Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN JuNE 11, 2019 REGULAR MEETING held Tuesday,June 11,2019, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, City Hall Mayor Palmeri presided. PRESENT: Council Members Jake Krause, Bob Poeschl, Bill Miller, Steven Herman, Matt Mugerauer and Mayor Lori Palmeri EXCUSED: Council Member Allison-Aasby ALSO PRESENT: Mark Rohloff, City Manager; Pamela Ubrig, City Clerk; Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney and James Rabe, Director of Public Works Council Member Krause read the Invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was led Council Member Krause. PUBLIC HEARINGS Resolution 19-322 Approve Final Resolution for Special Assessments for Concrete Pavement, Asphalt Pavement, Sidewalk (New & Rehabilitation), Driveway Aprons, Sanitary Sewer Main&Laterals (New&Relay) & Water Main & Laterals (New & Relay) & Storm Sewer Main & Laterals (New & Relay) Relating to Contract No. 19-12 A) North Westhaven Drive (formerly Emmers Lane) (200' south of Omro Road to Omro Road) B) Omro Road (650' east of North Westhaven Drive to North Westhaven Drive) C) Edgewood Road (200' south of Shore Preserve Drive to Ryf Road) D) Kentucky Street(West New York Avenue to approximately 350' north) PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (5) Krause, Poeschl, Poeschl, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Noes (1) Miller Ann Kanze, 2480 Shore Preserve Drive, explained she and her husband were present to request a deferment for the special assessment, as their property was farmland. She explained the property would not benefit from a sewer. She requested a deferment until they change the surface or the zoning of the property. She stated they do not use water or sewer, there were no dwellings or walkway on the property. She explained they had no intention of utilizing the land for anything besides agriculture. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if she had discussed the requested deferment with City staff. Ms. Kanze stated yes. Council Member Mugerauer questioned what the result of the conversation was. Ms. Kanze explained she had been advised to attend the Council meeting and request the deferment. Council Member Mugerauer asked City staff for an explanation. Mr. Rabe explained the land was adjacent to Edgewood Road where the sanitary sewer was being constructed. He stated it was a piece of land that was originally part of the plan of Northshore Preserve and within the last two years, a preliminary plat had been approved to develop the land, just before the purchase of the property by the Kanzes. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if the sewer was not necessary now, and there was not any intention of use in the near future, did it still need to be installed. Mr. Rabe explained the challenge was if it was required in the future, it may take the City two to three years to be able to install it. He stated the preliminary plat had come in two years ago, and City staff was just able to get the plans in place to install this year, therefore it was evident if it was required in the future there may be a significant delay. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if the preliminary plat had been in place prior to the purchase of the property. 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Mr. Rabe stated yes;City staff had started work on the programming for the project when the preliminary plat had come through for the land. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if they would have been notified of the anticipated assessments by the seller of the property. Mr. Rabe explained there would not have been notices sent to the previous property owner. Council Member Mugerauer questioned what the cost would be for the property in question. Mr. Rohloff stated it was $30,998.40. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if that cost was directly attributed to Ms. Kanze's piece of agricultural land. Mr. Rabe stated yes; it was referred to as a sanitary and sewer main area assessment. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there would be a change to the plan if the property owners applied to have the land rezoned. Mr. Rabe asked for clarification. Mayor Palmeri questioned if the special assessments could be deferred until the property was rezoned. Council Member Herman stated it was already zoned agricultural. Mr. Rabe stated he did not understand the question. Mayor Palmeri explained it was her understanding that Ms. Kanze was requesting a deferment until the property could be rezoned. Ms. Kanze stated they did not have any intention of selling the property or using it for anything besides farmland. She explained they had moved to Wisconsin from another state, and felt it was important to maintain local farming. Mayor Palmeri explained she had misunderstood. 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Miller questioned what the impact would be if the project was delayed. Mr. Rabe questioned if he was referring to deferring the assessment or the construction. Council Member Miller stated the construction. Mr. Rabe explained if the construction were to be delayed, the cost would increase until the time of installation as construction costs were trending upwards. Council Member Miller questioned if any other citizens would be impacted by the delay or deferment. He stated he did not see harm in delaying the construction if no other citizens or businesses would be impacted. Mr. Rabe explained there was one developable lot on the other side of the street that would not have service if the construction was delayed. Council Member Miller questioned if the owners of that property had requested service. Mr. Rabe stated not immediately. Council Member Miller questioned how City staff felt about a delay. Mr. Rabe questioned if he was referring to the construction. Council Member Miller stated yes; he did not see a benefit to completing the project at this time. Mr. Rabe explained there may be some contractual costs associated with delaying construction. Mr. Rohloff questioned if the work was to complete the Edgewood subdivision plat. Mr. Rabe stated it was related to Northshore Preserve, and the west side of the Edgewood subdivision. Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager, explained he understood that when the plat had come through, there had been talk of developing property north of Ryf Road. He stated while he was not aware there was any active development discussions, if service was not installed now, it would be several years before it could be completed. 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Mr. Rohloff explained the project was setting the area up for future development. Council Member Miller questioned if the proposed new method regarding charging for special assessments would impact this project. Mr. Rohloff stated it would not; the costs would be utility related. Council Member Poeschl questioned what specific utility. Mr. Rabe stated wastewater utility. Mr. Rohloff explained it was sanitary sewer. He stated in the future, a developer could request the utilities, and if the City did not have it available, it had the potential to delay development and growth. Council Member Poeschl questioned if there was an option for wastewater utility to cover the cost to the existing property owners in order to move forward with the construction. Mr. Rabe questioned if he meant to defer the special assessment charges as Ms. Kanze had requested. Council Member Poeschl stated yes. Mr. Rabe stated it had been done on other projects such as Stoney Beach. He explained it essentially became a loan with no interest until the property would be developed. Council Member Poeschl explained he believed in the past storm water utilities had covered a portion of New York Avenue, as the work that had been completed on that street did not benefit the property owners. He stated Council had voted in favor of having the utility cover those costs. He questioned if there would be a similar option in this case, where the property owner would not be charged any type of deferred cost. Mr. Rabe stated he believed that particular instance had been related to the pavement restoration for the replacement of a sanitary sewer interceptor. He explained it had not been related to the construction of a new sewer main. Council Member Mugerauer stated Mr. Rohloff had made a statement about the construction having an impact on potential future development on Ryf Road. He questioned where the sanitary sewer would be installed, as he was showing a connection point on Shore Preserve Drive, not on Ryf Road. 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—JUNE 11, 2019 Mr. Rabe explained it would extend the sewer currently in Edgewood Road north to the intersection of Edgewood Road and Ryf Road. Council Member Mugerauer stated it appeared the parcel in question connected off of Shore Preserve Drive. Mr. Rohloff indicated on the map where the parcel was located. Council Member Miller stated it appeared that there was precedence set in previous projects. He questioned if City staff would prefer to defer the assessment and complete the project, or delay the construction. Mr. Rabe explained if he had to choose between the two options, he would prefer to complete the construction so that it would remain at a total lower cost. Council Member Herman stated if Council were to have the utility cover the cost, fees would end up being waived for additional citizens, resulting in a significant cost to the City. He explained it would result in utility costs going up as well. Resolution 19-323 Approve Final Resolution for Special Assessments for Storm Sewer Laterals Relating to Contract No. 19-20 /Various Locations MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Krause) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri CITIZEN STATEMENTS Eric Endres, 3071 Fond du Lac Road, stated he was present due to his concern regarding the current animal control policy in Oshkosh. He explained he rented the first floor of a duplex and there was a stray cat on the property that acted aggressively toward him. He stated he feared for his safety and the safety of guests when walking around the property. He explained he had learned that the City worked with the Oshkosh Area Humane Society for animal control issues such as this, and while he had thought someone would be able to come to his residence and catch the animal, he understood he was responsible for renting a live trap and catching it himself. He stated after bringing the cat to the humane society, they would determine if it was feral instead of lost or stolen. He explained if it was determined to be feral, they would spay/neuter the animal and release it back to the general area where it was found. He stated this was dependent on the humane society having live traps available to rent, which at the time, they did not. He 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 explained he was concerned with having to trap the animal himself as it was aggressive. He stated he was surprised to learn that this was the City's policy in dealing with aggressive stray cats as it put citizens in danger and vulnerable to an animal attack. He requested the policy be revisited. Council Member Herman questioned what committee was responsible for overseeing animal control. Mr. Rohloff explained it was not related to any committee; the police department was responsible for managing the City's animal control contract. He stated he would speak with Dean Smith, Chief of Police, regarding what the various options were. He explained Mr. Endres was correct in describing the City's policy, and his experience was fairly common in the City. Council Member Krause questioned who would be liable in the event the citizen were to be injured by the animal. Ms. Lorenson explained because it was a wild animal, it would be difficult to attribute liability to any individual. Mayor Palmeri stated she had gone through the same process with several cats approximately a year ago and understood how difficult it was. PRESENTATION BY STAFF Mr. Rabe presented an analysis of the transportation fee to replace pavement related special assessments. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there were a number of different ways that storm water credits could be applied for. Mr. Rabe stated yes; citizens could do a number of things such as having a detention basin or a rain guard and bio-filter to manage the runoff to reduce the impact on the City's storm water system. Mayor Palmeri questioned if that would include pervious pavement. 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Mr. Rabe explained the design of the pavement would be looked at to determine if it was a pervious or impervious surface. He stated an individual may not necessarily get credit for it, however, the amount of impervious area may be reduced. Trena Larson, Director of Finance, explained if an individual had a storm water credit on their current bill it would not be involved in the calculation for the development area unit (DAU); it would be independent of the 100 DAU limit. Council Member Miller questioned if large, multi-parcel owners could combine parcels to reduce the amount of DAUs. Mr. Rabe explained there were a number of ways to legally combine parcels. He stated there were a number of property owners who wished to keep parcels separate for development and tax purposes. He explained they would need to weigh the pros and cons of their business model to see what would be most advantageous. Council Member Miller questioned if the idea that property owners may combine parcels had been considered when the revenue needs had been calculated. Mr. Rabe stated City staff had not tried to analyze who may or may not combine parcels. Mr. Rohloff explained the purpose of the presentation had been to get feedback from Council and direction to City staff to prepare appropriate ordinances based on the input. Council Member Mugerauer thanked City staff for their work. He asked for an example of what would have been the special assessment charge under the original methodology for one of the commercial properties being constructed. Mr. Rabe explained the commercial property with the 2.4727 developed area units would have been assessed approximately $20,000 dollars, and implementing the fee would reduce the cost to approximately $6,000 dollars. He stated the property with 19.3677 developed area units would have been assessed$57,000 dollars and the fee would reduce the cost to approximately$7,000 dollars. Council Member Mugerauer stated from a business standpoint, $57,000 dollars was a significant amount of money to come up with. He explained the $7,000 would cover the underground work such as sewer laterals. Mr. Rabe agreed. 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Mugerauer stated on the first example with the 2.4 DAUs the upfront cost was significantly reduced to $6,000 and a low monthly cost of approximately $11 dollars going forward. He explained it operated similar to an insurance policy. Mr. Rabe stated the insurance policy analogy was accurate. Council Member Mugerauer explained the property owner would have to pay the monthly cost for nearly 100 years before it would reach the original special assessment cost. He stated that was considerable savings. He questioned if there had been any discussion on a cap lower than 100 developed area units and what the impact on the fee would be. Mr. Rabe stated it had not been discussed in a detailed level of analysis. Council Member Krause explained he understood that citizens did not like fees,however, the impact of the savings to single family properties was significant. He stated he understood some citizens may be frustrated as they had recently had their streets reconstructed and had been assessed under the original methodology, however, future generations would still benefit from the change. Council Member Miller questioned if City staff had identified how many property owners with over 100 units would be impacted. Mr. Rabe stated the number of development area units would be capped at 100 and there were 98 property owners that fell into that category. Council Member Miller questioned what types of businesses these would be. Mr. Rabe explained apartment complexes would not be capped; they would be on per dwelling basis. He stated several of the Oshkosh Corporation facilities, Winnebago County properties and larger businesses such as Fleet Farm would reach the cap. Mr. Rohloff stated the cap translated to approximately 6.47 acres. Council Member Miller questioned if City staff had received feedback from any of the larger property owners. Mr. Rabe explained he had a conversation with a finance staff member at Oshkosh Corporation, and they were conducting an analysis on the cost. 9 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Herman questioned if Mr. Rohloff had received a copy of the letter that had been provided to Council from the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Rohloff stated that he had. Council Member Herman asked for an explanation of some of their concerns. He stated it had been suggested that there would be a five year program, and after five years the cost would shift to the property tax roll; he questioned if that was feasible. He explained he had concerns that the City would switch to a program, and in a few years, the State may no longer allow it, resulting in a return to assessments. He stated one of the Chamber's biggest concerns was the sidewalk rehabilitation program as they did not believe businesses should be required to pay for residential sidewalks. Mr. Rohloff explained the suggestion in the letter had been to implement the program for five years and have the City then borrow for or pay for the balance. He stated the City was still subject to property tax and spending limits. He explained the idea had been to identify a funding source to replace the special assessment cost and a number of communities had implemented a wheel tax. He stated after an analysis by the long range finance committee, it had been determined that was not the most equitable approach for the City's residents. He explained counting on a different funding source for five years into the future was risky. He stated it was something they were struggling with in Appleton, and swinging back and forth between assessment policies created significant angst. He recommended if Council planned on changing the assessment policy in five years to leave it as status quo,however, citizens were not happy with the current method. Council Member Herman asked for Mr. Rohloff's opinion regarding the sidewalk rehabilitation concern from the Chamber. He questioned what the average homeowner was charged for sidewalk rehabilitation. Mr. Rabe stated it averaged approximately $175 dollars per sidewalk square at current costs. Council Member Herman explained it was his understanding unless the City was reconstructing a whole street,it likely would not be more than a few squares per property owner. Mr. Rabe stated it depended on the property. Mr. Rohloff explained he had three squares completed on his property. 10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Herman questioned if the rate would remain the same each year, or if would change to correlate with the revenue needs for construction. Mr. Rabe explained the revenue requirement had been calculated based on an average amount of special assessments in the last three years. He stated he did not anticipate the fee would increase each year, however, it may need to be adjusted in the future if construction costs were to rise. Council Member Herman questioned if it would be a segregated budget fund. Ms. Larson stated yes. Council Member Herman clarified if that meant the funds could not be used for anything besides the identified construction projects. Ms. Larson stated that was correct. Mr. Rohloff explained that requirement would be included in the ordinance. He stated it was the intent of City staff to have a segregated fund. Council Member Herman questioned if there was a look back clause. Mr. Rohloff stated no. He explained the City of Neenah had implemented a five year look back clause with their new special assessment policy. He stated that would mean projects that were completed in the previous five years would receive a waiver for the applicable number of years. He explained City staff had not included a look back clause, however, Council had the ability to add it. Council Member Herman questioned if there would be any impact to TIF funding or developer agreements. Mr. Rohloff stated brand new construction was not included in the program. He explained a brand new street or subdivision would be a separate consideration, and subdivision code would address those items. He stated there were situations, such as 91n Avenue west of Oakwood Road, where it previously was a rural road and now enough property had attached to the City that the road could be constructed. He explained the City could now construct the road and assess, or utilize the program to fund the construction. He stated because there were ditches and no sidewalk, sidewalk would need to be installed. He explained the original policy would result in the residents being assessed for the sidewalk, however, City staff believed it was the intent of Council for the 11 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 pavement assessment to be zero. He stated to achieve that, the City would end up absorbing the cost for those types of projects. He explained he anticipated there would be businesses that would like sidewalks installed for the convenience of their employees, and because the intent was to not charge for pavement, the City would also absorb those types of costs. He stated over time it would be much less of a concern as most streets already had sidewalks. Council Member Miller explained he believed the City had a chance to change the policy and execute it well. He stated he had concerns about the sidewalk fees and the property owners at the 100 developmental area units;he questioned if there could be some kind of mechanism put in place to lessen the blow. Mr. Rabe explained he be believed implementing the cap would lessen the blow to larger property owners. He stated some of the larger businesses had parcels that would be between 800 and 1,000 units, therefore the 100 unit cap had a significant impact on them. Council Member Miller stated he believed there could be a glide scale in place so they would not be subject to the full impact initially. He questioned if the sidewalk fees were approximately$800,000 dollars. Mr. Rabe stated yes; that was the cost for sidewalk rehabilitation. Mr. Rohloff presented the slide that showed how the sidewalk rehabilitation cost contributed to the calculation of the $4.50 fee. Council Member Miller questioned if City staff could review the sidewalk rehabilitation calculation and attempt to reduce it to approximately .40 cents. Mr. Rohloff stated if the City were to absorb those costs instead of including them in the fee, there would need to be additional borrowing, and the cost would then be passed on to the general taxpayers through the tax roll. Mayor Palmeri asked for further explanation. Ms. Larson explained when the policy had been evaluated, the City's strategic plan had been prioritized. She stated there was a strong connection between sidewalks and healthy neighborhoods. She explained she would encourage Council to consider that. Mayor Palmeri stated Council,boards/commissions and City staff had worked to achieve a solution for a significant amount of time. She explained she had been a proponent of 12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 the vehicle registration fee increase, until it became evident that the State could disallow such a program. She stated related to sidewalks, equity in transportation was important as not every citizen was vehicle dependent. She explained those who utilized the buses, walked or used other means were reliant on sidewalks. She stated she would support keeping the sidewalk rehabilitation cost built into the fee. Council Member Herman explained he would support reducing the amount sidewalk rehabilitation contributed to the fee, as he understood it was a concern to the business community. He questioned how City staff planned to disseminate the information in the community. Mr. Rohloff stated the subject had been a regular topic of discussion for at least two years, and there were residents who regularly attended the long range finance committee meetings. He explained it was difficult to get citizens attention until they were mailed a bill. He stated City staff would promote the topic on social media, local media was present and would cover the topic and it would be an ongoing effort for City staff to continue to provide the information to the public. He explained there would be public information meetings although he did not anticipate a significant turnout. He stated City staff had included a notice of potential policy change in the special assessment notices that had been mailed out for current projects. Ms. Larson stated utility accounting had a significant number of citizen email addresses, which would be a new method of communication. Council Member Mugerauer explained he had numerous conversations with members of the Chamber of Commerce and colleagues in the business community. He stated in regards to the letter from the Chamber, he had been bothered by the statement that 'it was in the best interest of the citizenry of Oshkosh to keep the City sidewalks in good condition and repair. The sidewalk repair program is more appropriately and equitably funded by the City's general fund.' He explained he believed it was in the best interest of both commercial and residential property owners for the sidewalks to be kept in good condition and repair. He stated not everyone had a vehicle and a significant number of people walked to work and to businesses. He explained if the sidewalks on Main Street and Oregon Street were not kept in good condition it would impact individuals accessing those small businesses. He stated businesses benefited from sidewalk rehabilitation as equally as residential property owners did. He explained he agreed an email would be an appropriate method of communicating the information on the program. He stated the City would continue to talk about the topic, and discussions with the business community and promotion of the subject from the media resulted in engagement. 13 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Miller explained this program would essentially operate like an insurance policy. He stated it would it easier to sell properties as previously it was difficult to sell a residence that had a special assessment charge. Mr. Rohloff agreed. Council Member Miller stated the policy would be important to the residential community. He explained he did not believe the business community should dread the policy. He stated he wanted to make sure Council took the correct approach to the policy so it could be successfully and equitably executed. Mayor Palmeri explained there was not a perfect solution and the goal was to create a policy that benefit the most community members as possible. She stated it would be appropriate to have an ordinance come before Council in the near future. Mr. Rohloff stated City staff had been working on the topic in anticipation of Council's direction and would be able to have an ordinance prepared by the next Council meeting. He requested feedback from Council in order to do so. Council Member Herman explained he was in support of the policy change. He questioned if the topic should be reviewed by the bicycle and pedestrian board, sustainability advisory board and plan commission. He suggested public information meetings as well. He questioned if there was a need to act quickly with an ordinance. Mr. Rohloff stated getting the program started would help establish the cash flow to fund the program, and it had been expressed that the street projects for 2019 would likely not be specially assessed, therefore it was important to get the process started. He explained he did not know that it would necessarily need to be discussed at any board or commission meeting, however, he would be supportive of a public information meeting. Council Member Miller stated he would support a public information meeting. He explained he believed a majority of the citizens would support the program. He stated he would like to hear from the business community, especially those who were at the 100 developmental area unit cap. Mr. Rohloff explained he did not believe the City would hear as much from those who reached the caps than those who fell just under the caps or owned multiple parcels. Mayor Palmeri suggested a joint workshop with the applicable boards and commissions as well as the public. 14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Krause stated he believed it was important to be as transparent as possible. He explained he was in favor of a public information meeting and he agreed with the insurance policy analogy. He stated the business owners should recognize that they were in partnership with the residents, and if the residents assumed large special assessment costs, they would not be spending that money in local businesses. Mr. Rohloff explained a public information meeting would be scheduled for the week of June 241h and the topic would be brought back before Council at the July 91h Council meeting. Council Member Miller stated he would like City staff to rework the calculation of the fee. Council Member Herman agreed. Mr. Rohloff questioned if they were referring to the sidewalk rehabilitation contribution. Council Member Miller stated yes. Mayor Palmeri indicated two Council Members were in support of providing that direction and questioned if anyone else wished to provide that direction. Council Member Mugerauer stated it was his understanding they were asking for additional information, not policy revision. Council Member Miller stated he would like the sidewalk rehabilitation portion reduced to .40 cents. Council Member Herman explained he would like to see it perhaps split in half and how that would impact the City's borrowing. Mayor Palmeri stated if City staff were to explore a lower sidewalk rehabilitation contribution she would like them to review a higher dwelling area unit cap. Council Member Herman questioned if she was referring to the cap for commercial properties. Mayor Palmeri stated yes. 15 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Miller stated he would like to see what the numbers looked like and what the cost related to borrowing would be. Mr. Rohloff explained a funding source would have to be identified if the sidewalk rehabilitation contribution was lowered. He stated that he and Ms. Larson had discussed some options that they could share with Council. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if overall, Council was in agreement that this program would be appropriate. Mayor Palmeri stated no. Council Member Mugerauer clarified if Council was not in agreement. Mayor Palmeri explained they were not voting. Council Member Mugerauer stated that was correct,however, Council needed to provide clear direction to City staff. He questioned if Council had provided enough direction for City staff to begin work on an ordinance. Mr. Rohloff stated yes. He questioned if Council would like City staff to include a look back provision. Mayor Palmeri questioned if Council were to include a look back clause, how far back it would go. Council Member Herman stated he believed five years would be adequate. Council Member Poeschl explained he believed if City staff were to review the amount the sidewalk rehabilitation contributed to the fee, they should also review the cap on units and the look back clause. Mr. Rohloff stated information on the cap would be relatively easy for City staff to provide to Council as a statistical analysis had been completed. Council Member Poeschl explained he worked for the Oshkosh Housing Authority and he assumed they would be considered an institution. Mr. Rohloff stated that was correct. 16 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Poeschl questioned if that meant they would fall under the cap. Mr. Rohloff stated yes, if they met the calculation. He referenced the Winnebago County airport as an example as it was a large property that would be subject to the cap. He explained in respect to the Housing Authority, the lots were relatively compact and would not have as much impervious surface area that could result in the property reaching the cap. Council Member Poeschl questioned if the properties would fall under the residential or non-residential side of the program. Mr. Rabe stated he would need to review how the properties were categorized in the analysis, he was not able to recall. Mayor Palmeri explained she believed because they were subject to rental housing inspections that the properties would be categorized as residential. Mr. Rabe stated there were a few properties that would require additional review as they did not definitively fall clearly into one category. He explained these areas would be further clarified during an implementation process. CONSENT AGENDA Report of Sills by the Finance Director Receipt & Filing of a Petition for Repairs on Westbrook Street Receipt of Claims filed with the City's Insurance Company: A) Walter Yocius for alleged damages due to well abandonment B) Jason Davis for alleged damages to windshield due to debris from City vehicle Resolution 19-324 Authorize the issuance of $5,450,000 aggregate principal amount of General Obligation Street Improvement Bonds, Series 2019A, of the City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, in such amount, providing details, prescribing the form of bond, awarding the bonds to the best bidder, levying taxes & related matters Resolution 19-325 Authorize the issuance of$16,405,000 aggregate principal amount of General Obligation Promissory Notes, Series 2019B of the City of 17 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, in such amount, providing details, prescribing the form of note, awarding the notes to the best bidder, levying taxes & related matters Resolution 19-326 Authorize the issuance $8,835,000 aggregate principal amount of Storm Water Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2019C, of the City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, in such amount providing details, prescribing the form of bond, awarding the bonds to the best bidder & providing for the payment of said bonds & covenants with respect thereto Council Member Mugerauer asked for an explanation of the bonds. Todd Taves, Municipal Advisor, Ehlers, explained the rates had been favorable and interest costs would be less than anticipated. He stated there would be both upfront and long term debt service cost savings. Council Member Mugerauer recommended refinancing additional bonds. Mr. Taves indicated that was in motion. Council Member Mugerauer explained one of the City Manager's goals was to address the City's long term debt policy and the hope was that Moody's would issue the City an improved bond rating in the future. He questioned what would be necessary to achieve that. Mr. Taves stated based on the City's capital plans, although there had been substantial progress in reducing the debt burden, the risk would still remain elevated for a significant period of time. He explained he would not recommend setting a goal of getting the debt burden lowered for the sole purpose of achieving a higher rating. He stated debt burden was only approximately ten percent of the overall rating, some of which could be controlled and some could not. He explained having a plan in place in regards to the rating that addressed the items that could be controlled was beneficial. Resolution 19-327 Approve Winnebago County Recycling Surplus Revenue Ballot Resolution 19-328 Award Bid to Capelle Bros. & Diedrich, Inc. for Westhaven Circle Restroom Renovation for Parks Department ($122,355.00) 18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Resolution 19-329 Approve Dedication of Street Right of Way at the 100 Block of West Waukau Avenue (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) Resolution 19-330 Approve Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks for Lots within Northshore Preserve Plat First Addition (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) Resolution 19-331 Approve Agreement for Sale of Southwest Industrial Park Land to 4Imprint, Inc. ($285,880.00) Resolution 19-332 Award Bid for Contract No. 19-10 to Payne&Dolan for Construction of Lakeshore Riverwalk I-41 to Punhoqua Street ($1,232,621.00) Resolution 19-333 Approve Purchase of Light Poles & Fixtures to Enterprise Lighting Ltd & Philips Lighting (Spectrum) for Lakeshore Riverwalk, Contract No. 19-10 ($71,443.35.00) Resolution 19-334 Approve Purchase of Benches to Victor Stanley for Contract No. 19- 10 Lakeshore Riverwalk ($28,941.00) Resolution 19-335 Approve Special Event — Fox Valley Pro Basketball, Inc. to hold the Aurora Cancer Survivorship Event at the Menominee Nation Arena /June 23, 2019 Resolution 19-336 Approve Amended Special Event — Oshkosh Zoological Society to utilize Opera House Square for the Into the Night event / July 17 & September 19, 2019 Resolution 19-337 Approve Special Event — Kelsey Koller to utilize Menominee Park for the Koller-DeLeon Wedding Ceremony/ September 7, 2019 Resolution 19-338 Approve Special Event—Vietnam Veterans of America—Chapter 437 to utilize South Park War Monument for the POW MIA Remembrance Ceremony/ September 21, 2019 Resolution 19-339 Approve Block Party—Lori Ketter to utilize Judy Lee Drive between Heidi Haven Drive and Rebecca Run for a neighborhood block party /June 15, 2019 Resolution 19-340 Disallowance of Claim by James Chase 19 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Resolution 19-341 Approve Appointments for the following Boards & Commissions: Advisory Parks Board & Plan Commission Resolution 19-342 Approve Special Class "B" Licenses & Operator Licenses MOTION: ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA EXCLUDING RESOLUTIONS 19-331 & 19-341 (Mugerauer; second, Poeschl) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Resolution 19-331 Approve Agreement for Sale of Southwest Industrial Park Land to 4Imprint, Inc. ($285,880.00) MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Miller) CARRIED: Ayes (5) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Present (1) Mugerauer Council Member Mugerauer indicated he would be voting present as 4Imprint was his employer. Resolution 19-341 Approve Appointments for the following Boards & Commissions: Advisory Parks Board & Plan Commission MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Krause) LOST: Ayes (3) Krause, Poeschl, Mayor Palmeri Noes (2) Miller, Mugerauer Present (1) Herman Council Member Miller stated he had a concern about replacing a current parks board member, as the member wished to remain on the board and had considerable experience and ties to several community groups. He questioned if Mayor Palmeri would consider nominating Todd Kaufman for the position. Mayor Palmeri stated it was not open for discussion as she had made the appointment. Council Member Krause explained he wished to remind Council that their job was to vote on the Mayor's appointments, not to select individuals and vote on who they would like appointed. 20 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Mugerauer stated he had a concern with a new vacancy that had been created with Robert Vajgrt, as his term was not set to expire. He questioned if that was a willing resignation that was offered, or if it had been suggested for Mr. Vajgrt to resign to allow the Mayor to appoint an individual she saw fit. Mayor Palmeri questioned if he had the conversation with Mr. Vajgrt. Council Member Mugerauer indicated he was questioning the Mayor who appointed members to the positions, as it was within her right. He questioned if it was a forced resignation of a board member. Mayor Palmeri stated there was nothing forced. She explained Council Member Mugerauer had every opportunity to speak with Mr. Vajgrt. She stated if he wished to question her appointments then he should do so. She explained she made the appointments based on openings, which had been created by a variety of means, such as a deceased member, relocation, retirement and resignation. She asked if anyone else wished to question the appointments. Mayor Palmeri called a five minute recess. Council recessed from 7:36 p.m. until 7:43 p.m. ACTION TAKEN ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ordinance 19-343 Amend Various Sections of Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Krause) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Mayor Palmeri explained Council had received correspondence regarding driveways being widened from 24 feet to 36 feet. She asked for an explanation of the decision to add more impervious surface to properties. Mark Lyons, Principal Planner, stated City staff had received a significant number of requests to widen a driveway from the newer subdivision areas where individuals had three stall garages. He explained City staff researched what surrounding communities had in place, and had determined that Oshkosh was one of the few communities that did not allow the larger width. He stated the planning division had worked with public works and decided it was appropriate to match the current style of residential 21 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 development. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there was any distinction with the use of pervious concrete or if it was assumed to be concrete and asphalt. Mr. Lyons explained property owners would be permitted to use impervious concrete or other impervious methods. Ordinance 19-344 Approve Parking Restrictions on Otter Avenue, in the cul-de-sac between Lake Pointe Drive & Sunnybrook Drive, Custer Avenue & Court Street MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Ordinance 19-345 Temporarily Close Pioneer Drive& 141h Avenue;Allow Persons to Use a Portion of Pioneer Drive for Viewing of the July 41h Fireworks Show &Allow Carry-Ins for July 41h Fireworks Show FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Ordinance 19-346 Approve Closure of Bowen Street, Wisconsin Street, West Irving Avenue &West South Park Avenue (Staff Recommends Waiving the Rules) MOTION: SUSPEND RULES (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Poeschl asked for an explanation of the request to waive the rules and adopt on first reading. Mr. Rabe stated it would allow the City water distribution staff to complete the work and re-open the street as soon as possible. He explained if it was approved, City staff would be able to place warning signs out the following day to give the one week notice that the street would be closed. He stated the construction was to replace the public side of the lead service lines; the private portions had already been replaced. Council Member Poeschl questioned if City staff had provided communication to the residents. 22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Mr. Rabe stated yes, and that several residents had contacted City staff asking when the project would be completed. MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Resolution 19-347 Approve Annual City Licenses (Renewals) MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Resolution 19-348 Approve Combination "Class B" License/Uptown Corp/Uptown 2 / 1601 Oregon Street MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Resolution 19-349 Approve Combination "Class B" License / Amy Matschi / Matschi's Bar / 668 N. Main Street — Including Hearing on Non-Renewal of License (Staff Recommends Non-Renewal) MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Krause) Mayor Palmeri explained the hearing process. Ms. Ubrig swore in Deputy City Clerk Angela Joeckel for testimony. Angela Joeckel,Deputy City Clerk,explained it was her duty as Deputy Clerk to maintain the official records for liquor licenses. She stated the records indicated that the license issued to Amy Matschi for Matschi's Bar, located at 668 N. Main Street,had not been used since July of 2017, when the license was turned over to Ms. Matschi from the previous license holder, land contractor and tenant at the same location. She explained the official records indicated that Ms. Matschi failed to complete the requirements for the issue of the license for the 2018/2019 license year even though the license was granted by Council for that time period. She stated in order for a license to be issued by the City Clerk's Office it must be granted by the Common Council and the premises must pass certain inspections including building, health and fire. She explained the premises at 668 N. Main Street had not passed building, health and fire inspections, therefore the license for 23 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 the 2018/2019 licensing period had not been issued by the City Clerk. She stated upon receipt of the renewal paperwork, part of her duties was to review the application for compliance with State and ordinance requirements. She explained the records in the City Clerk's office showed the license had not been used for the 2018/2019 license year and the premises had been closed since July 2017, therefore she provided the information to the City Clerk who sought direction from Council related to the renewal of the license. She stated pursuant to direction from Council at the May 28, 2018 Council meeting, a notice of intent to not renew was provided to Ms. Matschi, notifying her that Council had declared intentions to not renew the license for Matschi's Bar located at 668 N.Main Street for the 2019/2020 licensing period, and that a hearing would be held tonight, Tuesday, June 111h at 6:00 p.m. She explained Ms. Matschi picked up the notice of non-renewal at the office of the City Clerk in person on June 41h, 2019. Ms. Ubrig swore in Amy Matschi for testimony. Amy Matschi, 1378 Lake Breeze Road, explained she had taken back the bar in July of 2017, after previously having sold it on land contract. She stated she had not had any intention of re-opening the bar and had planned on selling it. She explained in September of 2017 she listed the property with Kyle Kehoe and in October of 2017 the City deemed that the roof was in poor condition so she had a new roof installed. She stated in January of 2018 vandals broke the water main resulting in five feet of water in the basement, which subsequently froze and pushed portions of the structure up. She explained that triggered the process of demolition, including the apartment above the bar as well as the bar itself, leaving a vacant building. She stated when she needed funds to continue to project she had learned from the bank that the previous tenant, Don Walker, had federal tax liens. She explained in May of 2017 when she realized she would need to foreclose the land contract to take the title and resell the property, she obtained legal representation to begin the process. She stated the foreclosure was started on December 18, 2017 and there were complications to the process as Mr. Walker had several liens on the property, including federal tax liens, which required federal foreclosure procedure to be followed. She explained that required a sheriff's sale of the property and a mandatory 120 day right of redemption after the foreclosure sale. She stated it had been a lengthy process. She explained Mr. Walker's former spouse objected to the foreclosure and negotiations resulted in a settlement which required an amended summons to be served on October 11, 2018. She stated the foreclosure judgement was received as soon as possible after the defendants were served and the mandatory waiting period had passed. She explained the sheriff's sale was held on February 5, 2019, which the first sale available after the mandatory waiting period. She stated the sale was confirmed by the court on February 27, 2019 and the property was immediately marketed. She explained she had called the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) in Oshkosh to determine if they would be interested in 24 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 the property, as she was aware of the seven empty lots on Jefferson Street. She stated on March 25, 2019 she accepted an offer from the City on the contingency that the RDA approved the purchase. She explained the RDA rejected the purchase. She stated since Mr. Walker had relinquished the property she had invested over $95,000 dollars in repairs and upkeep. She explained she had not had the legal authority to sell the property until the foreclosure was complete and the liens removed. She stated the title would be clear on June 191h. She explained she had an opportunity to recoup a small fraction of the investment and was requesting to have the license renewed as she had two offers to purchase. She stated the offer she had accepted was from a gentleman who lived in Florida, who was represented by Kelly Schwab. Council Member Herman questioned if the building was vacant and did not have a bar inside. Ms. Matschi indicated that was correct; it was an empty shell. She explained she had vandalism occur and an individual ran into the but behind the bar, which had to be removed. She stated she installed a new roof and heaters. She explained she had not had the required inspections related to the license as there was not anything to inspect. Mayor Palmeri questioned if Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, would be able to answer questions. Ms. Lorenson indicated Ms. Matschi would need to complete her testimony first. Ms. Matschi explained she had finished her testimony. Ms. Lorenson questioned if she would like Ms. Schwab to testify on her behalf. Ms. Matschi stated yes. Ms. Ubrig swore in Kelly Schwab for testimony. Kelly Schwab, 4181 Stonegate Drive, explained she was an attorney representing Christopher Brown, who had an accepted offer to purchase on Ms. Matschi's property. She stated the offer to purchase was contingent on him being granted or being able to obtain a liquor license for the property. She explained Mr. Brown was a commercial real estate owner in the Sarasota/Siesta Key area in Florida, and owned seven restaurant/bars in the area in addition to a night club. She stated he was originally from Wisconsin and wanted to complete a project in the area and intended to make substantial improvements to the property. She explained he had plans for a high end bar that would potentially 25 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 have food options. She stated he looked at the project as a good opportunity for the City and Main Street. She explained he was excited about becoming involved in the community through an investment that could benefit everyone. Council Member Miller questioned what Ms. Schwab's opinion was on the likelihood of the sale closing. Ms. Schwab stated she had been retained by the individual and did not know him personally. She explained the offer to purchase was structured to close by July 1, 2019 and there would be a substantial down payment of earnest money within five days. She stated as long as the contract was fulfilled in the next five days, the entire purchase price would be paid as earnest money. She explained it was a strong offer as long as he complied, which they should know within the first five days. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if the sale was contingent upon the ability for the buyer to be able to obtain a liquor license or if the license was required upon purchase. Ms. Schwab stated he would need to have a liquor license in order for the sale to close as he intended to operate the property as a bar/restaurant. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if the offer was written that he required the liquor license to close the sale. Ms. Schwab indicated it was written that the sale was contingent on him obtaining a liquor license. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if that was prior to closing. Ms. Schwab stated yes. Council Member Mugerauer stated he wanted to make sure they were on the same page as there were liquor licenses available that he would be able to obtain through the normal process. Council Member Poeschl questioned what the timeline would be for the potential new owner to turn the premise into a functioning establishment. Ms. Schwab stated the closing date was scheduled for July 1, 2019. She explained the earnest money was due within five days of the accepted offer, dated June 101h, and it was her understanding he was looking at starting renovations and improvements almost immediately. She stated he was working with her office to obtain local contacts for 26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 contractors and consultants. She explained he had extensive experience in the hospitality industry, however, not in Wisconsin and was working with her staff to find local help. She stated his intention would be to start right away. Council Member Poeschl questioned if it was understood that if the license was granted to the property, there would need to be a functioning establishment within the next year. Ms. Schwab stated that was her understanding from the conversations with her client. She explained the work would need to be completed first, however, he was looking to move forward quickly utilizing contractors. Ms. Ubrig swore in Kyle Kehoe to testify. Kyle Kehoe, 2830 Ruschfield Drive, explained he was the realtor representing the sale. He stated in addition to the accepted offer from Mr. Brown, there was a secondary offer in place in the event something were to fall through. He explained the second offer would also require a liquor license. He stated when they had attended the RDA meeting, they had expectations that the City was going to approve the purchase, based on the property's location next to other RDA property. He explained after the purchase was not approved, he had worked to sell the property to several interested parties. He stated the buyers were familiar with how much work was needed and had walked through the property in person. He explained while the bar did require rehabilitation, it had received improvements such as a new roof and furnaces, as well as electrical and plumbing work. He stated this would be an opportunity to continue to expand Main Street further south with a high end establishment. Council Member Poeschl questioned if the second buyer had a timeline in mind. Mr. Kehoe stated it would be similar. He explained the second buyer had an expectation of the process if they were to be made primary. Council Member Miller stated he was not in favor of pulling the license given the circumstances and questioned if there was a reason City staff could provide as to why they believed it should not be renewed. Ms. Lorenson explained they were in the middle of deliberations, and the notice of intention to not renew was given at the direction of Council, not due to City staff's recommendation. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there were any documents presented into the record. 27 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Ms. Matschi explained she had copies of the offers to purchase. Council Member Mugerauer stated once those were provided to Council, they became public record. He confirmed that Ms. Matschi wished to provide those. Ms. Matschi initially decided to not submit the documents,however,Ms. Schwab advised that her client approved of the offer being provided to Council, therefore the offer from Mr. Brown was submitted. Council Member Poeschl clarified that the offer to purchase that had been submitted was from the individual being represented by Ms. Schwab. Ms. Lorenson stated that was correct. Mayor Palmeri questioned if it had occurred to Ms. Matschi that she should have submitted the documents to Council ahead of time for review. Ms. Matschi indicated she had just signed the offer late the previous night and she had been uncertain as to what she was able to submit to become part of the public record. Council Member Krause questioned if the document needed to be notarized or if it was legal once both parties had signed. Ms. Schwab indicated it was legal. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there was additional documentation she would like to submit. Ms. Matschi stated no. Ms. Ubrig swore in Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, for testimony. Mayor Palmeri stated Ms. Matschi had indicated there was an earlier accepted offer from the City on March 25, 2019. She asked for additional detail regarding the offer. Mr. Davis stated the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) was the party that was involved. He explained they had purchased several properties on Jefferson Street and expressed interest in gaining access to Main Street. He stated the property had a front on Main Street and would also provide access to the lots on Jefferson Street. He explained the property owner had accepted the offer, however, there was a contingency that the RDA 28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 would need to approve the purchase. He stated the RDA had debated the purchase and subsequently declined. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there had been a reference to the renewal or non-renewal of the liquor license in the discussion with the RDA. Mr. Davis stated he was unable to recall if the liquor license was discussed. He explained they had been aware it was a bar, and understood the liquor license would come with the property, however, were aware it would have went into the pool of licenses. He stated the RDA had not been seeking to retain the license. Council Member Poeschl questioned why the RDA had passed on the property. Mr. Davis explained it was not contiguous enough to the other parcels that were available as there was still another parcel to the south required to be able to connect to the other property available on Main Street. He stated it was undetermined if the parcel could be obtained, and Ms. Matschi's parcel by itself did not serve enough of a purpose to warrant the acquisition. Council Member Mugerauer asked for an estimate of the time it took to apply for and be granted a liquor license, and how many licenses were currently available. Ms. Joeckel stated the paperwork had to be on file 15 days prior to the Council meeting. She explained there were two licenses available; a reserve license and as of July 1st there would be an additional available license. Council Member Mugerauer questioned what other components went into the application outside of health and fire inspections. Ms. Joeckel stated there was a background check conducted by the police department, taxes, health and fire inspections in addition to meeting State requirements. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if the new owner would still need to go through that process even though the license would be transferred upon the sale of the business. Ms. Joeckel stated yes. Council Member Mugerauer explained there was no way to know at present time if the buyer would be able to be approved for the license. 29 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Ms. Joeckel stated that was correct. Ms. Matschi explained she understood Council's support of small businesses, and she believed her property was a great location that could bring a new establishment to N. Main Street. Council Member Krause questioned why it was stated that staff recommends non- renewal. Mayor Palmeri explained Council recommended non-renewal. Council Member Krause questioned when that happened. Ms. Lorenson indicated at the May 281h Council meeting. Council Member Krause questioned if City staff had not had the information regarding the accepted offer at that time. Ms. Lorenson stated that was correct as the offer had just been accepted the day before. Council Member Miller explained in light of the new circumstances he did not believe Council should disrupt the sale. Council Member Herman agreed. He stated most of the other non-renewal hearings he had been a part of had not had any type of sale pending. He explained he believed non- renewal of the liquor license could add complications to the sale. He stated he was in favor of granting the license for the year, and if there was no activity from the buyer in that time, the license would come back for Council review at that time. Mayor Palmeri stated a motion to amend was necessary. Ms. Lorenson explained at the end of the resolution, there was a section that stated 'the determination was based on the following facts' that would be updated with the findings of the Council. She stated she had provided Council a memo, after having learned that Ms. Matschi had received an accepted offer, which provided some examples of verbiage for findings. Council Member Mugerauer explained he was concerned that in the offer to purchase, it was stated the offer was contingent upon the buyer being able to obtain a liquor license prior to the closing date. He stated they would need to pass building, fire and health 30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 inspections prior to that occurring. Ms. Lorenson explained they would not be able to obtain the license prior to closing as they did not own the premises yet. Council Member Mugerauer stated while it was a nuance, any kind of 'wiggle room' could allow the buyer to get out of the deal. He explained he was concerned about the wording and the impact it had on Council's decision, as the buyer did not have the ability to obtain a liquor license prior to closing. Ms. Lorenson explained the City Clerk had reminded her that they would be able to obtain a license prior to owning the premise through a transfer of agent. She stated there would still be a timeline on the process and the background checks would need to be completed. Ms. Ubrig stated it would come before Council, and Council would grant the agent transfer. She explained the license would not be issued by the Clerk's office until all requirements had been met. Mayor Palmeri questioned if verbiage could be included in the amendment requiring the applicant to surrender the license if the sale did not close and development did not occur. Ms. Lorenson explained Council would be granting the license for a year and the applicant would be able to willingly surrender the license, however, for the City to otherwise take the license it would require a revocation hearing. Mayor Palmeri questioned if that would occur if they willingly surrendered the license. Ms. Lorenson stated no. She explained Ms. Matschi could voluntarily surrender the license and a revocation hearing would only be necessary if the City wished to revoke the license. Council Member Poeschl questioned if the license had to be approved for a full year. Ms. Lorenson stated yes. 31 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 MOTION: AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS- THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO THE COUNCIL THAT THERE IS AN ACCEPTED OFFER FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IS CONTINGENT UPON MAINTENANCE OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE, THE APPLICANT/LICENSEE TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAS AN OFFER TO PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY FROM A PERSON/BUSINESS WHO WILL PURCHASE AND REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY INTO A USE REQUIRING A LIQUOR LICENSE, THAT MS. MATSCHI TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS AN INTERESTED PURCHASER FOR THE PROPERTY AND INTEND TO PURCHASE AND REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY INTO A USE REQUIRING A LIQUOR LICENSE, CLOSING ON THE PROPERTY WAS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 1, 2019, REDEVELOPMENT IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR BY JUNE 30, 2020, AND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT REDEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR. FOR THE REASONS STATED WAIVER OF SECTION 4-6 OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING USE OF A LIQUOR LICENSE IS APPROPRIATE (Herman; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri VOTE ON RESOLUTION AS AMENDED CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Resolution 19-350 Support Go Transit's Application for Section 5339(B) Federal Program Funding for Fueling Station Replacement MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Jim Collins, Director of Transportation, explained the grant was to replace the fuel station at the transit center, which dated back to the 1980s. He stated the grant would result in the federal government paying eighty percent of the cost, and twenty percent of the cost attributed to the City. He explained the twenty percent cost was included in transit's capital improvement projects for the coming year. He stated he was uncertain if it would be awarded as the grants were most often awarded to fund bus purchases. 32 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Mugerauer thanked Mr. Collins and City staff for seeking out as many grants as possible. He stated he had toured the facility and recognized how inefficient the current fueling station was, and the safety concerns that were present. Resolution 19-351 Approve Tax Increment District No. 36 Project Plan; Designate Tax Increment District No. 36 Boundaries; Create Tax Increment District No. 36 Merge Redevelopment MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Herman stated he supported the resolution as he thought it was an exciting project coming into the City. He explained he believed all of the progress the City had made in recent years had resulted in an outside developer investing in the City. Mayor Palmeri questioned if the tax increment district would complete what had been started many years ago with Marion Road. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated yes. He explained the Redevelopment Authority owned three parcels in the district and the new tax increment district would encompass the remaining parcels. Council Member Mugerauer stated Merge planned to take blighted property and turn it into a commercial multi-purpose development. He questioned how much the City would contribute and what the anticipated value would be after the project was complete. Mr. Davis explained it would be a pay-go TIF which meant the developer would make the investment costs, the property would be assessed and the City would collect tax revenue prior to making any returns to the investor. He stated the anticipated future value was approximately 26 million dollars. Council Member Poeschl stated when the TIF was first created,he recalled a blighted area with significant environmental remediation required. He explained the area had dramatically improved, and questioned how the area could still be referred to as blighted. Mr. Davis stated looks could be deceiving as there was still significant remediation required for what was under the ground. He explained there was contamination, poor soils and unknown geotechnical conditions. He stated the developer would need to complete considerable work to satisfy the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 33 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Poeschl questioned why the TIF had not been used earlier to address remediation concerns. Mr. Davis stated remediation was a site specific solution, meaning the City would need to know what the building pad would look like, where the parking cap would be and what landscaping would be present. He explained remediation was custom designed to the development. Council Member Poeschl questioned if some of the remediation began once a site plan was in place. Mr. Davis stated the City needed a site plan, building plan and knowledge of underground structural components. Mayor Palmeri stated she was not certain on the exact number of units planned for the site. She explained she understood the contribution to the City's housing stock, where there was a shortage in rental units, was a public benefit. She questioned what other public benefits would result in this development. Mr. Davis indicated their application stated 240 rental units. He explained the City supported additional downtown residential units to support downtown businesses. He stated they would be types of units that were not offered in Oshkosh at this time. He explained the developer had incorporated the river walk and potential kayak launch so the public could enjoy the common green space. He stated there would be incubator type units available in the commercial space for use by entrepreneurs. Resolution 19-352 Approve Amendment to 2019 Operations Budget for TIF #36 for $63,000 (Merge Marion Road Redevelopment) MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Herman, Mugerauer, Mayor Palmeri Mayor Palmeri questioned what the amendment was related to. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, explained it was the cost the City incurred creating the tax increment finance district. He stated a consultant was hired to help with the plan, financial analysis and development agreement. He explained the applicant had made a payment for funding to the revenue side. 34 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—JUNE 11, 2019 COUNCIL DISCUSSION, DIRECTION TO CITY MANAGER &FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Rohloff explained City staff had received direction from Council to program the new parks facility into the City's five year capital improvement program (CIP). He stated this did not resolve where the funds would come from as that would be direction provided from Council regarding the City's debt management policy. Council Member Herman stated he would like to see plans move forward as he believed investing money in a temporary solution with the parks facility was not a fiscally responsibly decision. He explained he believed it was time for there to be a quality parks facility, for both offices and equipment storage. Council Member Mugerauer agreed with Council Member Herman. He recommended including the project in the five year CIP. He explained after touring the facility it was easy to recognize the need for the project. Council Member Krause agreed and explained it was a blighted building. He stated it was not a suitable building for City staff and would like to see a plan come forward. Mayor Palmeri stated the boards and commissions study item was a placeholder for Council to decide on a date to bring a workshop back for Council. She explained there was a number of items for the workshop including whether Council liaisons would continue to be voting participants, the discussion of alternates and the potential merging of additional boards/commissions. She stated she was uncertain the 2018 study needed to be updated. Mr. Rohloff explained he believed it was just a matter of revisiting the topic. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there were other upcoming workshops. Mr. Rohloff stated he was not aware of any aside from upcoming budget workshops that had yet to be scheduled. Council Member Herman explained he believed Council had spent considerable time realigning the boards/commissions and he would like to see the discussion center on the topic of alternates. Council Member Poeschl stated he believed there was merit in having continued discussion about the potential merging of boards/commissions or creating new ones. He explained he understood the study had already taken place he believed it was still relevant to discuss. 35 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Council Member Mugerauer stated he believed the alternate discussion was important and was uncertain about the necessity for a workshop centered on the boards/commissions study. He explained he would like to know what the intended outcome of such a workshop would be. Council Member Poeschl stated earlier in the meeting there had been a brief recess. He explained he had reflected on what had led up to that recess, and how it may be captured in the boards/commissions discussion. He explained it did not appear that Council was on the same page in regards to the process. He stated the workshop would be an optimal time to discuss the process of appointments and the disagreement that surrounded that process. Council Member Miller agreed. He explained he believed it was an opportunity for Council to get on the same page. He questioned if a workshop would be the appropriate forum. Mr. Rohloff explained the purpose of a workshop was not necessarily to take action; it was to have an in-depth discussion to provide City staff with additional direction at a later date. He stated there were components from the boards/commissions study that had never been brought back before Council and he believed it would be appropriate to discuss those at a workshop. Mayor Palmeri recommended holding the workshop before budget season. Mr. Rohloff explained July 91h or July 23rd would be appropriate. Council decided on July 23rd Mayor Palmeri requested Council Members submit specific topics for discussion. Mr. Rohloff explained a survey showed any board/commission that did not have an alternate would like the position created, and the ones that currently had the alternate position would like to keep it. Council Member Poeschl stated the general consensus of the traffic and parking advisory board was in favor of alternates, however, there was one member who was concerned how adequately trained the alternate would be for an occasion in which they would have to act as a voting member. He stated the alternate would receive all of the meeting information that a regular member would receive and that it should not be a concern. 36 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 Mr. Rohloff agreed. He explained every alternate would receive the same material and be invited and expected to attend the meetings. He stated the landmarks commission had three alternates. Mayor Palmeri questioned how that had happened. Mr. Rohloff stated he believed when the landmarks commission and grand opera house advisory board were joined, an additional alternate had been added to accommodate the merger. He explained he would review if the positions were filled. He clarified if direction from Council was to bring back a resolution or ordinance to have alternate positions added to the boards/commissions. Council Member Miller stated that was correct. Mayor Palmeri explained up to two alternates could be added. Council Member Herman stated he had received feedback from citizens regarding the appointment of a Council member in the event of a vacancy. He explained one suggestion had been in a situation like the last election, the individual who received the fourth highest number of votes on the ballot would automatically be appointed to the vacant seat. He stated other individuals had expressed the existing process was appropriate. He explained he believed the discussion regarding a video presentation had been the source of confusion. He stated he did not believe a special election was the correct method as it would be expensive and likely have low voter turnout. Ms. Lorenson explained by state statute, Council had the ability to appoint an individual to a vacant seat,however, she did not believe it was possible to automatically appoint the person with the fourth highest votes. She stated Council could vote and appoint with that in mind, however, the ordinance could not be changed to reflect that. Council Member Krause explained every election was different, and there may be an election in which the individual with the next highest amount of votes on the ballot was running on something ludicrous, and Council may wish to not appoint them. He stated he believed the process needed to be shorter as he felt as though it had dragged on. He explained he felt uncomfortable with the process and believed there needed to be an alternative. Mayor Palmeri stated there seemed to be similar questions for the applicants when there was a vacant seat. She questioned if it would be appropriate to add some of those questions to the application. She stated with the improvements in technology, it may be 37 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 beneficial to shorten the process from thirty days to two weeks. She questioned if the appointment should occur in a separate meeting and if the names should be released as they were submitted. Council Member Mugerauer agreed that Council should prepare a questionnaire in advance. He stated he believed the timeline needed to be shortened to two weeks and a separate meeting would be appropriate. He explained he understood it was an uncomfortable situation, however, it was Council's responsibility to appoint an individual and the candidates were aware that the process was competitive. He stated he believed the current process was the correct way to approach it. Mayor Palmeri explained rather than showing a video presentation at the meeting, she believed applicants should be able to provide a link with their application so Council and the public could view it ahead of time. Council Member Poeschl suggested there be a uniform set of questions established. He stated it was a common hiring practice amongst various institutions. He explained he did not believe the fourth person should be automatically appointed. He stated the election revealed who the public wanted to serve, as well as who they did not want to serve. He explained be believed it was up to Council to make the determination of who would fill the vacant seat. Council Member Krause agreed with the standardized questions and would like the presentation portion to remain. Council Member Poeschl agreed. He explained he believed there were uniform questions Council would like answers to, and by asking those on the application the answers would be provided and the presentation would allow for follow-up questions. Ms. Lorenson stated the only area that would require an ordinance change would be the reduction of time from thirty days to two weeks. She explained if that was the consensus, she would prepare the change. Council Member Poeschl agreed. He stated he would like to see the application to both a Council vacancy seat and to the boards/commissions be more web based. He explained a fillable form as opposed to a PDF would be more appropriate. He stated the interface should also allow the applicants to provide attachments or supporting documents. Council Member Mugerauer explained he was in support of creating different avenues for people to apply, however, he did not want to prevent an individual from applying if 38 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—JUNE 11, 2019 they did not have access to those means. He stated any and all methods of applying should be available. He explained he believed the moment the application was turned in it was a matter of public record and should be available to Council immediately. Ms. Lorenson stated City staff did not have any objections to that, however, during the most recent appointment process, applicants had not been informed it would be public record. She explained if that was the direction from Council for future vacancies, applicants would be informed. Council Member Herman stated he believed it was the consensus of Council to shorten the process to two weeks and include standardized questions. He explained he had not been advocating for automatically appointing the candidate with the fourth highest votes, it had been a suggestion from a member of the public. Mr. Rohloff stated he would ask City staff to review the video from the meeting to identify common questions. He recommended coming up with the questions now, so if a vacancy occurred the process was already in place. Council Member Mugerauer requested a discussion on a future agenda of the State's potential removal of personal property tax. Mr. Rohloff stated he would forward Council an email from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. CITIZEN STATEMENTS TO COUNCIL There were no citizen statements to Council. CO UNCIL MEMBER ANNO UNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS Council Member Herman congratulated the Oshkosh North softball team for winning the state championship. He reminded Council of the closed session after the June 251n Council meeting. Council Member Miller congratulated the Oshkosh North softball team for a record setting season. CITY MANAGER ANNO UNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS Mr. Rohloff explained there was a cooperative purchase of a vehicle for the engineering 39 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-JUNE 11, 2019 division that had been budgeted. He stated there was a service agreement with FGM architects, and Council had previously allocated funds for the space needs assessment for the police department. He explained the study was underway and would be reported back to Council after completion. He stated there was a professional service agreement with AECOM to complete the final plat for the industrial park expansion. He explained the City had been awarded a$300,000 dollar community wide assessment grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to review the extent of environmental contamination on properties throughout the Sawdust District. He thanked City staff for their work on the grant. He stated the list of outstanding issues and Oshkosh Corporation update had been included in the Council packet. Council Member Miller questioned if vehicles were pooled across every division. Mr. Rohloff stated it was a regular practice as the State had a great bid program. MOTION: ADJOURN (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: VOICE VOTE The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. PAMELA R. UBRIG CITY CLERK 40