for
I can hear you
yes we can't there's no image of it for
the city or anyone but
for
far as I'm concerned you can go with
audio as long as everybody can
hear
okay good evening everyone and welcome
to tonight's Columbus common Council
regular meeting mayor Hammer is on
vacation tonight so I will be leading
both meetings
tonight um it is Tuesday January 23rd
and it is uh 6:34 p.m. and Pat if I
could have a roll call
please
gray present motive present Reed here
Roki present Steiner
here
okay uh mayor hammer and Alder finkler
are EXC used and then uh if you could
please join me for the Pledge of
Allegiance I pledge alance to the flag
of the United States of America and to
the Republic for which it stands one
nation God indivisible withy and justice
for
all tonight's meeting has been properly
noticed and uh at this time I will will
take a motion to approve tonight's
agenda Alder Motif will make a motion to
approve tonight's agenda Steiner can
second thank you I have a motion from
Alder Motif and a second from Alder
Steiner any
discussion all those in favor I I any
opposed all right uh at this time uh we
will open the floor up to correspondence
and communication looks like I did have
one person signed the signin sheet David
did you want to speak at the regular
meeting or at the Cow
um okay go ahead and step up to the
podium the mic is on if you would please
just State your full name and your
address of residence absolutely uh David
J St 551 West Harrison Street Columbus
Wisconsin um as new residents of
Columbus Brian and I are still staunchly
opposed to raising the historic Dy Farm
in favor of uh 2 and a half acres or
less of housing um anyone who fails the
same I I encourage them to visit saved
.org U that's a website we created to
help save the farm um The public's kind
of still waiting for an explanation from
the mayor as to why the deal was dead uh
it was said that there was a stalemate
negotiation any stalemate must have been
internal to the city government because
as far as we could tell negotiations
were proceeding well and in good faith
um the mayor also said that public
support was split on that topic uh he
may recall a meeting that he attended in
September with our attorney where he and
the city staff said that public
involvement and the discussion was not
productive um so as a result when people
would ask us what can we do to help we
would say hey just let let the process
run its course right uh and then
essentially we were told to tone down
public support and then the mayor
claimed that the public wasn't
supportive enough which seems a bit
paradoxical to
us finally concerns about arpa look
nothing changed about arpa between July
25th and November 7th and furthermore
our attorney called us the day after the
vote happened and said that arpa wasn't
discussed a single time during the
negotiations not once
um and the question remains like what
was so compelling in the mayor's own
research that his view completely
changed from July 25th to November
7th so now we here are again with the
RFP for the dingi farm appearing on the
city's website on 16th January uh this
RFP was never voted on um at the
December 5th meeting the RFP was
discussed but no action was taken and in
fact the motion was tabled to discuss at
the January 9th meeting and then at the
January 9th meeting it didn't appear on
the agenda and it also wasn't discussed
again
um and then despite this the RFP
appeared in the city website on January
16th and is still up right now I I
suggest that the council and mayor
consult with the city staff about
whether or not posting this RFP
constitutes a violation of open meeting
law um if I remember correctly at the
conclusion of the last RFP process
council members stated the process was
rushed and therefore somehow flawed from
the start it seems this time around the
solution is to somehow go faster I I
don't quite understand that this new RFP
aims to have a contract awarded by the
April elections assigned contract within
3 mon months I mean let's put aside the
fact that this city strung us along for
5 months but how about some honesty
about what the goals are here and why
the pressure to move so quickly um our
ask is simple that this decision on the
farm be put off until after the election
let people vote the way they feel about
the farm it's become a hot button issue
we understand that um that's all I'm
here to ask about thanks so much for
your time thank
you I do have a letter to read in that
was sent to the council as well um dated
January
22nd and this is from uh Nathan R
anenson address 253 Meadow Lane uh the
letter States dear members of the
Columbus city council I write to express
my deep concern and frustration over the
handling of the dingy Farm which has
brought negative attention to Columbus
due to the Reckless decisions of the
city council and the misuse of taxpayer
money the rushed decision to purchase
dingy Farm using federal arpa funds
without thorough consideration of its
historical significance and suitability
for housing development is deeply
troubling discovering that only 2.5 of
the 7.55 acres are usable for housing
raises questions about the city
council's due diligence in this matter
such hasty decisions not only jeopardize
the city's Financial interests but also
risk the destruction of a valuable
historical asset the public outcry
underscores the community's strong
opposition to Housing Development on
that property and the potential
demolition of dingi farm particularly
disheartening is uh the dismissal of the
only wellth thought out proposal
submitted through the RFP process a
Visionary plan presented by Dave and
Brian The Proposal outlined a
comprehensive timeline and vision for
the farm that positioned it to become a
destination in Columbus fostering the
community engagement and cultural
appreciation it is crucial to note that
there were was a discussion in December
to hold off on further action until
February but no vote was taken to send
the property out to RFP the timing of
the release of the RFP or the property
last week raises serious his concerns
about the transparency and fairness of
the process adding to the concerns is
the lack of transparency regarding the
rejection of the only submitted proposal
I urge the mayor and the City attorney
to release a detailed report explaining
why the RFP from Dave and briyan was not
selected the community deserves a clear
understanding of the decision-making
process and the criteria used to
evaluate proposals additionally it is
deeply troubling that the mayor has yet
to produce any written evidence from his
supposed research justifying the support
for raising the property until concrete
evidence surfaces the mayor's claim
remains unsubstantiated and raises
questions about the transparency of the
decision-making process public support
for such a drastic measure should be
based on factual information and not
left to
conjecture it appears the city council
is not genuinely interested in
preserving history or listening to the
concerns of the public the decision to
get the property back on the tax rooll
and sell it to the only party that
submitted a proposal seems like a
logical and responsible course of action
Dave and Brian's plan aligns with the
community's values offering a thoughtful
and sustainable approach to dingy Farm's
future I implore the city council to
reconsider its stance prioritize
historic preservation and rectify the
negative image Columbus has acquired due
to the imprudent decisions surrounding
dingi Farm the community deserves a
transparent and accountable government
that values its history and actively
engages with its constituents it is my
sincere hope that the city council will
take immediate action to correct the
situation restore faith in the
decision-making process and ensure
dingji Farm is preserved for future
Generations thank you for your attention
to this urgent matter assigned Nathan R
aninston
um I do know a couple of other people
wandered in uh after Community
correspondence and Communications began
is there anybody who did not get a
chance to sign up who wanted to speak at
this meeting okay
um is Alder
GRE um I would just like a clarification
Attorney Johnson um are citizen comment
not by Orin me to be on topics that are
actually on the agenda and if they are
not on the agenda it needs a vote to be
approved during citizen comments and
citizen comments that aren't on the
agenda are meant to go in between
meetings according to ordinance we're
supposed to have the time for them to
talk to us about things that aren't on
the agenda but this
is allowing the gentleman in the
audience to speak is one thing that's
polite but reading a letter that isn't
even an agenda item is completely
against
protocol
um in my time in the city of
Columbus the common Council has done
pretty much the same thing uh with
public comment which is to allow people
to speak on any topic that they wish at
uh during the public
comment um
the reading of letters into the record
is something that is sometimes done and
sometimes hasn't been done but the
public comment has
been um always on whatever topic anybody
wants to speak on uh having said that I
think that we should alter our ordinance
if that's how we want it to do that is
not thre and that's not how I conducted
meeting Alder gray if you could please
let Attorney Johnson finish yes I was
trying to answer and I was going exactly
down the path you were you wanted to go
if you read your ordinance the ordinance
uh I believe is very clear that all
public comment is done at the end of the
council meeting off
camera uh and pretty much after all of
the uh proceedings have been
concluded and the in the 12 years that
I've been uh with the city that has
never happened
uh so the ordinance says one thing your
protocol is something completely
different and it and I do not know how
the protocol became what it is but that
is what is so if you want to go back you
certainly can and if you want to change
how you want to do things you certainly
can that just hasn't been the way it's
been done for uh many many years um
until recently we didn't have citizen
comments on random iics that W on the
agenda record a letter that was not on
the agenda
until we can address this another time
this is also not on the agenda um
anybody have any comments to add
otherwise I'm going to move forward a
point of order which I can do at any
point in time it doesn't need to be on
the
agenda thank you hey I'd like to say
something real quick uh citizen comment
still is that okay we haven't moved past
that yet all right I'm John sswi 841
Park Avenue uh I'm a big-time uh
historic Advocate I know you guys all
know that I've been involved with the
hlpc in the past and the auditorium
Corporation in the past we do have a a
pretty rare example of a intact
Farmstead in Columbus I think a lot of
people did like these guys' vision and I I know that a lot of talking to you
guys singly you there's a lot of support
for historic preservation but just not
for this it seems like and I don't I
don't really care what anybody's
individual thought is on it but I just
would like to see some some continuity
from our Council and see people stop the
infighting get together and get back to
work this is an embarrassment come on
you're better than
that go ahead
I'm Ruth Hermanson 986 Warner Street
Columbus Wisconsin highly involved in
the historic preservation of this
community I would just like to add yes
let let's put our best foot forward and
look together work together and with
democracy um you know
individuals you were all elected and to
represent your
constituents that live in your district
and I feel that you have to put that
above your own self feelings and that's
all I'm going to say thank
you next item on the agenda is to
approve tonight's consent agenda I will
take a motion for that at this
time I'll motive will make a motion to
approve tonight's consent agenda read V
seconds thank you I have a motion from
Alder motive and a second from Alder
Reed is there any
discussion
okay um all those in favor I any
opposed okay uh consent agenda is
approved first item up for new business
is to consider and take action on
agreement designating Highway 73 as a
connecting Highway and so I'm looking
for a motion to approve
um agreement for connecting Highway
change I know the packet does not
include the number but um at the last
meeting as a reminder Jason Lea says he
does have that number and it doesn't
impact the decision so I'm looking for a
motion to
approve uh Reed will move move to make
Highway 73
um west
of
89 to Heritage way uh connecting
Highway aler motive full second okay I
have a motion from Alder Reed and a
second from Alder Motif is there any
discussion okay hearing none all those
in favor I any
opposed okay motion carries next item on
the agenda is to consider and take
action on the conditional use permit for
marquart RV
LLC um looking for a motion to
approve Al steinon will make a motion to
approve the cup for Mar cour RV
LLC Alder Motif will second thank you I
have a motion from Alder Seiner and a
second from Alder Motif is there any
discussion yes okay
thank you it's the voice of it's not the
voice of God but it's the voice of
um if you re if you look at the uh staff
memo that is in your packet uh if you
please will incorporate conditions 1
through 11 into your motion I would
greatly appreciate
it uh Al Steiner will resend last motion
and make a new motion to approve the
conditional use permit from Mark Court
RV LLC with the conditions 1- 11 as
stated in the memo thank you Alder
motive will uh second the
altered
motion okay I have a uh motion from
Alder Steiner and a second from Alder
Motif any further
discussion Al oh uh well now I have a
question uh so this is not changing
ownership there's a renter that's going
to now have RVs instead of
cars ises my understanding yes okay I'm
the owner of the two properties I can
answer
question okay yeah go ahead yes please
oh up to the mic
sorry we're Audio Only
today hi my name my name is Troy Gates
I'm the owner of gates Auto in uh Gates
home properties so um marcard RV is
buying the 200 Commerce building for
myself Gat Stone properties that was the
former shopo building and they're
converting that into a um markart RV
dealership thank you thank you you're
welcome anything
else any further questions or
discussion okay uh seeing none since we
do have a uh Motion in a second I will
I'm looking for a vote all those in
favor I I I any any
opposed okay motion passes next item on
the agenda is to consider and take
action on salaried sworn officers
overtime uh paid for by the Grant and
I'm looking for a motion to
approve Alder motive will make a motion
to approve the salaried sworn members of
the Columbus Police Department
to be eligible to earn overtime
exclusively for Highway Safety
enforcement Grant
programs Steiner can second I have a
motion from Alder moti and a second from
Alder Steiner any further discussion or
questions okay hearing none all those in
favor we a roll call oh do we need a
roll call on oh we do my apologies
because there is a
pay involved we will need a roll call
vote on
this
great
I um motive I Reed I Roki I Steiner I
motion
carries okay uh next item on the agenda
is to consider and take action
concerning ordinance number
78624 an ordinance to repeal and
recreate section 1026 one of the city of
Columbus code of
ordinances and the first item I'm
looking for is to consider and take
action to suspend the rules for
ordinance
78624 can I don't think we
can Alder Steiner will make a motion to
suspend the rules for ordinance 78
6-24 Alder motive for second
okay I have a motion from Alder Steiner
and a second from Alder motive to
suspend the rules for ordinance
78624 any
discussion okay do we need do we need a
roll call for this as well Pat okay all
those in favor I any
opposed okay uh the next item would be
to consider and take action to wave the
reading for ordinance
78624 all stand will make the motion to
wave the readings for ordinance
786-2412 okay I have a motion from Alder
Steiner and a second from Alder motive
to wave the readings for ordinance
78624 any
discussion okay hearing none all those
in favor I I I I any
opposed okay and uh the next item is to
take action to adopt ordinance 7
86-24 H Steiner will'll take action to
adopt the ordinance make a motion to
adopt the ordinance
78624 motive will second okay I have a
motion from Alder Steiner and a second
from Alder motive to adopt ordinance
78624 any
discussion okay hearing none all those
in favor I okay any opposed
all right the ordinance passes um next
item on the agenda is to consider and
take action to carry forward designated
funds um this Crystal did you have
anything to we talked about it two weeks
ago
but any questions or okay then I'll take
a motion to uh carry forward designated
funds Alder Motif will make a motion to
um
to move unspent designated funds to the
general fund uh totaling
79358
48 for three future projects one fir Tru
Restoration in the amount of 27
35848 two fire pumper truck purchase in
the amount of
350,000 and and
three public safety building in the
amount of
45,700 Steiner can
second okay I have a motion from Alder
MTI and a second from Alder Steiner any
discussion Alder Reed oh thank you uh I
had a question on the language
so um it was to move all of those funds
and then it was said to the general
funds but um should we have stated to
the general fund as
designated I'm not sure did I say back
yes myself sorry guys I said it
backwards um I'm gonna alter that
motion and we are going to take the
unspent general funds and move them to
Des designated funds and do I need
to say all the designations
again think so just as read before as
read
before thank you Steiner will second
that okay have a motion from Alder Motif
and a second from Alder Steiner and I
will take a roll call vote
please great
I motive I Reed I Roki I Steiner I
motion carries
okay uh the next item on the agenda is
to consider and take action on the CH
LPC water tower
fund I will take a moment and speak for
this item because we did have some
questions last time so we do have two
members from the historical group here
to speak if you'd like they can
personally vouch for um the request that
is being presented to you we
specifically
discussed the design the two pieces of
designated funds that have been sitting
in designated funds for several years
one of which was
1,580 39 cents classified as City Hall
Clock Tower repairs and um
it's consensus that even if it was Clock
Tower it's not necessary to be Clock
Tower and they would like those move to
the water tower fund um and also the
2006
4971 that was classified histor
preservation so if you'd like to just
take a moment I'll let them vouch for
what you're seeing here
[Applause]
good evening Henry Ellen I'm the
secretary of the historic preservation
and landmarks commission uh 650 South
Charles Street I'm very grateful that
the treasurer brought this forward and
uh we have discussed additional funds
that are sitting in the various City uh
Records at the historic preservation
commission and our hope is to have this
money along with the additional money on
the other account forwarded for us into
our uh maintenance of the water tower we
have that set aside for long term
because there's the potential that there
would be additional need for work on the
tower itself and we're hoping to acquire
up to $25,000 into that fund and at that
point then we'll find another place to
start setting aside monies for other
historic properties but the primary use
of this would be if there was tuck
pointing required especially up towards
the the top of the building you'd have
to have a speal special equipment that
would be needed for that
so that's our hope thank
you just a note for when you're what do
you call it when you're reading
your the the motion yeah if you wouldn't
mind specifically stating that
there's the four pieces because they are
two designated funds right now that need
to be included and if you look at the
little summary above where it says
listed
support though um there's all the dollar
amounts so 1,500 from the 2022 budget
1500 from the 2023 budget and the two
designated funds
that way I can move them correctly take
get taken care so then the total you're
looking for crystal is the 7,230 And1
okay thank
you all right um so I will take a motion
to um move the
$723 and10 forward um for CHL LPC water
tower
funds okay aler gray moves to um for the
to move the
$723 10 cents which includes the $1,500
from 2022 15500 from 2023 in the water
tower fund the
15839 and the 2006
4971 um to be moved and given to the CH
LPC for future water tower projects um
in fun two 5 3
474 Alder Steiner second okay I have a
motion from Alder gray and a second from
Alder Steiner any
discussion okay can I please have a roll
call
Pat motive I Reed I Roki I Steiner I gr
I motion carries okay thank you next
item on the agenda is to consider and
take action on salary adjustment during
Public Works superintendent
vacancy um so specifically what I'm
looking for is a motion to approve back
pay amounting to
$3,675 uh which is 49 weeks at $75 per
week from 2023 and a weekly stipend of
$75 starting the first pay period in
February um or we could uh according to
Pat choose to begin going forward
immediately um at our discretion uh for
the DP W administrative assistant and
the stien to be reviewed by the city
administrator and mayor do not
have in our
packets I she just gave that to me to
read uh Al their Motif will make a
motion to approve back pay in the amount
of
$3,675 from 2023 and a weekly stipend of
$75 starting the first pay period of
February for the DPW administrative
assistant and the stien be reviewed by
the city administrator and the
mayor
yeah read a second okay I have a motion
from Alder Motif and a second from Alder
Reed any
discussion okay hearing none um can I
please have a roll call P
Reed I Roki I Steiner I
gray i m i motion carries thank you next
item on the agenda is to consider and
take action on claims in the amount of
2,315
1847 Alder Motif will make a motion to
approve the claims in the amount of 2,
315,000
$847 Steiner was second okay I have a
motion from Alder motive and a second
from Alder Steiner any
discussion okay may I please have a roll
call Pat R key I Steiner I
gray I mo i Reed I motion carries okay
next on the agenda is report of City
officers um Matt did you have a report
for
today um just three items briefly to
educate the council in public on um you
may have noticed we're doing recap of
Council meetings and trying to post
those on the website and social media
the day after Council meetings just to
kind of give a recap and and summarize
the action taken by Council um secondly
uh you may have also noticed that um
earlier today agenda comments were
posted just trying to better explain and
summarize the items on the council
agenda those were also on the website
and link to social media as well uh my
goals in moving forward is to get those
out on Friday along with the agenda
packet but again just trying to kind of
provide some greater clarification
sometimes the agendas are are the items
on the agenda get succinct and and are
hard to maybe understand if you haven't
served on counselor or are regularly in
city meetings so just two things that
we're doing to try and um kind of
increase of of what the council is is
doing both um as a recap and leading up
to meetings and then third um you know
as I've met with staff and Council it's
clear that 2023 was a significant year
of transition for the city of Columbus
um one of my goals for 2024 is to create
an action plan um so that it 2024 isn't
also viewed as another year of
transition and so um my hope is for the
next cow meeting uh in February that
we're able to kind of review that action
plan that I've worked um starting
tomorrow with staff on and and bring to
you um at the next meeting that's all I
have okay and I don't have any comments
on the mayor's behalf or my own so with
that um I will take a motion to
adjourn Motif will make a motion to
adjourn Steiner will second okay I have
a motion from Alder Motif and a second
from Alder Steiner any
discussion okay all those in favor
I we are adjourned does anybody need a
break before we go into the next meeting
or should we just roll right into
it
okay Ian are you good to just roll right
into the next meeting
okay good in that case good evening
ladies and gentlemen again and welcome
to tonight's Columbus common Council
Committee of the whole meeting it is
Tuesday January 23rd it is 7:07 p.m. and
with that I will take a roll
call
gr
present motive present Reed here Roki
present Steiner here vinkler and Hammer
excused okay tonight's meeting has been
properly noticed and I'm looking for a
motion to approve tonight's
agenda Alder Motif will make a motion to
approve tonight's
agenda Steiner will second okay I have a
motion from Alder motiff and a second
from Alder Steiner any
discussion okay all those in favor I I I
any opposed
okay we have approved the agenda um I
didn't see anybody else signed up for
citizen comments just one more time is
there anybody here who go ahead
Henry just ask that you turn the mic
back on and then restate your name and
address for the record thank you very
much Henry Ellen 650 South Charles
Street uh Secretary of the historic
preservation commission I see on your
agenda that you have uh discussion about
the the amended and updated historic
preservation ordinance I hope that you
will be able to forward this to the plan
commission this evening I encourage you
to do that I'm excited that you will be
able to do that um it's my understanding
that upon submission to the plan
commission they will review it and then
schedule a public hearing and my only
request is that uh the secretary of the
plan commission would send the historic
preservation Commissioners a notice
about that public hearing so we know
when it's coming thank you thank
you anybody else with public
comments
okay included in your packet tonight you
will find Department reports from fire
Library LifeStar police treasure and
wastewater treatment
plants um next item on the agenda is to
discuss tobacco license application for
last minute Vape I didn't know if we had
anybody here who wanted to speak on
that um doesn't look like it so I'll
open up the floor for any um discussion
comments
questions there any reason it came to
yeah all all
yeah are we comfortable moving this
forward for vote in two weeks okay um
next I item on the agenda is to discuss
purchase of rural fir Tru and Crystal
did you want to speak on that
one give me just a moment sure yeah
Madam president I have a few comments to
get things going certainly by all
means this is something that I am not
sure uh if the council knows anything
about this or if they do know something
about this I'm not sure how much um but
what is before you uh I think and I and
before I say anything else I'm not sure
how much I know about this to be quite
honest but what I think is before you is
a request from the rural Fire Group to
contribute to the purchase of a
new uh fire truck that will
replace um an existing piece of
equipment uh that is used by the fire
department and the rural Fire Group uh
the city
is party to an agreement with the rural
Fire group that directs and dictates how
some of the equipment is bought and used
and paid for um this is one of those uh
pieces of equipment uh the piece of
equipment that they're looking to
replace is number 92 which currently is
the 2000 Pierce saer pumper and it is
specifically referenced in the agreement
between the Fire group and the city that
dates back to
2018 um it's a jointly owned piece of
equipment um and I think they're looking
to replace it what I don't know the
answer to and and the reason that I
wanted to jump in right here is that
there's nothing in the current agreement
with the fire group that says what the
process is
for re purchasing a replacement piece of
equipment there's nothing in the
agreement that says uh what happens uh
to the piece of equipment that's being
replaced there's really just no rules in
this current agreement with the fire
group as to how this is supposed to be
handled um I I I'm I'm not saying that
to oppose this project or anything like
that but what I am suggesting is that if
this is going to move forward between
the time of now and the time of delivery
of the new truck if that occurs the city
and the Fire Group uh really should sit
down and review the agreement that they
have in place and make some amendments
to take into consideration this
particular
transaction um and that's all I have for
now okay thank you Chrystal go
ahead
ditto yeah we we have discussed those
items um this is the replacement truck
as Paul noted and it would be a 50/50
share and they're basing it on that the
agreement and um what you see here is
the um it started with the 2023 budget
some of it was put in there they didn't
have everything finalized yet it kind of
came right after the budget but we do
have our final numbers we're looking at
20 2026 or 2027 budget year to be able
to budget for the rest of the half our
half um what we need to do though here
is to get the ability to get the
contract going for the purchase so it's
going to take some steps but step one is
to get a
contract do you have any questions on
that because we do have the RO Fire
Group here to answer questions also
they're the ones who worked on the RFP
and the contract as I kind of summarized
for you aler um I had a question because
there was a a mention in here about
emission standards changing in
2726 is that going to be an issue with
the vehicle that we're designing and
building Come Those Years um I do have
an adjustment to the dollar amount that
I put in here I was looking at the piece
of the fire Tru only to give you a a
range I used the fire trucks um the
price that
were um looking at trying to secure the
1.1 162 676
and not to exceed 1,225 that was giving
a 5% increase in case we can't get
things closed till later in February
we're pushing for that original number
but we do need to include the other
pieces because those will be handled
somehow during that process so instead
of using um not to exceed 1.22 5 million
I need to use the we need to use the
overall cost which is on the second page
of the summary that the rural Fire Group
provided to us and it's 1,270
8980 and if you notice on that page it
does that's where you picked it up
from and that would include the 45,000
increase in emissions if that has to
happen so then you're looking to not
exceed
1,27 8980 is that correct cor okay all
right thank
you oh thank you uh two questions um
first one do we think we'll likely be
able to put twice the amount that we
currently have set
aside and have that ready to go in 2 3
years um might this be something we
could bond
for what are options both both are yes
and yes um pieces of it can be set as
we've already done our our 2024 budget
unless we wanted to do an amendment
sometime this year so we'd look at a
2025 budget can you can budget for it
and set it aside just like we have here
with the 350 we did a moment ago in in
Council we set the 350 aside already and
then so you could do some in
2025 and then the remainder in 26 or
27 and at the at that time um I mean any
of the years you could actually put it
into a bond and hold it or wait for
another year we are going to do bonding
because we're doing bonding in
2024 we won't most likely we'll be doing
it again in
2025 uh thank you and then when is our
current contract with the rule group up
for a negotiation again a DAT the
contract
expires can I I'm sorry can I just have
you come up so that Alder gr can hear
you too yeah let's get John up here the
Pres the r um the if I remember
correctly the current contract expires
at uh 2027 so I would recommend um
depending on what you folks feel that
probably here sometime in the next year
we should probably get together and
start reviewing it it's going to take
some time probably should be some
changes made um I agree with your your
City attorney um there's some things
that probably aren't as clear as they
should be and uh so I I would say you
know
probably I'd have to talk to the rest of
my group but I you know I would say
probably towards the end of this year
beginning and part of 2025 we should
probably get working on it we're not
going to be crunched for time and get
something in place that's going to be
beneficial for both both parties
involved thank
you aler motive I would like to see
those negotiations St in you know soon
in
2024 rather than waiting to 2025 if we
can um and I do I would like
clarification from Attorney Johnson do
we need that contract uh
revised before we move this
forward first uh I I I was looking at
the agreement and it does expire
December 31 of 2027 so that is correct
uh unless terminated earlier by the fire
group uh I think um as far as this
particular piece of equipment is
concerned
you can do
this uh several different ways I think
um a very short amendment to Simply deal
with the new with the new
vehicle um would be a relatively simple
process um if you're looking at doing
some more wholesale changes uh then uh
the sooner you start on those changes
the better off you will be because you
have multiple parties here uh and and
each of the parties needs to go back to
their has to has to weigh in and and
give approval so that it's going to be a
uh slightly clumsy process just because
of the amount of municipalities that are
involved uh at at the at the beginning
um so the sooner you start the the
better but we certainly can carve out
this one piece of
equipment um if necessary because like I
said uh it's going to be replacing a
piece that's already in the agreement
it's just that there's no mechanism for
what happens to you know what happens to
this new piece of equipment once it
comes into the fold so to speak
okay so so then I would like to
recommend that we work on the
amendment prior to the council moving
this
forward um and bring the amendment
forward and we review do it
again I would comment that these prices
are ending this has been out there for
how many months now in
2023 yeah and it's already gone up since
then so you're looking at another 5%
increase if we go past in very far into
February can I say one
sure I don't have a copy of that
contract in front of me so maybe uh the
attorney could tell me I think it's I
think it's stated in that contract that
it's own 5050 and then the maintenance
is split 50/50 with the city is that
correct yes there there's language in
there that that repairs and maintenance
for for a vehicle 92 are specifically
addressed and it is a 50/50 on repair
and maintenance so um I just wasn't able
to find anything that says here's how we buy a new vehicle to
replace this one and here's what happens
to the old vehicle once it's being
decommissioned for lack of a better term
or maybe it's not going to be
decommissioned I don't
know so I guess I'm a little confused on
what the amendment would do because we
already got an outline of of you know
we're going to We own this one jointly
we're going to you know we're going to
buy another one jointly the maintenance
and that's going to be jointly well the
other one will probably get sold
jointly so I don't know what the purpose
I I'm not against the amendment don't
get me wrong but I don't I I just don't
I I don't understand the I
guess the the amendment in my mind can
be as simple as a vehicle 92 is being
replaced with whatever you're buying now
and just it can be a very it could be a
two sentence agreement uh that says
vehicle 92 is being replaced so that
those of us can years from now will know
that vehicle 92 has been
replaced and if you're going to sell uh
vehicle 92 uh here's what happens to it
yeah it doesn't have to be anything
fancy for the amendment just to make
sure that everybody's on the same page
that's that's the the the important
part so then would it be appropriate to
bring that
paragraph signed agreement here for the
council to approve with this request to
the council meeting next when when you
when you're again group has has to be if it's the city's intent
to enter into the same agreement with
this new vehicle as it has with 92 it's
a really simple agreement but I don't
think that that conversation has been
had yet so if if that's if that's the
direction then this is really easy
Alder
gray um so to put everything in super
simple terms basically I think everyone
is on the same page it's just not
written how it's supposed to function I
believe everyone believes that this new
vehicle should be under the same terms
as vehicle 92 so I think bringing it to
the next regular meeting with an
amendment a proposed amendment for us to
approve alongside it that say is um this
vehicle is replacing vehicle 92 and all
rules and regulations associated with
vehicle 92 shall apply to this vehicle
and the proceeds from the sale and or
dis um the sale of this vehicle however
we get rid of this vehicle of vehicle 92
shall be dispersed equally 50/50 amongst
the RO Fire group and the City of
Columbus WIS Pate group so it it's just that simple we just need to have
that alongside this and I think
basically my wording is maybe not
perfect but that's exactly what the
amendment needs to say it's pretty darn
close are you guys comfortable with that
yeah I don't think I'm going to get be
able to get it done by February 6th
though okay the second council meeting
yes yeah I'm actually leaving out of
town next week and then I'm going to
have to get the group together in
between and I just think that window's
going to be really tight when is the
next council meeting in February 19th um that might that probably be
doable I think so will Attorney Johnson
drop that Amendment then yes okay all
right so that's I I'm okay with that um
if we're going to do it might as well do
it you know so we're all in the same
boat I I understand your position on it is vague um I if you could get that
to me or maybe I'll try to reach out to
you tomorrow sometime at ER Johnson and
then we can figure out how we get this
to each other and then I can get the
ball rolling on my end I'm hoping that I
can get this probably the sooner I can
get that in hand the E the the best
because if the other members of the
group think they have to bring it in
front of their Town board before we talk
about it at the the rural association
meeting because I'll call a special
meeting as I plan on calling one anyways
in February or the first part of March I
already let let everyone know um most of
our town board meetings I believe will
fall before that 19th timetable so I
could probably have a general idea of
where everyone sits on everything and
then then hopefully from there we can
move it forward I mean we still got some
discussion on our end to do yet I my
direction was to figure out what you
guys wanted to do so we knew what
direction to go so this is what it needs
to get taken then we got to get this
done and hopefully we can proceed from
there I guess thank you is everybody
comfortable bringing that forward with
Amendment for the February 19th meeting
yes okay perfect thank you thank you um
next item on the agenda is to discuss
the CH LPC
ordinance and then um Ruth did I have
you listed as somebody who did you
have did you want to lead off the
discussion oh Alder
gray um so well first off we have a lot
of background mus the audience that' be
awesome um but second
uh so I am 100% um coming to agreement
on this um finally it's been years my
problem is this specific ordinance that
is in our packet is full of
contradictions that makes no sense
portions of it would make the hlpc
basically mute and void and LS are chlg
status and like it doesn't make sense
this is not a good ordinance and I don't
know where this came from or why it is
the way it is in our packet like for
example if you look at 11
17-5 section c it says the commission
shall review any proposal which may
result in an alteration of the historic
structure yada yada yada after reviewing
the procedures outlined in 11 17-8 the
commission will recommend to the for the
approving or um denial of the
certificate of appropriateness to the
common Council but then when you go to
like
17-8 they have the authority to Grant
the
um the certificate of appropriateness
they're not just the recommending body
like where are we standing are they
supposed to be a recommending body or
are they the final say in
Grant because it says both things and it
says both things throughout this
ordinance and it's really quite
confusing that's just one of many
examples this is what I'm say the intent
of the ordinance was to say that um the
commission would be the ones who would
go through and approve or deny a
certificate of appropriateness with the
council being the appealing
body right and that's perfect that's
basically how our ordinance is now but
that's not how this ordinance is
written
Henry did you have any understanding
when we went through so let me explain a
little bit to others that are here um
both the ordinance ad hoc committee and
the hlpc sat down and did this ordinance
together um did you have an issue with
what was in
here I'm going to have to correct you
just a little bit there was members of
the historic preservation commission
that were at your meeting yes and you
folks decided what the language was
going to
be we met oh man last July I think and
we went through some comments and
concerns at that point but since that
time it's been your committee that's
been drafting this ordinance and putting
it together we have been at the meetings
absolutely there's no question about
that and that's why we're anxious to
have this proceed somewhere so that we
can make a public comment at the public
hearing and identify those changes or
ideas that we think are necessary some
of them Mr Gray has already identified
there may be others I don't know
everybody's opinion on that but the
draft that I understand is in your
packet this evening is the one that was
recommended by the subcommittee yes yes
so you're saying that you would like to
see this move forward as is to the
planning and zoning committee and
address any discrepancies that you may
see there well that's my personal
opinion yes because I'd like this to get
out of the committee I'm sorry to say
that but so that it goes on and there
can be discussion and action on this
rather than pingpong back and forth with
additional versions and revisions but
that's just my personal opinion M okay
Alder
gra and I very much respect um Henry
Ellen's opinion and I think his opinion
weighs higher than most my problem is
that
this is still not appropriate and if
this specific ordinance were to pass it
would basically render our hlpc mot and
void and there would be no sense in them
in existing it would give them it
wouldn't give them the power that they
need in order to maintain our CH LGC
status it wouldn't have any sort of real
significance they would basically just
be an organization that fundraised they
wouldn't have anything it would mean
nothing our historic preservation would
mean
nothing with this ordinance so while I
want to see it advance I don't think
this ordinance is correct um I think
Henry is being optimistic that they can
address the issues and dis ordinance at
the public hearing and hopefully fix
them before it moves forward but in all
reality our current ordinance is
perfectly fine there's nothing wrong
with it it this whole debacle came from
a power grab from a previous mayor and
Alder that haven't
been um part of our City's government
for many many years so in all honesty I
think this should just go away and we
should keep our existing
norins thank you Alder Steiner um I have
to agree with uh uh Alder Gray's
contention to this ordinance I'm looking
at the definitions and the certificate
of appropriateness is issued by the
common Council in under 11 17-3 but then
granted by the historic
hlpc in 11 17-8 it's just it's it was
confusing to me reading and it's like if
we just push this on there's no
guarantee that they're going to catch
all the discrepancies in here and we're
going to have to redo this all over
again however many times we catch these
things um as as my point is is I've have
not spoken on this at all because it's
been in committee for so long I'm not
going to conly go back and forth the
only issue that I would ever have with
this is the authority of a certificate
of
appropriateness I I run fear that we're
creating a sort of historic HOA by
giving them they should have the
authority to advise and educate and that
that's appropriate in in my purview of
what the CHL PC does is they designate
what buildings are historically relevant
what St structures are historically
relevant and they educate those owners
or people who own these things this is
the benefit of this this is the history
of this and this is what you can get off
of it and the biggest benefit is tax
credits that you can get off of any of
these properties the the certificate of
appropriateness authorizes those tax
credits to still be valid if you lose
that certificate appropriateness you
don't get the tax credits you have to
pay them back whatever it is from my
understanding of the statute and
everything so it shouldn't be you get
the certificate appropriateness or you
don't get the building permit these are
private properties these are owners that
should have to do what they will with
the property but it should be encouraged
and informed as to the benefits therein
of maintaining a historic relevant
building and that I mean when you look
at the the wording of
it in 111 17-8 section A
this chapter of such property to
demolish such property unless
certificate appropriateness has been
granted by the historic land commission
unless a such certificate has been
granted by the chpc the city's building
inspection department shall not issue a
permit license for such
work it's not their position to say what
you can and can't do with the property
because building permits are for you
know legalities and safety not for
aesthetic and it may sound harsh to say
that and I I love history I live in an
old home myself but it's where does the
authority line draw and I think that it
should be completely advisory and
educational and everything should just
go they can dull out the certificate of
appropriateness under the guidelines
that they have that's totally fine but
it shouldn't be you do it our way or you
don't do it at all and that's my only
contention to this entire thing
otherwise you know obviously clean up
the language but that's the only thing
that I really have an issue with on the
entire concept
um in my hearing then quickly that would
it be prudent to have Attorney Johnson
review and look for any inconsistencies
that we need to be aware of before the
recommendation to go to plan commission
is
accepted thank you for laughing
Ian sorry I wasn't TR I was trying not
well um I will do whatever I am directed
to do I have not looked at this
ordinance again for several months now
and I really have no idea what has
happened since the last time I have uh I have looked at it so I'm happy to help
and do whatever is is necessary and as
long as I have the floor just a short
reminder as as to the process going
forward here um at some point in time
this ordinance has has to leave the ad
hoc committee and it has to leave the
committee of the whole and it has to go
to the uh plan commission for a public
hearing just because it's a zoning
related ordinance and then after it gets
out of the plan commission then it goes
to the city council for the final
whatever happens at the city council so
there are still several steps left but
they answer uh all motiv question um
I'll do whatever you need me to
do well ordinance ad hoc is
done to quote you from a previous uh
email it's off our plates we're done um
so if it gets reviewed I would like it
to be reviewed by Attorney Johnson
before it goes to the plan commission
and then just move it to the plan
commission with his
notes does that make
sense Alder
gray um Attorney Johnson in your opinion
is there anything inherently wrong with
our existing ordinance or any real
reason that we need
this uh in
um inherently wrong no um the power
grab uh came about
because of the
realization that the
hlpc was the first and final answer on
some
topics and ever since that's what
started this whole process was uh a
couple people who didn't like that idea
and ever since then we've been going
back and forth uh with the issue of who
makes the final call here is this a hlpc
making a recommendation and the council
making a final approval or is this an
hlpc making a decision and the common
Council being an appeal body and that's what has been and and that is
what Ian pointed out in the
discrepancies that are that sound like
they're in the ordinance still is that
there's a lot of there's been a lot back
and forth on that particular topic and I
think if if the counil wants me to read
through this and try to clean things up
I need to have a very definite answer on
that point uh as to exactly what is is this hlpc decision and Council appeal
or is this hlpc recommendation and
Council decision that that is the single
most important issue that I still don't
know if there's an answer to thank you
that's exactly what I'm trying to get at
and if the intention is for it to be a
CH LPC decision and a council appeal is
there any reason to change our existing
ordinance I I am not 100 I don't think
and and I'm not 100% positive on this
because it's been so long since I've
looked at it but I don't think that
there is an appeal mechanism to the
council in the existing ordinance and if
there is that's fine um but I I seem to
remember when this blew up six seven
years ago that that was the big issue
that there was that there was no appeal
to the council it was an appeal
someplace
else Al Alder so excuse me I'm sorry
Alder motive had her light on I'll get
back to you after Alder motive and Alder
read also I'm sorry it's hard because I
can't even see you guys so I know I
apologize from the meetings uh the
ordinance ad hoc meetings which this CHL
PC was there um we did talk through
issues um in and things uh that they
would like in the um ordinance and and
we of course interjected some things for
the city um but it was the intent that
the CH
LPC be able to issue a certificate of
appropriateness and then the council is
the appeal
body I believe you're right Attorney
Johnson and the way that it is is that
it's the uh Circuit Court that's the
appeal body currently
correct we were trying to keep it out of
the circuit court if we could well I I I
think that's how I remember it and that
was not not appealing to
anybody bad pun
sorry Alder
Reed oh uh thank you yes at this point
I'm thinking of just leaving the
ordinance as it as is for a while um it
sounds like we as a council need to go
through this with a fine tooth cone and
perhaps just change one tiny section on
um the appeals
process Alder
gray um I mean honestly I think Alder
read is on to something if our current
appeals process isn't sufficient why
don't we just make an amendment to the
current one instead of re creating the
wheel like if we need a better appeals
process amend the current one for
appeals process but this is I mean this
ordinance has been going on for
literally years and it still is nowhere
and it still makes no sense and it still
contradicts itself we can hope it gets
fixed in public comments and forums and
things of that nature but it hasn't
gotten fixed for
years and the current ordinance isn't
broken there's nothing really wrong with
it maybe the appeal process could be
better amend the appeal process like I
don't understand why we are subjecting
ourselves and our entire Community to
this like absurdity and why it's been
sitting here
forever aler Steiner Alder
motive it seems like we haven't made a
decision on this particular ordinance so
I this isn't going to go
forward that's for certain no
um I'm fine with just amending the the
other ordinance if that's what needs to
be done um I just don't know really how
to answer that at the moment
without further research Ruth do you
want to come up to the
podium hi there I'm Ruth Hermanson CH
LPC chair um I've been dealing with the
ordinances for about seven years and um
well remember um the library Annex
building and what we did there we
followed the ordinances because if there
was if they were going to tear it down
we needed to have a public hearing and
um it was my understanding I don't have
the ordinance in front of me but um we
had to follow that procedure and we knew
that um we don't have even at the state
level we don't have that kind of power
to say you're not going to tear this
building down what what might happen
through the process such as a public
hearing um that it is what what they
City ends up is a picture of the
building that was there maybe some
history about it and they build whatever
they want to build it's I don't want to
say we're powerless but we're we have
the power going through the process to
educate people and then they can make
the decision and back then and it was my
understanding and
um Attorney Johnson I I can't remember
either it would be that we'd go through
the process and then for some reason I
thought then it would go to city council
and I might be totally wrong on that
that's like seven years ago um I do
we've run it by the state several times
um Joe D Ro was here probably six years
ago and then Jason Tish was out here
they love our ordinances they they've
commented that there's a appeals process
in it they said whoever wrote These they
allowed for every type of what if and if
we just need to amend something because
right now none of us can answer that
question on on the appeals process we
would be in full agreement with it the
copy that was
um we've had so many copies and and so
forth and the copy you have in hand
right now
it's limiting our powers it's it's
bringing us down to like five members
and um it
it's not a lot of people have seen that
copy um until the last ad hoc meeting so
we we did not have a meeting and say
yeah we're in full agreement with that
because we weren't asked to do that okay
so for
clarification that copy that you have in
the packet um was a big surprise to us
it it didn't reflect all the changes
from all the previous meetings and I
think we just need to move forward as
simply as possible because otherwise
we're splitting hairs and if we can just
make that simple Amendment after
Attorney Johnson reviews it chlp PC
would be
gladly in form of keeping it the other
thing that I do want to tell you is on
these um COA
um I don't believe in my serving on the
commission not once I don't think it got
appealed um basically people can do what
they want with your building okay
they're not going to get tax credits for
it and um there is a process that they
have to follow we're not going to tell
anybody what color to paint their
building if they ask us or we can make
some suggestions our duty is to inform
and educate and so they can make the
best decision and you know as far as
like little critiquing like backlighting
this or that then we follow the
ordinances from the national parks um
and it's it's all stipulated in the
ordinance very well so we we try and you
know I I would hope that we could just
keep the existing ordinances make those
simple amendments after Attorney Johnson
goes through it and that would be the
commission's view I believe and we have
a meeting tomorrow we can talk about it
then
too thank you so much thank you aler
Steiner looking at how this has all come
through in the different versions we've
seen just amending the ordinance we have
would be the easiest simplest and
quickest way to get this done there
wasn't that many changes done there's a
couple things here and there and some
wording here and there so I'm good if we
choose to go through and just amend that
which we have I was kind of wondering
why we didn't do that to begin with but
right however we do it we do it so let's
get this done and and wrap it up
whatever issues that that come up and
have a better ordinance
afterwards um Alder
gr yeah thank you I think I think where
we went wrong and where this all went
astray is this was this entire new
ordinance was created as a power gri to
take power away from the CH LPC by
members of our government that have not
been members of our government for many years and it's been going back and
forth through things and people have
been trying to perfect it but really the
overall heart of this new ordinance is
basically the same as the old one like
there's no reason for us to have this
new ordinance all we really need to do
if the appeals process isn't robust
enough or appropriate amend that
because the even the ad hoc committee
basically put forward is trying to put
forward basically the same ordinance
it's just it's been altered so many
times by so many people that there's a
bunch of just inconsistencies in it now
whereas the original one isn't like that
the original one makes
sense is everybody comfortable with the
idea of revisiting this as just an
amendment of The appeals process after
Paul Paul and Matt and the CH LPC
whoever needs to weigh in on that weighs
in on that yes yes do we want to put a
return date on this so that we can
review it in a timely fashion Alder
gray I don't think we need a lot of
people to weigh in on it I think really
the appeal section is all that needs to
be looked at if Attorney Johnson can
look at the appeal section and make a
recommendation for that to come forward
to council I think that's really all we
need okay
Attorney Johnson do you know what you
need to
know no absolutely not okay uh I I will start with Alder Gray's
suggestion and I'll have something to
you by uh
September okay that's fair I will have
something I can okay thank you very
much um any further discussion on that
no one one more thing uh for whatever
it's worth the existing organ has never
been repealed M exactly it's still in
effect yeah
so I I don't even really know what that
means but there is still an ordinance
out the
book
okay good to know all right um with that
I am looking for a motion to
adjourn
um second I have a motion to adjourn
from Alder gray a second from Alder
motive any
discussion all those in favor I okay we are adjourned thank you