[0:25] That's the thing.

[0:40] We're not

[0:47] That's really important.

[1:14] Oh yeah.

[1:57] Everyone

[1:59] confusion.

[2:07] Yeah.

[2:37] some of it's

[3:38] Facebook.

[3:49] Here's the resolution.

[3:56] Exactly.

[4:04] Here's the job description.

[4:29] for a while.

[4:41] Chair

[5:03] Yeah, I don't

[6:22] some of the previous information.

[12:12] I don't even

[12:51] Does this

[14:00] Yeah. Yeah.

[14:33] That's

[15:29] All right.

[15:46] Official

[16:09] That's true.

[16:25] I didn't know it was heard.

[16:46] email.

[17:16] There's one out there.

[18:41] How do you say?

[20:35] Well,

[20:41] Yeah, I got

[23:32] I did

[23:54] something.

[24:05] You Remember?

[24:38] What the hell?

[27:34] I'm sure

[27:39] you feel

[28:06] I mean, what I know about

[28:26] Everybody

[28:47] Good evening everyone. It is 6:30 p.m.

[28:49] So I will call the Tuesday, August 18th

[28:51] meeting of the Superior Common Council

[28:52] to order. Please rise for the pledge of

[28:54] >> allegiance

[28:58] to the flag of the United States of

[29:01] America and to the republic for which it

[29:03] stands. One nation under God,

[29:06] indivisible with liberty and justice for

[29:09] all.

[29:11] >> Will the clerk please call the role?

[29:14] >> Councelor Ledine

[29:15] >> here.

[29:15] >> Councelor Anderson

[29:16] >> here.

[29:17] >> Vice President Moffett [clears throat]

[29:18] >> here.

[29:18] >> Councelor Sweeney

[29:19] >> here.

[29:20] >> Councelor Radkkey

[29:21] >> here. Councelor Elm

[29:22] >> here.

[29:23] >> Councelor Caven

[29:24] >> here.

[29:25] >> President Heric

[29:26] >> here.

[29:26] >> Councelor Herring

[29:27] >> here.

[29:28] >> Councelor Graskki

[29:29] >> here.

[29:29] >> We have a quorum.

[29:34] » Item 4.1 is the approval of the August

[29:37] 4th, 2026 regular common council meeting

[29:40] minutes.

[29:42] >> Motions by councelor Elm, the second by

[29:44] councelor Anderson. Is there discussion?

[29:48] Hearing none. All those in favor, please

[29:49] signify by saying I.

[29:50] >> I. Those opposed say no. The motion

[29:53] carries.

[29:55] >> Item 6.1 is a report from Mayor Payne.

[29:58] >> Okay. Good evening again, councilors. Uh

[30:01] the only thing on my report is to finish

[30:06] our priorities based budgeting process.

[30:08] So, what you uh Justin should have

[30:12] passed out a few items uh which will

[30:15] include a an example, a printed example

[30:18] of how the priorities based budgeting exercise will work. Do not use

[30:23] this paper form. You're going to be

[30:24] taking this online. We'll send you the

[30:26] link uh either well first thing in the

[30:28] morning. That's what you will use. Uh

[30:30] then you got an addendum to the

[30:32] prioritiesbased budgeting survey. And

[30:34] what this is meant to do is to help you

[30:37] explain and understand how to vote if

[30:39] there were specific priorities that you

[30:41] wanted to pursue. So, in a minute, I'm

[30:43] going to open it up to any questions

[30:44] anybody has or any comments anybody has

[30:46] on any of uh proposals you may have

[30:49] authored, especially uh but if you were

[30:52] to look closely through this draft of

[30:54] priorities based budgeting, the first

[30:56] thing I'm going to point out is that you

[30:58] will uh notice that many things that you

[31:01] might have expected to see will not be

[31:02] on here. So, some of your specific

[31:05] proposals will not be on here because

[31:07] they they fall within categories that we

[31:09] will budget for later. So, I'm going to

[31:12] explain how this works. Uh, and and of

[31:14] course, we can answer questions

[31:16] afterwards, but you're going to

[31:18] participate in once you get the link,

[31:22] you're going to participate in five

[31:25] exercises. All right? So, the first

[31:28] well, the first is your name. So, I hope

[31:30] everybody gets that right. Uh the second

[31:33] is to rank your overall spending

[31:34] priorities.

[31:36] The the most significant interplay that

[31:39] we will see in the general fund

[31:40] budgeting process is the relationship

[31:44] between the general fund and the capital

[31:46] improvement plan. Many cities in

[31:49] Wisconsin include that capital plan as

[31:51] part of their general fund. We do not.

[31:54] But it's a separate budget. It's a

[31:56] separate document. But those two relate

[31:58] to each other because all of the revenue

[32:01] comes from the same source. There are

[32:02] many sources of revenue, but it is

[32:04] allocated to those two budgets. So what

[32:08] we need from you is which of them is

[32:10] more important to you? What kind of year

[32:12] do you want this to be? And so you're

[32:14] just going to rank one, should we just

[32:16] spend less on everything and reduce the

[32:19] levy? Okay, that's that's one option.

[32:21] And then uh for your second choice uh

[32:24] you could you could choose for example

[32:26] to divert terminal tax to the general

[32:28] fund for an increase in operations or

[32:30] divert terminal tax to the CIP for an

[32:33] increase in capital spending. The reason

[32:35] we describe uh highlight specifically

[32:37] terminal tax is it's the most

[32:39] discretionary revenue. On the whole our

[32:42] levy is completely obligated to the

[32:44] general fund. In fact the levy doesn't

[32:46] come close to covering all the expenses

[32:48] of the general fund. We have several

[32:50] other revenue sources that that we use

[32:52] to accomplish that. We will use some cap

[32:55] uh uh to oil pipeline terminal tax for

[32:59] the general fund. How much will be set

[33:01] by you? The CIP on the other hand mostly

[33:05] relies on terminal tax. Every once in a

[33:07] while there are other uh uh grants and

[33:09] things but they're pretty spotty. Most

[33:12] of that money is terminal tax. Okay? So

[33:16] don't worry too much about the tax

[33:18] that's funding it. What I want you to

[33:20] think about when choosing between

[33:22] capital or operations or general fund is

[33:25] what the kind of things you want to see

[33:27] funded. Most of the general fund is

[33:29] taken up by staffing. The vast majority

[33:32] of that fund is staff wages and

[33:34] benefits. So, as you look at your

[33:36] priorities uh later on, if you think

[33:38] you're going to be supporting many more

[33:40] staff positions, there are many staff

[33:42] positions on this priority ranking

[33:43] sheet. If that's where your priorities

[33:45] are, then you're probably going to want

[33:47] to elevate the general fund in this

[33:49] second exercise. If on the other hand,

[33:51] you want to do the big projects. Several

[33:52] of you actually recommended big

[33:54] projects, sports complexes, parks

[33:56] improvements, then you're going to want

[33:58] to make sure that the capital

[33:59] improvement plan is well funded. Okay?

[34:02] So, think about that a little bit

[34:03] carefully. And again, if neither of

[34:05] those matter to you very much and you

[34:06] want to just reduce the levy, you can

[34:08] elevate that as well. Uh this is just

[34:10] going to give us a general sense of

[34:12] where the council is at. Okay, it has it

[34:15] does not influence the later priorities

[34:17] based budgeting. So then the second part

[34:20] of the exercise uh and this is where you

[34:23] are it's going to be challenging. You

[34:25] are not going to have as much fun as uh

[34:26] I I promised earlier in the process when

[34:29] you can ask for anything you want and

[34:31] money is no object. It's definitely an

[34:33] object. Now, uh so in uh exercise number

[34:38] three, you're going to rank your general

[34:40] fund items in order of priority. You

[34:43] have 10 choices. As you can see, there

[34:46] are far more than 10 choices available.

[34:49] You are going to leave things off the

[34:51] list. That's what makes this so

[34:52] difficult. And so I I have to give you a

[34:56] couple of warnings here, though. I think

[34:57] I gave this at our committee of the

[34:58] whole at the last meeting. If the

[35:01] council as a whole does not prioritize

[35:04] something, it will not be funded or it

[35:08] will see reductions in funding. The this

[35:11] has not been a problem for years, but

[35:12] early versions of this, I heard

[35:14] councelor say, well, you know, the

[35:15] mayor's not going to defund streets

[35:17] maintenance. The mayor's not going to

[35:19] defund the police and fire equipment and

[35:21] vehicles. No, I would not choose to do

[35:23] that, but if you do, they will be

[35:25] defunded. And so you do have to exercise

[35:28] some responsibility and fund those uh uh

[35:32] principal services that are funded

[35:34] year-over-year. Now when we allocate the

[35:36] scores later, the things that do get

[35:38] funded on an annual basis uh the things

[35:40] that have been in the budget before like

[35:42] those uh like existing staff positions

[35:45] or uh I'm sorry that in the capital like

[35:48] uh police and fire vehicles those are

[35:51] going to get higher scores. Similar

[35:53] similarly, if something has been

[35:54] proposed in years past, uh even if it

[35:58] wasn't funded, that will get a higher

[35:59] score. Uh an example in the general fund

[36:01] is the fire marshall that's been

[36:03] proposed for a few years now by the fire

[36:04] chief uh and councelor Leadine. If uh

[36:09] those of you that vote for it, those

[36:10] that's going to get higher points

[36:11] because it's something we've been

[36:12] considering now for several years.

[36:14] Whereas those brand new proposals that

[36:17] you just brought up in uh the last few

[36:19] weeks, those are not going to get very

[36:22] uh any bonuses to their scores and they

[36:24] are far less likely to be funded. That

[36:26] doesn't mean you shouldn't support them

[36:28] because if you support them this year,

[36:30] same as the fire marshal, it's going to

[36:32] gain in strength as the years go on. In

[36:34] other words, the things that are most

[36:36] vetted are the things that are more

[36:38] likely to be funded. But uh overall,

[36:40] it's going to be your collective

[36:42] priorities that drive this. So 10

[36:44] choices in the general fund and then the

[36:47] capital improvement plan is exercise

[36:50] number four.

[36:52] Uh this is where you're going to see a

[36:54] lot of your priorities kind of

[36:55] disappeared and that's why this addendum

[36:57] is important. So I want to teach you how

[36:59] to do this. Look carefully at this

[37:00] because many of you have proposals. The most common is uh parks

[37:05] improvements. Many of you requested

[37:07] parks improvements uh and or have in

[37:11] years past. you will not see, for

[37:13] example, the Barker's Island fishing

[37:14] pier or Guj Park or Hammond Park uh uh

[37:18] listed on the capital uh spending items.

[37:22] So, for example, councelor Caven wanted

[37:24] to see improvements to Hammond Park. She

[37:26] won't vote for that directly. That's not

[37:28] on there. She's going to vote for parks

[37:29] improvements. Okay? And then what

[37:31] happens if enough of you support parks

[37:33] improvements even if all of you value

[37:35] different projects parks improvements

[37:37] overall is going to get elevated then

[37:40] it's going to get more funding and then

[37:42] you as a council will will decide how

[37:44] that funding is going to be allocated at

[37:47] a later date. So the point nothing gets

[37:50] passed in the budget they only get

[37:53] funded. So, in other words, uh if

[37:55] everybody supports parks improvements, I

[37:56] shove a bunch of money into that line

[37:58] item and then you you spend it later.

[38:02] So, you don't have to worry about if if

[38:03] some of you like Guja Park and some of

[38:05] you like Hammond Park, that's not

[38:07] something you're fighting about now. You

[38:09] are in agreement that you like parks.

[38:11] Okay? And that is true for each of these

[38:13] other things. Uh they uh and you'll see

[38:15] these bold categories. parks

[38:17] improvement, marina improvements,

[38:18] historical properties, uh the equipment

[38:20] and vehicles, streets improvement, uh

[38:22] sidewalks, the IT fund. Those are broad

[38:24] categories that you would uh generally

[38:27] support. And then fin uh same thing

[38:30] here, you have many more than 10 to

[38:33] choose from. There were a couple of

[38:35] items that are so unique that they they

[38:40] don't fit neatly in a a broader category

[38:43] or they would be difficult to fund in uh

[38:46] even if they were in that category. An

[38:47] example is the pedestrian bridge/archch

[38:50] over highway uh 2 and 53 which was

[38:54] proposed by in some version was proposed

[38:56] by councelor Sweeney and Leine.

[38:59] We could conceivably put that in

[39:00] sidewalks funding. Folks, we're never

[39:02] going to use sidewalks funding to do

[39:03] that. uh we have to build sidewalks with

[39:05] that money. And so even though that is a

[39:07] sidewalk, I want to know, do you

[39:09] actually want to do this? And if this

[39:11] gets a bunch of votes and we're going to

[39:12] just allocate direct spending for it.

[39:14] Okay. Uh I know I've said a lot there.

[39:16] And I'm sorry, the last uh section is

[39:18] the uh grant funding. There are several

[39:21] forms of grants uh including a new one.

[39:24] Um and we just went ahead and made this

[39:26] hard for you as well. You have uh what

[39:28] five potential grant categories. You got

[39:30] to pick your top three. And so that

[39:32] again, there are several of you I know

[39:34] that have been very passionate about

[39:35] these grants, have worked on these for

[39:36] years. So, sorry about it. We're going

[39:38] to have to make some tough choices. So,

[39:40] just uh choose the ones that you love

[39:41] the most. Again, nobody will hold it

[39:43] against you uh that you didn't uh if

[39:45] some didn't make the cut. That is just

[39:47] the nature of budgeting. Okay. Uh rather

[39:51] than list all of these, I'm going to see

[39:53] if anybody has any questions right now

[39:56] about how this will work. Councelor

[39:59] Grass. Um, at our last meeting, uh, you

[40:03] know, some were on paper, some were

[40:04] verbalized. Um, should we just reference

[40:06] the last meeting in order to understand,

[40:09] um, just if there's like a project

[40:11] that's listed just to kind of, uh,

[40:14] follow through the committee, the whole

[40:16] >> Yeah. And what we can do, I think we've

[40:17] got a a super complete packet as of

[40:20] today. Sure.

[40:21] >> So, if anybody wants to see that, just

[40:22] shoot uh myself or Justin an email and

[40:24] we'll send that right out. Yeah, I know

[40:26] it's a lot. So, I just appreciate the

[40:27] work from your office and just trying to

[40:29] also kind of verbalize other tools that

[40:32] we can use as a group to make sure we're

[40:34] not getting too stuck on this. So, I

[40:36] appreciate that.

[40:36] >> That is a fair point. I had to refresh

[40:37] myself several times as I was doing

[40:39] this.

[40:40] >> Other questions? Councelor Caven.

[40:42] >> Um, I did see that there are some um

[40:44] items that have uh double asterisks. Is

[40:47] there any u like the purpose for the the

[40:50] double asterisk?

[40:53] >> Remind me [clears throat] the asterisk.

[40:54] >> That is you might get.

[40:56] >> Yes.

[40:58] Um, so if you look through the

[41:02] capital investment programs that are

[41:03] listed there, they've got the double

[41:05] stars, right? Then if you go to the last

[41:07] page, that's the addendum. So everything

[41:10] listed in bold here on the last page,

[41:14] that is going to be the asterisk.

[41:17] >> Okay. Thank you.

[41:18] >> Categories

[41:21] for the dean.

[41:21] >> Um, question, mayor. Um, five, uh, grant

[41:25] spending. Um, I guess my question is I

[41:28] don't see the recreation event grants.

[41:31] Are we just

[41:31] >> good?

[41:32] >> Um, assuming now from my standpoint, if

[41:35] you just want to assume we're going to

[41:36] fund those, then that's fine.

[41:40] >> No, I'm going to add it on there. That's

[41:41] a good catch. Uh, well, so before we

[41:44] send this out in the morning, we'll add

[41:45] the wreck grants that there is an

[41:47] argument for not because they have some

[41:49] dedicated funding. There's a portion of

[41:52] the hotel motel tax that is specifically

[41:54] reserved for parks and wreck and I had

[41:58] uh uh intend I I may assign that money

[42:02] to it but at the same like how much it

[42:04] gets the council should be weighing in

[42:05] on that. So we'll add the wreck grants

[42:07] by morning.

[42:09] It's going to make it harder. There's

[42:10] one more to choose from. Not councelor

[42:12] Moffet.

[42:13] >> Can we can we I sent those descriptions

[42:16] uh of the my budget items um after the

[42:19] last meeting. Can we push those out to

[42:21] counselors rather than having them

[42:22] request them? Sure.

[42:24] >> Okay. And a few of the things that I had

[42:26] requested aren't on here. So, just

[42:27] curious if they fall under other

[42:29] categories or and I want to make sure

[42:31] that if they don't get funded this year,

[42:32] I get my bonus points next year. So, um,

[42:35] the regional bioolids resource recovery

[42:37] feasibility study for ESD, the superior

[42:41] legacy fund, the community stabilization

[42:44] fund, the solar feasibility engineering

[42:47] study for the library,

[42:51] uh, I think the other ones are on here.

[42:53] So, okay. Uh, let me There is

[42:56] the legacy fund. Yes, I apologize. I did

[42:59] miss that. Uh,

[43:02] and then the the bios that's ESD. So

[43:06] since those are enterprise funds, we

[43:07] will do that as a separate process.

[43:09] There were a few ESD requests. They're

[43:11] just not part of this at all. They'll be

[43:12] totally separate. But yours will be a

[43:14] part of that process.

[43:15] >> And the community stabilization fund.

[43:17] Can we put that on here? Also,

[43:19] >> remind me that briefly the difference

[43:20] between that and the and the legacy

[43:21] fund.

[43:21] >> Yeah. So, the legacy fund is setting up

[43:23] a long-term uh essentially like

[43:24] permanent fund or endowment for this

[43:26] city um that would grow over time and we

[43:28] wouldn't touch the principal but would

[43:30] be able to receive essentially like

[43:32] dividends from that um each year in the

[43:34] future um to prevent future property tax

[43:38] increases and kind of stabilize our

[43:39] long-term financial outlook. Being that

[43:41] we have sources of revenue right now

[43:43] like the terminal tax that are

[43:45] potentially not permanent, um it would

[43:48] allow us to have a backup mechanism to

[43:50] continue to fund capital expense

[43:52] projects in the future if we lost some

[43:54] of that revenue. Um the community

[43:57] stabilization fund is essentially the

[44:00] concept that our uh neighbors out there

[44:02] are uh struggling financially a lot of

[44:05] them uh and they get stuck uh going for

[44:09] credit card payments on things or

[44:11] highinterest loans. Uh, and this would

[44:14] allow us to team up with local uh,

[44:17] credit unions or local banks, offer um,

[44:20] small low interest loans essentially to

[44:23] community members for emergency

[44:25] purchases, whatever like that. So, okay.

[44:28] Uh, I'm the legacy fund will fall under

[44:31] uh, capital because it uh, it's an

[44:34] intermittent funding program. So, it'll

[44:36] look a lot like the economic development

[44:38] fund or the affordable housing fund. So,

[44:40] that's where that will fall. And unless

[44:42] you have strong objection, I am going to

[44:44] put the community stabilization fund

[44:46] under the grants because it appears to

[44:48] function very similar to the small

[44:49] business grant.

[44:50] >> Yeah. In a way, it would offer it would

[44:52] essentially work as a revolving loan

[44:55] fund. Okay.

[44:56] >> So, we could set like however amount we

[44:59] want like into that fund. We would team

[45:01] up with banks and then let's say we put

[45:02] $100,000 in and that would be available

[45:04] for small loans or whatever like that.

[45:06] But essentially those people would pay

[45:07] the loans back, right? And so then you

[45:09] know the money would be revolving. Um

[45:12] the question is just like how much we

[45:13] funded is how many people are impacted

[45:15] by the amount of money that's available.

[45:17] Right? So like how the amount of loans

[45:18] we could do is greater based on the

[45:20] amount of money we put in. So

[45:23] okay other questions or discussion?

[45:25] Anything else I've missed?

[45:31] Okay. Again, feel free like even by the

[45:33] end of this meeting, as you know,

[45:34] counselors, I always linger afterwards

[45:36] if if other questions come to mind as

[45:38] you're just kind of scrolling through

[45:39] this and then we'll we'll put out the

[45:42] full version in the morning with those

[45:44] changes. Uh it will accompany the entire

[45:47] packet. Uh as well as this addendum. You

[45:50] don't have to worry about keeping this

[45:51] if you want to recycle it on the way out

[45:52] the door. And uh as always, feel free to

[45:55] reach out if you have questions either

[45:57] over the phone if you want to pop in for

[45:59] a quick meeting uh uh to discuss how

[46:01] it'll work. Uh and if you're curious,

[46:04] pull up last year's budget book,

[46:05] especially the new counselors, and you

[46:07] will see how this looks in the end, how

[46:09] you are going to be represented in the

[46:11] budget book because uh while we are

[46:14] looking at what your collective goals

[46:16] are, your individual goals will be

[46:18] published in there. And so you're going

[46:20] to get a little profile of what if you

[46:22] were writing the budget by yourself what

[46:24] it would look like. And you'll notice

[46:27] even at the uh very back end of this

[46:29] priorities process, you got a little

[46:31] chance to make a a bit of a statement on

[46:33] the budget and your priorities. And that

[46:35] will go in the budget book as well as your picture. So make sure that

[46:38] is up to date and looking good. Any

[46:41] further discussion?

[46:44] Councelor Sweeney. Um whether it be in

[46:48] the general fund or not, there are names

[46:50] of council mentioned it, but there are

[46:54] others that have no name. Is that from

[46:56] management?

[46:57] >> Uh you can assume that. In fact, some of

[46:59] the council proposals were also proposed

[47:02] by management. So, uh like you see

[47:05] councelor Leadine's name next to the

[47:06] fire marshall. Well, of course, the fire

[47:08] chief proposed that as well. And so that

[47:10] was just sort of the last minute

[47:12] addition we threw in there because this

[47:14] was one of the

[47:16] bigger years for council participation

[47:19] and in terms of ideas. And so Justin

[47:23] actually insisted on that that uh you

[47:25] should get credit for your ideas. I was

[47:27] a little nervous that uh you might it

[47:30] might lead you to use your relationships

[47:31] with each other and vote for the people

[47:32] you like instead of the ideas, but he uh

[47:35] he trusts you quite a bit more.

[47:37] >> Thank you.

[47:40] Any further discussion or questions?

[47:44] That concludes my report.

[47:49] Item 7.2 is the business of the public

[47:51] works committee with a meeting held on

[47:53] August 6th. Is there a report from the

[47:56] chair?

[47:57] >> Yes, there is. Just a short one. Thank

[47:58] you. Thank you very much, uh, chair. Um,

[48:00] the recommendations from the public

[48:02] works committee meeting on August 6th.

[48:05] Um, you see a recommendation to wave the

[48:07] bidding requirements for the repair of

[48:09] the SS Meteor. Um, SS Meteor has a

[48:12] cracked hull and we're hoping to wave

[48:14] the bidding requirements and give that

[48:16] to Frasier Shipyard. Total quoted cost

[48:18] of $29,900.

[48:21] Nice side

[48:23] mention on that. Frasier shipyard was

[48:26] originally the ones who built the whale

[48:29] back and now are the ones repair and

[48:31] possibly repairing it. if if we decide

[48:33] to approve that that I throw that one

[48:34] out there. Um 4 point um or our other

[48:37] recommendation was to approve the 2026

[48:40] hot mix asphalt proposals. Um those are

[48:42] in the minutes from from the public

[48:44] works committee meeting. Um we also have

[48:47] a recommendation to award the

[48:48] engineering design contract for the

[48:50] North 28th Street grade separation

[48:52] project and that would go to to SRF

[48:55] consulting group. um public works was uh

[48:58] lucky enough to u um to go out find

[49:01] whatever but to be awarded um a uh 2.4

[49:04] million dollar grant um to look at this

[49:09] um possible design at 28th Street. The

[49:12] big one um looking at that is um the

[49:16] possibility of a viadok um over over the

[49:19] railroad tracks there. Um this grant

[49:22] came with an 8020 match. um 80% feds,

[49:27] 20% from the city. The railroads um

[49:29] kicked in half of the city match um on

[49:33] that. Um this has the possibility of

[49:36] being a critical um transportation hub

[49:40] um as far as smoothing out uh traffic

[49:43] congestion there along those. So, we

[49:46] look for your recommendation on that or to approve that. And then uh lastly

[49:51] um the the committee recommends that a

[49:55] uh resolution be published uh for a

[49:57] referendum question to be placed on the

[49:59] April 2027 ballot. Uh the question is

[50:02] related to the city reclaiming the water

[50:04] utility um from Superior Water, Light

[50:06] and Power. Um this follows the uh

[50:09] process under Wisconsin state statute

[50:11] that uh lays out the whole whole thing

[50:14] for the process of reclamation.

[50:17] um under state law that uh this res this

[50:21] resolution must be passed to be

[50:23] published um at this meeting and then

[50:25] also be voted on at at a subsequent

[50:28] meeting um be before getting on the

[50:31] ballot. That that is the state um law

[50:34] for um referendums. Um, this also

[50:38] follows the uh proc the reclamation

[50:40] process like I stated under state

[50:42] statute that in order to get a hearing

[50:45] um before the Wisconsin public service

[50:47] commission which would set set the price

[50:49] in stone that there needs to be a

[50:52] successful referendum. Um that was my

[50:56] report. I can answer any questions. I

[50:58] will um allow the clerk to read

[51:01] everything individually. Thank you.

[51:05] >> 7.2.1 2.1 is to wave the bidding

[51:07] requirements for the repair of the SS

[51:10] Meteor's cracked hole and award the work

[51:12] to Fraser shipyards in the amount of

[51:14] $29,900.

[51:16] >> Motion to approve second.

[51:17] >> The motion's by Council Dean, the second

[51:19] by councelor Elm. Is there discussion?

[51:21] Hearing none, all those in favor, please

[51:23] signify by saying I.

[51:24] >> I.

[51:24] >> Those opposed say no. Motion carries.

[51:27] >> 7.2.2 is to approve the 2026 hotmix

[51:31] asphalt proposals.

[51:32] >> Motion to approve a second.

[51:33] >> Motion's by council the dean. the second

[51:35] by councelor Elm. Is there discussion

[51:38] hearing? None. All those in favor,

[51:39] please signify by saying I.

[51:41] >> Those opposed say no. The motion

[51:42] carries. 7.2.3 is to award the

[51:46] engineering design contract for the

[51:47] North 28th Street grade separation

[51:49] project to SRF Consulting Group in an

[51:52] amount not to exceed 2,464,37.

[51:57] » Motion to approve.

[51:59] >> Second.

[51:59] >> Motion's by councelor Dean. Second by

[52:01] councelor Moffett. Is there discussion?

[52:03] Uh I'm not sure. The public works

[52:05] committee noticed that this was

[52:06] originally as uh part of priorities

[52:08] based budgeting. Uh this in order to

[52:10] advance the project and getting get it

[52:12] moving. This is no longer a part of

[52:13] priorities based budgeting. If you

[52:14] approve this tonight, it's going to have

[52:16] to be in the 2027 budget. So you'd be

[52:19] your first budget allocation. Discussion

[52:21] or questions?

[52:25] Councelor Sweeney. Um, I have a question

[52:28] on the um

[52:31] a couple questions actually on the

[52:33] sending [clears throat] it over to the

[52:35] uh public service commission. First of

[52:38] all, on this uh vote, is this a bind is

[52:40] this a binding?

[52:41] >> Uh I'm sorry, council. We're still on

[52:42] the uh the previous

[52:44] >> without that.

[52:46] >> Okay. Further discussion on the award

[52:48] for 28th Street grade separation

[52:51] project, which is a potential vioaduct

[52:53] on 28th Street hearing. Uh, councelor

[52:56] Herring.

[52:57] >> Uh, just to clarify for my own

[52:59] knowledge, the 24 million is the total

[53:02] overall project and not just the design.

[53:06] >> No, this is design. Uh, the the or

[53:10] sorry,

[53:11] >> this is only design. So, the the project

[53:13] will be most likely tens of millions of

[53:15] dollars.

[53:16] >> Okay. And where is all that money coming

[53:18] from then? That's part of just the the

[53:20] 8020

[53:21] >> with 10% coming out of us.

[53:23] >> Yeah, it's actually 9010. we pay 10% uh

[53:27] the uh because it is an 8020 award but

[53:30] the BNSF is covering half of our match

[53:34] that's why it's 9010 uh the rest would

[53:37] have to come from the capital

[53:38] improvement fund and so that's what I

[53:39] mean when I say that will have to be

[53:41] allocated if we approve this tonight we

[53:42] must allocate it uh from that budget

[53:47] >> thank you

[53:48] >> any uh council lady

[53:49] >> if I could just clarify um or or or ask

[53:52] a question for you to ask councelor I

[53:54] think he was looking at if we were going

[53:56] to build the VIA doc, where would those

[53:58] tens of millions of dollars come from

[54:01] for that?

[54:02] >> Oh, who knows? The uh uh that that is

[54:05] not determined. So, this uh we did not

[54:07] lead on this project. Uh the it's

[54:10] largely the railroad that wants to see

[54:13] this happen. As as everybody here knows,

[54:15] 28th Street has a number of rail

[54:17] crossings and uh the railroad as a whole

[54:21] does not like crossing streets. creates

[54:24] a lot of problems and inefficiencies for

[54:26] them and of course for all of us as

[54:28] well. The only solution that works for

[54:30] everybody is to uh they would prefer to

[54:32] just eliminate the crossings as in close

[54:35] 28th Street. That's obviously not

[54:37] acceptable to us. So the only real

[54:40] compromise is what the city's done twice

[54:41] before a vioaduct over 28th Street.

[54:44] They're very interested in pursuing that

[54:46] but we're still years out. the the

[54:48] design and engineering will take a very

[54:50] long time and then if they want to p if

[54:53] they want to move forward the city will

[54:55] almost certainly have to be a part of

[54:56] that project. Uh but there's no world

[54:59] where we would be able to fund the

[55:00] entire project. So the railroad is going

[55:02] to have to continue to be a major

[55:04] partner in this project. Uh so we'll as

[55:08] time goes on if it looks like a feasible

[55:10] project uh which I mean hey we're

[55:13] spending a significant amount of money

[55:14] just to study it. So, you know, when you study it, you hope that it's

[55:18] going to move forward, but we're going

[55:20] to need quite a bit of financial

[55:21] partnership here. So, I would hope that

[55:23] in addition to what the railroad's going

[55:25] to cover, as time goes on, we get some

[55:27] participation from uh uh maybe our state

[55:30] government as well, but obviously no

[55:32] guarantees and this is not budgeted yet.

[55:34] The final project is not budgeted. Okay,

[55:37] further questions or discussion?

[55:40] Hearing none, all those in favor, please

[55:42] signify by saying I.

[55:43] >> Those opposed say no. The motion

[55:45] carries.

[55:46] >> Item 7.2.4 is to publish a resolution

[55:50] relating to the water utility

[55:52] acquisition

[55:53] >> to approve.

[55:54] >> Uh the motion is by councelor Dean,

[55:56] second by councelor Moffett. We have

[55:57] several folks signed up for public

[55:58] comment. Uh as I introduce public

[56:00] comment, I wanted to offer a little bit

[56:02] more uh introduction in addition to

[56:06] chair lean's introduction mostly to

[56:08] explain the process so everybody knows

[56:10] what we're doing here. Uh publishing a

[56:12] resolution is going to be new to almost

[56:14] everybody here, but it's not a terribly

[56:16] strange concept. You'll notice many uh

[56:19] of our state and federal grant programs

[56:22] along with several other things require

[56:24] us to hold public hearings on uh certain

[56:26] items. And many of you will remember we

[56:28] will take a vote here at this council to

[56:31] set a public hearing at the next council

[56:34] meeting. So we'll have a resolution in

[56:35] front of us, we'll set the public

[56:36] hearing. This is a similar process. So,

[56:39] what's on the agenda tonight is the

[56:41] publication of this resolution that is

[56:44] in your packet. We uh you are not able

[56:47] to adopt this resolution tonight. The

[56:49] state statute does not allow that. All

[56:51] you're voting on is to take whether this

[56:54] language will get published for the uh

[56:58] public to see so that you may take

[57:00] action at uh at on September 1st at the

[57:05] earliest. It has to be noticed for at

[57:07] least a week. So, what is possible

[57:10] tonight is if there's something about

[57:11] this resolution that you see needs to be

[57:14] changed, and I'll have at least one

[57:16] suggestion, now would be the time to do

[57:19] that because in the future, if we make

[57:21] changes later, that will trigger another

[57:24] publication. So, any changes after

[57:27] tonight will automatically postpone the

[57:30] resolution. So, uh the I I want to thank

[57:32] the public works committee for working

[57:33] on this for months. uh the and uh

[57:37] spending quite a bit of time even in the

[57:38] last meeting making sure this language

[57:40] felt correct. But before I turn it over

[57:42] to the council, I'd like to invite the

[57:44] public to speak. So how this is in in a

[57:46] moment, I'm going to invite up Cody

[57:49] Strem. How this will work is you will

[57:51] have three minutes and no more than 3

[57:53] minutes. That is a rigorously enforced

[57:55] rule. So, I will give you a 30 second

[57:57] warning when your time is about to

[58:00] expire and then it's a hard stop at 3

[58:02] minutes unless the city council takes

[58:04] action to extend the time. Uh, which

[58:07] they rarely do, but counselors, as

[58:10] always, I would encourage you if you

[58:12] want to take action to extend time,

[58:14] please do so unifor uh uniformly. So, if

[58:17] somebody gets a little extra time,

[58:19] everybody should get the same amount of

[58:20] extra time. Uh, that's my opinion

[58:22] anyways. Although I would point out on

[58:24] the whole three minutes has uh typically

[58:26] worked. I see

[58:30] seven people signed up to speak but I

[58:32] will also call afterwards.

[58:35] I'm sorry six people signed up to speak

[58:37] on this but I'll also call afterwards if

[58:38] somebody changes their mind and would

[58:40] like to approach the podium. So unless

[58:42] there are questions or objections I'm

[58:45] going to move forward with the first

[58:46] speaker who will be Corey Strem. Uh,

[58:50] please approach the podium. Uh, um,

[58:52] state your address for us, please.

[58:55] The button, uh, looks like a person

[58:57] speaking. It's the third from the left.

[58:59] There you go.

[59:01] >> Um, I live in 11658 South Hillside

[59:04] Street in Solen Springs.

[59:06] I'm not a resident of Superior. I'm an

[59:08] employee of Superior Water and Light and

[59:10] I have been for over two decades. And

[59:13] what I'm going to speak today is uh with

[59:17] this trying to take over the water for

[59:21] the city. It's really going after our

[59:23] livelihoods as workers.

[59:26] It's gambling with my pension. All of

[59:28] our pensions over the next so many years

[59:31] could all be gone.

[59:33] Um, you nobody in here has ever come by

[59:36] to once talk to a worker, never been to

[59:38] the water plant, never stopped and

[59:40] talked to a person to ask how we like

[59:42] working for Spir Light and Power because

[59:44] every single one of us would say we love

[59:46] it. It's we're treated fair, we're

[59:48] treated right, and we're paid for our

[59:50] jobs. I've spent many nights out there

[59:52] working endless hours and storms and

[59:54] rain to miss family vacations, sporting

[59:58] events, concerts to put the power,

[1:00:01] water, gas back on for the people of

[1:00:03] Superior and my company shows a lot of

[1:00:06] appreciation for that. Nobody in here

[1:00:08] has done anything to talk to anybody

[1:00:10] about taking over this company and

[1:00:12] people are being impacted all over the

[1:00:14] place.

[1:00:16] Um,

[1:00:17] secondly, uh,

[1:00:20] working for the city, you lose all your

[1:00:22] union rights. There's no bargaining. Uh,

[1:00:24] it's a big thing. We're pretty IBW31.

[1:00:27] We're a very strong union and, uh, we

[1:00:31] stick together and the company has a

[1:00:32] really good relationship with our union.

[1:00:35] We've been in Spear for 137 years. Does

[1:00:38] anybody in here know what a water boil

[1:00:41] is? Water boil notice.

[1:00:43] >> We can't take questions. No. Okay. What

[1:00:46] a water boil is is when a pipe is, say a

[1:00:50] main blows and doesn't get put back

[1:00:51] together, right? No sectionalized, none

[1:00:53] of that. Contaminations get in your

[1:00:55] water.

[1:00:57] And everybody has to boil their water to

[1:00:59] use it. That's never happened once in

[1:01:02] the 130 years water and lights been

[1:01:04] here. People in Two Harbors are going

[1:01:06] through that right now. They cannot

[1:01:08] drink their water. So, a lot comes. It's

[1:01:10] not just as easy as turning your faucet

[1:01:12] on.

[1:01:14] Um, we have a a president for our

[1:01:16] company, not a CEO like you've stated a

[1:01:18] thousand times, who comes back and sits

[1:01:21] and talks to us employees. Comes in,

[1:01:24] sits down, asks us how we're doing, asks

[1:01:26] us if he can do anything to help us out.

[1:01:29] He cares for us a lot. And I don't get

[1:01:32] that from the same from the city

[1:01:33] workers.

[1:01:33] >> 30 seconds, please.

[1:01:34] >> And uh let's see what else. Uh, well, the

[1:01:39] workers the workers aren't going to

[1:01:41] happily want to come in and work for a

[1:01:43] place that's been bashing them for

[1:01:44] months, bashing the company that we work

[1:01:47] for, that we take pride in working for,

[1:01:49] and then you expect people to come in

[1:01:51] and just work for the city like nothing

[1:01:53] happened. Thanks.

[1:01:56] >> Thank you. Up next is Joe Stencland.

[1:02:09] Hi. Uh, I'm Joe Stenland, local

[1:02:11] resident. Uh, 5631 Banks Avenue is my

[1:02:14] address. Um, I'd like to thank Corey for

[1:02:18] speaking up on his behalf. I think

[1:02:20] perspective is always interesting and

[1:02:22] such an issue as this because there's

[1:02:24] there are good questions, there are good

[1:02:28] um curiosities, there are um good things

[1:02:32] to consider with this. And I think at

[1:02:34] this particular point in time um I think

[1:02:36] there are several camps um you know some

[1:02:39] people don't want to see anything done

[1:02:41] some people want to leave things the way

[1:02:42] they are. Some people don't know enough

[1:02:44] don't what know whether it's yes or no

[1:02:47] in speaking with others and attending

[1:02:49] some of the um local uh workshops and

[1:02:53] discussions. Um, I learned a lot and I

[1:02:56] think it was very valuable and I'd like

[1:02:58] to thank the Superior Community

[1:03:00] Coalition for hosting their events and

[1:03:02] for the city hosting their events

[1:03:03] because each side is pretty passionate

[1:03:05] about what they're doing. And I think

[1:03:07] that it's really really important to um

[1:03:09] for everybody to understand how that

[1:03:11] process is going to work. And only

[1:03:13] because I've attended those events do I

[1:03:15] understand that there is a process there

[1:03:16] just to get to the final number. And um

[1:03:19] to reiterate to the public and say this

[1:03:22] is what we're doing and when we get that

[1:03:24] number. Um

[1:03:26] what that means in terms of like

[1:03:28] actually deciding that because um it's

[1:03:30] really really important to inform people

[1:03:33] about where this is going. But once you

[1:03:35] trigger that process, once you trigger

[1:03:37] this to happen, uh because some people

[1:03:40] don't even want to see that, it's really important to make sure that

[1:03:44] people know what's going on in this

[1:03:45] process. And that was the main question

[1:03:47] that I had raised about this. Um and so

[1:03:51] I learn something new every time, but I

[1:03:53] also learn kind of, you know, like how

[1:03:55] personal this is for folks who are on

[1:03:57] that side of the bridge, you know, um

[1:03:59] working um for SWLP as well. So there's

[1:04:03] a lot I I like to consider with this

[1:04:05] issue as well. So just some things to

[1:04:07] consider. Thank you.

[1:04:09] >> Thank you. Next is Bill Fennessy.

[1:04:17] » Good evening, Mayor Payne, city

[1:04:18] councilors. Bill Fennessy, 52 Billings

[1:04:21] Lane. I'm here on behalf of Superior

[1:04:24] Community Coalition, a coalition of

[1:04:26] business, labor unions, and individuals

[1:04:28] who oppose the takeover. There's a huge

[1:04:31] price range on the table for this

[1:04:33] takeover. 58 million to 186 million.

[1:04:37] Mayor Payne and some counselors appear

[1:04:39] to want to approve unlimited taxpayer

[1:04:42] dollars to go through the PSC process to

[1:04:44] find out where the price tag lands. The

[1:04:47] number the PSC ultimately provides does

[1:04:50] not by any means represent all of the

[1:04:52] legal costs. As a former PSC

[1:04:54] commissioner told us, there are two

[1:04:55] rounds of legal appeals guaranteed under

[1:04:58] the law, each of which will take years.

[1:05:01] Fundamental questions have not been

[1:05:02] answered, including how much has already

[1:05:04] been spent on consultants and lawyers,

[1:05:06] and how much is expected to be spent

[1:05:08] throughout this contested takeover

[1:05:10] process. You have already spent hundreds

[1:05:12] of thousands of taxpayer dollars on this

[1:05:14] endeavor, and additional spending has

[1:05:16] already been budgeted. July 15th, the

[1:05:18] city shared that quote upfront legal

[1:05:20] costs, the city has a substantial legal

[1:05:22] fund already budgeted. End quote.

[1:05:25] Regardless if they are already in an

[1:05:26] existing account or not, they are

[1:05:28] taxpayer dollars.

[1:05:30] This is just the beginning of a very

[1:05:32] costly undertaking. The additional cost

[1:05:34] to taxpayers, including expensive

[1:05:35] outsourced attorney services combined

[1:05:37] with spending so far, will easily exceed

[1:05:39] half a million dollars and grow quickly

[1:05:41] from there. The city council should not

[1:05:44] approve the referendum tonight. Council

[1:05:46] has until January to put this on the

[1:05:47] April ballot if they feel the need to do

[1:05:50] so at that time. However, if you

[1:05:52] authorize this referendum, I ask that on

[1:05:54] behalf of all taxpayers, you require

[1:05:56] spending transparency.

[1:05:58] Something as simple as detailed

[1:05:59] reporting of spending to date and

[1:06:00] monthly reports of ongoing expenditures

[1:06:02] by category, including internal labor

[1:06:05] materials. Residents and counselors

[1:06:07] deserve opportunities to fully

[1:06:08] understand what is at stake with this

[1:06:10] referendum, not a public debate. So, in

[1:06:13] the Wisconsin tradition of strong

[1:06:14] council governance, the coalition will

[1:06:16] be hosting a series of community forums

[1:06:18] that will provide multiple opportunities

[1:06:20] for city councilors and residents to

[1:06:22] better understand the issue. Thank you.

[1:06:25] Next is Dean McCall.

[1:06:33] Initially

[1:06:35] had two points I was going to make, but

[1:06:37] I added a third one to this. to put a

[1:06:39] face to the name. I sent a lengthy email

[1:06:42] to all the counselors and the mayor. I

[1:06:44] got two responses. One from councelor

[1:06:46] Herring and very lengthy uh response

[1:06:49] from the mayor. Thank you for taking the

[1:06:51] time to respond regarding

[1:06:53] [clears throat] the resolution.

[1:06:55] I think you're missing the point on the

[1:06:57] wording of the resolution. It's not a

[1:07:00] question of what the city can can

[1:07:02] afford, [snorts]

[1:07:04] but the whole purpose of this exercise

[1:07:07] is that supposedly there will be lower

[1:07:10] rates that customers will pay. There's

[1:07:13] been no quantification of this. A

[1:07:16] promise to lower the rates needs to be

[1:07:19] incorporated into the resolution so that

[1:07:23] there is stated quantifiable

[1:07:26] information there.

[1:07:29] You don't know what the costs are going

[1:07:30] to be. You can't determine what the

[1:07:32] costs are going to be till you have a

[1:07:33] detailed business plan. Nothing's been

[1:07:35] done there. [clears throat]

[1:07:37] The rates have not been approved. You

[1:07:39] have no idea what the costs were going

[1:07:40] to be. But you need to tell the people

[1:07:43] are going to vote on this. You're going

[1:07:44] to have lower costs. Well, words don't

[1:07:46] matter. You have to have facts. You have

[1:07:49] to have data. You have to have analysis.

[1:07:52] This has not been done. And then how

[1:07:54] will the cost be paid? [clears throat]

[1:07:56] If I go to the restaurant and buy a

[1:07:59] meal, I am not going to be charged for

[1:08:02] somebody else's meal sitting next to me.

[1:08:05] But I live at one Whitebridge Drive. We

[1:08:08] have no wells and we have no water out

[1:08:10] there. We all have wells. Many, many

[1:08:12] people in the city have vacant lots.

[1:08:16] They're not customers of spare water

[1:08:18] light. So, should they have to pay for

[1:08:20] that other person's meal? No. It's just

[1:08:23] not fair. Why should you charge somebody

[1:08:27] else to pay for another customer? Yeah,

[1:08:29] there might be sa some savings, but it's

[1:08:32] still not right. You need to address

[1:08:34] who's going to pay what. This is

[1:08:38] important to consider. And also,

[1:08:41] as Bill Finennessy alluded to, as one

[1:08:44] wise attorney told me, this is going to

[1:08:47] be a litigator's dream. You can just

[1:08:50] imagine the attorneys just rubbing their

[1:08:53] hands and saying, "This is going to be

[1:08:56] great." Kaching, kaching, kaching as

[1:08:59] they're going to wrap up their

[1:09:01] attorney's bills. Not $100 an hour, not

[1:09:04] $200 an hour, maybe $500 an hour. Good

[1:09:07] attorneys, $1,000 bucks an hour. You

[1:09:10] need to all factor that in. And then

[1:09:12] when you're talking about budget choice,

[1:09:14] general fund choices, hopefully this

[1:09:16] will be an item on your general fund

[1:09:18] choice so you can rank how much you want

[1:09:20] to allocate the general fund to. The

[1:09:22] only fair way to deal with this is

[1:09:24] through having a special assessment to

[1:09:28] spare water light customers. Thank you.

[1:09:31] >> Thank you. Next is Kristen Rinskers.

[1:09:36] If I mispronounce anybody's name, please

[1:09:38] uh correct it when you come up.

[1:09:43] Thank you, mayor. That was perfect. So,

[1:09:46] Kristen Rinskers, 12691 Sunset Lane,

[1:09:49] Side Lake, Minnesota. My name is Kristen

[1:09:52] Rinskers, the business manager of IBW

[1:09:54] Local 31. I was elected by our members,

[1:09:57] including those at SWLP, to safeguard

[1:09:59] their rights, history, and futures. It

[1:10:02] is the ultimate honor to work for

[1:10:04] working people. And as elected

[1:10:06] officials, I imagine you understand that

[1:10:08] responsibility.

[1:10:09] Municipalization directly affects the

[1:10:12] people operating the system and the

[1:10:13] futures they believed they were earning

[1:10:15] through a lifetime of service. Rafelis

[1:10:18] assumes the city could operate the water

[1:10:19] system for the same amount SWLP assigns

[1:10:22] to the water operations. But SWLP is an

[1:10:25] integrated water, gas, and electric

[1:10:27] utility. Its costs are allocated among

[1:10:30] three utilities. They do not represent

[1:10:32] the cost of operating a standalone water

[1:10:34] utility. We estimate that 43 of our 50

[1:10:38] union members touch water. Our members

[1:10:40] work across multiple utilities and SWLP

[1:10:43] distributes their costs while making

[1:10:45] their skills and experience available to

[1:10:47] each utility. The city would only

[1:10:49] acquire the water. Yet Raelis provides

[1:10:52] no staffing numbers or labor costs.

[1:10:54] Historical spending by an integrated

[1:10:56] workforce is not a municipal staffing

[1:10:58] plan. There is no credible scenario in

[1:11:01] which a takeover benefits these

[1:11:03] employees. Under Wisconsin's Act 10,

[1:11:06] transferred employees would lose

[1:11:08] meaningful bargaining over health

[1:11:09] insurance, retirement benefits, hours,

[1:11:12] and working conditions. Their SWLP

[1:11:15] pension would stop acrewing and a

[1:11:16] separate state pension would begin. Two

[1:11:19] partial pensions do not equal one career

[1:11:21] pension. Rafellis calculated neither the

[1:11:24] loss nor the cost.

[1:11:26] suggestions that these employees could

[1:11:28] keep their union or negotiate a

[1:11:30] comparable city agreement are simply not

[1:11:32] true. Even if Act 10 disappeared

[1:11:34] tomorrow, no new agreement could

[1:11:36] recreate nearly 90 years of bargaining

[1:11:39] history. This campaign repeatedly points

[1:11:42] to Black Rockck as an imminent threat

[1:11:44] and casts a city takeover as the noble

[1:11:46] act that will save Superior. Despite

[1:11:49] knowing the company's partners, I do not

[1:11:51] know Black Rockck and respectfully,

[1:11:53] neither do most people invoking its

[1:11:55] name. It is not here. But I do know Rob,

[1:11:58] Jossi, and the SWLP leadership team.

[1:12:01] They are actual people working in this

[1:12:03] community. We call them, meet with them,

[1:12:06] and hold them accountable. I know

[1:12:08] Elite's leadership, including its CEO,

[1:12:10] whose commitment to putting people

[1:12:11] first, has been proven to us repeatedly.

[1:12:15] We do not blindly trust

[1:12:16] >> 30 seconds, please.

[1:12:18] >> Any owner or investor. Utilities should

[1:12:20] be regulated, and owners should be

[1:12:22] accountable. commitments should be

[1:12:24] enforced. As a union, we believe deeply

[1:12:27] in those principles. Major public

[1:12:30] decisions should be based on evidence

[1:12:31] and this takeover does not punish Black

[1:12:34] Rockck. Black Rockck will not lose its

[1:12:36] pension. Black Rockck will not lose its

[1:12:38] collective bargaining agreement, but we

[1:12:40] will. We appreciate your consideration

[1:12:43] and future communication. And I would

[1:12:46] love it if our SWLP local 31 members

[1:12:49] could stand.

[1:12:50] >> That is three minutes. Thank you.

[1:12:51] >> Thank you.

[1:12:55] would uh I'm sorry, Dan Olsson is next.

[1:13:05] Good evening, mayor, counselors. I am

[1:13:08] Dan Olsen, 6001 Avenue, lifelong

[1:13:11] resident of Superior, Wisconsin and a

[1:13:16] uh customer of Spear Water, Light and

[1:13:18] Power. I want to address the resolution

[1:13:21] that's in front of you. Hopefully,

[1:13:22] you've got it. And and I sent you all an

[1:13:24] email earlier today. I would uh ask that

[1:13:28] the council amend this resolution.

[1:13:31] The current language says the very last

[1:13:34] whereas whereas this resolution was

[1:13:37] published in the Superior Telegram at

[1:13:39] least one week prior to the regular

[1:13:41] meeting of the Superior City Council on

[1:13:43] September 1st, 2026

[1:13:46] and and moves on to the now. Therefore,

[1:13:50] I'd like the the amendment to read,

[1:13:54] "Whereas this resolution is published in

[1:13:57] the Superior Telegram at least one week

[1:14:00] prior to the regular meeting of the

[1:14:02] Superior City Council on September 1st,

[1:14:05] 2026 for further discussion.

[1:14:09] Now, I don't believe there's any harm in

[1:14:12] discussing this any further because this

[1:14:14] looks like it's going to go on a long

[1:14:15] ways. I know that there's a proposal to

[1:14:18] have this on the April ballot as a

[1:14:21] referendum. The deadline to get that

[1:14:23] onto the ballot is January 29th, 2027.

[1:14:28] We all know sitting here that there's

[1:14:31] going to be a lot more meetings. There's

[1:14:33] going to lot be a lot more discussion.

[1:14:36] So I would ask the motion maker and the

[1:14:39] person that seconded the motion to

[1:14:42] include

[1:14:43] this uh this change that I've made and

[1:14:46] the basic part of it is the word is from

[1:14:50] was published and adding the words for

[1:14:55] further discussion. Thank you.

[1:14:59] >> Thank you. Would anybody else like to

[1:15:01] speak to this item on the council?

[1:15:04] Please comport.

[1:15:14] Please state your name and address for

[1:15:15] us, please.

[1:15:16] >> My name is Jim Dolberg. I live at 16

[1:15:19] Shardy Drive here in [clears throat]

[1:15:21] Superior. I was born in Superior some 75

[1:15:24] years ago. And uh to be perfectly

[1:15:28] forthright here, I am a former Superior

[1:15:30] Water Light and Power Company employee.

[1:15:32] I worked there some 41 years ago. Um

[1:15:37] I would I'm speaking because I think the

[1:15:41] city seems to be trying to rush this

[1:15:43] thing. I don't know that I've got any

[1:15:45] answers on a couple questions that I

[1:15:48] have with regard to uh how this whole

[1:15:52] situation with the Wisconsin PUC affects

[1:15:54] the fact that the well is located in

[1:15:56] Minnesota.

[1:15:59] Also, I'm wondering what happens as I

[1:16:03] believe Superior Water Light and Power

[1:16:04] Company currently play pays

[1:16:07] state, federal, and local taxes on the

[1:16:11] water utility. What taxes will the city

[1:16:15] be paying when they take it over? That

[1:16:17] money is going to have to be made up

[1:16:18] from somewhere.

[1:16:21] as as was spoken earlier, one of the

[1:16:24] things you're doing is the the people

[1:16:26] that currently work at the water plant,

[1:16:28] even if you do hire them, they're going

[1:16:30] to lose union representation. It's very

[1:16:33] important to me. I've been a member of

[1:16:35] the IBW for 55 years. It's been very

[1:16:39] good to me.

[1:16:41] It has been very good to those employees

[1:16:43] that may be affected by this.

[1:16:48] Again, I think you're acting way too

[1:16:52] fast for this. I don't you you when I

[1:16:55] don't know when you will know what the

[1:16:58] actual cost will be. I don't know if

[1:17:00] there's a possibility for anybody to

[1:17:02] back out at that point for the city. I

[1:17:05] think that need that should be known

[1:17:07] before this is put before the people

[1:17:11] and and I ask the city councilors

[1:17:16] to consider if it ain't broke don't

[1:17:20] break it. Thank you.

[1:17:23] >> Thank you. Would anybody else like to

[1:17:25] speak in public comment?

[1:17:28] Would anybody else like to speak to this

[1:17:31] publication? Would anybody else like to

[1:17:34] speak to this resolution?

[1:17:37] Hearing none, I will proceed to council

[1:17:42] discussion. Again, councilors, we have a

[1:17:45] motion and a second. Uh first, I'm just

[1:17:49] going to open a general discussion and

[1:17:50] questions. I do have one potential

[1:17:53] change that I'll suggest in a moment

[1:17:54] though, but it's uh I think relatively

[1:17:56] minor. So, discussion. Councelor Hering.

[1:18:00] Um yeah, one of my big concerns um

[1:18:04] couple of them is one I feel we're

[1:18:06] moving too fast and we need to look at

[1:18:09] it. A rush thing usually means bad

[1:18:11] choices or it's not as good as it seems.

[1:18:14] So it's uh you're trying to make it go

[1:18:16] through. Um one of my biggest questions

[1:18:20] and a lot of the residents have been

[1:18:22] asking is what is our hard cut off for

[1:18:25] the spending? Um, I know what we can

[1:18:28] afford up to, but you know, if Raphelis

[1:18:32] came in at 58, are we saying if they

[1:18:34] come in, if the P

[1:18:37] the uh PUC or PSC comes in at 72? Is are

[1:18:42] we still there? Are we going to 100?

[1:18:44] Like, we need a number an exit plan

[1:18:47] before we start. That's all part of a

[1:18:49] business management plan. um we haven't

[1:18:52] I haven't seen in other things but with

[1:18:54] this price tag I feel that it really

[1:18:56] needs to to be there. Um and then the

[1:19:00] other one is as was brought up by uh one

[1:19:04] a couple of speakers is the people that

[1:19:07] don't currently have water or sewer. Um

[1:19:11] you know what how are they going to be

[1:19:13] affected? How are we going to pay? And

[1:19:15] before you say well it's only it's

[1:19:17] coming out of our rates and all that. We

[1:19:19] all pay storm water protection acts for

[1:19:23] no storm water protection and um for the

[1:19:26] water in the s the well and holding tank

[1:19:30] or septic customers. So and then of

[1:19:33] course we're paying already higher for

[1:19:34] wastewater dump fees. So you know that's

[1:19:38] granted now it's not a huge part of the

[1:19:40] city that deals with that but it's just

[1:19:42] main concerns that I haven't gotten

[1:19:44] answers for and the residents haven't

[1:19:47] either. Uh I believe you asked me two

[1:19:51] questions. The first of which is what's

[1:19:53] the cuto off number? Many uh many people

[1:19:55] at uh first there is there's no

[1:19:57] reasonable person that can say that this

[1:19:59] has been a rush process. We have been

[1:20:00] working on this for years. We've had

[1:20:02] multiple public meetings uh where we

[1:20:05] took questions from the public uh both

[1:20:07] in committee and we have ventured out

[1:20:10] into the public where I stayed for as

[1:20:12] long as everybody asked me to stay and I

[1:20:13] answered every question. Uh this

[1:20:15] referendum is in my experience I believe

[1:20:17] the third potential referendum front of

[1:20:19] the city. The the first two one was to

[1:20:22] allow ATVs on all of city streets. The

[1:20:25] other was to change the city government

[1:20:27] to make the mayor a part-time role. Both

[1:20:30] of those referendums went directly to

[1:20:32] council were immediately passed and

[1:20:34] placed on the ballot without even seeing

[1:20:37] committee. So this process has been

[1:20:39] probably more exhaustively studied than

[1:20:40] almost any other city issue. Uh, of

[1:20:43] course we have a long way ahead of us.

[1:20:45] This is not the completion of the

[1:20:46] process. This is merely the beginning.

[1:20:48] Everything until this point has been

[1:20:50] introduction. Uh, but the in terms of

[1:20:53] what is the cut off, what is the most we

[1:20:55] would pay? I've been asked that question

[1:20:57] a number of times and I've answered it a

[1:20:58] number of times with what my opinion is.

[1:21:00] I think you have all heard that answer.

[1:21:02] Most of you have been in attendance at least uh one of the uh uh public

[1:21:08] meetings that I have answered that at.

[1:21:10] And of course, I would answer any of you

[1:21:11] if if you want my opinion. But the fact

[1:21:13] is my opinion doesn't matter nearly as

[1:21:15] much as yours does. So I hope any

[1:21:17] counselor that has been asked that

[1:21:19] question has given an answer because it

[1:21:22] will be your duty to make that decision.

[1:21:24] If the number is too high in your

[1:21:27] opinion, then this does not move

[1:21:30] forward. Once we see the number from the

[1:21:32] public service commission, the city

[1:21:34] council determines whether that number

[1:21:37] is an uh is something that we can afford

[1:21:40] to pay and something that we should move

[1:21:42] forward with. The second is what is the

[1:21:44] impact on nonwater customers that are

[1:21:47] taxpayers within the city. They benefit

[1:21:49] as well. Uh everybody in the city

[1:21:50] benefits from this. Everybody in this

[1:21:53] city, every taxpayer pays water rates

[1:21:55] because the city of Superior itself owns

[1:21:58] several buildings including a uh several

[1:22:00] fireh halls and we have significant

[1:22:03] water bills at the city of Superior. So

[1:22:05] does Douglas County. So does the school

[1:22:07] district of Superior. All own buildings

[1:22:09] all pay the highest water rates in the

[1:22:12] state of Wisconsin. All of those costs

[1:22:14] are passed on to taxpayers. So I'm not

[1:22:17] promising a tax decrease because of

[1:22:19] water utility acquisition. uh the tax

[1:22:22] burden on the city of Superior, Douglas

[1:22:24] County, and the school district of

[1:22:25] Superior all go down once we eliminate

[1:22:29] or reduce uh those water fees. Uh we

[1:22:32] would still probably pay them to our own

[1:22:34] utility as we do with wastewater. Uh so,

[1:22:36] but they would go down and so everybody

[1:22:38] would experience that impact. And then

[1:22:40] finally, I just want to uh make a brief

[1:22:41] defense of uh the environmental services

[1:22:44] division. The entire city benefits from

[1:22:45] this uh storm water fund. The storm

[1:22:47] water fund does not just do storm water

[1:22:49] mitigation on private individual

[1:22:51] properties. It's preventing flooding for

[1:22:53] uh throughout the entire city and so it

[1:22:55] uh creates significant facilities that

[1:22:57] help offload water that would otherwise

[1:23:00] wash out roads and cause significant

[1:23:01] property damage. So everybody is

[1:23:03] benefiting from that. Uh I hope I've

[1:23:05] answered those questions. I will move to

[1:23:06] councelor Anderson

[1:23:08] or I'm sorry I'm sorry. Councelor

[1:23:09] Hering, I'm going to recognize you still

[1:23:10] have the floor if you'd like to respond.

[1:23:12] >> Yeah. What was your number just for the

[1:23:14] record of what you would go to for the

[1:23:17] purchase?

[1:23:18] >> So the the city's debt capacity is 138

[1:23:21] million. That is the max that we can

[1:23:23] take out at any given time. What that

[1:23:25] capacity is at the point that uh at the

[1:23:29] point that we would be in a position to

[1:23:31] take out the bond is a moving number

[1:23:33] because the city's financial health has

[1:23:35] been growing steadily. so that uh our

[1:23:37] potentially upper end number grows with

[1:23:41] the financial health of the city. That

[1:23:43] said, at this point, I think anything

[1:23:46] under roughly

[1:23:48] $100 million as long as it was financed

[1:23:52] by a revenue bond, which this would be,

[1:23:54] and as long as it was only paying for uh

[1:23:56] the existing fair market value, uh which

[1:23:59] it would be, that's all it would be. Uh

[1:24:01] that would be a financial asset to the

[1:24:03] city. It would be financially beneficial

[1:24:05] if the sale were today, but again, time

[1:24:08] changes that question most likely for

[1:24:10] the positive.

[1:24:12] >> Thank you.

[1:24:13] >> Councelor Anderson, did you still have a

[1:24:15] question?

[1:24:16] >> Yep. I just have two questions. Well, it

[1:24:18] might be bad. Maybe I have three, but

[1:24:20] the first question, um, how much has the

[1:24:22] city already spent on, um, consulting

[1:24:25] and attorney fees? I believe we have uh

[1:24:29] I believe the initial raft talis

[1:24:31] appraisal was about $150,000.

[1:24:34] Counselors might remember that more than

[1:24:35] I will. Uh attorneys fees a few thousand

[1:24:38] for uh consultancies. In fact, that will

[1:24:40] be a bill that as that we'll be

[1:24:42] presenting to you or a a retainer that

[1:24:44] will present you with more outlined

[1:24:47] legal costs for the next few months. And

[1:24:48] then we'll probably re-evaluate that if

[1:24:50] and when the referendum passes uh to

[1:24:53] come up with a broad legal strategy for

[1:24:57] uh uh the contested case hearing. The

[1:25:00] reason it's small now is because right

[1:25:01] now we're just getting advice like how

[1:25:03] to form a question like this. What is

[1:25:05] the uh process? We're learning and our

[1:25:07] attorneys are functioning as a little

[1:25:08] more than legal teachers right now. when

[1:25:12] we go into a contested case hearing

[1:25:13] that's much more involved but that's

[1:25:15] something that you know many communities

[1:25:17] have been a part of before these are

[1:25:20] common thing contested case hearings

[1:25:21] while they don't usually involve the

[1:25:23] acquisition of entire water utility they

[1:25:25] are common events at the PSC so uh I I

[1:25:27] do imagine a a bill but right now it's

[1:25:31] not I I don't believe it's much higher

[1:25:33] than that consultant fee

[1:25:36] >> councelor

[1:25:38] I have one more question

[1:25:39] >> oh I'm sorry please councelor Anderson

[1:25:40] >> um how much do anticipate the city will

[1:25:42] be spending to go through the process of

[1:25:45] acquiring the utility?

[1:25:47] >> That's hard to say exactly, but it is uh

[1:25:50] certainly narrower than some of the

[1:25:51] numbers you've seen. I think uh you've

[1:25:53] seen numbers as high as like 15 million,

[1:25:55] which it won't be that. Uh the Wisconsin

[1:25:57] process only allows a contested case

[1:25:59] hearing first, followed by a right to an

[1:26:02] appeal. So, uh there is a limited amount

[1:26:05] of time that can take. It's tough for me

[1:26:07] to put a specific number on that, but

[1:26:09] when we bring a firm's retainer, a not

[1:26:12] to exceed uh uh could probably be

[1:26:15] negotiated. Uh but I do expect there

[1:26:17] will be a real legal bills. I'm not

[1:26:20] going to pretend that there aren't.

[1:26:21] Obviously, this is a litigated process

[1:26:23] and so I think it is reasonable.

[1:26:28] Do you want to dare venture a guess?

[1:26:30] >> I do not.

[1:26:32] >> Uh [snorts]

[1:26:33] yeah, I better not either. I think um I

[1:26:37] looked at a city that's spent in a much

[1:26:40] more hostile state to this process. A

[1:26:44] state that does not allow cities to

[1:26:46] automatically acquire their water

[1:26:47] utilities. In fact, requires a much more

[1:26:49] extensive legal process. I saw that city

[1:26:52] recently spent $4 million on legal fees.

[1:26:55] So, call that an upper number. Uh that

[1:26:57] then would of course uh uh be placed on

[1:27:00] the rates at the point of acquisition.

[1:27:02] So that's that's all factored into the

[1:27:04] transition.

[1:27:04] >> Can I ask one more,

[1:27:05] >> please?

[1:27:06] >> Okay. So in the I I'm going to say it

[1:27:08] wrong. The Rafa Tillis study it says

[1:27:10] that utility will be paid entirely by

[1:27:13] revenue bonds I think is what you've

[1:27:15] said. But on the resolution it says um

[1:27:18] that you want to authorize or we want to

[1:27:21] authorize general obligation and revenue

[1:27:24] bonds as well.

[1:27:26] >> Yes. Uh I I added uh general obligation

[1:27:29] bonds mostly to preserve the flexibility

[1:27:31] of the council. Ultimately that's a

[1:27:33] council decision. Rafelis would almost

[1:27:35] certainly recommend revenue bonds. Our

[1:27:37] bond adviserss would almost certainly

[1:27:39] recommend revenue bonds and I'm very

[1:27:41] highly to recommend revenue bonds but uh

[1:27:44] I don't want to leave financial options

[1:27:48] on the table. when we come to make a

[1:27:50] large capital purchase especially one

[1:27:52] this large you are always advised by

[1:27:55] your bond adviserss so you're not

[1:27:56] looking for advice from me or Rafelis

[1:27:59] you're looking for advice largely from

[1:28:01] Ellers for how to structure that and

[1:28:02] what that would really that the I don't

[1:28:05] imagine a world as I just said where

[1:28:07] general obligation bonds are a better

[1:28:08] bet but there are some scenarios where

[1:28:12] you could structure it in a way that the

[1:28:14] interest might be beneficial uh in the

[1:28:16] shorter or long term so but I'm I'm not

[1:28:19] capable of giving that advice right now.

[1:28:21] The point of adding that in there was to

[1:28:22] preserve options in the long term.

[1:28:25] Any further council?

[1:28:29] Excuse [clears throat] me. Um, as far as

[1:28:32] I understand it, this proposed

[1:28:34] referendum is non-binding.

[1:28:37] Um, I think a little time needs to be

[1:28:39] spent on explaining this process.

[1:28:43] citizens. I think there's some maybe

[1:28:45] confusion. A lot of referendums that are

[1:28:47] put out there have a dollar amount on

[1:28:49] it. So, it's like is this the cart

[1:28:52] before the horse? So, but Wisconsin

[1:28:55] state statute is clear from section uh

[1:28:58] 197.02. It's action by municipalities to

[1:29:02] acquire the utility. The first step is

[1:29:04] the referendum of vote of electors. This

[1:29:07] helps determine u the majority of

[1:29:09] electors do we move forward. Then if

[1:29:12] required the circuit court determines a

[1:29:15] necessity proceeding. This brings the

[1:29:17] action concerning the nec necessity of

[1:29:20] the taking. Uh number three there's a

[1:29:23] notice to the PSC. Uh the municipality

[1:29:27] gives notice to the utility and the PSC

[1:29:30] and that's under section 197.03.

[1:29:33] Then uh the PSC has a valuation

[1:29:36] proceeding

[1:29:38] and then it goes to the PSC to do to

[1:29:40] determine the price. It's my

[1:29:43] understanding that once that price is

[1:29:45] determined, there's still 60 days that

[1:29:48] the city could back out. It's just I

[1:29:50] think if you could spend a little more

[1:29:52] time on that process to clarify maybe

[1:29:55] any confusion that's out there. Sure. I

[1:29:58] have some follow-up questions.

[1:29:59] >> Yeah, sure. I I think you did a very

[1:30:01] good job, counselor, of describing it.

[1:30:03] Um, working backwards, I would make a

[1:30:04] very minor correction. It's not so much

[1:30:07] that the city has 60 days to back out.

[1:30:10] The city has 60 days to produce the

[1:30:13] payment. And so, the city actually has

[1:30:15] to take overt action within that 60

[1:30:17] days. So, we would have to work pretty

[1:30:19] hard to even be prepared to do that.

[1:30:21] Now, obviously, we're going to prepare

[1:30:23] months and months in advance of that,

[1:30:26] have that prepared. The default is

[1:30:29] actually not to do it. The city has to

[1:30:31] approve this multiple times along the

[1:30:33] way and the council can back out at any

[1:30:36] point. Uh however, before engaging in a

[1:30:39] process this large, the uh uh the

[1:30:43] statute as you mentioned requires the

[1:30:45] electors to authorize it to move

[1:30:48] forward. So as you said correctly, we

[1:30:50] cannot get the number from the PSC

[1:30:54] beforehand. But there is one thing I

[1:30:56] want to clarify. It would be I agree

[1:30:58] with those that say it would be

[1:30:59] irresponsible to go forward blind. We

[1:31:03] should get a sense of what this cost.

[1:31:06] That's why we spent $150,000

[1:31:08] for an appraisal. And one of the uh

[1:31:11] things that I confess to being a little

[1:31:13] amusing in this process has been an

[1:31:16] effort to pretend as though the Raftelis

[1:31:18] report was not accurate or that there

[1:31:19] are two competing appraisals out there.

[1:31:21] are not. There is only one

[1:31:23] appraisal out there. Uh there was

[1:31:26] another number released at something

[1:31:27] like 187 million that was not an

[1:31:29] appraisal that did not use evidence uh produced that was publicly available

[1:31:34] at the PSC. It did not use professional

[1:31:36] appraisal standards and it is not

[1:31:39] admissible in a contested case hearing.

[1:31:42] Our appraisal is admissible and all of

[1:31:44] you were there for this process council.

[1:31:45] Well, most of you uh so I don't know

[1:31:47] that I have to remind you but Rafelis

[1:31:51] was selected in a competitive process by

[1:31:53] this council and the mission that we

[1:31:56] gave Rafelis was to give us an unbiased

[1:31:59] number. So you know I did not select

[1:32:00] Rafelis you did and you specifically

[1:32:03] asked for the real number. You hired

[1:32:06] that firm to give you an accurate number

[1:32:07] not a lowball number. We also looked for

[1:32:11] uh a highly respected and qualified firm

[1:32:13] and we checked their work in the past.

[1:32:16] So, Rafelis has a long history of

[1:32:18] producing professional appraisals and

[1:32:21] they are largely accurate. They're uh so

[1:32:24] they've been proven correct over and over again. So unless for some

[1:32:28] reason they're just lying or uh uh

[1:32:31] trying to manipulate this process and

[1:32:33] risking their entire professional

[1:32:35] reputation, I imagine that number that

[1:32:37] $58 million number is as accurate as

[1:32:41] every other appraisal they have they

[1:32:42] have conducted. So we have done that due

[1:32:45] diligence. That is the most likely and

[1:32:48] the most accurate number. That does not

[1:32:51] mean it will be the number. We uh when

[1:32:53] we go to the PSC there will uh there is a long process where we we

[1:32:57] debate this. Superior waterline power

[1:32:59] gets to present evidence. So do we. Uh

[1:33:01] Rafelis will pre present their argument.

[1:33:04] Uh and then time will also pass the the

[1:33:06] value of that asset u may have changed.

[1:33:10] They may they have they are likely to

[1:33:12] have added to the value of that asset or

[1:33:14] other elements may have depreciated by

[1:33:15] the time we get to the PSSE. So this is

[1:33:18] the beginning of the process. This is

[1:33:19] what the statute requires. I I hope I

[1:33:21] didn't talk too long there, but I think

[1:33:23] you kind of asked me to explain a link.

[1:33:24] Uh follow-ups, please.

[1:33:26] >> And again, if the referendum fails, none

[1:33:30] of those steps happen beyond that. This

[1:33:32] is done.

[1:33:33] >> That is correct.

[1:33:34] >> So, I think that's uh there's a lot of

[1:33:36] phases to that. And personally, I'm not

[1:33:38] comfortable not putting the referendum

[1:33:40] to ballot cuz going through this

[1:33:43] process, uh, I would not want to inhibit

[1:33:45] the voice of the citizens on how we want

[1:33:48] to move forward. Uh, I know there's a

[1:33:50] lot of details I still need to learn.

[1:33:52] I've been going to almost every meeting

[1:33:53] I can to learn about this uh, and make

[1:33:56] the right decision. Uh, there's a lot

[1:33:58] impacted and a lot at stake here. Uh,

[1:34:01] but this is the survey that's

[1:34:03] non-binding that uh, would help us move

[1:34:05] forward. Um, back to uh Dan Olsen's uh

[1:34:10] modification request. Uh um I'm Can can

[1:34:14] you help guide us through that request?

[1:34:18] I I'm not seeing the merit of adding

[1:34:20] discussion when each agenda item can be

[1:34:23] discussed anyway. Am I mistaken by that

[1:34:25] or did I miss something?

[1:34:27] >> No, you were correct. I believe

[1:34:29] conceivably that would be out of order

[1:34:31] because amendments cannot do the same a

[1:34:34] motion can't do the same thing as

[1:34:36] nothing and so you're correct this when

[1:34:38] this comes back to the council it is

[1:34:40] discussion is automatically allowed you

[1:34:42] know this is Robert's rules of order so

[1:34:45] uh this will be discussed at uh when it

[1:34:48] comes back to council um I also disagree

[1:34:50] with changing the tense of the sentence

[1:34:53] uh this was uh written largely by our

[1:34:56] attorney's office and uh the past tense

[1:34:59] was published will this will be past

[1:35:02] tense at the point you approve it. So

[1:35:05] you write resolutions so that they are

[1:35:08] grammatically correct at the moment

[1:35:11] after they are passed. So that's that's

[1:35:13] why that's in the past tense. Just a

[1:35:15] minor grammar point but I I agree with

[1:35:17] the original author here.

[1:35:19] >> Thank you.

[1:35:21] >> Further discussion from councelor

[1:35:22] Sweeney.

[1:35:24] My first uh is going to be a statement.

[1:35:26] Um

[1:35:28] what we do today seriously affects

[1:35:30] tomorrow and what we bond for today

[1:35:33] seriously affects what we do in future

[1:35:36] years be it this large amount. We are um

[1:35:40] perhaps um the word crippling is too

[1:35:44] strong a word, but we are certainly uh

[1:35:46] holding back some future capital

[1:35:49] expenditures if we're going to come

[1:35:51] close to our uh loan amount. Okay.

[1:35:57] And so

[1:35:59] this amount that the companies come up

[1:36:01] with spare water light has another

[1:36:02] number

[1:36:04] is this figure that with whatever that

[1:36:07] figure is is this for capital only.

[1:36:11] No, there are a few other elements such

[1:36:13] as going concern built into it. It's generally

[1:36:17] the statute calls for a payment of the

[1:36:20] fair market value of those assets

[1:36:23] necessary and convenient and uh to the

[1:36:26] operation of the water utility and

[1:36:28] because this is uh it is not technically

[1:36:32] a condemnation process. It is its own

[1:36:35] process in the statute but many parts of

[1:36:37] it refer to the condemnation process. So

[1:36:39] we imagine there will be uh case law

[1:36:42] from condemnation

[1:36:44] applied to uh the the contested case

[1:36:47] hearing. So there are a few other

[1:36:48] elements to the value that Raph Talis

[1:36:51] has added in. So it's not just but what

[1:36:52] we are taking are the physical assets.

[1:36:55] Yes.

[1:36:55] >> Okay. So basically it may not be 100 but

[1:36:58] basically it's capital.

[1:37:00] >> Yes.

[1:37:00] >> Okay.

[1:37:02] And if we're the whatever the number is, that a turnkey amount? Then we can

[1:37:09] January one we start it's a turnkey.

[1:37:11] We've got all all the equipment, all the

[1:37:14] assets fixed and whatever that we can

[1:37:19] start operating a business with the

[1:37:21] correct capital as of the day we

[1:37:22] purchase that. Is that a fair statement?

[1:37:25] >> Uh that is that is fair. Yes. But uh we

[1:37:28] we've expressed that several times

[1:37:31] internally because it sounds a little

[1:37:33] bit extreme that just one day we own a

[1:37:35] we don't own a water utility and the

[1:37:36] next day we do. And however um the one

[1:37:41] other element of the statute is that the

[1:37:43] PSC also sets terms and conditions of

[1:37:46] the transition. So yes, it is turnkey.

[1:37:49] we get everything at the point of

[1:37:51] acquisition, but the PSC is also

[1:37:53] describing how that acquisition will

[1:37:55] work and a lot of that is negotiated.

[1:37:58] >> Okay. I'm thinking on the other side of

[1:37:59] the coin, I'm thinking it's while we

[1:38:02] purchased

[1:38:03] turnkey so-called, there's still more

[1:38:06] capital that must be for any more

[1:38:09] capital expenditures that is not on the

[1:38:11] table with this number.

[1:38:14] is that to our knowledge is this this is

[1:38:16] a turnkey deal and we in theory then if

[1:38:20] I hear what people are saying the day

[1:38:22] that January comes we turn key we we

[1:38:25] don't need to put another dollar into

[1:38:26] the capital to run this utility is that

[1:38:30] fair to say

[1:38:31] >> yes actually and I know that that sounds

[1:38:34] like a reach like there we should need

[1:38:36] other things but the statute's very

[1:38:38] clear it's all uh equipment and assets

[1:38:40] necessary and convenient to run the

[1:38:42] water utility and so yes it's We

[1:38:44] shouldn't need to put another dollar in

[1:38:46] until we do more infrastructure of

[1:38:48] course.

[1:38:48] >> No, I'm I'm saying that yep

[1:38:50] >> January 1st we started December 31st we

[1:38:53] don't own January 1st we own it. We have

[1:38:56] public service commission has deemed the

[1:38:58] mount that is to operate this with all

[1:39:00] capital needed

[1:39:01] >> to the same yes to the same degree that

[1:39:03] the current water utility is operating

[1:39:05] it. Yes.

[1:39:06] >> And then I've talked about this before

[1:39:09] but I I've yet to see an operating

[1:39:11] statement too. Okay. and and I think

[1:39:13] that's a extremely critical piece. In

[1:39:17] fact, in one of my um

[1:39:20] this I I suggested that we hire our

[1:39:23] accounting firm to look at these, okay,

[1:39:25] to put another set of eyes on that. I

[1:39:27] don't know whether that where that will

[1:39:28] go or it'll make it, but um I just think

[1:39:31] there's not enough I don't have enough

[1:39:33] information

[1:39:35] uh to vote on this one way or the other.

[1:39:38] I I just think there's too many um

[1:39:41] unknowns for me to support this at this

[1:39:44] time. I'm not saying I won't, but I uh

[1:39:47] it isn't what I know, it's what I don't

[1:39:49] know that always bothers me. I've said

[1:39:50] that enough times. So, um I'm extremely

[1:39:54] concerned that I just don't have enough

[1:39:56] information right now. Thank you.

[1:39:59] >> Further discussion,

[1:40:01] councelor Hick.

[1:40:03] >> Yeah, just a couple comments here. So

[1:40:05] for the PSC to look at this, it has to

[1:40:08] go to to the referendum. Correct.

[1:40:11] >> Yes. The next uh the next step is

[1:40:13] referendum followed by PSC. So for us to

[1:40:14] acquire more information that uh without

[1:40:17] spending money unnecessarily, the next

[1:40:20] step is to go to the PSC. That's where

[1:40:21] we answer a lot of the questions that

[1:40:23] have been asked. So in order to ask the

[1:40:26] questions that many people are to get

[1:40:28] the true and final answers to the

[1:40:30] questions that many folks are asking

[1:40:32] including several of you the public must

[1:40:35] approve a referendum.

[1:40:37] >> Okay. Then do we what would the cost be

[1:40:40] roughly from now let's say you know the

[1:40:42] people want us to go forward from now

[1:40:45] until it gets to the PSC. So what what I

[1:40:48] mean is there cost for the PSC to

[1:40:50] actually do this themselves or is there

[1:40:52] something I mean what costs are

[1:40:53] associated with that that process

[1:40:56] >> get to the PSC there's actually not much

[1:40:58] more cost so between now and the

[1:40:59] referendum there's not a lot left to

[1:41:01] spend uh this we have as I said before

[1:41:04] we've spent years acquiring this

[1:41:06] information learning about this process

[1:41:08] it's time to turn it over to the people

[1:41:09] there's not much more we can collect now

[1:41:11] the city council can continue to discuss

[1:41:13] this and evaluate it and if you want to

[1:41:14] be availed of more consultants or legal

[1:41:16] advice will absolutely provide that the

[1:41:19] uh but it between now and the referendum

[1:41:25] there shouldn't be much more cost once

[1:41:27] it [snorts] goes to the PSC that's

[1:41:29] what's called a contested case hearing

[1:41:30] that works a lot like a a trial in that

[1:41:33] there's evidence and witnesses and so

[1:41:35] then we would have legal fees that

[1:41:37] ultimately would be rolled into the cost

[1:41:40] of acquisition.

[1:41:41] >> Okay. So basically if we said yes we

[1:41:44] were interested then that's when

[1:41:45] >> Yes.

[1:41:46] >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you,

[1:41:50] >> Councelor Graskki.

[1:41:52] >> Okay. It's clear that there's going to

[1:41:54] be a lot of steps to this. I think

[1:41:55] that's what this council has been asking

[1:41:57] a lot. But this is a draft that we're

[1:42:00] voting on and let's say it approves

[1:42:02] tonight. The next meeting is when we

[1:42:05] vote to pass a referendum to be put on

[1:42:08] the ballot. Is that correct?

[1:42:09] >> That is correct.

[1:42:10] >> Thank you.

[1:42:12] [cough and clears throat]

[1:42:15] Uh, one of the most important things to

[1:42:16] council lady and and I think councelor

[1:42:20] her councelor Elm and councelor Graskki

[1:42:22] hit the nail right on the head before we

[1:42:25] move forward and um it's important we're

[1:42:28] not buying nothing tonight. We're not

[1:42:31] approving bonds.

[1:42:33] We're not looking at costs. The ultimate

[1:42:36] question is, do we publish this to where

[1:42:39] we come back next meeting and vote to

[1:42:42] put this on a referendum to let the

[1:42:44] people of Superior decide what they want

[1:42:48] to do to move forward? And that is where

[1:42:51] we are at in this process right now.

[1:42:54] That I fullheartedly

[1:42:58] agree with putting this to referendum

[1:43:00] and seeing what the people of Superior

[1:43:03] want to do with this. This is the

[1:43:05] process. I don't know what the cost is.

[1:43:08] None of us know what the cost is. The PSC won't give us a cost until after

[1:43:11] a referendum.

[1:43:13] But it is important that the citizens

[1:43:16] are involved. It's it is their utility.

[1:43:21] It is their water that they are paying

[1:43:24] for. It is them that have been paying

[1:43:28] the rates for years and it is their

[1:43:30] decision to make as far as where they

[1:43:33] want to go with that and they will have

[1:43:37] the ultimate choice in this. If it's a

[1:43:39] no, it's done and and then if it's a

[1:43:41] yes, then then we move forward. But I I

[1:43:44] do believe

[1:43:46] a res a referendum to allow the people

[1:43:49] to decide is always a right thing to do.

[1:43:54] I'll just point out at the next meeting

[1:43:56] that doesn't actually pass this either.

[1:43:58] The only the public can pass this. The

[1:44:00] uh if if this moves to the next meeting

[1:44:03] and uh the council adopts the

[1:44:05] resolution, it does not buy the water

[1:44:06] utility. It does not spend any money. It

[1:44:08] places a question on the ballot for the

[1:44:10] public to set the next steps for the

[1:44:13] public to weigh in. This council has

[1:44:15] discussed this for years. Uh it this is

[1:44:18] an opportunity for the people of

[1:44:20] Superior to have their say to determine

[1:44:22] if we should be spending this much time

[1:44:24] on it or if we should spend much more

[1:44:26] time on it. I think uh it's just their

[1:44:28] turn. Uh I think we have talked about it

[1:44:31] enough. It doesn't mean we have to stop

[1:44:32] talking about it. Of course, we'll keep

[1:44:34] talking about it and do everything we

[1:44:35] can to keep educating folks uh about

[1:44:38] this question, what it means. And that's

[1:44:41] why

[1:44:42] uh uh I wanted to bring this resolution

[1:44:45] now because setting the question now

[1:44:48] gives more time for the public to study

[1:44:51] that question, learn that it's coming,

[1:44:52] for it to be covered in the press, for

[1:44:54] folk to to trigger more questions, for

[1:44:57] more folks to get more answers.

[1:45:03] I would like to suggest

[1:45:06] two amendments. The first I think is

[1:45:09] relative. I don't think either of these

[1:45:10] are controversial. And so I am going to

[1:45:12] ask unanimous consent.

[1:45:15] I'm going to ask unanimous consent to

[1:45:17] make an amendment to this resolution.

[1:45:18] For those of you that don't know what

[1:45:19] that means, what that means is I believe

[1:45:21] that all 10 of you will easily agree

[1:45:23] with what I'm about to suggest. Uh

[1:45:26] councelor Cait, why don't you take the

[1:45:27] floor?

[1:45:28] >> Um I just had one uh question. um if

[1:45:31] this goes or when it goes to referendum,

[1:45:33] whatever that looks like, um you you

[1:45:36] know, we're talking about um you know,

[1:45:37] having our our uh citizens vote. Um what

[1:45:40] is the pass? Like is it like 50.1%

[1:45:45] like just curious um like looking at the scheme of of um the this journey um

[1:45:51] I'm just wondering for clarification's

[1:45:54] sake, what is the passing referendum?

[1:45:57] Actually, there's a part of that

[1:45:58] question I can't answer because 50% plus

[1:46:01] one passes. If there are

[1:46:04] 1,000 votes, 501 votes in favor, uh I'm

[1:46:10] sorry, if there are more yes votes than

[1:46:13] no votes, the plurality wins. Okay? So,

[1:46:16] if there are more yes votes than no

[1:46:17] votes, that passes. It doesn't have to

[1:46:19] be for 50% of the total vote. Uh I don't

[1:46:22] know what happens in a tie for a

[1:46:24] referendum. [snorts] Probably fails.

[1:46:26] My guts say fail right now. Yeah,

[1:46:28] without having researched,

[1:46:30] >> right? Ties happen in Superior,

[1:46:32] Wisconsin.

[1:46:34] >> I probably not in a citywide race, but

[1:46:37] that's a good question. Thank you for

[1:46:38] asking that. Did uh any anything

[1:46:40] further? Okay. So, as I was saying, I'm

[1:46:43] going to uh make request a motion by

[1:46:44] unanimous consent. What that means is I

[1:46:46] believe that what I'm about to suggest

[1:46:48] the entire council will agree with and

[1:46:51] therefore we don't need to have

[1:46:52] significant debate. Even though I'm

[1:46:53] talking it out right now, I want folks

[1:46:54] to It speeds things along in the future,

[1:46:56] even though I'm slowing it way down now.

[1:46:58] Uh, so all I'll do is I will request

[1:47:00] unanimous consent. I will say the

[1:47:03] amendment, describe it, and then I will

[1:47:05] ask, does anybody object to that? If you

[1:47:08] even have a question about it, raise

[1:47:11] your hand or say object, and then I will

[1:47:13] call for a motion to see if it's

[1:47:15] discussed. I we only use this when I

[1:47:17] expect something to be

[1:47:18] non-controversial. And uh so this first

[1:47:21] one conceivably could be or could

[1:47:22] trigger some questions, but I will ask

[1:47:24] unanimous consent to strike the third

[1:47:27] paragraph which reads, "Whereas superior

[1:47:31] water, light, and power is not open to a

[1:47:33] negotiation of a voluntary sale of

[1:47:35] utility and counselors. At first I

[1:47:38] agreed with that because that to my

[1:47:40] knowledge is true today. that may not be

[1:47:43] true tomorrow and I would like to

[1:47:45] continue to keep the door open for

[1:47:47] possible negotiation. So I I think it is

[1:47:50] in our interest to at least keep that

[1:47:53] option available to all parties. So I

[1:47:57] will ask does anybody object to striking

[1:48:00] the paragraph I just read?

[1:48:04] Hearing no objection that amendment is

[1:48:07] passed by unanimous consent. The second

[1:48:09] is the question itself. So, this is a

[1:48:12] little bit more involved, but I would

[1:48:13] like to make a grammatical change. The

[1:48:16] attorney and I were talking about this

[1:48:17] today, and I I could describe this

[1:48:20] wrong. So, if there's uh somebody that's

[1:48:22] more of a grammar nerd than I am, feel

[1:48:24] free to correct me, but I think there

[1:48:26] was a dangling modifier, which there's

[1:48:28] nothing wrong with this question. It is

[1:48:29] perfectly legal. It's been reviewed by

[1:48:31] the attorneys, and it it does work

[1:48:33] grammatically, but the goal is to make

[1:48:34] it as clear as possible. So I would like

[1:48:37] to reorder it uh to make it exactly

[1:48:41] clear uh what is happening. And so what

[1:48:44] I would do is

[1:48:46] strike and amend so that it reads after

[1:48:51] the word event that the value of the

[1:48:54] utility comma as determined by the PSC

[1:48:58] public service commission comma falls

[1:49:00] within the city's financial means that

[1:49:03] uh the effect of that amendment

[1:49:05] counselors is to clarify that the public

[1:49:09] service commission is determining the

[1:49:11] cost not who determines whether not

[1:49:15] whether it falls within our financial

[1:49:16] means only you determine whether it

[1:49:18] falls within our financial means. So I

[1:49:20] wanted to clarify that point. Does

[1:49:21] everybody understand that?

[1:49:24] Does anybody object to that amendment?

[1:49:26] >> Can you reread it please?

[1:49:27] >> Yes. The the amendment, if adopted, uh

[1:49:30] would the entire question would read,

[1:49:33] should the city transition to a

[1:49:35] community-owned water utility in the

[1:49:37] event that the value of the utility as

[1:49:40] determined by the public service

[1:49:41] commission falls within the city's

[1:49:43] financial means.

[1:49:46] Is there objection to that change?

[1:49:50] Hearing none, that amendment is adopted

[1:49:52] by unanimous consent. councilors. Uh

[1:49:54] I'll give you a chance to think of more

[1:49:55] questions while I redescribe the

[1:49:57] question before you. The motion is to

[1:50:00] publish this resolution as amended uh

[1:50:03] for at least one week and uh prior to

[1:50:08] the a uh the September 1st city council

[1:50:11] meeting. So once it has been published

[1:50:13] for one week, it is eligible to return

[1:50:15] to the city council. At that point, it

[1:50:18] will be a new resolution which will

[1:50:21] still require a motion, a second, and a

[1:50:23] majority vote of the council. From that

[1:50:26] point, the res uh the ballot question is

[1:50:29] set and we are in a referendum. However,

[1:50:32] at any point between now and the

[1:50:34] deadline to change the April election,

[1:50:37] which falls in the spring, the uh the

[1:50:40] council can uh bring this resolution

[1:50:42] back. You can amend it in any way. You

[1:50:45] can change the question. You can change

[1:50:47] the date of the election. You can resend

[1:50:49] the election altogether. This starts a

[1:50:51] process, but it is subject to more

[1:50:53] change. Of course, I am going to

[1:50:55] strongly recommend that once you adopt

[1:50:58] the question, which is not tonight, you should preserve that question until

[1:51:02] the election so that the council so that

[1:51:04] the public can can study it in its

[1:51:06] entirety and have the most amount of

[1:51:08] time. Does everybody understand what

[1:51:10] we're doing tonight? What the what

[1:51:11] you're voting on,

[1:51:13] Council Harry?

[1:51:14] >> Yeah. So if we approve this tonight, we

[1:51:18] can still make amendments to this. This

[1:51:21] is not a final draft than that we're

[1:51:23] approving. Correct.

[1:51:25] >> It

[1:51:27] that is correct. But amendments will

[1:51:29] work differently going forward. So first

[1:51:32] from this point forward, well including

[1:51:35] right now, any change to this means it

[1:51:38] must be republished. So if on September

[1:51:41] 1st we make more changes then we have to

[1:51:43] publish it for another week and then

[1:51:45] comes back. But of course that's no

[1:51:47] different than postponing something. We

[1:51:49] postpone things all the time. So if you

[1:51:50] get to September 1st and we feel like h

[1:51:53] we should change the language here a

[1:51:54] little bit. Uh then that's you'd be

[1:51:56] postponing it for a meeting. Um that's

[1:51:59] why you know I recommend have this

[1:52:01] language tight which only the therefore

[1:52:03] section is what really matters and is

[1:52:06] binding on the administration. But yes,

[1:52:09] you can change it then and uh you can uh

[1:52:13] the motion is actually called amend

[1:52:15] something previously adopted. You can

[1:52:17] change it in the future as well. It will

[1:52:19] require publication. Uh but yes, any

[1:52:22] pretty much any point between now and

[1:52:23] the deadline that can happen. It's a

[1:52:26] long way of saying yes, you have it

[1:52:27] correct.

[1:52:29] Further discuss

[1:52:31] counc again

[1:52:34] >> just for my curiosity what is the

[1:52:36] benefit of passing this tonight versus

[1:52:40] waiting a few more weeks to let some of

[1:52:42] the more um city or not city the the

[1:52:46] council meetings or the um um the the

[1:52:51] discussions the forums about the the

[1:52:53] purchase take place. Uh the merit is

[1:52:57] that it preserves the most amount of

[1:52:59] options. So if you publish tonight, that

[1:53:02] gives you the opportunity to set the

[1:53:04] referendum at the next meeting. It does

[1:53:06] not require you to set the referendum at

[1:53:07] the next meeting. But I still think that

[1:53:10] would be a good idea. That will be your

[1:53:11] choice, not mine. But uh the the

[1:53:14] advantage of putting the question out

[1:53:16] now is when we go to those public

[1:53:18] meetings, we know what we're discussing.

[1:53:21] We know exactly what that question will

[1:53:22] be. every time I appear in front of a

[1:53:25] public meeting now, I will be able to

[1:53:27] put that question right on the wall and

[1:53:29] make sure folks know what it means. So

[1:53:32] there's no more mystery about that. And

[1:53:34] so it just just makes sure we all know

[1:53:36] what's coming. And uh I was going to say

[1:53:40] the the the shameless advantage, but

[1:53:42] it's not shameless at all. Uh when you

[1:53:44] do it, the press covers it. The second

[1:53:46] you set the referendum, that's news.

[1:53:48] That will be in the news that the

[1:53:49] council set the ballot. And it goes

[1:53:51] other places, too. it uh uh it goes play

[1:53:54] like ballad balledia. It will it will be

[1:53:57] an election in Wisconsin. And finally,

[1:54:00] maybe most importantly, it triggers

[1:54:02] Wisconsin campaign finance law. There

[1:54:04] are a lot of folks spending a lot of

[1:54:06] money trying to influence the public on

[1:54:08] this question. And state law really, wants transparency in its

[1:54:13] elections. And those of us that are sp

[1:54:15] uh spending money ought to be uh uh

[1:54:18] keeping track of that and eventually

[1:54:20] reporting it to the Wisconsin Election

[1:54:21] Commission to make sure that uh all

[1:54:24] electors are treated fairly. So it just

[1:54:27] starts the process in its fullest.

[1:54:32] Further discussion council muffin.

[1:54:35] >> Yeah, just a couple of things. I wanted

[1:54:36] to reiterate how important that is to me

[1:54:38] in this process. like I I we've been

[1:54:41] working on this for a couple years now

[1:54:42] and moving to this next step allows that

[1:54:46] transparency for the public on who's

[1:54:47] spending what and I think that's really

[1:54:50] important because they want to know

[1:54:51] who's trying to influence them. Um just

[1:54:54] a couple other things I wanted to

[1:54:55] mention like again tonight we're we're

[1:54:57] not voting on the purchase. The superior

[1:54:59] council uh can't choose to purchase the

[1:55:02] utility. We're only voting to publish

[1:55:04] tonight and then

[1:55:06] later we would be deciding if we want to

[1:55:09] ask the residents their opinion and then

[1:55:10] if the residents want us to move

[1:55:12] forward, we would move forward. So this

[1:55:14] is just like the next step in the

[1:55:15] process. We're not deciding to purchase

[1:55:17] tonight. We're not taking out bonds or

[1:55:19] anything like that. It's just moving us

[1:55:21] in the direction where we can ask the

[1:55:23] residents what they want. And I think

[1:55:25] that's the right thing to do. Um, and I do want to reiterate also what the

[1:55:30] mayor said about uh the flexibility this

[1:55:33] gives us because we can modify this

[1:55:35] later if we want to. We can pull it away

[1:55:39] uh or or whatever we want. uh we've got

[1:55:41] a lot of um opportunities to continue

[1:55:44] discussing it or modifying it or

[1:55:45] whatever until January which gives us a

[1:55:48] lot of time but this does provide

[1:55:50] transparency for the public to

[1:55:51] understand like what are we working on

[1:55:54] exactly here and it provides that money

[1:55:56] transparency so they know what people

[1:55:58] are spending

[1:56:00] uh as we've been working on the water

[1:56:02] utility it's also important to me um

[1:56:05] that we've also been looking at our

[1:56:08] electric and gas um utility facilities

[1:56:11] in the city as well. And we we do have

[1:56:14] uh numbers back on the cost of those,

[1:56:16] but we do not have rate analysis back.

[1:56:19] And ultimately like the prices of these

[1:56:22] things are less important than how they

[1:56:26] affect people's payments, right? And so

[1:56:28] like I I think if you tell somebody how

[1:56:31] much something costs total, like yeah,

[1:56:33] sure that's a number, right? But they

[1:56:34] want to know like how did how does it

[1:56:36] affect their expenses every month? They

[1:56:38] want to know, is this going to cause my

[1:56:40] um rates to go up or whatever. And like

[1:56:42] that's what people really want to know,

[1:56:44] like how does this affect their

[1:56:45] pocketbook? And so, like, I'm really

[1:56:47] excited that soon hopefully we'll have

[1:56:50] that electric and gas rate analysis

[1:56:52] back. And I think all the reasons, well,

[1:56:55] a lot of the same reasons that the water

[1:56:57] utility is important, the natural gas

[1:56:59] and the electric are also important for

[1:57:00] our residents. um they're essential

[1:57:02] services. They're extremely expensive

[1:57:05] and uh the the profit margins are are

[1:57:09] likely higher than um what the water

[1:57:12] utility is. So, um moving forward in

[1:57:15] this process, we could decide at some

[1:57:17] point to potentially add those to the

[1:57:19] April ballot and modify the question uh

[1:57:21] or do separate questions or whatever.

[1:57:23] But the the whole point is that we have

[1:57:25] a lot of flexibility here. Um, and and I

[1:57:28] really think the transparency portion is the reason that we should move

[1:57:31] forward as quickly as possible to get a question going so that at least

[1:57:35] there's that transparency for the public

[1:57:37] on who's spending what and and and

[1:57:39] what's being done to influence their

[1:57:41] vote. Um, I do also want to talk briefly

[1:57:43] about the the payment mechanisms. Like

[1:57:46] we're not I I appreciate that this is uh

[1:57:49] providing flexibility for the city to

[1:57:50] use general obligation or revenue bonds.

[1:57:52] I do want to mention revenue bonds are

[1:57:54] as the mayor said probably the likely

[1:57:56] source of revenue. Um state statute

[1:57:58] 66.0621

[1:58:00] revenue obligation uh section two um

[1:58:05] solves that water source issue. It says

[1:58:07] directly a source of water 50 mi beyond

[1:58:09] a municipality's corporate limits shall

[1:58:11] be within the municipalities authority.

[1:58:14] Uh so that takes care of the water

[1:58:15] intake issue. Um there's also been a

[1:58:18] state um Supreme Court ruling about that

[1:58:20] in the past as well. And then also draw

[1:58:22] attention to the um section three there.

[1:58:27] A municipality may by action of its

[1:58:28] governing body provide for purchasing,

[1:58:30] acquiring, leasing, constructing,

[1:58:31] extending, adding to, improving, con

[1:58:34] conducting, controlling, operating or

[1:58:36] managing a public utility, uh, motor,

[1:58:38] bus or other systems of public

[1:58:40] transportation from the general fund or

[1:58:42] from the proceeds of municipal

[1:58:44] obligations including revenue bonds. an

[1:58:46] obligation created under those revenue

[1:58:48] bonds option is not an indebtness to the

[1:58:50] municipality and shall not be included

[1:58:52] in arriving in the constitutional debt

[1:58:54] limit. And we're still looking into the

[1:58:56] implications for this, but it's my

[1:58:58] understanding so far and we'll find out

[1:59:00] more that these revenue bonds

[1:59:02] potentially would not impact our debt

[1:59:05] limit at all. And so if we needed to

[1:59:06] borrow for an emergency later or another

[1:59:09] fire station or or just for uh extra

[1:59:12] staffing or whatever the council wanted,

[1:59:14] we would still have that flexibility

[1:59:16] available. And so as we continue to look

[1:59:17] into this, I think maintaining all those

[1:59:19] options uh is really good. And I just

[1:59:21] want to say I'm hoping we can move

[1:59:23] forward tonight and just get this

[1:59:24] published so we can get more public

[1:59:26] input. Thank you.

[1:59:28] >> Council Sweeney,

[1:59:30] >> I'd just like to have a roll vote when

[1:59:31] we do this, please.

[1:59:32] >> Of course. Councelor Caitlyn.

[1:59:35] >> Um I do have one question as far as um

[1:59:38] you the the transparency in the question

[1:59:41] and it could be something that might be

[1:59:43] put you know like amended in the future

[1:59:46] but um is with this language of this

[1:59:48] question um do you think that and I know

[1:59:51] uh with the city attorney is this clear

[1:59:53] enough that we wouldn't have to put

[1:59:55] something in the question itself for the

[1:59:57] referendum saying non-binding?

[2:00:01] I think that's a question for you.

[2:00:04] >> No, I don't I don't believe

[2:00:06] >> the button.

[2:00:09] » I do not believe we have to fold binding

[2:00:11] or non-binding language into the actual

[2:00:14] referendum question itself. I think that

[2:00:15] actually might set [snorts] the table

[2:00:18] for potential confusion.

[2:00:20] understand too that

[2:00:23] um by statute we will be obligated to

[2:00:27] um produce and and and have on file and

[2:00:32] I think actually even publish a um

[2:00:36] notice of referendum and that notice of

[2:00:39] referendum will include a number of

[2:00:42] details that aren't folded in that would

[2:00:44] be far too cumbersome to actually fold

[2:00:46] into the referendum question itself.

[2:00:48] >> [snorts]

[2:00:49] >> And some of those details will include

[2:00:50] for example

[2:00:52] a a general description of the utility

[2:00:54] plant itself.

[2:00:57] Um as discussed already, the mechanism

[2:00:59] through which um the the acquisition of

[2:01:02] the utility would be paid for and and almost certainly the the question

[2:01:08] you just brought up which is the um the

[2:01:13] binding or non non-binding

[2:01:16] component behind the question.

[2:01:19] [clears throat]

[2:01:21] Further discussion

[2:01:25] council.

[2:01:27] >> This is the process that's provided to

[2:01:30] municipalities by the state of Wisconsin

[2:01:32] and it's not a rushed process. In fact,

[2:01:35] if we wanted to rush this, we could have

[2:01:37] put this forward for a November ballot.

[2:01:40] Um so you know I think that we are

[2:01:43] taking prudent steps to pro provide for

[2:01:47] the public to learn more. Uh there's

[2:01:52] months ahead for that process to take

[2:01:54] place and I think we should proceed with

[2:01:57] this. Thank you.

[2:02:00] Further discussion.

[2:02:04] The question councilors is whether to

[2:02:07] publish this resolution before you as

[2:02:11] amended.

[2:02:13] Unless there are questions about the

[2:02:16] process, we will proceed by roll call.

[2:02:23] » Councelor Radkkey.

[2:02:26] >> Yes.

[2:02:27] >> Councelor Elm. Yes.

[2:02:30] >> Councelor Caven.

[2:02:31] >> Yes.

[2:02:33] >> President Heric.

[2:02:34] >> Yes.

[2:02:35] >> Councelor Herring.

[2:02:37] >> Yes.

[2:02:38] >> Councelor Grasskey.

[2:02:40] >> Yes.

[2:02:40] >> Councelor Leine.

[2:02:42] >> Yes.

[2:02:42] >> Councelor Anderson.

[2:02:44] >> No.

[2:02:46] >> Vice President Moffett.

[2:02:48] >> Yes.

[2:02:48] >> Councelor Sweeney.

[2:02:50] >> No.

[2:02:52] >> There are eight in favor and two

[2:02:54] against. The motion passes.

[2:03:08] Item 8.1.1 is the business of the public

[2:03:11] art commission with a meeting held on

[2:03:12] July 30th. Is there a report from the

[2:03:14] chair? Well, um, switch it up here a

[2:03:18] bit. Let's see.

[2:03:22] Uh, excuse me. Hold on. Okay. Since the

[2:03:25] inception of the Superior Public Arts

[2:03:26] Commission, the council has approved two

[2:03:28] rounds of $25,000 each to support public

[2:03:30] arts initiatives in the city of Superior

[2:03:32] over the last two years. At our most

[2:03:34] recent meeting, we utilized the

[2:03:36] remaining funds to back several

[2:03:38] projects, including a Nordic interactive

[2:03:40] handcrafting workshop at the Douglas

[2:03:42] County Historical Society, uh support

[2:03:44] for reenactment actors at for the St.

[2:03:46] Louis River rendevous, which is now

[2:03:48] being relocated over to Billings Park

[2:03:50] from over in Duth um this summer. And

[2:03:55] also we supported uh Time Arc Theater

[2:03:58] along with a um event that will be for

[2:04:02] happening at the Fairlon during the

[2:04:04] Halloween Halloween season. I just want

[2:04:06] to thank this council support as we

[2:04:08] nearly supported almost 20 public art

[2:04:10] experiences throughout the um community

[2:04:13] for the citizens. And as we move

[2:04:15] forward, this commission will adopt a

[2:04:16] new approach as we outline as I outlined

[2:04:18] in our last report. It'll focus more on

[2:04:20] creating spaces for artists rather than

[2:04:22] artists coming to us to tell us about

[2:04:23] what they would like to create. And I

[2:04:25] look forward to sharing about those next

[2:04:27] projects when those are approved and

[2:04:29] voted on. Additionally, we have a

[2:04:31] request in front of you. Um this amount

[2:04:34] is coming from the overall fund. Um, it

[2:04:36] is to help support an upcoming event

[2:04:38] that will be hosted by the Superior

[2:04:40] Council for the Arts is essentially

[2:04:42] inviting statewide representation to

[2:04:43] come to the city, allow somewhat of a a

[2:04:46] summit to facilitate not only local

[2:04:48] conversations, but also talk about

[2:04:50] statewide opportunities, how can we add

[2:04:52] more art to our community, and also how

[2:04:54] can our grant program be assisted as we

[2:04:57] move further into creating more arts in

[2:04:59] the community. So, as of now, I would

[2:05:02] ask that the um assistant clerk or

[2:05:04] sorry, um please read the ask in front

[2:05:07] of them.

[2:05:09] 8.1.1

[2:05:12] is to award the sponsorship to Superior

[2:05:14] Council for the Arts for the 2026

[2:05:17] Regional Creative Industries Summit

[2:05:19] event in the amount of $5,965.

[2:05:23] » Second.

[2:05:24] >> Motion's by Councelor Alm, second by

[2:05:25] Councelor Graskki. Is there discussion?

[2:05:28] Hearing none. All those in favor, please

[2:05:30] signify by saying I.

[2:05:31] >> Those opposed say no. Motion carries.

[2:05:34] >> At this time, are there any other

[2:05:36] committee or commission reports to be

[2:05:38] made?

[2:05:41] » Hearing none, we can proceed to new

[2:05:42] business.

[2:05:43] >> Item 10.1 is miscellaneous licenses.

[2:05:47] >> Motion.

[2:05:48] is by councelor Dean, second by

[2:05:49] councelor Heric. Is there discussion?

[2:05:52] Hearing none. All those in favor, please

[2:05:53] signify by saying I.

[2:05:55] >> Those oppose say no. [clears throat]

[2:05:56] Motion carries.

[2:05:58] Item 10.2 is an amended premise for a

[2:06:00] special event license application for

[2:06:02] Atypical Enterprises Incorporated, DBA,

[2:06:05] the main club located at 1217 Tower

[2:06:08] Avenue for Pride Weekend, September 4th

[2:06:10] through September 7th.

[2:06:13] >> Motion to approve.

[2:06:14] >> Second.

[2:06:15] >> Motion's by Councelor Graskki, a second

[2:06:16] by councelor Anderson. Is there

[2:06:17] discussion?

[2:06:20] Hearing none, all those in favor, please

[2:06:21] signify by saying I. I.

[2:06:23] >> Those opposed say no. Motion carries.

[2:06:26] 10.3 is amend the premise for a special

[2:06:28] event license application for the

[2:06:30] Superior Flame DBA, the Superior Flame

[2:06:32] Nightclub located at 1612 Tower Avenue

[2:06:36] for Superior Pride Block Party on

[2:06:38] September 5th.

[2:06:40] >> Second.

[2:06:41] >> Motion's by Councelor Anderson, second

[2:06:42] by Councelor Herring. Is there

[2:06:44] discussion

[2:06:45] hearing? None. All those in favor,

[2:06:47] please signify by saying I.

[2:06:49] >> Those oppose say no. The motion carries.

[2:06:52] >> 10.4 4 is an original class B beer

[2:06:55] license. Class B beer and class B liquor

[2:06:58] license application for Solomon

[2:07:00] Witherspoon Group LLC doing business as

[2:07:02] Solomon Witherspoon located at 1108

[2:07:05] Tower Avenue for the current license

[2:07:08] period through June 30th, 2027 pending

[2:07:11] fire, police, and health department

[2:07:13] approvals and proposed leased condition.

[2:07:16] >> Counselors, uh the clerk has provided a

[2:07:20] sample motion. I'll read it and see if

[2:07:22] there is any concurrence. Uh, is there a

[2:07:26] I would recommend a motion to approve

[2:07:27] the class B beer beer and class B liquor

[2:07:31] license for Solomon Witherspoon at 1108

[2:07:35] Tower Avenue subject to a receipt of

[2:07:37] recommendations for approval from the

[2:07:38] police, fire, and health departments and

[2:07:41] proof of a lease agreement for the

[2:07:42] premises.

[2:07:44] >> Second.

[2:07:45] >> The motion's by councelor Moffett, the

[2:07:46] second by councelor Grassi. Is there

[2:07:48] discussion

[2:07:49] hearing? None. All those in favor,

[2:07:50] please. I'm sorry, Council Heric.

[2:07:52] >> Yeah, just just one question. Um, well,

[2:07:54] since he has a another license for 424

[2:08:00] uh Tower Avenue, does he have both

[2:08:02] license apparently at this time or is

[2:08:03] one kind of surrendered?

[2:08:05] >> No, that was also conditional. And so,

[2:08:07] similar to this, uh, because Mr.

[2:08:09] Witherspoon would be leasing the space,

[2:08:11] not owning it. uh he doesn't actually

[2:08:14] achieve the license until the the

[2:08:16] conditions like demonstrating control of

[2:08:17] the property and then of course all

[2:08:18] these inspections are met. So my

[2:08:21] understanding is he's not currently

[2:08:22] holding any license in the city of

[2:08:25] Superior unless and until these

[2:08:26] conditions would be met. So it would be

[2:08:28] for conceivably he could go and meet the

[2:08:30] conditions for the but I believe that

[2:08:31] other building sold. So I don't I don't

[2:08:33] think that's an option anymore.

[2:08:34] >> All right. Thanks.

[2:08:35] >> Yep.

[2:08:36] >> Further discussion

[2:08:38] >> hearing none. All those in favor please

[2:08:40] signify by saying I.

[2:08:41] >> Those oppose say no. The motion carries.

[2:08:44] >> And item 10.5 is to file a cross appeal

[2:08:48] with the Wisconsin State Board of

[2:08:50] Assessors to the objected valuation of

[2:08:52] property located at 153 Main Street

[2:08:56] owned by Exodus Real Estate Holdings.

[2:09:00] >> Second.

[2:09:00] >> The motion's by councelor Caven, the

[2:09:02] second guy by Councelor Moffett. Is

[2:09:04] there discussion

[2:09:07] hearing? None. All those in favor,

[2:09:08] please signify by saying I. I. Those

[2:09:10] opposed say no. The motion carries.

[2:09:13] Councilors, we have one per That's it

[2:09:15] right. Yeah, we have one person signed

[2:09:16] up to speak in general public comment.

[2:09:19] Uh I believe I'm reading this to be

[2:09:22] Marsha Adams, but please correct that as

[2:09:24] you approach. Uh the button to turn on

[2:09:28] the microphone is the third from the

[2:09:29] left. Looks like a person speaking. And

[2:09:31] as before, you'll have uh exactly 3

[2:09:34] minutes. I will give you a warning at 2

[2:09:36] minutes and 30 seconds, but I'd remind

[2:09:37] you we're you have it on. I'd remind you

[2:09:39] we're at the end of the meeting. So if

[2:09:40] you're not able to express everything

[2:09:41] you want to say, you can feel free to

[2:09:43] come up and speak to me afterwards.

[2:09:45] >> My name is Marcia Adams. I live at

[2:09:49] 713 Bridge Avenue. We're having issues

[2:09:53] with the crossing thing on 7th Street.

[2:09:56] People are flying off the bridge like

[2:09:59] whatever they want and they're flying

[2:10:01] off and on the bridge and I've almost

[2:10:04] got hit three times crossing that thing.

[2:10:07] I would like to know if there's

[2:10:09] something you guys can do to protect us

[2:10:12] people who walk on Seventh Street or

[2:10:16] not.

[2:10:18] >> So, we don't have conversation here, but

[2:10:20] uh we'll we'll take note of your

[2:10:21] comments and if you want to come and

[2:10:22] chat with me afterwards.

[2:10:23] >> Okay. But I just wanted to let you guys

[2:10:25] know that it's it really dangerous.

[2:10:29] I'm not my residents in that area have a

[2:10:32] fear of one of us can be hit. That's all

[2:10:36] I wanted to know.

[2:10:39] >> Thank you very much.

[2:10:40] >> You're welcome.

[2:10:41] >> Is there any further public comment?

[2:10:44] >> We have no further business and are

[2:10:46] adjourned. Thank you, counselors.

August 18, 2026, Common Council Meeting, Superior, Wis.

Transcript