That's the thing.
We're not
That's really important.
Oh yeah.
Everyone
confusion.
Yeah.
some of it's
Facebook.
Here's the resolution.
Exactly.
Here's the job description.
for a while.
Chair
Yeah, I don't
some of the previous information.
I don't even
Does this
Yeah. Yeah.
That's
All right.
Official
That's true.
I didn't know it was heard.
email.
There's one out there.
How do you say?
Well,
Yeah, I got
I did
something.
You Remember?
What the hell?
I'm sure
you feel
I mean, what I know about
Everybody
Good evening everyone. It is 6:30 p.m.
So I will call the Tuesday, August 18th
meeting of the Superior Common Council
to order. Please rise for the pledge of
>> allegiance
to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God,
indivisible with liberty and justice for
all.
>> Will the clerk please call the role?
>> Councelor Ledine
>> here.
>> Councelor Anderson
>> here.
>> Vice President Moffett [clears throat]
>> here.
>> Councelor Sweeney
>> here.
>> Councelor Radkkey
>> here. Councelor Elm
>> here.
>> Councelor Caven
>> here.
>> President Heric
>> here.
>> Councelor Herring
>> here.
>> Councelor Graskki
>> here.
>> We have a quorum.
» Item 4.1 is the approval of the August
4th, 2026 regular common council meeting
minutes.
>> Motions by councelor Elm, the second by
councelor Anderson. Is there discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor, please
signify by saying I.
>> I. Those opposed say no. The motion
carries.
>> Item 6.1 is a report from Mayor Payne.
>> Okay. Good evening again, councilors. Uh
the only thing on my report is to finish
our priorities based budgeting process.
So, what you uh Justin should have
passed out a few items uh which will
include a an example, a printed example
of how the priorities based budgeting exercise will work. Do not use
this paper form. You're going to be
taking this online. We'll send you the
link uh either well first thing in the
morning. That's what you will use. Uh
then you got an addendum to the
prioritiesbased budgeting survey. And
what this is meant to do is to help you
explain and understand how to vote if
there were specific priorities that you
wanted to pursue. So, in a minute, I'm
going to open it up to any questions
anybody has or any comments anybody has
on any of uh proposals you may have
authored, especially uh but if you were
to look closely through this draft of
priorities based budgeting, the first
thing I'm going to point out is that you
will uh notice that many things that you
might have expected to see will not be
on here. So, some of your specific
proposals will not be on here because
they they fall within categories that we
will budget for later. So, I'm going to
explain how this works. Uh, and and of
course, we can answer questions
afterwards, but you're going to
participate in once you get the link,
you're going to participate in five
exercises. All right? So, the first
well, the first is your name. So, I hope
everybody gets that right. Uh the second
is to rank your overall spending
priorities.
The the most significant interplay that
we will see in the general fund
budgeting process is the relationship
between the general fund and the capital
improvement plan. Many cities in
Wisconsin include that capital plan as
part of their general fund. We do not.
But it's a separate budget. It's a
separate document. But those two relate
to each other because all of the revenue
comes from the same source. There are
many sources of revenue, but it is
allocated to those two budgets. So what
we need from you is which of them is
more important to you? What kind of year
do you want this to be? And so you're
just going to rank one, should we just
spend less on everything and reduce the
levy? Okay, that's that's one option.
And then uh for your second choice uh
you could you could choose for example
to divert terminal tax to the general
fund for an increase in operations or
divert terminal tax to the CIP for an
increase in capital spending. The reason
we describe uh highlight specifically
terminal tax is it's the most
discretionary revenue. On the whole our
levy is completely obligated to the
general fund. In fact the levy doesn't
come close to covering all the expenses
of the general fund. We have several
other revenue sources that that we use
to accomplish that. We will use some cap
uh uh to oil pipeline terminal tax for
the general fund. How much will be set
by you? The CIP on the other hand mostly
relies on terminal tax. Every once in a
while there are other uh uh grants and
things but they're pretty spotty. Most
of that money is terminal tax. Okay? So
don't worry too much about the tax
that's funding it. What I want you to
think about when choosing between
capital or operations or general fund is
what the kind of things you want to see
funded. Most of the general fund is
taken up by staffing. The vast majority
of that fund is staff wages and
benefits. So, as you look at your
priorities uh later on, if you think
you're going to be supporting many more
staff positions, there are many staff
positions on this priority ranking
sheet. If that's where your priorities
are, then you're probably going to want
to elevate the general fund in this
second exercise. If on the other hand,
you want to do the big projects. Several
of you actually recommended big
projects, sports complexes, parks
improvements, then you're going to want
to make sure that the capital
improvement plan is well funded. Okay?
So, think about that a little bit
carefully. And again, if neither of
those matter to you very much and you
want to just reduce the levy, you can
elevate that as well. Uh this is just
going to give us a general sense of
where the council is at. Okay, it has it
does not influence the later priorities
based budgeting. So then the second part
of the exercise uh and this is where you
are it's going to be challenging. You
are not going to have as much fun as uh
I I promised earlier in the process when
you can ask for anything you want and
money is no object. It's definitely an
object. Now, uh so in uh exercise number
three, you're going to rank your general
fund items in order of priority. You
have 10 choices. As you can see, there
are far more than 10 choices available.
You are going to leave things off the
list. That's what makes this so
difficult. And so I I have to give you a
couple of warnings here, though. I think
I gave this at our committee of the
whole at the last meeting. If the
council as a whole does not prioritize
something, it will not be funded or it
will see reductions in funding. The this
has not been a problem for years, but
early versions of this, I heard
councelor say, well, you know, the
mayor's not going to defund streets
maintenance. The mayor's not going to
defund the police and fire equipment and
vehicles. No, I would not choose to do
that, but if you do, they will be
defunded. And so you do have to exercise
some responsibility and fund those uh uh
principal services that are funded
year-over-year. Now when we allocate the
scores later, the things that do get
funded on an annual basis uh the things
that have been in the budget before like
those uh like existing staff positions
or uh I'm sorry that in the capital like
uh police and fire vehicles those are
going to get higher scores. Similar
similarly, if something has been
proposed in years past, uh even if it
wasn't funded, that will get a higher
score. Uh an example in the general fund
is the fire marshall that's been
proposed for a few years now by the fire
chief uh and councelor Leadine. If uh
those of you that vote for it, those
that's going to get higher points
because it's something we've been
considering now for several years.
Whereas those brand new proposals that
you just brought up in uh the last few
weeks, those are not going to get very
uh any bonuses to their scores and they
are far less likely to be funded. That
doesn't mean you shouldn't support them
because if you support them this year,
same as the fire marshal, it's going to
gain in strength as the years go on. In
other words, the things that are most
vetted are the things that are more
likely to be funded. But uh overall,
it's going to be your collective
priorities that drive this. So 10
choices in the general fund and then the
capital improvement plan is exercise
number four.
Uh this is where you're going to see a
lot of your priorities kind of
disappeared and that's why this addendum
is important. So I want to teach you how
to do this. Look carefully at this
because many of you have proposals. The most common is uh parks
improvements. Many of you requested
parks improvements uh and or have in
years past. you will not see, for
example, the Barker's Island fishing
pier or Guj Park or Hammond Park uh uh
listed on the capital uh spending items.
So, for example, councelor Caven wanted
to see improvements to Hammond Park. She
won't vote for that directly. That's not
on there. She's going to vote for parks
improvements. Okay? And then what
happens if enough of you support parks
improvements even if all of you value
different projects parks improvements
overall is going to get elevated then
it's going to get more funding and then
you as a council will will decide how
that funding is going to be allocated at
a later date. So the point nothing gets
passed in the budget they only get
funded. So, in other words, uh if
everybody supports parks improvements, I
shove a bunch of money into that line
item and then you you spend it later.
So, you don't have to worry about if if
some of you like Guja Park and some of
you like Hammond Park, that's not
something you're fighting about now. You
are in agreement that you like parks.
Okay? And that is true for each of these
other things. Uh they uh and you'll see
these bold categories. parks
improvement, marina improvements,
historical properties, uh the equipment
and vehicles, streets improvement, uh
sidewalks, the IT fund. Those are broad
categories that you would uh generally
support. And then fin uh same thing
here, you have many more than 10 to
choose from. There were a couple of
items that are so unique that they they
don't fit neatly in a a broader category
or they would be difficult to fund in uh
even if they were in that category. An
example is the pedestrian bridge/archch
over highway uh 2 and 53 which was
proposed by in some version was proposed
by councelor Sweeney and Leine.
We could conceivably put that in
sidewalks funding. Folks, we're never
going to use sidewalks funding to do
that. uh we have to build sidewalks with
that money. And so even though that is a
sidewalk, I want to know, do you
actually want to do this? And if this
gets a bunch of votes and we're going to
just allocate direct spending for it.
Okay. Uh I know I've said a lot there.
And I'm sorry, the last uh section is
the uh grant funding. There are several
forms of grants uh including a new one.
Um and we just went ahead and made this
hard for you as well. You have uh what
five potential grant categories. You got
to pick your top three. And so that
again, there are several of you I know
that have been very passionate about
these grants, have worked on these for
years. So, sorry about it. We're going
to have to make some tough choices. So,
just uh choose the ones that you love
the most. Again, nobody will hold it
against you uh that you didn't uh if
some didn't make the cut. That is just
the nature of budgeting. Okay. Uh rather
than list all of these, I'm going to see
if anybody has any questions right now
about how this will work. Councelor
Grass. Um, at our last meeting, uh, you
know, some were on paper, some were
verbalized. Um, should we just reference
the last meeting in order to understand,
um, just if there's like a project
that's listed just to kind of, uh,
follow through the committee, the whole
>> Yeah. And what we can do, I think we've
got a a super complete packet as of
today. Sure.
>> So, if anybody wants to see that, just
shoot uh myself or Justin an email and
we'll send that right out. Yeah, I know
it's a lot. So, I just appreciate the
work from your office and just trying to
also kind of verbalize other tools that
we can use as a group to make sure we're
not getting too stuck on this. So, I
appreciate that.
>> That is a fair point. I had to refresh
myself several times as I was doing
this.
>> Other questions? Councelor Caven.
>> Um, I did see that there are some um
items that have uh double asterisks. Is
there any u like the purpose for the the
double asterisk?
>> Remind me [clears throat] the asterisk.
>> That is you might get.
>> Yes.
Um, so if you look through the
capital investment programs that are
listed there, they've got the double
stars, right? Then if you go to the last
page, that's the addendum. So everything
listed in bold here on the last page,
that is going to be the asterisk.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Categories
for the dean.
>> Um, question, mayor. Um, five, uh, grant
spending. Um, I guess my question is I
don't see the recreation event grants.
Are we just
>> good?
>> Um, assuming now from my standpoint, if
you just want to assume we're going to
fund those, then that's fine.
>> No, I'm going to add it on there. That's
a good catch. Uh, well, so before we
send this out in the morning, we'll add
the wreck grants that there is an
argument for not because they have some
dedicated funding. There's a portion of
the hotel motel tax that is specifically
reserved for parks and wreck and I had
uh uh intend I I may assign that money
to it but at the same like how much it
gets the council should be weighing in
on that. So we'll add the wreck grants
by morning.
It's going to make it harder. There's
one more to choose from. Not councelor
Moffet.
>> Can we can we I sent those descriptions
uh of the my budget items um after the
last meeting. Can we push those out to
counselors rather than having them
request them? Sure.
>> Okay. And a few of the things that I had
requested aren't on here. So, just
curious if they fall under other
categories or and I want to make sure
that if they don't get funded this year,
I get my bonus points next year. So, um,
the regional bioolids resource recovery
feasibility study for ESD, the superior
legacy fund, the community stabilization
fund, the solar feasibility engineering
study for the library,
uh, I think the other ones are on here.
So, okay. Uh, let me There is
the legacy fund. Yes, I apologize. I did
miss that. Uh,
and then the the bios that's ESD. So
since those are enterprise funds, we
will do that as a separate process.
There were a few ESD requests. They're
just not part of this at all. They'll be
totally separate. But yours will be a
part of that process.
>> And the community stabilization fund.
Can we put that on here? Also,
>> remind me that briefly the difference
between that and the and the legacy
fund.
>> Yeah. So, the legacy fund is setting up
a long-term uh essentially like
permanent fund or endowment for this
city um that would grow over time and we
wouldn't touch the principal but would
be able to receive essentially like
dividends from that um each year in the
future um to prevent future property tax
increases and kind of stabilize our
long-term financial outlook. Being that
we have sources of revenue right now
like the terminal tax that are
potentially not permanent, um it would
allow us to have a backup mechanism to
continue to fund capital expense
projects in the future if we lost some
of that revenue. Um the community
stabilization fund is essentially the
concept that our uh neighbors out there
are uh struggling financially a lot of
them uh and they get stuck uh going for
credit card payments on things or
highinterest loans. Uh, and this would
allow us to team up with local uh,
credit unions or local banks, offer um,
small low interest loans essentially to
community members for emergency
purchases, whatever like that. So, okay.
Uh, I'm the legacy fund will fall under
uh, capital because it uh, it's an
intermittent funding program. So, it'll
look a lot like the economic development
fund or the affordable housing fund. So,
that's where that will fall. And unless
you have strong objection, I am going to
put the community stabilization fund
under the grants because it appears to
function very similar to the small
business grant.
>> Yeah. In a way, it would offer it would
essentially work as a revolving loan
fund. Okay.
>> So, we could set like however amount we
want like into that fund. We would team
up with banks and then let's say we put
$100,000 in and that would be available
for small loans or whatever like that.
But essentially those people would pay
the loans back, right? And so then you
know the money would be revolving. Um
the question is just like how much we
funded is how many people are impacted
by the amount of money that's available.
Right? So like how the amount of loans
we could do is greater based on the
amount of money we put in. So
okay other questions or discussion?
Anything else I've missed?
Okay. Again, feel free like even by the
end of this meeting, as you know,
counselors, I always linger afterwards
if if other questions come to mind as
you're just kind of scrolling through
this and then we'll we'll put out the
full version in the morning with those
changes. Uh it will accompany the entire
packet. Uh as well as this addendum. You
don't have to worry about keeping this
if you want to recycle it on the way out
the door. And uh as always, feel free to
reach out if you have questions either
over the phone if you want to pop in for
a quick meeting uh uh to discuss how
it'll work. Uh and if you're curious,
pull up last year's budget book,
especially the new counselors, and you
will see how this looks in the end, how
you are going to be represented in the
budget book because uh while we are
looking at what your collective goals
are, your individual goals will be
published in there. And so you're going
to get a little profile of what if you
were writing the budget by yourself what
it would look like. And you'll notice
even at the uh very back end of this
priorities process, you got a little
chance to make a a bit of a statement on
the budget and your priorities. And that
will go in the budget book as well as your picture. So make sure that
is up to date and looking good. Any
further discussion?
Councelor Sweeney. Um whether it be in
the general fund or not, there are names
of council mentioned it, but there are
others that have no name. Is that from
management?
>> Uh you can assume that. In fact, some of
the council proposals were also proposed
by management. So, uh like you see
councelor Leadine's name next to the
fire marshall. Well, of course, the fire
chief proposed that as well. And so that
was just sort of the last minute
addition we threw in there because this
was one of the
bigger years for council participation
and in terms of ideas. And so Justin
actually insisted on that that uh you
should get credit for your ideas. I was
a little nervous that uh you might it
might lead you to use your relationships
with each other and vote for the people
you like instead of the ideas, but he uh
he trusts you quite a bit more.
>> Thank you.
Any further discussion or questions?
That concludes my report.
Item 7.2 is the business of the public
works committee with a meeting held on
August 6th. Is there a report from the
chair?
>> Yes, there is. Just a short one. Thank
you. Thank you very much, uh, chair. Um,
the recommendations from the public
works committee meeting on August 6th.
Um, you see a recommendation to wave the
bidding requirements for the repair of
the SS Meteor. Um, SS Meteor has a
cracked hull and we're hoping to wave
the bidding requirements and give that
to Frasier Shipyard. Total quoted cost
of $29,900.
Nice side
mention on that. Frasier shipyard was
originally the ones who built the whale
back and now are the ones repair and
possibly repairing it. if if we decide
to approve that that I throw that one
out there. Um 4 point um or our other
recommendation was to approve the 2026
hot mix asphalt proposals. Um those are
in the minutes from from the public
works committee meeting. Um we also have
a recommendation to award the
engineering design contract for the
North 28th Street grade separation
project and that would go to to SRF
consulting group. um public works was uh
lucky enough to u um to go out find
whatever but to be awarded um a uh 2.4
million dollar grant um to look at this
um possible design at 28th Street. The
big one um looking at that is um the
possibility of a viadok um over over the
railroad tracks there. Um this grant
came with an 8020 match. um 80% feds,
20% from the city. The railroads um
kicked in half of the city match um on
that. Um this has the possibility of
being a critical um transportation hub
um as far as smoothing out uh traffic
congestion there along those. So, we
look for your recommendation on that or to approve that. And then uh lastly
um the the committee recommends that a
uh resolution be published uh for a
referendum question to be placed on the
April 2027 ballot. Uh the question is
related to the city reclaiming the water
utility um from Superior Water, Light
and Power. Um this follows the uh
process under Wisconsin state statute
that uh lays out the whole whole thing
for the process of reclamation.
um under state law that uh this res this
resolution must be passed to be
published um at this meeting and then
also be voted on at at a subsequent
meeting um be before getting on the
ballot. That that is the state um law
for um referendums. Um, this also
follows the uh proc the reclamation
process like I stated under state
statute that in order to get a hearing
um before the Wisconsin public service
commission which would set set the price
in stone that there needs to be a
successful referendum. Um that was my
report. I can answer any questions. I
will um allow the clerk to read
everything individually. Thank you.
>> 7.2.1 2.1 is to wave the bidding
requirements for the repair of the SS
Meteor's cracked hole and award the work
to Fraser shipyards in the amount of
$29,900.
>> Motion to approve second.
>> The motion's by Council Dean, the second
by councelor Elm. Is there discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, please
signify by saying I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed say no. Motion carries.
>> 7.2.2 is to approve the 2026 hotmix
asphalt proposals.
>> Motion to approve a second.
>> Motion's by council the dean. the second
by councelor Elm. Is there discussion
hearing? None. All those in favor,
please signify by saying I.
>> Those opposed say no. The motion
carries. 7.2.3 is to award the
engineering design contract for the
North 28th Street grade separation
project to SRF Consulting Group in an
amount not to exceed 2,464,37.
» Motion to approve.
>> Second.
>> Motion's by councelor Dean. Second by
councelor Moffett. Is there discussion?
Uh I'm not sure. The public works
committee noticed that this was
originally as uh part of priorities
based budgeting. Uh this in order to
advance the project and getting get it
moving. This is no longer a part of
priorities based budgeting. If you
approve this tonight, it's going to have
to be in the 2027 budget. So you'd be
your first budget allocation. Discussion
or questions?
Councelor Sweeney. Um, I have a question
on the um
a couple questions actually on the
sending [clears throat] it over to the
uh public service commission. First of
all, on this uh vote, is this a bind is
this a binding?
>> Uh I'm sorry, council. We're still on
the uh the previous
>> without that.
>> Okay. Further discussion on the award
for 28th Street grade separation
project, which is a potential vioaduct
on 28th Street hearing. Uh, councelor
Herring.
>> Uh, just to clarify for my own
knowledge, the 24 million is the total
overall project and not just the design.
>> No, this is design. Uh, the the or
sorry,
>> this is only design. So, the the project
will be most likely tens of millions of
dollars.
>> Okay. And where is all that money coming
from then? That's part of just the the
8020
>> with 10% coming out of us.
>> Yeah, it's actually 9010. we pay 10% uh
the uh because it is an 8020 award but
the BNSF is covering half of our match
that's why it's 9010 uh the rest would
have to come from the capital
improvement fund and so that's what I
mean when I say that will have to be
allocated if we approve this tonight we
must allocate it uh from that budget
>> thank you
>> any uh council lady
>> if I could just clarify um or or or ask
a question for you to ask councelor I
think he was looking at if we were going
to build the VIA doc, where would those
tens of millions of dollars come from
for that?
>> Oh, who knows? The uh uh that that is
not determined. So, this uh we did not
lead on this project. Uh the it's
largely the railroad that wants to see
this happen. As as everybody here knows,
28th Street has a number of rail
crossings and uh the railroad as a whole
does not like crossing streets. creates
a lot of problems and inefficiencies for
them and of course for all of us as
well. The only solution that works for
everybody is to uh they would prefer to
just eliminate the crossings as in close
28th Street. That's obviously not
acceptable to us. So the only real
compromise is what the city's done twice
before a vioaduct over 28th Street.
They're very interested in pursuing that
but we're still years out. the the
design and engineering will take a very
long time and then if they want to p if
they want to move forward the city will
almost certainly have to be a part of
that project. Uh but there's no world
where we would be able to fund the
entire project. So the railroad is going
to have to continue to be a major
partner in this project. Uh so we'll as
time goes on if it looks like a feasible
project uh which I mean hey we're
spending a significant amount of money
just to study it. So, you know, when you study it, you hope that it's
going to move forward, but we're going
to need quite a bit of financial
partnership here. So, I would hope that
in addition to what the railroad's going
to cover, as time goes on, we get some
participation from uh uh maybe our state
government as well, but obviously no
guarantees and this is not budgeted yet.
The final project is not budgeted. Okay,
further questions or discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, please
signify by saying I.
>> Those opposed say no. The motion
carries.
>> Item 7.2.4 is to publish a resolution
relating to the water utility
acquisition
>> to approve.
>> Uh the motion is by councelor Dean,
second by councelor Moffett. We have
several folks signed up for public
comment. Uh as I introduce public
comment, I wanted to offer a little bit
more uh introduction in addition to
chair lean's introduction mostly to
explain the process so everybody knows
what we're doing here. Uh publishing a
resolution is going to be new to almost
everybody here, but it's not a terribly
strange concept. You'll notice many uh
of our state and federal grant programs
along with several other things require
us to hold public hearings on uh certain
items. And many of you will remember we
will take a vote here at this council to
set a public hearing at the next council
meeting. So we'll have a resolution in
front of us, we'll set the public
hearing. This is a similar process. So,
what's on the agenda tonight is the
publication of this resolution that is
in your packet. We uh you are not able
to adopt this resolution tonight. The
state statute does not allow that. All
you're voting on is to take whether this
language will get published for the uh
public to see so that you may take
action at uh at on September 1st at the
earliest. It has to be noticed for at
least a week. So, what is possible
tonight is if there's something about
this resolution that you see needs to be
changed, and I'll have at least one
suggestion, now would be the time to do
that because in the future, if we make
changes later, that will trigger another
publication. So, any changes after
tonight will automatically postpone the
resolution. So, uh the I I want to thank
the public works committee for working
on this for months. uh the and uh
spending quite a bit of time even in the
last meeting making sure this language
felt correct. But before I turn it over
to the council, I'd like to invite the
public to speak. So how this is in in a
moment, I'm going to invite up Cody
Strem. How this will work is you will
have three minutes and no more than 3
minutes. That is a rigorously enforced
rule. So, I will give you a 30 second
warning when your time is about to
expire and then it's a hard stop at 3
minutes unless the city council takes
action to extend the time. Uh, which
they rarely do, but counselors, as
always, I would encourage you if you
want to take action to extend time,
please do so unifor uh uniformly. So, if
somebody gets a little extra time,
everybody should get the same amount of
extra time. Uh, that's my opinion
anyways. Although I would point out on
the whole three minutes has uh typically
worked. I see
seven people signed up to speak but I
will also call afterwards.
I'm sorry six people signed up to speak
on this but I'll also call afterwards if
somebody changes their mind and would
like to approach the podium. So unless
there are questions or objections I'm
going to move forward with the first
speaker who will be Corey Strem. Uh,
please approach the podium. Uh, um,
state your address for us, please.
The button, uh, looks like a person
speaking. It's the third from the left.
There you go.
>> Um, I live in 11658 South Hillside
Street in Solen Springs.
I'm not a resident of Superior. I'm an
employee of Superior Water and Light and
I have been for over two decades. And
what I'm going to speak today is uh with
this trying to take over the water for
the city. It's really going after our
livelihoods as workers.
It's gambling with my pension. All of
our pensions over the next so many years
could all be gone.
Um, you nobody in here has ever come by
to once talk to a worker, never been to
the water plant, never stopped and
talked to a person to ask how we like
working for Spir Light and Power because
every single one of us would say we love
it. It's we're treated fair, we're
treated right, and we're paid for our
jobs. I've spent many nights out there
working endless hours and storms and
rain to miss family vacations, sporting
events, concerts to put the power,
water, gas back on for the people of
Superior and my company shows a lot of
appreciation for that. Nobody in here
has done anything to talk to anybody
about taking over this company and
people are being impacted all over the
place.
Um,
secondly, uh,
working for the city, you lose all your
union rights. There's no bargaining. Uh,
it's a big thing. We're pretty IBW31.
We're a very strong union and, uh, we
stick together and the company has a
really good relationship with our union.
We've been in Spear for 137 years. Does
anybody in here know what a water boil
is? Water boil notice.
>> We can't take questions. No. Okay. What
a water boil is is when a pipe is, say a
main blows and doesn't get put back
together, right? No sectionalized, none
of that. Contaminations get in your
water.
And everybody has to boil their water to
use it. That's never happened once in
the 130 years water and lights been
here. People in Two Harbors are going
through that right now. They cannot
drink their water. So, a lot comes. It's
not just as easy as turning your faucet
on.
Um, we have a a president for our
company, not a CEO like you've stated a
thousand times, who comes back and sits
and talks to us employees. Comes in,
sits down, asks us how we're doing, asks
us if he can do anything to help us out.
He cares for us a lot. And I don't get
that from the same from the city
workers.
>> 30 seconds, please.
>> And uh let's see what else. Uh, well, the
workers the workers aren't going to
happily want to come in and work for a
place that's been bashing them for
months, bashing the company that we work
for, that we take pride in working for,
and then you expect people to come in
and just work for the city like nothing
happened. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Up next is Joe Stencland.
Hi. Uh, I'm Joe Stenland, local
resident. Uh, 5631 Banks Avenue is my
address. Um, I'd like to thank Corey for
speaking up on his behalf. I think
perspective is always interesting and
such an issue as this because there's
there are good questions, there are good
um curiosities, there are um good things
to consider with this. And I think at
this particular point in time um I think
there are several camps um you know some
people don't want to see anything done
some people want to leave things the way
they are. Some people don't know enough
don't what know whether it's yes or no
in speaking with others and attending
some of the um local uh workshops and
discussions. Um, I learned a lot and I
think it was very valuable and I'd like
to thank the Superior Community
Coalition for hosting their events and
for the city hosting their events
because each side is pretty passionate
about what they're doing. And I think
that it's really really important to um
for everybody to understand how that
process is going to work. And only
because I've attended those events do I
understand that there is a process there
just to get to the final number. And um
to reiterate to the public and say this
is what we're doing and when we get that
number. Um
what that means in terms of like
actually deciding that because um it's
really really important to inform people
about where this is going. But once you
trigger that process, once you trigger
this to happen, uh because some people
don't even want to see that, it's really important to make sure that
people know what's going on in this
process. And that was the main question
that I had raised about this. Um and so
I learn something new every time, but I
also learn kind of, you know, like how
personal this is for folks who are on
that side of the bridge, you know, um
working um for SWLP as well. So there's
a lot I I like to consider with this
issue as well. So just some things to
consider. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next is Bill Fennessy.
» Good evening, Mayor Payne, city
councilors. Bill Fennessy, 52 Billings
Lane. I'm here on behalf of Superior
Community Coalition, a coalition of
business, labor unions, and individuals
who oppose the takeover. There's a huge
price range on the table for this
takeover. 58 million to 186 million.
Mayor Payne and some counselors appear
to want to approve unlimited taxpayer
dollars to go through the PSC process to
find out where the price tag lands. The
number the PSC ultimately provides does
not by any means represent all of the
legal costs. As a former PSC
commissioner told us, there are two
rounds of legal appeals guaranteed under
the law, each of which will take years.
Fundamental questions have not been
answered, including how much has already
been spent on consultants and lawyers,
and how much is expected to be spent
throughout this contested takeover
process. You have already spent hundreds
of thousands of taxpayer dollars on this
endeavor, and additional spending has
already been budgeted. July 15th, the
city shared that quote upfront legal
costs, the city has a substantial legal
fund already budgeted. End quote.
Regardless if they are already in an
existing account or not, they are
taxpayer dollars.
This is just the beginning of a very
costly undertaking. The additional cost
to taxpayers, including expensive
outsourced attorney services combined
with spending so far, will easily exceed
half a million dollars and grow quickly
from there. The city council should not
approve the referendum tonight. Council
has until January to put this on the
April ballot if they feel the need to do
so at that time. However, if you
authorize this referendum, I ask that on
behalf of all taxpayers, you require
spending transparency.
Something as simple as detailed
reporting of spending to date and
monthly reports of ongoing expenditures
by category, including internal labor
materials. Residents and counselors
deserve opportunities to fully
understand what is at stake with this
referendum, not a public debate. So, in
the Wisconsin tradition of strong
council governance, the coalition will
be hosting a series of community forums
that will provide multiple opportunities
for city councilors and residents to
better understand the issue. Thank you.
Next is Dean McCall.
Initially
had two points I was going to make, but
I added a third one to this. to put a
face to the name. I sent a lengthy email
to all the counselors and the mayor. I
got two responses. One from councelor
Herring and very lengthy uh response
from the mayor. Thank you for taking the
time to respond regarding
[clears throat] the resolution.
I think you're missing the point on the
wording of the resolution. It's not a
question of what the city can can
afford, [snorts]
but the whole purpose of this exercise
is that supposedly there will be lower
rates that customers will pay. There's
been no quantification of this. A
promise to lower the rates needs to be
incorporated into the resolution so that
there is stated quantifiable
information there.
You don't know what the costs are going
to be. You can't determine what the
costs are going to be till you have a
detailed business plan. Nothing's been
done there. [clears throat]
The rates have not been approved. You
have no idea what the costs were going
to be. But you need to tell the people
are going to vote on this. You're going
to have lower costs. Well, words don't
matter. You have to have facts. You have
to have data. You have to have analysis.
This has not been done. And then how
will the cost be paid? [clears throat]
If I go to the restaurant and buy a
meal, I am not going to be charged for
somebody else's meal sitting next to me.
But I live at one Whitebridge Drive. We
have no wells and we have no water out
there. We all have wells. Many, many
people in the city have vacant lots.
They're not customers of spare water
light. So, should they have to pay for
that other person's meal? No. It's just
not fair. Why should you charge somebody
else to pay for another customer? Yeah,
there might be sa some savings, but it's
still not right. You need to address
who's going to pay what. This is
important to consider. And also,
as Bill Finennessy alluded to, as one
wise attorney told me, this is going to
be a litigator's dream. You can just
imagine the attorneys just rubbing their
hands and saying, "This is going to be
great." Kaching, kaching, kaching as
they're going to wrap up their
attorney's bills. Not $100 an hour, not
$200 an hour, maybe $500 an hour. Good
attorneys, $1,000 bucks an hour. You
need to all factor that in. And then
when you're talking about budget choice,
general fund choices, hopefully this
will be an item on your general fund
choice so you can rank how much you want
to allocate the general fund to. The
only fair way to deal with this is
through having a special assessment to
spare water light customers. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next is Kristen Rinskers.
If I mispronounce anybody's name, please
uh correct it when you come up.
Thank you, mayor. That was perfect. So,
Kristen Rinskers, 12691 Sunset Lane,
Side Lake, Minnesota. My name is Kristen
Rinskers, the business manager of IBW
Local 31. I was elected by our members,
including those at SWLP, to safeguard
their rights, history, and futures. It
is the ultimate honor to work for
working people. And as elected
officials, I imagine you understand that
responsibility.
Municipalization directly affects the
people operating the system and the
futures they believed they were earning
through a lifetime of service. Rafelis
assumes the city could operate the water
system for the same amount SWLP assigns
to the water operations. But SWLP is an
integrated water, gas, and electric
utility. Its costs are allocated among
three utilities. They do not represent
the cost of operating a standalone water
utility. We estimate that 43 of our 50
union members touch water. Our members
work across multiple utilities and SWLP
distributes their costs while making
their skills and experience available to
each utility. The city would only
acquire the water. Yet Raelis provides
no staffing numbers or labor costs.
Historical spending by an integrated
workforce is not a municipal staffing
plan. There is no credible scenario in
which a takeover benefits these
employees. Under Wisconsin's Act 10,
transferred employees would lose
meaningful bargaining over health
insurance, retirement benefits, hours,
and working conditions. Their SWLP
pension would stop acrewing and a
separate state pension would begin. Two
partial pensions do not equal one career
pension. Rafellis calculated neither the
loss nor the cost.
suggestions that these employees could
keep their union or negotiate a
comparable city agreement are simply not
true. Even if Act 10 disappeared
tomorrow, no new agreement could
recreate nearly 90 years of bargaining
history. This campaign repeatedly points
to Black Rockck as an imminent threat
and casts a city takeover as the noble
act that will save Superior. Despite
knowing the company's partners, I do not
know Black Rockck and respectfully,
neither do most people invoking its
name. It is not here. But I do know Rob,
Jossi, and the SWLP leadership team.
They are actual people working in this
community. We call them, meet with them,
and hold them accountable. I know
Elite's leadership, including its CEO,
whose commitment to putting people
first, has been proven to us repeatedly.
We do not blindly trust
>> 30 seconds, please.
>> Any owner or investor. Utilities should
be regulated, and owners should be
accountable. commitments should be
enforced. As a union, we believe deeply
in those principles. Major public
decisions should be based on evidence
and this takeover does not punish Black
Rockck. Black Rockck will not lose its
pension. Black Rockck will not lose its
collective bargaining agreement, but we
will. We appreciate your consideration
and future communication. And I would
love it if our SWLP local 31 members
could stand.
>> That is three minutes. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
would uh I'm sorry, Dan Olsson is next.
Good evening, mayor, counselors. I am
Dan Olsen, 6001 Avenue, lifelong
resident of Superior, Wisconsin and a
uh customer of Spear Water, Light and
Power. I want to address the resolution
that's in front of you. Hopefully,
you've got it. And and I sent you all an
email earlier today. I would uh ask that
the council amend this resolution.
The current language says the very last
whereas whereas this resolution was
published in the Superior Telegram at
least one week prior to the regular
meeting of the Superior City Council on
September 1st, 2026
and and moves on to the now. Therefore,
I'd like the the amendment to read,
"Whereas this resolution is published in
the Superior Telegram at least one week
prior to the regular meeting of the
Superior City Council on September 1st,
2026 for further discussion.
Now, I don't believe there's any harm in
discussing this any further because this
looks like it's going to go on a long
ways. I know that there's a proposal to
have this on the April ballot as a
referendum. The deadline to get that
onto the ballot is January 29th, 2027.
We all know sitting here that there's
going to be a lot more meetings. There's
going to lot be a lot more discussion.
So I would ask the motion maker and the
person that seconded the motion to
include
this uh this change that I've made and
the basic part of it is the word is from
was published and adding the words for
further discussion. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Would anybody else like to
speak to this item on the council?
Please comport.
Please state your name and address for
us, please.
>> My name is Jim Dolberg. I live at 16
Shardy Drive here in [clears throat]
Superior. I was born in Superior some 75
years ago. And uh to be perfectly
forthright here, I am a former Superior
Water Light and Power Company employee.
I worked there some 41 years ago. Um
I would I'm speaking because I think the
city seems to be trying to rush this
thing. I don't know that I've got any
answers on a couple questions that I
have with regard to uh how this whole
situation with the Wisconsin PUC affects
the fact that the well is located in
Minnesota.
Also, I'm wondering what happens as I
believe Superior Water Light and Power
Company currently play pays
state, federal, and local taxes on the
water utility. What taxes will the city
be paying when they take it over? That
money is going to have to be made up
from somewhere.
as as was spoken earlier, one of the
things you're doing is the the people
that currently work at the water plant,
even if you do hire them, they're going
to lose union representation. It's very
important to me. I've been a member of
the IBW for 55 years. It's been very
good to me.
It has been very good to those employees
that may be affected by this.
Again, I think you're acting way too
fast for this. I don't you you when I
don't know when you will know what the
actual cost will be. I don't know if
there's a possibility for anybody to
back out at that point for the city. I
think that need that should be known
before this is put before the people
and and I ask the city councilors
to consider if it ain't broke don't
break it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Would anybody else like to
speak in public comment?
Would anybody else like to speak to this
publication? Would anybody else like to
speak to this resolution?
Hearing none, I will proceed to council
discussion. Again, councilors, we have a
motion and a second. Uh first, I'm just
going to open a general discussion and
questions. I do have one potential
change that I'll suggest in a moment
though, but it's uh I think relatively
minor. So, discussion. Councelor Hering.
Um yeah, one of my big concerns um
couple of them is one I feel we're
moving too fast and we need to look at
it. A rush thing usually means bad
choices or it's not as good as it seems.
So it's uh you're trying to make it go
through. Um one of my biggest questions
and a lot of the residents have been
asking is what is our hard cut off for
the spending? Um, I know what we can
afford up to, but you know, if Raphelis
came in at 58, are we saying if they
come in, if the P
the uh PUC or PSC comes in at 72? Is are
we still there? Are we going to 100?
Like, we need a number an exit plan
before we start. That's all part of a
business management plan. um we haven't
I haven't seen in other things but with
this price tag I feel that it really
needs to to be there. Um and then the
other one is as was brought up by uh one
a couple of speakers is the people that
don't currently have water or sewer. Um
you know what how are they going to be
affected? How are we going to pay? And
before you say well it's only it's
coming out of our rates and all that. We
all pay storm water protection acts for
no storm water protection and um for the
water in the s the well and holding tank
or septic customers. So and then of
course we're paying already higher for
wastewater dump fees. So you know that's
granted now it's not a huge part of the
city that deals with that but it's just
main concerns that I haven't gotten
answers for and the residents haven't
either. Uh I believe you asked me two
questions. The first of which is what's
the cuto off number? Many uh many people
at uh first there is there's no
reasonable person that can say that this
has been a rush process. We have been
working on this for years. We've had
multiple public meetings uh where we
took questions from the public uh both
in committee and we have ventured out
into the public where I stayed for as
long as everybody asked me to stay and I
answered every question. Uh this
referendum is in my experience I believe
the third potential referendum front of
the city. The the first two one was to
allow ATVs on all of city streets. The
other was to change the city government
to make the mayor a part-time role. Both
of those referendums went directly to
council were immediately passed and
placed on the ballot without even seeing
committee. So this process has been
probably more exhaustively studied than
almost any other city issue. Uh, of
course we have a long way ahead of us.
This is not the completion of the
process. This is merely the beginning.
Everything until this point has been
introduction. Uh, but the in terms of
what is the cut off, what is the most we
would pay? I've been asked that question
a number of times and I've answered it a
number of times with what my opinion is.
I think you have all heard that answer.
Most of you have been in attendance at least uh one of the uh uh public
meetings that I have answered that at.
And of course, I would answer any of you
if if you want my opinion. But the fact
is my opinion doesn't matter nearly as
much as yours does. So I hope any
counselor that has been asked that
question has given an answer because it
will be your duty to make that decision.
If the number is too high in your
opinion, then this does not move
forward. Once we see the number from the
public service commission, the city
council determines whether that number
is an uh is something that we can afford
to pay and something that we should move
forward with. The second is what is the
impact on nonwater customers that are
taxpayers within the city. They benefit
as well. Uh everybody in the city
benefits from this. Everybody in this
city, every taxpayer pays water rates
because the city of Superior itself owns
several buildings including a uh several
fireh halls and we have significant
water bills at the city of Superior. So
does Douglas County. So does the school
district of Superior. All own buildings
all pay the highest water rates in the
state of Wisconsin. All of those costs
are passed on to taxpayers. So I'm not
promising a tax decrease because of
water utility acquisition. uh the tax
burden on the city of Superior, Douglas
County, and the school district of
Superior all go down once we eliminate
or reduce uh those water fees. Uh we
would still probably pay them to our own
utility as we do with wastewater. Uh so,
but they would go down and so everybody
would experience that impact. And then
finally, I just want to uh make a brief
defense of uh the environmental services
division. The entire city benefits from
this uh storm water fund. The storm
water fund does not just do storm water
mitigation on private individual
properties. It's preventing flooding for
uh throughout the entire city and so it
uh creates significant facilities that
help offload water that would otherwise
wash out roads and cause significant
property damage. So everybody is
benefiting from that. Uh I hope I've
answered those questions. I will move to
councelor Anderson
or I'm sorry I'm sorry. Councelor
Hering, I'm going to recognize you still
have the floor if you'd like to respond.
>> Yeah. What was your number just for the
record of what you would go to for the
purchase?
>> So the the city's debt capacity is 138
million. That is the max that we can
take out at any given time. What that
capacity is at the point that uh at the
point that we would be in a position to
take out the bond is a moving number
because the city's financial health has
been growing steadily. so that uh our
potentially upper end number grows with
the financial health of the city. That
said, at this point, I think anything
under roughly
$100 million as long as it was financed
by a revenue bond, which this would be,
and as long as it was only paying for uh
the existing fair market value, uh which
it would be, that's all it would be. Uh
that would be a financial asset to the
city. It would be financially beneficial
if the sale were today, but again, time
changes that question most likely for
the positive.
>> Thank you.
>> Councelor Anderson, did you still have a
question?
>> Yep. I just have two questions. Well, it
might be bad. Maybe I have three, but
the first question, um, how much has the
city already spent on, um, consulting
and attorney fees? I believe we have uh
I believe the initial raft talis
appraisal was about $150,000.
Counselors might remember that more than
I will. Uh attorneys fees a few thousand
for uh consultancies. In fact, that will
be a bill that as that we'll be
presenting to you or a a retainer that
will present you with more outlined
legal costs for the next few months. And
then we'll probably re-evaluate that if
and when the referendum passes uh to
come up with a broad legal strategy for
uh uh the contested case hearing. The
reason it's small now is because right
now we're just getting advice like how
to form a question like this. What is
the uh process? We're learning and our
attorneys are functioning as a little
more than legal teachers right now. when
we go into a contested case hearing
that's much more involved but that's
something that you know many communities
have been a part of before these are
common thing contested case hearings
while they don't usually involve the
acquisition of entire water utility they
are common events at the PSC so uh I I
do imagine a a bill but right now it's
not I I don't believe it's much higher
than that consultant fee
>> councelor
I have one more question
>> oh I'm sorry please councelor Anderson
>> um how much do anticipate the city will
be spending to go through the process of
acquiring the utility?
>> That's hard to say exactly, but it is uh
certainly narrower than some of the
numbers you've seen. I think uh you've
seen numbers as high as like 15 million,
which it won't be that. Uh the Wisconsin
process only allows a contested case
hearing first, followed by a right to an
appeal. So, uh there is a limited amount
of time that can take. It's tough for me
to put a specific number on that, but
when we bring a firm's retainer, a not
to exceed uh uh could probably be
negotiated. Uh but I do expect there
will be a real legal bills. I'm not
going to pretend that there aren't.
Obviously, this is a litigated process
and so I think it is reasonable.
Do you want to dare venture a guess?
>> I do not.
>> Uh [snorts]
yeah, I better not either. I think um I
looked at a city that's spent in a much
more hostile state to this process. A
state that does not allow cities to
automatically acquire their water
utilities. In fact, requires a much more
extensive legal process. I saw that city
recently spent $4 million on legal fees.
So, call that an upper number. Uh that
then would of course uh uh be placed on
the rates at the point of acquisition.
So that's that's all factored into the
transition.
>> Can I ask one more,
>> please?
>> Okay. So in the I I'm going to say it
wrong. The Rafa Tillis study it says
that utility will be paid entirely by
revenue bonds I think is what you've
said. But on the resolution it says um
that you want to authorize or we want to
authorize general obligation and revenue
bonds as well.
>> Yes. Uh I I added uh general obligation
bonds mostly to preserve the flexibility
of the council. Ultimately that's a
council decision. Rafelis would almost
certainly recommend revenue bonds. Our
bond adviserss would almost certainly
recommend revenue bonds and I'm very
highly to recommend revenue bonds but uh
I don't want to leave financial options
on the table. when we come to make a
large capital purchase especially one
this large you are always advised by
your bond adviserss so you're not
looking for advice from me or Rafelis
you're looking for advice largely from
Ellers for how to structure that and
what that would really that the I don't
imagine a world as I just said where
general obligation bonds are a better
bet but there are some scenarios where
you could structure it in a way that the
interest might be beneficial uh in the
shorter or long term so but I'm I'm not
capable of giving that advice right now.
The point of adding that in there was to
preserve options in the long term.
Any further council?
Excuse [clears throat] me. Um, as far as
I understand it, this proposed
referendum is non-binding.
Um, I think a little time needs to be
spent on explaining this process.
citizens. I think there's some maybe
confusion. A lot of referendums that are
put out there have a dollar amount on
it. So, it's like is this the cart
before the horse? So, but Wisconsin
state statute is clear from section uh
197.02. It's action by municipalities to
acquire the utility. The first step is
the referendum of vote of electors. This
helps determine u the majority of
electors do we move forward. Then if
required the circuit court determines a
necessity proceeding. This brings the
action concerning the nec necessity of
the taking. Uh number three there's a
notice to the PSC. Uh the municipality
gives notice to the utility and the PSC
and that's under section 197.03.
Then uh the PSC has a valuation
proceeding
and then it goes to the PSC to do to
determine the price. It's my
understanding that once that price is
determined, there's still 60 days that
the city could back out. It's just I
think if you could spend a little more
time on that process to clarify maybe
any confusion that's out there. Sure. I
have some follow-up questions.
>> Yeah, sure. I I think you did a very
good job, counselor, of describing it.
Um, working backwards, I would make a
very minor correction. It's not so much
that the city has 60 days to back out.
The city has 60 days to produce the
payment. And so, the city actually has
to take overt action within that 60
days. So, we would have to work pretty
hard to even be prepared to do that.
Now, obviously, we're going to prepare
months and months in advance of that,
have that prepared. The default is
actually not to do it. The city has to
approve this multiple times along the
way and the council can back out at any
point. Uh however, before engaging in a
process this large, the uh uh the
statute as you mentioned requires the
electors to authorize it to move
forward. So as you said correctly, we
cannot get the number from the PSC
beforehand. But there is one thing I
want to clarify. It would be I agree
with those that say it would be
irresponsible to go forward blind. We
should get a sense of what this cost.
That's why we spent $150,000
for an appraisal. And one of the uh
things that I confess to being a little
amusing in this process has been an
effort to pretend as though the Raftelis
report was not accurate or that there
are two competing appraisals out there.
are not. There is only one
appraisal out there. Uh there was
another number released at something
like 187 million that was not an
appraisal that did not use evidence uh produced that was publicly available
at the PSC. It did not use professional
appraisal standards and it is not
admissible in a contested case hearing.
Our appraisal is admissible and all of
you were there for this process council.
Well, most of you uh so I don't know
that I have to remind you but Rafelis
was selected in a competitive process by
this council and the mission that we
gave Rafelis was to give us an unbiased
number. So you know I did not select
Rafelis you did and you specifically
asked for the real number. You hired
that firm to give you an accurate number
not a lowball number. We also looked for
uh a highly respected and qualified firm
and we checked their work in the past.
So, Rafelis has a long history of
producing professional appraisals and
they are largely accurate. They're uh so
they've been proven correct over and over again. So unless for some
reason they're just lying or uh uh
trying to manipulate this process and
risking their entire professional
reputation, I imagine that number that
$58 million number is as accurate as
every other appraisal they have they
have conducted. So we have done that due
diligence. That is the most likely and
the most accurate number. That does not
mean it will be the number. We uh when
we go to the PSC there will uh there is a long process where we we
debate this. Superior waterline power
gets to present evidence. So do we. Uh
Rafelis will pre present their argument.
Uh and then time will also pass the the
value of that asset u may have changed.
They may they have they are likely to
have added to the value of that asset or
other elements may have depreciated by
the time we get to the PSSE. So this is
the beginning of the process. This is
what the statute requires. I I hope I
didn't talk too long there, but I think
you kind of asked me to explain a link.
Uh follow-ups, please.
>> And again, if the referendum fails, none
of those steps happen beyond that. This
is done.
>> That is correct.
>> So, I think that's uh there's a lot of
phases to that. And personally, I'm not
comfortable not putting the referendum
to ballot cuz going through this
process, uh, I would not want to inhibit
the voice of the citizens on how we want
to move forward. Uh, I know there's a
lot of details I still need to learn.
I've been going to almost every meeting
I can to learn about this uh, and make
the right decision. Uh, there's a lot
impacted and a lot at stake here. Uh,
but this is the survey that's
non-binding that uh, would help us move
forward. Um, back to uh Dan Olsen's uh
modification request. Uh um I'm Can can
you help guide us through that request?
I I'm not seeing the merit of adding
discussion when each agenda item can be
discussed anyway. Am I mistaken by that
or did I miss something?
>> No, you were correct. I believe
conceivably that would be out of order
because amendments cannot do the same a
motion can't do the same thing as
nothing and so you're correct this when
this comes back to the council it is
discussion is automatically allowed you
know this is Robert's rules of order so
uh this will be discussed at uh when it
comes back to council um I also disagree
with changing the tense of the sentence
uh this was uh written largely by our
attorney's office and uh the past tense
was published will this will be past
tense at the point you approve it. So
you write resolutions so that they are
grammatically correct at the moment
after they are passed. So that's that's
why that's in the past tense. Just a
minor grammar point but I I agree with
the original author here.
>> Thank you.
>> Further discussion from councelor
Sweeney.
My first uh is going to be a statement.
Um
what we do today seriously affects
tomorrow and what we bond for today
seriously affects what we do in future
years be it this large amount. We are um
perhaps um the word crippling is too
strong a word, but we are certainly uh
holding back some future capital
expenditures if we're going to come
close to our uh loan amount. Okay.
And so
this amount that the companies come up
with spare water light has another
number
is this figure that with whatever that
figure is is this for capital only.
No, there are a few other elements such
as going concern built into it. It's generally
the statute calls for a payment of the
fair market value of those assets
necessary and convenient and uh to the
operation of the water utility and
because this is uh it is not technically
a condemnation process. It is its own
process in the statute but many parts of
it refer to the condemnation process. So
we imagine there will be uh case law
from condemnation
applied to uh the the contested case
hearing. So there are a few other
elements to the value that Raph Talis
has added in. So it's not just but what
we are taking are the physical assets.
Yes.
>> Okay. So basically it may not be 100 but
basically it's capital.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
And if we're the whatever the number is, that a turnkey amount? Then we can
January one we start it's a turnkey.
We've got all all the equipment, all the
assets fixed and whatever that we can
start operating a business with the
correct capital as of the day we
purchase that. Is that a fair statement?
>> Uh that is that is fair. Yes. But uh we
we've expressed that several times
internally because it sounds a little
bit extreme that just one day we own a
we don't own a water utility and the
next day we do. And however um the one
other element of the statute is that the
PSC also sets terms and conditions of
the transition. So yes, it is turnkey.
we get everything at the point of
acquisition, but the PSC is also
describing how that acquisition will
work and a lot of that is negotiated.
>> Okay. I'm thinking on the other side of
the coin, I'm thinking it's while we
purchased
turnkey so-called, there's still more
capital that must be for any more
capital expenditures that is not on the
table with this number.
is that to our knowledge is this this is
a turnkey deal and we in theory then if
I hear what people are saying the day
that January comes we turn key we we
don't need to put another dollar into
the capital to run this utility is that
fair to say
>> yes actually and I know that that sounds
like a reach like there we should need
other things but the statute's very
clear it's all uh equipment and assets
necessary and convenient to run the
water utility and so yes it's We
shouldn't need to put another dollar in
until we do more infrastructure of
course.
>> No, I'm I'm saying that yep
>> January 1st we started December 31st we
don't own January 1st we own it. We have
public service commission has deemed the
mount that is to operate this with all
capital needed
>> to the same yes to the same degree that
the current water utility is operating
it. Yes.
>> And then I've talked about this before
but I I've yet to see an operating
statement too. Okay. and and I think
that's a extremely critical piece. In
fact, in one of my um
this I I suggested that we hire our
accounting firm to look at these, okay,
to put another set of eyes on that. I
don't know whether that where that will
go or it'll make it, but um I just think
there's not enough I don't have enough
information
uh to vote on this one way or the other.
I I just think there's too many um
unknowns for me to support this at this
time. I'm not saying I won't, but I uh
it isn't what I know, it's what I don't
know that always bothers me. I've said
that enough times. So, um I'm extremely
concerned that I just don't have enough
information right now. Thank you.
>> Further discussion,
councelor Hick.
>> Yeah, just a couple comments here. So
for the PSC to look at this, it has to
go to to the referendum. Correct.
>> Yes. The next uh the next step is
referendum followed by PSC. So for us to
acquire more information that uh without
spending money unnecessarily, the next
step is to go to the PSC. That's where
we answer a lot of the questions that
have been asked. So in order to ask the
questions that many people are to get
the true and final answers to the
questions that many folks are asking
including several of you the public must
approve a referendum.
>> Okay. Then do we what would the cost be
roughly from now let's say you know the
people want us to go forward from now
until it gets to the PSC. So what what I
mean is there cost for the PSC to
actually do this themselves or is there
something I mean what costs are
associated with that that process
>> get to the PSC there's actually not much
more cost so between now and the
referendum there's not a lot left to
spend uh this we have as I said before
we've spent years acquiring this
information learning about this process
it's time to turn it over to the people
there's not much more we can collect now
the city council can continue to discuss
this and evaluate it and if you want to
be availed of more consultants or legal
advice will absolutely provide that the
uh but it between now and the referendum
there shouldn't be much more cost once
it [snorts] goes to the PSC that's
what's called a contested case hearing
that works a lot like a a trial in that
there's evidence and witnesses and so
then we would have legal fees that
ultimately would be rolled into the cost
of acquisition.
>> Okay. So basically if we said yes we
were interested then that's when
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you,
>> Councelor Graskki.
>> Okay. It's clear that there's going to
be a lot of steps to this. I think
that's what this council has been asking
a lot. But this is a draft that we're
voting on and let's say it approves
tonight. The next meeting is when we
vote to pass a referendum to be put on
the ballot. Is that correct?
>> That is correct.
>> Thank you.
[cough and clears throat]
Uh, one of the most important things to
council lady and and I think councelor
her councelor Elm and councelor Graskki
hit the nail right on the head before we
move forward and um it's important we're
not buying nothing tonight. We're not
approving bonds.
We're not looking at costs. The ultimate
question is, do we publish this to where
we come back next meeting and vote to
put this on a referendum to let the
people of Superior decide what they want
to do to move forward? And that is where
we are at in this process right now.
That I fullheartedly
agree with putting this to referendum
and seeing what the people of Superior
want to do with this. This is the
process. I don't know what the cost is.
None of us know what the cost is. The PSC won't give us a cost until after
a referendum.
But it is important that the citizens
are involved. It's it is their utility.
It is their water that they are paying
for. It is them that have been paying
the rates for years and it is their
decision to make as far as where they
want to go with that and they will have
the ultimate choice in this. If it's a
no, it's done and and then if it's a
yes, then then we move forward. But I I
do believe
a res a referendum to allow the people
to decide is always a right thing to do.
I'll just point out at the next meeting
that doesn't actually pass this either.
The only the public can pass this. The
uh if if this moves to the next meeting
and uh the council adopts the
resolution, it does not buy the water
utility. It does not spend any money. It
places a question on the ballot for the
public to set the next steps for the
public to weigh in. This council has
discussed this for years. Uh it this is
an opportunity for the people of
Superior to have their say to determine
if we should be spending this much time
on it or if we should spend much more
time on it. I think uh it's just their
turn. Uh I think we have talked about it
enough. It doesn't mean we have to stop
talking about it. Of course, we'll keep
talking about it and do everything we
can to keep educating folks uh about
this question, what it means. And that's
why
uh uh I wanted to bring this resolution
now because setting the question now
gives more time for the public to study
that question, learn that it's coming,
for it to be covered in the press, for
folk to to trigger more questions, for
more folks to get more answers.
I would like to suggest
two amendments. The first I think is
relative. I don't think either of these
are controversial. And so I am going to
ask unanimous consent.
I'm going to ask unanimous consent to
make an amendment to this resolution.
For those of you that don't know what
that means, what that means is I believe
that all 10 of you will easily agree
with what I'm about to suggest. Uh
councelor Cait, why don't you take the
floor?
>> Um I just had one uh question. um if
this goes or when it goes to referendum,
whatever that looks like, um you you
know, we're talking about um you know,
having our our uh citizens vote. Um what
is the pass? Like is it like 50.1%
like just curious um like looking at the scheme of of um the this journey um
I'm just wondering for clarification's
sake, what is the passing referendum?
Actually, there's a part of that
question I can't answer because 50% plus
one passes. If there are
1,000 votes, 501 votes in favor, uh I'm
sorry, if there are more yes votes than
no votes, the plurality wins. Okay? So,
if there are more yes votes than no
votes, that passes. It doesn't have to
be for 50% of the total vote. Uh I don't
know what happens in a tie for a
referendum. [snorts] Probably fails.
My guts say fail right now. Yeah,
without having researched,
>> right? Ties happen in Superior,
Wisconsin.
>> I probably not in a citywide race, but
that's a good question. Thank you for
asking that. Did uh any anything
further? Okay. So, as I was saying, I'm
going to uh make request a motion by
unanimous consent. What that means is I
believe that what I'm about to suggest
the entire council will agree with and
therefore we don't need to have
significant debate. Even though I'm
talking it out right now, I want folks
to It speeds things along in the future,
even though I'm slowing it way down now.
Uh, so all I'll do is I will request
unanimous consent. I will say the
amendment, describe it, and then I will
ask, does anybody object to that? If you
even have a question about it, raise
your hand or say object, and then I will
call for a motion to see if it's
discussed. I we only use this when I
expect something to be
non-controversial. And uh so this first
one conceivably could be or could
trigger some questions, but I will ask
unanimous consent to strike the third
paragraph which reads, "Whereas superior
water, light, and power is not open to a
negotiation of a voluntary sale of
utility and counselors. At first I
agreed with that because that to my
knowledge is true today. that may not be
true tomorrow and I would like to
continue to keep the door open for
possible negotiation. So I I think it is
in our interest to at least keep that
option available to all parties. So I
will ask does anybody object to striking
the paragraph I just read?
Hearing no objection that amendment is
passed by unanimous consent. The second
is the question itself. So, this is a
little bit more involved, but I would
like to make a grammatical change. The
attorney and I were talking about this
today, and I I could describe this
wrong. So, if there's uh somebody that's
more of a grammar nerd than I am, feel
free to correct me, but I think there
was a dangling modifier, which there's
nothing wrong with this question. It is
perfectly legal. It's been reviewed by
the attorneys, and it it does work
grammatically, but the goal is to make
it as clear as possible. So I would like
to reorder it uh to make it exactly
clear uh what is happening. And so what
I would do is
strike and amend so that it reads after
the word event that the value of the
utility comma as determined by the PSC
public service commission comma falls
within the city's financial means that
uh the effect of that amendment
counselors is to clarify that the public
service commission is determining the
cost not who determines whether not
whether it falls within our financial
means only you determine whether it
falls within our financial means. So I
wanted to clarify that point. Does
everybody understand that?
Does anybody object to that amendment?
>> Can you reread it please?
>> Yes. The the amendment, if adopted, uh
would the entire question would read,
should the city transition to a
community-owned water utility in the
event that the value of the utility as
determined by the public service
commission falls within the city's
financial means.
Is there objection to that change?
Hearing none, that amendment is adopted
by unanimous consent. councilors. Uh
I'll give you a chance to think of more
questions while I redescribe the
question before you. The motion is to
publish this resolution as amended uh
for at least one week and uh prior to
the a uh the September 1st city council
meeting. So once it has been published
for one week, it is eligible to return
to the city council. At that point, it
will be a new resolution which will
still require a motion, a second, and a
majority vote of the council. From that
point, the res uh the ballot question is
set and we are in a referendum. However,
at any point between now and the
deadline to change the April election,
which falls in the spring, the uh the
council can uh bring this resolution
back. You can amend it in any way. You
can change the question. You can change
the date of the election. You can resend
the election altogether. This starts a
process, but it is subject to more
change. Of course, I am going to
strongly recommend that once you adopt
the question, which is not tonight, you should preserve that question until
the election so that the council so that
the public can can study it in its
entirety and have the most amount of
time. Does everybody understand what
we're doing tonight? What the what
you're voting on,
Council Harry?
>> Yeah. So if we approve this tonight, we
can still make amendments to this. This
is not a final draft than that we're
approving. Correct.
>> It
that is correct. But amendments will
work differently going forward. So first
from this point forward, well including
right now, any change to this means it
must be republished. So if on September
1st we make more changes then we have to
publish it for another week and then
comes back. But of course that's no
different than postponing something. We
postpone things all the time. So if you
get to September 1st and we feel like h
we should change the language here a
little bit. Uh then that's you'd be
postponing it for a meeting. Um that's
why you know I recommend have this
language tight which only the therefore
section is what really matters and is
binding on the administration. But yes,
you can change it then and uh you can uh
the motion is actually called amend
something previously adopted. You can
change it in the future as well. It will
require publication. Uh but yes, any
pretty much any point between now and
the deadline that can happen. It's a
long way of saying yes, you have it
correct.
Further discuss
counc again
>> just for my curiosity what is the
benefit of passing this tonight versus
waiting a few more weeks to let some of
the more um city or not city the the
council meetings or the um um the the
discussions the forums about the the
purchase take place. Uh the merit is
that it preserves the most amount of
options. So if you publish tonight, that
gives you the opportunity to set the
referendum at the next meeting. It does
not require you to set the referendum at
the next meeting. But I still think that
would be a good idea. That will be your
choice, not mine. But uh the the
advantage of putting the question out
now is when we go to those public
meetings, we know what we're discussing.
We know exactly what that question will
be. every time I appear in front of a
public meeting now, I will be able to
put that question right on the wall and
make sure folks know what it means. So
there's no more mystery about that. And
so it just just makes sure we all know
what's coming. And uh I was going to say
the the the shameless advantage, but
it's not shameless at all. Uh when you
do it, the press covers it. The second
you set the referendum, that's news.
That will be in the news that the
council set the ballot. And it goes
other places, too. it uh uh it goes play
like ballad balledia. It will it will be
an election in Wisconsin. And finally,
maybe most importantly, it triggers
Wisconsin campaign finance law. There
are a lot of folks spending a lot of
money trying to influence the public on
this question. And state law really, wants transparency in its
elections. And those of us that are sp
uh spending money ought to be uh uh
keeping track of that and eventually
reporting it to the Wisconsin Election
Commission to make sure that uh all
electors are treated fairly. So it just
starts the process in its fullest.
Further discussion council muffin.
>> Yeah, just a couple of things. I wanted
to reiterate how important that is to me
in this process. like I I we've been
working on this for a couple years now
and moving to this next step allows that
transparency for the public on who's
spending what and I think that's really
important because they want to know
who's trying to influence them. Um just
a couple other things I wanted to
mention like again tonight we're we're
not voting on the purchase. The superior
council uh can't choose to purchase the
utility. We're only voting to publish
tonight and then
later we would be deciding if we want to
ask the residents their opinion and then
if the residents want us to move
forward, we would move forward. So this
is just like the next step in the
process. We're not deciding to purchase
tonight. We're not taking out bonds or
anything like that. It's just moving us
in the direction where we can ask the
residents what they want. And I think
that's the right thing to do. Um, and I do want to reiterate also what the
mayor said about uh the flexibility this
gives us because we can modify this
later if we want to. We can pull it away
uh or or whatever we want. uh we've got
a lot of um opportunities to continue
discussing it or modifying it or
whatever until January which gives us a
lot of time but this does provide
transparency for the public to
understand like what are we working on
exactly here and it provides that money
transparency so they know what people
are spending
uh as we've been working on the water
utility it's also important to me um
that we've also been looking at our
electric and gas um utility facilities
in the city as well. And we we do have
uh numbers back on the cost of those,
but we do not have rate analysis back.
And ultimately like the prices of these
things are less important than how they
affect people's payments, right? And so
like I I think if you tell somebody how
much something costs total, like yeah,
sure that's a number, right? But they
want to know like how did how does it
affect their expenses every month? They
want to know, is this going to cause my
um rates to go up or whatever. And like
that's what people really want to know,
like how does this affect their
pocketbook? And so, like, I'm really
excited that soon hopefully we'll have
that electric and gas rate analysis
back. And I think all the reasons, well,
a lot of the same reasons that the water
utility is important, the natural gas
and the electric are also important for
our residents. um they're essential
services. They're extremely expensive
and uh the the profit margins are are
likely higher than um what the water
utility is. So, um moving forward in
this process, we could decide at some
point to potentially add those to the
April ballot and modify the question uh
or do separate questions or whatever.
But the the whole point is that we have
a lot of flexibility here. Um, and and I
really think the transparency portion is the reason that we should move
forward as quickly as possible to get a question going so that at least
there's that transparency for the public
on who's spending what and and and
what's being done to influence their
vote. Um, I do also want to talk briefly
about the the payment mechanisms. Like
we're not I I appreciate that this is uh
providing flexibility for the city to
use general obligation or revenue bonds.
I do want to mention revenue bonds are
as the mayor said probably the likely
source of revenue. Um state statute
66.0621
revenue obligation uh section two um
solves that water source issue. It says
directly a source of water 50 mi beyond
a municipality's corporate limits shall
be within the municipalities authority.
Uh so that takes care of the water
intake issue. Um there's also been a
state um Supreme Court ruling about that
in the past as well. And then also draw
attention to the um section three there.
A municipality may by action of its
governing body provide for purchasing,
acquiring, leasing, constructing,
extending, adding to, improving, con
conducting, controlling, operating or
managing a public utility, uh, motor,
bus or other systems of public
transportation from the general fund or
from the proceeds of municipal
obligations including revenue bonds. an
obligation created under those revenue
bonds option is not an indebtness to the
municipality and shall not be included
in arriving in the constitutional debt
limit. And we're still looking into the
implications for this, but it's my
understanding so far and we'll find out
more that these revenue bonds
potentially would not impact our debt
limit at all. And so if we needed to
borrow for an emergency later or another
fire station or or just for uh extra
staffing or whatever the council wanted,
we would still have that flexibility
available. And so as we continue to look
into this, I think maintaining all those
options uh is really good. And I just
want to say I'm hoping we can move
forward tonight and just get this
published so we can get more public
input. Thank you.
>> Council Sweeney,
>> I'd just like to have a roll vote when
we do this, please.
>> Of course. Councelor Caitlyn.
>> Um I do have one question as far as um
you the the transparency in the question
and it could be something that might be
put you know like amended in the future
but um is with this language of this
question um do you think that and I know
uh with the city attorney is this clear
enough that we wouldn't have to put
something in the question itself for the
referendum saying non-binding?
I think that's a question for you.
>> No, I don't I don't believe
>> the button.
» I do not believe we have to fold binding
or non-binding language into the actual
referendum question itself. I think that
actually might set [snorts] the table
for potential confusion.
understand too that
um by statute we will be obligated to
um produce and and and have on file and
I think actually even publish a um
notice of referendum and that notice of
referendum will include a number of
details that aren't folded in that would
be far too cumbersome to actually fold
into the referendum question itself.
>> [snorts]
>> And some of those details will include
for example
a a general description of the utility
plant itself.
Um as discussed already, the mechanism
through which um the the acquisition of
the utility would be paid for and and almost certainly the the question
you just brought up which is the um the
binding or non non-binding
component behind the question.
[clears throat]
Further discussion
council.
>> This is the process that's provided to
municipalities by the state of Wisconsin
and it's not a rushed process. In fact,
if we wanted to rush this, we could have
put this forward for a November ballot.
Um so you know I think that we are
taking prudent steps to pro provide for
the public to learn more. Uh there's
months ahead for that process to take
place and I think we should proceed with
this. Thank you.
Further discussion.
The question councilors is whether to
publish this resolution before you as
amended.
Unless there are questions about the
process, we will proceed by roll call.
» Councelor Radkkey.
>> Yes.
>> Councelor Elm. Yes.
>> Councelor Caven.
>> Yes.
>> President Heric.
>> Yes.
>> Councelor Herring.
>> Yes.
>> Councelor Grasskey.
>> Yes.
>> Councelor Leine.
>> Yes.
>> Councelor Anderson.
>> No.
>> Vice President Moffett.
>> Yes.
>> Councelor Sweeney.
>> No.
>> There are eight in favor and two
against. The motion passes.
Item 8.1.1 is the business of the public
art commission with a meeting held on
July 30th. Is there a report from the
chair? Well, um, switch it up here a
bit. Let's see.
Uh, excuse me. Hold on. Okay. Since the
inception of the Superior Public Arts
Commission, the council has approved two
rounds of $25,000 each to support public
arts initiatives in the city of Superior
over the last two years. At our most
recent meeting, we utilized the
remaining funds to back several
projects, including a Nordic interactive
handcrafting workshop at the Douglas
County Historical Society, uh support
for reenactment actors at for the St.
Louis River rendevous, which is now
being relocated over to Billings Park
from over in Duth um this summer. And
also we supported uh Time Arc Theater
along with a um event that will be for
happening at the Fairlon during the
Halloween Halloween season. I just want
to thank this council support as we
nearly supported almost 20 public art
experiences throughout the um community
for the citizens. And as we move
forward, this commission will adopt a
new approach as we outline as I outlined
in our last report. It'll focus more on
creating spaces for artists rather than
artists coming to us to tell us about
what they would like to create. And I
look forward to sharing about those next
projects when those are approved and
voted on. Additionally, we have a
request in front of you. Um this amount
is coming from the overall fund. Um, it
is to help support an upcoming event
that will be hosted by the Superior
Council for the Arts is essentially
inviting statewide representation to
come to the city, allow somewhat of a a
summit to facilitate not only local
conversations, but also talk about
statewide opportunities, how can we add
more art to our community, and also how
can our grant program be assisted as we
move further into creating more arts in
the community. So, as of now, I would
ask that the um assistant clerk or
sorry, um please read the ask in front
of them.
8.1.1
is to award the sponsorship to Superior
Council for the Arts for the 2026
Regional Creative Industries Summit
event in the amount of $5,965.
» Second.
>> Motion's by Councelor Alm, second by
Councelor Graskki. Is there discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor, please
signify by saying I.
>> Those opposed say no. Motion carries.
>> At this time, are there any other
committee or commission reports to be
made?
» Hearing none, we can proceed to new
business.
>> Item 10.1 is miscellaneous licenses.
>> Motion.
is by councelor Dean, second by
councelor Heric. Is there discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor, please
signify by saying I.
>> Those oppose say no. [clears throat]
Motion carries.
Item 10.2 is an amended premise for a
special event license application for
Atypical Enterprises Incorporated, DBA,
the main club located at 1217 Tower
Avenue for Pride Weekend, September 4th
through September 7th.
>> Motion to approve.
>> Second.
>> Motion's by Councelor Graskki, a second
by councelor Anderson. Is there
discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, please
signify by saying I. I.
>> Those opposed say no. Motion carries.
10.3 is amend the premise for a special
event license application for the
Superior Flame DBA, the Superior Flame
Nightclub located at 1612 Tower Avenue
for Superior Pride Block Party on
September 5th.
>> Second.
>> Motion's by Councelor Anderson, second
by Councelor Herring. Is there
discussion
hearing? None. All those in favor,
please signify by saying I.
>> Those oppose say no. The motion carries.
>> 10.4 4 is an original class B beer
license. Class B beer and class B liquor
license application for Solomon
Witherspoon Group LLC doing business as
Solomon Witherspoon located at 1108
Tower Avenue for the current license
period through June 30th, 2027 pending
fire, police, and health department
approvals and proposed leased condition.
>> Counselors, uh the clerk has provided a
sample motion. I'll read it and see if
there is any concurrence. Uh, is there a
I would recommend a motion to approve
the class B beer beer and class B liquor
license for Solomon Witherspoon at 1108
Tower Avenue subject to a receipt of
recommendations for approval from the
police, fire, and health departments and
proof of a lease agreement for the
premises.
>> Second.
>> The motion's by councelor Moffett, the
second by councelor Grassi. Is there
discussion
hearing? None. All those in favor,
please. I'm sorry, Council Heric.
>> Yeah, just just one question. Um, well,
since he has a another license for 424
uh Tower Avenue, does he have both
license apparently at this time or is
one kind of surrendered?
>> No, that was also conditional. And so,
similar to this, uh, because Mr.
Witherspoon would be leasing the space,
not owning it. uh he doesn't actually
achieve the license until the the
conditions like demonstrating control of
the property and then of course all
these inspections are met. So my
understanding is he's not currently
holding any license in the city of
Superior unless and until these
conditions would be met. So it would be
for conceivably he could go and meet the
conditions for the but I believe that
other building sold. So I don't I don't
think that's an option anymore.
>> All right. Thanks.
>> Yep.
>> Further discussion
>> hearing none. All those in favor please
signify by saying I.
>> Those oppose say no. The motion carries.
>> And item 10.5 is to file a cross appeal
with the Wisconsin State Board of
Assessors to the objected valuation of
property located at 153 Main Street
owned by Exodus Real Estate Holdings.
>> Second.
>> The motion's by councelor Caven, the
second guy by Councelor Moffett. Is
there discussion
hearing? None. All those in favor,
please signify by saying I. I. Those
opposed say no. The motion carries.
Councilors, we have one per That's it
right. Yeah, we have one person signed
up to speak in general public comment.
Uh I believe I'm reading this to be
Marsha Adams, but please correct that as
you approach. Uh the button to turn on
the microphone is the third from the
left. Looks like a person speaking. And
as before, you'll have uh exactly 3
minutes. I will give you a warning at 2
minutes and 30 seconds, but I'd remind
you we're you have it on. I'd remind you
we're at the end of the meeting. So if
you're not able to express everything
you want to say, you can feel free to
come up and speak to me afterwards.
>> My name is Marcia Adams. I live at
713 Bridge Avenue. We're having issues
with the crossing thing on 7th Street.
People are flying off the bridge like
whatever they want and they're flying
off and on the bridge and I've almost
got hit three times crossing that thing.
I would like to know if there's
something you guys can do to protect us
people who walk on Seventh Street or
not.
>> So, we don't have conversation here, but
uh we'll we'll take note of your
comments and if you want to come and
chat with me afterwards.
>> Okay. But I just wanted to let you guys
know that it's it really dangerous.
I'm not my residents in that area have a
fear of one of us can be hit. That's all
I wanted to know.
>> Thank you very much.
>> You're welcome.
>> Is there any further public comment?
>> We have no further business and are
adjourned. Thank you, counselors.