community deserves a clear

[10:45] understanding of the decision-making

[10:46] process and the criteria used to

[10:48] evaluate proposals additionally it is

[10:50] deeply troubling that the mayor has yet

[10:52] to produce any written evidence from his

[10:53] supposed research justifying the support

[10:55] for raising the property until concrete

[10:57] evidence surfaces the mayor's claim

[10:59] remains unsubstantiated and raises

[11:01] questions about the transparency of the

[11:03] decision-making process public support

[11:05] for such a drastic measure should be

[11:07] based on factual information and not

[11:09] left to

[11:10] conjecture it appears the city council

[11:12] is not genuinely interested in

[11:13] preserving history or listening to the

[11:15] concerns of the public the decision to

[11:17] get the property back on the tax rooll

[11:19] and sell it to the only party that

[11:21] submitted a proposal seems like a

[11:22] logical and responsible course of action

[11:24] Dave and Brian's plan aligns with the

[11:26] community's values offering a thoughtful

[11:28] and sustainable approach to dingy Farm's

[11:30] future I implore the city council to

[11:32] reconsider its stance prioritize

[11:34] historic preservation and rectify the

[11:36] negative image Columbus has acquired due

[11:38] to the imprudent decisions surrounding

[11:40] dingi Farm the community deserves a

[11:42] transparent and accountable government

[11:43] that values its history and actively

[11:45] engages with its constituents it is my

[11:47] sincere hope that the city council will

[11:49] take immediate action to correct the

[11:50] situation restore faith in the

[11:52] decision-making process and ensure

[11:54] dingji Farm is preserved for future

[11:55] Generations thank you for your attention

[11:57] to this urgent matter assigned Nathan R

[12:00] aninston

[12:03] um I do know a couple of other people

[12:05] wandered in uh after Community

[12:08] correspondence and Communications began

[12:09] is there anybody who did not get a

[12:11] chance to sign up who wanted to speak at

[12:13] this meeting okay

[12:16] um is Alder

[12:19] GRE um I would just like a clarification

[12:23] Attorney Johnson um are citizen comment

[12:27] not by Orin me to be on topics that are

[12:32] actually on the agenda and if they are

[12:34] not on the agenda it needs a vote to be

[12:37] approved during citizen comments and

[12:40] citizen comments that aren't on the

[12:42] agenda are meant to go in between

[12:46] meetings according to ordinance we're

[12:48] supposed to have the time for them to

[12:49] talk to us about things that aren't on

[12:50] the agenda but this

[12:52] is allowing the gentleman in the

[12:55] audience to speak is one thing that's

[12:56] polite but reading a letter that isn't

[12:58] even an agenda item is completely

[13:01] against

[13:03] protocol

[13:05] um in my time in the city of

[13:09] Columbus the common Council has done

[13:14] pretty much the same thing uh with

[13:18] public comment which is to allow people

[13:20] to speak on any topic that they wish at

[13:26] uh during the public

[13:27] comment um

[13:30] the reading of letters into the record

[13:33] is something that is sometimes done and

[13:35] sometimes hasn't been done but the

[13:38] public comment has

[13:40] been um always on whatever topic anybody

[13:44] wants to speak on uh having said that I

[13:47] think that we should alter our ordinance

[13:49] if that's how we want it to do that is

[13:51] not thre and that's not how I conducted

[13:53] meeting Alder gray if you could please

[13:56] let Attorney Johnson finish yes I was

[13:59] trying to answer and I was going exactly

[14:01] down the path you were you wanted to go

[14:04] if you read your ordinance the ordinance

[14:08] uh I believe is very clear that all

[14:10] public comment is done at the end of the

[14:13] council meeting off

[14:15] camera uh and pretty much after all of

[14:19] the uh proceedings have been

[14:21] concluded and the in the 12 years that

[14:25] I've been uh with the city that has

[14:28] never happened

[14:29] uh so the ordinance says one thing your

[14:32] protocol is something completely

[14:34] different and it and I do not know how

[14:38] the protocol became what it is but that

[14:41] is what is so if you want to go back you

[14:44] certainly can and if you want to change

[14:47] how you want to do things you certainly

[14:49] can that just hasn't been the way it's

[14:52] been done for uh many many years um

[14:55] until recently we didn't have citizen

[14:57] comments on random iics that W on the

[15:05] agenda record a letter that was not on

[15:09] the agenda

[15:10] until we can address this another time

[15:12] this is also not on the agenda um

[15:14] anybody have any comments to add

[15:16] otherwise I'm going to move forward a

[15:18] point of order which I can do at any

[15:20] point in time it doesn't need to be on

[15:21] the

[15:25] agenda thank you hey I'd like to say

[15:27] something real quick uh citizen comment

[15:30] still is that okay we haven't moved past

[15:32] that yet all right I'm John sswi 841

[15:35] Park Avenue uh I'm a big-time uh

[15:38] historic Advocate I know you guys all

[15:40] know that I've been involved with the

[15:41] hlpc in the past and the auditorium

[15:43] Corporation in the past we do have a a

[15:46] pretty rare example of a intact

[15:49] Farmstead in Columbus I think a lot of

[15:52] people did like these guys' vision and I I know that a lot of talking to you

[15:57] guys singly you there's a lot of support

[16:00] for historic preservation but just not

[16:01] for this it seems like and I don't I

[16:04] don't really care what anybody's

[16:06] individual thought is on it but I just

[16:08] would like to see some some continuity

[16:11] from our Council and see people stop the

[16:14] infighting get together and get back to

[16:16] work this is an embarrassment come on

[16:19] you're better than

[16:25] that go ahead

[16:32] I'm Ruth Hermanson 986 Warner Street

[16:35] Columbus Wisconsin highly involved in

[16:38] the historic preservation of this

[16:40] community I would just like to add yes

[16:43] let let's put our best foot forward and

[16:45] look together work together and with

[16:49] democracy um you know

[16:52] individuals you were all elected and to

[16:57] represent your

[16:59] constituents that live in your district

[17:02] and I feel that you have to put that

[17:06] above your own self feelings and that's

[17:10] all I'm going to say thank

[17:17] you next item on the agenda is to

[17:20] approve tonight's consent agenda I will

[17:23] take a motion for that at this

[17:27] time I'll motive will make a motion to

[17:30] approve tonight's consent agenda read V

[17:33] seconds thank you I have a motion from

[17:35] Alder motive and a second from Alder

[17:37] Reed is there any

[17:40] discussion

[17:42] okay um all those in favor I any

[17:47] opposed okay uh consent agenda is

[17:50] approved first item up for new business

[17:53] is to consider and take action on

[17:54] agreement designating Highway 73 as a

[17:57] connecting Highway and so I'm looking

[17:59] for a motion to approve

[18:03] um agreement for connecting Highway

[18:06] change I know the packet does not

[18:08] include the number but um at the last

[18:11] meeting as a reminder Jason Lea says he

[18:14] does have that number and it doesn't

[18:16] impact the decision so I'm looking for a

[18:19] motion to

[18:26] approve uh Reed will move move to make

[18:30] Highway 73

[18:33] um west

[18:35] of

[18:37] 89 to Heritage way uh connecting

[18:41] Highway aler motive full second okay I

[18:45] have a motion from Alder Reed and a

[18:46] second from Alder Motif is there any

[18:50] discussion okay hearing none all those

[18:53] in favor I any

[18:56] opposed okay motion carries next item on

[18:59] the agenda is to consider and take

[19:01] action on the conditional use permit for

[19:03] marquart RV

[19:05] LLC um looking for a motion to

[19:09] approve Al steinon will make a motion to

[19:12] approve the cup for Mar cour RV

[19:16] LLC Alder Motif will second thank you I

[19:20] have a motion from Alder Seiner and a

[19:21] second from Alder Motif is there any

[19:24] discussion yes okay

[19:29] thank you it's the voice of it's not the

[19:31] voice of God but it's the voice of

[19:35] um if you re if you look at the uh staff

[19:40] memo that is in your packet uh if you

[19:43] please will incorporate conditions 1

[19:45] through 11 into your motion I would

[19:48] greatly appreciate

[19:53] it uh Al Steiner will resend last motion

[19:56] and make a new motion to approve the

[19:59] conditional use permit from Mark Court

[20:01] RV LLC with the conditions 1- 11 as

[20:05] stated in the memo thank you Alder

[20:08] motive will uh second the

[20:11] altered

[20:13] motion okay I have a uh motion from

[20:18] Alder Steiner and a second from Alder

[20:20] Motif any further

[20:22] discussion Al oh uh well now I have a

[20:26] question uh so this is not changing

[20:31] ownership there's a renter that's going

[20:33] to now have RVs instead of

[20:39] cars ises my understanding yes okay I'm

[20:42] the owner of the two properties I can

[20:44] answer

[20:45] question okay yeah go ahead yes please

[20:49] oh up to the mic

[20:52] sorry we're Audio Only

[20:57] today hi my name my name is Troy Gates

[20:59] I'm the owner of gates Auto in uh Gates

[21:01] home properties so um marcard RV is

[21:04] buying the 200 Commerce building for

[21:07] myself Gat Stone properties that was the

[21:09] former shopo building and they're

[21:12] converting that into a um markart RV

[21:15] dealership thank you thank you you're

[21:18] welcome anything

[21:20] else any further questions or

[21:24] discussion okay uh seeing none since we

[21:27] do have a uh Motion in a second I will

[21:30] I'm looking for a vote all those in

[21:32] favor I I I any any

[21:36] opposed okay motion passes next item on

[21:40] the agenda is to consider and take

[21:41] action on salaried sworn officers

[21:43] overtime uh paid for by the Grant and

[21:48] I'm looking for a motion to

[21:50] approve Alder motive will make a motion

[21:53] to approve the salaried sworn members of

[21:57] the Columbus Police Department

[21:59] to be eligible to earn overtime

[22:01] exclusively for Highway Safety

[22:04] enforcement Grant

[22:07] programs Steiner can second I have a

[22:10] motion from Alder moti and a second from

[22:12] Alder Steiner any further discussion or

[22:18] questions okay hearing none all those in

[22:20] favor we a roll call oh do we need a

[22:24] roll call on oh we do my apologies

[22:27] because there is a

[22:29] pay involved we will need a roll call

[22:30] vote on

[22:32] this

[22:34] great

[22:39] I um motive I Reed I Roki I Steiner I

[22:45] motion

[22:46] carries okay uh next item on the agenda

[22:50] is to consider and take action

[22:51] concerning ordinance number

[22:54] 78624 an ordinance to repeal and

[22:56] recreate section 1026 one of the city of

[22:59] Columbus code of

[23:01] ordinances and the first item I'm

[23:03] looking for is to consider and take

[23:05] action to suspend the rules for

[23:06] ordinance

[23:09] 78624 can I don't think we

[23:17] can Alder Steiner will make a motion to

[23:20] suspend the rules for ordinance 78

[23:26] 6-24 Alder motive for second

[23:29] okay I have a motion from Alder Steiner

[23:30] and a second from Alder motive to

[23:32] suspend the rules for ordinance

[23:34] 78624 any

[23:39] discussion okay do we need do we need a

[23:42] roll call for this as well Pat okay all

[23:44] those in favor I any

[23:48] opposed okay uh the next item would be

[23:51] to consider and take action to wave the

[23:53] reading for ordinance

[23:56] 78624 all stand will make the motion to

[23:59] wave the readings for ordinance

[24:03] 786-2412 okay I have a motion from Alder

[24:06] Steiner and a second from Alder motive

[24:08] to wave the readings for ordinance

[24:10] 78624 any

[24:15] discussion okay hearing none all those

[24:17] in favor I I I I any

[24:22] opposed okay and uh the next item is to

[24:27] take action to adopt ordinance 7

[24:32] 86-24 H Steiner will'll take action to

[24:35] adopt the ordinance make a motion to

[24:37] adopt the ordinance

[24:39] 78624 motive will second okay I have a

[24:41] motion from Alder Steiner and a second

[24:43] from Alder motive to adopt ordinance

[24:45] 78624 any

[24:50] discussion okay hearing none all those

[24:52] in favor I okay any opposed

[24:59] all right the ordinance passes um next

[25:02] item on the agenda is to consider and

[25:04] take action to carry forward designated

[25:07] funds um this Crystal did you have

[25:11] anything to we talked about it two weeks

[25:13] ago

[25:14] but any questions or okay then I'll take

[25:18] a motion to uh carry forward designated

[25:23] funds Alder Motif will make a motion to

[25:27] um

[25:29] to move unspent designated funds to the

[25:33] general fund uh totaling

[25:38] 79358

[25:40] 48 for three future projects one fir Tru

[25:45] Restoration in the amount of 27

[25:50] 35848 two fire pumper truck purchase in

[25:54] the amount of

[25:57] 350,000 and and

[25:59] three public safety building in the

[26:02] amount of

[26:10] 45,700 Steiner can

[26:13] second okay I have a motion from Alder

[26:15] MTI and a second from Alder Steiner any

[26:18] discussion Alder Reed oh thank you uh I

[26:20] had a question on the language

[26:26] so um it was to move all of those funds

[26:30] and then it was said to the general

[26:34] funds but um should we have stated to

[26:38] the general fund as

[26:42] designated I'm not sure did I say back

[26:45] yes myself sorry guys I said it

[26:48] backwards um I'm gonna alter that

[26:51] motion and we are going to take the

[26:54] unspent general funds and move them to

[26:57] Des designated funds and do I need

[27:01] to say all the designations

[27:05] again think so just as read before as

[27:08] read

[27:11] before thank you Steiner will second

[27:14] that okay have a motion from Alder Motif

[27:17] and a second from Alder Steiner and I

[27:20] will take a roll call vote

[27:25] please great

[27:28] I motive I Reed I Roki I Steiner I

[27:34] motion carries

[27:37] okay uh the next item on the agenda is

[27:39] to consider and take action on the CH

[27:41] LPC water tower

[27:50] fund I will take a moment and speak for

[27:53] this item because we did have some

[27:55] questions last time so we do have two

[27:58] members from the historical group here

[28:01] to speak if you'd like they can

[28:03] personally vouch for um the request that

[28:06] is being presented to you we

[28:09] specifically

[28:10] discussed the design the two pieces of

[28:13] designated funds that have been sitting

[28:15] in designated funds for several years

[28:18] one of which was

[28:20] 1,580 39 cents classified as City Hall

[28:24] Clock Tower repairs and um

[28:29] it's consensus that even if it was Clock

[28:31] Tower it's not necessary to be Clock

[28:33] Tower and they would like those move to

[28:36] the water tower fund um and also the

[28:40] 2006

[28:42] 4971 that was classified histor

[28:45] preservation so if you'd like to just

[28:47] take a moment I'll let them vouch for

[28:50] what you're seeing here

[28:55] [Applause]

[28:58] good evening Henry Ellen I'm the

[29:00] secretary of the historic preservation

[29:02] and landmarks commission uh 650 South

[29:05] Charles Street I'm very grateful that

[29:08] the treasurer brought this forward and

[29:11] uh we have discussed additional funds

[29:14] that are sitting in the various City uh

[29:18] Records at the historic preservation

[29:20] commission and our hope is to have this

[29:23] money along with the additional money on

[29:25] the other account forwarded for us into

[29:28] our uh maintenance of the water tower we

[29:34] have that set aside for long term

[29:36] because there's the potential that there

[29:37] would be additional need for work on the

[29:41] tower itself and we're hoping to acquire

[29:43] up to $25,000 into that fund and at that

[29:47] point then we'll find another place to

[29:49] start setting aside monies for other

[29:51] historic properties but the primary use

[29:54] of this would be if there was tuck

[29:55] pointing required especially up towards

[29:57] the the top of the building you'd have

[29:59] to have a speal special equipment that

[30:03] would be needed for that

[30:05] so that's our hope thank

[30:20] you just a note for when you're what do

[30:23] you call it when you're reading

[30:25] your the the motion yeah if you wouldn't

[30:29] mind specifically stating that

[30:32] there's the four pieces because they are

[30:36] two designated funds right now that need

[30:38] to be included and if you look at the

[30:41] little summary above where it says

[30:43] listed

[30:44] support though um there's all the dollar

[30:47] amounts so 1,500 from the 2022 budget

[30:52] 1500 from the 2023 budget and the two

[30:56] designated funds

[30:59] that way I can move them correctly take

[31:02] get taken care so then the total you're

[31:04] looking for crystal is the 7,230 And1

[31:08] okay thank

[31:10] you all right um so I will take a motion

[31:13] to um move the

[31:18] $723 and10 forward um for CHL LPC water

[31:24] tower

[31:26] funds okay aler gray moves to um for the

[31:33] to move the

[31:35] $723 10 cents which includes the $1,500

[31:38] from 2022 15500 from 2023 in the water

[31:42] tower fund the

[31:45] 15839 and the 2006

[31:49] 4971 um to be moved and given to the CH

[31:52] LPC for future water tower projects um

[31:56] in fun two 5 3

[32:00] 474 Alder Steiner second okay I have a

[32:04] motion from Alder gray and a second from

[32:06] Alder Steiner any

[32:08] discussion okay can I please have a roll

[32:10] call

[32:11] Pat motive I Reed I Roki I Steiner I gr

[32:20] I motion carries okay thank you next

[32:23] item on the agenda is to consider and

[32:24] take action on salary adjustment during

[32:27] Public Works superintendent

[32:29] vacancy um so specifically what I'm

[32:31] looking for is a motion to approve back

[32:33] pay amounting to

[32:36] $3,675 uh which is 49 weeks at $75 per

[32:40] week from 2023 and a weekly stipend of

[32:43] $75 starting the first pay period in

[32:47] February um or we could uh according to

[32:50] Pat choose to begin going forward

[32:53] immediately um at our discretion uh for

[32:57] the DP W administrative assistant and

[32:59] the stien to be reviewed by the city

[33:01] administrator and mayor do not

[33:04] have in our

[33:07] packets I she just gave that to me to

[33:13] read uh Al their Motif will make a

[33:15] motion to approve back pay in the amount

[33:18] of

[33:21] $3,675 from 2023 and a weekly stipend of

[33:26] $75 starting the first pay period of

[33:30] February for the DPW administrative

[33:33] assistant and the stien be reviewed by

[33:36] the city administrator and the

[33:40] mayor

[33:45] yeah read a second okay I have a motion

[33:48] from Alder Motif and a second from Alder

[33:50] Reed any

[33:53] discussion okay hearing none um can I

[33:56] please have a roll call P

[33:59] Reed I Roki I Steiner I

[34:05] gray i m i motion carries thank you next

[34:10] item on the agenda is to consider and

[34:12] take action on claims in the amount of

[34:15] 2,315

[34:19] 1847 Alder Motif will make a motion to

[34:22] approve the claims in the amount of 2,

[34:25] 315,000

[34:31] $847 Steiner was second okay I have a

[34:34] motion from Alder motive and a second

[34:35] from Alder Steiner any

[34:38] discussion okay may I please have a roll

[34:40] call Pat R key I Steiner I

[34:46] gray I mo i Reed I motion carries okay

[34:53] next on the agenda is report of City

[34:55] officers um Matt did you have a report

[34:58] for

[34:59] today um just three items briefly to

[35:04] educate the council in public on um you

[35:06] may have noticed we're doing recap of

[35:09] Council meetings and trying to post

[35:10] those on the website and social media

[35:13] the day after Council meetings just to

[35:15] kind of give a recap and and summarize

[35:18] the action taken by Council um secondly

[35:21] uh you may have also noticed that um

[35:24] earlier today agenda comments were

[35:27] posted just trying to better explain and

[35:30] summarize the items on the council

[35:32] agenda those were also on the website

[35:34] and link to social media as well uh my

[35:37] goals in moving forward is to get those

[35:39] out on Friday along with the agenda

[35:42] packet but again just trying to kind of

[35:45] provide some greater clarification

[35:47] sometimes the agendas are are the items

[35:49] on the agenda get succinct and and are

[35:51] hard to maybe understand if you haven't

[35:54] served on counselor or are regularly in

[35:57] city meetings so just two things that

[36:00] we're doing to try and um kind of

[36:03] increase of of what the council is is

[36:06] doing both um as a recap and leading up

[36:09] to meetings and then third um you know

[36:12] as I've met with staff and Council it's

[36:14] clear that 2023 was a significant year

[36:16] of transition for the city of Columbus

[36:19] um one of my goals for 2024 is to create

[36:23] an action plan um so that it 2024 isn't

[36:27] also viewed as another year of

[36:29] transition and so um my hope is for the

[36:32] next cow meeting uh in February that

[36:35] we're able to kind of review that action

[36:37] plan that I've worked um starting

[36:40] tomorrow with staff on and and bring to

[36:42] you um at the next meeting that's all I

[36:45] have okay and I don't have any comments

[36:49] on the mayor's behalf or my own so with

[36:51] that um I will take a motion to

[36:56] adjourn Motif will make a motion to

[36:58] adjourn Steiner will second okay I have

[37:02] a motion from Alder Motif and a second

[37:04] from Alder Steiner any

[37:06] discussion okay all those in favor

[37:09] I we are adjourned does anybody need a

[37:13] break before we go into the next meeting

[37:15] or should we just roll right into

[37:18] it

[37:21] okay Ian are you good to just roll right

[37:23] into the next meeting

[37:27] okay good in that case good evening

[37:30] ladies and gentlemen again and welcome

[37:32] to tonight's Columbus common Council

[37:33] Committee of the whole meeting it is

[37:35] Tuesday January 23rd it is 7:07 p.m. and

[37:40] with that I will take a roll

[37:43] call

[37:45] gr

[37:49] present motive present Reed here Roki

[37:55] present Steiner here vinkler and Hammer

[37:57] excused okay tonight's meeting has been

[38:00] properly noticed and I'm looking for a

[38:03] motion to approve tonight's

[38:08] agenda Alder Motif will make a motion to

[38:11] approve tonight's

[38:14] agenda Steiner will second okay I have a

[38:16] motion from Alder motiff and a second

[38:18] from Alder Steiner any

[38:21] discussion okay all those in favor I I I

[38:25] any opposed

[38:27] okay we have approved the agenda um I

[38:31] didn't see anybody else signed up for

[38:32] citizen comments just one more time is

[38:34] there anybody here who go ahead

[38:38] Henry just ask that you turn the mic

[38:40] back on and then restate your name and

[38:42] address for the record thank you very

[38:45] much Henry Ellen 650 South Charles

[38:48] Street uh Secretary of the historic

[38:51] preservation commission I see on your

[38:53] agenda that you have uh discussion about

[38:57] the the amended and updated historic

[38:59] preservation ordinance I hope that you

[39:02] will be able to forward this to the plan

[39:04] commission this evening I encourage you

[39:07] to do that I'm excited that you will be

[39:10] able to do that um it's my understanding

[39:13] that upon submission to the plan

[39:15] commission they will review it and then

[39:17] schedule a public hearing and my only

[39:20] request is that uh the secretary of the

[39:23] plan commission would send the historic

[39:25] preservation Commissioners a notice

[39:27] about that public hearing so we know

[39:29] when it's coming thank you thank

[39:33] you anybody else with public

[39:38] comments

[39:40] okay included in your packet tonight you

[39:42] will find Department reports from fire

[39:44] Library LifeStar police treasure and

[39:48] wastewater treatment

[39:49] plants um next item on the agenda is to

[39:52] discuss tobacco license application for

[39:54] last minute Vape I didn't know if we had

[39:57] anybody here who wanted to speak on

[39:59] that um doesn't look like it so I'll

[40:03] open up the floor for any um discussion

[40:07] comments

[40:11] questions there any reason it came to

[40:14] yeah all all

[40:19] yeah are we comfortable moving this

[40:22] forward for vote in two weeks okay um

[40:26] next I item on the agenda is to discuss

[40:28] purchase of rural fir Tru and Crystal

[40:31] did you want to speak on that

[40:36] one give me just a moment sure yeah

[40:57] Madam president I have a few comments to

[40:59] get things going certainly by all

[41:04] means this is something that I am not

[41:07] sure uh if the council knows anything

[41:10] about this or if they do know something

[41:13] about this I'm not sure how much um but

[41:16] what is before you uh I think and I and

[41:20] before I say anything else I'm not sure

[41:22] how much I know about this to be quite

[41:24] honest but what I think is before you is

[41:27] a request from the rural Fire Group to

[41:31] contribute to the purchase of a

[41:35] new uh fire truck that will

[41:40] replace um an existing piece of

[41:42] equipment uh that is used by the fire

[41:45] department and the rural Fire Group uh

[41:48] the city

[41:51] is party to an agreement with the rural

[41:54] Fire group that directs and dictates how

[41:57] some of the equipment is bought and used

[42:01] and paid for um this is one of those uh

[42:06] pieces of equipment uh the piece of

[42:10] equipment that they're looking to

[42:11] replace is number 92 which currently is

[42:14] the 2000 Pierce saer pumper and it is

[42:19] specifically referenced in the agreement

[42:21] between the Fire group and the city that

[42:23] dates back to

[42:25] 2018 um it's a jointly owned piece of

[42:28] equipment um and I think they're looking

[42:32] to replace it what I don't know the

[42:34] answer to and and the reason that I

[42:36] wanted to jump in right here is that

[42:39] there's nothing in the current agreement

[42:41] with the fire group that says what the

[42:44] process is

[42:46] for re purchasing a replacement piece of

[42:50] equipment there's nothing in the

[42:52] agreement that says uh what happens uh

[42:56] to the piece of equipment that's being

[42:58] replaced there's really just no rules in

[43:02] this current agreement with the fire

[43:03] group as to how this is supposed to be

[43:07] handled um I I I'm I'm not saying that

[43:11] to oppose this project or anything like

[43:13] that but what I am suggesting is that if

[43:16] this is going to move forward between

[43:19] the time of now and the time of delivery

[43:22] of the new truck if that occurs the city

[43:25] and the Fire Group uh really should sit

[43:28] down and review the agreement that they

[43:30] have in place and make some amendments

[43:32] to take into consideration this

[43:34] particular

[43:36] transaction um and that's all I have for

[43:39] now okay thank you Chrystal go

[43:45] ahead

[43:47] ditto yeah we we have discussed those

[43:49] items um this is the replacement truck

[43:53] as Paul noted and it would be a 50/50

[43:56] share and they're basing it on that the

[44:01] agreement and um what you see here is

[44:05] the um it started with the 2023 budget

[44:11] some of it was put in there they didn't

[44:13] have everything finalized yet it kind of

[44:15] came right after the budget but we do

[44:17] have our final numbers we're looking at

[44:21] 20 2026 or 2027 budget year to be able

[44:26] to budget for the rest of the half our

[44:29] half um what we need to do though here

[44:32] is to get the ability to get the

[44:34] contract going for the purchase so it's

[44:37] going to take some steps but step one is

[44:39] to get a

[44:40] contract do you have any questions on

[44:42] that because we do have the RO Fire

[44:44] Group here to answer questions also

[44:46] they're the ones who worked on the RFP

[44:49] and the contract as I kind of summarized

[44:51] for you aler um I had a question because

[44:55] there was a a mention in here about

[44:57] emission standards changing in

[44:59] 2726 is that going to be an issue with

[45:02] the vehicle that we're designing and

[45:04] building Come Those Years um I do have

[45:08] an adjustment to the dollar amount that

[45:10] I put in here I was looking at the piece

[45:12] of the fire Tru only to give you a a

[45:14] range I used the fire trucks um the

[45:19] price that

[45:20] were um looking at trying to secure the

[45:23] 1.1 162 676

[45:28] and not to exceed 1,225 that was giving

[45:31] a 5% increase in case we can't get

[45:33] things closed till later in February

[45:35] we're pushing for that original number

[45:37] but we do need to include the other

[45:40] pieces because those will be handled

[45:42] somehow during that process so instead

[45:46] of using um not to exceed 1.22 5 million

[45:51] I need to use the we need to use the

[45:53] overall cost which is on the second page

[45:57] of the summary that the rural Fire Group

[45:58] provided to us and it's 1,270

[46:07] 8980 and if you notice on that page it

[46:09] does that's where you picked it up

[46:15] from and that would include the 45,000

[46:18] increase in emissions if that has to

[46:20] happen so then you're looking to not

[46:23] exceed

[46:24] 1,27 8980 is that correct cor okay all

[46:27] right thank

[46:28] you oh thank you uh two questions um

[46:34] first one do we think we'll likely be

[46:37] able to put twice the amount that we

[46:40] currently have set

[46:42] aside and have that ready to go in 2 3

[46:46] years um might this be something we

[46:48] could bond

[46:49] for what are options both both are yes

[46:53] and yes um pieces of it can be set as

[46:56] we've already done our our 2024 budget

[46:58] unless we wanted to do an amendment

[47:00] sometime this year so we'd look at a

[47:03] 2025 budget can you can budget for it

[47:06] and set it aside just like we have here

[47:07] with the 350 we did a moment ago in in

[47:10] Council we set the 350 aside already and

[47:14] then so you could do some in

[47:17] 2025 and then the remainder in 26 or

[47:20] 27 and at the at that time um I mean any

[47:25] of the years you could actually put it

[47:27] into a bond and hold it or wait for

[47:30] another year we are going to do bonding

[47:31] because we're doing bonding in

[47:33] 2024 we won't most likely we'll be doing

[47:36] it again in

[47:38] 2025 uh thank you and then when is our

[47:43] current contract with the rule group up

[47:46] for a negotiation again a DAT the

[47:49] contract

[47:51] expires can I I'm sorry can I just have

[47:53] you come up so that Alder gr can hear

[47:55] you too yeah let's get John up here the

[47:57] Pres the r um the if I remember

[48:00] correctly the current contract expires

[48:02] at uh 2027 so I would recommend um

[48:06] depending on what you folks feel that

[48:08] probably here sometime in the next year

[48:09] we should probably get together and

[48:11] start reviewing it it's going to take

[48:13] some time probably should be some

[48:15] changes made um I agree with your your

[48:17] City attorney um there's some things

[48:19] that probably aren't as clear as they

[48:21] should be and uh so I I would say you

[48:23] know

[48:24] probably I'd have to talk to the rest of

[48:26] my group but I you know I would say

[48:28] probably towards the end of this year

[48:29] beginning and part of 2025 we should

[48:31] probably get working on it we're not

[48:32] going to be crunched for time and get

[48:34] something in place that's going to be

[48:35] beneficial for both both parties

[48:38] involved thank

[48:40] you aler motive I would like to see

[48:43] those negotiations St in you know soon

[48:46] in

[48:47] 2024 rather than waiting to 2025 if we

[48:51] can um and I do I would like

[48:53] clarification from Attorney Johnson do

[48:56] we need that contract uh

[48:59] revised before we move this

[49:06] forward first uh I I I was looking at

[49:10] the agreement and it does expire

[49:11] December 31 of 2027 so that is correct

[49:15] uh unless terminated earlier by the fire

[49:18] group uh I think um as far as this

[49:22] particular piece of equipment is

[49:25] concerned

[49:27] you can do

[49:28] this uh several different ways I think

[49:32] um a very short amendment to Simply deal

[49:34] with the new with the new

[49:37] vehicle um would be a relatively simple

[49:41] process um if you're looking at doing

[49:43] some more wholesale changes uh then uh

[49:48] the sooner you start on those changes

[49:50] the better off you will be because you

[49:53] have multiple parties here uh and and

[49:57] each of the parties needs to go back to

[49:59] their has to has to weigh in and and

[50:02] give approval so that it's going to be a

[50:06] uh slightly clumsy process just because

[50:09] of the amount of municipalities that are

[50:11] involved uh at at the at the beginning

[50:14] um so the sooner you start the the

[50:17] better but we certainly can carve out

[50:20] this one piece of

[50:22] equipment um if necessary because like I

[50:26] said uh it's going to be replacing a

[50:29] piece that's already in the agreement

[50:32] it's just that there's no mechanism for

[50:34] what happens to you know what happens to

[50:38] this new piece of equipment once it

[50:40] comes into the fold so to speak

[50:43] okay so so then I would like to

[50:46] recommend that we work on the

[50:49] amendment prior to the council moving

[50:52] this

[50:53] forward um and bring the amendment

[50:55] forward and we review do it

[50:59] again I would comment that these prices

[51:02] are ending this has been out there for

[51:06] how many months now in

[51:09] 2023 yeah and it's already gone up since

[51:12] then so you're looking at another 5%

[51:16] increase if we go past in very far into

[51:19] February can I say one

[51:25] sure I don't have a copy of that

[51:27] contract in front of me so maybe uh the

[51:29] attorney could tell me I think it's I

[51:32] think it's stated in that contract that

[51:34] it's own 5050 and then the maintenance

[51:36] is split 50/50 with the city is that

[51:40] correct yes there there's language in

[51:42] there that that repairs and maintenance

[51:45] for for a vehicle 92 are specifically

[51:49] addressed and it is a 50/50 on repair

[51:52] and maintenance so um I just wasn't able

[51:55] to find anything that says here's how we buy a new vehicle to

[52:00] replace this one and here's what happens

[52:02] to the old vehicle once it's being

[52:05] decommissioned for lack of a better term

[52:07] or maybe it's not going to be

[52:09] decommissioned I don't

[52:12] know so I guess I'm a little confused on

[52:14] what the amendment would do because we

[52:16] already got an outline of of you know

[52:19] we're going to We own this one jointly

[52:21] we're going to you know we're going to

[52:22] buy another one jointly the maintenance

[52:23] and that's going to be jointly well the

[52:25] other one will probably get sold

[52:27] jointly so I don't know what the purpose

[52:30] I I'm not against the amendment don't

[52:31] get me wrong but I don't I I just don't

[52:35] I I don't understand the I

[52:37] guess the the amendment in my mind can

[52:40] be as simple as a vehicle 92 is being

[52:44] replaced with whatever you're buying now

[52:47] and just it can be a very it could be a

[52:50] two sentence agreement uh that says

[52:52] vehicle 92 is being replaced so that

[52:55] those of us can years from now will know

[52:57] that vehicle 92 has been

[53:00] replaced and if you're going to sell uh

[53:04] vehicle 92 uh here's what happens to it

[53:08] yeah it doesn't have to be anything

[53:09] fancy for the amendment just to make

[53:11] sure that everybody's on the same page

[53:13] that's that's the the the important

[53:16] part so then would it be appropriate to

[53:18] bring that

[53:20] paragraph signed agreement here for the

[53:23] council to approve with this request to

[53:26] the council meeting next when when you

[53:30] when you're again group has has to be if it's the city's intent

[53:38] to enter into the same agreement with

[53:42] this new vehicle as it has with 92 it's

[53:45] a really simple agreement but I don't

[53:48] think that that conversation has been

[53:50] had yet so if if that's if that's the

[53:54] direction then this is really easy

[53:57] Alder

[53:59] gray um so to put everything in super

[54:02] simple terms basically I think everyone

[54:05] is on the same page it's just not

[54:07] written how it's supposed to function I

[54:10] believe everyone believes that this new

[54:13] vehicle should be under the same terms

[54:15] as vehicle 92 so I think bringing it to

[54:18] the next regular meeting with an

[54:21] amendment a proposed amendment for us to

[54:24] approve alongside it that say is um this

[54:27] vehicle is replacing vehicle 92 and all

[54:31] rules and regulations associated with

[54:33] vehicle 92 shall apply to this vehicle

[54:36] and the proceeds from the sale and or

[54:39] dis um the sale of this vehicle however

[54:43] we get rid of this vehicle of vehicle 92

[54:46] shall be dispersed equally 50/50 amongst

[54:49] the RO Fire group and the City of

[54:52] Columbus WIS Pate group so it it's just that simple we just need to have

[54:58] that alongside this and I think

[55:01] basically my wording is maybe not

[55:03] perfect but that's exactly what the

[55:05] amendment needs to say it's pretty darn

[55:10] close are you guys comfortable with that

[55:12] yeah I don't think I'm going to get be

[55:13] able to get it done by February 6th

[55:15] though okay the second council meeting

[55:18] yes yeah I'm actually leaving out of

[55:20] town next week and then I'm going to

[55:23] have to get the group together in

[55:24] between and I just think that window's

[55:25] going to be really tight when is the

[55:27] next council meeting in February 19th um that might that probably be

[55:34] doable I think so will Attorney Johnson

[55:36] drop that Amendment then yes okay all

[55:41] right so that's I I'm okay with that um

[55:45] if we're going to do it might as well do

[55:46] it you know so we're all in the same

[55:47] boat I I understand your position on it is vague um I if you could get that

[55:53] to me or maybe I'll try to reach out to

[55:55] you tomorrow sometime at ER Johnson and

[55:57] then we can figure out how we get this

[55:59] to each other and then I can get the

[56:01] ball rolling on my end I'm hoping that I

[56:04] can get this probably the sooner I can

[56:07] get that in hand the E the the best

[56:11] because if the other members of the

[56:13] group think they have to bring it in

[56:14] front of their Town board before we talk

[56:16] about it at the the rural association

[56:19] meeting because I'll call a special

[56:21] meeting as I plan on calling one anyways

[56:22] in February or the first part of March I

[56:25] already let let everyone know um most of

[56:27] our town board meetings I believe will

[56:29] fall before that 19th timetable so I

[56:33] could probably have a general idea of

[56:36] where everyone sits on everything and

[56:38] then then hopefully from there we can

[56:39] move it forward I mean we still got some

[56:42] discussion on our end to do yet I my

[56:44] direction was to figure out what you

[56:46] guys wanted to do so we knew what

[56:47] direction to go so this is what it needs

[56:49] to get taken then we got to get this

[56:51] done and hopefully we can proceed from

[56:53] there I guess thank you is everybody

[56:56] comfortable bringing that forward with

[56:58] Amendment for the February 19th meeting

[57:01] yes okay perfect thank you thank you um

[57:04] next item on the agenda is to discuss

[57:06] the CH LPC

[57:08] ordinance and then um Ruth did I have

[57:13] you listed as somebody who did you

[57:16] have did you want to lead off the

[57:20] discussion oh Alder

[57:23] gray um so well first off we have a lot

[57:27] of background mus the audience that' be

[57:30] awesome um but second

[57:34] uh so I am 100% um coming to agreement

[57:39] on this um finally it's been years my

[57:44] problem is this specific ordinance that

[57:47] is in our packet is full of

[57:49] contradictions that makes no sense

[57:51] portions of it would make the hlpc

[57:54] basically mute and void and LS are chlg

[57:57] status and like it doesn't make sense

[58:00] this is not a good ordinance and I don't

[58:02] know where this came from or why it is

[58:04] the way it is in our packet like for

[58:06] example if you look at 11

[58:09] 17-5 section c it says the commission

[58:12] shall review any proposal which may

[58:15] result in an alteration of the historic

[58:17] structure yada yada yada after reviewing

[58:20] the procedures outlined in 11 17-8 the

[58:23] commission will recommend to the for the

[58:26] approving or um denial of the

[58:30] certificate of appropriateness to the

[58:31] common Council but then when you go to

[58:33] like

[58:34] 17-8 they have the authority to Grant

[58:38] the

[58:40] um the certificate of appropriateness

[58:43] they're not just the recommending body

[58:46] like where are we standing are they

[58:48] supposed to be a recommending body or

[58:50] are they the final say in

[58:53] Grant because it says both things and it

[58:55] says both things throughout this

[58:56] ordinance and it's really quite

[59:01] confusing that's just one of many

[59:03] examples this is what I'm say the intent

[59:05] of the ordinance was to say that um the

[59:10] commission would be the ones who would

[59:13] go through and approve or deny a

[59:16] certificate of appropriateness with the

[59:20] council being the appealing

[59:23] body right and that's perfect that's

[59:25] basically how our ordinance is now but

[59:29] that's not how this ordinance is

[59:36] written

[59:38] Henry did you have any understanding

[59:41] when we went through so let me explain a

[59:44] little bit to others that are here um

[59:47] both the ordinance ad hoc committee and

[59:49] the hlpc sat down and did this ordinance

[59:53] together um did you have an issue with

[59:58] what was in

[1:00:00] here I'm going to have to correct you

[1:00:02] just a little bit there was members of

[1:00:04] the historic preservation commission

[1:00:06] that were at your meeting yes and you

[1:00:08] folks decided what the language was

[1:00:10] going to

[1:00:11] be we met oh man last July I think and

[1:00:16] we went through some comments and

[1:00:18] concerns at that point but since that

[1:00:20] time it's been your committee that's

[1:00:22] been drafting this ordinance and putting

[1:00:24] it together we have been at the meetings

[1:00:26] absolutely there's no question about

[1:00:28] that and that's why we're anxious to

[1:00:30] have this proceed somewhere so that we

[1:00:33] can make a public comment at the public

[1:00:36] hearing and identify those changes or

[1:00:39] ideas that we think are necessary some

[1:00:42] of them Mr Gray has already identified

[1:00:44] there may be others I don't know

[1:00:46] everybody's opinion on that but the

[1:00:48] draft that I understand is in your

[1:00:50] packet this evening is the one that was

[1:00:52] recommended by the subcommittee yes yes

[1:00:57] so you're saying that you would like to

[1:01:00] see this move forward as is to the

[1:01:03] planning and zoning committee and

[1:01:05] address any discrepancies that you may

[1:01:08] see there well that's my personal

[1:01:10] opinion yes because I'd like this to get

[1:01:12] out of the committee I'm sorry to say

[1:01:14] that but so that it goes on and there

[1:01:16] can be discussion and action on this

[1:01:19] rather than pingpong back and forth with

[1:01:21] additional versions and revisions but

[1:01:24] that's just my personal opinion M okay

[1:01:27] Alder

[1:01:28] gra and I very much respect um Henry

[1:01:32] Ellen's opinion and I think his opinion

[1:01:34] weighs higher than most my problem is

[1:01:38] that

[1:01:39] this is still not appropriate and if

[1:01:43] this specific ordinance were to pass it

[1:01:46] would basically render our hlpc mot and

[1:01:49] void and there would be no sense in them

[1:01:52] in existing it would give them it

[1:01:55] wouldn't give them the power that they

[1:01:57] need in order to maintain our CH LGC

[1:02:00] status it wouldn't have any sort of real

[1:02:06] significance they would basically just

[1:02:09] be an organization that fundraised they

[1:02:11] wouldn't have anything it would mean

[1:02:14] nothing our historic preservation would

[1:02:16] mean

[1:02:18] nothing with this ordinance so while I

[1:02:22] want to see it advance I don't think

[1:02:24] this ordinance is correct um I think

[1:02:26] Henry is being optimistic that they can

[1:02:30] address the issues and dis ordinance at

[1:02:32] the public hearing and hopefully fix

[1:02:33] them before it moves forward but in all

[1:02:36] reality our current ordinance is

[1:02:38] perfectly fine there's nothing wrong

[1:02:40] with it it this whole debacle came from

[1:02:44] a power grab from a previous mayor and

[1:02:47] Alder that haven't

[1:02:50] been um part of our City's government

[1:02:54] for many many years so in all honesty I

[1:02:57] think this should just go away and we

[1:02:58] should keep our existing

[1:03:00] norins thank you Alder Steiner um I have

[1:03:04] to agree with uh uh Alder Gray's

[1:03:07] contention to this ordinance I'm looking

[1:03:09] at the definitions and the certificate

[1:03:11] of appropriateness is issued by the

[1:03:12] common Council in under 11 17-3 but then

[1:03:15] granted by the historic

[1:03:18] hlpc in 11 17-8 it's just it's it was

[1:03:21] confusing to me reading and it's like if

[1:03:24] we just push this on there's no

[1:03:26] guarantee that they're going to catch

[1:03:27] all the discrepancies in here and we're

[1:03:28] going to have to redo this all over

[1:03:31] again however many times we catch these

[1:03:33] things um as as my point is is I've have

[1:03:37] not spoken on this at all because it's

[1:03:39] been in committee for so long I'm not

[1:03:40] going to conly go back and forth the

[1:03:43] only issue that I would ever have with

[1:03:44] this is the authority of a certificate

[1:03:46] of

[1:03:48] appropriateness I I run fear that we're

[1:03:51] creating a sort of historic HOA by

[1:03:55] giving them they should have the

[1:03:56] authority to advise and educate and that

[1:03:58] that's appropriate in in my purview of

[1:04:00] what the CHL PC does is they designate

[1:04:04] what buildings are historically relevant

[1:04:05] what St structures are historically

[1:04:07] relevant and they educate those owners

[1:04:09] or people who own these things this is

[1:04:11] the benefit of this this is the history

[1:04:12] of this and this is what you can get off

[1:04:14] of it and the biggest benefit is tax

[1:04:16] credits that you can get off of any of

[1:04:17] these properties the the certificate of

[1:04:20] appropriateness authorizes those tax

[1:04:22] credits to still be valid if you lose

[1:04:25] that certificate appropriateness you

[1:04:26] don't get the tax credits you have to

[1:04:27] pay them back whatever it is from my

[1:04:30] understanding of the statute and

[1:04:31] everything so it shouldn't be you get

[1:04:34] the certificate appropriateness or you

[1:04:36] don't get the building permit these are

[1:04:38] private properties these are owners that

[1:04:40] should have to do what they will with

[1:04:41] the property but it should be encouraged

[1:04:43] and informed as to the benefits therein

[1:04:45] of maintaining a historic relevant

[1:04:47] building and that I mean when you look

[1:04:50] at the the wording of

[1:04:51] it in 111 17-8 section A

[1:04:56] this chapter of such property to

[1:04:58] demolish such property unless

[1:05:00] certificate appropriateness has been

[1:05:01] granted by the historic land commission

[1:05:03] unless a such certificate has been

[1:05:05] granted by the chpc the city's building

[1:05:08] inspection department shall not issue a

[1:05:10] permit license for such

[1:05:11] work it's not their position to say what

[1:05:14] you can and can't do with the property

[1:05:16] because building permits are for you

[1:05:18] know legalities and safety not for

[1:05:21] aesthetic and it may sound harsh to say

[1:05:25] that and I I love history I live in an

[1:05:26] old home myself but it's where does the

[1:05:29] authority line draw and I think that it

[1:05:31] should be completely advisory and

[1:05:34] educational and everything should just

[1:05:36] go they can dull out the certificate of

[1:05:38] appropriateness under the guidelines

[1:05:40] that they have that's totally fine but

[1:05:42] it shouldn't be you do it our way or you

[1:05:44] don't do it at all and that's my only

[1:05:46] contention to this entire thing

[1:05:48] otherwise you know obviously clean up

[1:05:50] the language but that's the only thing

[1:05:52] that I really have an issue with on the

[1:05:53] entire concept

[1:05:57] um in my hearing then quickly that would

[1:06:00] it be prudent to have Attorney Johnson

[1:06:03] review and look for any inconsistencies

[1:06:07] that we need to be aware of before the

[1:06:09] recommendation to go to plan commission

[1:06:11] is

[1:06:15] accepted thank you for laughing

[1:06:19] Ian sorry I wasn't TR I was trying not

[1:06:22] well um I will do whatever I am directed

[1:06:27] to do I have not looked at this

[1:06:29] ordinance again for several months now

[1:06:32] and I really have no idea what has

[1:06:35] happened since the last time I have uh I have looked at it so I'm happy to help

[1:06:42] and do whatever is is necessary and as

[1:06:46] long as I have the floor just a short

[1:06:49] reminder as as to the process going

[1:06:51] forward here um at some point in time

[1:06:55] this ordinance has has to leave the ad

[1:06:59] hoc committee and it has to leave the

[1:07:01] committee of the whole and it has to go

[1:07:04] to the uh plan commission for a public

[1:07:08] hearing just because it's a zoning

[1:07:10] related ordinance and then after it gets

[1:07:14] out of the plan commission then it goes

[1:07:16] to the city council for the final

[1:07:19] whatever happens at the city council so

[1:07:21] there are still several steps left but

[1:07:23] they answer uh all motiv question um

[1:07:27] I'll do whatever you need me to

[1:07:29] do well ordinance ad hoc is

[1:07:32] done to quote you from a previous uh

[1:07:36] email it's off our plates we're done um

[1:07:40] so if it gets reviewed I would like it

[1:07:43] to be reviewed by Attorney Johnson

[1:07:45] before it goes to the plan commission

[1:07:49] and then just move it to the plan

[1:07:50] commission with his

[1:07:54] notes does that make

[1:07:59] sense Alder

[1:08:01] gray um Attorney Johnson in your opinion

[1:08:04] is there anything inherently wrong with

[1:08:07] our existing ordinance or any real

[1:08:09] reason that we need

[1:08:11] this uh in

[1:08:18] um inherently wrong no um the power

[1:08:26] grab uh came about

[1:08:29] because of the

[1:08:32] realization that the

[1:08:35] hlpc was the first and final answer on

[1:08:39] some

[1:08:40] topics and ever since that's what

[1:08:43] started this whole process was uh a

[1:08:46] couple people who didn't like that idea

[1:08:50] and ever since then we've been going

[1:08:52] back and forth uh with the issue of who

[1:08:57] makes the final call here is this a hlpc

[1:09:01] making a recommendation and the council

[1:09:02] making a final approval or is this an

[1:09:05] hlpc making a decision and the common

[1:09:09] Council being an appeal body and that's what has been and and that is

[1:09:15] what Ian pointed out in the

[1:09:17] discrepancies that are that sound like

[1:09:19] they're in the ordinance still is that

[1:09:23] there's a lot of there's been a lot back

[1:09:25] and forth on that particular topic and I

[1:09:30] think if if the counil wants me to read

[1:09:35] through this and try to clean things up

[1:09:38] I need to have a very definite answer on

[1:09:40] that point uh as to exactly what is is this hlpc decision and Council appeal

[1:09:48] or is this hlpc recommendation and

[1:09:51] Council decision that that is the single

[1:09:54] most important issue that I still don't

[1:09:57] know if there's an answer to thank you

[1:09:59] that's exactly what I'm trying to get at

[1:10:02] and if the intention is for it to be a

[1:10:05] CH LPC decision and a council appeal is

[1:10:09] there any reason to change our existing

[1:10:14] ordinance I I am not 100 I don't think

[1:10:19] and and I'm not 100% positive on this

[1:10:22] because it's been so long since I've

[1:10:23] looked at it but I don't think that

[1:10:26] there is an appeal mechanism to the

[1:10:29] council in the existing ordinance and if

[1:10:32] there is that's fine um but I I seem to

[1:10:36] remember when this blew up six seven

[1:10:39] years ago that that was the big issue

[1:10:41] that there was that there was no appeal

[1:10:43] to the council it was an appeal

[1:10:45] someplace

[1:10:47] else Al Alder so excuse me I'm sorry

[1:10:51] Alder motive had her light on I'll get

[1:10:53] back to you after Alder motive and Alder

[1:10:54] read also I'm sorry it's hard because I

[1:10:56] can't even see you guys so I know I

[1:10:59] apologize from the meetings uh the

[1:11:01] ordinance ad hoc meetings which this CHL

[1:11:05] PC was there um we did talk through

[1:11:09] issues um in and things uh that they

[1:11:12] would like in the um ordinance and and

[1:11:16] we of course interjected some things for

[1:11:18] the city um but it was the intent that

[1:11:22] the CH

[1:11:23] LPC be able to issue a certificate of

[1:11:28] appropriateness and then the council is

[1:11:33] the appeal

[1:11:34] body I believe you're right Attorney

[1:11:37] Johnson and the way that it is is that

[1:11:39] it's the uh Circuit Court that's the

[1:11:41] appeal body currently

[1:11:45] correct we were trying to keep it out of

[1:11:47] the circuit court if we could well I I I

[1:11:51] think that's how I remember it and that

[1:11:54] was not not appealing to

[1:11:56] anybody bad pun

[1:11:59] sorry Alder

[1:12:01] Reed oh uh thank you yes at this point

[1:12:07] I'm thinking of just leaving the

[1:12:10] ordinance as it as is for a while um it

[1:12:16] sounds like we as a council need to go

[1:12:20] through this with a fine tooth cone and

[1:12:23] perhaps just change one tiny section on

[1:12:27] um the appeals

[1:12:30] process Alder

[1:12:33] gray um I mean honestly I think Alder

[1:12:36] read is on to something if our current

[1:12:39] appeals process isn't sufficient why

[1:12:41] don't we just make an amendment to the

[1:12:43] current one instead of re creating the

[1:12:46] wheel like if we need a better appeals

[1:12:48] process amend the current one for

[1:12:50] appeals process but this is I mean this

[1:12:54] ordinance has been going on for

[1:12:57] literally years and it still is nowhere

[1:13:01] and it still makes no sense and it still

[1:13:03] contradicts itself we can hope it gets

[1:13:05] fixed in public comments and forums and

[1:13:08] things of that nature but it hasn't

[1:13:10] gotten fixed for

[1:13:11] years and the current ordinance isn't

[1:13:14] broken there's nothing really wrong with

[1:13:16] it maybe the appeal process could be

[1:13:19] better amend the appeal process like I

[1:13:22] don't understand why we are subjecting

[1:13:25] ourselves and our entire Community to

[1:13:27] this like absurdity and why it's been

[1:13:31] sitting here

[1:13:35] forever aler Steiner Alder

[1:13:37] motive it seems like we haven't made a

[1:13:40] decision on this particular ordinance so

[1:13:43] I this isn't going to go

[1:13:45] forward that's for certain no

[1:13:50] um I'm fine with just amending the the

[1:13:54] other ordinance if that's what needs to

[1:13:56] be done um I just don't know really how

[1:14:00] to answer that at the moment

[1:14:04] without further research Ruth do you

[1:14:07] want to come up to the

[1:14:10] podium hi there I'm Ruth Hermanson CH

[1:14:13] LPC chair um I've been dealing with the

[1:14:16] ordinances for about seven years and um

[1:14:20] well remember um the library Annex

[1:14:25] building and what we did there we

[1:14:27] followed the ordinances because if there

[1:14:30] was if they were going to tear it down

[1:14:33] we needed to have a public hearing and

[1:14:36] um it was my understanding I don't have

[1:14:38] the ordinance in front of me but um we

[1:14:41] had to follow that procedure and we knew

[1:14:46] that um we don't have even at the state

[1:14:50] level we don't have that kind of power

[1:14:53] to say you're not going to tear this

[1:14:55] building down what what might happen

[1:14:58] through the process such as a public

[1:15:00] hearing um that it is what what they

[1:15:05] City ends up is a picture of the

[1:15:07] building that was there maybe some

[1:15:08] history about it and they build whatever

[1:15:11] they want to build it's I don't want to

[1:15:13] say we're powerless but we're we have

[1:15:16] the power going through the process to

[1:15:20] educate people and then they can make

[1:15:22] the decision and back then and it was my

[1:15:26] understanding and

[1:15:28] um Attorney Johnson I I can't remember

[1:15:31] either it would be that we'd go through

[1:15:33] the process and then for some reason I

[1:15:36] thought then it would go to city council

[1:15:38] and I might be totally wrong on that

[1:15:40] that's like seven years ago um I do

[1:15:44] we've run it by the state several times

[1:15:47] um Joe D Ro was here probably six years

[1:15:50] ago and then Jason Tish was out here

[1:15:53] they love our ordinances they they've

[1:15:55] commented that there's a appeals process

[1:15:58] in it they said whoever wrote These they

[1:16:01] allowed for every type of what if and if

[1:16:05] we just need to amend something because

[1:16:08] right now none of us can answer that

[1:16:09] question on on the appeals process we

[1:16:13] would be in full agreement with it the

[1:16:15] copy that was

[1:16:18] um we've had so many copies and and so

[1:16:21] forth and the copy you have in hand

[1:16:24] right now

[1:16:25] it's limiting our powers it's it's

[1:16:27] bringing us down to like five members

[1:16:30] and um it

[1:16:33] it's not a lot of people have seen that

[1:16:36] copy um until the last ad hoc meeting so

[1:16:39] we we did not have a meeting and say

[1:16:42] yeah we're in full agreement with that

[1:16:44] because we weren't asked to do that okay

[1:16:47] so for

[1:16:49] clarification that copy that you have in

[1:16:51] the packet um was a big surprise to us

[1:16:56] it it didn't reflect all the changes

[1:16:59] from all the previous meetings and I

[1:17:03] think we just need to move forward as

[1:17:05] simply as possible because otherwise

[1:17:08] we're splitting hairs and if we can just

[1:17:10] make that simple Amendment after

[1:17:12] Attorney Johnson reviews it chlp PC

[1:17:16] would be

[1:17:17] gladly in form of keeping it the other

[1:17:20] thing that I do want to tell you is on

[1:17:23] these um COA

[1:17:26] um I don't believe in my serving on the

[1:17:30] commission not once I don't think it got

[1:17:33] appealed um basically people can do what

[1:17:38] they want with your building okay

[1:17:41] they're not going to get tax credits for

[1:17:42] it and um there is a process that they

[1:17:46] have to follow we're not going to tell

[1:17:47] anybody what color to paint their

[1:17:49] building if they ask us or we can make

[1:17:51] some suggestions our duty is to inform

[1:17:55] and educate and so they can make the

[1:17:58] best decision and you know as far as

[1:18:01] like little critiquing like backlighting

[1:18:03] this or that then we follow the

[1:18:05] ordinances from the national parks um

[1:18:08] and it's it's all stipulated in the

[1:18:10] ordinance very well so we we try and you

[1:18:16] know I I would hope that we could just

[1:18:18] keep the existing ordinances make those

[1:18:20] simple amendments after Attorney Johnson

[1:18:24] goes through it and that would be the

[1:18:27] commission's view I believe and we have

[1:18:29] a meeting tomorrow we can talk about it

[1:18:31] then

[1:18:32] too thank you so much thank you aler

[1:18:37] Steiner looking at how this has all come

[1:18:39] through in the different versions we've

[1:18:41] seen just amending the ordinance we have

[1:18:43] would be the easiest simplest and

[1:18:44] quickest way to get this done there

[1:18:46] wasn't that many changes done there's a

[1:18:48] couple things here and there and some

[1:18:50] wording here and there so I'm good if we

[1:18:52] choose to go through and just amend that

[1:18:54] which we have I was kind of wondering

[1:18:56] why we didn't do that to begin with but

[1:18:58] right however we do it we do it so let's

[1:19:01] get this done and and wrap it up

[1:19:02] whatever issues that that come up and

[1:19:05] have a better ordinance

[1:19:08] afterwards um Alder

[1:19:12] gr yeah thank you I think I think where

[1:19:15] we went wrong and where this all went

[1:19:17] astray is this was this entire new

[1:19:21] ordinance was created as a power gri to

[1:19:25] take power away from the CH LPC by

[1:19:28] members of our government that have not

[1:19:29] been members of our government for many years and it's been going back and

[1:19:34] forth through things and people have

[1:19:36] been trying to perfect it but really the

[1:19:38] overall heart of this new ordinance is

[1:19:42] basically the same as the old one like

[1:19:44] there's no reason for us to have this

[1:19:47] new ordinance all we really need to do

[1:19:49] if the appeals process isn't robust

[1:19:52] enough or appropriate amend that

[1:19:55] because the even the ad hoc committee

[1:19:58] basically put forward is trying to put

[1:20:00] forward basically the same ordinance

[1:20:02] it's just it's been altered so many

[1:20:05] times by so many people that there's a

[1:20:07] bunch of just inconsistencies in it now

[1:20:10] whereas the original one isn't like that

[1:20:13] the original one makes

[1:20:16] sense is everybody comfortable with the

[1:20:19] idea of revisiting this as just an

[1:20:21] amendment of The appeals process after

[1:20:24] Paul Paul and Matt and the CH LPC

[1:20:26] whoever needs to weigh in on that weighs

[1:20:28] in on that yes yes do we want to put a

[1:20:31] return date on this so that we can

[1:20:33] review it in a timely fashion Alder

[1:20:37] gray I don't think we need a lot of

[1:20:39] people to weigh in on it I think really

[1:20:41] the appeal section is all that needs to

[1:20:44] be looked at if Attorney Johnson can

[1:20:46] look at the appeal section and make a

[1:20:48] recommendation for that to come forward

[1:20:49] to council I think that's really all we

[1:20:52] need okay

[1:20:55] Attorney Johnson do you know what you

[1:20:56] need to

[1:20:58] know no absolutely not okay uh I I will start with Alder Gray's

[1:21:04] suggestion and I'll have something to

[1:21:06] you by uh

[1:21:09] September okay that's fair I will have

[1:21:11] something I can okay thank you very

[1:21:14] much um any further discussion on that

[1:21:19] no one one more thing uh for whatever

[1:21:22] it's worth the existing organ has never

[1:21:25] been repealed M exactly it's still in

[1:21:28] effect yeah

[1:21:30] so I I don't even really know what that

[1:21:33] means but there is still an ordinance

[1:21:35] out the

[1:21:36] book

[1:21:38] okay good to know all right um with that

[1:21:43] I am looking for a motion to

[1:21:46] adjourn

[1:21:47] um second I have a motion to adjourn

[1:21:50] from Alder gray a second from Alder

[1:21:52] motive any

[1:21:53] discussion all those in favor I okay we are adjourned thank you

Columbus, WI Council and C.O.W. meetings from 1-23-2024

Transcript