[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