HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.02.25 MinutesCITY OF OSHKOSH SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD
Minutes
June 2nd, 2025
SAB PRESENT: Margy Davey, Lisa Moore, Jacob Klaameyer, Alyssa Reinke, Brad Spanbauer,
Vic Oliver, Jaden Zurn, Paul Treder
EXCUSED:
ABSENT:
STAFF AND OTHERS: Emma Dziengeleski (Planning Staff), James Rabe (Director of Public
Works), Chuck Boehm (Brown and Caldwell), Kelly Reyer (Winnebago County Solid Waste),
Staff (Oshkosh Media)
I. Call to Order
Chair Margy Davey called the meeting to order at 6:00pm and a quorum was declared present.
II. Public Comment
Ms. Davey asked if there were public comments.
III. Approval of Minutes, May 5th, 2025
Mr. Spanbauer motioned to approve the minutes. Ms. Reinke seconded the motion.
The board approved the May 5th minutes 8-0 (Spanbauer/Reinke).
IV. Election of Officers Discussion / Action
Ms. Dziengeleski began the nominations process for Chairperson and Ms. Davey was
nominated by Mr. Treder. There were no further nominations and Ms. Davey was voted
unanimously to be Chairperson.
Ms. Dziengeleski began the nominations process for Vice-Chairperson and Ms. Oliver was
nominated by Ms. Davey. There were no further nominations and Ms. Oliver was voted
unanimously to be Vice-Chairperson.
V. Sustainable Activities and Events
Mr. Klaameyer shared a couple of upcoming events with the board. He mentioned the Slow
Roll event and said additional information can be found on Facebook. He also shared that “U-
Pick” strawberries is beginning at Nature’s Finest Foods at Koeppl Farms on June 13th.
Mr. Treder shared that the Farmers Market is starting the first weekend in June, and that will
run every Saturday morning from 8:00am-12:30pm.
VI. Composting and Bulk Waste Presentation from Kelly Reyer (Winnebago County Solid
Waste)
Ms. Davey introduced Kelly Reyer, who then began her presentation.
Ms. Reyer shared what they do at the Solid Waste Department, what materials the facility
accepts, and briefly explained the different facilities. She said that the Solid Waste Department
is an enterprise fund meaning that all programs are solely covered by tipping fees. She
continued with a brief background of Tri-County Recycling which is made up of Winnebago,
Outagamie, and Brown Counties and all that recycling is currently going to Outagamie County.
She shared that the county has begun selling composting bins every other year, that they
promote backyard composting, and other education. She followed up with stating that they
currently do not have space, staff, or the equipment to set up a composting operation. She then
briefly covered bulk waste and said that the county does accept waste via drop-off during their
regular hours. She shared some examples of how other communities dispose of bulk waste and
included items that need to be considered prior to starting these programs. She concluded her
presentation with going over Winnebago Solid Waste’s current sustainability initiatives.
Mr. Klaameyer asked what is done with yard waste that is dropped off.
Ms. Reyer said yard waste is shredded and then a company picks it up to use.
Ms. Davey asked what happens if residents show up with hazardous waste, but do not have an
appointment.
Ms. Reyer responded that they have not turned people away; however, in the past they have
had issues with traffic backing up onto the highway as everyone came all at once.
Mr. Spanbauer asked for clarification regarding how current bulk waste pick up is being
conducted and where there is room for improvement.
Ms. Reyer recommended researching what other local communities are doing.
Mr. Klaameyer asked if there have been any studies on demand for composting, or if that is
something the board can do.
Ms. Reyer responded with yes, that is something the board can help with.
Mr. Zurn asked if anyone was aware how much a yearly composting program may cost.
Ms. Reyer said she had no idea.
Mr. Rabe said that a lot of the questions being asked fall under the Department of Public Works.
He shared that the city has a yard waste drop off site that requires a $25 annual permit. He said
the city grinds all woody material into mulch for residents, and stated that they conduct an
annual fall leaf collection which is transported to a couple of landscapers in the area that do
composting.
Ms. Davey asked if residents need the annual permit to pick up mulch.
Mr. Rabe said he did not have the answer to that question, but would follow up with that at a
later date. He shared that a permit is not required for the disposal of used motor oil and used
antifreeze.
Mr. Klaameyer said that he still sees an opportunity for addressing food waste locally. He said
that he sees a survey being beneficial to evaluate demand, space, and other interested parties
that can make this possible.
VII. Municipal Code Chapter 14: Post Construction Storm Water Management Ordinance
Update Analysis Discussion /Action
Ms. Davey introduced Chuck Boehm from Caldwell and Brown and James Rabe from the City
of Oshkosh Department of Public Works and they began their presentation.
Mr. Boehm gave a brief background of the process, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL),
pollution reduction scenarios considered, and what they are looking for the board to take action
on.
There was some discussion amongst the board regarding stormwater management practices for
new developments versus redevelopments.
Mr. Boehm explained that they looked at a number of city-wide plans while conducting this
study as well.
Mr. Rabe said the board could take the Total Suspended Solid (TSS) Reduction Requirement
from one scenario and the Total Phosphorus (TP) Reduction Requirement from another as well.
Mr. Spanbauer shared that he sees that Scenario 3 and 5 seem to be most achievable in
comparison to recent developments.
Mr. Rabe specified that the Sawyer Creek Watershed is called out in Scenario 3, so developers
would need to know if they are developing in that watershed versus other watersheds in the
city.
Mr. Spanbauer and Mr. Treder both commented on Scenario 3 being more developer friendly.
Ms. Reinke recommended the board take a deeper look at TP Reduction Requirements first as
phosphorous did not have requirements until recently.
Mr. Klaameyer shared some information pertaining to phosphorus management techniques. He
asked if those techniques fall under the DNR requirements.
Mr. Boehm stated that those techniques can be difficult to quantify. He also shared that it is a
requirement to show that since the management practice will be in place long term, it will be
owned, operated, and maintained appropriately.
Ms. Reinke and Mr. Zurn asked for the ratio between new development versus redevelopment.
Mr. Rabe said that water quality was first addressed in the Municipal Code in 2012, and stated
that anything that was developed after that would be considered new, but anything prior to
that date would be considered redevelopment. He explained that as the city grows, the new
development areas are what staff will really be looking at.
Mr. Boehm said about 80 acres a year of new development and about 30 acres of redevelopment
and about 14 acres of mixed development, so roughly a 2:1 ratio.
Mr. Spanbauer asked for what the exact number is that is being treated by the storm water
management practices are versus what is expected.
Mr. Boehm responded that this is all done via computer modeling, so it is challenging to
confirm the exact reduction amounts.
The board discussed removing potential scenarios. They decided to eliminate Scenario 3 from
the discussion. There was also discussion pertaining to a preference of the TP reduction
numbers for Scenario 1 and 2.
Mr. Boehm stated that Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 were guided by the DNR requirements for wet
management practices.
Ms. Reinke shared that the higher decrease in phosphorus will lead to a higher quality of water
in the city. She sees this being a huge pull for new development and will result in a positive
increase in the tax revenue.
Mr. Klaameyer shared that he worries if they are not aggressive with requirements now, that it
will eventually put a strain on residents in the future as these targets will still need to be met
and paid for.
Mr. Klaameyer motioned to recommend Scenario 2. Mr. Zurn seconded the motion.
(Klaameyer/Zurn)
Ms. Moore asked if Scenario 1 would address what the board is trying to achieve, but is also
being developer friendly.
Ms. Oliver and Mr. Treder agreed.
Mr. Zurn said that based on knowing how much new development is occurring, he is in favor
of Scenario 2 as that would guarantee a greater opportunity for benefit.
Ms. Reinke and Mr. Spanbauer stated that they would like to see a combination of Scenario 1
and Scenario 2.
Ms. Davey said that now she believes the board is discussing Scenario 1 for TSS and Scenario 2
for TP.
The board agreed.
Mr. Klaameyer withdrew his motion and Mr. Zurn withdrew his second, due to further
discussion on combining Scenarios 1 and 2.
Mr. Spanbauer motioned to recommend the TSS Reduction Requirements for Scenario 1 and the
TP Reduction Requirements for Scenario 2. Ms. Oliver seconded the motion. (Spanbauer/Oliver)
Mr. Boehm added that the 61% TP reduction was based off of the 90% of the TSS reduction, so
this can be challenging for developers to achieve as their facilities need to be able to handle a
higher reduction.
Ms. Davey asked if they should not mix and match scenarios as the recommendations are based
off of each other.
Mr. Boehm shared that yes, in some instances that is the case.
Ms. Oliver asked if there is a significant difference between the percentages.
Mr. Boehm said it really depends on development and the potential practices that they can
utilize.
Mr. Klaameyer suggested voting on each row rather than each column. He suggested 85% in the
first row, any of the options in the second row, 54% for the third row, and 34% in the fourth
row.
Mr. Spanbauer withdrew his motion and Ms. Oliver withdrew her second, due to conversation
to alter TSS and TP reduction requirements reccomendations further.
Ms. Davey asked if they should stick to one scenario or if they can mix and match.
Mr. Rabe said he would like to see how the conversation moving forward goes.
Ms. Reinke asked if 90% isn’t realistic, then why is it a possible recommendation.
Mr. Boehm said it is realistic if you require a 61% sediment reduction.
Mr. Zurn asked if the numbers Mr. Klaameyer mentioned prior are realistic.
Mr. Boehm said there are some technologies that could achieve those possibilities.
Mr. Klaameyer shared some other local municipalities examples.
Mr. Rabe shared that TDML had different requirements based off what watershed they were
looking at.
Mr. Zurn asked if there is a threshold in which feasibility, viability, and cost effectiveness
become an impediment.
Mr. Boehm said that 30% to 35% is the typical breaking point for smaller practices for
redevelopment sites. He then said from a new development standpoint, the higher the
requirement the larger the management practice will need to be.
Ms. Reinke said that placing a higher requirement on developments will reduce the
requirements from the municipal side of things.
Mr. Rabe responded with yes; however, it puts more of a burden on the site plan review process
for staff.
There was discussion on Scenario 1, but altering the redevelopment TP Reduction Requirement,
the potential burden on staff, and what makes the most sense from a sustainability lens.
Ms. Moore motioned to recommend Scenario 1 as written. Ms. Oliver seconded the motion. The
board approved Scenario 1 as written. 8-0 (Moore/Oliver)
VIII. Summer Farmers Market
Ms. Dziengeleski confirmed June 21st, August 9th, and October 11th as the three dates the board
has for the Farmers Market.
Mr. Zurn, Mr. Treder, and Mr. Klaameyer agreed that they are available to staff June 21st.
Ms. Moore said that at the next meeting she would like to talk about composting and
potentially surveying residents at a later Farmers Market date.
There was brief discussion on topics to focus on for the June Farmers Market.
IX. Sustainability Related Plans
Ms. Dziengeleski shared that they held a handful of public engagement sessions for the
Sustainability Plan. Unfortunately, there was a low turnout, but everyone was engaged and
provided valuable feedback. She said that they are looking to post boards from those sessions
online for the public to view and provide brief comments. She explained that GRAEF is aiming
to have the draft plan completed in mid to late July, and the final plan will be completed in late
August or early September. She also shared that the paleBLUEdot is now collecting data for
solar feasibility of municipal buildings. She said that paleBLUEdot will be on site on Friday to
meet with department heads and managers to give an update as to where that plan is at.
Mr. Klaameyer asked if there is still an opportunity for a community survey.
Ms. Dziengeleski responded the public engagement session information being put on the
website would account for a community survey.
Ms. Davey provided more information on how the public engagement sessions went.
X. Agenda Items for Future Meeting
Ms. Davey said that composting and bulk waste, Summer Farmers Market, and seasonal
sustainability spotlight are on the agenda for a future meeting. She also reminded the board to
submit items to staff two weeks prior to the formal meeting.
Ms. Reinke asked to hear an update as to what the outcome is on the Chapter 14: Post-
Construction Storm Water Management Ordinance Update Analysis recommendations.
Mr. Treder asked to include promotion of rain gardens.
XI. Next Meeting is Monday, July 7th, 2025
XII. Adjourn
The board voted 8-0 to adjourn (Spanbauer/Moore)
Recorded by:
Emma Dziengeleski, Assistant Planner