[0:05] It is Tuesday, August 18th, 2026, 7 p.m.
[0:09] I will call the city council meeting to
[0:10] order. Clerk Tone, would you please call
[0:12] RO?
[0:14] >> Council member Huckabe
[0:16] >> here.
[0:17] >> Council member Johnson
[0:18] >> here.
[0:19] >> Council member Lascoer
[0:20] >> here.
[0:21] >> Council member Price
[0:22] >> here.
[0:23] >> President Jen
[0:24] >> here. Thank you. Item three, pledge of
[0:26] allegiance. I invite everybody to stand.
[0:33] To the flag of the United States of
[0:36] America and to the republic for which it
[0:38] stands. One nation under God,
[0:41] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:44] for all.
[0:48] » Thank you. Item four, consent agenda.
[0:51] The consent agenda outlined below is
[0:53] hereby presented for action by the city
[0:55] council. Items may be removed from the
[0:57] consent agenda on the request of any one
[0:59] council member. Items not removed may be
[1:01] adopted by one action without debate.
[1:04] Removed items may be taken up either
[1:05] immediately after the consent agenda or
[1:07] placed later on the agenda at the
[1:09] discretion of the council president.
[1:15] » I move to approve the consent agenda as
[1:18] listed items 4 A through G.
[1:21] >> Second.
[1:22] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[1:23] discussion?
[1:26] Seeing [snorts] none, all those in
[1:27] favor, please signify by saying I.
[1:29] >> I.
[1:30] >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Item five,
[1:34] public hearings. Tonight we have none.
[1:36] Item six, public comment for matters on
[1:38] the agenda. The city council will
[1:40] receive comments from city residents.
[1:42] Comments are limited to three minutes
[1:44] per individual. Anyone wishing to speak
[1:46] is required to sign up in advance or
[1:48] state the following for the record when
[1:50] called upon. Name, address, and contact
[1:52] information. Note for those on Zoom, if
[1:55] you wish to speak, please raise your
[1:56] virtual hand as the chat box is not
[1:58] monitored and those on the call must
[2:00] remain muted unless recognized to speak.
[2:03] Uh, starting off tonight, we have one
[2:05] person in person signed up, Dave
[2:08] Sculland,
[2:10] >> Dan, sorry.
[2:10] >> Yeah,
[2:12] >> for the public comment for the first
[2:14] part.
[2:14] >> Yeah.
[2:15] >> Can you come up to the microphone and
[2:17] state your name and address for the
[2:18] record, please? Just make sure that
[2:20] green light is on before you start
[2:22] speaking.
[2:23] Okay, press that button.
[2:26] >> There we go. Hi, my name is Dan Scullan.
[2:30] Um, born and raised here in Fort
[2:32] Atinson.
[2:33] >> Can I just get your address for the
[2:35] record right away?
[2:36] >> Yes. 614
[2:38] Monroe Street.
[2:40] >> Thank you.
[2:40] >> Yeah. Um, my concern, and it sounds like
[2:43] it's been uh talked about before, but
[2:47] there is just a plethora of electric
[2:51] vehicles being driven in and around
[2:55] town. Um, many of the pilots of these
[2:59] vehicles are really, really little.
[3:02] They're on the sidewalks. They're in the
[3:04] streets. They're going from the
[3:07] sidewalks into the streets. They're not
[3:09] looking where they're going. And um on
[3:12] my street alone, it's a regular
[3:16] occurrence to see uh electric
[3:19] motorcycles with uh two kids on the same
[3:23] bike, same time coming down the street,
[3:26] lickety split, no helmets, wearing
[3:29] shorts, tennis shoes, and I'm just
[3:31] really concerned. I myself have had a
[3:34] couple of uh
[3:37] incidents, let's just call them, where
[3:39] uh I've had to break abruptly for uh a
[3:44] kid, almost always a kid that's coming
[3:48] through an intersection or coming off
[3:50] from a sidewalk and onto the street. And
[3:54] I understand that there's some work
[3:56] being done on this. Um, and hopefully uh
[4:00] we can get something done to uh keep
[4:04] somebody from being seriously hurt. I
[4:07] also understand that [clears throat]
[4:09] there's a problem with um the uh
[4:14] motorized bicycles that there's a
[4:17] distinction that allows them to be on
[4:20] the uh on the roads. And I'm just
[4:24] curious if if says on all of the U bike
[4:30] paths it says no motorized vehicles.
[4:33] Well, yes, these things have pedal
[4:35] pedals, but 60% or more of the time
[4:39] they're not being pedal and they're
[4:41] going far faster than normal person
[4:44] would be riding the bike. So, I'm just
[4:47] hoping that uh something can be done so
[4:50] we don't have a real tragedy.
[4:54] And that's all I really came for.
[4:57] >> Thank you.
[4:58] >> Yep.
[5:00] >> All right. Uh we don't have anyone else
[5:03] signed up for in person for the first
[5:04] public comment. So, this will be a first
[5:07] call for anyone on Zoom wishing to
[5:09] provide public comment for matters on
[5:11] the agenda.
[5:17] Is that you? Uh, Miss Brooks,
[5:21] you need to unmute yourself.
[5:27] Mrs. Brooks, you need to unmute
[5:29] yourself. We can't hear you.
[5:38] Hi, I'm Jean Brooks. I live on 1113 LC
[5:42] Street in Fort Atkinson
[5:45] and um I just want to say that um as an
[5:49] elderly person
[5:51] I I really like riding my electric
[5:54] bicycle and it's very helpful for me to
[5:57] get around with that and I so I hope
[6:02] that we take that into consideration and
[6:05] that's really all I wanted to say.
[6:08] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
[6:11] >> All right, this will be a second call
[6:13] for anyone on Zoom wishing to provide
[6:15] public comment.
[6:20] Third and final call.
[6:23] Seeing none, we will close out public
[6:25] comment and move on. Item seven,
[6:27] petitions, requests, and communications.
[6:30] 7A is a proclamation celebrating Jeff
[6:32] Armstrong on the occasion of his
[6:34] retirement and proclaiming August 18th,
[6:36] 2026 as Jeff Armstrong Day in the city
[6:39] of Fort Atinson. We have director of
[6:40] public works Nean tonight.
[6:42] >> Thank you. Uh just a couple of remarks
[6:44] here before we present the proclamation.
[6:47] Uh just want to give a sincere thank you
[6:50] and and show the gratitude and
[6:52] appreciation from the city of Fort
[6:53] Atinson for Jeff and his time with the
[6:55] city of Fort Atinson. Jeff has spent
[6:58] count countless nights and weekends with
[6:59] the fire department. Was on call 247 for
[7:02] over a decade as the city electrician
[7:05] and has spent the past roughly two years
[7:08] ensuring a safe drinking water supply
[7:10] for the city of Fort Atinson and
[7:11] tackling big projects such as the lead
[7:13] service line replacement project. Uh
[7:17] time it's time for Jeff to relax, enjoy
[7:19] the fruits of his labor, spend time with
[7:21] the grandkids and everything else that
[7:23] retirement brings. and just want to
[7:25] again give a big thank you and uh
[7:28] gratitude and appreciation from the city
[7:29] of Fort Atinson.
[7:31] >> All right. Thank you.
[7:33] >> I move to approve the proclamation
[7:35] celebrating Jeff Armstrong on the
[7:37] occasion of his retirement and proclaim
[7:38] August 18th, 2026 as Jeff Armstrong day
[7:41] in the city of Fort Atinson.
[7:42] >> Second. [clears throat]
[7:44] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[7:45] further discussion?
[7:48] I will happily read this one uh off. Uh
[7:51] we have a proclamation recognizing Jeff
[7:53] Armstrong on the occasion of his
[7:55] retirement and proclaiming August 18th
[7:57] as 2026 as Jeff Armstrong day. Whereas
[8:00] the city of Fort Ainson would like to
[8:02] recognize Jeff Armstrong on his 23 years
[8:04] of service to the city of Fort Ainson
[8:06] between the Fort Atinson Fire
[8:08] Department, a city electrician and most
[8:10] recently as water utility
[8:12] superintendent. Whereas Jeff Armstrong
[8:14] Jeff started his career as a city as a
[8:17] paid on call firefighter for 23 years.
[8:20] And whereas Jeff where for 11 years Jeff
[8:23] served as a city electrician and whereas
[8:26] Jeff stepped up as a water utility
[8:28] superintendent and has served that
[8:30] position for nearly four years. Whereas
[8:33] has helped to oversee the lead service
[8:36] line replacement process. And whereas
[8:39] the city of Fort Ainson values the
[8:40] experience, the dedication of Jeff
[8:43] during his time with the city, the Fort
[8:45] Atinson water depart utility.
[8:49] And whereas the working for the city,
[8:52] Jeff has brought his experience and
[8:54] skill to his position. And now
[8:56] therefore, I, Kyle Jacel, city council
[8:59] president of the for city of Fort
[9:00] Atinson, and my council colleagues, do
[9:02] hereby recognize Jeff Armstrong on his
[9:05] retirement from the city of Fort Atinson
[9:08] after 23 years of distinguished service
[9:10] and proclaim August 18th, 2026 as Jeff
[9:13] Armstrong Day in the city of Fort
[9:15] Atinson.
[9:18] So with that, I will we have the motion,
[9:21] a second. All in favor? I.
[9:23] >> Any oppose?
[9:25] Motion carries. Invite Jeff come up for
[9:27] a picture.
[9:35] » Thank you all. It's been a pleasure
[9:37] meeting all of you and working with you.
[9:38] Same entire city. I'm going to miss it.
[9:42] A lot of friends, a lot of a lot of good
[9:44] times. So, thank you so much. Thank you
[9:46] very much.
[9:48] Get your gift.
[9:50] I want to hold it too.
[10:06] Thank you.
[10:07] >> Thank you very much.
[10:11] again. [laughter]
[10:19] » I will just note it has been a great pleasure working
[10:24] with Jeff not only as being on council
[10:26] but in my regular full-time job of
[10:29] professional development with them. So
[10:33] >> thank you.
[10:34] Jeff.
[10:43] » [laughter]
[10:44] >> You've put your time in. Thank you very
[10:46] much, Jeff.
[10:47] >> We'll see you soon, I'm sure.
[10:50] >> All right, moving on to item 8,
[10:52] resolutions and ordinance. 8A is a first
[10:55] reading of an ordinance to amend section
[10:57] 58-148
[10:59] of the city of Fort Atinson municipal
[11:01] code relating to the sale of tobacco,
[11:03] nicotine products, electronic smoking
[11:05] devices, and electronic smoking device
[11:08] paraphernalia near certain locations. We
[11:11] have police chief bump tonight.
[11:13] >> Hello everyone.
[11:15] Uh so back in 2022, we it was the last
[11:18] time we updated this ordinance and
[11:20] included specialized locations like
[11:22] schools where we wanted to try to keep
[11:25] some of these uh shops that are
[11:27] dedicated to selling nicotine, tobacco,
[11:30] vape products uh too close to our
[11:32] schools and too close to our youth. Um,
[11:35] as time has gone by, uh, I took another
[11:38] look at this ordinance recently and
[11:40] realized there's a couple other
[11:41] locations that we should probably not be
[11:42] losing focus on. And that's some of our
[11:45] locations where we put a lot of time and
[11:48] effort into mentoring youth, not only
[11:50] during the school hours, but after hours
[11:51] as well. Um and then additionally while
[11:54] we went through that ordinance and
[11:56] through the ordinance review committee
[11:58] identified some other areas like
[12:00] increasing the age to 21 so it aligns
[12:02] with the state and federal government
[12:04] guidelines and so our ordinances in
[12:06] line. Uh some of the kind of the main uh update in the ordinance
[12:12] beyond the 21 years old though is
[12:14] identifying and um defining what
[12:19] locations are so they make sense. And
[12:21] that would be locations uh that mentor
[12:24] our youth. And through my research, we
[12:27] came up with language that identified
[12:29] those uh locations. And in the ordinance
[12:32] draft and also in the memo, you can see
[12:35] that uh we talk about youth serving
[12:37] organizations, youth centers, and any
[12:41] out of time out of school time
[12:43] programming locations. And that's from
[12:45] what I learned that is a more of a legal
[12:48] term to identify some of those
[12:49] locations. So, I updated the
[12:52] restrictions to include those locations
[12:54] and then also city parks where we know a
[12:57] lot of our youth uh spend time in the
[13:00] hopes that we can reduce the amount of
[13:02] businesses that might open up near those
[13:04] locations, but also not losing focus on
[13:08] the point that these are for businesses
[13:10] that make 50% or more of their profit
[13:13] from the sale of those specific items.
[13:16] So, a gas station, a grocery store, a
[13:18] convenience store, those would not fall
[13:19] in line with this. But a store
[13:22] specifically that sells those items like
[13:23] a like a tobacco or vape specific
[13:27] business, we would want to restrict them
[13:29] from being too close to those youth
[13:31] areas. Uh, and try to prevent their
[13:34] either intentional or unintentional
[13:36] marketing that often grabs the attention
[13:39] of our youth. Um, I'm open to any
[13:41] questions and I know there are going to
[13:43] be a few. Uh so uh let me have it.
[13:47] >> Uh first uh I I did we did provide uh
[13:50] the city council with a with a map um of
[13:54] uh what this uh what the thousand foot
[13:56] radius that's proposed um looks like for
[13:59] city parks uh and uh after out of school
[14:02] youth programming locations and youth
[14:04] centers. uh as well as what the current
[14:07] ordinance uh already uh where the
[14:09] current ordinance already prohibits
[14:11] these shops which is within a thousand
[14:12] feet of a public or private school. So I
[14:15] will um go ahead and um pull uh that up
[14:19] so the public can see it uh as well
[14:21] here.
[14:25] I'm looking at your map and it
[14:29] doesn't like look like a radius. It
[14:31] looks like 90% of the city won't be able
[14:34] to have that. Um,
[14:37] how old do you have to be to buy these
[14:39] products?
[14:40] >> 21. And that's why we're looking to
[14:41] upgrade update that part of the
[14:43] ordinance as well. So, 21 years old.
[14:45] >> That's a state law. Correct. 21.
[14:48] >> State and federal law. Correct.
[14:50] >> And Fort Atkinson is going to supersede
[14:52] that with its own law.
[14:54] >> No, we're going to adopt and and align
[14:56] with those standards.
[14:58] Um,
[15:01] so these products are legal to sell in
[15:03] the format they're being sold now, but
[15:06] we're going to make them illegal to be
[15:08] sold, but only at certain location. Not
[15:10] here, but here, here, not here. Like if
[15:13] you're a gas station, you can sell them.
[15:15] >> So the city ordinance is written in a
[15:17] way that allows any business that sells
[15:19] these products where they sell other
[15:21] items um that it wouldn't affect those.
[15:25] So, no gas station, grocery store, no
[15:27] existing business would be impacted by
[15:28] this ordinance change. This would be a
[15:30] new business that's solely focused on
[15:33] the sale of tobacco, nicotine, vape
[15:38] products as defined by the ordinance in
[15:40] state law, would not be allowed to open
[15:43] that store if it was too close to any of
[15:45] these locations where our youth uh
[15:48] congregate.
[15:49] >> The map you provided me doesn't look
[15:51] like it'd be too close. anywhere in Fort
[15:54] you couldn't go pretty much.
[15:56] >> And like I said, it doesn't impact any
[15:58] current businesses. It would only be
[15:59] future businesses that are solely
[16:01] focused on the sale of these items.
[16:04] >> So, it's it's curbing any new businesses
[16:07] coming into town versus the existing
[16:09] businesses.
[16:10] >> Any new tobacco, vape or nicotine
[16:13] stores, it would make them they would
[16:15] have to follow a little bit more
[16:16] stringent uh positioning and they
[16:18] couldn't just open anywhere. Correct.
[16:20] the ones that are open now, if they if
[16:24] [snorts] the change of ownership
[16:26] appeared, would that affect the the
[16:28] change of ownership?
[16:29] >> No. It's only for a new business that
[16:32] doesn't already exist that wants to move
[16:33] into that space.
[16:35] >> So, I assume that we acknowledge that we
[16:37] must have a problem with people under 21
[16:41] using these products. Correct.
[16:43] >> Uh around the world, correct?
[16:46] >> Well, in a city of Fort, where are they
[16:48] buying them? Um, I think there's lots of
[16:50] ways that youth get items that they're
[16:52] not legally able to obtain. Uh, so they
[16:55] can get them from fake IDs, from buying
[16:58] them without being IDed, friends that
[17:01] are old enough, family that's old
[17:02] enough, taking them from family or
[17:04] friends. I think there's lots of ways
[17:06] that youth get a hold of items like
[17:08] nicotine.
[17:09] >> This this will will curb that.
[17:12] >> This will probably not curb that. What
[17:15] we're trying to do is reduce uh the
[17:18] opportunity for youth to be to find it
[17:21] intriguing to try. We're trying to do
[17:23] our part at the local level as well as
[17:26] the state and federal level. They do
[17:27] their do what they do because our goal
[17:30] as a society is to reduce nicotine use,
[17:33] youth smoking, uh because there are
[17:35] gateways to other things like alcohol
[17:37] and drugs as well.
[17:39] >> We want to reduce that. I'm I'm not
[17:41] trying to bump heads with you, but I'm
[17:43] sure that I am to some degree bumping
[17:44] heads with you. You're just asking
[17:46] questions and I'm okay answering them
[17:48] >> because I see law being generated by
[17:50] state officials who are elected and that
[17:53] city officials who are not elected
[17:54] shouldn't generate laws in my opinion
[17:57] and looks like we're generating a new
[17:59] law and we're targeting certain people
[18:01] in certain locations and
[18:05] it it's already ineffective. It's not
[18:08] going to change because the same people
[18:10] are doing it. They're just going to go
[18:11] to Jefferson and get what they want or
[18:12] they're going to go to Helenville and
[18:14] get what they want. It's not going to
[18:16] change anything. So, all we're doing is
[18:19] exercising uh a power play on taking
[18:23] over stuff in a position that we're
[18:26] going to be ineffective and not do it
[18:27] anyways.
[18:28] >> I would wager to say that my philosophy
[18:31] on crime prevention and public safety
[18:33] vary a lot from yours. I don't see it
[18:36] that way. I think that we equally at all
[18:38] municipal levels and as adults, parents,
[18:42] mentors of youth need to do anything we
[18:44] can to leverage situations in our power
[18:47] to help make our community safer and our
[18:49] kids safer.
[18:51] >> Okay. Um so these sales won't be allowed
[18:54] at these places to people over 21
[18:57] either. Correct.
[18:59] >> Any store that opens in the city can
[19:01] legally sell that item from their store.
[19:03] we we're not infringing on the ability
[19:05] to sell items legally in the city.
[19:09] >> This ordinance just um doesn't allow it
[19:13] to be that store to be opened from
[19:15] certain distances of areas that we find
[19:19] appropriate to protect where our youth
[19:21] are um most commonly at. Uh I that
[19:26] sounds correct in a lot of ways to me,
[19:28] but this map that you provided us with
[19:30] doesn't follow that near certain
[19:33] locations. It's like inside the city
[19:35] limits, it's not going to be permitted.
[19:38] That's a little different than just near
[19:39] someplace.
[19:40] >> We currently have eight correction, I
[19:43] looked at the wrong. We currently have
[19:44] 16 locations in the in the city that are
[19:47] licensed where you can go buy any of
[19:49] these products that people who use those
[19:51] products uh can go buy them at. So, I
[19:54] don't think that we're restricting the
[19:56] opportunity to buy them. We're just
[19:58] selecting locations where we would
[20:00] rather you not sell those items because,
[20:03] like I said, we're trying to look out
[20:04] for the youth in our community. We want
[20:06] to prevent them from smoking uh and
[20:09] using vape, which can sometimes get out
[20:11] of control. We put a lot of time and
[20:13] effort every year into coaching,
[20:15] mentoring, and developing our youth. Our
[20:17] police department does that with our
[20:18] DARE program specifically towards drugs
[20:21] and nicotine. Um, and so like our goal
[20:25] is to do other things, not just one
[20:27] thing to help prevent our youth from
[20:29] picking up habits that are unsafe uh for
[20:32] them. And that's I feel is a important
[20:34] part of what I do or what I've done in
[20:37] my 28-year career is to do everything I
[20:41] can to leverage the abilities of our
[20:43] community to make sure it's safe and our
[20:45] kids are safe.
[20:47] >> And I again I I don't like the idea of
[20:50] bumping heads with you. I don't like the
[20:52] idea that young kids use these things,
[20:56] but the state the state has already
[20:58] forbidden it. The state has already made
[21:00] it illegal. Um, we've they have been
[21:03] ineffectual and unable to curb it now,
[21:06] even in the city of Fort. This should do
[21:10] nothing.
[21:12] >> I guess if we had that approach in a lot
[21:14] of different areas, we'd live in a lot
[21:15] different world. But we always try our
[21:17] best to do things that we think are
[21:19] going to positively impact the safety of
[21:21] our community.
[21:22] >> Other questions?
[21:25] >> Not to cut you off there, Bruce, but um
[21:27] can we allow some of the other council
[21:29] members to kind of ask a few questions?
[21:31] >> Okay.
[21:32] >> Thank you.
[21:33] >> When they're done, I probably will talk
[21:35] again.
[21:37] >> Okay. Um, I had asked to see if you
[21:40] could bring some information on the
[21:42] stats for enforcement of violations by
[21:44] minors and retailers that we have in
[21:46] port. I was able to find the Jefferson
[21:48] County and state stats, but I also
[21:51] wanted to correct in my research. I
[21:54] found the federal [clears throat] put in
[21:56] the 21 um age limit on the federal level
[22:00] in 2019
[22:02] and the state has not yet adopted that.
[22:05] It's still 18 in the state. So I have
[22:08] some questions about that but okay
[22:09] >> I just wanted to correct that for you.
[22:12] >> Go ahead.
[22:14] >> Um you had asked about efforts that we
[22:16] take and and our enforcement actions. So
[22:19] our agency our city uh along with the
[22:22] whole county of Jefferson are part of
[22:24] Wisconsin winds and Wisconsin winds
[22:26] comes out and does an annual check at
[22:28] every one of our licensed facilities in
[22:30] the city every year. Uh, and what we do,
[22:33] and it's more, it's not necessarily
[22:34] enforcement, but it's a check and
[22:36] verify, educate, and remind all of our
[22:39] retailers in the city, uh, to make sure
[22:42] you're carding, make sure you're not
[22:44] selling to minors. Um, and if any of the
[22:46] retail retailers do sell to minor, then
[22:49] we address it with them, educate,
[22:51] mentor, make sure that, you know,
[22:53] they're fixing that and working with
[22:55] their employees to do better. the other
[22:57] locations that don't sell and pass the
[22:59] test, they get a nice letter. Uh, and
[23:02] then we annually, uh, as a city, uh,
[23:05] write a nice little letter and do a a
[23:07] social media blast on it as well to kind
[23:08] of draw attention to that.
[23:10] >> So, that's one big enforcement area that
[23:13] we take. Our school resource officer
[23:16] really runs into most of these
[23:17] violations because he's at a location
[23:20] where most of our youth are during the
[23:22] day. Um, so a lot of enforcement action
[23:25] doesn't always end up in a citation or a
[23:28] documented um,
[23:30] u warning, but sometimes it's
[23:33] confiscation. It's school discipline
[23:35] instead of police discipline or law
[23:37] enforcement discipline, I should say,
[23:38] actually. Um, and so it's handled at a
[23:41] school level. They're confiscated and
[23:43] destroyed. And but there is still
[23:45] enforcement action that happens uh by
[23:47] our officers. So in the last you would
[23:50] ask 2024 25 and year to date 2026.
[23:54] >> So 2024
[23:56] um juveniles in possession of vape we
[23:59] had 10 citations issued in 24 11 and 25
[24:02] and we have four so far this year. Uh
[24:06] juveniles in possession of controlled
[24:07] substances which goes along with our the
[24:10] vapes. A lot of times we seize a vape
[24:13] and it we find out that it's THC vape.
[24:16] um six citations um actually seven
[24:20] citations are separated here. Sorry. Uh
[24:22] in 2024, eight in 2025, and five so far
[24:27] or four so far in 2026. And then
[24:31] juveniles purchasing tobacco or vape,
[24:33] we've had one every single year for the
[24:35] last three years where that was
[24:37] addressed um because they purchased
[24:39] them.
[24:40] >> Okay. I appreciate that because what I
[24:42] found too is the putting that federal
[24:46] law in um and correct me, you might know
[24:49] this better than I do, but the all
[24:52] [clears throat] of the main retailers
[24:53] have to adhere to the federal law.
[24:55] >> Yep.
[24:56] >> And um so they're carding anyone that
[25:00] they think is under 21.
[25:01] >> I'm not sure why the state hasn't
[25:03] adopted or changed along with it. Maybe
[25:06] it's out of necessity that there isn't a
[25:07] need to because you can't be less
[25:10] restrictive than the federal government.
[25:12] And I'm assuming that's why they haven't
[25:13] done anything with it.
[25:15] >> Uh so
[25:16] >> there are some bills on the floor. So
[25:18] hopefully
[25:18] >> it wouldn't surprise me, you know, like
[25:20] we bring ordinances to you like the
[25:22] ebike one we'll talk about later where
[25:24] you know things have changed so we
[25:26] should update our ordinance so it aligns
[25:27] with and doesn't contradict. So
[25:30] >> well and the the trend has been from
[25:33] what I had seen since that federal age
[25:36] limit went in place the trend has been
[25:39] going down which is excellent and then
[25:41] the ordinances that municipalities have
[25:44] put in you know limiting the space
[25:46] whether it be 1,000 ft 500 ft um around
[25:50] schools or I've also seen legislation
[25:53] like up in um Superior Wisconsin they
[25:56] limited how many retailers they could
[25:59] have per number in population
[26:01] >> kind of like a liquor license like sure
[26:04] that makes sense.
[26:05] >> Yeah. So there's some things there. Um
[26:08] so you're not seeing are you seeing a
[26:10] lot of repeat in your that I didn't ask
[26:13] that question in my email.
[26:15] >> Uh are you talking about the juvenile
[26:16] offender? I didn't track that
[26:19] information. Um curious.
[26:21] >> A lot of times when we do the queries
[26:23] within the system, it pulls out raw raw
[26:25] data per violation, but it doesn't give
[26:27] us we'd have to go into every every
[26:29] single case and compare them.
[26:31] >> Okay.
[26:31] >> Um you know, I will also say that my
[26:35] officers confiscate a lot more tobacco
[26:37] than they write tickets for
[26:40] >> because a lot of times the that's like
[26:42] the second or third tier down item that
[26:44] they're dealing with with that juvenile
[26:46] at that moment.
[26:47] >> Okay. And a lot of times they'll like,
[26:49] you're not supposed to have these and
[26:51] I'm taking them and I'm going to tell
[26:52] your parents about it. Uh, but now we're
[26:54] going to address this issue. Um, so
[26:57] >> a lot of times stuff doesn't get
[26:59] documented in a way where it's tangible
[27:01] in our RMS system.
[27:03] >> Uh, but the officers are addressing
[27:05] things right then and there,
[27:06] confiscating uh, cigarettes and lighters
[27:09] and stuff like that, vapes commonly.
[27:11] >> Okay. And do we have any retailers that
[27:13] have been cited? Um,
[27:16] I know we have cited one. I know. Okay.
[27:19] Off of memory. Um, and I don't I don't
[27:22] we were struggling to pull the data out
[27:24] of our RMS system because of the way
[27:26] it's recorded and the the the queries
[27:28] were able to pull out. So,
[27:30] >> okay.
[27:31] >> I got your information Monday morning.
[27:33] Um, so and we were just struggling to
[27:35] get that information and I understand
[27:37] that and I appreciate
[27:37] >> we don't we really don't write too many
[27:41] citations to our business owners. Um, a
[27:43] lot of times it's education and going in
[27:46] there and confronting them about it and
[27:48] say, "Hey, just so you know, this
[27:49] happened." Um, and trying to work with
[27:50] them that way because we don't we want
[27:52] to have a good relationship with them.
[27:54] Yeah.
[27:54] >> And we want them to do better.
[27:56] >> Okay. Because one of the national um
[27:59] stats that I had seen was that there's
[28:01] more violations in strict um just smoke
[28:05] shops versus um gas stations.
[28:09] >> Absolutely. And so that's why I'm
[28:12] wondering if you're doing more
[28:13] enforcement. I think we have two
[28:16] >> dedicated smoke shops.
[28:17] >> Um we have two that are tobacco
[28:21] dedicated.
[28:21] >> Okay.
[28:22] >> Yeah. But um an additional one that's
[28:24] licensed out of state requirement.
[28:27] >> Uh but only but doesn't sell tobacco I
[28:30] don't believe.
[28:30] >> Okay.
[28:32] >> Were you No. Okay.
[28:39] Um there's uh one other one that is more
[28:42] into um THC related uh products.
[28:46] >> Okay.
[28:46] >> That are legal but also but because they
[28:49] sell vape, they're required to have the
[28:51] tobacco licensed by the state.
[28:53] >> Okay. So, have you guys delved into any
[28:55] of the um confiscation of non FDA
[28:59] approved?
[29:01] >> Yes.
[29:01] >> Okay. Um, so last year we brought state
[29:04] agents out here to do a training for us
[29:08] >> um to train all of our staff and then um
[29:11] we also went out to a location um where
[29:16] a lot of stuff was seized uh through the
[29:18] state.
[29:19] >> Um and that has happened a couple times
[29:21] for that retailer and that retailer was
[29:24] uh his license was revoked.
[29:25] >> Okay. Okay. And I have a few more.
[29:29] Sorry.
[29:30] Um the other thing is is with our
[29:34] municipal code, if this passes our
[29:36] municipal code not matching the state um
[29:40] age requirement,
[29:42] there's some
[29:44] drawbacks, but there's also some
[29:46] benefits. Can you speak to that a little
[29:48] bit?
[29:48] >> So, you're asking me things I might not
[29:50] I don't know that I can answer. However,
[29:53] I do want to now ask a question of our
[29:56] city attorney um to make sure we're not
[30:00] so you can't be less you can't be um
[30:05] less restrictive, but then how does the
[30:08] federal and the state and then US work
[30:10] in this area? And I don't have that
[30:12] answer for you. So, I'm going to have to
[30:13] I'm going to want to learn that
[30:14] tomorrow. um when we're talking about
[30:18] the 21 versus 18 the federal government
[30:21] adopting it the state not and then how
[30:23] does that impact us so I I want to learn
[30:25] more about that tomorrow
[30:26] >> okay because there
[30:27] >> from the department of health services
[30:29] the Wisconsin department of health
[30:30] services website it does cite the uh
[30:33] federal law of being 21 so in Wisconsin
[30:37] even though our state law hasn't been
[30:39] updated to 21
[30:41] >> the Wisconsin department of health
[30:44] services
[30:45] because it's more about the legality of
[30:48] is this going to cause if you have
[30:50] citations and are they going to have
[30:51] more grounds to fight it, you know, if
[30:54] they're 19. So, it's really that 18 to
[30:57] 20 year old
[30:59] >> bucket. And the reality of it is is that
[31:01] when our officers are in contact with
[31:03] someone that's 19 or 20, they're
[31:05] probably not addressing that. They're
[31:07] probably doing something else that's a
[31:08] little higher on the list,
[31:09] >> okay,
[31:10] >> that they're addressing um
[31:12] >> knowing that they are legal adults in
[31:14] the state. So, um I could I don't police
[31:18] on the street as much as I used to in
[31:20] the, you know, when I was younger, but I know that we're not writing a lot of
[31:24] tickets for that uh if any for uh people
[31:28] that are 19 and 20.
[31:29] >> Okay. Um my other thing I wanted to
[31:33] point out and this was um speaking a bit
[31:36] to Bruce's point that has the city
[31:40] attorney looked over how much of our
[31:42] actual retail would be limited like a
[31:45] percentage of what retail sites will be
[31:48] >> we just had that map made finalized this
[31:50] morning as a reference for you um so you
[31:54] could visualize it and then so you could
[31:56] make decisions as you review this
[31:58] ordinance. Um, you know, I drafted the
[32:00] ordinance, brought it before you, tried
[32:02] to give you guys all the good
[32:03] information because you're the ones
[32:05] making the decision.
[32:06] >> Yeah.
[32:06] >> So, um, you know, I want you to ask me a
[32:09] bunch of questions so I can help you
[32:11] make a good decision. So, there's no
[32:13] argumentative back and forth. I'm trying
[32:15] to help you with a drafted ordinance so
[32:18] you can make a decision. Because the the
[32:20] thing that I found too was that it could
[32:23] if there's a large percentage of the
[32:25] city that is specifically not available
[32:28] to a specific retailer that's selling a
[32:31] legal product, it could be some legal um
[32:35] risk for the city. I think we I think we
[32:39] as a city need to determine um is that
[32:42] the type of business where we want as
[32:43] many of them as we can get or are we
[32:45] happy with the ones we have um or are
[32:49] there opportunities for building and
[32:52] development and locations that that
[32:54] aren't restricted that helps city
[32:55] growth. I think there's a a few ways to
[32:57] look at it. So, I think that just as the
[33:00] city council, that's for you to
[33:03] determine and for me to provide uh
[33:06] provide something that we could do that
[33:08] I think is good for our community.
[33:10] >> Okay. And just for perspective, I
[33:13] graduated in 1987 and I think the stats
[33:16] were 36% of seniors were cigarette
[33:20] smokers and now it's 1.7.
[33:22] >> Yeah. So, I mean, there's major
[33:24] improvements that have happened and
[33:26] vaping hit its peak, I think, in 2023
[33:30] from what I had seen, and it's starting
[33:33] to come down. So, I think the the things
[33:35] that are happening are definitely
[33:37] helping and the enforcement that you're
[33:39] doing and the outreach with the school
[33:41] and your resource officer. So, thank you
[33:44] for answering my questions.
[33:45] >> You're welcome.
[33:49] Further questions for Chief or take
[33:51] >> Chief. Thanks for sharing that there
[33:53] were 16 licensed locations in the city.
[33:55] That's what I wanted to ask. Um it's a
[33:57] number probably higher than I would have
[33:59] guessed
[34:00] >> and none of them would be affected by
[34:02] any ordinance changes that we make.
[34:04] >> Exactly. And I I I think you can debate
[34:07] whether current laws have been effective
[34:09] or not, but this ordinance amendment um
[34:12] seeks to limit the proliferation of
[34:14] those shops and the visibility of them
[34:16] in areas highly um traversed by
[34:23] individuals that can be swayed by um
[34:27] by these shops, by the by the mere
[34:29] existence of them. So um I appreciate
[34:32] you bringing this to to us. Um I do
[34:34] agree with you that there are areas um not wanting to lose focus on and um
[34:43] but is your recommendation based in part
[34:45] on like trends you're seeing across um
[34:49] across other municipalities? So I don't
[34:52] my research was nation with nationwide
[34:54] data where a you know some
[34:56] municipalities are trying different
[34:57] things like the city parks um but the
[35:00] schools that's a very popular thing
[35:03] that's been go going on for years that's
[35:05] why we adopted it four years ago um and
[35:08] then the other new locations that are
[35:10] popping up because we're always trying
[35:11] to get our kids out of the house and
[35:13] active like we were when we were younger
[35:16] um but still trying to uh protect them
[35:20] from
[35:22] uh the urges of of uh advertising and stuff like that. So, um we're seeing
[35:29] other locations that are uh worth
[35:32] protecting. Uh, an example would be, you
[35:36] know, any youth mentoring location like
[35:38] our rec center or base or a YMCA or
[35:42] types of businesses like that that are
[35:44] really focused almost 90% or more on,
[35:48] you know, helping youth and mentoring
[35:50] youth and having youth there and
[35:53] present. So, I just I think uh based on
[35:56] my experience, based on my research, um
[35:59] I think these new locations are are a
[36:01] good thing, not a bad thing.
[36:04] Thanks.
[36:06] Everybody got their questions in.
[36:09] Um, again, I'm I'm confused on a couple
[36:12] issues. Um,
[36:15] one one of them kind of being I don't I
[36:17] don't want I'm coming across the wrong
[36:19] to a lot of people, I'm sure, thinking
[36:20] I'm promoting juveniles using tobacco
[36:23] products and baking and I'm not from
[36:25] trying to promote that.
[36:27] >> I don't think that. I I live in a
[36:29] country where you're free to open up a
[36:32] legal business and sell legal products
[36:34] to adults who can legally buy them. And
[36:37] we're somehow restraining that. And to
[36:40] me, that doesn't make sense to me. It
[36:42] doesn't make that it doesn't sound to me
[36:44] like an appropriate thing for the city
[36:46] to do. Um I don't think it'll be
[36:49] successful. I think it that that's apparent because it's not
[36:53] successful now and it's already illegal
[36:54] for these people to buy them and possess
[36:57] them and that didn't work. So, we're
[37:00] going to make it harder [snorts] on
[37:02] somebody who is old enough and somebody
[37:03] who is legal and somebody who wants to
[37:05] sell legal products to legal people and
[37:08] we're going to say, "Well, we decided we
[37:10] don't want that you to come in here." I I'm a businessman. And I think that
[37:15] that's that's not pro business to tell
[37:18] somebody that we got 16 other places
[37:20] that can legally do this, but not you.
[37:23] That that to me is not not pro business
[37:26] at any level. And it's also should be
[37:28] almost illegal to do that when they're
[37:31] selling legal products to legal adults
[37:33] who can make their own decision about
[37:35] whether they do that or not. And the
[37:37] trend AC nationwide, smoking's going
[37:40] downhill, smoking's ending, vaping's
[37:42] ending. It's on a natural trail down.
[37:45] We're not going to affect that. It's
[37:46] going to go down and disappear at some
[37:48] point. But again, I can't I can't say
[37:52] that I'm it's more principled to me of
[37:55] being an American and being what
[37:57] Americans are supposed to think or do.
[37:59] And if it's legal, you shouldn't be told
[38:01] you can't.
[38:03] >> Okay.
[38:06] » I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.
[38:08] >> Just to clarify, it's 50% of the sales.
[38:11] Correct. Correct. 50.
[38:13] >> So, businesses that are going to sell
[38:17] these products but are selling other
[38:20] things.
[38:21] >> Yeah. It would affect a new gas station.
[38:23] It would not affect a new grocery store.
[38:25] It would not affect a Walgreens. It
[38:27] would not affect
[38:29] >> a 7-Eleven, a standalone convenience
[38:31] store, nothing like that. Only a
[38:33] business that is selling those products
[38:36] specifically.
[38:38] >> Thank you. Yep.
[38:41] I move to perform the first reading of
[38:43] the ordinance and direct the city
[38:44] manager to prepare the ordinance for a
[38:46] second reading on September 1st.
[38:48] >> Second.
[38:48] >> We have a motion, a second. Any further
[38:51] discussion?
[38:52] >> Um, yes. I move to amend the motion by
[38:55] striking out the addition of the section
[38:56] proposed in the redline draft in 58-148
[39:02] >> [clears throat]
[39:02] >> um D item 3 and striking out the
[39:05] definition changes in B items 5 through
[39:08] 8.
[39:11] Do we need to vote on it first or do we
[39:14] vote on her motion?
[39:15] >> No, we need a second on the motion to
[39:17] debate her motion.
[39:17] >> Second.
[39:20] >> Right. So, we have the motion, a second
[39:22] on her mo motion or motion to amend. Is
[39:26] there any debate on that?
[39:28] >> I just kind of wanted to explain my
[39:30] thought process around this. I spent a
[39:32] lot of time with the our wonderful GIS
[39:35] tool and mapping out the thousand feet
[39:38] from all of the schools which covers a
[39:41] lot of the prime real estate already or
[39:44] retail real estate already. And I think
[39:48] with the decline of um that people are
[39:53] seeing across the nation and in our
[39:55] state on the use of vaping and
[39:57] everything else that this is a bit
[40:00] performative maybe in the fact that it's
[40:04] a large section of the city. And I think
[40:06] we're we're in a natural decline as it
[40:10] is. And I do agree with your point that
[40:15] if we don't need to limit business, we
[40:17] shouldn't at this point. And I think the
[40:19] tactics that are being used are very, effective.
[40:21] >> Yeah. I said, I'm not trying to promote
[40:24] the use of these items for for
[40:25] juveniles, but this seems like overreach
[40:28] and only going to interfere with legal
[40:30] people running legal businesses, and I
[40:31] can't get on board with that.
[40:33] >> Well, and I'm not necessarily convinced
[40:36] it's the best tactic either. you know,
[40:38] my kid I was a smoker, raised two kids
[40:40] that do not smoke and um because I was
[40:44] constantly say don't even try one
[40:47] because I started in high school, you
[40:48] know, and I'll be a year free in
[40:51] October. So, but but I think that's
[40:55] where the majority of the responsibility
[40:57] lies is in the education, in the
[41:00] schools, and in the parents.
[41:06] I've kind of gone back and forth with
[41:09] this. Um, you know, you brought it to
[41:10] the ordinance committee and I was very
[41:12] supportive. Um, but looking at this map,
[41:16] um, I I almost feel we need to lean more
[41:20] on the idea of maybe making a limit as
[41:22] to how many licenses for this item we
[41:25] can perform
[41:28] or give out. So, if we're at 16 now,
[41:31] maybe we make an ordinance in the future
[41:33] to um create that placeholder that we
[41:38] can only allow for 16 of these licenses.
[41:41] was I asked the city manager yesterday
[41:44] during a meeting that if it was at all
[41:47] possible to put this map together for us
[41:48] and my I I agree with um Council Member
[41:54] Johnson that you know this map show
[41:57] basically eliminates every location in
[42:00] the city that a retailer could
[42:01] potentially go into. I feel like that's
[42:04] a little on the strong side. I I do
[42:07] agree. You know, high school, middle
[42:09] school, those ones we shouldn't be
[42:11] trying to keep out because those are the
[42:14] ones getting closer to that age where
[42:15] they're going to walk in. And you know,
[42:18] there's a lot of 18y olds that look a
[42:20] little older that would maybe pass for
[42:23] that somebody just wouldn't think twice
[42:25] and would sell it to them.
[42:27] >> Yeah. Um,
[42:28] >> I I guess I would say if if there was a
[42:31] compromise somewhere in the middle, it
[42:33] would be to eliminate the park section
[42:35] of it, but also stay focused on the
[42:38] importance of locations like a base or a
[42:40] YMCA or rec center and including those
[42:43] in there because that is 100% kids,
[42:46] vulnerable youth, uh, potentially. Um,
[42:49] and I'd really hate to see us not lose I
[42:53] would hate to see us lose focus of the
[42:54] importance of those types of locations.
[42:57] Um, knowing that maybe because when I
[42:59] saw the map as well, I was like, well,
[43:01] that's a little bit more than I thought
[43:02] was going to happen.
[43:03] >> Um, but,
[43:05] um, so if you were to draft something or
[43:09] request an update that removed parks, I
[43:11] think we're still really doing a
[43:13] something good. And I will just throw
[43:15] that out there as something to think
[43:16] about. So, so to check protocol, we'd
[43:19] need to put [snorts] turn this down
[43:22] tonight and then and come back with
[43:24] another ordinance that addresses those
[43:26] issues different. Correct.
[43:28] No, you have a motion and a second on
[43:30] the floor right now to strike
[43:33] um to strike the red line version uh or
[43:35] the red line under D3, which is adding
[43:39] city parks, any out of school youth
[43:41] program, location, youth center or youth
[43:43] serving organization per the definitions
[43:45] included in B. And then the four
[43:48] additional definitions in B, the
[43:50] definitions of out of school time
[43:51] program, the definition of youth center,
[43:53] the definition of youth serving
[43:55] organization, and the definition of out
[43:57] of school uh youth. Um so that is
[44:01] there's a motion in a second to strike
[44:03] those things. Uh this if that motion
[44:06] carries, you would then uh vote on the
[44:08] underlying motion, which has a motion, a
[44:10] second uh on the floor uh as well. And
[44:13] then uh staff would make those changes
[44:16] if that amendment was adopted and bring
[44:19] uh this back to uh the city council for
[44:21] a second reading at the next uh um city
[44:24] council meeting.
[44:25] >> And it does leave intact the um the
[44:28] change to mirror the federal age limit
[44:32] of 21.
[44:34] >> Yes, that's all this uh ordinance
[44:35] amendment would do would be to change
[44:37] the uh legal age from 18 to 21.
[44:40] And I agree with uh Council President
[44:43] Kyle that uh the idea of we if we wanted
[44:46] to attack this issue that we would
[44:49] license X number of places in the city
[44:52] and in advance when you come to the
[44:53] city, you'd already know that and you'd
[44:55] like a liquor license. I'm not opposed
[44:57] to having only so many liquor licenses.
[45:00] But I am opposed to a blanket map is
[45:02] what I see in front of me. I would just
[45:05] note that if you limit the number of
[45:07] licenses, that actually limits the
[45:09] number of licenses that folks can have
[45:11] for grocery stores, gas stations, and
[45:14] any other u um retailer that's selling
[45:18] tobacco as a side uh instead of these
[45:22] businesses which are the focus of the
[45:24] ordinance that are only selling or have
[45:26] 50% or more of their sales are tobacco
[45:30] uh ecigarette and vaping devices. So, a
[45:32] limit on the total number of licenses
[45:35] would actually further limit any new
[45:38] business from coming to the city uh and
[45:40] selling any of those products.
[45:42] >> I don't I don't understand how that
[45:44] would would be if we're limiting the
[45:46] number of places that we've already se
[45:49] [snorts] sectioned them out. We said if
[45:51] you make more than 50% of your income
[45:53] selling this stuff, that's who we're
[45:55] talking about.
[45:57] That's who would be getting the license
[45:58] or not. It'd be the same group.
[46:01] >> No. We're only talking about like uh
[46:03] tobacco land uh hemp.
[46:06] >> I can't remember the name of it. Hemp
[46:08] 1848.
[46:10] Um
[46:10] >> Extreme Smoke, That's all this is about
[46:13] is businesses that specifically sell
[46:16] those items.
[46:17] >> All All gas stations and grocery stores
[46:19] that sell tobacco need a license. So any
[46:22] gas station, any grocery store that
[46:24] sells tobacco in the city needs a
[46:26] license. Again, I'm just saying why are
[46:28] we not creating an ordinance that would
[46:31] target the ones that that he just listed
[46:34] for us and said
[46:35] >> no more of those.
[46:36] >> That's what we're trying to do. That's
[46:38] what this is.
[46:39] >> Yes. Not this map.
[46:41] >> By this by the definition that we have
[46:44] to follow that would create this rule.
[46:47] If we put the limit on of saying we only
[46:50] have 16 licenses as a quota, that means
[46:54] a grocery store that would want to come
[46:56] in, say, on the south side of town would
[46:59] not be able to potentially sell this
[47:02] unless we had one of those 16 come
[47:04] available.
[47:07] Okay,
[47:07] >> this would be Quick Trip, Pick and Save,
[47:10] Stop and Go, KPM Mart, uh BP, Walgreens,
[47:15] Family Dollar, Sitco, Lions, QuickMart.
[47:18] These are all of those locations that
[47:19] are licensed. All of those, it would not
[47:21] affect any business like that,
[47:26] >> right? 50% or more of their revenue has
[47:28] to come in from something other than the
[47:31] tobacco vape stuff combined.
[47:37] I really do think if there's a
[47:39] compromise to be had, it's remove city
[47:41] parks but still stay focused on the the
[47:44] locations that are very much like
[47:46] schools. Um, which already is, you know,
[47:50] something that we're, you know, we have
[47:52] active. So, I just throw that out there
[47:54] again as a maybe a thought before you move forward.
[47:59] >> That's something I could be very
[48:01] agreeable with because just looking at
[48:04] this map, you take out city parks, that
[48:06] basically makes about half it's about a
[48:08] 50/50 shot in the city,
[48:11] you know. So, I would
[48:12] >> and if if whatever direction the council
[48:14] gives staff, we can certainly produce
[48:16] additional maps for the next city
[48:17] council meeting.
[48:21] So, if we move forward
[48:26] by taking these, let's say we approve
[48:29] the amendment I put in at the next
[48:32] reading, we could add an amendment
[48:36] because that would give us time to look
[48:37] at a map of what it would look like by
[48:40] just removing the parks.
[48:42] Correct? You could vote down your
[48:45] amendment and redo an amendment, come
[48:48] back next week with all the parks
[48:50] removed and then you can see what it is
[48:51] visually then. I think that's how you
[48:53] would want to do it.
[48:54] >> I No, that that would work. But there
[48:57] there's a motion in a second on the
[48:58] floor right now.
[48:59] >> Okay. to uh to amend the ordinance to
[49:03] eliminate the things that I those four
[49:05] definitions as well as the uh section
[49:09] relating uh to prohibiting um these
[49:13] types of stores within a thousand ft of
[49:15] a city park or out of school um out of
[49:17] school youth programming location or
[49:19] youth center. So that's that's the
[49:21] amendment that is on the floor right
[49:23] now.
[49:24] We'd have to vote that down and then
[49:26] come back with a new one if
[49:29] so wanted.
[49:33] » I will that we will call the question on
[49:35] the amendment. All in favor?
[49:38] >> So wait, just so I'm clear, it is the
[49:39] amendment to the amended ordinance?
[49:42] >> Yes. No.
[49:43] >> No. No. This is the amend This is the
[49:46] amendment to the ordinance that's on the
[49:48] floor right now. So the ordinance
[49:50] changes on the floor. The amendment is
[49:53] to that ordinance change that's proposed
[49:55] that's in the packet.
[49:56] >> And me I'm thinking we're thinking the
[49:58] same two things. We have an amended
[50:00] ordinance in the packet today and we
[50:02] have an amendment to that amended
[50:03] ordinance that Right.
[50:04] >> Correct.
[50:05] >> Basically the amendment that we're going
[50:07] to take the vote on is to remove all the
[50:11] red line items except for the age
[50:13] change.
[50:15] >> So
[50:17] with that I will call the question. All
[50:20] in favor of the amended
[50:23] amendment to the ordinance amendment,
[50:26] please say I.
[50:28] >> I.
[50:29] >> Any opposed?
[50:30] >> Nay.
[50:33] >> That motion fails.
[50:35] >> So, we are back to the original um
[50:39] motion and a second to perform the
[50:41] reading. Is there any further discussion
[50:44] on this?
[50:45] >> And this motion will be on the amended
[50:47] form. the full out amendment that we
[50:50] have in front of us in the packet.
[50:52] >> Okay.
[50:55] >> At this time, if anybody wanted to make
[50:57] the amendment to remove city parks, that
[51:00] could be discussed.
[51:04] >> Okay. I'm going to try to do this right.
[51:07] Okay. I move to amend the motion by
[51:09] striking out the addition of city parks
[51:15] in the proposed section redline draft in
[51:19] 58-148D
[51:21] item three and striking out
[51:25] I don't think there is a never mind just
[51:27] stop it right there because I don't
[51:29] think there's a definition of city park
[51:32] in your
[51:34] so let me say it one more
[51:37] I move to amend the motion by striking
[51:41] out city parks of the section proposed
[51:45] in the redline draft in 58-148D
[51:48] item three.
[51:50] >> Second.
[51:52] >> We have a motion, a second on the
[51:54] amendment. All uh any discussion?
[51:58] I think this is a much more feasible
[52:01] option for us to pursue.
[52:06] Uh with that being said, I will call the
[52:07] question. All in favor of the amendment
[52:10] for the amendment ordinance, please
[52:13] signify by saying I.
[52:14] >> I.
[52:15] >> Any opposed?
[52:18] >> Motion carries.
[52:20] >> Thank you.
[52:20] >> The underlying we need to take action.
[52:23] The council um should take action on the
[52:24] underlying motion which is to perform
[52:26] the first reading of the ordinance and
[52:28] direct the city manager to prepare it
[52:30] for a second reading. Uh, and with the I
[52:32] would prepare the amended ordinance for
[52:34] a second reading and bring it back to
[52:35] the council on September 1st with
[52:37] additional maps.
[52:39] >> With that, I will call that question.
[52:41] All in favor, please signify by saying
[52:43] I.
[52:44] >> I. I.
[52:44] >> Any opposed?
[52:47] Motion carries. Thank you, Chief.
[52:48] >> You're welcome.
[52:50] >> Thank you, Chief Bump. I do I do
[52:51] appreciate how much you care about our
[52:53] city. I do.
[52:56] >> All right.
[52:58] Moving on to item 8B, first reading of
[53:00] an ordinance to amend multiple sections
[53:02] of chapter 62 of the city of Fort
[53:04] Atinson municipal code of ordinances
[53:07] relating to park regulations. Director
[53:09] of parks and recreation Dayton.
[53:12] >> Yes, thank you. Uh so these uh
[53:14] amendments are related to section 62 as
[53:16] you mentioned earlier. Uh the uh
[53:20] recommendations were uh a first
[53:23] recommended by the parks and recreation
[53:25] advisory board on June 10th and then
[53:27] again uh by the ordinance committee on
[53:30] July 21st. Uh the recommendations really
[53:33] focused on uh first reviewing the um or
[53:38] sorry was first reviewed and uh decided
[53:41] on by the parks and recreation advisory
[53:44] board uh rules and ordinance
[53:47] subcommittee. So we created a a group
[53:49] I'm there we go uh a subcommittee within
[53:53] the parks and recck advisory board to
[53:56] spearhead this. Um and they were also
[53:59] given some information by staff as for
[54:02] best practices while also conducting
[54:04] their own research um and seeing what is
[54:08] out there in other communities as well.
[54:11] Uh the first uh amendment uh is to the
[54:15] animals and city park grounds uh section
[54:18] 621. Uh this really is not necessarily a
[54:24] ban on animals in city parks. It's kind
[54:27] of addressing uh situations that pop up
[54:30] where uh everybody within that
[54:33] subcommittee agreed to seeing at some
[54:36] point in time. Um we're really just
[54:38] looking to
[54:40] uh put out some areas that are uh easily
[54:43] identifiable like playgrounds, uh ball
[54:46] fields, and those s those types of
[54:48] facilities. and then have um have that
[54:52] as a gauge for hey, animals are not
[54:55] necessarily allowed on there. We've seen
[54:57] folks play fetch on a a freshly prepared
[55:00] ball field messing it up. Um those are
[55:03] the things that we're trying to avoid.
[55:05] So the um
[55:08] the other part is just the the
[55:11] playgrounds and and having other
[55:13] structures as well included in that. In
[55:16] addition to that, we are still having uh
[55:20] areas that are posted, but it doesn't
[55:22] require us to post every area like those
[55:25] easily identifiable uh facilities. Uh
[55:29] section 622
[55:31] uh is uh more or less related to
[55:34] protection protecting uh city property.
[55:37] The language that we added is
[55:39] specifically to like geocaching or metal
[55:41] detecting, which are really acceptable
[55:45] practices or or activities to do, but
[55:48] just providing some guard rails um that
[55:51] are really based on best practices um
[55:55] throughout the uh variety of uh
[55:59] counties. Uh the DNR has this for state
[56:02] parks. uh they have um I guess rules in
[56:06] place for uh this practice. Uh Walkshaw
[56:10] County, City of Madison, Jefferson
[56:12] County all have something in place that
[56:15] um kind of gives this activity guard
[56:18] rails. Um truly the intent is not to
[56:22] have people uh potentially uh damaging
[56:27] facilities
[56:28] um
[56:30] digging holes and random spots
[56:32] throughout the parks. It's uh really
[56:35] just well even putting uh affixing
[56:38] caches to like playground equipment. We
[56:41] want to keep it a fun and safe activity
[56:43] to do around the city. Um, I also want
[56:46] to note that geocaching.com
[56:49] also supports uh all of these um
[56:53] respectful ways of participating in this
[56:55] activity.
[56:56] Uh section 624 uh addresses alcohol and
[57:00] glass bottles. This is really more or
[57:02] less just cleaning up some of the um
[57:07] older intentions of the ordinance by
[57:10] removing bicesentennial park. uh that
[57:13] doesn't necessarily apply now. And then
[57:16] also um we still included Memorial Park
[57:19] because that is uh primarily used as a
[57:22] youth um or for youth activities. Uh
[57:27] additionally, new language was added to
[57:29] include uh hemp derived THC beverages
[57:32] and then also a citywide pro uh ban on
[57:36] glass bottles within the parks which is
[57:39] a bigger issue with littering. and then
[57:41] also broken glass. It's a safety issue.
[57:44] Um the proposal for section 625 would be
[57:50] a new ordinance pro uh prohibiting
[57:52] smoking, vaping, ecigarettes within the
[57:54] city or public trails. Um the the intent
[57:57] for this is to promote uh healthier
[58:00] public spaces and reduce exposure to um
[58:04] community members, children uh from
[58:07] smoking and vaping during youth
[58:09] activities, community events um and
[58:12] other public gatherings within the
[58:13] parks. The under the proposal uh smoking
[58:17] and vaping would be limited to locations
[58:19] within the public right ofway uh
[58:22] adjacent to one of the given parks.
[58:25] Um
[58:27] and then the final amendment involves
[58:29] park operation hours. Uh that's just
[58:32] really uh having some consistent
[58:34] language across all the parks. So, um
[58:37] there's no financial impact to this and
[58:40] staff does recommend uh the parks and
[58:43] that the parks and recreation advisory
[58:45] board, the ordinance committee uh
[58:48] recommended
[58:50] ordinance that the council hold the
[58:52] first reading of the ordinance and
[58:54] direct city manager to prepare the
[58:56] ordinance for a second reading at the
[58:58] meeting on September 1st. I can take
[59:02] questions. Thank you. I'm just I'm I'm
[59:05] wondering the difference between what we
[59:07] just amended one to take the uh parks
[59:11] out of this map of what of this map that
[59:15] we're that we're looking at about where
[59:17] you can't sell these items.
[59:20] Um and you're going to replace it with
[59:24] you can't possess these items or can't
[59:25] use these items even if you're a legal
[59:27] adult.
[59:28] >> No. So that map was specific to a new
[59:30] business coming into town that would be
[59:32] selling that product.
[59:34] >> 50% more of their sales would come from
[59:36] that. That's not that's not
[59:39] representative of this ordinance change.
[59:41] This is just saying that um smoking
[59:44] within the park boundaries, smoking,
[59:47] vaping, etc. is just not prohibited. Um
[59:51] so it's not like it goes beyond the
[59:54] boundaries of the park.
[59:58] Okay.
[59:59] >> I have two questions.
[1:00:00] >> Yeah.
[1:00:01] >> Um on the
[1:00:04] item 625
[1:00:06] with the vaping and smoking on all um
[1:00:10] city park grounds. I think at the
[1:00:13] ordinance meeting you had said something
[1:00:15] they would include the trails and those
[1:00:18] kinds of things. So what's the plan to
[1:00:20] enforce it?
[1:00:23] Um [clears throat]
[1:00:24] so similar to other ordinances, other uh
[1:00:28] laws, I think Chief Bump uh really
[1:00:31] summed it up quite well where the number
[1:00:35] of citations that are actually issued
[1:00:39] >> uh are not what are not do not represent
[1:00:42] the actual number of call or uh
[1:00:44] interactions that uh his staff have with
[1:00:47] the public. So, um,
[1:00:50] >> it would likely be complaint based.
[1:00:52] >> It would. Yes. Correct.
[1:00:54] >> Okay.
[1:00:54] >> If there was an interaction, it would be
[1:00:56] complaint based.
[1:00:57] >> Okay.
[1:00:58] Um, what was my other question?
[1:01:03] Do you have problems in the like the
[1:01:06] bleachers and the stands like at the
[1:01:09] football fields or at the pool?
[1:01:13] Um, Jones Park.
[1:01:17] with
[1:01:18] >> with um smoking.
[1:01:21] >> Uh I mean, yeah, the
[1:01:24] um
[1:01:26] during youth events, uh flag football,
[1:01:30] uh baseball, every once in a while
[1:01:32] someone will
[1:01:34] start smoking and as a vapor or uh you
[1:01:38] know, as it does, it
[1:01:40] >> floats across the space. So there are um
[1:01:44] >> yeah there are issues that do pop up.
[1:01:46] Right now it's legal. So it's not
[1:01:48] necessarily like it's reported by any
[1:01:50] means. It's more or less self um
[1:01:54] uh controlled by staff like within the
[1:01:56] pool. Uh that's not allowed within the
[1:01:58] pool. So staff have to address it then.
[1:02:01] Um if youth group or a baseball club
[1:02:04] would have an issue with uh during a
[1:02:06] tournament, they would have to address
[1:02:08] it themselves.
[1:02:09] >> Okay? But there's nothing behind it.
[1:02:10] Nothing backing it up.
[1:02:12] >> Okay.
[1:02:13] >> There's not going to be park patrols out
[1:02:14] on the trails.
[1:02:15] >> Oh, no. No.
[1:02:17] >> Okay.
[1:02:20] >> And I have witnessed uh people at the
[1:02:22] aquatic center trying to sneak in a vape
[1:02:24] and staff does a pretty good job there
[1:02:26] of spotting it out and then going and
[1:02:30] reminding that person it's not allowed.
[1:02:33] >> Well, and I'm all on board with this. I
[1:02:37] just would hope it would be more
[1:02:38] targeted to where people gather. It it
[1:02:42] seems again a bit overreaching to
[1:02:45] include the trails and the outdoor
[1:02:47] areas. As a former smoker, there's very
[1:02:49] few places you can go, right?
[1:02:52] and there are smokers that are citizens
[1:02:54] here and that there's no um place but
[1:02:59] their back patio will you know it's not
[1:03:02] just I I totally agree with the
[1:03:07] [clears throat] eliminating it where
[1:03:09] it's targeted targeted
[1:03:13] to protect where people gather you know
[1:03:15] the soccer fields and the um because I
[1:03:18] think you already can't do that on the
[1:03:20] school school grounds, you know, and I
[1:03:24] would I would definitely be in support
[1:03:26] of some sort of ordinance that defines
[1:03:30] the space. You know, there's no smoking
[1:03:33] or vaping within 50 feet of a structure
[1:03:35] or 25 ft of a structure of a city city
[1:03:38] park structure. Yeah, that that was um
[1:03:43] so I guess there were two different
[1:03:44] ideas that were uh I guess discussed uh
[1:03:48] specifically on this and one was this um
[1:03:52] like you said an alternative concept
[1:03:54] where it truly is just certain
[1:03:56] facilities a distance away from those
[1:03:58] facilities. the difficult the the issue
[1:04:02] that we kept coming up on is that you
[1:04:06] know if it's 50 ft or if it's uh a
[1:04:10] parking lot you know that's where you
[1:04:12] have to go um that's different in every
[1:04:15] space different park
[1:04:17] >> and so
[1:04:19] having a blanket uh a um doesn't make
[1:04:24] anybody have to think through where is
[1:04:25] this or potentially avoid any conflict
[1:04:28] where
[1:04:29] All right, it's 50 feet away from a
[1:04:32] playground. And then somebody starts to,
[1:04:35] you know, question what is 50 ft?
[1:04:38] >> What does that look like?
[1:04:39] >> So, uh, a blanket approach is was, uh,
[1:04:43] what we,
[1:04:45] I guess, saw as a best option.
[1:04:48] >> Okay. Because what was used in or what
[1:04:51] was adopted in Watertown was a
[1:04:54] compromise approach that protected the
[1:04:56] areas that people gather by having a
[1:04:59] distance a distance rule and also
[1:05:03] recognizing people's liberty too.
[1:05:07] >> Yeah, that actually that was one that
[1:05:09] was sent over uh as well. Um, and theirs stated uh 25 ft from
[1:05:18] uh these designated structures like uh
[1:05:20] playgrounds, athletic fields, etc.
[1:05:22] >> Um, when I looked at like a map of Jones
[1:05:27] Park,
[1:05:28] >> you've got the playground structure and
[1:05:30] 25 ft away is the uh, you know, one of
[1:05:34] the park benches. Mhm.
[1:05:35] >> So that's still fairly close to the
[1:05:38] structure where you could still have
[1:05:41] this interaction.
[1:05:42] >> Um,
[1:05:44] which potentially could drive people
[1:05:47] away from using the park if they didn't
[1:05:49] uh, you know, didn't want to be there
[1:05:52] because of smoking.
[1:05:55] >> I would agree with uh, Councilwoman
[1:05:57] Huckabe that it should be more targeted.
[1:06:00] It'd be easier for me to get on board
[1:06:02] with the idea if it was targeted, not in
[1:06:04] the bleachers, not not in a group with
[1:06:06] parents and kids, not at kids events,
[1:06:09] but out on the bike trail south of town
[1:06:11] and nobody in sight. I I can't I can't I
[1:06:15] can't believe that that's quite what we
[1:06:16] need to be doing to that.
[1:06:18] >> Sure.
[1:06:19] >> And I would assume this takes it to that
[1:06:21] level.
[1:06:22] >> Uh I mean, again, it's it's um
[1:06:25] uh report based, right? So, somebody
[1:06:28] who's, you know, as you described, uh,
[1:06:32] just walking the trail, they wouldn't
[1:06:35] necessarily be
[1:06:37] >> they wouldn't be noticed,
[1:06:40] >> I suppose. I mean, they wouldn't nobody
[1:06:42] would call unless that person called and
[1:06:44] complained about themselves, right? It wouldn't happen. So, it's it's a um
[1:06:50] Yeah, it's truly just report based.
[1:06:53] This this is another one of those
[1:06:54] ordinances I believe falls back on
[1:06:57] discretion of the patrol officers at the
[1:07:00] time. Correct, Chief?
[1:07:02] >> Yeah,
[1:07:06] » I know I was on this subcommittee at the
[1:07:09] time with this and it it was a lot of
[1:07:13] research back forth. I know I did send
[1:07:15] you that link of water columns recently
[1:07:18] enacted April of 25 they enacted that
[1:07:21] ordinance which
[1:07:22] >> like you said once you start including
[1:07:25] these areas
[1:07:27] you know it it goes back to this you
[1:07:30] know map ideas where is that 25 ft where
[1:07:34] is 50 feet where you know I guess this
[1:07:38] is more so for the incidents where
[1:07:42] there's somebody smoking in
[1:07:44] gathering, there's an enforceable
[1:07:46] option. If you're out taking a stroll
[1:07:48] down the bike trail, I don't think um a
[1:07:51] patrol officer is going to roll up
[1:07:52] alongside you. You're out by yourself.
[1:07:54] They're not going to just stop you and
[1:07:56] say, "Hey, you can't do that. Here's a
[1:07:57] fine."
[1:08:02] » I'm to perform the first reading of the
[1:08:04] ordinance and direct the city manager to
[1:08:05] prepare the ordinance for a second
[1:08:06] reading on September 1st.
[1:08:08] >> Second.
[1:08:09] >> A motion, a second. Any further
[1:08:11] discussion?
[1:08:12] We'll be able to amend it at the next
[1:08:15] one if we choose to. Correct.
[1:08:18] >> Yes.
[1:08:20] >> Well, I move to amend the proposed text
[1:08:22] of section 625 to strike the blanket
[1:08:25] prohibition and instead read as follows.
[1:08:28] Section 62-5,
[1:08:31] smoking and vaping restricted near park
[1:08:33] structures. It shall be unlawful for any
[1:08:35] person to smoke or vape tobacco, hemp,
[1:08:37] or THC products within a 25- ft radius
[1:08:41] of any designated park structure,
[1:08:43] playground, pavilion, athletic field, or
[1:08:46] permanent seating area with any city
[1:08:48] within any city park except as provided
[1:08:51] herein. Smoking and vaping are permitted
[1:08:54] on open park grounds and trails.
[1:08:58] >> Second.
[1:09:00] >> We have a motion and a second on the
[1:09:01] amendment. any discussion?
[1:09:06] >> I just think it's a better balance of
[1:09:09] governance instead of, you know, more
[1:09:12] rules that most likely are not going to
[1:09:14] create a complaint anyway if somebody's
[1:09:17] out in an open park. But it does address
[1:09:21] where it would be a nuisance and where
[1:09:24] um the ordinance makes sense to me. So,
[1:09:29] >> I feel like it would make more sense as
[1:09:33] a citizen to be able to say, "Could you
[1:09:36] please move to a public rideway instead
[1:09:39] of having to
[1:09:42] figure out what 25 ft is from this park
[1:09:46] bench versus that park bench?"
[1:09:50] So I I feel like that opens up more
[1:09:53] negative citizen interactions with each
[1:09:56] other to then
[1:10:01] have other people come in and make
[1:10:03] additional complaints when it could just
[1:10:06] be as simple as move to the public right
[1:10:08] away. I think that's something that we
[1:10:11] have in our bars. We used to be able to
[1:10:14] smoke in bars. We can't smoke in bars.
[1:10:16] It moved to the public right away. It
[1:10:18] matches then to keep people going to
[1:10:21] where they are familiar with knowing
[1:10:23] that they have to go outside of a bar or
[1:10:26] outside of a park. Now,
[1:10:29] >> I think the big exception though is the
[1:10:31] outdoor spaces that aren't any part of
[1:10:34] those facilities. You know, you're on a
[1:10:36] trail,
[1:10:38] you're going to leave the trail, you're
[1:10:39] going to go back to your car. You know
[1:10:40] what I mean? You're I just think it's
[1:10:43] too much limitation. and we have um
[1:10:48] the ability to choose to damage our
[1:10:50] bodies if we want to. You know, it's not
[1:10:52] a great idea, but it doesn't make it the
[1:10:56] government's responsibility
[1:10:58] to ensure you're making that choice. if
[1:11:00] it would be helpful uh similar to the
[1:11:02] map that was provided. Um, I mean that's
[1:11:05] always something that I put together
[1:11:07] with uh various park locations and
[1:11:09] showing you what that could look like.
[1:11:12] >> Um,
[1:11:12] >> with the 25 foot radius,
[1:11:15] >> various radiuses, I guess, but
[1:11:17] >> a lot of structures.
[1:11:18] >> That's a lot of Sorry,
[1:11:20] >> a lot of structures to put on a map. a
[1:11:22] an an example of how that may or may not
[1:11:25] truly show you what you're trying to uh
[1:11:31] what you're trying to or the amendment
[1:11:33] that you're proposing because um again
[1:11:37] that that debate that we had with uh you
[1:11:41] know what is 25 ft what's 50 feet um
[1:11:45] >> people have been able to figure it out
[1:11:46] for a long time because prior to like
[1:11:49] the hospital used to be 25 ft per
[1:11:51] entrances. That was the first
[1:11:54] that was the very first um
[1:11:58] rule that I remember about, you know,
[1:12:00] you couldn't be on either side of an
[1:12:01] entrance and you had to be 25 ft away.
[1:12:03] And we people figured it out. So, and if
[1:12:08] this is complaint based, we'll know
[1:12:11] pretty quickly.
[1:12:13] >> And I agree with that. I I I truly
[1:12:15] believe that if it's a 25 ft rule,
[1:12:19] nobody's out there with a tape measure
[1:12:20] going, you're only 22 feet away, but
[1:12:22] you've moved away from the crowd or
[1:12:24] moved away from the people and it's
[1:12:26] outside. I don't see a problem. Yeah,
[1:12:29] >> I agree with council member Price's uh
[1:12:35] point about uh creating confusion and
[1:12:39] arguments and disagreements over where
[1:12:42] you've stepped over the line of 25 ft
[1:12:45] that's not clearly marked.
[1:12:49] » And I I hesitate to think that people
[1:12:53] are out on the biking trail to go smoke.
[1:12:57] there's plenty of public sidewalks
[1:12:59] rightway areas that they can smoke
[1:13:01] before and after they get to the bike
[1:13:04] trail or any other trail. So, like I
[1:13:07] just I don't understand
[1:13:11] why like are we going to say that it's
[1:13:16] any structure? Like if I'm standing by
[1:13:18] something that's a geocache where kids
[1:13:21] are coming up to do the geocache and to
[1:13:23] play, is that now a structure? Like what
[1:13:26] counts as a structure? Is it a park
[1:13:28] bench? Does that count as a structure?
[1:13:31] So, I just
[1:13:35] I know we can choose to harm our bodies
[1:13:39] and that is somebody's own choice, but
[1:13:42] it's not something that we should
[1:13:44] subject kids to. If they're playing a
[1:13:47] game of tag in a field that's away from
[1:13:50] an athletic field, they shouldn't then
[1:13:52] have to be running through somebody
[1:13:54] else's smoke just because we can't say
[1:13:57] move over to the sidewalk.
[1:14:01] I'm not saying I'm going to condone any
[1:14:03] of this, but the idea of, you know, if
[1:14:06] we enact the full park ban stuff, um,
[1:14:10] again, back to my comment earlier with,
[1:14:12] you know, if patrol officer sees
[1:14:14] somebody out in the middle of, we'll
[1:14:16] just say, Rock River Park, um, walking
[1:14:19] or something, you know, out by yourself,
[1:14:22] I don't think they're going to stop and
[1:14:23] harass them, say, hey, you know, no
[1:14:25] smoking hurt. I think this is more of a
[1:14:29] when there's a big gathering, you know,
[1:14:31] this kind of there's a group of people
[1:14:33] moving around, it kind of keeps people
[1:14:36] from smoking right in the middle of the
[1:14:37] group or vaping or anything.
[1:14:40] So,
[1:14:42] >> I think of at Jones Park, there are
[1:14:45] often the middle school
[1:14:49] um cross country meets. So this would
[1:14:52] prevent all those people from having to
[1:14:55] run through the cross country meet
[1:14:58] smoking and like I just I don't
[1:15:02] that is a way to help make the parks
[1:15:04] better for everybody and give clear
[1:15:07] direction to people who do still want to
[1:15:10] be able to partake in those items.
[1:15:15] if it helps to I mean there are several
[1:15:17] other communities that have current
[1:15:19] currently have this in place. Um Manona,
[1:15:23] Barabou, uh Verona, Wisconsin Dells. Um
[1:15:26] I mean those are just a handful that are
[1:15:29] I would say pretty comparable in size to
[1:15:31] a certain degree.
[1:15:34] Well, Nathan, I'm on board with the idea
[1:15:35] of not in the middle of a crowd, not not
[1:15:37] in a building, not but I already see the
[1:15:40] whole the whole world as I see it where
[1:15:44] you can't smoke, you can't vape in a
[1:15:45] bar. I see a lot of people that need to
[1:15:48] have their nicotine and go outside.
[1:15:51] They're not and they don't argue about
[1:15:52] it. I don't think that that this would
[1:15:54] be a lot different. You wouldn't strike
[1:15:56] up a million arguments. You'd get to a
[1:15:59] point where you'd be going, you know
[1:16:00] what the law is. You've been there.
[1:16:02] You can't do it in
[1:16:03] the bar and you can't do it here either.
[1:16:05] You got to go away over there to do it
[1:16:07] and I' I'd rather see it that way.
[1:16:12] » With that, we're just circling back and
[1:16:14] chasing our tail. So, I will call the
[1:16:17] question on the motion to amend the
[1:16:19] amendment or ordinance uh that council
[1:16:23] member Puck Huckabe has proposed. So,
[1:16:25] all in favor of the amendment, please
[1:16:27] say I.
[1:16:28] >> I.
[1:16:28] >> Any opposed? Nay.
[1:16:31] >> Motion uh fails. Sorry.
[1:16:34] So then we are back to the
[1:16:36] >> Was the motion carried or not?
[1:16:38] >> No. Motion fails.
[1:16:41] >> So we are back to the original motion to
[1:16:43] perform the first reading of the
[1:16:44] ordinance to direct city manager prepare
[1:16:47] the ordinance for a second reading on
[1:16:50] September 1st. Uh with that all in favor
[1:16:53] of the motion, please signify by saying
[1:16:55] I. I.
[1:16:57] >> Any opposed? Name. Motion carries.
[1:17:01] >> Thank you.
[1:17:04] >> All right. Item 8 C, a second reading of
[1:17:06] an ordinance creating sections 94-245
[1:17:10] through 94-248
[1:17:12] of the city of Fort Atinson code of
[1:17:15] ordinances relating to offhighway
[1:17:17] motorcycles. Uh, please Captain Hefty.
[1:17:20] >> Hey, thanks for hearing me.
[1:17:21] >> So July 21st, this um OM ordinance uh
[1:17:26] got through the ordinance committee. The
[1:17:27] first reading was August 4th. This is
[1:17:29] the second reading. So, I'll just
[1:17:30] refresh your guys' memories a little
[1:17:32] bit. That OM are defined by Wisconsin
[1:17:34] state statutes as offhighway
[1:17:36] motorcycles, which means a two- wheeled
[1:17:38] motor vehicle that is straddled by the
[1:17:40] operator, equipped with handlebars, and
[1:17:42] is designed for use off of a highway
[1:17:45] regardless of whether it's also designed
[1:17:46] for use on a highway. An offhighway
[1:17:48] motorcycle does not include an electric
[1:17:51] bicycle. So, nothing to do with ebikes.
[1:17:53] Okay.
[1:17:55] So, um, since the first reading, we at
[1:17:58] the police department have not received
[1:17:59] any negative feedback to the contrary.
[1:18:02] We actually had an email from a citizen
[1:18:05] in favor of it just um kind of giving
[1:18:08] his his experiences in different parts
[1:18:11] of the city with eB or with OM's uh
[1:18:15] vehicles that are electric in general.
[1:18:18] So, um, we haven't had any opposition to
[1:18:21] it. I don't know if any of you have had
[1:18:22] individual emails from anybody, but um
[1:18:25] it's already a state law. We're just
[1:18:27] trying to make it enforceable at the
[1:18:29] local level so we can keep control of it
[1:18:30] here. So um as asked last time, I would
[1:18:35] hope that we could have a second reading
[1:18:37] on August 18th.
[1:18:40] No, I'm sorry, third reading, September
[1:18:41] 1st.
[1:18:43] you have any questions that you've
[1:18:44] thought of since the last reading? I'm
[1:18:46] very open.
[1:18:48] >> Just for clarity on the distinction and
[1:18:50] an OM is basically an electric bike, but
[1:18:54] it's so powerful you don't need pedals.
[1:18:56] That makes it a motorcycle. Correct.
[1:18:58] >> Yeah. An electric motorcycle for lack of
[1:18:59] a better term.
[1:19:02] >> Been trying to educate myself on these
[1:19:04] things as I see them on the street
[1:19:05] because there are quite a few of them
[1:19:07] out there. And the one of the
[1:19:08] distinctions, if I have this right, is
[1:19:10] the OM
[1:19:12] are not something you can pedal.
[1:19:14] >> Correct.
[1:19:14] >> So if someone's pedaling something and
[1:19:15] it looks like it's got some speed behind
[1:19:18] it, it is an ebike.
[1:19:20] >> Correct.
[1:19:22] Well, there there people could rig it to
[1:19:24] have put pedals on it, but it wouldn't
[1:19:26] come I don't believe it would come from
[1:19:28] a manufacturer that way than it would be
[1:19:30] an ebike. So if someone were to um
[1:19:34] modify an ebike and make it more like an
[1:19:37] OM but also maintain some of the ebike
[1:19:39] qualities that would still be illegal
[1:19:41] for use on the roads.
[1:19:44] >> Anything that lies outside of the three
[1:19:47] classes that defines an ebike is not an
[1:19:49] ebike. It would be an OM or it would be
[1:19:52] a different type of bike. Um, so there
[1:19:56] could be an e a bicycle that has ple
[1:19:58] pedals that has a very powerful motor
[1:20:02] that is beyond the definition and goes
[1:20:05] 50 miles an hour if it still has pedals
[1:20:07] on it. That would not be an ebike, but
[1:20:10] that would more be defined as an
[1:20:12] offhighway motorcycle. And also don't
[1:20:14] lose fat. Don't lose uh focus on a OM is
[1:20:18] also a motocross bike that has a gas
[1:20:21] engine um or a mini bike that has a gas
[1:20:24] engine. So, it's those and electric e-
[1:20:28] moto bikes as well. So, it it
[1:20:30] encompasses everything.
[1:20:32] >> Thank you for clarifying that.
[1:20:33] >> Yeah.
[1:20:34] >> And this would make those things illegal
[1:20:36] in town on the trails or on the streets.
[1:20:38] Correct.
[1:20:39] >> Anywhere in the city except for in
[1:20:40] private property on your own property,
[1:20:42] you could operate them. Well, they
[1:20:44] already would be illegal. It's just now
[1:20:46] we were looking now in place
[1:20:49] >> locally through an ordinance and in our
[1:20:51] court and our judge in our decisions as
[1:20:54] opposed to a criminal traffic citation.
[1:20:56] >> We've just given ourselves the ability
[1:20:58] to enforce it better.
[1:20:59] >> Yep. A lot more tools for us to be able
[1:21:02] to deal with it how we how we would
[1:21:04] like.
[1:21:06] >> I move to perform the second reading of
[1:21:07] the ordinance and direct the city
[1:21:08] manager to prepare the ordinance for a
[1:21:10] third and final reading on September
[1:21:11] 1st.
[1:21:12] >> Second. We have a motion and a second.
[1:21:14] Any further discussion?
[1:21:17] As you've said, you know, noticing
[1:21:19] around driving around through town, you
[1:21:21] do notice and as our one constituent had
[1:21:24] brought up there, I've noticed it a lot.
[1:21:27] Um, younger kids, you know, 10, 12 years
[1:21:30] old riding tandem on a little dune buggy
[1:21:33] bike or whatever, similar to what you're
[1:21:35] proposing here. It just up and down the
[1:21:38] sidewalks and darting right out in front
[1:21:40] of traffic. So,
[1:21:41] >> yeah, it's dangerous. much rather us,
[1:21:43] you know, be able to take some action to
[1:21:45] help educate these kids and these
[1:21:47] parents that these are not allowable and
[1:21:50] not safe. So,
[1:21:51] >> correct.
[1:21:51] >> I do have, you know, a little electric
[1:21:54] dirt bike for my son who's 8 years old,
[1:21:56] but it stays on our property or it goes
[1:21:58] out to my family's farm where he's
[1:22:00] allowed to ride it there and I know he's
[1:22:02] in controlled space, not going to get
[1:22:03] hit on a road somewhere. So,
[1:22:06] >> and that is, you know, one of them that
[1:22:08] only goes to a top of 11 miles an hour.
[1:22:13] All right, with that we have the motion
[1:22:15] and a second. All in favor, please
[1:22:16] signify by saying I.
[1:22:18] >> I.
[1:22:18] >> Any opposed?
[1:22:20] >> Motion carries. Thank you.
[1:22:23] >> Item 8D, second reading of an ordinance
[1:22:25] to amend several sections of chapter 94
[1:22:28] of the city of Fort Ainson code of
[1:22:29] general ordinances relating to electric
[1:22:31] bikes and scooters. Chief bump again.
[1:22:34] >> Hello everyone. So yeah, we're at the
[1:22:36] second reading of updates to our ebike
[1:22:39] or bicycle ebike ecooter ordinance. Um
[1:22:42] we originally took a look at this
[1:22:44] ordinance because it was last updated in
[1:22:47] 2019 and since then the state got a
[1:22:50] little better at defining what ebikes
[1:22:52] are different classes so we have a
[1:22:54] better understanding and I want to make
[1:22:56] sure that our ordinance is up to date
[1:22:57] and aligns with those classifications.
[1:23:00] Uh and also uh we're seeing more
[1:23:04] accidents instances uh related to
[1:23:07] electric bicycles and uh with with
[1:23:11] traffic issues or crashes and injuries.
[1:23:14] So we also looked at what are some other
[1:23:16] things that we don't have in our
[1:23:17] ordinance that a lot of the other cities
[1:23:19] do around us and are we missing
[1:23:21] anything. So, the ordinance proposal is
[1:23:24] the upgrade of the definition of an
[1:23:26] ebike, so it aligns with state uh state
[1:23:29] statute, but also adding in a couple
[1:23:32] other areas that we want to make sure uh
[1:23:36] we work to improve safety like uh double
[1:23:38] riding and trick riding and some of the
[1:23:42] other things that are in the new that
[1:23:43] are redlined in the new ordinance. Um,
[1:23:46] since the last reading, we did have that
[1:23:48] one email from uh from a citizen who was
[1:23:52] frustrated about uh some ebikes and
[1:23:54] e-motos that were um seen in his
[1:23:58] neighborhood and also on the bike path
[1:23:59] and causing dangerous situations. And
[1:24:02] we've had a little bit of feedback of
[1:24:03] some people in the downtown who are also
[1:24:06] in support of uh better restrictions
[1:24:10] um uh just because of dangerous
[1:24:11] situations. So, we've had no no feedback
[1:24:15] that was contrary to the ordinance, but
[1:24:18] supportive to it. Um, and I didn't I
[1:24:21] don't know if any of you have any
[1:24:22] questions, but I um I'm able to answer
[1:24:24] any questions about the ordinance uh on
[1:24:27] the second reading.
[1:24:28] >> Um, the ordinance is mostly pointed at
[1:24:31] the machine, not at age, because I think
[1:24:34] age should be an element that I'm not
[1:24:35] hearing. age is addressed in the
[1:24:39] classifications on uh like 16 or under
[1:24:43] can operate a class one or two but not a
[1:24:46] class three. Uh so age is addressed in
[1:24:48] there. The other nice thing about this
[1:24:50] ordinance is uh uh being able to uh have
[1:24:54] a parental uh being able to address
[1:24:58] these issues with the parent as well if
[1:25:00] they're not helping change that
[1:25:01] behavior.
[1:25:03] The ordinance in no way uh impacts
[1:25:05] anybody's current ability to ride their
[1:25:08] legal ebike in the community. Uh Gene
[1:25:11] Brooks spoke up earlier uh uh and wanted
[1:25:14] to make sure she would still be able to
[1:25:16] ride that. We do not want to infringe on
[1:25:17] that ability at all and no part of this
[1:25:20] ordinance changes anything like that
[1:25:22] that's already legal um beyond that. So
[1:25:26] >> yeah, I'm as I'm getting older and I've
[1:25:28] got friends that are getting older more
[1:25:30] than one talking about how their ebike
[1:25:32] is a wonderful thing when it comes to
[1:25:33] going uphill or whatever they got to do
[1:25:35] to go out and enjoy it.
[1:25:38] >> Yep. I agree.
[1:25:40] >> This ordinance get this ordinance gets
[1:25:41] at the improper riding of those more
[1:25:43] than anything.
[1:25:44] >> Yeah. The danger we want to curb the
[1:25:46] dangerous situations and just have a
[1:25:48] better an ordinance that better aligns
[1:25:50] with uh changes that have occurred over
[1:25:51] the last seven, eight years.
[1:25:54] Does does the future hold an ordinance
[1:25:57] where we're going to talk about
[1:25:58] regulating the uh electric skateboards
[1:26:01] and things like that?
[1:26:02] >> So, we have to do some more research on
[1:26:04] how we can restrict what they call play
[1:26:07] toys and how we define play toys. Um,
[1:26:10] that's one of the areas of concern that
[1:26:12] we have. Um, so that's why it hasn't
[1:26:14] come yet, but it's always something that
[1:26:16] we actually uh talk about at the
[1:26:18] department on um some of those varying
[1:26:22] units and what what exactly are they and
[1:26:25] how are they defined in law uh through
[1:26:28] Wisconsin as well. Um, and it's been
[1:26:30] really difficult because things change
[1:26:32] so fast and there's new things every day
[1:26:34] and how do we keep up with it.
[1:26:36] >> I I hope the future holds something like
[1:26:38] that because there's enough of that out
[1:26:40] there and they're dangerous as an ebike.
[1:26:42] Oh,
[1:26:43] >> I do have Lieutenant Coven Miller. Um,
[1:26:45] he has been assigned research in that
[1:26:48] area. We talk about the uh electric play
[1:26:51] toys. Am I saying that right, Captain?
[1:26:53] Okay. And so that is something in
[1:26:55] process uh because of uh devices like
[1:26:58] you talk about with that are just
[1:27:00] strange oneoffs that you don't see all
[1:27:02] the time but still are worth uh learning
[1:27:04] more about and addressing.
[1:27:06] I would also like to see the police
[1:27:08] department maybe offer an educational
[1:27:10] system where whether they had did it at
[1:27:12] the library or at the school so you
[1:27:14] could educate both child and parent at
[1:27:17] the same location about what and why
[1:27:20] they shouldn't be doing these things.
[1:27:22] >> Uh we tried to do a a safety city with
[1:27:24] our bike safety class every summer in
[1:27:27] summer school. Um this ordinance
[1:27:29] actually will help us be able to do
[1:27:31] something like that. And uh Captain
[1:27:34] Hefty talked about it at the last
[1:27:35] meeting where we want to uh look at
[1:27:39] having some type of agreement with the
[1:27:41] school district where we have like
[1:27:42] contracts that parents and the students
[1:27:44] sign who ride bikes to school uh so they
[1:27:47] understand and know the ordinances and
[1:27:49] the difference between vehicles and
[1:27:51] what's legal and not legal. And we took
[1:27:54] that from uh a program that they're
[1:27:56] doing in Bever Beverly Hills uh
[1:27:58] California school district that we
[1:28:00] thought was pretty neat. So after these
[1:28:02] ordinances are passed, that's kind of
[1:28:04] our next thing because our goal is
[1:28:05] always education
[1:28:07] um as a strong means of enforcement.
[1:28:09] >> And it's it's kind of it would be kind
[1:28:12] of nice to have like hunter safety only
[1:28:14] for bikes and you had to have a
[1:28:16] certification to be able to ride at the
[1:28:18] school like that would be nice.
[1:28:20] >> Yep. In process. I don't know how quick
[1:28:22] it's going to come, but we are looking
[1:28:24] into that.
[1:28:25] >> I look forward to that.
[1:28:27] I move to perform the second reading of
[1:28:29] the ordinance and direct the city
[1:28:30] manager to prepare the ordinance for a
[1:28:32] third and final reading on September
[1:28:34] 1st.
[1:28:35] >> Second.
[1:28:36] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[1:28:37] further discussion?
[1:28:39] >> Just happy to see it coming.
[1:28:44] Right. All those in favor, please
[1:28:45] signify by saying I.
[1:28:47] >> I. Any opposed?
[1:28:49] >> Motion carries. Thank you, Chief.
[1:28:52] >> All right. Item 8E is a second reading
[1:28:55] of an ordinance to amend the city of
[1:28:57] Fort Ainson zoning map to change the
[1:28:59] zoning of the property located at 1911
[1:29:02] Jainsville Avenue from rural holdings
[1:29:04] RH35
[1:29:05] to multifamily residential MRH30
[1:29:09] director of neighborhood and building
[1:29:10] services Drager.
[1:29:11] >> Yes, thank you. Uh I do want to make
[1:29:14] everyone aware that all public notices
[1:29:16] were sent out per state statute. Uh
[1:29:19] there was also a public hearing on this
[1:29:20] zoning map amendment on July 28th where
[1:29:23] the plan commission did recommend
[1:29:24] approval by the city council and city
[1:29:26] council did hold the first reading on
[1:29:27] August 4th. I will also make you aware
[1:29:30] the city or plan commission also
[1:29:32] approved a uh conditional use permit for
[1:29:34] the first phase of this project and that
[1:29:37] any future development of this site
[1:29:39] would still require a certified survey
[1:29:41] map and a site plan review approval uh
[1:29:44] before it could move forward. And that's
[1:29:46] just addressing some um known uh
[1:29:49] commentary on an existing easement on
[1:29:52] the property uh that would have to be
[1:29:54] approved through a certified survey map
[1:29:55] with approval of everybody involved on
[1:29:58] that piece of land. So this is just the
[1:30:00] zoning aspect of the pro of this
[1:30:02] approval process uh changing it from a
[1:30:05] rural holding uh zoning uh which is just
[1:30:08] that is a holding and meant for uh
[1:30:10] future development uh to MRH30 which is
[1:30:14] our highest density multifamily uh
[1:30:17] zoning and I do also want to point out
[1:30:19] that the future land use map on the comp
[1:30:20] in the comp plan uh does have this as
[1:30:23] planned mixed use and this is an
[1:30:24] appropriate zoning for that. Uh there's
[1:30:26] a two this a two-phase uh development.
[1:30:29] As I said, the conditional use permit
[1:30:30] was just for the first phase. Uh and uh
[1:30:34] there is no financial impact to this
[1:30:37] other than it does help uh further move
[1:30:39] along a potential development uh for the
[1:30:41] city of Fortinson and that staff does
[1:30:43] recommend the city council hold the
[1:30:44] second reading and direct the city
[1:30:46] manager to prepare the ordinance for the
[1:30:48] third and final reading on September
[1:30:49] 1st.
[1:30:53] I move to perform the second reading of
[1:30:55] the ordinance and direct the city
[1:30:56] manager to prepare the ordinance for a
[1:30:58] third and final reading on September
[1:31:00] 1st.
[1:31:01] >> Second.
[1:31:02] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[1:31:03] further discussion?
[1:31:08] Again, we you discussed this that this
[1:31:10] is in the comprehensive plan is plan
[1:31:13] mixed use. What all could have been in
[1:31:15] that district? Correct.
[1:31:17] >> Yeah, plan mixed use has a wide variety.
[1:31:20] Um so that's a mix of commercial, multif
[1:31:22] family, residential or mixed use. Uh but
[1:31:25] this is an appropriate use. U multif
[1:31:27] family would be in that plan. Mixed use.
[1:31:32] Any further discussion?
[1:31:35] Seeing none, all those in favor, please
[1:31:37] signify by saying I.
[1:31:38] >> I.
[1:31:39] >> Any opposed?
[1:31:41] >> Motion carries.
[1:31:42] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[1:31:45] Item 8F is review and possible action
[1:31:47] relating to a resolution adopting the
[1:31:50] project plan and boundaries for tax
[1:31:52] increment district TID number 12 in the
[1:31:54] city of Fort Ainson Jefferson County.
[1:31:56] Manager Houseman.
[1:31:58] >> Thank you. Uh if it's okay with the uh
[1:32:01] council, I will present uh the
[1:32:03] information for the next two uh items
[1:32:06] together here. Uh though we are
[1:32:08] requesting separate action uh for for both items. So uh the first uh the
[1:32:15] first item is TID number 12 that is
[1:32:18] being proposed. Uh the project plan is
[1:32:20] in the council packet. It's also on the
[1:32:23] uh website and in my office for review.
[1:32:26] Uh taxing jurisdictions were notified of
[1:32:29] the potential creation of TID 12 uh back
[1:32:33] in July as well as all property owners
[1:32:36] as this is proposed as a blight
[1:32:38] elimination TID. There was a class 2
[1:32:40] notice in the newspaper in July and the
[1:32:42] joint review board held their initial
[1:32:44] meeting on July 27th to review this
[1:32:47] proposed project plan. The plan
[1:32:48] commission held a public hearing at
[1:32:50] their meeting on July 28th and now uh we
[1:32:53] have the city council review uh and
[1:32:55] possible action on a on um a resolution
[1:32:58] tonight. Uh the final step in the
[1:33:01] creation of this TID would be the joint
[1:33:02] review board meeting that's currently
[1:33:04] scheduled for uh um August uh 31st.
[1:33:10] So, as I mentioned, this is a blight
[1:33:12] elimination TID. It does include some of
[1:33:14] the land in the former TID 7 uh that was
[1:33:17] closed earlier this year. Uh it extends
[1:33:19] west. You can see that tail uh along the
[1:33:22] river on the north side of the river uh
[1:33:24] west. Uh and that is to support the um
[1:33:26] city's portion of the highway 106
[1:33:29] project, specifically a potential uh
[1:33:31] bike and ped path. Uh if that if this is
[1:33:34] created in 2026, we would uh allow uh
[1:33:38] expenditures until 2048 with an
[1:33:40] anticipated closure in 203.
[1:33:45] Uh so there are 12.5 just over over 12.5
[1:33:48] million of public improvements uh in the
[1:33:51] project plan. Uh we anticipate about
[1:33:54] 27.5 million in additional increment
[1:33:57] anticipated over the life of that TID.
[1:33:59] It includes 109 parcels and the base
[1:34:01] value of those 109 parcels is just over
[1:34:04] $41 million. That uh the property taxes
[1:34:08] based on that existing value will
[1:34:10] continue to go to the taxing
[1:34:12] jurisdictions. Uh this uh TID does pass
[1:34:15] the 12% test which means that not more
[1:34:17] of than 12% of the city's equalized
[1:34:20] value can be within TIDS. Uh and this uh
[1:34:22] blight elimination designation extends
[1:34:24] the life um and the expenditure period.
[1:34:30] This map shows the existing uh land uses
[1:34:33] and conditions
[1:34:38] and this map shows the 1 half mile
[1:34:40] radius. So the possible public
[1:34:43] improvements can be made within 1 half
[1:34:45] mile of the TIDS boundaries within the
[1:34:47] city limits.
[1:34:51] Uh this is a copy of the project uh the
[1:34:55] proposed improvement projects. These are
[1:34:56] the public improvements uh that would
[1:34:58] anticipate uh that we would anticipate
[1:35:02] being able to finance through the TID uh
[1:35:04] if the growth is there. Uh which include
[1:35:07] I won't I won't read them to you but
[1:35:08] they're um uh 14 uh projects more like
[1:35:12] 10 projects and then some flexibility as
[1:35:15] far as providing direct development
[1:35:16] assistance, land purchases, financing
[1:35:18] and interest and administrative and
[1:35:20] organization fees.
[1:35:27] Uh okay, I'll move on to TID 13 and then
[1:35:29] I can certainly uh answer questions uh
[1:35:31] at the end of this TID 13. Uh again, the
[1:35:35] project plan is in the uh in the packet
[1:35:38] and on the city's website and uh in my
[1:35:40] office. Uh again, we followed the same
[1:35:43] noticing requirements. Those are
[1:35:44] statutory uh noticing requirements and
[1:35:47] we did complete all of those things. The
[1:35:49] plan commission held the public hearing
[1:35:51] uh on 7:28. Uh and the final uh if the
[1:35:55] council does approve the TID creation
[1:35:57] tonight, the joint review board would
[1:35:59] hold its final meeting on the 31st.
[1:36:03] Again, it's a blade elimination TID.
[1:36:05] It's on the south side of the river in
[1:36:07] the city's downtown. It includes some of
[1:36:09] the former TID 7 land um and includes
[1:36:13] the Riverwalk and potential market
[1:36:14] square. Uh if created in 26 again we
[1:36:17] would uh have expenditures until 2020
[1:36:20] excuse me 2048 with anticipated closure
[1:36:22] in 203.
[1:36:25] Uh there are 17.5 or so million dollars
[1:36:28] of public improvements in the project
[1:36:30] plan. Doesn't mean that all of them will
[1:36:32] happen. It doesn't mean that all of them
[1:36:33] will happen exactly how they are shown
[1:36:34] in the project plan. Uh it is really
[1:36:36] just kind of a a road map. Uh we have
[1:36:39] 32.5 million of uh anticipated added
[1:36:42] increment. There's 80 parcels in this
[1:36:44] TID uh with a just over $23 million uh
[1:36:48] of existing value and again the property
[1:36:50] taxes on that existing value uh remain
[1:36:53] with the taxing jurisdictions. We still
[1:36:55] pass the the 12% test. Uh and this is
[1:36:58] again a blight elimination TID.
[1:37:03] We have some of the other maps that are
[1:37:04] also included in the project plan. This
[1:37:06] being the existing uses and conditions
[1:37:09] maps and the next being that one half
[1:37:12] mile radius map within the city limits.
[1:37:19] Um we have the project key there. Uh
[1:37:22] again about 11 um public projects and
[1:37:25] then um the also uh potential for land
[1:37:30] purchases or direct developer incentive
[1:37:32] financing and administrative and
[1:37:34] organizational fees.
[1:37:39] Um next step uh as I mentioned the plan
[1:37:41] commission did recommend approval uh of
[1:37:43] both of these TIDs at their meeting on
[1:37:45] the 28th of July. Those approval
[1:37:48] resolutions are in the the packet for
[1:37:51] council review.
[1:37:53] Uh this uh we're recommending uh the
[1:37:56] recommended action for the city council
[1:37:57] is to adopt the resolutions in the
[1:37:59] packet adopting the project plan and
[1:38:01] boundaries for the tax incremental
[1:38:02] districts 12 and 13. Uh and we would
[1:38:05] request separate action items on those.
[1:38:07] And then the joint review board is uh
[1:38:10] scheduled to meet on August 31st to uh
[1:38:13] do a final review of these two tax
[1:38:15] increment districts. And with that, I
[1:38:17] would be uh happy to answer any
[1:38:19] questions about TIDS uh excuse me, TIDs
[1:38:22] 12 or 13.
[1:38:25] >> The PIDES is basically covering the
[1:38:27] financing and tax advantages for these
[1:38:29] areas. Correct.
[1:38:31] >> Uh it allows the city to incentivize
[1:38:33] development and redevelopment in the
[1:38:35] areas through either payo financing or
[1:38:38] direct development incentives. The other
[1:38:40] uh increment that's generated through uh
[1:38:43] that is kept within the TID which is a
[1:38:45] separate fund from the general fund is
[1:38:48] then uh able to be used for public
[1:38:50] improvements which the project plan
[1:38:52] includes those public improvements.
[1:38:54] >> The um market square that you referred
[1:38:57] to that's that parking lot where we have
[1:38:59] the farmers market.
[1:39:01] >> Uh yes. Is there does that approve
[1:39:05] anything specific for that other than
[1:39:07] it's inside the TID and money could be
[1:39:08] used to alter to what we decide?
[1:39:12] >> There is no specific plan proposed. It
[1:39:14] is just uh it that's designated as uh an
[1:39:17] area that we that the city could support
[1:39:20] improvement of in the future.
[1:39:22] >> I'm good with that. I just would want to
[1:39:23] make sure I got a chance to have a
[1:39:25] discussion of what they do with that
[1:39:27] park or that parking lot.
[1:39:29] >> Yep. Any action uh relating to that? Uh
[1:39:31] that parking lot is owned by the city.
[1:39:33] So any action would certainly be done by
[1:39:34] the city council.
[1:39:37] >> Um in the 1 half mile outside, what are
[1:39:41] some projects or examples of projects
[1:39:43] that money could be used for from that
[1:39:46] >> road and utility infrastructure
[1:39:48] improvements, storm water improvements?
[1:39:51] >> Okay.
[1:39:54] And I'm just really pleased to see that
[1:39:56] tail on TID 12 with because the
[1:40:01] river road has been needing it for a
[1:40:04] very long time. So
[1:40:06] >> yeah, and just to be clear that um
[1:40:07] highway 106 project would be a state
[1:40:09] project. Uh however, the the DOT um
[1:40:14] would not necessarily be designing a
[1:40:17] bike and ped path. Uh and so one of the
[1:40:20] goals that's outlined in the city's corp
[1:40:23] uh comprehensive outdoor recreation plan
[1:40:25] as well as the comprehensive plan is to
[1:40:27] provide um off- streetet um bike ped
[1:40:30] access uh to the pool from the uh from
[1:40:34] the um south side of the city. So that
[1:40:36] is a goal we're still working out uh
[1:40:38] obviously working out those logistics uh
[1:40:40] but this uh the creation of this TID
[1:40:42] would allow a potential financing source
[1:40:44] for at least some of that. It's
[1:40:45] >> beautiful. Thank you.
[1:40:49] I move to approve the resolution
[1:40:50] adopting the project plan and boundaries
[1:40:52] for tax incremental district TID number
[1:40:55] 12, city of Fort Atinson, Jefferson
[1:40:57] County, Wisconsin.
[1:40:59] >> Second.
[1:41:00] >> We have a motion, a second. Any further
[1:41:02] discuss discussion?
[1:41:05] Just one question on top of that. Is
[1:41:07] there there's no limit to how many times
[1:41:09] we could amend the boundaries of any of
[1:41:11] these TIDs, correct? or
[1:41:14] >> um I would have to uh defer to our
[1:41:16] financial adviserss on on that, but we
[1:41:19] certainly um we certainly could amend
[1:41:22] the TID to include uh projects uh or
[1:41:25] property that wasn't included in the
[1:41:27] initial TID. Uh we would go through the
[1:41:29] same process as this council went
[1:41:31] through for TID 9 earlier this year when
[1:41:33] you added uh the Koshkanana estate
[1:41:35] subdivision to that TID. So there is
[1:41:37] it's a public process with joint review
[1:41:39] board and city council approval.
[1:41:42] just seeing like in the TID 13 plan
[1:41:45] there's a few parcels that were left out
[1:41:48] that could potentially see some
[1:41:51] redevelopment in the future such as like
[1:41:53] the uh Daily Union's former building or
[1:41:56] some of the other properties around
[1:41:58] neighboring there. So that was just a
[1:42:01] question they had a resident reached out
[1:42:04] I know during some of the other
[1:42:06] committee meetings. So
[1:42:08] with that we have the motion to second.
[1:42:10] All in favor, please signify by saying
[1:42:12] I.
[1:42:13] >> I.
[1:42:13] >> Any oppose? Motion carries. And then
[1:42:17] item 8G, review and possible action on
[1:42:20] resolution adopting project plan
[1:42:21] boundaries for TID increment district
[1:42:24] number 13 of the city of Fort Atinson,
[1:42:26] Jefferson County.
[1:42:27] >> I move to approve the resolution
[1:42:29] adopting the project plan and boundaries
[1:42:31] for tax incremental district TID number
[1:42:34] 13, City of Fort Atinson, Jefferson
[1:42:36] County, Wisconsin.
[1:42:37] >> Second. We have a motion and a second.
[1:42:40] Any further discussion?
[1:42:42] Seeing none, all those in favor, please
[1:42:45] signify by saying I.
[1:42:46] >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Item nine,
[1:42:51] reports of officers, boards, and
[1:42:53] committees. 9A is city manager report.
[1:42:55] Manager Hostman.
[1:42:56] >> Thank you. Uh, thank you all for being
[1:42:59] here tonight despite the challenges to
[1:43:00] get inside the building. As I'm sure
[1:43:02] everyone saw, the main street entrance
[1:43:04] to the municipal building is closed to
[1:43:05] accommodate a project that is replacing
[1:43:07] the degraded bricks with concrete.
[1:43:09] During construction, the public may use
[1:43:10] the parks and recreation building
[1:43:12] entrance or entrance number two, both
[1:43:14] located on Water Street on the Water
[1:43:16] Street side of the building. After the
[1:43:18] main street uh entrance work is
[1:43:20] complete, the contractor will move on to
[1:43:21] the parks and recreation entrance. And
[1:43:23] this project will improve accessibility,
[1:43:25] safety, and aesthetics.
[1:43:27] This week, the city announced the summer
[1:43:29] photo contest winners. There were over
[1:43:31] 30 submissions that showcased different
[1:43:33] parts of the city and three winners were
[1:43:35] selected. Congratulations to our own
[1:43:37] Kelsey Ritmeer who captured a sunrise
[1:43:40] over the Main Street Bridge. George
[1:43:42] Jester III who uh whose photo featured
[1:43:44] his features his 1948 Pontiac underneath
[1:43:48] the Highway 26 bridge and Joshua Bennett
[1:43:50] who showcased an evening baseball game
[1:43:52] at Jones Park. To see those photos and
[1:43:54] learn more, please take a look at the
[1:43:56] city's website.
[1:43:58] Uh most people have witnessed the
[1:43:59] sidewalk and crosswalk project on
[1:44:01] Jainsville Avenue in Jones Park this
[1:44:03] summer. I'm pleased to announce that the
[1:44:04] rapid flashing beacons at this crosswalk
[1:44:06] are scheduled to be installed tomorrow.
[1:44:08] So that is that's pretty exciting. Uh
[1:44:11] the city received 28 applications for
[1:44:13] the position of administrative
[1:44:14] assistant/program coordinator for the
[1:44:16] parks and recreation department. At the
[1:44:18] end of the interview process, we're
[1:44:19] happy to announce that Lucy Edwards has,
[1:44:21] excuse me, Lacy Edwards has accepted the
[1:44:23] position and will begin work with us on
[1:44:25] August 31st.
[1:44:27] Welcome to Lacy. Uh unfortunately, our
[1:44:30] newly hired water superintendent uh
[1:44:32] resigned, citing personal reasons. Uh
[1:44:34] the city has already posted uh reposted
[1:44:36] the position and we look forward to
[1:44:37] finding another qualified candidate to
[1:44:39] be part of our team. Uh the city's also
[1:44:42] hiring a parks caretaker/acquatics
[1:44:44] technician position. Uh please visit the
[1:44:47] city's website to learn more uh and to
[1:44:49] see full job descriptions and to send
[1:44:51] them on to uh anybody you know.
[1:44:54] I will speak at the Chamber of
[1:44:55] Commerce's annual new teacher breakfast
[1:44:57] on August 20th. It's a great opportunity
[1:44:59] to welcome uh the new public and private
[1:45:02] school teachers to the community. I want
[1:45:04] to just express appreciation to the
[1:45:06] chamber and all the local sponsors who
[1:45:08] donate uh to the free supply bags
[1:45:11] provided to the new teachers at that
[1:45:13] event.
[1:45:14] A public information meeting for the
[1:45:16] proposed BECI transmission line project
[1:45:18] will take place on August 26th from
[1:45:20] 10:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Jefferson
[1:45:22] County Fairgrounds Activity Center. The
[1:45:25] city's website features a link to the
[1:45:26] interactive map showing multiple
[1:45:28] possible paths of this overhead
[1:45:30] transmission line project. Uh city staff
[1:45:33] does plan to attend the meetings and uh
[1:45:35] with the goal of protecting the city's
[1:45:36] urban growth area as identified in our
[1:45:39] comprehensive plan.
[1:45:41] As a sign of the gradual end of summer,
[1:45:43] the last char uh charity concert uh of
[1:45:46] the season will take place on August
[1:45:47] 26th in Barry Park. Uh thank you to the
[1:45:49] Kuanis Club, city staff, and the event
[1:45:52] sponsors who make those community events
[1:45:54] possible. Our public relations intern
[1:45:56] Satie Elwood will complete her last day
[1:45:59] with us on August 27th. Uh Satie has
[1:46:01] been a great addition to our team,
[1:46:02] drafting employee newsletter, organizing
[1:46:05] employee picnic, administering the
[1:46:06] summer photo contest, uh and
[1:46:08] implementing employee wellness
[1:46:09] initiatives. She also assisted uh with
[1:46:12] the parks and recreation department and
[1:46:14] served as an election official in the
[1:46:15] last two elections. Satie will continue
[1:46:18] her studies at W Whitewater this fall
[1:46:20] and we will welcome her back uh next
[1:46:21] summer if she's interested. So, thank
[1:46:23] you very much to Satie.
[1:46:25] >> Uh Rhythm on the River will take place
[1:46:27] on August 29th in the municipal building
[1:46:29] parking lots. Uh we appreciate the
[1:46:31] organizers flexibility in the location
[1:46:33] and uh want to express appreciation to
[1:46:35] all the city staff and volunteers
[1:46:37] involved in ensuring a safe and
[1:46:39] successful event. As I mentioned in the
[1:46:41] TID presentation, the joint review board
[1:46:43] will meet on August 31st to review those
[1:46:46] final recommendations from the city
[1:46:47] council and the plan commission um for
[1:46:50] TIDS 12 and 13 that will support uh
[1:46:52] development and redevelopment in our
[1:46:54] downtown. And the South Main Street
[1:46:56] construction project continues. uh staff
[1:46:59] has been updating the city's website
[1:47:00] regularly. So, the best way to stay
[1:47:02] informed on the progress and the
[1:47:03] timelines is to really just check the
[1:47:04] city's website.
[1:47:06] And finally, the Jeff uh Jefferson
[1:47:08] County is hosting two meetings in
[1:47:09] September relating to consideration of a
[1:47:11] financial support mechanism for all EMS
[1:47:14] systems within Jefferson County. Elected
[1:47:16] officials and members of the public are
[1:47:18] encouraged to attend one or both of
[1:47:20] those meetings and they will take place
[1:47:21] on September 17th at 7 p.m. at the
[1:47:24] Jefferson County Courthouse or September
[1:47:26] 24th at 7 p.m. at the Watertown Fire
[1:47:29] Department. Again, the more information
[1:47:30] is on the city's website. Uh it was a a big news week even though it's only
[1:47:35] Tuesday. So, please do check out the the
[1:47:37] city's website for more information. And
[1:47:40] that is all I have tonight. Thank you.
[1:47:42] >> Thank you. Moving on to item 10,
[1:47:44] unfinished business. We have none
[1:47:46] tonight. Item 11, new business. 11 A,
[1:47:49] review and possible action relating to
[1:47:50] Ridge View Estates structural fill
[1:47:53] invoice from Gallop Grading LLC in the
[1:47:56] amount of $22,642.
[1:47:59] Director of public works Naven. Good
[1:48:02] even good evening.
[1:48:04] As part of building roads and installing
[1:48:06] utilities in Ridge View State
[1:48:07] subdivision, the city's contract to
[1:48:09] remove structural fill from lots one and
[1:48:11] two. This resulted in lots one and two
[1:48:13] not being at the subdivision design
[1:48:14] elevation at the start of construction
[1:48:16] of Bridge View Loft apartment building
[1:48:18] located on south side of Trillium Drive.
[1:48:21] The removal of the fill from the lots
[1:48:22] was identified by the developer in
[1:48:24] January of 2025 and required the
[1:48:26] contractor to truck in 5100 yards of
[1:48:28] structural material to get lots graded
[1:48:30] for their original design. The total
[1:48:32] cost for the additional fill was
[1:48:34] $45,284.
[1:48:36] And at the time there was discussion
[1:48:37] between the city's contracted
[1:48:38] engineering firmwam engineering and the
[1:48:41] developer on who should bear the cost of
[1:48:42] this fill. However, this invoice had not
[1:48:45] been resolved. So when the city
[1:48:46] approached the developer this summer
[1:48:48] about potentially donating their land
[1:48:49] for the required temporary limited
[1:48:50] easement for banker road redesign, the
[1:48:53] developer asked about the structural
[1:48:54] fill invoice that had not been resolved.
[1:48:57] City staff worked with the developer to
[1:48:58] come to an agreement to that the
[1:49:00] developer would donate their land for
[1:49:01] the TLE valued at $23,680
[1:49:05] if the city would pay half the cost of
[1:49:06] the outstanding structural fill invoice.
[1:49:09] The invoice for 50% of the structural
[1:49:11] fill from galllets is $22,642
[1:49:15] and the cost associated with this
[1:49:16] invoice will be paid for out of TID 9.
[1:49:18] Staff recommends city council authorize
[1:49:20] the payment of the structural fill
[1:49:21] invoice from Galis grading in the amount
[1:49:23] of $22,642.
[1:49:29] Take any questions.
[1:49:32] I move to approve the structural fill
[1:49:35] invoice for Ridge View Estates from
[1:49:37] Gallat Grading LLC in an amount not to
[1:49:40] exceed $22,642.
[1:49:45] » Second motion and a second. Any further
[1:49:48] discussion?
[1:49:50] Seeing none, all those in favor, please
[1:49:52] signify by saying I.
[1:49:54] >> I.
[1:49:55] >> Any opposed? Motion carries.
[1:49:58] >> Uh item 11B, review and possible action
[1:50:01] relating to Ridge View Estates
[1:50:02] development change order number nine.
[1:50:04] Director David.
[1:50:05] >> Thank you. The Ridge View Estate
[1:50:07] subdivision infrastructure project
[1:50:09] includes an 8 foot wide asphalt path
[1:50:11] along the south side of Trillium Drive.
[1:50:12] The path extension and ADA curb ramp
[1:50:14] improvements were identified in change
[1:50:16] order 9 were originally included as part
[1:50:18] of the Ridge View stage development
[1:50:19] contract. However, as the project has
[1:50:21] neared completion this spring, staff
[1:50:23] removed the work from the contract uh
[1:50:25] through change order number eight so the
[1:50:27] overall project could be closed out in a
[1:50:29] timely manner. Items were removed or
[1:50:31] reduced in quantity to due to changes in
[1:50:33] design during construction, deferral
[1:50:35] until lots within development areas are
[1:50:37] near full or because the project were
[1:50:39] not required to complete the
[1:50:41] construction. Uh that's items such as
[1:50:42] the final lift of asphalt on the roads,
[1:50:45] the installation of rightaway trees, and
[1:50:47] this path. Following further review and
[1:50:50] discussion with the
[1:50:53] builders of the apartment complex there
[1:50:55] on Trillium Drive, staff determined that
[1:50:56] completing the path improvements remains
[1:50:58] an important priority. The work
[1:51:00] consisted of constructing two concrete
[1:51:02] curb ramps and extending the asphalt
[1:51:03] path approximately 420 ft along the
[1:51:05] south side of Trillium Drive to create
[1:51:07] that continuous pedestrian and bicycle
[1:51:09] access on both sides of the road. Uh
[1:51:12] according to the developers agreement,
[1:51:13] the city is responsible for providing
[1:51:14] that public path connection. The
[1:51:16] improvement also connects with future
[1:51:18] banker road path facilities on the east
[1:51:19] end of Trillium Drive. Since the
[1:51:22] apartment development is expected to
[1:51:24] begin occupancy later this fall, staff
[1:51:26] believes it's important that residents
[1:51:27] have safe and convenient walking and
[1:51:29] biking access immediately upon moving
[1:51:30] into the neighborhood. Completing the
[1:51:32] path now will provide connectivity to
[1:51:34] both sides of Trillium Drive and avoid
[1:51:36] having residents wait for a future
[1:51:38] connect construction season to gain
[1:51:39] access to these facilities. Staff also
[1:51:42] identified an opportunity to
[1:51:43] significantly reduce costs by completing
[1:51:45] the work during the week of August 11th.
[1:51:47] Wolf paving was already mobilized across
[1:51:49] the street performing paving work at
[1:51:50] Fort Atinson High School and by
[1:51:53] coordinating the trail work to occur at
[1:51:54] the same time. City was able to take
[1:51:56] advantage of competitive pricing and
[1:51:58] avoid additional mobilization costs that
[1:51:59] would have likely occur been have been
[1:52:01] incurred if the work had been bid and
[1:52:03] completed separately at a later date.
[1:52:05] The change order includes two concrete
[1:52:07] ADA curb ramps and approximately 420 ft
[1:52:09] of asphalt path along the side of south
[1:52:11] side of Trillium Drive at a cost not to
[1:52:14] exceed $29,65.
[1:52:16] This change order will be paid for using
[1:52:18] TID 9 funds. Staff recommends city
[1:52:21] council approve of approval of change
[1:52:23] order number nine for services completed
[1:52:24] to install the path connection before
[1:52:26] occupancy of the new apartment
[1:52:27] development and to ensure safe
[1:52:29] pedestrian and bicycle access for future
[1:52:31] residents.
[1:52:33] And that'll take any questions.
[1:52:38] » No more change orders for this for a
[1:52:40] while. [laughter] I was a little shocked
[1:52:42] when we saw when I saw this, but it
[1:52:44] makes complete sense why it came through
[1:52:46] at this point. So,
[1:52:48] >> yeah, unfortunately, it was a little bit
[1:52:49] of an oversight in the developers
[1:52:50] agreement to identify the responsibility
[1:52:52] on that side of it. So, after we had
[1:52:53] those discussions with the developer and
[1:52:56] around the TLES and everything else
[1:52:57] going on out there, we wanted to put
[1:52:59] that back in and take advantage of what
[1:53:01] was going on in the neighborhood.
[1:53:03] I'm glad we took advantage of Wolf
[1:53:05] Paving being right across the road from
[1:53:08] So I'm sure that saved us probably5
[1:53:10] to$10,000.
[1:53:12] >> Absolutely.
[1:53:15] >> I move to approve the Ridge View Estates
[1:53:17] development change order number nine for
[1:53:19] services completed to install the path
[1:53:22] connection before occupancy of the new
[1:53:24] apartment development.
[1:53:26] >> Second.
[1:53:27] >> We have a motion, a second. Any further
[1:53:29] discussion?
[1:53:31] Seeing none. All in favor, please
[1:53:33] signify by saying I.
[1:53:35] >> I.
[1:53:35] >> Any opposed?
[1:53:37] >> Motion carries. Thank you.
[1:53:40] Uh 11 C review and possible action
[1:53:43] relating to the replacement of airrated
[1:53:45] d airrated digtor number two membrane at
[1:53:48] the wastewater treatment facility. We
[1:53:50] have wastewater utility superintendent
[1:53:52] Sweeney.
[1:53:53] >> Hey, welcome. Uh the wastewater
[1:53:55] treatment facility has uh three
[1:53:57] digesttors that are part of a sludge
[1:53:59] treatment process. After waste water is
[1:54:02] cleaned and the solids are removed,
[1:54:04] those solids are sent to the digesttors.
[1:54:06] Uh the digtor acts like a large
[1:54:07] biological processing tank where
[1:54:10] naturally occurring uh microorganisms
[1:54:12] break down and stabilize the sludge.
[1:54:15] This reduces the volume of material for
[1:54:16] the plant to handle. It reduces orders,
[1:54:19] improves safety, and prepares the solids
[1:54:21] for final uh dewatering and disposal.
[1:54:24] Uh, digtor 2 contains approximately
[1:54:28] 1,150
[1:54:29] diffuser membranes. Following the
[1:54:32] unknown detachment of an air supply
[1:54:34] line, uh, sledge gradually entered and
[1:54:36] accumulated within the digtor diffuser
[1:54:38] grid. As a result, many of the diffuser
[1:54:41] membranes have become completely
[1:54:42] followed. Additionally, the increased
[1:54:44] blower pressure required to maintain air
[1:54:47] flow through the compromised system has
[1:54:49] caused numerous membranes to become
[1:54:51] stretched, damaged, or torn beyond
[1:54:54] acceptable operating limits. And it's
[1:54:56] necessary to remove those and replace
[1:54:58] them. Uh this work is required to
[1:55:01] maintain efficient digtor operation and
[1:55:03] support the long-term reliability of the
[1:55:05] facility's bioolids treatment process.
[1:55:09] Uh due to the failed membranes and the
[1:55:11] current condition of the diffuser
[1:55:12] system, it is recommended to remove and
[1:55:14] replace all existing membranes to
[1:55:16] restore proper performance. The expected
[1:55:18] life cycle of the membranes was 7 years.
[1:55:21] Uh but this unfortunately unfortunately
[1:55:23] reduced it to only three and a half
[1:55:25] years. Uh with better understanding of
[1:55:27] the equipment condition, staff has
[1:55:29] scheduled the remaining two digesttors
[1:55:31] in the CIP for 2028 and 2029.
[1:55:35] uh reflecting a revised expectation of a
[1:55:37] shorter life cycle than originally
[1:55:39] projected.
[1:55:42] Staff contacted three companies to get
[1:55:44] prices on the membranes. Uh Rubicon
[1:55:46] Environmental was $8,900.
[1:55:49] William Reed was $12,870
[1:55:52] and Peterson and Matts was $11,68.50.
[1:55:57] Staff also contacted three companies for
[1:56:00] the installation of the membranes. Uh,
[1:56:02] Rubicon Environmental was $7,300.
[1:56:05] Stop construction was $47,300
[1:56:08] and Sabul Mechanical was $19,965.80.
[1:56:14] Staff recommends utilizing the funds
[1:56:16] available through the $ 1.5 million
[1:56:18] borrowing that has been reallocated to
[1:56:20] advanced capital improvement projects.
[1:56:23] Uh, there is 1.1 million remaining in
[1:56:24] the project borrowing. Staff recommends
[1:56:27] that the city council approve the
[1:56:29] purchase and install of the membranes
[1:56:31] from Rubicon Environmental at a cost not
[1:56:33] to exceed $16,200
[1:56:36] to be paid for using wastewater borrowed
[1:56:38] funds.
[1:56:41] Questions?
[1:56:42] >> Well, I just want to say again, I really
[1:56:45] appreciate that you put in the effort to
[1:56:47] do multiple bids. I think it's very
[1:56:49] important. So, thank you for doing that.
[1:56:52] And I think the service you provide city
[1:56:55] is incredibly important and people would
[1:56:57] notice if it would if it would broke
[1:56:59] down. So let's keep it working good
[1:57:02] >> that
[1:57:03] >> it is an interesting spread in the uh
[1:57:05] installation uh bids for
[1:57:08] >> I will say that uh Rubicon Environmental
[1:57:10] it is all they do that's all they work
[1:57:12] on. So it is their uh bread and butter
[1:57:16] >> very specialized in this area so they
[1:57:19] know what they're doing.
[1:57:20] >> Yeah. for the replacing or um the
[1:57:25] schedule for replacing the remaining two
[1:57:27] digesttors in 2829. Would there be any
[1:57:30] benefit in doing them at the same time
[1:57:33] or is it just the same to be doing them?
[1:57:36] >> Um we did do our gas cleaning recently
[1:57:38] and the other two are still in very good
[1:57:40] condition. So to get a couple more years
[1:57:43] out of them would be very beneficial.
[1:57:46] And then in a couple years, is it same
[1:57:49] thing that like would it save anything
[1:57:52] to do them at the same time or just
[1:57:54] >> It's probably not. It will it'll be
[1:57:57] similar.
[1:57:58] >> Perfect. Thank you.
[1:58:00] >> I move to approve the purchase and
[1:58:02] installation of the membranes from
[1:58:03] Rubicon Environmental at a cost not to
[1:58:05] exceed $16,200 to be paid for using
[1:58:07] wastewater borrowed funds.
[1:58:09] >> Second.
[1:58:10] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[1:58:12] further discussion?
[1:58:14] Seeing none. All in favor, please
[1:58:16] signify by saying I.
[1:58:18] >> I.
[1:58:18] >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
[1:58:22] >> Item 11D, review and possible action
[1:58:25] relating to a certified survey map for
[1:58:26] the property located at 8:15 Jefferson
[1:58:29] Street. The parcels listed below. Uh,
[1:58:32] director of neighborhood and building
[1:58:33] services, Trigger.
[1:58:35] >> Yes, thank you. Uh, Opportunities
[1:58:37] Incorporated has uh requested to combine
[1:58:40] the two parcels. Uh this will facilitate
[1:58:42] the construction of a uh activities
[1:58:47] area. Uh industrial zoning or light
[1:58:49] industrial is which the parcel is
[1:58:51] currently zoned does not allow for that
[1:58:53] to be a standalone use on a property. So
[1:58:55] they're combining the two parcels and
[1:58:57] then it will be an accessory use to
[1:58:58] their to their principal use. Uh there
[1:59:01] were some minor changes to the CSM that
[1:59:03] were outlined by the engineer. Most of
[1:59:05] those have been already addressed on
[1:59:06] another version of the CSM, but they are
[1:59:08] in this memo as needing to be replaced
[1:59:11] or to be fixed. Um they're just minor
[1:59:14] changes. Uh some names on the map and things of that nature. Uh the CSM is
[1:59:19] not expected to have any financial
[1:59:20] impact to the city. Um the project is
[1:59:23] privately funded uh by opportunities and
[1:59:26] is on private property.
[1:59:29] Um, and staff does recommend the
[1:59:30] commission recommend the city council
[1:59:32] approve the preliminary certified survey
[1:59:34] map for the property located at 815
[1:59:36] Jefferson Street subject to the
[1:59:38] conditions noted in the memo. I will
[1:59:40] also point out that there will be a site
[1:59:42] plan review uh that would have to be
[1:59:44] approved in order for the project to
[1:59:45] move forward past this point.
[1:59:48] >> And the plan commission did actually
[1:59:49] recommended that council approve this
[1:59:51] CSM um subject to the conditions in the
[1:59:54] staff report. So the recommendation is
[1:59:56] that the the council approve it as well.
[2:00:00] I move to approve the preliminary
[2:00:02] certified survey map for the property
[2:00:04] located at 8:15 Jefferson Street subject
[2:00:07] to the conditions noted in the staff
[2:00:09] report.
[2:00:10] >> Second.
[2:00:11] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[2:00:13] further discussion?
[2:00:15] We'll just say their proposed idea of
[2:00:17] what may be coming is a very
[2:00:21] neat and very beneficial factor for the
[2:00:24] community if they allow it or have do
[2:00:27] proceed with this project.
[2:00:29] >> I agree.
[2:00:29] >> This is a very first step and something
[2:00:32] big coming for that area.
[2:00:35] So with that all in favor please signify
[2:00:38] by saying I.
[2:00:39] >> I oppose.
[2:00:41] >> Motion carries. Thank you.
[2:00:44] Item 11E, review and possible action
[2:00:46] relating to a certified survey map for
[2:00:48] the property located on Meta Lane with
[2:00:50] the parcels listed. Director Drager
[2:00:52] again.
[2:00:52] >> Yes, thank you. Uh this is behind the
[2:00:54] senior or Reena Senior Living Center. Uh
[2:00:58] if you guys are familiar with that area,
[2:00:59] there are two existing parcels uh that
[2:01:01] would need to be combined to to move
[2:01:03] forward with the proposed project of the
[2:01:05] multifamily uh development uh that is
[2:01:08] moving through the approval process.
[2:01:09] Now, zoning was recently uh amended for
[2:01:12] that for that particular project and
[2:01:14] these sites. Um the plan commission did
[2:01:17] recommend approval on their last meeting
[2:01:19] on the 11th. Uh there was also a public
[2:01:21] hearing held on the 11th and then there
[2:01:24] was also a site plan review also
[2:01:26] approved for this site already. Uh the
[2:01:27] CSM does include uh two new culde-sacs
[2:01:31] uh that would be installed per at the
[2:01:33] cost of the developer uh at both the end
[2:01:35] of Meta and Commonwealth. uh and as well
[2:01:38] as an easement and public water uh loop
[2:01:41] ran through the site uh for this
[2:01:44] project. Um the CSM is meeting all the
[2:01:47] requirements uh for the R MRM 12 zoning
[2:01:52] uh as as it is currently zoned. So and
[2:01:55] then also there's uh no financial impact
[2:01:58] for the city. Uh but it does uh it does
[2:02:01] facilitate uh the or the moving forward
[2:02:04] of this project. that is in concert with
[2:02:06] the comprehensive plan
[2:02:09] and city staff does recommend the plan
[2:02:10] commission recommend excuse me who well
[2:02:14] looks like that was carried over sorry
[2:02:17] city staff does recommend the city
[2:02:18] council approved certified survey map
[2:02:21] subject to the conditions outlined in
[2:02:23] the SAP memo
[2:02:30] every once in a while we do a copy and
[2:02:32] paste and it doesn't get caught and I
[2:02:33] apologize for
[2:02:36] I move to approve the certified survey
[2:02:38] map for the property located on Metal
[2:02:39] Lane subject to the conditions outlined
[2:02:41] in the staff report.
[2:02:42] >> Second.
[2:02:43] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[2:02:45] further discussion?
[2:02:47] Seeing none, all those in favor, please
[2:02:49] signify by saying I.
[2:02:50] >> I.
[2:02:51] >> Opposed? Motion carries. Item 11F,
[2:02:55] review and possible action relating to a
[2:02:57] certified survey map for the property
[2:02:59] located at 550 McMillan Street ZMA
[2:03:03] SPR2026-02.
[2:03:07] Director Drager,
[2:03:08] >> thank you. Hard to keep those files in
[2:03:10] order if you're dealing with those every
[2:03:12] day, especially when there's multiple
[2:03:13] things going on with the same project.
[2:03:16] Uh, as you said, this is on McMillan
[2:03:17] Street, also at the end of Schumacher
[2:03:19] Drive, a newly constructed Shoeacher
[2:03:21] Drive last year with some new houses on
[2:03:23] there. Uh, this uh CSM is combining two
[2:03:26] existing parcels. uh they are required
[2:03:28] to be combined to move forward project
[2:03:30] for uh some four three-story structures
[2:03:33] multif family structures same developer
[2:03:35] as the previous CSM a slightly different
[2:03:38] project but also very similar in having
[2:03:41] reszoning the property and combining
[2:03:42] parcels and creating some additional
[2:03:44] housing units in the city of Port
[2:03:45] Atinson uh plan commission did recommend
[2:03:47] approval on the 11th also for this one
[2:03:49] there was a public hearing uh held for
[2:03:51] the group's development and a site plan
[2:03:53] review was approved as well on 811
[2:03:57] With the CSM, there is a new culde-sac
[2:03:59] that would be installed at the end of
[2:04:01] Shoeacher as well as a loop of the water
[2:04:03] man with an easement in place making
[2:04:06] that water main public. Uh CSM is
[2:04:08] meeting the minimum standards for the
[2:04:10] MRH30 zoning uh which is already in
[2:04:12] place. There were some minor mapping
[2:04:14] errors that were were outlined uh that
[2:04:16] would need to be resolved. Uh there's no
[2:04:19] financial impact to the city. Uh
[2:04:21] however, it would create some additional
[2:04:22] housing units in the city of Fort
[2:04:24] Atinson. And then staff and the plan
[2:04:27] commission recommend approval
[2:04:28] preliminary certified survey map for the
[2:04:31] property located at 550 McMillan Street
[2:04:33] subject to the following conditions. All
[2:04:35] the city engineers comments and uh
[2:04:37] approval of the conditional use permit
[2:04:40] and then any other recommendations the
[2:04:42] city council may have. Welcome. Any
[2:04:44] questions?
[2:04:47] the public hearing that you referenced
[2:04:49] um is that that was that um the
[2:04:53] presentation that was held here. There
[2:04:54] are a couple dozen people or was that
[2:04:56] something in addition to that?
[2:04:57] >> This was a public hearing for the
[2:04:58] conditional use permit.
[2:05:00] >> Okay. Um at that hearing um did it
[2:05:03] generate much input or question
[2:05:06] discussion from the community members?
[2:05:07] >> There was no public input on that one.
[2:05:14] I move to approve the certified survey
[2:05:16] map for the property located at 550
[2:05:18] McMillan McMillan Street subject to the
[2:05:21] conditions outlined in the staff report.
[2:05:24] >> Second.
[2:05:25] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[2:05:26] further discussion?
[2:05:29] Seeing none, all those in favor, please
[2:05:31] signify by saying I.
[2:05:32] >> I.
[2:05:33] >> Any opposed? Motion carries.
[2:05:35] >> Thank you.
[2:05:36] Item 12, miscellaneous. We
[2:05:38] have none. Item 13, public comment for
[2:05:41] matters not on the agenda. The city
[2:05:43] council will receive comments from city
[2:05:45] residents. Comments are limited to three
[2:05:47] minutes per individual. Anyone wishing
[2:05:49] to speak is required to sign up in
[2:05:50] advance or state the following items for
[2:05:52] the record when called upon. Name,
[2:05:54] address, and subject matter and contact
[2:05:56] information. No action or response from
[2:05:59] the council will be taken on any public
[2:06:00] comment during this meeting. Note for
[2:06:02] those on Zoom, if you wish to wish to
[2:06:05] speak, please raise your virtual hand as
[2:06:07] the chat box is not monitored and those
[2:06:09] on the call must remain muted unless
[2:06:11] recognized to speak. Uh, first we have
[2:06:14] John Donahghue signed up to speak.
[2:06:24] Good evening. My name is John Donahghue,
[2:06:26] residing at 1550 Ravine Street, Fort
[2:06:29] Atkinson.
[2:06:31] With the completion of the August 11th
[2:06:35] state primary election last Tuesday, I
[2:06:38] just wish to inform this governing body
[2:06:41] this evening that I am a candidate for
[2:06:42] the office of state representative
[2:06:45] for the Wisconsin Assembly District 46
[2:06:48] on the November 3rd general election
[2:06:50] ballot. City of Fort Atkinson is the
[2:06:54] largest municipality
[2:06:56] in Assembly District 46.
[2:06:59] Most people in this room tonight have
[2:07:01] known me as a citizen who stands ready,
[2:07:03] willing, and able to serve all citizens.
[2:07:08] I have demonstrated this positive
[2:07:09] outlook through various local civic
[2:07:12] initiatives
[2:07:14] over recent years.
[2:07:16] Likewise, if elected in November, I
[2:07:18] assure you that I will work tirelessly
[2:07:20] to represent the interests of the city
[2:07:23] of Fort Atkinson and its citizens
[2:07:26] and to be totally and fully responsive
[2:07:28] to the citizens and taxpayers of this
[2:07:31] city within the constitutional scope of
[2:07:34] my duties as state representative. Thank
[2:07:38] you.
[2:07:38] >> Thank you.
[2:07:41] We don't have anyone else signed up in
[2:07:43] person tonight. So, this will be a first
[2:07:45] call for anyone on Zoom wishing to
[2:07:48] provide public comment.
[2:07:53] Second call for anyone on Zoom wishing
[2:07:55] to provide public comment for matters.
[2:08:01] Seeing none, we will close out and move
[2:08:04] on to item 14, claims, appropriations,
[2:08:06] and contract payments. 14A is review and
[2:08:09] possible action relating to the verified
[2:08:11] claims presented by the director of
[2:08:13] finance and authorized payment.
[2:08:16] >> I move to approve the verified claims as
[2:08:18] presented.
[2:08:19] >> Second.
[2:08:20] >> We have a motion and a second. This is a
[2:08:22] roll call vote.
[2:08:28] » Council member Huckabe.
[2:08:29] >> I.
[2:08:30] >> Council member Johnson.
[2:08:32] >> I.
[2:08:32] >> Council member Leahair.
[2:08:34] >> Hi.
[2:08:35] >> Council member Price.
[2:08:36] >> I.
[2:08:37] >> President Jacob. I motion carries. Item
[2:08:40] 15, close session. The city council may
[2:08:42] adjourn into close session under
[2:08:44] Wisconsin statute 19.85 sub1 sub E to
[2:08:48] conduct other specified business where
[2:08:51] competitive bargaining or competitive or
[2:08:53] bargaining purposes require a close
[2:08:55] session. This is under the review of
[2:08:57] offer to purchase lot one in the Clement
[2:08:59] business park.
[2:09:01] >> Before the council goes into close
[2:09:02] session, I just want to provide a quick
[2:09:04] update. our financial adviser did uh
[2:09:06] reach out to me and let me know that you
[2:09:08] can amend it four times. So, just wanted
[2:09:11] to let everybody know that before you go
[2:09:12] into close session. So, thank you.
[2:09:14] >> Thank you.
[2:09:16] >> I moved to I move to adjourn into close
[2:09:18] session under Wisconsin statute 19.85
[2:09:21] sub1 sub to conduct other specified
[2:09:24] business where competitive or bargaining
[2:09:26] purposes require a close session to
[2:09:28] review an offer to purchase property in
[2:09:30] the Clement Business Park.
[2:09:32] >> Second. Okay, we have a motion and a
[2:09:34] second. This is a roll call vote.
[2:09:39] » Council member Huckabe
[2:09:40] >> I.
[2:09:41] >> Council member Johnson
[2:09:42] >> I.
[2:09:43] >> Council member Lesair
[2:09:45] >> I.
[2:09:45] >> Council member Price
[2:09:47] >> I.
[2:09:47] >> President Jacob
[2:09:48] >> I. Motion carries. We are in going into
[2:09:52] close session. We may return after to
[2:09:56] take action.
[2:10:03] Move to adjourn.
[2:10:04] >> Not quite.
[2:10:07] >> We have council may reconvene into open
[2:10:09] session and take action on the offer to
[2:10:12] purchase lot one in the Clement Business
[2:10:14] Park.
[2:10:19] » I move to approve the offer to purchase
[2:10:22] lot one in the Clement Business Park
[2:10:24] from Wisconsin Development Partners LLC
[2:10:27] and the associated addendum one.
[2:10:30] >> Second.
[2:10:31] >> We have a motion and a second. Any
[2:10:32] further discussion?
[2:10:33] >> I would just say anyone who doubted that
[2:10:35] when we when it was said a couple years
[2:10:39] ago that all it would take is a little
[2:10:41] bit of earth moving in the city and to
[2:10:43] draw some further interest. Um if you
[2:10:46] doubted that
[2:10:48] hopefully you have become a believer
[2:10:50] now. the last two years has, you know,
[2:10:53] once once the north side get going, the
[2:10:55] this whole area is just booming and not
[2:10:58] just our community, Jefferson and the
[2:11:00] whole county is really helping and
[2:11:01] seeing the effects. So hopefully this
[2:11:04] chain of life just keeps going.
[2:11:06] >> Let's hope this is an example of a
[2:11:07] snowball downhill just keeps going.
[2:11:11] >> So we have the motion and a second. All
[2:11:13] in favor, please signify by saying I.
[2:11:15] >> I.
[2:11:16] >> Opposed? Motion carries. Now we can move
[2:11:20] for adjournment.
[2:11:21] >> Move to adjourn.
[2:11:23] >> Second.
[2:11:24] >> Motion a second. All in favor?
[2:11:26] >> I.
[2:11:27] >> Any oppose?
[2:11:28] >> We are adjourned.