[0:03] Okay, we have the green light, so I will call this meeting to order for the Lake Mill City Council on August 5th of 2025. Mr. Would you please call the roll? Ms. Curler? Here. Ms. Schmager? Here. Ms. Kudno? Here. Mr. Kudts? Here. Mr. Waters? Here. Thank you. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:28] of

[0:34] the United States of America and the Institute of Republic for which it stands one nation under our individual with liberty and justice are all.

[0:51] Our next agenda item is correction and acceptance of the City Council meeting minutes from July 15th.

[0:57] Are there any corrections or comments?

[1:02] Okay, seeing none, we'll accept those into our record.

[1:06] agenda item five is board and committee reports and minutes. So we have meeting

[1:11] minutes from Parks Board, Plan Commission and two library board minutes. Are

[1:16] there any comments or corrections on any of those minutes?

[1:22] Anybody? Okay. Seeing

[1:24] them, so we'll accept those four sets of minutes into the record. And then we have

[1:28] a specifically identified Parks Board report out on their recommendations. And I

[1:35] You see a pet from Joaquin Rock Lake pet,

[1:37] were you planning to make a report tonight?

[1:39] No, okay, great.

[1:40] All right, so we have Anita Martin.

[1:42] I'll invite you up to the podium to present

[1:45] our Parks Board recommendations.

[1:48] Thank you.

[1:49] My comments tonight are as a representative

[1:52] of the City Parks Board,

[1:54] serving as the vice chair of the Parks Board.

[2:00] On April 1st of this year,

[2:02] the City Council made the resolution

[2:04] In conclusion, 25-19 directing the parks board to develop recommendations to review, discuss, and recommend recreational amenity improvements and priorities for the Sandy Beach Park.

[2:21] So over the course of a couple of months we had discussions at our regular

[2:26] parks board meeting. We had a work session in May and we received quite a bit

[2:32] of public input via emails and participation at the various meetings. We also

[2:39] received quite a bit of assistance and recommendations from our parks director

[2:45] Eric Schreiner. You'll see in the handout that the 11-page handout that we

[2:53] evaluated recommendations came up with, that Parks Board came up with 10, I'm

[3:00] sorry, a little nervous, six Park Board priorities and then six Parks Department

[3:07] priorities for the Sandy Beach redevelopment as far as the recreational aspects.

[3:13] We looked at the rationale, the description, other potential options, issues and risks, cost, effort, impacts, and then final recommendations.

[3:25] Just a few comments about what we came up with and some additional requests from City Council as far as research and follow-up.

[3:37] under fence and gatehouse remove, one of the recommendations is to pursue paid

[3:44] parking model for their analyzed parking fee structure and further

[3:50] research implementation needs. On page seven we did discuss ice skating because

[3:58] a number of people were interested in that as a recreational option. Keep and

[4:04] and enhance and move and install its unknown if pursuing winter recreation is a priority.

[4:14] We were suggesting that the City Council conduct additional research on ice-rink installation.

[4:23] Revenue generating services on page 9, boat lifts and piers, move and modify.

[4:30] this was an area of a great deal of discussion and input by both the parks board as well as residents.

[4:39] Our recommendation for the City Council is conduct further research on the possibility of

[4:45] consolidating boat slip peers to one location on the west side of the park. On page 10, the objective

[4:54] of being safety enforcement and visitor safety, we are suggesting that the City Council

[5:01] pursue consultation with the Lake Mills Police Department for input on increasing public safety

[5:09] measures. Under on page 11 the objective being food and beverage service there is the question

[5:18] of who would staff a potential concession stand, city staff or private staff so that was

[5:26] another item.

[5:27] And then finally, the

[5:32] objective of improving storm water management and water quality,

[5:36] which we felt was really important.

[5:39] We do recommend accepting Rock Lake Improvement Association's proposal to fund a restoration

[5:46] an ecology firm to support the city in developing a plan to capture and bioremediate.

[5:57] And it's my understanding that of a consultation, such as that was approved, it would be a contract

[6:04] with the city and with financial support from Rock Lake Improvement Association.

[6:10] I thought that was part of the discussion at the end.

[6:12] So those are the items I think that we mainly just wanted to bring forward.

[6:17] Thank you Anita can I have you stay out in case we have any questions.

[6:22] Thank you very much and I know you're you're pinch hitting for Tim's

[6:25] but I am and I'm just yeah it's been a busy day.

[6:27] I'm unable to be here at the last minute so thank you for filling in for him

[6:31] and thank you for your work on this.

[6:34] So this is not scheduled you know tonight for any kind of just you know lengthy discussion

[6:38] or decision this evening we're just receiving on the recommendations but I do want to make sure that if we have any particular questions for Anita or Mary you know I'm serving on the parks board that we can do that so are there any questions from council members at this time.

[6:56] I'm not a question but I just want to thank Anita and the whole parks board for the work that they put into forming those recommendations.

[7:03] I attended some of the meetings virtually and some of the meetings in person.

[7:08] And there was a lot of time put in, a lot of opinions expressed, and a lot.

[7:16] There was a lot pulled together in a relatively short amount of time.

[7:19] So thank you and thank the whole board for their efforts on this.

[7:23] Thank you, Greg.

[7:24] Appreciate that.

[7:25] It's been an interesting process.

[7:30] Anyone else, Greg?

[7:31] I want to do also thank the Parks Board for their efforts here.

[7:37] I know there's a lot to look at and it looks like he covered a lot of ground in short time,

[7:42] so thank you for the feedback there. I know there's a lot for our board to look at

[7:48] and to our council to look at and decide how to move forward with Sandy Beach. But I guess my feeling

[7:54] is that Sandy Beach has kind of come backwards over the years.

[7:59] We've eliminated services over the years,

[8:01] not this council, but prior councils.

[8:04] And I think it's time that we step forward

[8:06] and do some things down there.

[8:08] So, looking forward to taking some action.

[8:10] Thank you.

[8:12] Thank you.

[8:13] Any other comments?

[8:15] Mary, I would like to make some comments.

[8:17] So first of all, thanks Anita for joining on short notice

[8:21] to frame the work that we've done.

[8:23] I think there are, there's one, one topic that I think is going to be the most, I think,

[8:33] lengthiest discussion is the food and beverage service we have, as you all know,

[8:37] on some of the early renditions I've talked about food carts.

[8:41] We've, we've rustled around with that.

[8:44] It's not necessarily recreational, but it's in the recreation space.

[8:47] So, we came up with a recommendation that we felt was kind of a balance between what

[8:53] the citizens had said in the survey and what some of the input was.

[8:56] So, but that one there, we really haven't had a formal conversation around if we want

[9:00] it and if we do what it looks like.

[9:03] And so, I think that one, if we could all give some thought that that one, in particular,

[9:07] I think, is a big decision what it changes the face of the park and so I think that one

[9:14] I would draw your attention to.

[9:15] And the second one that I feel has a little bit of a sense of urgency.

[9:18] The Reckley Confirm Association has the ecologist interest to help us with this storm water

[9:24] plantings and they may have an interest to reach out and work with them with Eric to make

[9:29] sure they understand the terrain just to do homework to start thinking about how they could

[9:34] help in developing planting, I would say recommendations, so input when we get to the nuts and bolts

[9:42] in developing the park later on and they don't want to be a stumbling block and so support

[9:47] for storm water. Looking at that through the RLIA offer I think is more has a sense of urgency

[9:53] for me so that we don't aren't waiting for them to get started when we are moving this forward.

[10:00] I don't know how fast things will go. I don't know how where any of this or all of this or some of

[10:04] this will be in the CIP and so that when they're just I know I don't want they don't want us to be

[10:11] waiting on them and so that would be the one subject that support on that early would

[10:16] be great.

[10:18] So I guess I have a thought on that and then I would look to just have to see if they

[10:22] have any other ideas.

[10:24] We could certainly schedule this for further discussion in our next council meeting or have

[10:30] a work session or however we want to frame that to go through the recommendations in more

[10:37] detail may be prioritized.

[10:39] I think, and again, my compliments as well and thank you to the Parks Board for this very detailed work and it really put together very well with the rationale, the pros and cons, maybe alternatives that you talked about and then supporting your recommendations.

[10:56] I think it's going to give us a really good foundation for looking at the capital improvement plan and where we might want to plug in some of these recommendations different years.

[11:06] and certainly some that need more valuation to decide, but I guess my thinking would

[11:13] be maybe have a discussion on these recommendations that are next meeting and then maybe identify

[11:22] some priorities and maybe some things that we would want to even fit into with the parking

[11:28] lot design which is kind of the next thing that I think would be queued up and see where

[11:33] there might be some overlap in storm water management, for example, with that.

[11:37] So Drake, what do you think would be a good next step on this?

[11:42] Yeah, absolutely.

[11:43] We can have it on the next agenda and have the council discussion on what pieces of it they

[11:49] want to prioritize.

[11:50] That should line up pretty well with the timing on the capital improvement plan in case the

[11:54] council wants to insert any dollars into that plan.

[11:59] right now there's some placeholders but not any firm commitments within the CIP on what's

[12:06] happening at Sandy Beach and so it should coincide well and we'll just have to prioritize it amongst

[12:15] what other capital projects exist and what the council wants to accomplish in the coming years.

[12:23] So I'll follow council members that's only a good plan to give us everybody time to review this

[12:28] further and then be prepared to talk about it next time, Michelle.

[12:31] I was just wondering if this would be a time during a city council meeting to be the time

[12:37] to have that discussion or if we should have a separate meeting as we've often had planning

[12:42] meetings regarding Sandy Beach on a separate occasion so that we can really hone in on that

[12:48] conversation. Sometimes I feel like when we have it in a city council meeting, we feel like

[12:55] I think there's not as much time to have those conversations and I would really like to have in-depth conversations so that we can really analyze before making any final decisions or telling staff that they need to start writing stuff up or anything like that.

[13:12] That makes sense.

[13:12] Sure. Yeah, and I think we'll be talking about other aspects of Santa Beach later on the agenda,

[13:18] and so we may decide that we want to have a special meeting, you know, just on those topics.

[13:24] So let's just assume that we're going to talk about this again at a future meeting to be determined

[13:30] and go from there to Zat's hunger. Okay. Okay, and thank you again Anita. I appreciate you

[13:36] I'm going in at the last minute.

[13:40] Any other questions for Anita?

[13:43] Okay.

[13:43] Thank you.

[13:44] Okay.

[13:44] So we'll move on to agenda item six, which is correspondence and his joint contacts.

[13:50] Michelle, would you like to get us started?

[13:52] Sure.

[13:53] I had three emails regarding the trailer part, one email regarding signage and the concern

[14:00] of a citizen saying that there wasn't enough.

[14:02] and another email regarding the Joint Rock Lake Committee.

[14:09] Great, great.

[14:11] I had an email on Bartles Beach,

[14:14] several tax concerns with the new assessments going out.

[14:17] And I joint rock lake memo from Patrick

[14:24] and a memo on land, the land use maps.

[14:31] Great.

[14:32] Mary.

[14:34] Okay.

[14:34] I think we all got something from Spectrum News, asking about our growth.

[14:40] In addition to what Greg and Michelle have, I also had a correspondence about the

[14:47] Mounds at Sandy Beach, the library.

[14:51] I met with Michelle Gerard and two library board members to go a little deeper and get some

[14:55] clarification. Thanks so thank you to Michelle and Gerard and Wendy.

[15:00] And Robin, property assessments, signage at Bartles regarding, I think we just got that one regarding ADA. And I think that's about it. Great, great. I've had the same as everyone has already mentioned. Okay. Thank you everyone. I'm looking to mine because quite a few messages. All the council members received them. I did, I was looped in on some correspondence regarding a mural project on West Lake Street.

[15:29] that I hand off to Troy and he's following up.

[15:32] I got a compliment of the staff regarding tree planting in the city, and I know that

[15:38] we're our forestry department is using some new techniques to hopefully increase the

[15:42] viability of tree planting, so that was nice that citizen recognized that.

[15:48] I did get one email, I think maybe we all got this one about the Santa Beach mobile homes

[15:55] is objecting to use of city funds and then just this evening of Bartle speech parking

[15:59] which the Eric has already followed up on.

[16:04] I think that's it.

[16:05] All right, thank you everybody.

[16:07] Okay, our next agenda item is public comment.

[16:10] So individuals who have registered to speak are invited to address the council at this time.

[16:15] I'll call people to the podium.

[16:16] So when you come up, please state your name and address.

[16:19] No action will be taken for items that are not listed on the agenda.

[16:22] each speaker is limited to three minutes and we're trying out a new timer so

[16:28] we'll see how it goes but hopefully this will help you as a speaker to know when

[16:32] your time is getting close to up so it's sitting over here just to the your

[16:37] right of Michelle says three minutes and it'll it'll make a beep when I start it

[16:41] and it will make a beep when your time is up so that's the button right there

[16:47] the and that's all the tosses turn on that time right so okay so we have several

[16:53] people registered to speak so we'll start with items that are on the agenda

[16:56] tonight. Jay Ludeman wants to speak about the rezoning and then after that

[17:02] we'll have Gail Oglesby on Lyndon Street so Jay come on up see if I can get

[17:09] this to work here. Good evening.

[17:14] I'm here to comment on item number H

[17:18] ordinance 1279, the amendment of comprehensive plan on that parcel off East Tyroneena Park Road,

[17:26] where I live. This is at least the fourth time that this developer has come to the planning

[17:37] commissions or to the council trying to change this designation. When he was given his original

[17:45] permission to build that massive apartment complex that we all can see from the interstate.

[17:53] This parcel was designed to be a buffer zone of R1 housing between the R1 housing to

[18:01] the south of that parcel and this very, very large apartment complex that's there.

[18:08] By passing this, they raised it from R1 to R13, and at the last council meeting.

[18:18] So when they caved to this developer who is, for the last 10 years, made no effort whatsoever

[18:25] to do anything with R1, his whole statement was to go as much as he could with his larger

[18:32] apartment complexes as possible.

[18:36] The planning neighborhood supposedly will allow for R1 and R2 and R3 housings, but

[18:46] the developer came with a program that had absolutely no single family homings with

[18:53] it whatsoever.

[18:55] He apparently had plenty of notice and had plenty of time to work with the planning commission

[19:02] But no one contacted us that actually live on that land or near that land to see what our reactions were or what our recommendations were.

[19:13] So we strongly oppose taking this to something other than our one like what was planned for over the last 10 or 12 years.

[19:26] The other part is, and then I'm running out of time, but I would like to see a new environmental impact statement on that piece of property since those apartments have been built.

[19:37] All of the waterfalls that have been displaced by that huge apartment complex down there have moved up the hill.

[19:46] It's very common for all of us along there to have sandhill cranes, wild turkeys, Canadian geese,

[19:53] plus many other mammals that utilize that, the environment of that cornfield and the green areas that are not under, under tillage.

[20:05] It took him this long before he came up with a plan. Why not go the other way and turn that into a park?

[20:11] Thank you.

[20:13] Thank you, Jay. And I don't think we got your address on the record. Can you just...

[20:17] I'm sorry, W7177176 East Tyranena Park Road.

[20:24] Thank you.

[20:25] Thank you.

[20:25] Okay, so next is Gail Ogleston.

[20:28] I'm talking about the Lyndon Street sewer.

[20:31] And then we'll have a few people on speaking on Sandy Beach.

[20:37] I'm a short person.

[20:38] I'll have to get this down here.

[20:40] And Gail Ogleston Bay.

[20:42] And I'm an owner of 805 Lyndon Street here in Lake Mills.

[20:48] recently annexed from the township. I'm sorry, Gail, I'm getting used to this, too. I've got to reset this timer.

[20:54] Oh, okay. I won't start over. You're not in trouble.

[20:59] I live on Lyndon Street and there's been a couple years now. We've discussed putting in a street, sewer line, water line.

[21:08] And on that street, I have the only property that has failed, the system has failed.

[21:17] I guess it's not up to code, but basically it is failing more and more all the time.

[21:23] My biggest concern is, well, two concerns is the cost involved because I have to pick up

[21:28] the price.

[21:30] Some of it will be over taxes over 10 years, but a lot of out of pocket price.

[21:35] So I'm concerned about that, but also, like I said, my system is failing, and if I have

[21:43] very many people in my house, it's just I have sewage backup, and it's a mess, it really is

[21:50] very costly too. And so I'm just looking at getting this, you know, speeding up the process,

[21:57] because it's really been dragging on quite a while now. And I guess, you know, I think we're going

[22:03] to discuss that tonight, but in some alternative plans, but just wanted you to be aware of that.

[22:10] Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

[22:14] Okay, here we go. Got the new time. Okay, so we have

[22:19] on several people on Sandy Beach, we have Mike Heeslip, and then after that we'll be on Tom

[22:34] Please come to the microphone.

[22:37] We're discussing it.

[22:39] Great.

[22:39] Go ahead and speak to level.

[22:41] Speak to that.

[22:41] Thank you.

[22:43] My name is Mike Eastlope.

[22:45] I reside at 37B Paradise and Sandy Beach.

[22:51] That's the B level.

[22:55] I think that if we could coordinate between the city and our association of the

[23:03] But the trailers, we could come up with a workable program to gain what everybody's after

[23:12] is a nicer place to live.

[23:16] If we were to spread the cost over the entire association, all three levels, instead of

[23:27] looking at B separately, we could reduce the cost per unit by a large amount of

[23:38] money rather than just putting the emphasis on B itself. Eventually, A is

[23:44] going to have to be redone and possibly sandy or the pines. So I think if we work

[23:51] together with all three levels and then excuse me I do have some figures but I

[24:01] didn't want to go with it on but I've been coming up for 60 years better than 60

[24:06] years and when we first started coming up all the roads and everything through all

[24:12] of the levels were they were just gravel and at that time by having gravel a lot

[24:20] of the rain is such just seeped into the ground and where the tennis were the

[24:25] volleyball courts are now and the surrounding area that was lower and that

[24:32] was where we all played and hung out but it was also where the bolts were

[24:38] stored. Now when we got a lot of rain that would all the water would congregate

[24:44] in the middle there and the rest of the parking lot stayed dry. So you know

[24:50] We did have difficulties, you know, sometimes you went to get your boat out, it'd be up to your ankles, but that was no big deal.

[24:58] I think if we would take that and go back to where it's lower and use gravel just in that center part for the drainage,

[25:09] and then we could eliminate the planned water retention pond on the front of B.

[25:17] If we did that that would enable more trailers to remain on that level and then the cost of the whole project we spread over more trailers.

[25:30] I think just something that we should look into and talk to about the association with the association and the city.

[25:40] I want to thank you for your time.

[25:43] Thank you, right on the dot.

[25:47] Okay, let's see, next is on Tom Kreechi,

[25:52] I'm speaking on Sandi Beach.

[25:55] My name is Tom Kreechi, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Rock Lake Improvement Association Board of Directors.

[26:03] The Rock Lake Improvement Association and our membership would like to thank the parks board for the time and effort they put into developing a well thought out recommendation

[26:12] for the Sandy Beach Park redevelopment.

[26:16] Excuse me, Tom, I have to start the timer.

[26:19] Sorry for the beep.

[26:21] RLIA is supportive of the Park Sport Recommendation that was given tonight.

[26:27] We are hopeful that the City Council will move forward with the Park Sport Recommendation,

[26:32] particularly as it relates to stormwater and water quality actions that protect our lake and its users.

[26:40] The RLIA is ready to fund a restoration ecologist to collaborate directly with the Parks Board under a contract with the City of Lake Mills to develop the design and we respectfully request the City Council to approve that action.

[26:59] Thank you.

[27:01] thank you okay our remaining speaker on Sandy Beach is Bob Clark and then JB

[27:10] Clark you'll be so

[27:13] while he's coming up I'll take care of the beeps and

[27:22] Bob

[27:23] Clark live along a Sandy Beach road in the pines part of the trailer park I read all

[27:31] what you're doing with the park and to bring it bring it up but no one ever

[27:35] addresses the idea of what's going to happen to the sand. He wants people to come

[27:41] to the park. We could go this Saturday. I was sitting on the boardwalk there.

[27:46] I took a walk down to the lake to take a dip and I crossed over 57 pieces of

[27:56] Guestung in that small area and of course I had to walk back. If you take the

[28:05] whole of that west side, there was probably 1500 people on that beach. There were children

[28:13] burying themselves in the sand, swimming in the sand, rolling in the sand, building sand

[28:19] castles. If their parents knew what was in that sand, they wouldn't even come to the beach.

[28:26] So as you spend your money to improve the beach, think about the sand. Thank you.

[28:34] Thank you.

[28:37] Okay.

[28:37] Our final registered speaker is JB Clark.

[28:49] Hello.

[28:50] JB Clark.

[28:51] One, two, two mill to street again.

[29:10] Thank you.

[29:26] You're not planning to speak, JB?

[29:27] No, did you read the memo?

[29:28] I read what he's distributed.

[29:31] I don't know if he wants to ask to read it out loud or not.

[29:35] Okay.

[29:36] All right.

[29:36] No one else has registered.

[29:38] So we will close public comment for this evening.

[29:41] Thank you, everybody.

[29:41] And sorry for my lack of familiarity with our timer here, let's see, hopefully that'll turn that off.

[29:50] So, okay, our next agenda, so public comment is posted and our next agenda item is the City Manager's report.

[30:00] Thank you. One thing I'll highlight tonight is every residents, every property owner in the city of Lake Measwell have received a notice of their preliminary assessment. There's been a lot of conversation regarding that. I would just like to note our, I guess, warn, not that don't just take what the mill rate is or has been last year on your tax bill and apply it to the new assessment. That the assessments are one piece of how,

[30:29] All property taxes may be determined, but it's largely determined by what the relative value of the property is in relation to the community as a whole.

[30:40] And what the levies of each of the taxing jurisdictions are, so county, tech college, school district, and city of Lake Mills.

[30:48] from the city of Lake Mills, standpoint the city is limited and it's levy increase by the state of Wisconsin, by levy limits, by net new construction.

[31:00] In the past, we've seen that between 2 and 3% in most recent years.

[31:06] And so that's been the maximum amount that the city can increase its tax levy which obviously is much lower than the average 60% increase we saw

[31:17] from the revaluation of property and so you can't just take the millerate and apply it

[31:23] to the new valuation and calculate what your taxes will be because that will give you

[31:28] a much higher number than what it will end up actually being.

[31:33] And so when you're looking at it, when you're looking at what the increase is, that average

[31:37] property increase was just around 60 percent.

[31:40] So you have to look at what the properties increase was in relation to the increases of

[31:45] everybody else is to know how it may impact property taxes in the future. I'd also note that

[31:54] you can find the contact information for the assessor on our website. There's also been some

[31:59] social media posts with that contact information. The open book period is scheduled for August

[32:07] Thursday, August 13th and Friday, August 15th. There will be three assessors here for appointments.

[32:18] If you call on a making appointment, you can also call or email the assessor ahead of time

[32:22] with any concerns or questions you may have about your property assessment.

[32:27] That's what's known as open book, the open book period.

[32:30] Through that open book period, the assessor can make changes to the assessment.

[32:36] If they find that there should be one, final determination notices are scheduled to be sent out around August 24th.

[32:47] If you haven't been able to resolve any questions that you may have with the assessor during that open book period,

[32:54] that's when you can contact City Hall here and ask for an objection form where you can formally object to your property assessment.

[33:06] at the Board of Review, which will be in September.

[33:10] So that is how that process will lay out,

[33:13] but I would just like to reiterate the reminder that

[33:16] what your millerate was last year is not what the millerate

[33:21] will be applied to on the new valuation of the property,

[33:24] and that the more important factor is the value of the property

[33:27] in relation to everything else in the city of Lake Mills,

[33:30] and what the taxing jurisdictions levy for their budgets which won't be

[33:38] settled until likely in November for each for each of them. Other than that,

[33:45] if there are any questions from the council, I'm happy to answer any. Any

[33:51] questions Mary? I have one question and one comment. I'm coming first. I had a

[33:55] citizen call me late afternoon to say that the phone number to the

[34:00] assessments office was going to like a dead line and they were weren't sure if it was

[34:07] just like a phone. Sometimes your phone get the phone system gets clogged and you end up

[34:12] with a drop but it was she tried twice and it was dropped both times so I was just some we might

[34:18] take a look at tomorrow make sure it's live and there hasn't been an issue. Second my question is when

[34:24] will that mill rate be determined? What is the debt date by which the new one will be?

[34:28] Tax bills are required to go out before December 15th and so that means that all

[34:35] of the tax and jurisdictions will have had to adopt their budgets for the coming

[34:39] year and the full amount will be calculated at that at that point. So the final

[34:46] millerate won't be determined until we receive notice from all of the tax and

[34:50] jurisdictions as to what they are levying and then the millerate gets

[34:54] calculated based off of what's being levied.

[34:58] So that's October and November, I was just trying to get the I can't tell you an

[35:02] exact date, but I know that it will be definitely will be determined by early

[35:06] December. Okay. So like the other testing jurisdictions might be would be the

[35:11] late middle school district, the technical colleges, technical colleges, and then

[35:16] Jefferson County. Okay, we also have to wait for the state school credit to come

[35:21] in the state school credit. Okay. Michelle, a comment and more of an ask, is it possible that Drake you could write up perhaps a memorandum and post it somewhere in a way that could be understood in case somebody doesn't happen to watch this or understand what exactly you're saying if we could put it in a way to help everyone understand what this means?

[35:46] There is a 2025 revaluation dedicated page on our website, so I would direct people

[35:53] to that.

[35:54] There's a frequently asked question section templates of the notices that have been sent

[35:59] out.

[35:59] Some informational material from the assessor that's posted on there, and then of course

[36:05] they can call us or the assessor, but that web page has quite a bit of information.

[36:10] and we've shared it a few times to try and get it out there.

[36:15] But if you go to the front page of our website and you should,

[36:19] you'll be able to find a link directly to it.

[36:21] Okay, and does that also include any information about what we're talking about today

[36:26] with regard to Sandy Beach or the library and the money is needed for that

[36:31] and how that may affect taxes?

[36:34] No, because we don't know the council hasn't taken action.

[36:37] No, yes, I understand that.

[36:38] But I'm just getting a little bit of ahead of it and just trying to think about what questions

[36:45] someone would have if they were wondering about that.

[36:48] Yeah.

[36:49] We'll be talking about the, on the capital side, we'll be talking about the capital improvement

[36:53] plan, starting at Polar Works Board next week as part of that.

[36:58] We do get an analysis from our financial advisors as far as what those projects, what tax impact

[37:05] those projects would have, you know what what their impact it would be on a home

[37:10] value of X dollars and so that piece of it will be determined as far as the

[37:16] operating side, the operating levy, we'll probably have to wait until we get

[37:20] what the net new construction is going to be and get deeper into conversations

[37:24] about the 2026 budget. So what I'm hearing you say is just saying so it's on the

[37:31] record. Everyone can go online to look for the more spelled out version of what you've

[37:38] said and that also to pay attention to Ellers report coming out and look in the area with

[37:47] regard to the tax impact of a certain percentage or a certain type of household cost, correct?

[37:57] there will be information like that and then we also begin deliberations and

[38:01] discussions on the annual budget upcoming here in September. Yes. Okay. Thanks.

[38:08] Okay. I had a quick question on the at taxing jurisdictions. Just wondering if

[38:15] the community that maybe has a higher assessment value as compared to the

[38:21] other maybe townships in the instance of our school district with the

[38:25] community with the higher assessments be penalized, or is it broken into different segments for that process?

[38:32] No, it gets equal, you get an equalized value, an equalized rate, which is how the state equalizes that amongst different municipalities.

[38:44] So, for example, we have been assessing at 67% of fair market value is what our last one was and so that gets denoted when the equalized mill rate is being calculated and so it controls for those, you know, if we are valued higher truly, if the property values are higher, then it may, it's possible.

[39:12] then it's that from the school district's perspective it's your value in

[39:17] relation to all of the value in the school district and so if your property is

[39:22] high is of a higher than average value then your share of the pie is higher so

[39:29] from that regard yes if there's higher if there's higher

[39:35] valuations in relation to the valuations of other and to other properties outside

[39:42] side of the city of late mills that can have an impact, but just because we were assessing

[39:49] at 67% of fair market value does not mean that our value was not being, that we weren't

[39:56] already a higher value in comparison to the others because they equalize it at the state

[40:03] level.

[40:04] So it's assessed across this jurisdiction evenly then?

[40:07] You're right, the equalized value is how the state attempts to control for the different

[40:16] schedules that municipalities on for assessing to fair market value.

[40:21] Every municipality in the state of Wisconsin has to be within 10 percent of fair market

[40:25] value at least once within five years.

[40:29] So you can't be, you have to be between 90 percent and 110 percent as soon as you fall typically

[40:35] it's below as soon as you fall below 90% at a certain point after I think it's three years you get

[40:42] a first notice and then you get a second notice in the fourth year and then you get a third notice

[40:47] and if you still haven't undertaken a revaluation that you then have a state monitored revaluation and

[40:57] so they will mandate an order in our case the city they would mandate they would have mandated us to

[41:03] do a revaluation had we not decided to do one when we did.

[41:09] And so that's the requirement placed on municipalities is they want everyone, mandate

[41:15] everyone to be 90% to 110% of what is deemed fair market value.

[41:22] Thank you.

[41:25] Any other questions or comments for our city manager?

[41:31] Okay.

[41:32] Thank you, Drake.

[41:33] So now we will move on to Council business and our first item is Resolution 25-42.

[41:41] Ms. Steve, would you read that title please?

[41:44] City Council Resolution 25-42, conditional use permit declarations and findings, petitioner

[41:49] St. Vincent de Paul Society, conditional use to allow multiple principal structures on one parcel,

[41:55] 720 East Lake Street Lake, Mills, Wisconsin, parcel number 24607131312005

[42:02] and 2, 4, 6, 0, 7, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 0, 2, 1.

[42:08] Okay, why don't we go to staff summary of this one before we get a motion?

[42:13] Good evening, council.

[42:16] This request in front of you doesn't have a whole lot of moving parts like

[42:20] a normal conditional use.

[42:21] It's more or less a request to allow two principal structures on one parcel.

[42:27] The way this came about is Saint Vincent.

[42:29] in their main building on 720 East Lake Street, purchased in a Jason property of self-CP Avenue,

[42:37] a 203 self-CP Avenue. And in order for them to move forward with their design,

[42:43] they're going to have a walkway slash parking between the two buildings.

[42:49] So they wanted to drop the parcel, the property line, and make it one big parcel there in the corner.

[42:55] Our ordinance doesn't allow multiple principal structures on one parcel without a conditional use.

[43:03] We him hot around and thought maybe we would use this, consider this an accessory structure to the main building.

[43:11] But staff just kind of decided this would be a cleaner way to address this because it's already its own principal structure on its own parcel.

[43:20] And we just didn't want to leave that as a gray area as an interpretation to be an accessory structure.

[43:26] So, um, asking Vincent to apply for a conditional use to ask you guys for an allowance to have two principal structures on one parcel.

[43:38] Thank you. Any questions for our zoning administrator?

[43:43] Good. Great. Coats. Do you have a question?

[43:46] There you go.

[43:47] Oh, no.

[43:47] I tied it in.

[43:50] Why is it necessary to combine the parcels, then, why not just leave them as two separate

[43:55] parcels?

[43:56] Well, the main reason is setback issues.

[43:58] They wouldn't be able to have a drive way across, and really preference for them.

[44:03] There is some representation here that they'd be able to answer a question for you exactly

[44:07] why they wanted to do it, but it cleaned it up for them to kind of use this building part

[44:13] food pantry back and forth and I guess maybe there would be a different answer. I guess I'm

[44:20] looking to you guys to see if there's anything that would clear that up.

[44:28] Can you give us your name

[44:29] please? Logan Ferry Keller Incorporated here on behalf of St. Vincent de Paul. We were engaged with

[44:37] St. Vincent de Paul starting in 2023. Went through a few different plans. The original goal was to

[44:44] tried to move the food pantry out of the main store building into the

[44:47] Collagen Building with setbacks, with where the buildings currently located, it

[44:53] just didn't make sense. The impacts of stormwater ensuer to

[45:00] The parking lot we would have had to add for the food pantry was just cost prohibitive to the group. So the goal now is really to expand the food pantries footprint within the store building and make the call again building just a warehouse basically. So the goal is really to be able to move product from one building to the other without going on the main streets to keep the volunteers and the staff safe. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the consultant? Great.

[45:28] It's just a statement that it was recommended for approval from the Planned Commission.

[45:34] Thank you.

[45:36] I will move to approve City Council Resolution 25-42, the conditional use permit, declarations

[45:42] and findings for the petitioner St. Vincent de Paul Society.

[45:46] Second.

[45:47] Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Schmeger, seconded by Ms. Kuehnow.

[45:52] Troy, I have a question.

[45:53] And so is this, if we approve this conditional use permit,

[45:58] is it just for the specified uses that are in their application,

[46:01] then the expansion of driveway and so forth that is in their application,

[46:06] as opposed to like now for approving two principal structures,

[46:11] could they make some completely different use of that second principal structure

[46:17] under this permit or would they have to come back?

[46:19] Sure, so you're really just allowing two principal structures that you're not really the use is still up to them right so they could change the use if they wanted to.

[46:30] I guess I should note that if you don't allow this two principal structures, we wouldn't be able to move forward and pass the CSM to create one part so it would still be a divided two parts so if you were worried about that.

[46:43] But I mean, they own both those buildings, they'd be able to do whatever is allowed by zoning rights in that building from here on out.

[46:52] But basically just allowing the two principal structures to be on one parcel.

[46:57] But yeah, we're not really dictating the use of that right now.

[47:00] Okay, thank you.

[47:01] I just wanted to make sure I understood that.

[47:04] Any other questions regarding this proposal?

[47:09] Okay, seeing none, can we have a roll call vote on resolution 25-42?

[47:14] Mr. Mayer.

[47:16] Aye.

[47:17] Mr. Cuadno.

[47:18] Aye.

[47:19] Mr. Coots.

[47:20] Aye.

[47:21] Mr. Waters.

[47:22] Aye.

[47:23] Mr. Curler.

[47:24] Aye.

[47:26] Motion passes 5-0.

[47:28] Thank you.

[47:29] Next agenda item is Resolution 25-43.

[47:33] Mr. Would you read that one for us?

[47:36] City Council Resolution 25-43.

[47:39] Final reduction and release of financial guarantee.

[47:41] White Oak Home Builders LLC, North Oak Town Homes Development.

[47:48] I move to approve City Council Resolution 25-43, final reduction and release of financial guarantee of White Oak Home Builders LLC, North Oak Town Homes Development.

[48:03] So second.

[48:04] I'll second.

[48:05] Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Quedna, second by Ms. Schmager.

[48:09] Stephanie, summary that you would like to provide.

[48:12] We've exited the warranty period for the public infrastructure as part of the development.

[48:19] There have been inspections of the project to ensure that what was constructed is what was agreed upon as part of the plan.

[48:30] And therefore there's no longer a reason for the city to be holding the letter of credit and we recommend reduction and release of the final letter of credit.

[48:38] financial guarantee from North Oak Town Homes.

[48:41] Thank you. Any questions or discussion?

[48:45] Greg Waters.

[48:46] And this closes the financial obligations, okay.

[48:50] Correct. So we would, this would, we wouldn't have a mechanism to draw upon it for a deficiency,

[49:01] but we're outside of the warranty period regardless.

[49:04] list. And so this is a small portion of what the letter of credit originally was. It's

[49:10] been reduced several times over the last couple of years. And so with the warranty period

[49:16] expiring and the final inspections being complete, we don't, there's no need for the

[49:24] city to continue holding it or really a justification for us to continue holding.

[49:32] And it's specific

[49:33] the public infrastructure which has been inspected by the appropriate city staff as well as engineers

[49:40] and deemed accepted and we have a one year warranty period I think at acceptance and then that has

[49:48] recently expired. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? Hasing none Mr. Can you do a roll call

[49:57] I'll vote on Resolution 25-43.

[50:02] Ms. Cuidno.

[50:03] Aye.

[50:04] Mr. Cuidz.

[50:05] Aye.

[50:07] Mr. Waters.

[50:08] Aye.

[50:09] Ms. Curler.

[50:10] Aye.

[50:12] Ms. Schmager.

[50:13] Aye.

[50:14] Motion passes 5-0.

[50:17] Thank you.

[50:18] Next item is Resolution 25-44.

[50:21] Ms. Tuba, do you read that title for us?

[50:24] City Council Resolution 25-44.

[50:26] Rejecting all bids for Lyndon Street sewer and water project. Lake Mills, Wisconsin.

[50:35] Drake, you want to give us the staff report on this?

[50:38] Sure, so if you recall, we originally bid this item as an alternative to Milton Street.

[50:42] At that time, rejected that alternative due to costs. We chose to bid again.

[50:48] We did see a minor reduction in cost through that bidding process, but we are still in excess of $200,000 for the extension of utilities.

[50:56] There was an alternate bid in this as well for some minor storm water improvements, which was about $11,000 additional.

[51:09] It's significantly higher than what the opinion of probable cost was.

[51:13] We were expecting it to be more around the $175,000 range.

[51:18] the there's only three properties that this service that this main I should say

[51:23] would serve and sell that cost on pass city practice would be to special

[51:28] assess the cost and divided amongst those three properties only one of the

[51:32] properties is currently annexed in the city can't special assess township

[51:37] properties without permission from the town board and therefore we'd have to

[51:41] recoup costs at the time of annexation prop likely through connection fees or

[51:47] or something of that nature at the time.

[51:51] In excess of $70,000 per household,

[51:55] this is a difficult project because it's such a short stretch

[51:58] and the pricing is much higher than we would have anticipated

[52:01] or seen in the past with what is likely just market increases

[52:06] in costs that we've seen.

[52:09] So there are some options for you laid out in the memo.

[52:13] It has been city practice to special assess for these.

[52:16] it is the city's prerogative, whether to do so and how much to special assess so you could award

[52:23] and choose to special assess a portion or none at all and complete the project as it was bid which

[52:28] would bring water and sewer, you know, into into Lyndon Street.

[52:36] If the based on past city practice

[52:38] is where we're recommending the rejection of all bids that we consider that the full assessment of

[52:43] costs to those three properties would be cost prohibitive on those property owners.

[52:49] Even you can give, there is a 10 year period of payback, but it's still a significant

[52:53] amount, especially as the city wouldn't even be able to recoup many of those costs regardless

[53:01] until those additional properties annexed.

[53:05] If we do reject all bids, what we will likely look at doing is we've been in talks with some

[53:10] contractors for what would essentially be a long service from the main on Pine Street

[53:17] and extending to the property line of the annexed property and so that would be a sewer

[53:23] only solution. There would not be a similar water extension at that time as the well is

[53:29] still in good working order and is not failing at this time. That would reduce the city's

[53:35] costs significantly that would be ultimately special assessed under past practice by the city.

[53:42] We'd still be looking at a total estimated cost that none of these would be final numbers

[53:47] until we have formalized the quotes we've received as well as coordinated with the property

[53:54] owner for the private side, but essentially we'd bring it to the property line where we're

[54:00] between 15, around $15,000, between $15,000 and $20,000

[54:06] an additional 15 on the estimated on the private side

[54:10] for a grinder pump as well as piping on the private side

[54:15] of things.

[54:16] So we're still looking at a $25,000 to $30,000 total cost

[54:20] for this.

[54:24] But obviously significantly less than what

[54:27] that would be required if we went with the full project.

[54:30] So there's also a question of special assessments

[54:35] and how the city council would like to,

[54:39] whether the city council wants to continue

[54:41] with the past practice that we've done over many, many years.

[54:45] Otherwise, there is an option we've been exploring

[54:48] for a lower cost option.

[54:49] We have talked to the property owner about it.

[54:51] Property owner does have a contract around their side

[54:56] that they've been talking to for that for this potential solution.

[55:00] We have gotten three quotes.

[55:03] We need to clarify a few things with them before we could move forward on this option.

[55:09] It's under, the city cost would be under $25,000 on that, so we wouldn't need another formal

[55:13] bidding process.

[55:14] It just requires notice that we're moving forward with this project, and so those are kind

[55:20] of the options that lay before us.

[55:21] But do you see the recommendation to reject all bids before you because of the significant cost that it would be born by the current property owner at this point because of if we continued with the way the city has practice this in the past?

[55:44] Okay, are there any questions or discussion regarding this resolution or the staff report?

[55:49] I

[55:53] think I have a question, so we originally included this in a Milton Street bid and then it came out, you know, higher than expected would, including it in, you know, the prospect street bid next year or with some of their project with that also be an alternative or you think it's just not likely to go down very much it's possible, but there's also a timing consideration here and that the city is obligated to provide service.

[56:21] service to this property, they've annexed into the city, they're unable to obtain a new

[56:28] septic permit under county regulations and so we need to find a solution for the property

[56:37] owner before they would encounter a significant failure and so waiting until the next bidding

[56:45] cycle that septic would have to survive, operate until, you know, June at the earliest

[56:55] of next year, which is likely not practical.

[57:03] And then just as a follow-up, so the alternative solution that involves a line just to this

[57:09] home for just the sewer, if there was some point in time that the other properties annexed

[57:15] then would we then proceed with doing the full project of water and sewer and then this

[57:21] temporary sewer line would be just temporary?

[57:25] We could look at services to each property.

[57:28] We'd have to evaluate it at that time.

[57:30] The service solution is not perfect by any means.

[57:36] So it's possible that we could then bring a main up at that point.

[57:43] It's also possible that if we don't know what the property owners may do in the future

[57:48] if they choose to sell, if this is kind of a commercial corridor of the city of Lake

[57:56] Mills right now, so as property owners want to sell their properties, does a commercial

[58:02] entity that wants to develop retail or something of that nature in that area, purchase properties

[58:11] from property owners at which case it makes more financially viable for them to handle

[58:17] the cost of the full water and sewer extension. We have not heard from the other property

[58:23] owners that their wells or sewers are coming up on failure. They could contact us at

[58:32] any time but they haven't to this point told us that they're coming up on a failure.

[58:35] here.

[58:38] So it would be simpler if everything happened altogether, right? All three properties

[58:42] required service, but that's not typically how these things work out for us. And so it's

[58:49] one of those, it's not a great answer, but we'll kind of have to figure out what we would

[58:53] do moving forward. If we did, if we do go the service route here, we can obviously extend

[58:59] more services off the main. It gets more expensive. This is the middle.

[59:07] So there's another

[59:08] property just further on lending which would be it further costs to do a service on. We could

[59:15] also choose to incorporate it into a future project without the intention to special assess

[59:21] at that time and allow people to allow those residents to hook up if we got more favorable pricing

[59:27] in there. This is unique.

[59:32] There's just so few homes that would be served by this extension.

[59:37] And so there's very few economies of scale to reduce the costs of this that would be ultimately

[59:43] borne by the property owner. And so that's why we're looking at what is perhaps a suboptimal option

[59:51] from the city's perspective, but one that allows us to fulfill our obligation to the homeowner and

[1:00:00] I would be placed on them. Thank you. Any further discussion, Mary? I'm curious. If we have, you have an example where we've done this before and how much the special assessment was for each homeowner, like a longer street that would have had more, how much would they have spent per person or per household? I could come up with it, but not. Okay. I don't have it for you. I'm just trying to understand the reasonableness between what we've made. Someone else may have faced in this scenario.

[1:00:30] this $70,000 does not seem, I agree that it's not, you know, a cost I would want to pass on, but the alternative and at least the cost of it sounds reasonable.

[1:00:43] What are the risks for that solution, are there any risks that are going to be more cost?

[1:00:50] The most recent farmers and merchants bank annexed in the city did not extend at that time because they had functioning wells, they're on city sewer, did not extend water, but there is an agreement with them that when water is available, they'll pay for their portion of that connection.

[1:01:10] So we have we have done that in the past, but that's a little different because they're not receiving any water service from the city right now and they have they had a functioning well it wasn't expiring.

[1:01:23] I would have to do some research on what our past special assessments have been we have not done a special assessment since I have been with the city the last three years.

[1:01:33] So we're likely going several years back, which was in a different bidding environment than we've seen since in the inflationary years.

[1:01:43] And that, you know, the current environment that we're in.

[1:01:51] Any further, Greg?

[1:01:54] On that temporary single service, how long would we project it?

[1:02:01] that would it'll last it'll last for a significant amount of time. I wouldn't we

[1:02:06] don't have to call it temporary. It could function for the life of that of the

[1:02:11] pipe that's in the ground essentially.

[1:02:21] So there's a so there's a grind there's

[1:02:26] as a part of the service there's a grinder pump that grinder pump would 10

[1:02:31] years on that but the pipe in the ground will last longer than the pump

[1:02:37] The pump will, the piping they put on the private side to bring service into the home will last.

[1:02:43] And so, we could connect to it in the future if we were available and we could take into consideration the amount that's already been paid by that property at that time.

[1:02:56] So, we don't expect it failing, you know, the pump will fail before the pipes do.

[1:03:07] Any other questions or comments?

[1:03:09] And the pump will be privately, privately owned.

[1:03:16] Okay, we need a motion on this Resolution 25-44.

[1:03:21] A motion to approve City Council Resolution 25-44, which is to reject all bids for Lyndon Street sewer and water project.

[1:03:33] Second.

[1:03:34] We have a motion by Mr. Water, seconded by Mr. Maker, any further discussion.

[1:03:38] motion. Seeing none, Mr. Wood you please call the roll on resolution 25-44.

[1:03:45] Mr. Coots.

[1:03:47] Aye.

[1:03:47] Mr. Waters.

[1:03:49] Aye.

[1:03:50] Ms. Curler.

[1:03:51] Aye.

[1:03:52] Mr. Manger.

[1:03:53] Aye.

[1:03:54] Ms. Quedno.

[1:03:55] Aye.

[1:03:56] Motion passes 5-0.

[1:04:00] Thank you. Next resolution is 25-45.

[1:04:04] Mr. Wood you read that one for us.

[1:04:07] City Council Resolution 25-45, authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement with Midwest, SIP and Social for the provision of seasonal non-alcoholic beverage concession services at Sandy Beach Park.

[1:04:22] Is there a motion?

[1:04:24] A motion to approve City Council Resolution 25-45, authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement with Midwest, SIP and Social.

[1:04:38] I think I heard Mr. Coots first, so most of my Mr. Waters, seconded by Mr. Coots.

[1:04:46] Dray Kinney, explanation or something.

[1:04:49] This lease agreement was approved in template form by the City Council many years ago.

[1:04:55] This is a standard agreement that the City enters into, we recommend approval.

[1:05:00] So, there's just a proving another vendor under the correct agreement.

[1:05:07] Any questions or discussion?

[1:05:08] Mary.

[1:05:08] I just have one question.

[1:05:10] I'm curious to know where the, there have been some feedback from some citizens

[1:05:15] regarding the scheduling of the food trucks in past time.

[1:05:21] And there is a clause that says a reasonable schedule and it talks about the schedule.

[1:05:25] How does that fit in with as far as like noncompliance or how do we manage a schedule

[1:05:30] and just to make sure that we're kind of not causing consternation with our participants

[1:05:39] there at Sandy Beach when they're expecting something and it's possibly not there.

[1:05:44] That would affect their ability to renew at least in following seasons if they're not

[1:05:48] following through with a reasonable schedule.

[1:05:50] It doesn't state specifically like Monday through Sunday.

[1:05:53] These are the schedules in the hours that you'll have and there's no minimum set of hours.

[1:05:57] But if they're not there actually conducting service, they're really not providing a service to the parkgoers, so that could very well impact lease approval for the following seasons because once these leases are approved, it would just be a agreement and following ceases between the vendor and the city to continue conducting business at CNE Beach.

[1:06:15] So if a vendor is really not working for us, not providing the service, we would have the ability to avoid a lease with them.

[1:06:22] Okay.

[1:06:23] Does that answer your question?

[1:06:25] Yeah.

[1:06:25] So essentially what you're confirming is that we are pretty open to how, when they show

[1:06:32] up, then when they're there, we're not holding them to a schedule.

[1:06:37] I was reading in the contract language.

[1:06:40] There was agreed upon schedule.

[1:06:42] So it gave me the impression that they said they would be here X days, X hours.

[1:06:47] And so that we, that was agreed upon.

[1:06:49] so that you're kind of suggesting that they're just we're not kind of that tight.

[1:06:53] There is no penalty clause in it, other than non-renewable of the lease and so the enforcement mechanism

[1:07:03] for someone not showing up doesn't really exist. We have talked internally about whether we want to

[1:07:09] change the structure and how they compensate the city for the lease and whether that includes

[1:07:18] a fee instead of a percentage of sales, a fee up front so that they would want to be here to

[1:07:26] recoup the cost of that. We haven't really moved in earnest on changing any of this lease template

[1:07:35] until we kind of know what the city wants to do at Sandy Beach with food service. So there's

[1:07:41] There's things we could explore, but if the council doesn't view food trucks as a long-term service at Sandy Beach, then it may not be worth it to go down that path.

[1:07:55] Thanks.

[1:07:56] Thanks, Eric.

[1:07:59] Any other questions or discussion on Resolution 25-45?

[1:08:06] Seeing none, Ms. Lee, would you please call the rule on Resolution 25-45?

[1:08:10] 5. Mr. Waters.

[1:08:13] Aye.

[1:08:14] Ms. Curler.

[1:08:15] Aye.

[1:08:16] Ms. Mager.

[1:08:17] Aye.

[1:08:18] Ms. Kudno.

[1:08:19] Aye.

[1:08:20] Mr. Kudz.

[1:08:21] Aye.

[1:08:22] Motion passes 5-0.

[1:08:25] Thank you.

[1:08:26] Our next item is Resolution 25-46.

[1:08:30] Ms. Tudz, would you read that one for us?

[1:08:33] City Council Resolution 25-46, committing 2,500,000 towards the LD Fargo Public Library

[1:08:40] I

[1:08:43] move to approve City Council Resolution 25-46, committing $2.5 million toward the L.D. Fargo Public Library Expansion Project.

[1:08:57] Motion by Ms. Quedna, I was here a second.

[1:09:01] Mr. Coots will second.

[1:09:03] Seconded by Mr. Coots.

[1:09:06] Okay, I see our drake, are you presenting the search, we want to have a quick one.

[1:09:10] If there's questions, I would invite the city council to have the library director up or any representative that they have here if you have questions

[1:09:18] And we need a detailed financials. I can as I say we had a detailed presentation last time so I don't know

[1:09:24] People have specific questions for the library director. Are you want to just go into discussion Greg

[1:09:33] Waters? Why don't you kick it off?

[1:09:36] I'd like to make an amendment to this

[1:09:41] Resolution I rewrote it because there was

[1:09:44] 2.5 was listed three times, so I just rewrote it.

[1:09:48] But it's basically committing a 50% matching contribution,

[1:09:53] not to exceed 2.5 towards the LD Fargo Public Library Expansion project.

[1:10:01] So, there's copies that way.

[1:10:03] So, this is a complete replacement.

[1:10:07] Placement, comment.

[1:10:08] There's one extra copy for Misty at the end.

[1:10:11] And

[1:10:17] can you maybe walk us through what's different?

[1:10:20] I can read it, I did fluff it up a little bit.

[1:10:26] Whereas the LDFARGO Public Library Board of Trustees has identified the expansion of the library facility as a significant priority to maintaining enhancing services to the community.

[1:10:39] And whereas the Board of Trustees has estimated a budget of $4.5 million for the expansion project.

[1:10:48] And whereas the financial feasibility of the project requires a partnership between the City of Lake Mills and other funding sources including grants, foundation support, and private donations.

[1:11:01] And whereas the City of Lake Mills is willing to provide 50% matching contribution to support this project,

[1:11:08] not to exceed 2.5 million in total city funds.

[1:11:13] And whereas the remaining funds, at least 2 million will be secured through non-city sources,

[1:11:18] including grants, foundation contributions, and private donations.

[1:11:22] And whereas in 2025, a referendum has been held asking the voters of the City of Lake Mills

[1:11:30] to support a city contribution of up to 2.5 million for the Library Expansion Project and 55% of the voters approved, whereas LD Fargo Public Library provides essential education, cultural, and informational services to the city's growing population, and whereas proposed expansion of the LD Public Library is in the best interest of the city and its residents.

[1:11:56] now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City Council, the City of Lake Mills, Jefferson County, Wisconsin, that the City Council hereby commits to fund 50% of the total cost of the L.D. Fargo Public Library Expansion Project with the city's total contribution not to exceed 2.5 million to be budgeted for the year 2027 adopted on this day.

[1:12:24] Okay,

[1:12:28] so we have amendment, motion for an amendment proposed by Greg Waters.

[1:12:36] Can I second, I will second, the motion, we have a motion by Mr.

[1:12:40] Waters, seconded by Ms. Schmaker.

[1:12:43] As far as housekeeping, Attorney Drescher, would it be appropriate to label this resolution with a letter A at the end?

[1:12:51] And then that's, since it's a complete replacement.

[1:12:54] Okay. So we'll refer to this now. We haven't voted yet, but we'll refer to this as resolution 25-46A.

[1:13:03] So we have a motion and a second. So let's have discussion on the proposed amendment.

[1:13:10] Greg, do you want to give any further information about the purpose of your amendment?

[1:13:14] Well, my thoughts is that the City Council would be willing to support the project up to 50%, but not to exceed that amount.

[1:13:21] currently as written we would be exceeding 50% amount and I think it's more

[1:13:26] appropriate to be at this level. Hopefully we can get more contributions from

[1:13:32] the community and still donate the 2.5 and take it up to about a 5 million

[1:13:37] dollar project but that's up to the library foundation and their fundraising

[1:13:42] efforts so it does leave it open for that possibility.

[1:13:50] Any other discussion Mary?

[1:13:51] So I support the 50% matching contribution, I think it puts a balanced perspective and skin in the game for the library board to really go after the funds and the city then being at equal share.

[1:14:09] I am pausing on $2.5 million. I still am concerned with not having the CIP in front

[1:14:18] of us to know what we are planning to commit to in the next year but feeding into 2027

[1:14:26] and the overall impact on whatever happens with the new mill rate.

[1:14:32] And we haven't made our decision yet on our Sandy Beach investment which is on the CIP.

[1:14:36] And so I am worried that when I think about what is it that if we had to say we are comfortable

[1:14:46] adding X percent increase to our citizens pocketbooks, what would that increase look like and

[1:14:54] then how does the money we provide to this and other

[1:15:00] Through things all apply when we look at it as a whole against our strategy, because our strategy had, did not have this, I mentioned the last meeting, I'm mentioning today, the city, I 100% support the city being a contributor. But I am worried about the amount that without having the big picture that this is a big, it's a large amount, but we have other large investments that we have been discussing that I don't know what

[1:15:29] that they are and so I feel like it's going to be an end and an end and then when we look

[1:15:35] at it as a whole we have pushed some of our citizens out of their ability to stay here.

[1:15:44] So I would have said at an exact amount to be determined after we have the CIP discussion

[1:15:53] which would be in a few weeks so I would it's like a pause just on committing to two and

[1:15:58] and a half today, reckonings, I'd like the 50%,

[1:16:01] but I might be 50% up to 2 million,

[1:16:03] depending on what the CIP looks like,

[1:16:05] and when we balance 2027 and look at that,

[1:16:08] what can we afford, or what do we want to afford,

[1:16:12] and maybe it is two and a half might fit in beautifully,

[1:16:15] but I feel like I don't know yet

[1:16:17] because we haven't had that discussion

[1:16:18] about some other big hitters that were in our priority set.

[1:16:25] Can I make a comment?

[1:16:26] Yeah, Michelle, I have to formulate my words correctly here.

[1:16:34] There will always be something, we know that there's upcoming projects.

[1:16:39] We know that at 20 years down the line there's going to be a need for a potential wastewater

[1:16:45] treatment plant that's going to be a ton of money in comparison to this.

[1:16:51] I am well aware of the need that the community had for updating our Sandy Beach and that has

[1:16:58] been a long time going project, but so is the library.

[1:17:04] And as I've mentioned before, the library has not requested funds to grow in any capacity.

[1:17:16] I would hate for it to be held up because of worry that there would be another cost for

[1:17:25] something else when we know for a fact that this is going to benefit our community.

[1:17:33] The Sandy Beach will benefit our community too, but I would be, I would really hesitate

[1:17:41] in saying that one is better than the other, that's not where I'm going with this.

[1:17:46] What I'm thinking about is how that money will pay dividends down the line, and there's

[1:17:54] a good chance that, you know, it'll be another 75 years before the library asks for money

[1:18:00] again because we have expanded to a point that we can be, you know, meet that capacity

[1:18:05] of services.

[1:18:08] And as far as, you know, we've been dealing with a lot of communication with

[1:18:14] regard to assessments and a lot of people are really freaking out thinking that this is

[1:18:19] going to greatly impact their ability to stay in Lake Mills and I would caution that thinking.

[1:18:27] I would caution the way that it will, we have to spend money sometimes to do the things

[1:18:38] that are beneficial for all and this is one of those situations where I think it's important

[1:18:43] that we recognize this is a community need and a community service that Greg did a very

[1:18:49] a good job of highlighting more specifically the things that this community benefits from

[1:18:55] from the library with increasing those, with increasing the size and where over 50% of

[1:19:04] it is there to help children, I cannot, I cannot come up with a better investment in my

[1:19:11] mind.

[1:19:11] And

[1:19:14] thank you, Michelle.

[1:19:16] I guess I'd like to weigh in on this.

[1:19:20] I'm, I think generally in support of your amendment, Greg.

[1:19:25] And I particularly like how you highlighted that it is a partnership.

[1:19:29] It requires a partnership between the city, other funding sources, foundations, private donations,

[1:19:37] et cetera.

[1:19:39] The city owns the building and owns the property.

[1:19:43] It's sort of a unique situation, because the city owns the building, the library board is a separate entity that governs the operations and the decision making there, but I think it's reasonable for the library board and for the community to expect that the city would contribute a significant amount toward an expansion project since we will be, you know, continue to be the owner of the property.

[1:20:12] I appreciate your remarks, Mary, about, you know, how does this line up with the CIP and the other things that, you know, we know that we're going to need to make investments in.

[1:20:25] But when we need to make investments, I think we can do them quickly when we needed to buy a ladder truck, we did it.

[1:20:34] we knew we needed to do it was long overdue and I believe that this expansion project is

[1:20:40] a long overdue and the library board and the community has been working on this for

[1:20:45] a very long time so I'm prepared to make to vote on that commitment tonight because I

[1:20:51] think the it's needed if they're going to raise their matching share they're going to need

[1:20:58] to get started and I think if we can we've had a placeholder for up to four million dollars

[1:21:03] I think in our CIP in past year.

[1:21:06] So this is not as much as that, but I think it's a kind of project that we shouldn't just

[1:21:13] wait and say, well, until we know about this or this or that or the other thing, I think

[1:21:17] we should make a commitment to this.

[1:21:23] Any other discussion, Mr. Kutes?

[1:21:24] Do I say something?

[1:21:25] Yeah.

[1:21:25] I mean, I'm concerned about the CIP too, but this is the only one of these special projects

[1:21:35] that were talking about and considering coming, you know, in the future that has already passed

[1:21:41] a referendum. And the referendum that was passed by the voters wasn't conditional or matching

[1:21:48] or anything like that. It was for a set amount.

[1:21:57] I don't need to go into the whole history. I thought

[1:22:01] that part of the presentation probably took a little bit too long, last week. But I understand that

[1:22:07] the library has put a lot of time and effort into the plans and I am willing, I'm going

[1:22:17] to be voting against the amended resolution not because I don't want to fund the library

[1:22:21] but because I want to fund it completely and not in a matching way. I'll be voting to

[1:22:27] fund the library regardless of which version of this passes but I think we should commit

[1:22:33] 2.5 million dollars to it, especially because the library has said several times that a commitment from the city would assist in their fundraising efforts and I would like to make that commitment and not hedge my bets on the commitment, either.

[1:22:47] Any further comments or discussions?

[1:22:52] We're still discussing the amendment.

[1:22:54] Can I follow up with the great?

[1:22:56] I completely agree with Greg's comment that, and I'm sorry at the end point so

[1:23:01] before, that the fundraising and the commitment from other entities is really very much based

[1:23:10] on whether or not we commit.

[1:23:13] that committing on condition may impact the ability for other entities to be able to provide those services or those funds.

[1:23:24] And I think in the situation where we're in, where we're looking at the potential of even an increase of 10% because of inflation,

[1:23:34] we really should do the whole kitten caboodle and do the 2.5 and commit that and stick to it.

[1:23:42] whether because if we try to say, well, if the, if the board or whomever gets 2 million,

[1:23:50] then we'll give 2 million, but then it will, it'll be too late to be able to provide

[1:23:56] the services at the 2 million cost.

[1:23:59] Do you see what I'm saying?

[1:24:00] Does that make sense or a dynamic use that's it?

[1:24:03] Okay.

[1:24:04] Because I'm, I'm just concerned that if we condition, put it on a condition, then we are delaying

[1:24:10] And ultimately getting it to the point where it's going to end up costing us more.

[1:24:16] But we haven't agreed to that.

[1:24:18] So then it's putting it to service to the library because then they can't use the money the same way that they could, do you know what I mean?

[1:24:29] I think the fiscal responsibility for the city is pretty high in this situation.

[1:24:35] And like we've been talking about, there's a lot of other projects.

[1:24:38] I want to be responsible for the money, but at the same time, I want to support the library, so hence the amendment.

[1:24:45] I think one thing I would see, I appreciate your comments, Michelle, and it seems to me, I know that the library board has set a maximum budget of 4.5 million.

[1:24:58] It seems to me the way that this amended resolution is written, it would allow the library board to go up to 5 million.

[1:25:06] and if the board could raise $2.5 million,

[1:25:09] if I'm reading that correctly.

[1:25:10] So it could allow for some further expenditures potentially,

[1:25:16] but obviously dependent on fundraising.

[1:25:20] Right, I'm just wondering if the fundraising capacity,

[1:25:28] because the way that I'm in drug,

[1:25:29] maybe you can help correct me if I'm wrong,

[1:25:32] but if we as the city say, well, we'll commit up to

[1:25:37] 2.5 million or 50% when the library board is able to provide that, meet that need, I'm

[1:25:50] worried that the other entities will look at that as, well, that's not very stable and not

[1:25:58] provide as much.

[1:25:59] We're making a commitment tonight.

[1:26:00] It's a commitment.

[1:26:01] It's it's it's kind of a common it's a commitment but it feels kind of I

[1:26:07] Don't know it doesn't feel solid. It feels like well if you guys can do your end

[1:26:14] We'll do our end which I mean in normal situations. Yep. I would agree with that if my you know

[1:26:20] It in our household you do a little bit. I'll do a little bit. We'll get it done together

[1:26:24] But in this situation we're looking at a timeline that the money is impacted

[1:26:31] by time. And that would be my concern, is that if we say, well, if the library board

[1:26:36] can earn or can get that much money by 2027, we'll give you 2.5 million. Well, we can't get

[1:26:45] the 2.5 million unless the other entities won't provide unless they know that this is for sure.

[1:26:55] So we're saying it's for sure, but we're not saying it's for sure for that amount of money.

[1:27:01] And that's where I'm wondering if that's going to have a domino effect for other fund raising efforts.

[1:27:12] Michelle, can I ask a clarifying question?

[1:27:15] So under the initial original resolution, it's asking for commitment of $2.5 million on a $4.5 million project.

[1:27:23] So what happens if we get to 2027 and the library board and you know the fundraisers

[1:27:31] have not raised $2 million, then what happens? Does that

[1:27:35] mean the project doesn't go forward? Can I

[1:27:39] bring Gerard up to the podium and I, or maybe Drake would weigh in,

[1:27:42] I don't know where to get that answer, but- If the dollars

[1:27:48] aren't there, the project can't happen.

[1:27:49] So if, under any commitment from the city, if you commit 2.5 million on a matching basis or 2.5 million regardless, if the library board does not, the library does not meet the fundraising necessary in order to ultimately pay for whatever amount remains, they either have to ask the city for more dollars.

[1:28:16] delay the project and fund raise for longer or the project doesn't happen.

[1:28:24] Or we would maybe just be able to cut it back to the amount we have as well.

[1:28:30] So if we raise 4 million, maybe we'd be able to cut it back and make it affordable.

[1:28:35] Which would also mean that we'd have to talk to FEH again and pay them more money for another

[1:28:43] plan.

[1:28:44] Yeah.

[1:28:44] We'd have to pay for any kind of redesign.

[1:28:46] Unless there's ways we could just cut things out of the existing design, but I don't know

[1:28:53] Or we're still really pushing now towards the fundraising

[1:28:57] Jody sweeter sweet or consultant is very enthusiastic

[1:29:03] A lot of times and she's been doing this for years. It just takes a

[1:29:08] First donor to step up and everybody falls in line and in this

[1:29:12] Situation is actually the city committing and then the other donors know that they're

[1:29:16] Those I commit from the city and they step forward and commit as well.

[1:29:23] Jarr, do you perceive that there would be any hesitation by anybody else to give us money if the amount of money the city would contribute is conditional?

[1:29:35] I was teeing up the question, right?

[1:29:39] Yes, there's at least one foundation they've said they want to see the committee, city committed.

[1:29:46] They don't want to obligate that money, give it to us or have it sitting unused without knowing that the project is going to be successful and to be successful.

[1:29:55] It has to have the city commitment and there's a number of other private donors.

[1:30:00] Members that we've heard from, and I've heard through a second hand as well, that they want the city to commit the funding before they're going to give any gifts. I don't see the word and conditional in my I agree. This is a commitment. It's not maybe the solid amendment. It's a commitment. It is a commitment. Yes. The part that makes me think conditional is up at least or up to.

[1:30:30] Is there any other discussion, comments, questions on?

[1:30:35] Resolution 25-46A, which is the amendment introduced by Greg Waters.

[1:30:44] Okay, seeing none, Mr. Wood, you call the roll on the amendment to City Resolution 25-46, which we're calling 25-46A.

[1:30:56] Ms. Curler,

[1:31:01] Ms. Schmager.

[1:31:03] Hi.

[1:31:05] Ms. Quidno?

[1:31:06] No.

[1:31:08] Mr. Kudz?

[1:31:09] no. Mr. Waters. Aye. Motion passes 3 to 2.

[1:31:18] Okay, so we have motion 25-46 as amended, and then we still need to vote on that.

[1:31:29] Vote on the amended motion unless someone wants to make another amendment.

[1:31:34] Is there any further discussion or amendments?

[1:31:36] So

[1:31:44] we have City Council Resolution 25-46 as amended.

[1:31:49] Can you give me a minute?

[1:31:51] Sure.

[1:31:51] Thanks.

[1:31:52] And while we have that minute, let's just refer to it as 25-46A.

[1:31:58] Okay.

[1:31:58] No, it's 25-46A.

[1:32:00] Okay.

[1:32:02] Just to clarify for the council what you'll be voting on in this regard, and I vote would

[1:32:08] be voting to commit the city to a matching, a commitment of matching 50% of the library

[1:32:17] project up to $2.5 million. No vote would be that you're voting not to, it would effectively

[1:32:27] I would simply result in not committing any dollars to the project.

[1:32:32] Correct.

[1:32:33] Okay.

[1:32:34] Can I amend said resolution to strike out up to on the one, two, three, four, five, six, whereas?

[1:32:47] So I would caution you against it because if you removed the limit, you're committing to an unknown amount of any,

[1:32:55] If they raised $7 million, you'd be committing to $7 million.

[1:33:02] Michelle, and you just started to say the sixth whereas that's the paragraph that talks about the referendum.

[1:33:11] That was incorrect. That was the language in the referendum.

[1:33:21] Would you like to take a recess?

[1:33:26] No, I'm sorry, just give me one minute.

[1:33:28] Okay,

[1:33:37] if I'm reading this correctly and maybe I misinterpreted based on that that sixth whereas and if I did I greatly apologize.

[1:33:48] We are as the city committing 2.5 million as long as the library board's fundraising meets 2.5 million.

[1:34:03] And when or if they don't, what is our plan?

[1:34:09] Well, this was written in the same manner that the original motion was that budgeted for the year 2027.

[1:34:18] So it did not change that year.

[1:34:20] If they didn't, they'd have to come back to you and ask again.

[1:34:23] So if they come to you and say we've raised $1.5 million, we've raised $2 million.

[1:34:29] dollars fundraising has slowed the last $500,000 we don't believe is feasible to collect

[1:34:37] they'd have to ask you to fill the gap or they'd have to value engineer down to the

[1:34:43] I'm sorry if it if it came up short of the 4.5 million if it was short of whatever budget

[1:34:49] amount they needed to bring the project to fruition they would need to either come to the city to

[1:34:54] asked to fill the gap or value engineer down to the funds they have. So if they

[1:35:00] raise 1.5 million in the city with then match 1.5 million they'd have to

[1:35:06] value engineer down to 3 million or ask for more money. If they raise 2

[1:35:12] million dollars in the city then matches 2 million they need they have a

[1:35:15] $500,000 gap. So they really they're to get to the 4.5 million based on the

[1:35:24] This resolution has written, they need to raise $2.25 million to get to $4.5 million.

[1:35:31] If they got to $2.5 million, they would be, the city would then kick in another $2.5 million, and

[1:35:37] they could build a $5 million project.

[1:35:43] Correct.

[1:35:45] I get the intention, and I understand what you're saying.

[1:35:50] Again, my concern is that entities that are giving a large amount of money are going

[1:36:00] to hesitate because it's not firm.

[1:36:07] So is there an amendment that you want to propose to try to address that?

[1:36:11] Yeah,

[1:36:14] this is a very common, like all of the big capital, a lot of big capital programs

[1:36:20] I've been on, this 50-50 matches actually very, it's a precedent actually in all industry,

[1:36:26] it's very common, I should say, to have a match, and actually I'm not an expert in this

[1:36:33] space, but I think it actually generates some energy and interest to say, oh, you know,

[1:36:39] I know we can up the alley because someone else is going to match me, it does, I feel it's a, I don't know, it's a common way to look at trying to gain momentum on fund raising, having a, I'm not, it is a, it's a, it's a commitment so when you, they put their dollar in the city's right there at the dollar, there's, there's no, you know, I'm saying,

[1:37:09] 2.5 million.

[1:37:10] Up to 2.5 million.

[1:37:11] So I know you're thinking I didn't mean to interrupt your thoughts because you're trying

[1:37:18] to get something in here that we're settling for you, right?

[1:37:23] The match becomes part of the fundraising, the pitch becomes if you give $100, it's actually

[1:37:28] worth $200.

[1:37:29] Yeah.

[1:37:29] And all the way up another line.

[1:37:32] But we're not, okay,

[1:37:47] apologies for not really knowing because I know you two are very

[1:37:51] versed in business and that's not my cup of tea and unfortunately I don't have that

[1:37:59] trust to fall back on.

[1:38:02] And so that's where my hesitancy lies, right, is this is not a, well this is kind of a business

[1:38:10] But this is not a business situation.

[1:38:13] There is a limit of a capacity that the fundraising is able to do.

[1:38:22] And that was my concern.

[1:38:24] If fundraising only got a million dollars that that's all we're going to contribute

[1:38:32] unless the library board comes to you and says, hey, we know that you said up to.

[1:38:40] But we came up short, and so hey, would you mind giving us the extra?

[1:38:47] I'm saying why don't we just say we're going to do that right off the bat and and save the trouble of

[1:38:55] having another ask later on.

[1:38:58] So this amendment did pass three to two. So that's what's before us now.

[1:39:04] I'm looking at some folks in the audience who I think are

[1:39:08] There are fantastic fundraisers that are ready to go out there and change their message

[1:39:14] and say, okay, if you give this much, it's automatically doubled by the city.

[1:39:19] It's a little bit of a change of tactic, but it's two and a quarter million versus two

[1:39:27] and a half million.

[1:39:28] I think it's a motivation for everyone in the community and we haven't had something like

[1:39:35] this for people in the community to really focus on in a long time as far as a charitable entity,

[1:39:41] and I can't think of a better project than our beloved library. I mean, it's the anchor of

[1:39:47] our downtown. I can't think of anything that you could sell better to a donor than the

[1:39:53] LDFARGO library and doing an expansion of that for our community. So I'm optimistic that our

[1:39:59] for community volunteers and expert fundraisers are going to be able to be up to the task.

[1:40:07] Okay.

[1:40:10] Good move on.

[1:40:12] Is there any further discussion then?

[1:40:15] Okay.

[1:40:15] So I think we are ready for a roll call vote on the City Council Resolution 25-46A.

[1:40:25] Ms. Mayer.

[1:40:26] Aye.

[1:40:27] Ms. Quedano.

[1:40:29] Aye.

[1:40:30] Mr. Kudz.

[1:40:32] Aye.

[1:40:32] Okay.

[1:40:33] Mr. Waters.

[1:40:35] Aye.

[1:40:36] Ms. Curler.

[1:40:37] Aye.

[1:40:39] Motion passes 5-0.

[1:40:42] Thank you, everyone, and thank you to all the volunteers and folks who are friends

[1:40:49] of the library who are, they're already leaving to get to work to work on this fundraising.

[1:40:55] So thank you, everyone, for that.

[1:40:57] Okay. Our next agenda item is ordinance 1277. This is the second reading tonight. So,

[1:41:09] Misty, would you do that second reading for us, please?

[1:41:13] Ornans 1277 in Ornans annexing territory of the city of Lake Mills, Jefferson County, Wisconsin.

[1:41:21] Thank you. So, this is the second reading tonight and we would normally have third reading next time.

[1:41:27] I think there was a suggestion last time to advance the

[1:41:32] deferred reading, but there was some missing information

[1:41:34] from the state.

[1:41:35] Am I remembering that right?

[1:41:37] Ms. Dia, we heard back from the state agencies have we passed

[1:41:43] to the comment period?

[1:41:45] Yes.

[1:41:45] I actually just got a notification from them late yesterday

[1:41:49] afternoon that they did find it in the interest so we can

[1:41:54] proceed forward from there.

[1:41:55] I do want to make just know that the next step in this would be the rezone because with the annexation will come in as

[1:42:03] RD roll development and it is on for public hearing at plan commission next

[1:42:09] I'm sorry this late of this month on the 26th and then I'll go to council for the rezoning

[1:42:15] But the city council could could waive a reading and approve the annexation tonight and that when the rezone would continue as scheduled

[1:42:23] correct

[1:42:25] So it's the prerogative of the City Council, whether you'd want to waive readings, the requirements for the procedural requirements for annexation have been fulfilled.

[1:42:36] Okay. Is there anybody that wants to make such a motion?

[1:42:44] Hearing none, we will move this to third reading at our next meeting.

[1:42:48] So our next agenda item is ordinance 1278.

[1:42:52] This is also the second reading tonight.

[1:42:55] So, Mr. Wood, you do the second reading for us on that one.

[1:42:59] Ornids 1278.

[1:43:00] Amending City of Lake Mills ordinance section 615-14.

[1:43:03] Parking time limitations.

[1:43:06] Section 615-15.

[1:43:07] No parking zones.

[1:43:09] And section 615-16.

[1:43:11] School parking zones.

[1:43:12] City of Lake Mills, Wisconsin.

[1:43:16] Thank you.

[1:43:17] Any questions or comments on this one for this evening?

[1:43:20] we'll otherwise it'll be scheduled for third reading at our next meeting.

[1:43:27] Okay, seeing none, we have our next agenda item is ordinance 1279.

[1:43:34] This is the first reading tonight, so this too would you do the first reading for us.

[1:43:39] Ordinance 1279, amending comprehensive plan, future land use map,

[1:43:43] parcel number 246-0714-0734025, City of Lake Mills, Wisconsin.

[1:43:49] Thank you, and I see we have our city planner here tonight, so welcome Dustin.

[1:43:58] Do you want to give us an overview of this ordinance for a poll song?

[1:44:05] Certainly as I get situated.

[1:44:07] Give me a minute.

[1:44:08] Thank you.

[1:44:17] So this proposed comprehensive plan amendment comes with a recommendation from the plan commission at their last meeting.

[1:44:23] These are the 15-odd acres that are off of Tyranena, just the south of the Mangon Rock Lake

[1:44:31] Luxury Apartments development. It's on the far eastern corporate limits of the community.

[1:44:39] Has has been mentioned in the past, this developer has come forward with a number of different

[1:44:45] iterations for this southern area of land that he owned that has, that has currently zoned our one

[1:44:52] single family, and in the city's comprehensive plan has been shown for R1.

[1:45:00] Financial development. Through a series of concept plans that were brought to the Plan Commission, the Plan Commission in dialogue with the developer has been open to potentially other development types than just single family development, notably trying to attract or open to the opportunities for other residential development, meaning single family, two family,

[1:45:29] three to six unit or eight unit buildings and then transitioning up to the existing Rock Lake

[1:45:36] apartments which are generally around 14 unit buildings.

[1:45:40] So again, through over the course of a couple of years in a number of iterations of concept

[1:45:46] plans, the plan commission has said if you can come forward with a plan that is providing

[1:45:53] and good transition from the existing apartments to the single family to the south, the single

[1:45:59] family to the south that's located along Tyrone Park Road is all in the town so that this

[1:46:05] property is actually the kind of southern municipal property in that area. It said that

[1:46:12] it would be receptive to receiving a development plan for a mixed residential type. To enable

[1:46:20] What will that to happen? The first step would be to amend the comprehensive plan of the land use plan, future land use map, for this specific property from, from single family to what is our plan to neighborhood, our plan neighborhood category is specifically intended to permit and encourage the diversification of dwelling types in a comprehensive development plan, a unified around

[1:46:49] design elements, so the Plan Commission has said we have been supportive of that development

[1:46:59] plan coming forward and said we are recommending to the Council to approve the Plan Neighborhood

[1:47:07] Mixed Use. I would like to make it clear that should the Council choose to amend the future

[1:47:14] land use map to plan residential. It does not change the zoning at this time. It enables

[1:47:20] the opportunity for a rezoning to occur likely to include a plan development district, which

[1:47:28] is a general development plan and precise implementation plan. In essence, this says not just the

[1:47:34] plan commission, but also the council is receptive to development of this site in with other dwelling

[1:47:41] unit types other than solely single family. It still could be solely single family. The

[1:47:46] plan neighborhood does allow single family by definition in the comprehensive plan language.

[1:47:56] It does not obligate the plan commission nor the council to change the zoning from R-14,

[1:48:03] but it does open the opportunity. Should the council not approve of the land of the future land use

[1:48:10] map amendment to plan neighborhood, a development plan that has anything other than single-family

[1:48:15] development would not be permissible. So I just want to make sure that those items are

[1:48:20] clear. I can certainly provide more information or answer any questions that you may have about

[1:48:25] that. But in a nutshell, that's the recommendation coming from the Plan Commission to the Council.

[1:48:32] So I guess just to add on to that, the future land use map amendment is, if you watch the

[1:48:38] plan commission is distinct from the developers request for a zoning change there so you don't

[1:48:45] need to consider that changing the future land use map to plan the neighborhood requires

[1:48:52] you to support a project plan that may come forward to you what the council would be saying

[1:48:58] in this regard is that it is open to developments that include something other than only single

[1:49:06] family housing. That doesn't mean that the Council could not remain committed to a portion of it

[1:49:12] being single-family.

[1:49:16] A conversation over what that plan and neighborhood should look like.

[1:49:24] One other thing I'd like to note because it came up at the Plan Commission as well as tonight is

[1:49:29] the City Council cannot either in its future land use map or through a zoning change.

[1:49:35] demand require that this parcel become

[1:49:41] conservancy park land or anything of that nature that would be a taking from

[1:49:47] the private property owner and would require the city to compensate the property

[1:49:52] owner for the fair market value of that land and so unless the council is willing to

[1:49:58] buy the land you cannot mandate that it remain undeveloped. You can mandate

[1:50:05] how it develops in this regard, right? Currently it's own single-family residential, the council

[1:50:11] may choose not to amend its future land use map and then would therefore not be able to change

[1:50:17] it zoning. A zoning change can only occur if it is consistent with the future land use map. That's

[1:50:26] a statutory requirement and so that is why the future land use map must come first and then a

[1:50:32] requested zoning change would have to come after that, but consideration of the change on

[1:50:39] the future land use map does not mandate you to approve a project plan that does not

[1:50:46] match what the City Council would like to see because the zoning remains R1-4 single

[1:50:53] family until the Council changes that a planned neighborhood would almost by definition have

[1:51:00] a plan development district overlay on it, which would incorporate negotiation between

[1:51:05] the city and whatever developer is proposing something in order to gain the approvals they

[1:51:13] need to move forward with a project. So if you choose to discuss it tonight, if you choose

[1:51:18] to wait till future readings, the conversation should be around the council's vision for

[1:51:26] this property and not be not dedicated to any project plan that may still be under consideration

[1:51:39] by the plan commission. The zoning changes when it would be appropriate to have that conversation

[1:51:46] and meet the open meetings act requirement for that conversation.

[1:51:52] Thank

[1:51:55] you. Are there any questions or discussion from council members this evening?

[1:52:02] Very good.

[1:52:03] Go ahead.

[1:52:04] Oh, I was, did you catch me or was it back?

[1:52:08] Okay.

[1:52:09] I just want to make a point that I recognized in the comprehensive plan regarding planned

[1:52:15] neighborhood.

[1:52:16] And that we have a policy that does stay.

[1:52:19] We should have a mix of 55 to 65, single family, 10 to 22 family, or 5 to 15 single families

[1:52:26] attached 20 to 30 multi-family as a part of a policy in the comprehensive plan.

[1:52:31] So I am wondering why planned neighborhood would fit the particular developer's interest

[1:52:38] who is, I think, has been advocating for 100% multi-family, so zero owner occupied.

[1:52:45] And I feel one of our goals has been, are we have it as a priority noted in the comprehensive

[1:52:50] plan that owner occupied is a critical priority.

[1:52:53] And so I am finding the interest to move to Plan Neighborhood to allow flexibility that

[1:52:59] I'm wondering why this particular land use map change because now I've only been on

[1:53:05] the council for one year and we've had two land use map changes.

[1:53:09] Both of them have been single family and they're moving either multi or some plan development

[1:53:13] and I'm concerned that our level of scrutiny that we have made on the land use map has been

[1:53:19] in the subpar, and because we keep getting our planning commission caught in an opportunity

[1:53:26] where it doesn't fit to the way that the land use map was originally designed.

[1:53:30] And so I've thrown a lot at kind of edge on that, but I'm just, I just call my attention

[1:53:35] why would this particular map change really support the, what I think that developers desire

[1:53:42] would be, which would be all multi-family, zero or no occupied?

[1:53:45] So, I would make it clear the plan is not specified on a occupied.

[1:53:52] The assumption people make when they think of single families on a occupied, zoning

[1:53:56] and land use do not get into on a occupancy.

[1:53:59] That could be a policy decision by an entity, but it does not state that.

[1:54:04] So, single family, traditionally people think of single families, single family detached housing,

[1:54:10] meaning a standalone single family home.

[1:54:13] that is typically owner occupied, okay?

[1:54:19] Duplexes are single family attached housing

[1:54:23] that are typically rented.

[1:54:25] Townhouses, zero lot line are single family attached

[1:54:32] that are typically owner occupied.

[1:54:35] So again, we call out single family within that.

[1:54:41] doplexes are a single family attached product okay I know we're kind of

[1:54:48] getting into semantics here but it is important to understand yeah it's like

[1:54:53] when someone says condominiums versus apartments that's an ownership

[1:54:56] structure right that's not a land use issue they are handled exactly the same way

[1:55:01] when you think of a building that has condos in it versus a building that has

[1:55:05] apartments in it right so that's ownership structure the plan

[1:55:09] And neighborhood is intended to promote economical use of land.

[1:55:14] It is intended in what we've authored into the plan, the conference of plan,

[1:55:19] is a mechanism to help us achieve the desire for more missing middle housing types.

[1:55:26] One of the issues that communities have in Lake Mills is no different.

[1:55:33] You either have large scale apartments, right?

[1:55:37] 12, 14, 16 unit buildings, or you have single family

[1:55:42] detached housing, that missing middle is duplexes.

[1:55:47] We have some duplexes.

[1:55:48] I'm not saying we don't have any.

[1:55:51] We have apartments.

[1:55:53] We don't have a lot of four units, six unit or eight unit

[1:55:56] apartment or residential structures, which

[1:56:01] can be owner occupied or can be rented.

[1:56:03] So, townhouses are brownstone side by side.

[1:56:06] We don't have a lot of that.

[1:56:08] We acknowledge that in the comprehensive plan and it's something that we're trying to

[1:56:12] achieve out here.

[1:56:14] We're trying to avoid a pendulum swing of either only single family detached or only large

[1:56:19] format suburban multi-family product.

[1:56:23] The plan commissioned through a variety of iterations on this site has said we would like to transition

[1:56:29] from the larger scale multi-family to the existing single family.

[1:56:35] And it went through four if not five different kind of concept plan evaluations and meetings

[1:56:43] and providing direction to the developer, saying this does not meet with our expectation

[1:56:49] if it's going to change from being solely single family.

[1:56:53] I say, if it's going to change, meaning that the developer was given direction to come back with something that could be palatable to the Plan Commission and then ultimately to the City Council for transitioning from the multi-family, the solely multi-family to the single family.

[1:57:13] So the Plan Neighborhood, right, it does outline some expected, this is not a large piece of, it sounds like a large piece of land of 15 acres.

[1:57:21] But most plan neighborhoods where we're expecting to use this, the north end of the south

[1:57:26] end, and we have planted it over a hundred acres, provide flexibility of development

[1:57:32] types, depending upon proximity to green spaces, depending upon proximity to transportation

[1:57:41] routes, that we transition different housing and the ability to buy up or down within a

[1:57:48] neighborhood without having to leave criss-cross the community, without having to leave the neighborhood.

[1:57:52] That if you need a, if you want an owner-occupied product, there would be one in your quote-unquote

[1:57:57] neighborhood.

[1:57:57] And if you wanted a rental product, it would be within your neighborhood, right?

[1:58:02] If you want a larger house versus a small house, if you want a duplex or a townhouse versus

[1:58:07] a traditional apartment, right, the ability to not, to stay within your neighborhood was an

[1:58:13] important element.

[1:58:14] There are other pieces that we like to see in larger areas.

[1:58:16] maybe some small-scale neighborhood commercial in a plan neighborhood area, right?

[1:58:21] So you don't have to run to the other side of town to get some basic needs done, right?

[1:58:27] Those are elements and we look at them on a larger scale in the Plan Commission,

[1:58:30] talked about this at length during the comprehensive planning process, was

[1:58:35] what happens when a development comes in in an area, and they're looking at the

[1:58:40] first 20 acres of an area that we're planning 80 acres of plan neighborhood, right?

[1:58:44] And those are challenging design considerations that the Plant Commission will grapple with

[1:58:51] developers when they come into areas.

[1:58:53] Look, you brought us all single family in area and we're looking at transitioning to the

[1:59:00] parklands or next to Highway 89 or a county road where maybe single family isn't the most

[1:59:08] appropriate on a county road.

[1:59:10] Right. Those are things that will be evaluated big picture. This is an element where we have

[1:59:18] existing single family on the south end, we have existing multi-family in the north end.

[1:59:24] Those two areas are bound on the south end by a county trunk highway and on the north end by

[1:59:28] the interstate. To the east is lands also in the town, right, and that is used as a gun range

[1:59:34] and some other things for the county, right?

[1:59:37] It's a challenging piece of land.

[1:59:40] The desire certainly was single family for a long time,

[1:59:43] but the Plan Commission provided directions saying,

[1:59:46] if you are going to change from single family,

[1:59:48] we want to see a variety of housing types.

[1:59:50] We want to see it organized around a central feature.

[1:59:52] We want you to create a neighborhood out of that.

[1:59:55] And that's what they've been trying to bring back

[1:59:57] to the plan.

[2:00:00] Secondly, they can't do that under single family, and you can't do it under just multi-family. So our plan neighborhood is our future-landest category that enables that flexibility of design considerations and of housing types to make this happen. And again, I reiterate what the city manager said. It's not obligating you one way or the other. But if it doesn't change, it will only be single family.

[2:00:29] because that's what the future land use is for that area.

[2:00:32] That was long winded too, and I hope I answered your questions.

[2:00:35] You did. I appreciate it.

[2:00:36] I think just to clarify, so I think in my time, we've had two future land use map amendments.

[2:00:43] One was very small scale on Pine Street to go from multi-family to single family,

[2:00:48] and then the one that's being requested tonight is to go from single family to plan the neighborhood.

[2:00:53] The property at BNV already had a future land use map of multi-family,

[2:00:58] But its own single-family R14, so it was a zoning change request, but not a future land-use map request

[2:01:05] That ultimately hasn't moved forward

[2:01:08] So we do have this is kind of

[2:01:12] This is a little bit different in that it's right now. It's future land use map and its zoning match

[2:01:19] So if you want to do if if the council

[2:01:22] So once the wants to be able to approve anything else, the future land use map needs to

[2:01:27] change because the City Council cannot make a zoning change that conflicts with its future

[2:01:35] land use map.

[2:01:37] And so that's why the Plan Commission, they did recommend approval, but if they had voted

[2:01:43] no on this, it wouldn't even be before you because both the Plan Commission and the City Council

[2:01:48] must approve future land use map amendments, whereas zoning changes, it's only a recommendation

[2:01:53] from Plan Commission, and final action is only the prerogative of the city council.

[2:01:59] And so the plan neighborhood, obviously, we're talking about the 15 acres, it's imperfect

[2:02:06] in that when you're only if you're looking at it in conjunction with the current zoning

[2:02:13] change proposal, right? Which you're not obligated to approve. But if the City Council

[2:02:17] wants the opportunity for a variety of housing on this 15-acre parcel, plan

[2:02:23] neighborhoods your only option to get there. If the City Council only wants

[2:02:28] single-family on this parcel, then you wouldn't change your future land use map.

[2:02:33] But you could change the, I think I understood, you could change the future land use map and support a full

[2:02:40] single-family development and so changing it does give flexibility that you could do 50-50

[2:02:48] or you could do all or gives you give you I'm hearing you say it gives options so it doesn't

[2:02:52] exclude from single-family but it still allows it but it it doesn't mandate it yeah it doesn't

[2:03:00] mandate it okay thank you so you have the plan neighborhood is the problem is your most flexible

[2:03:05] residential, future land use map designation.

[2:03:12] I have a, well, you'll have to do a zoning change.

[2:03:15] Someone could still, if you change the future land use map amendment, someone still could

[2:03:19] come in and build a single family home development because they can comply with existing zoning.

[2:03:25] In order to do anything different than single family, a zoning change still has to come back

[2:03:30] to you in which the city council has holds all of the negotiating power in that regard

[2:03:37] because without the zoning change, nothing can be done except for a single family.

[2:03:42] I will direct you some specific language that comes out of the comprehensive plan related to this.

[2:03:47] It is intended to promote a more economical and efficient use of land

[2:03:53] while providing a harmonious variety of housing choices,

[2:03:58] higher level amenities, adequate buffering between adjacent land uses,

[2:04:03] and preservation of natural features in open spaces.

[2:04:06] Right?

[2:04:07] It's intended to enable creativity, thoughtful design, addressing buffering issues, making sure

[2:04:19] that it is good transitioning from adjacent land uses.

[2:04:23] But as sitting manager in the city of term, it doesn't change the zoning.

[2:04:27] The zoning is still R-14.

[2:04:29] or it opens the door to evaluating future development types

[2:04:36] on that property that still need to pass a critical

[2:04:38] muster of the Plan Commission in the City Council.

[2:04:42] So years ago when Rock Lake apartments was first developed,

[2:04:45] the future I and Meos map was kind of designed

[2:04:48] as there was an agreement to allow the multi-family development

[2:04:52] that went up, but that this parcel would remain single family.

[2:04:55] That was the goal of the City Council.

[2:04:57] And so now the discussion that's before you is whether that vision has changed.

[2:05:03] If it has, then Planned Neighborhood provides you that flexibility to mix housing types.

[2:05:09] If it hasn't changed, then you wouldn't approve the future land use map amendment.

[2:05:15] I think it's a little bit of a follow-up to some of Mary's questions.

[2:05:19] but in the planned neighborhood land use designation can a single family attached or detached

[2:05:32] building can those be laid out differently like they don't have to have the same minimum

[2:05:37] lot sizes and things like that in the planned neighborhood is that a benefit of that planned

[2:05:43] neighborhood kind of arrangement.

[2:05:44] It is anticipated that it could provide a variety of lot sizes under conventional zoning,

[2:05:51] R14, right?

[2:05:52] R14 has a minimum size, and it's pretty, and it's free-large.

[2:05:55] But we do have an R18, right?

[2:05:58] That is a single-family district, that's a smaller lot size, single-family district.

[2:06:02] That could be utilized as a part of the planned neighborhood future land use category, right?

[2:06:10] It just happens that this area is R1-4 because there are larger parcels, existing single family parcels out there, right?

[2:06:17] So it could be done under conventional zoning. When we try to, you try to incorporate a variety of housing types, right?

[2:06:27] Single family attached, single family detached, single family attached, smaller scale, multifamily, when I'm seeing smaller scale.

[2:06:34] Now, tri-flex is four plexes, six units and eight units, right?

[2:06:39] Conventional zoning starts to kind of fall apart, right?

[2:06:43] Euclidean zoning is what we have.

[2:06:45] You really need form-based codes.

[2:06:48] Form-based code, we're really getting the weeds on some stuff.

[2:06:50] But we've used plan development districts extensively in the city of Lake Mills,

[2:06:55] provide flexibility development type to get a better product and layout of developments.

[2:07:01] It is anticipated that it's likely going to be a plan development district to make this happen, but you could do it under conventional zoning and have specific lots that are certain single family lot sizes, certain two family lot sizes, and then a certain amount of multi-family areas.

[2:07:22] Staff concerns with that is, once you have a base district that allows

[2:07:26] Maldives family, our Maldives family doesn't specify, it's based on densities,

[2:07:33] it doesn't specify you must build a Ford unit or a 6 unit or an 8 unit building, right?

[2:07:38] The plan to malignant district gives the city the control to dictate that.

[2:07:42] So the expectation is it would go that way, if a rezoning request was brought forward.

[2:07:49] Thank you for that and then I guess I know it was a question or a comment but I appreciate

[2:07:54] a drake your remarks regarding whether this could be designated conservancy or something

[2:08:02] like that because we certainly heard public commenter and speaking about some wildlife

[2:08:06] use of the property, I drove through there the other day and actually came upon the gravel

[2:08:11] have a road sort of by accident, the eastern access, but it is flattered as a roadway and I think based on our comprehensive plan future land use map, it's anticipated to be residential, so I just would hope that nearby property owners don't have any realistic expectation that it's going to be turned into a conservancy, I think the city would have a goal of some sort of residential development there, so it's just a question of what

[2:08:41] do we, you know, what do we want that to look like?

[2:08:46] Great.

[2:08:49] I voted against it at the Planning Commission.

[2:08:52] And part of that was because I had the privilege

[2:08:54] of seeing the development.

[2:08:55] It was part of our notes in the Planning Commission.

[2:08:57] It's not tonight.

[2:09:01] But I guess what I want to really focus on is smart growth.

[2:09:07] And when I look at the city of Lake Mills

[2:09:09] and I talk to the residents of the community

[2:09:12] that were the developer lives in, I've talked to two people, they both said we don't

[2:09:18] want to live here, we want to live in a single-family home, there's a lack of

[2:09:22] single-family homes in Lake Mills, we want that to be developed as single-family.

[2:09:27] And as people that live in the development, they're not looking for more like that,

[2:09:31] they're looking for single-family homes. So for smart growth, I really, I voted

[2:09:39] it against it because I felt like, oh, this is really just another way of saying multi-family

[2:09:45] housing, but I actually went and looked at the comprehensive plan and Mary outlined it

[2:09:52] already tonight in section 635 that it defines that a plan neighborhood is to ensure a minimum

[2:10:00] I'm a 55 to 65% single family residents.

[2:10:06] So the development that the planner's bringing to

[2:10:10] is doesn't meet that standard.

[2:10:12] So I'm not sure if this is really going to accomplish

[2:10:14] what the developers trying to get accomplished

[2:10:17] because he doesn't really meet that standard.

[2:10:20] Yeah, you're not bound, it's a listed as a goal, right?

[2:10:24] You're not, the designation doesn't bind you

[2:10:26] to that percentage.

[2:10:29] You can hold to it, you certainly can.

[2:10:32] But the future land use map designation allows for a variety of housing types.

[2:10:42] But there is no planned neighborhood zoning district.

[2:10:46] And so the planned neighborhood is the closest designation in the future land use map to

[2:10:53] allow for a variety of housing types within, if you keep it single family housing it can

[2:11:00] only be single family housing. If you make it multi-family then it goes to the maximum

[2:11:05] of R312. Planned neighborhood is meant to be able to design it as the community dictates

[2:11:12] it needs to fulfill, the housing needs that the city council believes that it needs to be

[2:11:18] filled. And so it provides you maximum flexibility to design a neighborhood as needed to meet the needs of the community, but it does not bind you to the goals that are listed within it as far as what that mix is going to look like.

[2:11:36] So I guess I'm clear on what single residential means. I'm clear on what multi-housing means. I'm not clear on what plan neighborhood means.

[2:11:45] No plan. This definition I understand it but what you just said basically is wishy washy.

[2:11:52] And that definitely it doesn't bind you to the city council will negotiate what that looks like.

[2:11:59] And so you accomplish that through the zoning change, through approval of the zoning change.

[2:12:07] You see that it's playing neighborhood.

[2:12:09] You can choose what you want that to look like through that.

[2:12:13] You can mandate it through that process.

[2:12:16] So it's providing the leverage to the city council to dictate what that neighborhood will

[2:12:22] look like to match what its vision is for that area.

[2:12:29] Okay.

[2:12:31] There's no other designation that would do that, that would do that for you.

[2:12:36] If you kept it single family housing, you couldn't have an eight unit apartment building within the zoning one to allow that.

[2:12:43] If you kept it multi-family, you can't have single family within that district.

[2:12:49] And so you can choose to keep it start one or the other by choosing those designations in there.

[2:12:59] But if you want the flexibility that Planned Neighborhood provides, that is what you would

[2:13:07] designate it as because then you can design, you can plan a neighborhood.

[2:13:18] I was looking at the current land use map and comparing that to the future land use map.

[2:13:30] And I hear this whole, you know, we are not obligated information.

[2:13:35] But I want to point out that the future land use map doesn't have a whole lot of single

[2:13:42] family residential designation.

[2:13:45] It also doesn't have a whole lot of purely multi-family designation.

[2:13:49] The vast majority of residential designations in the future land use map is plant neighborhood.

[2:13:54] Right.

[2:13:55] And the majority of that is north of the interstate.

[2:13:59] That's a large piece of land.

[2:14:02] And south.

[2:14:03] And yes, I'm sorry I didn't scroll significantly south of 89.

[2:14:10] So, I guess, I'm wondering why we can't just keep it as single-family, just that there is such a limited amount.

[2:14:23] You can, you can keep it as single-family.

[2:14:25] Yes, we can, but what I'm hearing you say is that doing so then limits the any type of said development, and

[2:14:35] And that particular piece of land could then become a developer's worst nightmare because

[2:14:42] they can't get anything built on it.

[2:14:45] Yeah, that's an acceptable outcome, though.

[2:14:47] If the city wants, only wants single family in an area, you're not required to take into

[2:14:55] consideration what the developer-

[2:15:00] However, is hoping to see happen there. It may mean that it never gets developed. As anything,

[2:15:07] right, if single, if for some reason, single families not viable in a place that the council

[2:15:11] has said this must be single, this must be single family, right? But if that's what the

[2:15:20] plan commission and the city council have determined is what's best for the community, then

[2:15:26] And the developers have to either work within that,

[2:15:30] or they just won't develop it.

[2:15:33] But if we're looking into the future,

[2:15:37] and thinking about potential annexation of that space.

[2:15:42] It is annexed.

[2:15:43] Oh, are you some of them?

[2:15:44] No, no, no, no, no.

[2:15:45] The, yeah.

[2:15:46] So they're in part.

[2:15:47] Further down and infrastructure.

[2:15:51] What I'm wondering is, is the infrastructure

[2:15:55] could it be affected if we were to say make it a multifamily or a planned neighborhood with the infrastructure be affected or could it be a different kind of infrastructure for that kind of neighborhood versus single family?

[2:16:15] For, you know, the properties on the southern, kind of the southern border of the area, you're considering a long tyrannina, there is water and sewer within the right of way on tyrannina there, which would be the connection points for the most of those.

[2:16:36] There's water and sewer, so there's two portions of it.

[2:16:41] But above it, within Rock Creek, you've got water and sewer that could be extended down,

[2:16:47] sewer that could be extended, water already exists front in the property.

[2:16:51] So if a well-failed property would be compelled to annex into the city and connect to city

[2:16:56] water.

[2:16:58] But then we could potentially be in a situation where we're looking at Lyndon Street.

[2:17:03] If there's septic, if there's septic fails and we're not capable of serving, then annexation

[2:17:08] is in compelled, and the county will permit another septic system.

[2:17:13] Can you see where my hesitation is on this?

[2:17:18] No.

[2:17:21] Okay.

[2:17:23] It's just because you're only dictating what you want the future land use of the parcel of the parcel to be.

[2:17:29] Extension of utilities is always is a benefit to the city and provides greater flexibility.

[2:17:35] in order for where those connections could take place in the future if a future annexation

[2:17:39] were to occur, but I think we'd be unlikely to try and connect any of those properties

[2:17:44] along Tyranina through the back of the homes rather than something along Tyranina.

[2:17:53] So in that regard, when those systems fail, the city will have to make a decision of either

[2:17:59] You know doing a capital project to bring sewer throughout if it's sewer that is the ones that it's failing

[2:18:05] If it's a well, we're already we're already there to provide service

[2:18:10] But I think in this regard, I think the council should focus on what do you want this 15 acre parcel to look like?

[2:18:17] What how do you want it to develop out?

[2:18:21] Because that's that's really what you're what you're kind of contemplating here is if if you want this to be single family

[2:18:27] If that's still your vision, you don't approve the future land use map amendment.

[2:18:31] The zoning change application that's before the Plan Commission right now can't go forward.

[2:18:36] That whole process stops.

[2:18:39] If you envision that something on this and ignoring the proposal that's in front of the Plan Commission right now,

[2:18:46] if you envision this being something other than only single family, sorry,

[2:18:51] Then you would change the future land use map to give yourself the flexibility to have something else happen there.

[2:19:00] That does not mean that the zoning change application with the attached project plan that's to that is what's going to develop here.

[2:19:08] You're under no obligation to approve that plan as submitted.

[2:19:12] You can tell the developer there has to be a single family component here.

[2:19:17] there has to be, you know, a different makeup of what's going on in there.

[2:19:26] Now the duplexes are a single family component within it, but you could require more, you

[2:19:32] know what I'm saying?

[2:19:32] You could get to that 60% amount or mandate that 60% amount and hold to that goal that's

[2:19:38] within the comprehensive plan.

[2:19:40] So really it's, how do you envision this partial developing out?

[2:19:45] Do you foresee it?

[2:19:46] Do you want it to only be single family or do you want it to potentially have other types

[2:19:53] of housing within it?

[2:19:55] So I would like to just add a little bit of perspective from the two years that I served

[2:20:00] on the Plan Commission and Greg Kutts may want to weigh in because he was served on it quite

[2:20:04] a bit longer.

[2:20:05] But we had many discussions about the barriers to single family home development and even just

[2:20:13] I think at the most recent plan commission meeting that came up again, you know, there are a lot of barriers to single-family home development.

[2:20:19] So if that's like Drake said, if our council's vision is that we want this parcel to be developed as single-family,

[2:20:29] and that's the only thing that we're willing to do, then we don't have to approve this future landing amendment,

[2:20:34] and that's what it'll be.

[2:20:35] I think it's important that we recognize that it may be a long time before that would develop,

[2:20:41] or it may not develop a single family if we don't provide some incentives.

[2:20:46] You tell me you want to be true anywhere else in the city that we have zone for single

[2:20:52] family that's perhaps not developed yet, is there just a lot of barriers?

[2:20:55] I mean, one, I can think of off the top of my head and I know Drake could probably write

[2:20:59] a treatise on this, but single family developer, home developers would say they can't make

[2:21:05] any kind of a profit on selling a lot.

[2:21:08] They can only make a profit on building the house, and so it's not cost-effective for them to do the planning process and the subdividing and so forth.

[2:21:20] Infrastructure.

[2:21:20] Yeah, infrastructure I guess would be another one.

[2:21:23] They're paying upfront cost to put in infrastructure that then they recoup when they sell the home, and that's a financial.

[2:21:30] So our last, our most, our two most recent significant single family home developments in the city have had public involvement in their development, whether that's in front in the cost of the installation of infrastructure and getting paid back on the sale of the home through a special assessment or using TID to extend infrastructure

[2:21:52] at to the Tyronina Point neighborhood,

[2:21:55] Tid was used to bring infrastructure out there,

[2:21:58] utility infrastructure out there in order

[2:22:00] to away some of those development costs.

[2:22:07] So the drumming cross-lane as well

[2:22:09] is a condominium development

[2:22:10] that the city had to be involved in

[2:22:12] that is 2s and 5s, 3s and 5s, 3s and 5s I think.

[2:22:21] There's gonna be some 2 pluses now.

[2:22:22] And now, and now two two and now two duplexes on the end.

[2:22:26] So this is just our first reading tonight.

[2:22:30] So I don't know if there are other questions or information that council members want before we would.

[2:22:35] Would the applicant be able to be able to?

[2:22:37] Is that the developer's representative is here?

[2:22:39] Is there something that you'd like to share with the council?

[2:22:42] Is there an opportunity to?

[2:22:49] Well, this is of, yeah, I guess he's not the petitioner.

[2:22:52] They are, the application is brought forward, it's developed or driven, for a lifetime.

[2:22:56] Okay, so this is a representative of the applicant for this feature land

[2:23:00] vacation.

[2:23:01] Just introducing.

[2:23:02] Yeah, thank you Chris Carr from the Sigma Group 1300 West Canal, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

[2:23:08] 5-3-2-3-3, I'll be quick and try to review you are correct.

[2:23:14] We've been across a couple years now working with the Plan Commission and specifically addressing

[2:23:20] the transition, which we really have done if you look at the plan, I know it's not in front of you,

[2:23:26] but there's side by side units and providing a diversity.

[2:23:30] I think if you look closely in the comprehensive plan and you don't just pick out pieces,

[2:23:34] there's multiple items that this project does really follow through on the comprehensive plan.

[2:23:40] So comprehensive plan is long and we pulled it out as a part of the previous, is this?

[2:23:45] This does sort of if you could stay within the bounds of the project that you proposed and what the future land use map is rather than comment again the comprehensive plan at this point.

[2:23:53] Oh, I'm just making the consistency of our part of the changing of the zoning of the zoning to the comp plan.

[2:24:01] The other thing I want to talk about is, is your right the plan commission did talk about the challenges of single family development.

[2:24:07] I do not believe that there is a path forward on the current owner to do single family.

[2:24:12] as the council has said, there is really not a viable path.

[2:24:17] Anything that's been done recently in single family has always had support.

[2:24:22] This project does not, I know it's the future thing.

[2:24:25] We're not asking for support and our current plan I think is we're proposing potentially

[2:24:32] a $30 million value project that would feed the tax base on the advantage of going to

[2:24:39] To a complaint amendment like this is it allows things like private roads and private utilities which bring down the cost.

[2:24:48] There's no additional cost for the city.

[2:24:51] When you go to a single family, it needs to be on public streets and public infrastructure.

[2:24:55] Those costs are significant, those future requirements for the city to take care of that infrastructure are significant.

[2:25:01] So there are benefits that are allowed by the compliant change by going to this neighborhood

[2:25:09] district that allows us to do things with private roads that reduce the infrastructure

[2:25:13] needs not only upfront costs for the city but future maintenance.

[2:25:19] There is already water through the development, that's the gravel road you drove in, and

[2:25:24] there's sanitary sewer just north of the parcel, so all of that would be covered by existing

[2:25:29] infrastructure. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you.

[2:25:36] Any further discussion

[2:25:37] tonight on this proposed ordinance change?

[2:25:43] Okay, seeing none, I'm going to make a motion

[2:25:45] that we take a five minute recess for a stretch break before we get to our last agenda item.

[2:25:52] Zero second. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

[2:25:57] I'll be back in five minutes.

[2:31:14] I have a schedule, but my noticing

[2:32:27] at work, I'm more, more willing to bite people's heads off. It's probably not a good thing.

[2:32:37] Greg Waters. Greg Waters.

[2:32:57] Okay, we've just completed our

[2:32:59] Our recess, so we are back on the record.

[2:33:02] And our final agenda item under City Business tonight is the discussion on the Sandy Beach Mobile Home Park redevelopment.

[2:33:10] So I'm going to turn it over to Drake to kick off the discussion.

[2:33:16] Sure, so included in your packet is, our couple of memos, one is a general analysis of B level with some financial information as well as potential alternatives.

[2:33:30] and then it kind of concludes with some decision points that we would need to kind of move forward on it.

[2:33:37] I did send out, I did receive some questions from Councilmumpers prior to the meeting and sent out some additional information.

[2:33:45] One question was about what the cost of restoring to passive use, if B level was decommissioned, what the cost of restoring to passive use would be.

[2:33:56] without any special landscaping considerations and essentially just returning to general park land.

[2:34:03] Our best estimate right now is $100 to $110,000.

[2:34:08] That's for abandoning the current utilities that are out there and then restoring removal of some asphalt roadway and then grass seating and restoring the land.

[2:34:23] And the other one I sent out, if you have it before in front of you, I don't want to

[2:34:28] read through the entire thing, but it was a question of what task staff annually undertakes

[2:34:35] throughout the year on kind of administration of the mobile home park and it's broken down

[2:34:42] by department ranging from the utility staff as well as the park staff as well as administrative

[2:34:48] of front staff. So that was sent out to you earlier today. If there's any questions

[2:34:57] on those items, it ranges from jetting of sewer, to turning on water, to repairing

[2:35:05] any connection issues that there may have been to processing transfers, signing of leases,

[2:35:15] is evictions if they become necessary.

[2:35:19] So it runs a whole game of different types of services

[2:35:23] that are unnecessary as part of the ownership

[2:35:27] of a mobile home park.

[2:35:30] How in depth would the council like me

[2:35:32] to go on the memo that's in your packet?

[2:35:36] Chief Russ is on vacation this week,

[2:35:39] so we would have to wait to have, if there are any specific

[2:35:41] of the questions of what he observed when we asked him

[2:35:45] to walk through there.

[2:35:47] I would note that the police department

[2:35:49] and the parks department are tracking parking lot numbers

[2:35:53] to give us some better data on how many cars are parking there

[2:35:57] on any given day to better inform an analysis

[2:36:00] of potential monetization at the parking lot

[2:36:03] as a revenue source both before and after a redevelopment

[2:36:08] of the parking lot where to occur.

[2:36:11] There's also, so it focuses on what it would take to redevelop B-level, to modern standards

[2:36:18] and modern codes with the necessary spacing requirements out there.

[2:36:23] It touches on some of the difficulties of the redevelopment of the utilities.

[2:36:29] Brandon Herbert, the city's engineer with strand associates, is online.

[2:36:33] If you have questions of him specifically perhaps related around trenching and boring and why certain things must be trenched versus board

[2:36:43] I know there has also been questions that the council has received about a project that went in a private that went on in a private

[2:36:49] Mobile home community regarding their infrastructure and we did reach out to them it was a much smaller project much shorter

[2:36:57] amount, only several feet of main that had to be replaced and so a much smaller scale project

[2:37:04] that allowed for, I guess, a less, I guess, obtrusive way of repairing that, but it was not

[2:37:13] a full-scale replacement of that system and so currently the infrastructure out there

[2:37:21] is not buried to a depth that meets modern standards.

[2:37:24] the water and sewer are also not separated to the amount that they would be required to

[2:37:30] under modern code. And so those difficulties as well as top topography issues to ensure

[2:37:37] that the sewer specifically is draining in the way that you want it to, you have to get

[2:37:43] the grades correct and to do so, directionally boring that length, would both run into conflicts

[2:37:52] with where existing trailers are and where those connections need to go as well as if you don't

[2:38:03] get the grades correct then gravity doesn't do the job that it needs to do with the transference of the

[2:38:09] materials. So there are 38 lots out there currently we have not designed what a redevelopment would look

[2:38:19] like. So that 17 number is an estimate. So it does work off of those numbers. It works

[2:38:26] off of what currently straights are. There's a debt schedule attached that shows you what

[2:38:30] principal and interest payments would be over a 20-year period on the estimated cost of

[2:38:35] that redevelopment. And then there's an analysis that goes into what least rates would have

[2:38:42] to look like if you needed to raise the revenue from B-level in order to accommodate the infrastructure

[2:38:49] There could be a conversation about spreading the costs amongst the association, certainly.

[2:38:57] We could engage with the association on those conversations.

[2:39:01] But if we're looking at B-level, which is our current most pressing infrastructure need,

[2:39:07] that is where the analysis settles as handling is its own independent redevelopment of that section of the mobile home part.

[2:39:14] Thank

[2:39:18] you Drake so as you mentioned we've got a number of documents that you've provided for us to review and this is just scheduled tonight for discussion item so we're not making any decisions tonight but I would recommend that we try to

[2:39:33] establish some direction so that we can have a future decision item or more than one with a resolution that we can vote on so that we can make some formal decisions.

[2:39:42] I particularly appreciate the questions that you posed for us right in your memo.

[2:39:48] And I think those are some of the key questions that we do need to give a formal answer on the on the record too.

[2:39:55] So I think I'll open the floor to discussion.

[2:39:58] Any comments or questions that we may have or how we want to move forward with this or any other information.

[2:40:05] The council members would like to receive to help us make decisions.

[2:40:10] Is there anyone that has comments that would like to start us off?

[2:40:19] Can I ask a specific question on one of the new exhibits that was sent earlier today regarding the cost for utility abandonment?

[2:40:28] What would be the trade-offs for long-term anything?

[2:40:36] So does that prohibit make it more challenging than to annex in anybody at Sandy Beach Road, or if we were to just abandon what?

[2:40:44] What would we why would we not want to do that?

[2:40:48] Because that is that was new information and I thought it was extremely. I was actually quite surprised at how inexpensive it was and so.

[2:40:57] We would not make we would not advise to make connections to any

[2:41:01] properties along Sandy Beach Road from the infrastructure that exists on B level.

[2:41:06] Okay, so the connection would likely come from somewhere else that has more modern infrastructure. That's capable of serving

[2:41:14] That area adequately. Okay. Thanks.

[2:41:20] Great.

[2:41:30] Oh, I'm sorry about that day. That's the second time tonight.

[2:41:37] I'll price tag associated with it. There certainly is I spoke with Eric kind of briefly about it

[2:41:43] but if the sewer utility is out there needing to jet that can be three sewer employees for an entire day.

[2:41:54] When they do water turn-ons, that's Eric's staff as well as utility staff so that can be three to four people at that point in time.

[2:42:03] so we would probably need more time to try and we don't track like Mobile Home Park is not like a

[2:42:13] designation within like our timekeeping software and so we have that they were at Sandy Beach,

[2:42:19] but we can't we know how many hours they're spending at Sandy Beach, but we don't go further into

[2:42:24] that and track how many hours are being spent on the Mobile Home Park specifically. So we could come

[2:42:29] up with some estimates of specific tasks for a future discussion, but I don't have that

[2:42:36] for you right now and it would be an estimate.

[2:42:39] So I guess what I'm trying to figure out is the break even is I look at the dollars

[2:42:43] for the project, the dollars we would get in rent.

[2:42:48] It's roughly a 20-year break even.

[2:42:51] If you add this cost on, that's going to add years to that break even of course, and I'm

[2:42:56] I'm not sure how many years that would add,

[2:42:59] so just trying to figure out the numbers is all.

[2:43:02] Sure.

[2:43:03] I was having some similar thoughts, Greg,

[2:43:06] and was trying to do a little math.

[2:43:08] I came up with a little closer to maybe 23 years,

[2:43:11] but around that, yeah, what would offset the costs

[2:43:15] of the borrowing, or how long would it take

[2:43:19] to sort of have that return on investment?

[2:43:20] I appreciated getting the list of tasks

[2:43:23] even without a dollar amount or salaries

[2:43:26] or whatever to go with it because I've always wondered, we have in our budget,

[2:43:31] what is it, 246,000 in revenue for this year, is our anticipated revenue from the leases

[2:43:39] in the overall mobile home park.

[2:43:41] But I know that the city role to operate the mobile home park is not zero cost.

[2:43:47] So it's just good, I think for all of us to understand that it's not just a net revenue

[2:43:55] We love 246,000, and there is some cost that the city has to expend to operate the mobile home park, and so that we should think about that as we're factoring some of this in any other.

[2:44:11] Greg, yes, so I guess some of the things I'm weighing here is, we're looking at an infrastructure that's about 50 years, we're talking about maybe 25 years for break even 20 to 25 somewhere like that.

[2:44:26] I'm looking at the taxpayer base and you know how do we use this land moving forward.

[2:44:34] I wasn't the one that sent in the question about what if we turn this into Parkland but

[2:44:40] that's an option I've been thinking about as well.

[2:44:44] So it's a lot to look at and I guess I might be interested in learning more about if we

[2:44:55] We did turn it into Parkland how that would incorporate maybe into

[2:45:00] How we could use the different facilities. I know when I go down there on the weekend, I went down twice the summer, and it is wall-to-wall people. And there's not much space. And we're thinking about putting volleyball courts now into the park. And that's going to take more, more away from the park as far as people coming in on the weekend. There's be less space to be in.

[2:45:28] So, I'm not sure if this is an opportunity to expand the park if it makes sense, but

[2:45:33] it's something that should be reviewed, I think.

[2:45:40] Beard?

[2:45:41] Yep.

[2:45:41] And I agree with Greg in looking at alternatives.

[2:45:47] I feel the payback time table is extensive and long and the cost is worrisome.

[2:45:55] I think our citizens ever telling us they're not interested in paying without you being able

[2:46:00] to utilize the park more extensively for the money that they're putting forward.

[2:46:05] And so I actually am intrigued by the operational plan for even a campground.

[2:46:11] So if I think about our expertise, so I looked at, you know, think about their mission

[2:46:17] and vision of the city and our obligation to our citizens.

[2:46:20] And then I think about what makes us strong, where are we strong?

[2:46:26] And I think about the expertise that we bring to the table in the park's department.

[2:46:29] I believe in the camping arena is something that would be of interest.

[2:46:36] We wouldn't have to put the infrastructure with the concrete pads.

[2:46:40] It would bring in revenue.

[2:46:43] I know we've got the parks board is still noodling on other revenue ideas.

[2:46:47] But thinking about the then citizens and current at least less ease at the mobile home park would have the opportunity

[2:46:58] to, you know, come back in in a different fashion if it's not a permanent structure to bring

[2:47:04] an RV or some other type of camper in and still enjoy the space on a much lower cost but

[2:47:13] then it opens it up to our citizens to be a part of that solution.

[2:47:17] I don't know what that might be even more when it comes to operations.

[2:47:21] I see, I know they use utilities and so that's not then capping so I think that's very complex

[2:47:27] And it may even be more cost prohibitive, but it'd be interesting to have a ballpark whether that is something because it would also provide a revenue stream.

[2:47:36] You can't get into a campground, almost like a year in advance.

[2:47:40] If you have an RV and you want to go and enjoy a new park somewhere across the country.

[2:47:48] And so it's just an intriguing park amenity.

[2:47:53] When you brought up, though, when you brought up volleyball courts, my mind shifted to

[2:47:57] old.

[2:47:58] We could use more space for recreation, so I'm thinking out loud a little bit, but wanting

[2:48:07] to recognize what options might be available, but understanding that RV, when you had recreational

[2:48:16] vehicle campground, I think might come with a higher cost.

[2:48:20] And I think it's intriguing, but I don't have even a rough idea where that would put us financially either.

[2:48:28] So I'd be interested.

[2:48:31] Michelle?

[2:48:31] I have a question about, so let's just put it out there and assume that we decide to do this and there are, you know, there are owners that choose to abandon.

[2:48:47] and so that 87,000 or whatever it is is now on us, right?

[2:48:56] You talk about if we decommissioned and someone just left their personal property there.

[2:49:02] It would likely fall on the city to remove it and we would engage in collections efforts against the owner of that personal property.

[2:49:09] Okay, so there's some litigation issue to consider because of the lease agreement.

[2:49:17] In your memo, and I apologize, I've been raking through it, and I guess my may have missed it.

[2:49:23] How much is it to remove the mobile home from its location to allow for this infrastructure to happen, and then be replaced?

[2:49:37] The last one that was done was ordered as part of the raising of the sand bar. I don't have an exact number but I'd say it was between 5 and 10,000 specifically for the mobile home.

[2:49:49] So just per disconnected and then in most circumstances in that specific circumstances that mobile home was not salvageable so they just compacted it and destroyed it and got moved it off site.

[2:50:01] So $5,000 just to move it versus 8.

[2:50:08] It's going to depend on size, condition, location, mobility, you know, how it is.

[2:50:15] But some porches are attached to it too.

[2:50:17] There will be thousands to remove one if the city is tasked with doing it.

[2:50:22] Okay.

[2:50:22] I'm just.

[2:50:23] And we would, right.

[2:50:24] And that's where we would engage in, we would then engage in a legal process of collections

[2:50:29] against the property owner for the abandonment of their personal property and the city's service that was provided at the removal.

[2:50:37] Right, I wasn't thinking about their abandonment necessarily.

[2:50:41] I was looking at what was the financial obligation of the mobile home owner to move it and how, you know,

[2:50:47] how devastating would that be versus like looking at their pros and cons.

[2:50:54] I'm trying to put myself in their shoes so as to allow for myself to make a

[2:50:58] I understand. I get what you're coming from. I think that because of the infrastructure work that needs to go on, the removal of the trailers is necessary, whether you redevelop or

[2:51:10] the issue.

[2:51:12] Totally agree with you. I was just trying to put myself in the issues and see what financial situation would I have to contend with. Thank you.

[2:51:22] So I've got a few comments and one, I guess, would follow up on some of your questions.

[2:51:27] Michelle, I do.

[2:51:28] I think it's, well, number one, I think it's critical to address level B sooner rather

[2:51:34] than later.

[2:51:35] I think we're, you know, we're living on viral time with our utilities and we've been

[2:51:42] trying to work on this project for the last eight years.

[2:51:44] And the last thing I want is DNR to issue us a consent order that we have to upgrade our

[2:51:49] utilities.

[2:51:50] Let's just do it before we're ordered to and before there's harm to the lake, which hopefully is not currently happening.

[2:51:59] So I think it's important that we make some key decisions soon.

[2:52:05] I would agree with the staff information that I don't think there's any way to redo or redevelop level B without the current homes being moved.

[2:52:18] No, yes, thank you.

[2:52:20] So, to me, it would be whatever we decide to do, whether we decide to redevelop level B or decommission level B, I would like to give the level B owners as much notice as possible.

[2:52:33] So, legally, I think if we want them to move their buildings at the end of 2026, I think we have until next June under our lease.

[2:52:45] I'd like to give them more notice in that, you know, like once we're ready to decide,

[2:52:49] let's decide so that they can make their plans, you know, take whatever steps they need

[2:52:54] to enjoy, you know, the next season here and, you know, help plenty of time to make those preparations.

[2:53:02] So I think, to me, there is some time sensitivity in terms of just giving as much notice

[2:53:10] level be owners as possible and for us to keep moving on you know the

[2:53:16] priority of this level. From a I guess bigger picture perspective I've just

[2:53:22] I've been thinking about this a lot and I've talked to you know a number of

[2:53:25] neighbors and and other constituents and thinking through the history of this

[2:53:30] project and I my husband and I moved here about 18 years ago and I remember the

[2:53:35] first time I went down by Sandy Beach I was like mobile home park city of like

[2:53:40] Like Mill is like, well, since when do cities own mobile home parks, and then, you know,

[2:53:44] over time I learned a little bit more about it, and as I got more involved in city government,

[2:53:49] I learned a lot about the history of it, and I certainly don't pretend to be an expert

[2:53:53] on that.

[2:53:54] But I think, you know, in 1977, people did not want Lake Front condos if that property

[2:54:03] was going to sell to a private entity, if that resorted.

[2:54:06] And so my understanding is that that was controversial, but that that's what city residents wanted the city to acquire this property.

[2:54:15] So the city acquired it and we've been getting a revenue and operating on the mobile home park all that time.

[2:54:24] So that's coming up on 50 years.

[2:54:26] So it's certainly understandable that now we're going to have to make a significant investment in the infrastructure.

[2:54:34] I have talked to a number of constituents who have said to me, you know, why is this city in the mobile home park business and who have also said, you know, that's parkland that I don't have access to where the mobile home community is but the city owns it and I as a city resident or visitor can't use it.

[2:54:56] So I am really, I think we're really at a point in all the years that we've been working on the Sandy Beach redevelopment where we really have a blank slate with the, I would say with the exception of the bolt launch.

[2:55:12] I mean, I think we're pretty, we're not going to move that. We're not going to remove it. We just bought a new pier.

[2:55:17] So I think the bolt launch is there, that part is completed.

[2:55:22] Everything else really I would see as a blank slate.

[2:55:25] So I think it's time for us to really say what is our overall vision for this property.

[2:55:34] And as I've talked to different neighbors, I've thought, well,

[2:55:38] there's pros and cons to continuing to have a mobile home community there.

[2:55:43] where I really wanted to see the numbers and now that I've seen the numbers, I don't think it's a good investment for the city of Lake Mills to continue another 50 years of having of the city operating a mobile home community there.

[2:56:02] I just don't, I really am trying to think like what are the benefits to city tax payers?

[2:56:09] For 50 years it's been that revenue and that income and you know this year, $246,000.

[2:56:16] But as soon as we have to spend a million and a half and when you do principal and interest

[2:56:21] and that's close to $3 million, that's a really long time to pay that off and to start generating

[2:56:31] revenue and as soon as we pour concrete pads and put in the ground utilities, we're making

[2:56:37] a 50 year decision.

[2:56:41] So as I'm seeing the numbers, I'm really seeing that this is a point where we can make

[2:56:48] a different decision for the future of Sandy Beach Park and I think one of our constituents

[2:56:54] who has contacted all of us has said, you know, there's 27 acres there and we really

[2:56:59] should have that 27 acres should all be, you know, accessible to city residents and visitors.

[2:57:06] So I think if we're, if we go down the path of decommissioning level B possibly decommissioning

[2:57:16] the other levels over time, we're going to need alternative sources of revenue and so that's obviously

[2:57:21] is that big discussion point of, is it the monetizing the parking lot? Is it, you know, raising the

[2:57:28] on the ones that aren't in level B, we're not charging anywhere near what the feasibility

[2:57:32] study said that we should be charging so it's, you know, people are enjoying a wonderful

[2:57:38] opportunity at Sandy Beach Park but it's, you know, they're getting a good deal there

[2:57:42] and there's a lot of things in terms of our revenue that I think we could be optimizing.

[2:57:48] I, too, am intrigued by the RV stand or RV camper campsites or whatever concession stand

[2:57:59] could potentially be a revenue source, that would be some construction costs, so maybe

[2:58:02] that will be a while.

[2:58:03] Parking what?

[2:58:05] Parking, monetizing, parking lot, so anyway, I've been, these are all the things I guess that

[2:58:09] I've been thinking about, but to me, I think we really are at a point where we can envision

[2:58:15] and it's something totally different for Sandy Beach Park

[2:58:19] than what is there now.

[2:58:23] And, you know, work through that over time.

[2:58:26] And that's what I'd like to see us talk further about.

[2:58:31] So I think we're at a discussion point

[2:58:33] and at a decision point.

[2:58:34] I just want to review the options.

[2:58:37] So no decisions are being made tonight

[2:58:38] but we are talking about possibilities.

[2:58:41] Yeah, so, okay.

[2:58:42] So does anybody have any other?

[2:58:46] comments or ideas or yeah well I think it's important I know we've been to make

[2:58:55] sure that we have the right experts at the table working with us as we're

[2:59:00] talking about the full 20 plus acres as it is and what opportunities that

[2:59:05] comes forward in the future and I know we've been utilizing I think the just the

[2:59:10] general bucket of money that we use with meat and

[2:59:14] And they've been doing a nice job trying to kind of work alongside with us.

[2:59:18] And I'm wondering if a point of consideration in the CIP should be a car about commitment to an expert.

[2:59:26] They are a park development companies that actually might be helpful in advisement on a small scale.

[2:59:37] or we may desire to do a larger scale to look at this particular piece of land, starting

[2:59:45] with as it is knowing that we've got Part B to address aggressively but we have the

[2:59:50] other elements and knowing what we have. It's just something I think we should also think

[2:59:55] about as it relates to supporting staff on-

[3:00:00] On getting to that next chapter, our next level of detail, I think, and I don't know Drake. If you have a perspective on that, but I do, I'm worried we're using our general meeting

[3:00:14] hunt and I'm sure they have expertise, not sure what extend in the space. And maybe they are the right player, but we, I mean, this is to your point about the 50 year decision. And if we have this uplinked slate, doing it in a fashion that is

[3:00:28] well thought out and they tax our brains to think differently I think is would be

[3:00:34] to our benefit. So that's another thought I have an idea that should be a point

[3:00:39] of or could be a point of discussion. Yeah I think you've got I think you're

[3:00:43] correct there's kind of two ends of the spectrum of kind of park planning and

[3:00:47] we've been closer to the one end which is really what I would describe as we've

[3:00:52] asked our planning consultants for boxes on paper right an aerial view of the

[3:00:57] park and then they kind of, sorry, place different components into the general

[3:01:03] locations of where they would go, but there's, it's not necessarily, there

[3:01:09] hasn't been a, a significant effort towards like a park redevelopment plan, an

[3:01:15] updated park redevelopment plan. You could almost, you know, you could on the

[3:01:19] other end of the spectrum, you could go as far as, for lack of a better term, a kind

[3:01:25] of a mini comp plan process where it's just the sandy beach redevelopment or sandy beach

[3:01:32] development planning process and you can take the time you need you can engage with stakeholders

[3:01:39] you can hold you could engage with a planner and a designer to have listening sessions you know we

[3:01:46] could do more surveys you know we can kind of build so there's a spectrum there and we've been

[3:01:54] on the lower end of that. So I do agree that if we want something more

[3:02:00] intensive, we know wherever on the spectrum that lies something with more

[3:02:04] dedicated, you know, just a dedicated park plan that we would need to allocate

[3:02:10] resources in order to bring that to fruition.

[3:02:14] I'm thinking about the, I think we have a good hand on the beach side. I idea,

[3:02:19] generation, I think we've got some schematics that I think are resonating and

[3:02:24] would be very, I think, a great upgrade, and be a wonderful asset to the city.

[3:02:30] But when we talk about the balance, when you start pulling back towards the rotary park.

[3:02:37] I know, imagining what kind of imagination could we have if we just, if we are deciding,

[3:02:42] if we ever come to the decision that having camping or the mobile home park.

[3:02:49] Rebuilt is something that's not of interest.

[3:02:51] So I, I, as many of a blank slate, we could have walking paths as, you know, but is that the best utilization of the space?

[3:02:59] I don't, I, I don't know what I'm missing.

[3:03:02] We, I was just an idea, just I thought.

[3:03:04] We do plan this fall as well to after the occupants have left to televised a level and pines,

[3:03:12] which we haven't really focused on yet to get a better, to get understanding of what that infrastructure looks like.

[3:03:18] We don't have the same issues annually with infrastructure in those areas to the extent

[3:03:23] that we do on B-level, and there have been limited projects, certainly on A-level

[3:03:30] when the new bathhouse was installed, I believe, in the 90s.

[3:03:35] So there's some updated things there, so it's possible there's a longer timeline.

[3:03:41] We would expect a longer timeline on those areas, versus where B-level is, which invites

[3:03:46] conversations on, you know, what does, you know, A-level and Pines look like, does the

[3:03:53] city want to maintain, you know, portions of the mobile home park, all of the mobile

[3:03:58] home park, and then if we have more time than that, we can incorporate that into lease structures

[3:04:05] and planning for, you know, payment of upgrades when they became necessary, which we don't

[3:04:11] have a luxury of on B level at this time.

[3:04:17] You mentioned infrastructure.

[3:04:18] Do we still have the safety concerns on Pines in A?

[3:04:21] And I, to what extent are those,

[3:04:23] would those drive a different timeline

[3:04:24] or a different set of changes like trees

[3:04:27] or removal or something?

[3:04:29] Yeah, I think I would definitely invite

[3:04:32] at the next conversation to have chief Russ

[3:04:34] kind of talk you through what he saw

[3:04:36] and what we might be necessary.

[3:04:39] I also think that if that many of the issues

[3:04:42] We could engage with the association and seek stricter enforcement of rules as far as parking of vehicles and where those things are located.

[3:04:53] So I think there's opportunities there, but correct is that there are aging trees in the area.

[3:05:01] There are concerns outlined in the fire chiefs memo that I think will need to be grappled with as well as we have this discussion.

[3:05:16] One of the things in your memo, you know, question to us is do we wish to monetize the parking lot and I think that's goes all the way back to the original feasibility study as, you know, being an idea.

[3:05:30] I don't know if people have any leanings right now, but I think when I think about that, I do think about the.

[3:05:37] But again, what are the benefits, particularly to city residents in this park overall in thinking about it with respect to the parking lot?

[3:05:48] So I could appreciate that that might need to be a part of the analysis like looking at the data, how many cars you expect to be parked to there every week, different months of the year.

[3:05:58] And then what percentage of those are going to be free because they're for city residents versus then how much do you charge others?

[3:06:05] and so I can appreciate that there's a lot of analysis there.

[3:06:09] But I think that that would be a good, to me, I've always thought

[3:06:14] that that was a reasonable approach and there are plenty

[3:06:16] of parks that charge, you know, entrance fees.

[3:06:21] And I think it would be more effective

[3:06:23] than our current, you know, admission approach to do it that way.

[3:06:27] So I do kind of think that's an interesting approach.

[3:06:31] Okay. I know that we're talking break even point we're looking

[3:06:33] that to the city of like Mills but we also need to look at commerce that the

[3:06:39] residents that live in the trailer park of course are buying food from our

[3:06:45] restaurants they're buying from the grocery store they're shopping they're

[3:06:50] doing things in like Mills at present commerce so we need to consider that into

[3:06:55] the equation as well. Is there a way to estimate that or I mean even like

[3:07:03] estimate the population of people that are in the mobile home community, you know, compared to like the number of residents in the city or whatever, I don't know, I'd have to think about about that one, about what we could put together on that there certainly is one, right?

[3:07:21] It's probably likely a significant one in the amount of time that they're here.

[3:07:26] You're talking about, right, there's 100 some mobile homes out there right now, the people

[3:07:37] who are there all the time, the guests, the visitors, so you're talking about hundreds,

[3:07:41] you know, hundreds of people that are engaged in commerce, so I'd have to put some more

[3:07:46] I thought in to quantifying that and what that would, what how we would undertake that and if we're capable of providing that level of analysis.

[3:07:56] I think that's important though and we think about how we utilize the space in the park is thinking about what does it do, what are the unintended and unintended consequences of the decisions we make depending on what we put there.

[3:08:09] So if it's just walking trails it may not be a big draw as an example but if we had a combination of maybe

[3:08:16] if you permanent mobile homes or maybe it's all ranked by the month for RVs or we have,

[3:08:26] I don't know, splash pad, miniature golf. I don't know. I don't know what it would be. I'm just

[3:08:31] trying to think how you, what alter options would be. I think it would draw, it would draw people,

[3:08:37] but at a different, a different, in a different way. And maybe not at the same rate, maybe,

[3:08:44] maybe at a dire rate, I don't know. I think that would be a good thing to think about is the

[3:08:51] impact on commerce and

[3:08:57] unintended consequences. I'm worried about Bartles Beach has been very busy too and so when you monetize

[3:09:02] I'm intrigued by I think we had to find a way to get money

[3:09:05] and if you monetize you at the park there is all the sudden

[3:09:09] Bartles Beach now everyone's going to go there because you don't have to pay to park there

[3:09:13] or is now that going to be a parking zone and you're going to have to pay to park along

[3:09:17] ferry and in the parking lot there. And so then it's paid for both beaches. And so

[3:09:23] I think there's going to be, I think there's a little bit now an unintended consequence.

[3:09:27] We get, I think Bartles has been very extra busy this year, actually.

[3:09:34] So now you have to walk five blocks instead of three.

[3:09:37] Yeah.

[3:09:39] Well, there would also be, and we've talked about this previously, if we monetize the parking lot that somebody can park a sandy beach road, then they don't have to pay, you know, they can walk a short distance, so you would need to, you know, address some of those other issues to have it be, you know, a viable proposal.

[3:10:02] I had the fun experience of going to the beach this past weekend, I think it was this

[3:10:09] past weekend, a few weekend before. Normally I was going on the weekday because my kids

[3:10:14] are having swim lessons on the side of the school district side. So I was used to being

[3:10:20] able to park in the parking lot and walk in and everything was fine. I was flabbergasted

[3:10:26] by how many boat trailers were taking up two spaces on Sandy Beach Road along that way.

[3:10:35] And I had to park all the way up by the park, which is fine, I had to walk anyway.

[3:10:41] But the point is is that when Mary was saying there's a lot of unintended consequences.

[3:10:48] And one of the things that I feel very passionately about is the parking situation and

[3:10:56] And the impact it has on the residents and the people who walk, Sandy Beach Road.

[3:11:01] Because it's not a very wide road, there are some blind spots that are very concerning.

[3:11:08] I mean, especially if you've got somebody who's carelessly going over that hill, you don't

[3:11:13] know what's on the other side.

[3:11:15] So when we think about those things, that's one of my priorities is the safety factor and

[3:11:25] and how do we mitigate the need and the safety.

[3:11:30] But yeah, that's a minor thing compared to all

[3:11:33] of the other conversations that we're having

[3:11:36] and I'm interested to see more information,

[3:11:40] financial information of the potential,

[3:11:48] oh, what did you call it?

[3:11:49] Sorry, it's Santa Claus, so it's late.

[3:11:54] the where the RV park and and and and that because like you were saying Greg, there is there's money coming in from the people who stay in our mobile home community.

[3:12:07] But the RV park can be around that something else to think about.

[3:12:14] So should we start talking next steps? How to move this thing forward?

[3:12:18] Yeah, just great coozers are you haven't said much yet, but I just want to make sure you had the opportunity if you want to

[3:12:27] I'm good. Okay

[3:12:30] So next step wise, I liked what Mary said about getting some

[3:12:35] some advisor ship somebody to maybe help with direction, but I'd like to understand the cost involved with that having a

[3:12:43] consultant come in and helping

[3:12:47] What is that cost?

[3:12:49] So.

[3:12:50] And me and Hunt may actually be the right, may be able to still take us where we want to go.

[3:12:54] I think it does depend on some of the answers to the questions that Drake has here regarding our intent.

[3:13:01] That was kind of what I was thinking as well that, you know, and I guess the term that I would use for what I think you're describing the most elaborate version of it would be a master plan, right, like a park master plan.

[3:13:12] and we have one particular constituent

[3:13:15] firm in neighboring township that regularly asks us

[3:13:18] to do a master plan.

[3:13:20] And I think I've been hesitant because we've already spent so much time

[3:13:25] and effort and money on this.

[3:13:26] But if we're going to shift in a different direction

[3:13:29] and have some additional park land to be thinking about what to do

[3:13:34] that may take us down a path where getting some additional advice

[3:13:38] would be helpful.

[3:13:41] I mean, I personally would recommend, I think we need to get a decision point on a couple

[3:13:50] of these key questions for staff so that they can have some formal direction in a resolution

[3:13:56] move ahead.

[3:13:57] I believe we're budgeted this year for design on the parking lot, and is it also design on

[3:14:05] level B this year. That's design next year and design next year. Okay. So I mean, some

[3:14:11] of this, I don't know if some of these decisions are important to tie into the design of the

[3:14:17] parking lot or not, in which case they would be fairly time sensitive, I would think.

[3:14:26] If we, if you want to undertake a project in 2027, there certainly needs to be some decision

[3:14:35] on what it is that we're going to be undertaking.

[3:14:42] So, I mean, there's time, but we'll be talking about the CIP

[3:14:47] and you can kind of see how it's currently laid out.

[3:14:51] And those numbers would then shift based

[3:14:52] on different decisions that the council makes.

[3:14:56] We had some conversations we had.

[3:15:00] The list station that was scheduled, we've had some conversations about the sewer utility being

[3:15:07] able to keep that functioning for another year to coincide better with kind of the other

[3:15:15] redevelopment pieces of that. Just because the list station will look different depending

[3:15:22] on what it's serving, right? So, I think that a big park master plan would take some time,

[3:15:35] so I think you'd have to decide what you want to do with the B-level before we would want to

[3:15:41] obviously engage in that. And then once you know that direction, then we can start

[3:15:48] formulating timelines on other pieces of it.

[3:15:51] The parking lot is deteriorating, but it's not, you know, you don't

[3:15:55] imminently have to redevelop the parking lot or something like that.

[3:16:00] There are economies of scale that you want to do, you know, pieces of it if you

[3:16:05] were doing other projects, because otherwise you're going to damage, you're going

[3:16:08] to end up damaging something brand new that you just put in.

[3:16:12] So depending on which direction the council goes that will precipitate what the urgency or the timeline of other projects within the area.

[3:16:28] When do we get our first look at the budget?

[3:16:33] Operating budget or capital budget? Operating? First meeting in September?

[3:16:42] So based on your memo, Drake, it seems like there is sort of this core question or I guess

[3:16:51] it's two questions or there's a guess or no.

[3:16:57] Does the council want to redevelop level B, or does the council want a decommission level

[3:17:05] be and that would give giving a direction on that would then be able to lead to other

[3:17:13] conversations.

[3:17:14] So if we voted to decommission B level then we could talk about what else might we want

[3:17:20] to do there and maybe we make a short term decision and maybe we have a master planning process

[3:17:26] or maybe we do something in between but it does seem like we would need to make that decision

[3:17:31] And then also to allow infrastructure plans to be developed or restoration plans or you

[3:17:43] know whatever it's going to be depending on what we decide.

[3:17:47] We could draft a resolution for future consideration with a decision point built into it,

[3:17:52] to check the box resolution that we've done in the past, since action isn't on the agenda

[3:17:58] tonight.

[3:17:59] Right.

[3:18:01] We can do that. We can do that for the Council at a future meeting.

[3:18:06] Would you need the, so one of your questions to us is do we wish to monetize the parking

[3:18:12] light? Would you also see that as sort of a yes-no question on a resolution or is that something?

[3:18:19] And I mean, I think you're gathering more data so that would be, might be helpful for us

[3:18:23] to have that data before we decide.

[3:18:26] Right.

[3:18:26] I think monetizing, as you will, if revenue sources are eliminated, monetizing the parking lot

[3:18:32] becomes a more important and timely conversation.

[3:18:36] And so I think that we would, depending on what that decision is, we would want to begin

[3:18:43] looking at what the plan for monetizing would be, how long it might take us to install the

[3:18:51] systems in place in order to be able to charge for

[3:18:56] parking

[3:18:57] Establish whether the city council wants to incorporate a

[3:19:01] You know one car from each household and lake mills can register and that car gets to park for free for city residents to maintain

[3:19:08] the tradition of

[3:19:11] Access to sandy beach by city residents, so I think that would then if we if a revenue source is being eliminated

[3:19:19] then we need to have the other conversations on do we want to monetize the parking lot and if so

[3:19:26] You know, what do we want that to look like

[3:19:31] so it'll it's kind of it'll everything will precipitate down

[3:19:36] but really

[3:19:39] You could make the parking lot decision independent of what you do on on B level

[3:19:43] So we certainly could have that conversation in parallel it just becomes more timely if a revenue source is eliminated

[3:19:50] Right. I mean, we would need some alternative source of revenue or cut something from the

[3:19:56] budget. Correct. So we would, that would be logical to have that soon after. So you're,

[3:20:03] it sounds like you're saying Drake, that staff could draft a resolution of, you know, choose

[3:20:09] one or the other in terms of what we want to do on level B. And then we could, would we

[3:20:15] We want a second resolution, identifying, asking staff to identify alternative revenue sources

[3:20:23] or that could just go along with the first resolution and then just kind of work our

[3:20:27] way through decisions over time.

[3:20:31] I think that you could incorporate identifying, identifying alternative sources of revenue

[3:20:37] as a directive under the option to decommission.

[3:20:41] Now, you could choose to redevelop B-level and still pursue other sources of revenue as

[3:20:48] well.

[3:20:48] So, if the council is interested in seeing what the parking lot might yield, then I'll

[3:20:55] sit down and look at the data we've collected already, see what that information that might

[3:21:01] give us, look at what the, try and get some initial costs of what the system would look

[3:21:07] like and what it would take to bring that system to Sandy Beach and we can have that.

[3:21:12] We can start preparing that for you.

[3:21:14] I don't know that we'll have it by the next meeting when the resolution is easy to prepare.

[3:21:19] We can start looking at what a monetization of that parking of the parking lot would look

[3:21:25] like and start putting together some information for you to consider in parallel with other

[3:21:32] decisions.

[3:21:32] questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we had that at some point in the

[3:21:38] last four years. Maybe it was early on, but I do recall there was a conversation about

[3:21:46] the monetization of parking and there was even a discussion about a particular kind.

[3:21:53] There was, we have a system identified that we think would serve our needs if we install

[3:22:01] that I haven't looked into exact costs of what it would take.

[3:22:04] It's essentially a reader that you go in to the parking lot, there's a certain amount

[3:22:10] of grace period where if you leave the parking lot within that amount of time, then you're

[3:22:14] not charged for anything, the system takes care of it, it bills automatically, you can put

[3:22:20] in.

[3:22:20] So, we have that system identified, we haven't looked at like an implementation plan or installation

[3:22:26] costs of that and we haven't collected updated real-time parking data, which is what we're

[3:22:36] collecting to the best of our ability right now. There was some in the previous plan, there was

[3:22:41] a calculation and some built on some assumptions of what a new parking lot would generate if a paid

[3:22:48] model went in. I think we'd want to take a look at those assumptions and see how they match up with

[3:22:55] But the data we've collected this summer, see if it was being overly optimistic, under

[3:23:03] optimistic, and was the fee that we were looking at.

[3:23:10] What we would actually want to charge, does $15 to deter someone from wanting to park

[3:23:16] at Sandy Beach, whereas $5 would not deter someone from wanting to park at Sandy Beach.

[3:23:22] and therefore the concerns about how do we handle rotary park parking and sandy beach parking.

[3:23:27] You know what is that number where the convenience of parking close to sandy beach is worth the cost

[3:23:35] that you're paying. So I think that conversation may have to take place and how conservative do we

[3:23:41] want to be in our estimates. So yes you're correct. There has been work that's gone into it but

[3:23:48] But some of it is dated now, and we're hoping to update it with some more current information.

[3:23:56] Okay, so in terms of next steps then, I think I'm hearing two ways we could go.

[3:24:03] One is, you know, have the staff draft a resolution for us to make a decision on whether we want to redevelop the level as a mobile home community or decommission it.

[3:24:14] and iftee commission and seek alternative revenue sources or we could say we want to know more about the monetizing the parking and what that would generate before we make that decision.

[3:24:29] I don't know if council members have a leaning one way or the other but do people feel like you need to have the parking lot information in order to make the first decision?

[3:24:42] No, I think it's our responsibility with staff to figure out the money.

[3:24:49] I think we should be desiring what it is for that aligns with our objectives as a city leadership team for our citizens and what we want for the park.

[3:24:58] And we have to figure out the money.

[3:25:01] So if we eliminate, yeah, if we eliminate, there are, I have ideas.

[3:25:05] I just have to figure out how to and depends on which direction we go on how you would capitalize

[3:25:11] on different ones. And I think parking is one of it could be camping. It could be, I mean,

[3:25:17] there are other things. Right. Obviously staff has already thought of other ideas like the RV and

[3:25:22] yeah, yeah. And the park sport has thought of other ideas as well. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And I'm looking

[3:25:29] at the time, so it's 10.25.

[3:25:32] So maybe it would be good to wrap up this discussion for this evening.

[3:25:36] So are we okay with asking staff to prepare a resolution for, I guess, the next council

[3:25:42] meeting on whether the council wants to redevelop level B or decommission level B and seek alternative

[3:25:52] revenue sources.

[3:25:55] And then we'll continue to talk about the other items that we've addressed over time.

[3:26:00] You know, this fall and into the winter and so forth is that solving a good game plan.

[3:26:06] I'd like to brainstorm a little bit more than just the next two weeks, maybe September 1st.

[3:26:11] Brainstorm, the choice on level being, you mean?

[3:26:14] Yeah. Talk to, talk to citizens, things like that.

[3:26:17] Okay.

[3:26:17] figure out how that would how that if we decommission how would that be used and

[3:26:25] go from there that's where I was kind of looking for outside help on was how

[3:26:29] we could use that land oh okay and that's why I said maybe we should have a

[3:26:35] separate meaning to discuss and strategize and really dig in to the minutia

[3:26:41] Because if we're going to give guidance to the staff, I believe that we really need

[3:26:49] to make sure that we are set in how we want to get it done.

[3:26:54] And I guess I have the opposite feeling.

[3:26:55] So in the sense of I think we need to make a decision about B level before spending much

[3:27:05] time on what other things could we do with that land.

[3:27:09] Because if we decide to redevelop it as a mobile home community then there's really no

[3:27:14] Then there's no sense spending time on what other park uses might what might we make of that area?

[3:27:21] I agree with you

[3:27:25] That's one option.

[3:27:29] Well, I guess

[3:27:31] What what direction can we give staff for tonight?

[3:27:38] If you want to go that direction, I'd be okay with September 1st. Just

[3:27:42] So I could have a little bit of time.

[3:27:44] So the first, our first meeting in September, so basically for, not our, not our, not our

[3:27:50] August meeting, but our first meeting in September, September 2nd, to have a resolution to make

[3:27:55] a decision on level B. Okay. And then it's,

[3:28:04] I guess, okay. So I mean, I think is that, is

[3:28:11] or this agenda item for tonight?

[3:28:13] People feel the time table fits with other deliverables

[3:28:17] that you have on your plate,

[3:28:19] or did we just move you back two weeks

[3:28:21] on something that you are desiring?

[3:28:26] Well, the only thing that keeps getting bumped

[3:28:29] is I owe Mr. Waters a redraft of chapter 594 on trees

[3:28:33] that he submitted to staff that I have not put into the language

[3:28:38] that we discussed with him.

[3:28:39] And so I have not gotten to that yet, which I try to owe to him, I think, in the near future.

[3:28:46] It's been a busy summer.

[3:28:50] We have, I've been working with Mr. Kooch's has been in contact with me on some other items that I think have mostly wrapped up nicely and he'll be, I think talking with Ms. Curler about potential presentation of those and I'll be.

[3:29:07] some resolutions and potential ordinances.

[3:29:12] The resolution we can certainly have for September 2nd,

[3:29:15] that's not going to be, that's not a lot of,

[3:29:17] that's not very intensive for us to put together.

[3:29:19] So that's not going to be, that's not going to be an issue.

[3:29:23] That is this budget, we are shooting out the operating budget

[3:29:26] presented at September 2nd, barring, you know, something that really sets us back internally.

[3:29:35] So we're largely on track, there's some things that may,

[3:29:46] there's obviously the readings

[3:29:49] that you have before you that are on the agenda now and where those lead has different

[3:29:55] conversations attached to it as far as the Madison Street Park.

[3:30:00] As well as the future land use map amendment. So we're gearing up for a long meeting on September

[3:30:07] 2nd, because it's good. Especially if we introduce the budget. So we can certainly get

[3:30:17] that resolution put together by September 2nd. That's no problem. Chapter 594 may take

[3:30:25] a little bit more time, and then the council have to decide as far as the direction is

[3:30:36] for potential resolutions on options, I guess, on Milton Street as well as street design

[3:30:44] in general, those processes, which I think we're targeting here in the next couple of weeks

[3:30:52] as long as it fits with the schedule and all of those items come together.

[3:30:57] Do you say Milton Street or Prospect Street, I refer to?

[3:31:00] The direction to Mr. Coots on developing potential discussion items for the council and potential referrals

[3:31:07] to public works board or changes in processes or consideration of options on Milton Street specifically

[3:31:16] and street design generally, so that the council made that directive.

[3:31:22] so we're still working on that, we'll make it happen.

[3:31:29] The capital budget is scheduled to be presented to public works board next week, assuming that

[3:31:34] they make their recommendations.

[3:31:35] We then would be on pace for discussion with the city council at the second meeting in

[3:31:41] August. So we have some big at ones coming up. I'm also anticipating not

[3:31:51] imminently but an update on the wastewater treatment plant facility plan as

[3:31:59] well as we get closer to submitting a facility plan to the Wisconsin DNR.

[3:32:05] So we'll be busy.

[3:32:09] Okay, so we've kind of led into agenda item 10, which is our future agenda items are if there's no objection.

[3:32:18] I'll close discussion on the mobile home park redevelopment and

[3:32:23] we've talked over pretty much about future agendas.

[3:32:28] I think the only thing that we didn't specifically touch on would be discussing the park sports recommendations

[3:32:34] locations for Sandy Beach Park and maybe once we make our decision on level B, then that would be a good time to pick that up.

[3:32:41] Is that what people think?

[3:32:44] Yeah, it will also coincide with the capital budget conversation.

[3:32:48] There are some placeholder numbers in there that are going to have to change perhaps as decisions are made.

[3:32:56] Okay.

[3:32:57] Okay, so we'll keep that on the radar as well.

[3:33:02] Okay, so any other announcements or future agenda items that come from members want to identify?

[3:33:10] I think he stole your Thunder Greg that you're working on some things, and the other Greg's working on some things.

[3:33:17] So I have a subject, I would be interested, I know we've had some E. coli issues, and I don't know if this is something we can push down to parks and or JRLC regarding just having a continued dialogue.

[3:33:33] regarding root cause, or anything, any learnings based on,

[3:33:38] you know, if we have our beach closed, and that's our ass down at Sandy Beach,

[3:33:43] and Bartles, it's closed with your feet.

[3:33:46] You know, and so I just think it's a conversation I think worth having on,

[3:33:51] do we need to do further identification or understanding to make sure that when we

[3:33:57] are talking about mitigating storm water runoff at Sandy Beach,

[3:34:01] that we really understand what we're, or is it goose drop-ings or whatever that we really understand?

[3:34:06] That what it was we're trying to solve.

[3:34:08] I know that one of the city represented Shelley Quant on the joint employee community is particularly interested in that topic.

[3:34:16] And I do think that that would be a good issue for them to dig into further, find out what the DNR regs are.

[3:34:22] A fairy park on the town side also had a positive this year's beach closure.

[3:34:26] So, I mean, it's not unique to the city.

[3:34:28] It would be a good joint work late discussion, we might.

[3:34:31] Yeah, I just didn't know I know I wasn't suggesting our agenda, but in agenda for them

[3:34:35] I didn't know how to how do we pass like an interest because I think it would be important for us to understand and so how

[3:34:42] Can we ask Eric how how many times it's been closed this year?

[3:34:46] This is we had the first I mean the first red sign

[3:34:51] Come on, July 31st. Yeah, just last week the first one. Yeah

[3:35:02] We just had an advisory with the test results for today and the east side barnals posted for closed today as well.

[3:35:10] So this prompts daily city testing until we get a clear test result under the thousand vehicle California units per milliliter.

[3:35:17] So it's the same state request testing.

[3:35:20] Second time.

[3:35:21] No, this is the first round, but Sandy Beach West has been consistently closed since the 21st because we have not received a clear result.

[3:35:31] Yeah, the 1st. I think it's the 1st. My apologies. Sorry, mixing them I did. Yeah, so it's been one week, my apologies.

[3:35:41] So we have not received a clear test result yet with the daily retesting on Sandy Beach West.

[3:35:46] I mean, I think he's a drinker. I can certainly pass along to the Joint Recallate Committee

[3:35:51] that, you know, the council has noticed, you know, these closures and, you know, if

[3:35:57] they want to look into it and give any recommendations or something, that would be great.

[3:36:01] I know.

[3:36:01] I think we could, we could, based on interest of the city council, I could talk with Eric

[3:36:07] about putting together a presentation to joint rock lake on what our testing procedures

[3:36:12] are what our beach closer system is, potential options that, you know, comparative information

[3:36:20] to how other lakes test their points of entry into the water at beaches, where we stand

[3:36:26] as far as our testing frequency versus other testing frequencies, and then if we wanted

[3:36:32] additional information, what that would entail to obtain, I think we can talk with Eric

[3:36:40] We discussed that we would pass the motion on that like two to three years ago.

[3:36:46] There's state requirements or basically state standard protocols for signage and posting

[3:36:50] and testing.

[3:36:51] That's what develops your closure thresholds versus your advisory thresholds.

[3:36:57] We adopted those state same standard language and posting protocols.

[3:37:03] I think that was 23 or 22 years ago.

[3:37:09] I think we all work with Eric and then he can talk with the chair of Joint Rock Lake and figure out a good time to provide a presentation and then Joint Rock Lake can kind of discuss.

[3:37:22] There may be a point where you may want to avoid involved parks for it.

[3:37:28] I'm just kind of a crossing of beach,

[3:37:31] beach-verse water thing there.

[3:37:34] So but we'll start, I'll talk with Eric

[3:37:36] and we'll start at Joint Rock Lake

[3:37:37] and give some informational material and go from there.

[3:37:41] Okay, thank you.

[3:37:43] Thank you.

[3:37:44] All right, here ain't nothing further.

[3:37:47] I will call this meeting adjourned.

[3:37:49] Thank you everyone for staying late.

City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript