Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AGENDApacket__08-26-25_0136_110
OSH KO SH C OMMO N C O UN C I L A GEN DA C O UN C IL C H A MB ER S, C ITY H ALL OSH KO SH , W I SC ON SI N August 26, 2025 If anyone requires reasonable ADA accommodations, please contact the office of the City Manager at citymgr@oshkoshwi.gov, or phone 920-236-5002. To send written correspondence to the Council, mail it to the City Manager, place it in the City Hall dropbox, or email it to council@oshkoshwi.gov (prior to the Council meeting). A.WORKSHOP (5 :0 0 pm ) Th e O sh k osh Com m on Cou n cil will be h oldin g a work sh op on th e Matrix Dev elopm en t Process an d Code An alysis R ev iew at 5 :0 0 pm in R oom 4 0 4 of City Hall. 1.Work sh op Materials B.CALL TO ORDER (6 :0 0 pm ) C.ROLL CALL D.INVOCATION - VOTING FIRST Cou n cilor Floam In v ocation #3 E.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE F.INTRODUCTION OF STAFF Clara Pick ett, Assistan t Fin an ce Director G.PUBLIC STATEMENTS TO COUNCIL (Th e pu blic is to address th e Cou n cil on ly. Statem en ts are lim ited to fiv e (5 ) m in u tes; th ey m u st address item s th at are n ot listed on th e Cou n cil m eetin g ag en da, are lim ited to issu es th at h av e an im pact on th e City of O sh k osh an d th e Com m on Cou n cil m ay address at a fu tu re m eetin g , an d m u st n ot in clu de en dorsem en ts of an y can didates or oth er election eerin g). If you requ ire m ore tim e, please in form th e Mayor at th e beg in n in g of you r presen tation . H.CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (Con sen t Agen da item s are th ose item s of a rou tin e adm in istrativ e n atu re th at are v oted on by th e Cou n cil in a sin g le roll call v ote. Staff recom m en ds approv al of all item s. An y m em ber of th e pu blic or Com m on Cou n cil m ay requ est th at an item be rem ov ed from th e Con sen t Ag en da for discu ssion .) 2.R eport of Bills 3.Ju n e 2 0 2 5 Fin an cial R eports 4.Approv e Com m on Cou n cil Meetin g Min u tes 0 8 .1 2 .2 5 5.R eceipt & Filin g of Claim Filed with th e City's In su ran ce Com pan y - Lau ren Wiedem eier 6.R eceipt & Filin g of Claim Filed with th e City's In su ran ce Com pan y - Ilon a Zam ora 7.R es 2 5 -4 3 6 Approv e Bu dget Am en dm en t for 2 0 2 5 Fire Special R ev en u e Fu n d Fu n din g Assistan ce Program to approv e an in crease in expen ditu res ($1 2 ,3 1 0 .0 0 ) 8.R es 2 5 -4 3 7 Appropriate AR PA In terest Fu n ds an d Approv e Agreem en t w ith Legal Files Software, In c. for Softw are, Train in g an d Su pport for File Man ag em en t System for Leg al Departm en t ($1 0 ,4 5 3 .0 0 ) 9.R es 2 5 -4 3 8 Approv e Con dition al Use Perm it requ est for a v eh icle serv ice facility located on th e n orth side of th e 1 6 0 0 block of R ipon Lan e (parcel 9 1 3 3 4 2 1 2 0 0 8 ) (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) 10.R es 2 5 -4 3 9 Approv e Con dition al Use Perm it requ est for a grou p dev elopm en t located at th e n orth w est corn er of East Ten n essee Av en u e an d Mou n t Vern on Street (parcel 9 1 5 0 5 3 4 0 1 0 0 ) (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) 11.R es 2 5 -4 4 0 Approv e Specific Im plem en tation Plan Am en dm en t for park in g lot m odification s at 9 0 Wiscon sin Street (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) 12.R es 2 5 -4 4 1 Aw ard Bid to Cardin al Con stru ction Com pan y, In c. for Down town Tran sit Cen ter Facility Expan sion for G O Tran sit ($2 ,4 0 3 ,2 0 3 .0 0 ) 13.R es 2 5 -4 4 2 Approv e Pu rch ase of Ligh tin g Poles to En terprise Lig h tin g LTD for Men om in ee Park Siew ert Trail for Electric Div ision ($3 7 ,5 1 3 .0 0 ) 14.R es 2 5 -4 4 3 Adopt Updated Lead Serv ice Lin e R eplacem en t Policy 15.R es 2 5 -4 4 4 Approv e Bu dget Am en dm en t an d Award Bid for Pu blic Work s Con tract No. 2 5 -0 3 to Vin ton Con stru ction Com pan y for Wash in gton Sch ool R econ stru ction ($8 2 4 ,3 2 1 .6 3 ) 16.R es 2 5 -4 4 5 Approv e CIP Am en dm en t an d Approv e Profession al Serv ices Ag reem en t w ith HDR En g in eerin g, In c. for En gin eerin g Serv ices for O reg on /Jack son Street Water an d San itary R eplacem en t Desig n ($1 3 4 ,7 2 1 .6 7 ) 17.R es 2 5 -4 4 6 Approv e Ch an ge O rder No. 1 for R are Earth Ch loride Solu tion for th e Wastew ater Treatm en t Plan t for 2 0 2 5 / Martelle Water Treatm en t, In c. (+$2 5 0 ,0 0 0 ) 18.R es 2 5 -4 4 7 Declarin g O fficial In ten t to R eim bu rse Expen ditu res from Proceeds of Borrowin g in R elation to Wastewater Treatm en t Plan t Tertiary Treatm en t an d Ultra-Violet Disin fection Upg rades 19.R es 2 5 -4 4 8 G ran t san itary sew er easem en t an d storm water drain age easem en t at 3 2 0 0 West 2 0 th Av en u e (R u sch Park ) to 3 2 7 0 West 2 0 th Av en u e, parcel 9 1 3 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) 20.R es 2 5 -4 4 9 Accept Water Main Easem en t at 3 3 0 0 West 2 0 th Av en u e (Parcel 9 1 3 2 9 3 4 3 0 0 0 ) from Castle R ock Lan d Co. LLC (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) 21.R es 2 5 -4 5 0 Approv e Determ in ation of Necessity to Acqu ire an d Approv e an d Execu te R elocation O rder for a Storm Sewer Easem en t at 3 8 2 0 Jack son Street (Parcel 9 1 5 2 7 1 9 0 1 0 0 ), 3 8 3 5 Su m m erset Way (Parcel 9 1 5 2 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 ), an d 3 8 4 7 Su m m erset Way (Parcel 9 1 5 2 7 3 2 0 0 0 0 ) (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) 22.R es 2 5 -4 5 1 Approv e Special Ev en t - UW O sh k osh to u tilize City streets for th eir Mov e-In days, Au g u st 3 1 th rou g h Septem ber 1 , 2 0 2 5 23.R es 2 5 -4 5 2 Approv e Block Party - Tin a Fillm ore to u tilize Fox Tail Lan e for th eir n eigh borh ood block party, Septem ber 7 , 2 0 2 5 24.R es 2 5 -4 5 3 Approv e Special Ev en t - Habitat for Hu m an ity of O sh k osh , LLC to h ost th e R estorativ e Art Fest in th e park in g lot at 1 6 4 0 S. Koeller Street, O ctober 4 , 2 0 2 5 25.R es 2 5 -4 5 4 Approv e Special Ev en t - Lou rdes Academ y to u tilize City streets for th eir Eu ch aristic Procession , Septem ber 4 , 2 0 2 5 26.R es 2 5 -4 5 5 Approv e Special Ev en t - Lou rdes Academ y to u tilize City streets for th eir Hom ecom in g Parade, O ctober 3 , 2 0 2 5 27.R es 2 5 -4 5 6 Approv e Special Ev en t - Sk ogen s Festiv al Foods to u tilize th e O sh k osh Sen iors Cen ter, City streets an d sidew alk s for th e an n u al Tu rk ey Trot, Nov em ber 2 7 , 2 0 2 5 28.R es 2 5 -4 5 7 Approv e Special Ev en t - Vietn am Veteran s of Am erica, Ch apter 4 3 7 , to u tilize Sou th Park for th e PO W MIA R em em bran ce Cerem on y, Septem ber 2 0 , 2 0 2 5 29.R es 2 5 -4 5 8 Approv e Special Ev en t - UW O sh k osh Ath letics to h ost th e UW O sh k osh Hom e Football G am es at JJ Keller Titan Stadiu m , Septem ber 8 , Septem ber 2 0 , O ctober 4 , O ctober 1 2 , O ctober 1 7 , O ctober 1 8 , Nov em ber 2 , Nov em ber 8 , an d Nov em ber 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 30.R es 2 5 -4 5 9 Approv e Special Ev en t - First Con g regation al Ch u rch to u tilize City streets to h ost Fall Fest, Septem ber 1 4 , 2 0 2 5 31.R es 2 5 -4 6 0 Approv e O rig in al Class "A" Beer Licen se for Baym on t by Wyn dh am O sh k osh Airport (1 5 8 1 W Sou th Park , Nik u l Ch au dh ari, Agen t) I.ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA J.PENDING ORDINANCES 32.O rd 2 5 -4 6 1 Am en d Section 2 7 A-1 1 of th e Mu n icipal Code Pertain in g to park in g regu lation s on 1 6 th Av en u e 33.O rd 2 5 -4 6 2 Am en d Park in g an d Loadin g Zon e R egu lation s on Alg om a Bou lev ard in fron t of R ead Elem en tary Sch ool 34.O rd 2 5 -4 6 3 Am en d Section 2 -1 0 (b) of th e City of O sh k osh Mu n icipal Code Pertain in g to R eg u lar Meetin g s of th e Com m on Cou n cil to Prov ide for Establish m en t of an An n u al Sch edu le of Meetin gs K.NEW ORDINANCES (NO TE: It is an ticipated th at th ere w ill be n o form al action tak en at th is m eetin g on item s m ark ed w ith an asterisk (*) u n less Cou n cil form ally w aiv es th e ru les.) 35.*O rd 2 5 -4 6 4 Am en d Section 2 7 A-1 1 of th e Mu n icipal Code pertain in g to park in g regu lation s on Wash in g ton Av en u e L.NEW RESOLUTIONS 36.R es 2 5 -4 6 5 Approv e Com bin ation "Class B" Liqu or Licen se (Water City Pu b, 2 1 6 Main Street, Nich olas Malesev ich , Agen t) M.COUNCIL DISCUSSION, DIRECTION TO CITY MANAGER & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 37.Discussion and Direction to City Ma na ger A.Direction to staff reg ardin g regu lation of e-bik es, m otor bik es an d bicycles on sidewalk s an d in bik e lan es 38.Future Agenda Items, Meeting s, and Workshop s N.COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS O.CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS 39.Am en dm en t No. 1 to Profession al Serv ices Agreem en t w ith AECO M for En v iron m en tal Serv ices du rin g G eotech n ical Su bsu rface Exploration Project for th e 2 0 2 6 Capital Im prov em en t Projects (+$1 2 ,3 5 0 ) 40.Profession al Serv ices Ag reem en t with Facility En g in eerin g In c. (FEI) for Arch itectu ral/En g in eerin g Serv ices for Sawyer Hou se Win dow s an d Carriag e Hou se Bu ildin g En v elope R eh abilitation ($4 4 ,2 5 0 .0 0 ) 41.Cu rren t In itiativ es P.ADJOURN D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Workshop Materials A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Development Review Process Improvement Study OSHKOSH , WISCONSIN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY AUGUST 14 , 2025 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION 4 3. STAFFING & ORGANIZATION 18 4. PROCESS ANALYSIS 24 5. TECHNOLOGY 48 6. CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT & EDUCATION 57 7. REGULATORY STANDARDS & EXPECTATIONS 64 8. RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY 69 APPENDICIES A: Current State Profile & Best Management Practices Assessment (Pg 76) B: Code Assessment (Pg 108) C: Comparative Assessment (Pg 153) D: Stakeholder Analysis (Pg 169) E: Process Diagrams (Pg 200) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2 The City of Oshkosh (the City) retained Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix) to assess the City’s development review, permitting, and inspection activities . The goal of the project is to enhance the efficiency of development services and to deliver services that are customer-friendly, predictable, and transparent. This study will serve as a companion study to the upcoming fee schedule update to be completed by Matrix. Development Services within the City primarily involves two departments: Community Development (Planning and Zoning, Inspections) and Public Works (Engineering). In addition, the Fire Department, City Attorney’s Office, Parks and Transportation, are involved in development review and permitting activities . The City’s Plan Commission and City Council also play a role in making determinations on certain items as prescribed by City Code. 1.1 STUDY SCOPE AND METHODOLOGIES The Matrix Consulting Group’s project team utilized a wide variety of data collection and analytical techniques for this portion of the Development Review Processes study, including the following: • Current State Assessment. The project team developed a current state assessment that captured current staffing levels, roles and responsibilities, workload, and performance metrics for each operational area. This document was utilized as a base point of comparison for future analysis to demonstrate how the changes recommended differ from existing practice. • Existing Process Diagrams. Visual fiowchart diagrams were created documenting each step in existing building and planning permitting processes. This allowed the project team to identify opportunities for alteration and change that would increase the overall efficiency and timeliness of the review processes. • Best Management and Comparative Assessments. This analysis was conducted, which compared current practices in the City to industry best practices. The project team focused on best management practices for management and administration, review processes, technology utilization, and customer service. This assessment was used to identify current strengths and opportunities for improvement. A comparative assessment was completed to compare Oshkosh to six other Wisconsin peer communities. • Focus Groups and Stakeholder Survey. Past customers of the Oshkosh permitting processes were sent an online survey to collect feedback on their experiences with the permitting process. In addition, a smaller group of stakeholders was also invited to in-person and virtual meetings with the project team to provide more in-depth feedback. • Analysis and Recommendations. Based on the project team’s activities and initial flndings, the team analyzed issues, explored alternative service delivery options, and developed recommendations for more effective organization and operation. These recommendations address management and 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3 administration, technology, process, customer outreach, and staffing to identify reforms to assist th e City in better comprehending existing operations and in reaching its goals. 1.2 KEY STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF THE ORGANIZATION While the focus of this assessment identifles flnal recommendations for improvement, it is also vital to point out areas that are currently operating well and to ensure that these strengths are maintained and reinforced. KEY STRENGTHS • The City demonstrates a clear and ongoing commitment to customer service, with an emphasis on meeting the needs of residents and applicants through timely and responsive interactions. Staff are motivated and actively supportive of initiatives aimed at improving technology, streamlining processes, and clarifying roles and responsibilities —particularly when such efforts enhance the applicant experience and promote consistency across development reviews. • The City’s early adoption of Evolve software for permit tracking, routing, and commenting represents a major operational strength. This system underpins a highly integrated, paperless environment and supports a quality online experience for applicants. The City has implemented this online permit application process for inspection and planning functions, with next-day inspection scheduling further reinforcing its commitment to efficiency and customer convenience. • The Department is strongly committed to maintaining fast turnaround times for initial plan reviews and resubmittals. Staff prioritize timely responses to keep projects moving forward, refiecting a clear focus on removing unnecessary delays and improving the predictability of review timelines. • Staff members are well-qualifled for their roles and bring signiflcant institutional knowledge to their work. This is supported through a culture of longevity that strengthens internal continuity and organizational memory. • The City has established strong internal coordination mechanisms to support development review. The Development Review Committee (DRC) convenes regularly to facilitate cross -departmental dialogue, identify issues early, and ensure that all reviewing discip lines are engaged throughout the application process. • The Inspector of the Day and Planner of the Day programs are valuable tools for managing public inquiries and providing applicants with direct access to knowledgeable staff. These programs also support informal cross-training and promote consistency in responses across departments. • In addition to supporting transactional permitting functions, the Evolve platform provides insights into employee workload, task distribution, and customer service responsiveness. These analytical capabilities position the City to use performance data more effectively in evaluating staff efficiency, managing resources, and identifying process improvement opportunities within the development review system. CURRENT CHALLENGES • Pre-application submittals and reviews have become a signiflcant element of development review processes, with limited standardized procedures and no intake of fees. This creates issues with DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4 parity in review of paid and complete applications received and inconsistencies in proposal review and assessment. This is particularly true as pre-application reviews do not only serve as precursory, with some items reviewed by the Plan Commission and accompanied by staff recommendations. • Fee structures and code interpretation processes lack transparency and consistency. Additionally, the development agreement process lacks standardized templates, procedural checkpoints, and clear thresholds for when an agreement is required, which can result in varied timelines, negotiation expectations, and legal review practices. • Oversight of the development process is at times fragmented and varies depending on department reviews and timelines. Additionally, there is no established process for periodic reviews of codes, policies or divisional performance, creating limitations for oversight and strategic alignment. • There are limitations in Evolve software training for onboarding and overall training for use and maximization of this software as some groups have integrated use of this more than others for the same processes. This has also translated to some staff outside of Community Development who have limited utilization of Evolve. • Proactive community engagement and feedback mechanisms aren’t readily present and available (e.g., no formal customer satisfaction tracking or post-experience surveys are routinely utilized). • Communication breakdowns are present between division and department functions , concerns of professionalism and responsiveness, and inconsistent inclusion of departments is in some cases hindering coordination. The above items do not align with best practices and indicate challenges that impact the efficiency and effectiveness of processes and operations. The subsequent chapters of this report will expand on these and other issues to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the City’s development review approaches. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5 Effective management and administration are critical to the success of community development functions, serving as the operational mainstay for planning, inspections, permitting, housing, code enforcement, and economic development activities. Department leadership is responsible for ensuring that programs and services align with the jurisdiction’s adopted plans, strategic goals, and regulatory frameworks. In accordance with the International City Management Association (ICMA) local government management standards, department managers must balance technical expertise with strategic oversight, facilitating cross-functional coordination, ensuring policy compliance, and promoting equity and transparency in service delivery. Strong leadership supports public trust and fosters responsive, resident-oriented practices. Administrative responsibilities within community development extend to staff supervision, workload distribution, budgeting, and performance monitoring. The American Planning Association (APA) Ethical Principles in Planning and guidance from Planning Advisory Service Reports emphasize the importance of maintaining professional integrity, investing in staff development, and using data -driven methods to evaluate organizational performance. Department managers must ensure staff are properly trained and resourced to carry out both regulatory and strategic roles, including long -range planning, development review, and public engagement. Managers should also develop internal procedures that are clear, efficient, and regularly updated to refiect best practices and changing community needs. Department management plays a pivotal role in fostering collaboration, both internally across divisions (e.g., planning, inspections, engineering and legal) and externally with stakeholders, applicants, and other agencies. Managers should promote interdepartmental integration and remove silos that hinder coordination. This includes establishing regular communication structures. A culture of continuous improvement should be embedded within the department, where leadership actively solicits f eedback, reviews performance metrics, and champions innovative practices to improve outcomes and service delivery in community development. 2.1 ANALYSIS OF KEY ISSUES The flndings and recommendations discussed in this section are based on the review and analysis of staff interviews, the customer survey and focus group meetings summary, the best practices assessment, and a general examination of City data. (1) CITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS An effective and efficient development review process requires a unifled sense of identity and purpose across all review functions regardless of departmental or divisional structure. A key element to municipality operations is establishing and following a common mission. This should be done as an entire city and should carry over into the speciflc operations of each department/division. A mission statement is a concise declaration of an organization’s purpose and goals. It communicates the fundamental reason for an organization’s existence and serves as a guide for both decision -making and strategy development. A well-crafted mission statement outlines what the organization does, who it 2. MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6 serves, and how it accomplishes these deflned objectives. More importantly, it provides direction for employees, stakeholders, and the public. Developing a mission statement that addresses a city’s development purpose can pose challenges because of the various subjects that fall under community development functions. These include public health and safety, housing, urban design, building code, design standards, zoning and use, and so on. It is also further complex because of the multiple “customers” interacting with city development functions - current and future residents, elected and appointed officials, developers, builders, and more. Despite challenges, it is vital for a city to clarify its mission for development services that are offered to its community and to determine how staff contribute. Oshkosh has adopted a mission statement for the Planning Services Division. Although this may service as a helpful foundational structure, it doesn’t focus on the entirety of the City’s development review process and the relationship to the City’s core values. It also doesn’t address the cross-discipline nature of development review. Oshkosh Mission Statement for Planning Services “It is the mission of the Planning Services Division to advise the City Manager, Common Council, Boards and Commissions and community stakeholders on land use issues that impact community growth and redevelopment. The Planning Services Division is responsible for helping to implement and maintain the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and other related community planning documents. Community planning activities include short and long-range planning, site plan review, historic preservation, housing and neighborhood development, economic development, sustainability, transportation and mobility, arts and beautification, and urban design. As such, Planning Services staff act as staff liaison for 8 city boards or commissions that includes: Plan Commission, Landmarks, Sustainability, Pedestrian and Bicycle, Zoning Appeals, Business Improvement District, Public Arts and Beautification, and E xtraterritorial Zoning. The division oversees applications for both administrative permits (i.e. permits that can be issued by Division staff) as well as items requiring action by a board or commission (i.e. Plan Commission, Board of Appeals, etc.).” The City’s 2025-26 adopted Strategic Plan addresses enhancing quality-of-life services and assets, improving and maintaining infrastructure, supporting economic development, strengthening neighborhoods, providing a safe, secure and healthy community and enhancing governmental effectiveness. The Strategic Plan provides a framework for the City’s core values and strategies but fails to provide an overarching approach and mission of unity in purpose and effort that addresses all functions of development review. All staff and City officials involved in development review functions should establish a comprehensive mission statement. The outcome should be a unifled statement that incorporates the following: • A sense of purpose across the development review department s and all related permitting and inspection functions. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7 • Acknowledge and elevate the importance of each discipline’s technical expertise (e.g., land use planning, environmental protection, flre safety, structural integrity). • Prioritize the applicant’s experience by ensuring the development review process is predictable, consistent, functional and efficient. • Present a cohesive, city-wide perspective in all permitting and inspection activities. While applicants recognize that multiple experts are involved, each reviewer should be seen as a representative of a coordinated City approach. MISSION STATEMENT ELEMENTS Value of their Work Good Service One City Environmental protection Buildings are safe not only for today but for future occupants High-quality City infrastructure Ensure first responders will be able to do their job Livable and attractive communities Minimizing negative impacts of new development Economic vibrancy Facilitate and problem solve Anticipate issues and address them Educate and engage applicants Create understandable, equitable and predictable processes Apply approaches consistently Allow applicants to interact smoothly with the process without having to understand your organizational chart Speak with one voice when responding to questions Ensure reviewers and inspectors don’t contradict each other Understand how other divisions operate and where you fit in Below are some sample, best-practice mission statements from other communities: SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MISSION STATEMENTS “The mission of the Development Services Department (DSD) is to Facilitate appropriate and timely development; Deliver a process that is predictable, efficient and understandable to the people who use it; Act as a single organization in the delivery of development services; and to protect the quality of public and private infrastructure, the safety and integrity of the built and natural environment, and the livability of the City.” Source: Bellevue, Washington Value of Work Efficient, Consistent, Predictable Service "One City" Approach Development Mission Statement DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8 “Foster the development of communities and neighborhoods that have a distinct character and identity and that offer the best possible conditions in which to live, work, shop, and play [and]…provide the best possible service to our constituents by being accessible and accountable, by maintaining and demonstrating a high level of expertise, and by being a valued source of information and guidance that is clear and concrete, timely and relevant, and reliable.” Source: Monmouth County, New Jersey “To develop and implement creative community-based strategies to enhance economic opportunity, build strong neighborhoods, and ensure a dynamic framework for quality growth and development." Source: Fort Wayne, Indiana "The mission of the Development Services Department is to develop a healthy, vibrant city through thoughtful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, Unifled Development Code, and other adopted development policies. The Department is committed to providing sup erior customer service with an emphasis on creating a City with a strong economic base and a wide range of diversifled housing opportunities while still promoting an attractive small -town atmosphere." Source: Hutto, Texas “The Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) supports thriving communities through an integrated and equitable approach to planning and community investment. OPCD works across City departments to assess community needs, prioritize resources, and develop a vision for how Seattle grows to ensure that we are coordinating and implementing our plans with a cohesive vision. We are working toward a city that is inclusive, affordable, vibrant, interconnected and innovative. We partner with neighborhoods, businesses, agencies and others to bring about positive change and coordinate investments for Seattle communities.” Source: Seattle, Washington Established mission statements are meaningful when staff can clearly see that they will get the support, resources, and tools that they need to achieve that mission, including the latitude to take risks and make mistakes to help create a system aligned with the goals of the organization and of the City has a whole. Given this, it is vital that elected officials and Department and Division managers sign -off on and support the mission statement, providing a reference place and common ground as budgetary and p olicy considerations and decisions occur. City leadership needs to deflne city-wide community and economic development goals and how each department/division is expected to contribute toward those goals. It is recommended that economic development goals be separated from the Community Development Department and housed by City management. The core services of Community Development are primarily regulatory, and it is best practice to have staff focus on the delivery of those services and other proactive city approaches and initiatives occurring separately from regulatory efforts . A mission statement should articulate the City’s purpose and goals in fulfllling a speciflc service or obligation. Without clear goals, this mission remains aspirational. Goals distribute the mission into speciflc, measurable actions that guide staff in day -to-day decisions and long-term planning. For example, objectives related to review timelines, customer satisfaction, and process standardization help ensure that the department’s work is aligned with its mission. They also provide a way to evaluate performance, identify gaps, and make continuous improvements. In short, goals turn the department’s broad purpose into operational focus and help it deliver consistent, transparent, and accountable service to the community. Goals should be highlighted across all departments and divisions that are a part of development review process es. Correlation across department lines with common themes that relate to the overall City ’s Strategic Plan should be encouraged. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9 Recommendation #1: Create a development review speciffc mission statement for all development staff to align their work efforts. (2) DEVELOPMENT LEADERSHIP COUNCIL The city leadership team should work with staff in the respective disciplines to help ensure they have a clear understanding of how their role is part of the greater City organization and department purpose. This team should be formalized as a Development Leadership Council and meet regularly to provide the opportunity for enhanced collaboration, and discussion of issues that need to be resolved and formalize the roles and responsibilities of each department/division in the review process. The Development Leadership Council should consist of the Community Development Director, Deputy Director, Planning Manager, Building Inspector, Public Works Director, City Engineer, City Attorney, Economic Development Staff and either the City Manager or Assistant City Manager. The Development Leadership Council is an internal team that is focused on enhanced collaboration across the development review disciplines and functions. This Council will help ensure that all teams align their respective resources and missions to the broader development review mission, main taining compliance with adopted local and state laws, and working in unison. This team may also serve as an internal resource when development review, permitting, and inspection challenges arise. The Council should be used as a resource in addressing confiict and as a single development voice for the City. Recommendation #2: Form a Development Leadership Council within the City that is focused on enhanced collaboration across the development review disciplines and functions. (3) DEFINITIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES AND TIMELINES There is a lack of consensus among City departments and divisions regarding development review timelines for all application and permit types. There are existing challenges having all reviewing groups utilize and adhere to the same timelines, with Inspection Services and Planning Services staff often having to follow up and request timely review of applications and permits by other departments and divisions. While Evolve includes deflned workfiows with deadlines and review durations, each review discipline is quite siloed and tends to focus on its own functional responsibilities of a submittal review, without having a comprehensive understanding of the total time required to complete an application or permit review from start to flnish. As a result, review timeframes can become fragmented and inconsistent across review disciplines. Processes and performance timelines are not formally adopted or publicized consistently to the public. However, review timelines were referenced during staff interviews. The project team quickly identifled a lack of standardization and consistency of the cited review timelines. These need to be better deflned across review disciplines to ensure the total time allows for a comprehensive review of the application or permit. Clearly deflned permitting and application processes provide predictability for applicants that require development review approval. It allows customers to have a generally understanding of the timeline associated with their application review. It also requires staff to stay accountable in clearly deflning and meeting the city’s desired performance levels. From the customer survey feedback and analysis, the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10 main areas of improvement opportunity for the development review process were related to procedural efficiency: • Process Elficiency: Respondents mentioned concerns about the overall efficiency of the development review and inspection processes. Example responses described reported gaps in understanding or predictability, particularly around the closeout process for engineering reviews. • Inspection Procedures: Respondents have indicated challenges with inspections. There is confusion about the enforcement of the standards and what is required to successfully pass inspections. Some indication was provided in customer survey responses that there are challenges with the inspector group regarding communication and fairness, with frustrations generally tied to timeliness in getting an approved permit. Clearly deflned and executed ti melines can establish a baseline of fairness in review and approval processes. Verbal comments from stakeholders about the need for increased efficiency stated there was a perceived lack of coordination between reviewing City departments and divisions and overall confusion about the roles of each staff team in development review and the anticipated timelines for review and approval. This is further highlighted by some divisions having internal turnaround timelines, but these are not formalized or publicly published both internally and externally. The majority of these challenges have occurred with secondary review entities, speciflcally Legal and Engineering, whose core organizational function is not reviews, but who still serve as an essential and integral part of several land use review processes and without full buy-in and participation in established review timelines, delays have and will continue to occur. Recommendation #3: Establish and communicate realistic review timeline targets for each stage of the development review process by division and application type. (4) STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES The staff interviews, data assessment, and survey indicate that there are some gaps in coordination of reviews across divisions and departments. Each group is working from its own development review priority framework, and some are reviewing things within a few days while others may take weeks to respond (or not at all) to a review request received in Evolve. The City needs internal policy to formalize performance checkpoints and clear, approved review timelines across departments to balance thorough, unrushed reviews with efficiency. Regular reporting of key performance metrics will enable data -driven decisions, targeted improvements, and accountability toward rapid turnaround goals , including formalized review timelines that are communicated to all review disciplines. This will strengthen clarity, accountability, and alignment within development-related functions. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for key development review processes in Oshkosh are present but further reflnement is needed. The central challenge identifled in this instance is coordination and agreement on timelines that work based on staffing levels across divisions and departments. SOPs that are being used currently are siloed as they address the needs of individual groups w ithout taking into consideration a holistic approach that considers each and every division and position that is needed in the development review processes, their roles, responsibilities and requirement. To address this, it is recommended that clear, updated standards be adopted for when and how projects may be advanced for consideration, including the requirement of a formal application to be submitted and evaluated for any DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11 review through the Evolve system, payment of applicable fees, and completion of full staff review prior to Plan Commission scheduling. SOPs are widely recognized as a best practice in development services, as they promote consistency, transparency, and defensibility across departments. SOPs are designed to provide clear, detailed, and standardized instructions for completing speciflc organizational tasks or processes. Their primary goal is to enhance efficiency, consistency, and accountability by eliminating ambiguity and ensuring all team members follow the same practices. By clearly deflning workfiows, roles, and responsibilities, SOPs hel p organizations maintain compliance with regulations, improve performance, enhance consistency, and reduce errors. They also serve as critical training tools for onboarding new employees, providing a reference for established processes, and ensuring continuity during staff transitions or turnover. An effective Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) should include the following key components: I. Title and Purpose. Clearly state the SOP’s objective and its relevance to the organization. Include a reference to the speciflc process it covers (e.g., “Bonding for Physical Improvements”). II. Scope. Deflne who the SOP applies to within the organization—whether by department, role, or project type. III. Roles and Responsibilities. Specify the duties and expectations for each team, individual, or stakeholder involved in the procedure. IV. Step-by-Step Instructions. Provide clear, sequential instructions for completing the process. Use fiowcharts, checklists, or diagrams as helpful. This section should be monitored regularly for needed updates or clariflcations. V. Compliance Requirements. Identify any applicable legal, regulatory, or policy standards the procedure must follow. VI. Review and Revision Protocols. Establish how and when the SOP will be reviewed and updated to ensure it remains accurate, relevant, and effective. New and improved SOPs should be in place for primary development review processes within the next flscal year. In the future, procedures should be updated every two years, or more frequently if local and state policy changes occur. Ideally, one-third of the policies are reviewed and updated annually. This approach helps reduce the workload burden of updating the policies simultaneously. All staff should participate in the update of procedures and can be assigned during staff meetings for future Director approval. One great beneflt to come from SOPs is to clarify all staff member’s roles and responsibilities effectively. It can also build accountability amongst staff (which is further discussed in this chapter): 1. UNEVEN WORKLOAD DISTRIBUTION • Role Descriptions: SOPs can specify which roles are responsible for speciflc tasks, ensuring everyone understands their duties. Example: "The Permit Technician is responsible for verifying application completeness before submission to the Development Review Group." DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12 • Accountability: Assign accountability by naming roles (not individuals) responsible for approvals, oversight, and execution of speciflc steps. 2. ELIMINATE AMBIGUITY • Step-by-Step Clarity: SOPs outline detailed instructions, leaving no room for confusion about who does what. Example: "The Senior Planner will review zoning compliance, while the Engineering Technician will handle infrastructure connections." • Role-Speciflc Actions: For each step, SOPs delineate who initiates, reviews, or completes the task. 3. STANDARDIZE COLLABORATION • Cross-Functional Teams: SOPs describe how various roles interact and collaborate. Example: "The Building Official will coordinate with the Fire Marshal to ensure flre safety compliance before issuing permits." • Communication Protocols: Establish protocols for sharing information between roles or departments, ensuring seamless coordination. 4. DEFINE AUTHORITY LEVELS • Decision-Making Authority: SOPs describe how various roles interact and collaborate. Example: "The Building Official will coordinate with the Fire Marshal to ensure flre safety compliance before issuing permits." • Escalation Procedures: Include steps for resolving disputes or elevating decisions to higher levels of authority. This is especially important when disputes are occurring across disciplines. By explicitly deflning roles and responsibilities, SOPs reduce confusion, improve accountability, and create a structured task completion framework. They ensure that all team members understand their part in achieving organizational goals while promoting workfiow efficiency and consistency. Recommendation #4: Create standard operating procedures for all City development review functions continuously update them once every two years. Recommendation #5: Ensure adopted standard operating procedures clarify all staff’s roles and responsibilities throughout the development review process. (5) REVIEW AND UPDATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF JOB DESCRIPTIONS A well-structured organization relies on clearly deflned roles and responsibilities to operate efficiently and align staff efforts with strategic goals. Regularly reviewing and updating job descriptions is a critical practice to ensure that position expectations remain accurate, relevant, and consistent with evolving organizational needs. Over time, as individuals have been promoted, departments restructured, and responsibilities shifted informally, staff provided clear information that job descriptions often become outdated or fall into disuse. In many cases, staff members have taken on duties outside the scope of their original role without formal approval or documentation, leading to unclear expectations, inconsistencies in performance evaluations, and potential gaps in proper compensation and accountability. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13 Establishing a deflnitive process for routine job description review and formal role deflnition supports organizational clarity, improves internal communication, and provides a foundation for workforce planning, training, and succession management. This practice ensures that roles refiect current operational demands and strategic priorities, and it helps move the organization and its processes forward in a cohesive and intentional manner. The City should implement the following structured process for job description review and documentation: 1. INITIAL ALIGNMENT MEETINGS • Each supervisor should meet with their direct reports within the development review and permitting functions. • Discuss current tasks, responsibilities, pain points, downtime, and changes that may not be captured in the current job description. • These meetings should be held upon hire, following signiflcant role changes, and at the beginning of the calendar year. 2. ANNUAL REVIEW CYCLE • Tie job description reviews to the annual performance evaluation process to ensure clarity and relevance and to avoid duplication of effort. • Use a standard checklist to conflrm: Job duties match actual work performed; reporting relationships are accurate; key responsibilities and expectations are clearly outlined ; and skills and certiflcations are current and relevant. 3. HUMAN RESOURCES REVIEW AND APPROVAL • Once updated, all job descriptions should be submitted to Human Resources for consistency with classiflcation standards and organizational structure. • Prioritize documentation and m aintain a centralized digital repository of current job descriptions accessible to both managers and employees. 4. ROLE COMMUNICATION AND TRAINING • Summarize job functions for interdepartmental roles (e.g., Planning, Building, Engineering) to enhance cross-functional understanding. • Leverage job descriptions as a training tool when onboarding new staff or reassigning internal roles. 5. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRACKING • Managers and supervisors should be responsible for initiating the review and submitting updates on a deflned schedule. • Implement a simple log or digital tracker to monitor review dates, responsible parties, and status of each position's documentation. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14 Recommendation #6: Adopt an internal policy that dictates when development review staff job descriptions are reviewed and updated. (6) SUPERVISOR OVERSIGHT AND DATA-DRIVEN MANAGEMENT Supervisors and division managers play a pivotal role in ensuring operational efficiency, staff accountability, and service delivery. To support this role, the City should implement a dynamic, technology enabled project management dashboard that enables supervisors to track active and completed projects, monitor staff workload and pace of work, and identify trends and bottlenecks in real time. The dashboard should include key performance metrics such as project timelines, completion rates, staff capacity utilization, and causes of delay, creating a shared system of visibility across departments. Although this data is currently tracked and inventoried within the Evolve software, it isn’t being used strategically to manage workload and approach. There is no indication that meeting performance timelines have had any historic tie to performance measures of individual departments and divisions, and the speciflc roles within those areas. To further enhance oversight and strategic alignment, division supervisors should be required to submit monthly status reports to department directors. These reports should summarize project progress, identify staff performance trends, highlight cross-department coordination needs, and recommend process improvements. Clear ownership of key project milestones and responsibilities should be established, with performance metrics tied directly to employee evaluations and supervisory accountability. Managers should hold structured, collaborative sessions with employees to identify the most relevant performance metrics for each division and role. These sessions should map out the typical workfiow for each role, identifying points where measurement is m eaningful and manageable, discuss which outcomes are most critical to service delivery, like turnaround time, quality checks, and customer satisfaction, and agree on a small, deflned set of SMART (Speciflc, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) metrics that will be entered into and displayed on the dashboard to show in real -time how close goals are to existing efforts. Clear deflnitions for each metric must be documented and included in operating policies. Supervisors and managers should consistently review and apply this data to inform staffing decisions, set priorities, and align workload expectations with departmental and citywide goals. This data can be used to identify overdue tasks, workload imbalances, and pending approvals. This enables immediate adjustments such as redistributing tasks. Weekly team check-ins should be held to review metrics together, highlight successes, troubleshoot recurring issues, and reinforce accountability. The dashboard should be developed with integration capabilities to pull data from existing systems like Evolve and from future upgrades, ensuring that performance data is always current. Data visualizations should be used to make trends, successes and prob lem areas visually clear to all levels of staff. A technology review cycle should be established annually and include IT, managers and end -uses in an assessment of the dashboard’s functionality, recommended enhancements, and conflrmed alignment and adjustments to incorporate any newly adopted software. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15 Technology training should be provided whenever dashboard tools or reporting features are updated so that staff can fully utilize new capabilities. Regular use of performance data in operational planning ensures that resource allocation refiects actual demand and supports continuous improvement throughout the organization. Recommendation #7: Supervisors should employ data -driven management to better monitor project status, workload, review timeliness, cross-department coordination issues, and process improvement needs. (7) ONBOARDING AND RECURRING TRAINING The City must clearly deflne and communicate expectations for performance, process adherence, and accountability. This should occur as part of both onboarding and recurring training. Employees should understand how their roles contribute to the broader development review mission and processes and know how their work will be evaluated. Supervisors should reinforce these expectations ongoing and annually, ensuring alignment with organizational goals. Completion and understanding of training should be tracked and integrated into performance management. Based on staff interviews, onboarding and continued training have been limited and have not been provided and required consistently. Onboarding programs help new hires understand the organization's work culture and the expectations associated with the job. It can also lead to higher levels of productivity and result in staff retention. Onboarding programs can also be incorporated into long -term succession planning (which is an additional recommendation discussed in this study). Clearly understanding staff roles and responsibilities is critical to maintaining efficient, consistent, and defensible processes. Effective onboarding is particularly important in this fleld, because daily tasks must align with established procedures and regulatory requirements. There is a notable gap in role clarity within the City’s development review processes, creating challenges for staff, especially when senior- level employees depart and junior-level staff are expected to assume workloads beyond scope and skillset. To build a knowledgeable and resilient team, the City should establish a comprehensive training program that orients new employees to the full range of roles, processes, and technologies involved in development review. Recurring training should be provided at least once a year to promote continuity of operations and demonstrate investment in continuing employee growth and professionalism. Each department and division contributing to development services should create and maintain documented procedures for staff to reference and update as needed. Together, these efforts can be integrated into a city-sponsored training program, ensuring all employees clearly understand their responsibilities from the onset and are better prepared to support the City's regulatory functions. CHECKLIST: ONBOARDING AND RECURRING TRAINING EXPECTATIONS • Training Design & Content o Deflne key performance expectations (e.g., mission, quality, timeliness, customer service) o Outline required procedures and process steps relevant to the role DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16 o Clarify roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships o Include guidance and direction for interdepartmental coordination • Onboarding Phase o Review expectations with new hires during initial orientation o Assign a supervisor or mentor to reinforce expectations o Document training completion and employee understanding • Recurring Training o Provide annual refresher training for all development staff o Update content based on process or policy changes o Track participation and completion rates o Discuss training outcomes during performance reviews • Accountability Measures o Include training completion in performance evaluation criteria o Maintain training records in employee personnel flles o Establish follow-up plans for incomplete or unsatisfactory participation o Establish corrective action plans with additional one-on-one training as patterns of behavior occur that are inconsistent with established standards and expectations Recommendation #8: Clearly deffne and communicate expectations for performance, process adherence, and accountability as part of the City’s onboarding program and recurring training. (8) PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND REPORTING Evolve workfiows should be recalibrated to refiect and support adopted review timelines for each review process. Managers should routinely generate and review Evolve-based performance reports to evaluate whether timelines are being met and to identify areas where delays are occurring. Reports should track the average number of resubmittals by permit type, providing a clearer picture of process efficiency and review quality. A sample performance report from a local government planning division is included below, illustrating a general reporting framework that can be applied across all development review types. EXAMPLE PERFORMANCE REPORT: (TIME FRAME) Planning Division Performance Planning Review of Planning Applications Total # Initial Review Re-Review # of Revisions Required Pre-application Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Quasi-Judicial (Planning Commission) Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17 EXAMPLE PERFORMANCE REPORT: (TIME FRAME) Quasi-Judicial (Council) Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Legislative Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Zone Veriffcation Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Planning Review of Building Permit Applications (for Building Permits requiring Planning review) Building – Residential Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Building – Commercial Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Building Division Performance Building Residential Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Building Commercial Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Engineering Division Performance Grading Plan Review Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Public Improvement Plan Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Tralfic Control Plan Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Target: Actual: Reports should be utilized by managers to examine how timely review is within their teams. As a result, the information should show performance by division and clarify whether a delayed permit or application originated in that division. Once reports are produced, the data must be shared amongst staff in a continuous feedback loop. Team managers should share reports with their internal team before sharing with their supervisors. This promotes transparency while also providing an opportunity for managers to become better informed about any delays or issues in data collection, as well as a chance to celebrate instances of reviews that met timelines. Following discussion amongst staff, development review performance targets and metrics should be shared with the City Manager and elected officials on at least an annual basis . If shortfalls are identifled between actual and target timelines, then the supervisors should examine the following options: • Streamlining processes or simplifying reviews (may require a code modiflcation or amendment) • Ensuring all staff are trained and qualifled to conduct the work assigned to them , as well as ensuring sufficient cross-training for employees to utilize leave time • Modifying staffing capacity (city staff and/or contracted) • Changing the performance expectations to be more realistic and achievable In addition to this, the City can provide public dashboards of performance reports, removing staff- speciflc information, to identify the average timelines by application types. This provides greater predictability for applicants by helping them understand the entire time it takes to process an application from submission to issuance. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18 The following are two examples of online reports in use by other government organizations showing the type of performance data disseminated to the public. The following is an example from Clearwater, FL of an online report in use by other government organizations showing the type of performance data disseminated to the public. The selected style of public reporting should encompass all application types and steps for development review services. As further discussed in the Technology chapter, the ideal solution would for the Evolve software system to provide an option to produce both the management reports and the reports for the public. While it may be time-consuming to set up the software on the back end to design such standardized reports, and it may present the need for an upgrad e to a different version, there is much less work involved in reproducing standardized reports on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis once designed. Ideally, these reports should be conflgured to automatically generate and be sent to managers on a recurring schedule. Additionally, performance reports should be incorporated into any future developed online dashboards to enhance transparency with the public. Recommendation #9: Create online reports and dashboards for development review workload and performance. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19 This chapter provides an assessment of the staffing and organization of development review and permitting operations in the City. The staffing analysis is based on the implementation of the recommendations made throughout this report. 3.1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS A STRATEGIC FUNCTION The City should redeflne the purpose and role of Economic Development staff, through internal policies and job descriptions, to better support long-term planning and align strategic initiatives with regulatory operations. Economic Development staff are to be involved in the Development Leadership Council and it is critical that staff members are coordinating across Divisions and Departments. This will allow for more cohesive, high-level coordination of economic development initiatives and ensure alignment w ith citywide goals, leadership priorities, and cross -departmental strategies. Most recently, economic development activities have focused more on the management of the dozens of tax incremental flnancing districts versus true economic vitality efforts. This has resulted in economic development activities being an administrative function and less emphasis on cultivating relationships with the current business community and outreach efforts to bring new business opportunities for the City. Economic development should be a culture that permeates all aspects of City operations that focuses on retention and growth of existing businesses and fosters new opportunities. A true economic development mission is missing from the City’s organizational business plan. Economic Development serves a broader and more proactive purpose than regulatory departments . Its role is not limited to reviewing applications or enforcing codes, but rather includes cultivating business retention and attraction, promoting investment, and facilitating partnerships that advance the City’s long - term vision. While collaboration with Planning and Inspections is essential, the core mission of Economic Development is supporting applicants, driving strategic initiatives, and achieving economic vi tality. This differs signiflcantly from the administrative and compliance-oriented nature of development review functions. Involvement with the Development Leadership Council will strengthen the ability of Economic Development to operate as a forward-looking, opportunity-driven division that is closely tied to executive leadership. This will enhance the City’s capacity to respond to emerging opportunities, shape development outcomes consistent with policy goals, and coordinate i nternal and external resources more effectively. Recommendation #10: Redeffne Economic Development functions and formally coordinate efforts with the Development Leadership Council . 3.1 INSPECTION SERVICES This section will analyze the operational and staffing needs for Inspection Services. 3. STAFFING & ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20 (1) APPROACH TO BUILDING INSPECTIONS A key concern of Inspectors was the safety of personnel while performing routine building inspections. Inspectors generally conduct new construction inspections in pairs to address personal safety. In the experience of the Matrix project team in having completed dozens of similar assessments across the country, this was a unique concern for Inspectors. It is common for code enforcement officers to share concerns as they are investigating nuisance complaints, the frequency in which this was openly discussed should be noted. To work more efficiently and to maintain staff’s safety, the following changes should be implemented: • Provide all development review staff with descalation training. Development review staff are regulators and thus often have to tell the public no. Descalation training is important for all development staff, especially fleld staff. Descalation tactics are important to ensure a safe and productive conversation with the public. • Use body worn cameras for inspectors. Body worn cameras are common for law enforcement and public safety staff across the country. Body worn cameras can automatically record inspector activities. Cameras will improve staff safety and accountability with the p ublic. • Provide Inspectors with radios that are connected to the City’s (or County’s) dispatch center. The intention is not for standardized communication, but the ability for staff to call and alert dispatch in the event of emergency. • For inspection activities that occur where there has been known illegal activity or issues with the requestor, then Inspectors should request law enforcement personnel to be present when conducting the inspection. This will ensure optimal safety of the inspector. The implementation of the four points above will improve staff efficiency and their security. Recommendation #11: Provide descalation training for all development review and inspection staff. Recommendation #12: Provide body worn cameras for building inspection and code compliance staff. Recommendation #13: When inspectors are concerned with their safety to perform their duty, have a law enforcement olficer accompanying them while they conduct the inspection. (2) BUILDING INSPECTOR STAFFING ANALYSIS The Inspection Services team is comprised of the following staffing levels: • Chief Building Official • 3 Commercial Building Inspectors • 3 Building Systems Inspectors (one each for plumbing/mechanical, electrical, and housing) • Inspector (minimum housing and rental inspections) • Inspection Technician (weights and measure inspector) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21 When including the Chief Building Official, there are a total of seven staff members who are tasked with plan review and inspection activities. The City also contracts with EPlan to conduct all commercial plan building plan review for the City. The following table summarizes the permits issued from 2022 to 2024. TOTAL PERMITS 2022-2024 Permit Type 2022 2023 2024 3 Year Avg Building1 2,550 2,331 2,459 2,447 Plumbing 1,546 1,527 1,392 1,488 HVAC 946 837 814 866 Electrical 896 817 830 848 Total Permits Issued 7,960 7,535 7,519 7,671 The number of permits issued has remained steady the last two years. The following table summarizes the number of building inspections completed from 2022 to 2024. INSPECTIONS COMPLETED 2022-2024 Inspection Type 2022 2023 2024 3 Year Avg Building Exterior 309 344 320 324 Commercial Building 1,021 1,031 985 1,012 Demolition 8 11 14 11 Electrical 1,393 1,343 1,394 1,377 HVAC 413 373 384 390 Lateral 419 403 254 359 Plumbing 1,273 1,197 1,058 1,176 Residential Building 1,072 941 1,061 1,025 Well 28 40 26 31 WUBPA 559 281 441 427 Total Inspections 6,493 5,964 5,936 6,131 The following assumptions were used when calculating the staffing needs for plan review and inspection activities. • Inspectors are available 200 days (1,500 hours) per year when incorporating leave, holidays, and training on their availability. 1 Includes both residential and commercial permits. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22 • Inspectors will conduct an average of 8 inspections per day with an average of 30 minutes per inspection (45 minutes for commercial), including drive time. This lower number than best practice of 12 to 18 is based on the plan review requirement for inspectors. • Since the building permit workload is not separated between commercial and residential permit, the building permit review timeline is the same for residential and commercial activities. Inspectors are still involved in the review/approval even though the commercial plan review is contracted. Nonetheless, the time commitment is much less since they are not doing the review. The following tables summarizes the total work hours for plan review and inspection activities. PLAN REVIEW STAFFING ANALYSIS Permit Type 3 Year Avg Avg Hours Per Permit Total Hours Total Staff Needs Building 2,447 1.25 3,058 1.91 Plumbing 1,488 0.5 744 0.47 HVAC 866 0.5 433 0.27 Electrical 848 0.5 424 0.26 Total Staff 2.91 BUILDING INSPECTION STAFFING ANALYSIS Inspection Type 3 Year Avg Avg Hours Per Insp Total Hours Total Staff Needs Building Exterior 324 0.5 162 0.10 Commercial Building 1,012 0.75 759 0.47 Demolition 11 0.5 6 0.00 Electrical 1,377 0.5 688 0.43 HVAC 390 0.5 195 0.12 Lateral 359 0.5 179 0.11 Plumbing 1,176 0.5 588 0.37 Residential Building 1,025 0.5 512 0.32 Well 31 0.5 16 0.01 WUBPA 427 0.5 214 0.13 Total Inspections 2.07 A total of 5 Building Inspector positions are needed to accommodate the current plan review and inspection workload. This is one position less than currently authorized. With the transition to a fully digital process, the number of walk-ins to the counter will continue to decrease. The current Inspector of Day program can be maintained with the current workload and enhanced process efficiencies gained from this study. As turnover allows, reduce the number of inspectors from six to flve. Recommendation #14: Reduce the total number of Building Inspectors from six to ffve. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23 3.2 PLANNING STAFF Planning staff are responsible for the processing of planning speciflc applications and reviewing building permit applications for zoning compliance. The following points summarize the current allocation of planning staff. • Planning Services manager • Zoning Administrator • 2 Principal Planners • Planner • Associate Planner • Assistant Planner The only workload data that Planning captures is for applications that go to Plan Commission. The following table summarizes the 2020 through 2024 Plan Commission application workload. PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW ITEMS 2020 - 2024 Application Type 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 5 Year Avg Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) 19 33 22 26 14 22.8 Workshop/Preapplication 15 36 26 16 18 22.2 General Development Plan (GDP) 18 21 19 20 26 20.8 Rezone/Zone Change 11 14 16 17 22 16 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 15 19 12 10 7 12.6 Easement 15 11 16 9 8 11.8 Other 18 10 8 8 9 10.6 Design Standards Variance 17 7 2 1 6 6.6 Acquisition/Disposition of Property 1 5 3 5 8 4.4 Right-of-Way 4 4 3 3 2 3.2 Design Standard Review 0 3 2 5 2 2.4 Municipal Code Amendment 2 2 2 4 1 2.2 Annexation 0 0 2 0 5 1.4 Tax Increment District (TID) 2 2 2 0 1 1.4 Land Division 5 0 0 0 0 1 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 0 1 1 1 1 0.8 Preliminary/Final Plat 1 0 2 0 1 0.8 Street Vacation 0 2 0 0 0 0.4 Total 143 170 138 127 132 142 The following table summarizes the workload hours associated with each Plan Commission application. This does not include Plan Commission general discussions, informal review, etc., but is intended to only capture Plan Commission scheduled items and the amount of time expended on these items, as this DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24 data is quantiflable and helps to demonstrate speciflc amounts of time spent on scheduled and processed tasks. PLAN COMMISSION WORKLOAD HOURS Application Type 5 Year Avg Avg Hours Per App. Total Hours Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) 22.8 15 342 Workshop/Preapplication 22.2 N/A 0 General Development Plan (GDP) 20.8 20 416 Rezone/Zone Change 16 12 192 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 12.6 15 189 Easement 11.8 8 94 Other 10.6 10 106 Design Standards Variance 6.6 12 79 Acquisition/Disposition of Property 4.4 8 35 Right-of-Way 3.2 4 13 Design Standard Review 2.4 12 29 Municipal Code Amendment 2.2 25 55 Annexation 1.4 25 35 Tax Increment District (TID) 1.4 30 42 Land Division 1 5 5 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 0.8 5 4 Preliminary/Final Plat 0.8 12 10 Street Vacation 0.4 4 2 Total 142 1,648 For Plan Commission, there are a total of 1,648 hours of work associated with the applications. Planning staff are also responsible for conducting zoning reviews for building permit applications. An average of 2,447 building permits were issued over the past three years. Not all building permits require a zoning review (e.g., interior remodel, deck replacement, etc.). It is assumed that half of the building permits require a zoning review. If it takes an average of 30 minutes per building permit review, a total of 612 hours of work is associated. To process Plan Commission applications and building permits, a total of 2,260 hours of work are associated. When accounting for 200 working days per year, this equals 1.41 planning staff required. This is well below the current allocation of six total planning/zoning related positions. Planning staff are also responsible for other planning activities. These may include zoning veriflcation letters, pre-application meetings, long range planning and special projects, and many other activities. For instance, the Planner is responsible for G IS activities in the department. These planning tangent duties are not captured in official workload measures, and it is difficult to quantify the workload. The following assumptions were used to identify planning staffing needs: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25 • One dedicated position for long range planning and special projects. • One position focused on citizen committees, historic preservation, sustainability, transportation planning, and zoning code enforcement. • Three positions that focuses on current planning application review, building permit zoning compliance, including applications that may go to Plan Commission. Overall, a total of flve planning positions are needed to accommodate the current planning, long range, and special project workload. This is a decrease in one planning position. It is recommended to eliminate the vacant Principal Planner position. Recommendation #15: Reduce the number of Principal Planners from 2 to 1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26 This chapter evaluates the City’s existing development review processes, primarily facilitated by the Community Development Department. 4.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES BEST PRACTICES Any application review and permitting process should be designed to allow for a predictable, consistent approach. The City should speak with a single voice even when refiecting input from several different review disciplines (e.g., engineering, building, flre, planning). For each application and permit type, one department or division should act as a fllter to ensure that critical issues across the City organization are addressed. Any confiicts between comments or perspectives should be resolved before these comments are provided to applicants. A best practice approach, outlined on the subsequent page, should generally be followed by all review disciplines. However, the complexity of the review process may vary, requiring fiexibility of the best practice approach. Prior to analyzing speciflc development review processes, it is important to highlight some best practice approaches that should be in place regardless of the type of permit or the division leading the process. 4. PROCESS ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27 • Completeness Review: There should be clear, written standards on what constitutes a complete application or permit. All applications and permits received should be checked against these criteria before they are accepted. The determination of what should be included in these standards requires something of a balance – if the requirements are too stringent, the applicants may end up doing more work than necessary before reviewers even see the application. But if they are not stringent enough, the reviewers may not have enough information to complete a thorough review. The process of coming up with the completeness checklist for each application type should be collaborative among staff. • Routing Criteria: There should be clear criteria that determine who should receive an application or permit for review. For example, for building permits, planning should review applications that meet speciflc criteria, such as change of use, change in footprint of the building, change in height, etc. These criteria can also be established instead based on what a division does NOT need to see – for example, engineering does not need to review building permit applications unless there is soil disturbance, construction of driveways, or utility work. These criteria should be in writing to guide intake staff or project managers. • Established Response Timeframes : For outside departments or divisions reviewing applications or permit materials, they should have an expected timeline by which to reply to the project manager– and should be required to reply even if there are no comments. In some case types, this requires department directors to develop interdepartmental agreements that deflne what a project manager may determine for an outside department or division. • Sequencing: In addition, while many communities employ a “flrst in – flrst out” approach for all applications, it is almost always more efficient to set aside time for simpler permits to be reviewed and issued, instead of allowing these to be stuck behind more complex projects or projects that are waiting on some additional information. • Comprehensive, Clear, Consolidated Comments : The applicant should receive a comprehensive set of comments and be required to respond to each comment. Comments should be consolidated into a written narrative and can reference comments added to plan sets. There should also be a standard style and approach for writing comments across all review divisions, such as requiring code reference/citations, etc. rather than simply a “Provide X on plans.” • Review and Re-Review Completeness: When revisions are required, reviewers should focus primarily on the revisions made and any changes to the original application. If a staff member (due to lack of knowledge and experience or because the plans were inadequate) misses something in the flrst review, the applicant is not absolved from meeting a requirement. However, the City should have a clear policy that these are to be avoided and that, generally, new issues should not be brought up that should have been caught in the flrst review. Reviewers should be trained on this expectation, and managers should address the issue of frequent new comments on re -reviews as a performance issue. (1) KEY STRENGTHS OF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS As mentioned in the Executive Summary of this report, the City of Oshkosh is already following several of the best practices for development review processes and functions. They include the following: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28 • Early adoption of Evolve software for permit tracking, routing, and commenting represents a major operational strength. This system underpins a highly integrated, paperless environment and supports a quality online experience for applicants. The City has implemented this online permit application process for inspection and planning functions, with next-day inspection scheduling further reinforcing its commitment to efficiency and customer convenience. • Utilization of a thorough planning pre-application review process. The Development Review Committee (DRC) convenes regularly to facilitate cross -departmental dialogue, identify issues early, and ensure that all reviewing disciplines are engaged throughout the application process. • Inspection Services and Planning Services Staff are strongly committed to meeting fast turnaround times for initial plan reviews and resubmittals. Staff prioritize timely responses to keep projects moving forward, refiecting a clear focus on removing unnecessary delays and improving the predictability of review timelines. However, as discussed in the Management and Administration Chapter, these timelines commitments are incredibly siloed and disjointed. (2) FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS The following sub-sections focus on issues speciflc to the four primary development review processes: legal and property records (Community Development - Assessor’s Services), building permits and inspections (Community Development - Inspections Services), engineering permits and inspections (Public Works – Engineering Division), and planning applications (Community Development - Planning Services). It should be noted that multiple review agencies may be involved in all of these applications and permits. Therefore, the discussion focuses on the application or permit category, not a City's division or department. As noted in the Management and Administration Chapter, all review disciplines are responsible for successfully processing all application and permit types, although one typically will take the lead. Appendix B provides detailed process diagrams describing the City’s current development review processes. Some process diagrams are also included in the following analysis. 4.2 BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS Below is a speciflc assessment of Oshkosh's current policies and practices for building permits and inspections compared to the key best practices. (1) AUTOMATED E-PERMITS The City does not offer automated e-permits through its permitting software system. These types of permits would be similar to “over the counter” permits that are issued automatically when submitted at the permitting counter, without the need for plan review. Providing an option for simple building permits (e.g., basic electrical, mechanical, plumbing permits and other trade related permits) to be issued immediately upon submitting a permit is considered best practice. This responsibility of issuing automated e-permits is typically assigned to the flrst-level staff members. Notiflcation to these staff members occur through the permitting software and then can be issued automatically upon payment of the permit fee. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29 It is important to consider the elements and opportunities outlined in the City Code Assessment, including ways to simplify permitting processes where appropriate. In both Madison and Green Bay, certain minor residential projects can be processed through a n expedited permit pathway, although review and approval are still required before issuance. These permits typically cover same -kind replacements and non-structural improvements such as installing or replacing dishwashers, water heaters, doors, windows of the same size and location, driveways, sheds, and patios. While neither city offers fully automated permit approval without review, their practices illustrate how targeted permit categories can be streamlined through simplifled applications, minimal docume ntation requirements, and faster turnaround times. Under Wisconsin Administrative Code § SPS 361.30(1), reinforcing the need for some level of review for most, if not all building permit applications. Jurisdictions are branding this automatic type of building permits different names; to signify they are no longer being received across a physical front counter. Some modern terms that can be used to describe permits that are issued automatically via your software system are below for consideration: • Automated e-Permits: Highlights the automated nature of the workfiow, from submittal through approval and issuance. • Instant e-Permits (or Instant Permits): Emphasizes that the permit is generated immediately once the online application passes automated checks. • Digital Over-the-Counter Permits: Pays homage to the old “over-the-counter” term by framing it in the digital context. • Self-Service e-Permits: Conveys that applicants complete and receive their permits entirely online, without staff intervention. Recommendation #16: Create an automated e-permit process for simple trade building permits that do not require plan review, in accordance with requirements in municipal code and Wisconsin SPS § 361.30(1). (2) ROUTING CRITERIA The City does not have written guidelines or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that indicate which review disciplines should be routed for building permit reviews. Best practice is to develop a clear matrix of criteria that triggers review by different entities (Planning, Engineering, Engineering – Stormwater, etc.). Generally, it is recommended that permit types that rarely need a discipline group’s review should not require review from that speciflc discipline. Instead, the building permit intake revie wer should be trained to recognize this rare situation. For example, an interior kitchen remodel should not need a planning review. Developing this routing matrix will require collaboration and fiexibility among all departments and divisions. If necessary, department directors and managers should participate in these discussions. The table below is an example of routing criteria that generally aligns with best practices. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30 BUILDING PERMIT ROUTING CRITERIA Building Permit Type Planning Building (Inspections) Engineering Fire Eng. - Stormwater Automate E- Permits No review No review No review No review No review Residential Interior Remodel No review unless [indicate] All All No review No review Residential Addition All All If sidewalks, curb cuts, driveways are involved or if trigger for frontage is met. No review [Define scope for stormwater review] Residential (1-2 family) new construction All All All No review All Etc… … … … … … Recommendation #17: Create a building permit routing criteria matrix that automates the routing of building permits to different review disciplines. (3) BEST PRACTICES IN INSPECTION REQUESTS After issuing a building permit, inspections need to be scheduled throughout the construction cycle. The City currently allows i nspections to be requested and scheduled using two different formats: 1) online through the permitting software; or 2) through submitting an inspection request by calling a designated phone line. Some requests are even honored if they are made directly to the inspector. The City successfully utilizes its Evolve permitting software system for building permits and most planning applications, where submittal materials must be submitted online through the permitting software rather than on paper. Similar consistency should also be provided to applicants and customers when making inspection requests. This would better follow best practices. While the stakeholder analysis indicated that most survey respondents found it easy to request and schedule a building inspection, the time staff spend monitoring the inspection phone or fax lines is inefficient and disconnected from the overall Oshkosh development review process, which is primarily online and digital . The national standard and best practice is for an applicant to receive an inspection the next business day after they request the inspection. Currently, there is no official cutoff time for when an applicant must request an inspection to ensure a next-day inspection occurs. While staff indicates that next day inspections usually occur, and that State law requires all requested inspections to be scheduled within 48 hours, there is not a formalized or advertised process in place to clearly show that the City is providing next day inspections. A recommended cutoff time of 5 p.m. is recommended for next day inspection requests. The City is partially providing consistency in inspection requests. Providing consistency in inspection requests involves the following: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31 • Provide a list of required inspections with all issued building permits. – Currently meeting through the online portal once a building permit is issued. • Only accept inspection requests through the permitting software system. – Currently meeting, but there are ways applicants can bypass. • Set a cutoff time for next-day inspection requests. – Not meeting. • Require all review disciplines that provided comments on the building permit to conduct a flnal inspection. – Not meeting. Several jurisdictions provide an inspection guide to help educate applicants on what to expect following the issuance of a building permit and what is required during building construction. Below is a sample inspection guide used in another jurisdiction: BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION GUIDE The following are required inspections pursuant to [CODE] for NEW BUILDINGS, ADDITIONS, RENOVATIONS & ALTERATIONS. Other inspections may be required depending on the scope of the project. Consult the Subcode Olficials in you have questions. 1. Building: Footing **Bottom of trench, PRIOR to the pouring of concrete** 2. Building: Wall forms & Steel **PRIOR to the pouring of concrete** 3. Building: Foundation **PRIOR to the placement of backffll** - For New Homes; Foundation location survey required PRIOR to inspection 4. Building: Sheathing **PRIOR to the installation of house wrap, siding & rooffng. Windows and doors must be installed** 5. Building: Slab **PRIOR to the placement of concrete** - Electrical & Plumbing: under-slab inspections required at this time 6. Electric, Plumbing & Fire: Rough Plumbing: rough installation; air test for gas piping, water test for water piping, waste and vent piping Electric: rough wiring for all ffxtures Fire: rough location of all ffre protection equipment, including smoke alarms All trenches for Electric & Plumbing 7. Building: Framing AFTER passing Electrical, Plumbing & Fire rough inspections DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32 BEFORE insulation Installation of windows and siding must be complete Completed UCC Framing Checklist MUST be submitted to inspector at time of framing inspection. Failure to hand in checklist SHALL result in failure of inspection and inability to install insulation ALL PENETRATIONS AND FIRE STOPPING MUST BE DONE AT THE TIME OF THE FRAMING INSPECTION (thermal ffber, ffberglass, ffre rated caulk, foam rated for penetrations, plywood or sheetrock) 8. Building: Insulation **PRIOR to the installation to gypsum board and sheetrock** 9. Electric, Plumbing & Fire: Final 10. Building: Final **CANNOT be scheduled until electric, plumbing and ffre pass ffnal inspections ONLY SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS WHEN WORK IS READY SO YOU ARE NOT TAKING UP INSPECTION TIME FOR SOMEONE ELSE. REINSPECTION FEE MAY BE CHARGED IF PROJECT IS NOT READY. Recommendation #18: Accept inspection requests only through the online permitting software system. Recommendation #19: Establish a 4 p.m. cutoff time for next-day inspection requests. Recommendation #20: Create an inspection guide and provide through the online permitting software system. (4) ADDRESSING DEMOLITIONS When demolition of an existing structure or building is proposed with a building permit, the City changes its address to “0.” Then, a new address is reassigned when a new building is constructed. The project team does not see justiflcation in this addressing practice, as the property (parcel) itself typically holds an address, in addition to the legal description of the property. If the current practice is in place to clarify when a property is vacant of structures or buildings, the City should instead upda te its GIS map layers to include building and structure information on a property. This would negate the need to change the addressing. Overall, the current process seems to add steps to a standard building permit review that can potentially add unnecessary review time and require more workload to update the system and addressing flles. Recommendation #21: Establish a new policy/regulation to clarify that no site should have a “0” address. (5) PERMIT MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY The current building permit management philosophy is very disjointed across the review disciplines. As discussed in the Management and Administration Chapter, there is a lack of coordination / communication between departments and divisions, causing some permits to be issued when a review discipline is unresponsive. While this may allow a permit to be issued faster, it typically will create future problems in the construction and development process. To help ensure a more consistent process once it has started, a case management approach to the building permit process needs to be established. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33 The case manager for a building permit would serve as the application manager and the primary facilitator for the City to process the permit. Duties that the case manager would perform include: • Receiving all permit plan review comments, reviewing comments, and issuing a single comment letter to the applicant and relevant marked -up plan sets. • Facilitating the permit review process with other City staff and outside agencies (as required). • Resolving confiicts between different review discipline comments and issues. Typically, a building permit case manager is either a Permit Technician (if they have signiflcant experience and knowledge of City operations) or a Plans Reviewer (either a building plan reviewer or a planner, depending on the type of application). Neither position exists within the City of Oshko sh. The inspectors on staff perform plan review for accessory structures, residential/low -density buildings, and smaller commercial buildings. All other commercial plan review is contracted out to ePlan. The City would need to determine how a case manager is assigned for building permits. The transition to a case management approach would provide a primary point of contact for the applicant at the City. In addition, it would empower the primary reviewer to have ownership of the application and to push their colleagues across other review di sciplines for timely and consistent service. This approach will provide better customer service to the applicant and development community. Recommendation #22: For each type of building permit, identify a case manager to serve as the primary point of contact and shepherd the permit through the approval process. Create clear expectations the case manager must attempt to receive other review disciplines comments. (6) CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No application or permit must be submitted to request a Certiflcate of Occupancy (CO). A flnal inspection is requested through the Evolve portal or directly with an inspector. The current process is very Inspection Services-centric and solely depends on inspection completion. Below is the flnal CO process for residential building permits: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34 FINAL/CO INSPECTION PROCESS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS Below is the flnal inspection process for commercial building permits: FINAL/CO INSPECTION PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMITS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35 Once a flnal inspection is requested, it isn’t routed to other review disciplines. An inspector must verify if flnal inspection requests were made with Fire and Health Inspections. Additionally, the inspector must verify that all other review disciplines are flnalized. When there isn’t an application or permit routed for review, the likelihood of gaps occurring within the flnal inspection process increases . Some staff groups indicated they are left out of the flnal CO approval procedures. The project team b elieves there is a great need for a standardized process for all CO requests, and it should start with an applicant submitting a CO permit and fee. A suggested Standard Operating Procedure for CO best practices is as follows: 1. Submission & Intake of Certiffcate of Occupancy (CO) Permit The applicant uploads the flnal approval of trade permits, as -built plans, fees, and the CO application into the permitting portal. The system holds if anything is missing. 2. Parallel Final Reviews by Review Disciplines Automated routing of “pass/fail” checks by each review discipline (Building, Fire, MEP/Trades, Planning/Zoning, Public Works/Engineering, Health). 3. Final Inspection Scheduling Once all flnal-status reviews are clear, the applicant must book a consolidated “CO Final” inspection (or multiple discipline-speciflc flnals). 4. Consolidated CO Final Inspection Occurs The staff perform a flnal inspection and walkthrough using a CO -speciflc checklist for their review discipline, logging any deflciencies live and documenting as required in the permitting system. 5. Deffciencies & Re-inspection The applicant corrects all deflciency items, requests a re-inspection, and pays re-inspection fees; the staff revisits the property to confirm any deficiencies and close out. 6. Sign-Off & Issuance of CO When every review discipline marks “Final PASS,” the Chief Building Official electronically signs the CO. Financial guarantees for work to be completed in the future, after occupancy, are flnalized. CO PDF is generated, emailed, and all records are archived. Recommendation #23: A standard operating procedure should be standardized for the ffnal inspection and Certiffcate of Occupancy processes. Recommendation #24: A Certiffcate of Occupancy permit and fee should be created and required of all applicants. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36 (7) REQUIREMENT OF FINAL INSPECTIONS As outlined in the above example, requiring flnal inspections is considered best practice. Engineering and Planning Services are often removed from the flnal inspection process. This practice has required Planning Services to automatically schedule a zoning inspection one year after a building permit is issued, without requiring a flnancial guarantee from the applicant to ensure that conditioned improvements are completed within a deflned time period. The requirement of flnal inspections should be mandatory for all review disciplines that provided comments on the original development request. This ensures all conditions of approval from previous entitlements are met, flnancial sec urities should be in place for future improvements. To require a flnancial guarantee for outstanding items due to timing (seasonal items) or other project requirements is common practice throughout the United States. Recommendation #25: Ensure that all review disciplines that provided comments on the building permit are required to conduct a ffnal inspection with a Certiffcate of Occupancy permit, to indicate that all requirements have been met with construction. Recommendation #26: Ensure applicants submit ffnancial securities for outstanding project requirements that will be completed after receiving occupancy. (8) TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Staff indicated the City’s Temporary Certiflcate of Occupancy process is too relaxed and fiexible and is preventing the City in ensuring construction and development has met all project requirements and abides by City building codes. While Temporary Certiflcate of Occupancies (TCOs) can offer fiexibility to an applicant, they carry real risk to the City. By codifying stringent criteria, securing flnancial guarantees, and building in strong insurance and inspection protocols, a City can greatly mitigate its exposure while still leveraging the beneflts of a TCO. Here are some strategies the City can put in place if it elects to issue a TCO, along with key best practices for managing the associated risk: 1. Deffne Clear Eligibility Criteria Require that all life‐safety systems (flre alarms, egress lighting, sprinklers, means of egress) be fully installed, tested, and approved before a TCO is issued. Restrict occupancy to only those portions of the building that are fully compliant —e.g., ground‐ fioor retail or core common areas—while flnishing work continues elsewhere. Specify what activities may occur (e.g., “storage only,” “shell retail,” “office work with limited occupant load”) so no one misunderstands the condition of the space. 2. Time‐Bound and Conditional Approval Limit TCO validity to a narrow window of time (e.g., 30–90 days), with no automatic renewals. Tie the expiration date to completion dates for outstanding elements (e.g., “CO expires in 60 days or upon flnal flre‐marshal approval, whichever comes flrst”). DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37 3. Financial and Contractual Protections Require the developer to post an amount sufficient to cover the cost of completing remaining work (often 125–150% of the estimated punch‐list). Hold a deposit to cover the cost of extra inspections, re‐inspections, or enforcement actions if inspections fail. Charge a premium TCO application fee to recoup the added administrative burden. 4. Insurance & Indemniffcation Mandate that the project’s general liability and builders‐risk policies name the City as an additional insured. Require the insurer to waive subrogation rights against the City. Include a strong hold‐harmless agreement in the TCO form, shielding the City from liability for any injuries or damages arising from incomplete work. 5. Rigorous Inspection Regime Schedule weekly (or more frequent) follow‐up inspections until full CO is granted, to ensure outstanding items are being addressed. Give inspectors clear authority to “stop occupancy” immediately if unsafe conditions are discovered. Require the developer to provide photographic or third‐party progress reports at each inspection stage. 6. Transparency and Notiffcation File a public notice or “Notice of Temporary Occupancy” against the property title so future buyers or lenders are aware of the building’s incomplete status. If spaces are leased under a TCO, require tenants to sign an occupancy acknowledgment outlining the limited scope of approvals and potential disruptions. 7. Revocation & Enforcement Spell out in the TCO form the City’s right to revoke the TCO on 24 -hour notice if conditions change or work stalls. Institute flnes or daily penalties for failure to complete punch‐list items by the TCO expiration date. Preserve the City’s right to place a lien on the property to recover unpaid fees or enforcement costs. Recommendation #27: Revise the temporary certiffcate of occupancy process to align with best practices and require performance bonds as part of the submittal requirement. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38 (9) ESTABLISH A BUILDING REVIEW BOARD A frustration that was shared by multiple individuals who participated in the customer focus groups was a concern over staff’s knowledge and interpretation of the City’s building code. Multiple instances were shared where staff’s (internal and contracted) interpretation of the code varied among staff and with the applicant’s understanding of the code. When this occurs, these issues are often escalated to City Council and/or City Manager. One way to address building code interpretation issues is to create a Building Code Review Board. The review board would serve as an appeal body for building code decisions. This would include both building plan review and inspection components for Inspection Services. The composition of the review board would consist of the Chief Building Official and external representatives such as licensed architects or professional engineers. Members would need to have working knowledge of building design codes. The appeals board appointments would be consistent with the appointments of other boards and commissions with the Mayor and Council’s involvement, and should consist of three or flve members. Recommendation #28: Establish a Building Codes Review Board to serve as an appeal body for building plan review and inspection determinations. 4.3 CODE ENFORCEMENT (1) CLARIFY THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAFF Code enforcement responsibilities are spread across staff throughout the City. Building inspectors typically receive complaints from community members or identify an enforcement issue during inspections. Planning staff also sometimes receive complaints from the public and are responsible in updating neighborhood groups about enforcement actions of the City. The City Attorney’s office is responsible for all legal action involved in code enforcement, including property abatement requests. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of understanding of each member’s roles and responsibilities in the City’s code enforcement process and possible overlap on some case types. Additionally, the City Attorney’s office indicated a signiflcant amount of time (1/3 of job) spent on code enforcement-related actions. This demonstrates a need to further clarify the roles and responsibilities of staff in the code enforcement process to avoid duplication of actions across different divisions. It would also allow the City to determine its desired focus and approach for code enforcement actions (e.g., proactive vs. reactive, prioritization of cases). Recommendation #29: Clarify the roles and responsibilities of staff in the City’s code enforcement process. (2) STANDARDIZED PROCESS The City’s code enforcement process needs standardization to ensure consistency. Code enforcement is currently approached differently between Inspection Services and Planning Services. The City does not have written guidelines or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that indicate which staff members should be involved in code enforcement related issues. This creates confusion for the community that is engaged in the City’s code enforcement process. Best practice is to develop a clear matrix of criteria that DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39 determines which staff are involved in a particular complaint. Developing this routing matrix will require collaboration and fiexibility among all departments and divisions. If necessary, department directors and managers should participate in these discussions. (3) CODE ENFORCEMENT MANUAL Best practice indicates that once code enforcement policies and procedures are established, they should be consolidated within a central manual. This manual would apply to code enforcement cases originating in all City divisions. This will ensure a standardized approach to enforcement efforts, regardless of the department or division of origin. The code enforcement manual can include separate sections based on the speciflc area of code being enforced (e.g., property maintenance code vs. land use code) and on the department or division responsible for enforcement (e.g. building, planning, engineer ing). However, in preparing the manual, managers across these departments should seek consistency where possible and where different regulations would allow. For example, the steps involved in responding to an outside complaint should be the same unless a compelling operational or regulatory difference justifles a different approach. Suppose one division creates a “violation” record upon receiving a complaint, and another division flrst conflrms the violation with an inspection before creating the case. In that case, that discrepancy should be assessed, and if no valid reason exists for the difference in approach, the City should aim to create greater consistency. Two strong examples of Code Compliance educational materials are from Deschutes County, Oregon and Chamblee, Georgia. Links to their guides are below: Chamblee, Georgia Deschutes County, Oregon Recommendation #30: Create a manual that provides oversight of the City’s code enforcement program and responsibilities. 4.4 ENGINEERING REVIEW AND PERMITS (1) ONLINE SUBMITTAL Engineering reviews, such as Right-of-Way (ROW) permits, are not currently tracked within the permitting software system. This is problematic and should be resolved quickly. All engineering permits should be submitted online through the permitting software's customer portal. This would enable all review staff to know when an engineering permit is affiliated with construction or development that is occurring and possibly reviewed and approved by a different review discipline. Recommendation #31: Create an online permit submittal process for all engineering permits through the permitting software’s customer portal. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40 (2) FINAL INSPECTIONS As discussed in the Certiflcate of Occupancy subsection of this Chapter, Engineering is being excluded in the flnal inspection and project closeout process , for both residential and commercial, due to their unresponsiveness. Engineering must be involved in the flnal closeout of a project to ensure that maintenance agreements and public easements associated with the development are flnalized. Maintenance agreements are particularly important for ensuring an applicant is meeting the City’s engineering and stormwater regulations. Separate stormwater inspections also may be required prior to flnal project closeout. With active participation from Engineering will help ensure that appropriate as built and maintenance agreements have been received prior to CO issuance. Incorporate the Public Works Construction Inspectors to conduct engineering and site development inspections on behalf of the engineering team. Recommendation #32: Ensure the Engineering Division is involved in the City’s Certiffcate of Occupancy permit and project closeout process. 4.5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS Below is a speciflc assessment of Oshkosh's current policies and practices for planning and zoning applications compared to the previously stated key best practices. (1) APPLICATION ROUTING CRITERIA Similar to building permits, no formal guidelines or Standard Operating Procedures indicate the routing criteria for planning and zoning applications. The City should prepare a clear criteria matrix that shows which applications trigger review by different disciplines (engineering, parks, inspection services, or outside review agencies). Ideally, this matrix should be automated in the Evolve system through the application workfiows. The routing criteria matrix for planning and zoning applications will likely be less complex than the one developed for building permits because there are fewer application types. The Planning project lead should check if speciflc circumstances related to an application may affect the deflned routing criteria, and the Evolve system should allow for a modiflcation when necessary. SAMPLE ROUTING CRITERIA FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS Application Type Building (Inspections) Engineering Fire Park Transportation Pre-Application Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Conditional Use Permit No No No No No Site Plan No If sidewalks, curb cuts, driveways are involved or if trigger for frontage is met. Yes [Define scope for parks review] [Define scope for parks review] DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41 Application Type Building (Inspections) Engineering Fire Park Transportation Subdivision No Yes Yes Yes Yes Etc… … … … … Recommendation #33: Create a planning application routing criteria matrix that automates the routing of planning applications to different review disciplines. (2) STANDARDIZED REVIEW TIMELINES There are no adopted review timelines for planning and zoning applications within the City of Oshkosh’s Zoning Ordinance. Unlike other states, Wisconsin has not mandated review timelines of certain zoning entitlements at the state level. Therefore, the City hasn’t made it a priority to regulate review timelines. Planning Services has established an administrative policy to produce flrst review comments on an application within a 5-working-day timeline (or approximately within a one-week calendar timeline). This is reiterated through the Division’s published Site Plan Review Meeting Schedule, which identifles the Monday date an application submittal must be turned in to be considered at the following Development Review Committee’s meeting on Wednesday. This timeline is intended to include review comments from all review disciplines that receive the routed application. However, applicants are not given an overall estimate on how long an application review will take from start to flnish. Which can vary depending on the quality of the application received, the number of review rounds, and timing of future public hearings. As highlighted in the stakeholder survey analysis, 38% of survey respondents disagreed that their timeline was reasonable. # Statement Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 9 The time it took to process my application was reasonable given the complexity of the project. 22% 40% 23% 15% While a 62% agreement rate generally indicates a positive response, it was one of th e statements with the lowest agreement rate. The following details were also concluded from the survey data: • Builders and property developers gave more mixed or negative responses, particularly around clarity of processes and timelines. • Business owners and homeowners generally reported agreement levels close to or below the average, often indicating confusion about the process or dissatisfaction with communication and timelines. It can be problematic when staff cannot estimate how long a review process will take for an applicant, from start to flnish. In partnership with recommendations from the Management and Administration Chapter, the City needs to establish internal timelines for the steps involved in the planning application review process, including intake, completeness determination, initial review, re -review, public noticing, staff report development, etc. These timeli nes should be built within the Evolve system (which supports the additional recommendation of having all planning and zoning applications within the Evolve customer portal for online submittal. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42 Below is an example of a city’s use of a visual graph to relay project review estimates: VISUAL EXAMPLE OF PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW ESTIMATE The City can stress how these timelines are indeed estimates and do not factor in time when an application is being revised by the applicant (the review timeline would likely start over once a resubmittal is received by staff). Because the City has already created Submittal Date Meeting Schedules for the Plan Commission, Common Council, and the Board of Appeals, it should be a fairly easy task to create overall estimates of planning application reviews. Recommendation #34: Establish standardized review timelines for all planning application types. Ensure the timelines use the same unit of measurement (e.g. business days vs calendar days). (3) COMPLETENESS REVIEW As discussed in the development review best practices at the beginning of this chapter, the flrst step of a review process should include a completeness check or review. This requires the City to have clear, written standards on what constitutes a complete application. All applications received should be checked against these criteria before they are accepted. The determination of what should be included DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43 in these standards requires something of a balance – if the requirements are too stringent, the applicants may end up doing more work than necessary before reviewers even see the application. But if they are not stringent enough, the reviewers may not have enough information to complete a thorough review. Ensuring there is a completeness review step in the overall planning application review process ensures the applicant is doing their part in accurately showing their proposed development and explaining how it meets City regulations. Application checklists that clearly list the required submittal materials for an application are considered best practice. The process of coming up with the completeness checklist for each application type should be collaborative among staff. The City is prioritizing flrst review comments for planning applications and has set a 5 -working-day review timeline for such comments. Best practice would have the City to prioritize a completeness review within a 1-working-day timeline. Once an application is determined to be complete, the official review process and timelines will start. Recommendation #35: Conduct application completeness check for all application types and reject incomplete applications. Recommendation #36: Create application checklists for all planning application types that list the required submittal materials for determination of completeness. (4) REQUIREMENT OF PRE-APPLICATION REVIEWS The pre-application process in Oshkosh serves as a valuable tool to provide applicants with an initial review of project concepts and early guidance on application requirements, development standards, and procedural pathways. When used effectively, this process enhances project readiness, clarifles expectations, and helps identify potential issues prior to formal submittal. This ultimately supports a more efficient and predictable development review. Planning Services relies heavily on a pre-application review for many of its applications. Under the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the pre-application review is recommended for site plan applications and required for planned development applications. However, it appears the pre-application review occurs for most planning application types. In contrast, this practice has led to inconsistencies in the level of review provided and creates challenges in ensuring fairness and parity among applicants. Projects that have followed all established application procedures and paid the associated fees are subject to full technical evaluation, whereas others may receive early public review. These discrepancies compromise the integrity of the review process and may result in diminished public trust, unclear expectations without the completion of a full rev iew, and lower staff efficiency. It is also difficult to track and account for staff time utilized to assist in pre -application processing and reviews, making it difficult to have a realistic and measurable workload for staff. There are instances where items proceed to the Plan Commission without a formal, complete application, fee payment, or comprehensive staff review. The current pre-application review process is summarized below: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44 PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS DIAGRAM WORKFLOW The pre-application review involves the staff who sit on the Development Review Committee. While this cross-disciplinary review does help with the coordination of review comments, a meeting with the DRC may not be justifled for every application type, and coordination of review comments could instead happen within the Evolve system. A pre-application review is typically triggered by complex proposals and applications (e.g., site plan review for mixed-use, multi-household, or commercial development). It should not be automatic for a site plan application to have a pre-review. It is recommended that the City reflne the requirements of a pre-application review. Speciflcally, thresholds within the site plan reviews are seen as a beneflcial change in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. However, the option for the Planning Services Manager to either require a pre-application review when not typically triggered, or skip a pre- application review when triggered, should also be within regulation. Recommendation #37: Create site plan thresholds that determine when a pre -application review is required. (5) SUBMITTAL AND COST OF PRE-APPLICATION REVIEWS When a pre-application review is determined to be required, a formal application and fee should be submitted by an applicant. It is recommended that a pre -application review submittal be required to provide speciflc information, such as: 1. A project narrative that provides a description of the overall project including design intent, project goals, project time frame, proposed uses, site improvements, buildings, anticipated parking demand and source of off-street parking. 2. A list of questions regarding speciflc project input that the applicant wishes to obtain. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45 3. Data regarding the existing use, site and building conditions, adjacent uses, available utilities, and other related general information about adjoining land uses (drawings and maps, etc.). The additional information requested from the applicant helps ensure that staff can provide the most helpful information and feedback before the formal entitlement application process. A City may offer a cursory review of a potential development for free, but that should not include any reviews involving the Development Review Committee (DRC). The time spent on DRC meetings and project reviews exceeds the free service level simply by factoring in each staff member’s hourly rate. It is recommended that the City establish and distinctly deflne a process for pre -application submittals. A formalized pre-application process should be implemented within Evolve to ensure consistent documentation of early staff efforts, applicant communications, and project details across all departments. The City should deflne the contents of a complete pre-application submittal and identify any applicable review fees. Complete materials must be submitted prior to staff review, and a disclaimer should be included indicating that the pre-application process is informational only and does not constitute a formal review or determination. Pre-application materials should not be forwarded to the Plan Commission. This revised process will promote internal consistency, improve transparency for applicants, and ensure that early input remains advisory until a full application is submitted. Recommendation #38: Create application submittal material requirements for all pre -application review requests. Recommendation #39: Determine an appropriate review fee for pre -application reviews. (6) ROLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE The City utilizes best practices in planning review and zoning entitlement by having an established Development Review Committee (DRC). Speciflc best practices are listed below, with notes on how the City is or is not meeting them: • Assign one staff member to facilitate the committee meetings. This individual may also be the primary facilitator for a formal pre-application process. – Currently meeting. The City’s Zoning Administrator currently facilitates the DRC meetings. • Ensure staff have had a chance to review application materials prior to the meeting. This will help determine if their attendance is necessary and ensure that the meeting is more effective and impactful, as comments and input provided will be based upon a more thorough review of the documentation. – The review time for the review disciplines is extremely abbreviated at 5 working days. This coupled with the lack of a completeness check for application requirements, leads to challenges of incomplete applications being reviewed and ineffectively using review staff’s time. • With the electronic submittal and review, it would be more efficient for reviewers to upload their comments to the Evolve system before the meeting. After the meeting, reviewers should update their comments/notes within one business day, and all feedback is automatically combined and sent to the applicant/customer. – Partially meeting. Planning Services staff is taking on most of the responsibilities of combining review comments to send back to the applicant. Evolve is not fully utilized by all review disciplines. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46 • Comments should cite ordinances and regulations when necessary and clarify the formal application and entitlement process requirements. – Partially meeting. There are no standards in place to how comments are formulated and drafted for all review disciplines. Recommendation #40: Reffne the role and functions of the Development Review Committee to follow best practices. (7) STAFF AND APPLICANT ROLES Currently, the Planning Services staff are performing administrative work that would be better suited for an applicant to be responsible for submitting or orchestrating. Examples include the following: • Preparation of the adjoining property owner list for application types that require a mailed public notice to adjoining or adjacent property owners. • Scheduling of neighborhood meetings that are triggered by a particular application type. • Mailing of neighborhood meeting invitations. • Pulling together application submittal materials. There is always a balance between customer service and the appropriate use of staff time. The examples above are areas where the project team saw an immediate opportunity to require more from an applicant rather than continuing to require staff to handle it administratively. Alternatively, if staff continue to provide some or all of these services, the City should adopt fees to offset the cost of providing services. Recommendation #41: Transfer administrative tasks from the staff to the applicants when the tasks are speciffc to preparing an application and meeting application requirements. (8) FINAL INSPECTIONS Planning Services staff are not currently performing flnal inspections. Instead, they schedule a flnal inspection one year after a building permit is issued. It is unclear how Planning is notifled of when a building permit is issued, and who in Planning is responsible to schedule the delayed flnal inspection (and if it is added to a shared calendar that allows all Planning Staff to reference). This approach to flnal inspections is not considered best practice. It provides little to no insurance that the City will see development meet all of its project requirements, such as landscaping or other site design requirements. As discussed in the Certiflcate of Occupancy subsection of this Chapter, all review disciplines that provided review comments on a building permit should be required to be routed a Certiflcate of Occupancy permit request and perform a flnal inspection on the property. If landscaping or other site improvements are requested to be completed following issuance of occupancy, the applicant should b e required to provide a flnancial guarantee to the City, which allows the City to complete the improvements if the applicant is unable to do so themselves. Subsequently, Engineering staff receive notiflcations in the permitting software system for a flnal inspection. They have rarely completed flnal inspections prior to certiflcate of occupancy issuance. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47 Recommendation #42: Revise the approach and require Planning and Engineering staff to be involved in the City’s Certiffcate of Occupancy permit and project closeout process. (9) ONLINE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL Only two planning application types are accepted through the Evolve permitting customer portal: Site Plan Review and Certifled Survey Map. The best practice is to have all planning applications available for online submission through the online customer portal. To provide the clearest direction to potential applicants and customers, all permits and applications shall be found in one location on the City’s website, which can include a link to the Evolve customer portal. The ultimate goal is to transition to only digital submittals for planning application after the successful implementation of all planning application workfiows into the software system. Recommendation #43: Create an online application submittal process for all planning application types. 4.6 TIF PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS The City is utilizing the tool of development agreements, a type of Private -Public Partnership (P3) agreements, while administering the City’s several Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts. Below is a concise summary of key best practices for structuring P3s or development agreements. These best practices are drawn from an International City/County Management Association white paper from 20182. When applicable, some TIF-focused considerations are also woven into the summary below. • Align Authority & Legal Framework Conffrm Statutory Authority: Ensure your jurisdiction has explicit P3 enabling legislation (in conformance with Section 66.1105 of the Wisconsin Statutes, “Tax Incremental Districts”) to enter into development agreements. Use Standardized Contracts: Adopt model contract language to reduce drafting time and legal risk and allow staff outside of the City Attorney’s office to participate in the drafting process. • Dedicated Increment Revenues Embed a clear mechanism whereby incremental property -tax fiows within the district service the partner’s debt (or trigger availability payments). • Bundle & Allocate Risk Appropriate Bundling: Bundle design, construction, flnancing, operations, and/or maintenance only to the extent the private partner can effectively manage those risks. 2 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (P3s): What Local Government Managers Need to Know, International City-County Management Association publication, 2018. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48 Risk Allocation Matrix: Apply a clear risk-transfer matrix so that each risk—ground conditions, flnancing, demand—is assigned to the party best positioned to mitigate it. District Boundaries & Capital Improvements : Align the TIF district’s eligible improvements with the private-partner’s scope (e.g., on-site infrastructure, public amenities). • Stakeholder Education & Transparency Early Outreach: Conduct community workshops and publish plain-English project summaries to explain P3 structure, revenue sources, and public beneflts. Open Data, Oversight & Citizen Engagement : Commit to publishing project milestones, payment schedules, and performance metrics on an open-data portal (ideally on the City’s website). Publish TIF budgets and project dashboards alongside your P3 performance data to maintain transparency and public trust. Increment Projection & Monitoring: Require annual reporting of actual vs. forecasted increment to adjust partner payments or debt service reserves. • Deffned Performance Mechanisms Key Performance Indicators: Embed clear KPIs and deduction/bonus regimes tied to service levels, maintenance standards, and uptime. • Robust Governance & Contract Management Dedicated P3 Unit or Liaison : Staff an internal P3 “center of excellence” to shepherd procurement, contract negotiation, and performance monitoring. Periodic Reviews & Flexibility: Include contractual “reset” points (e.g., every 5 years) to revisit infiation adjustments, scope changes, or technology updates. These distilled best practices will help the City craft P3 and development agreements that are legally sound, flnancially prudent, and transparent. They will also ensure accountability and deliver capital improvements and infrastructure on accurate and efficient schedules. Recommendation #44: Implement best practices for Private -Public Partnership (P3) and development agreements for Tax Increment Finance Districts. 4.7 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT USE The City utilizes development agreements frequently to memorialize agreements from developers as part of the planning and site development process. The use of development agreements is extensive by the City. The use of development agreements is an important part of the development process and can be an impediment at times. There were several issues noted with the current approach to development agreements. These challenges include: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49 • The use of development agreements for routine infrastructure construction that will be turned over to the City. Infrastructure should be constructed to the City’s adopted design standards and thus do not require a development agreement for routine infrastructure construction. These should only be required for unique projects or when the developer/contractor is installing infrastructure on behalf of the City. An example would be upsizing a sewer line for future development. • General improvements in the right-of-way. Development agreements are not needed for general improvements in the right-of-way. This type of work is directed by adopted design standards, and a separate agreement is not needed, if a right-of-way permit has been issued. • Development agreements for the creation and dedication of easements. The location and requirement of easements are dictated by adopted City code and are reviewed as part of a site plan, planning, and/or building application. Furthermore, easements are recorded and are legally binding. Development agreements are not required for easements that will be recorded. • Extensive agreements for routine subdivisions and platting. Similar to the point above, subdivisions and plats are recorded documents and should not require a development agreement. This is a gross overstep to require a development agreement for applications that are review and approved by the City prior to recording the new plat. The City should evaluate their use of development agreements and eliminate the use of them for routine development activities that are reviewed by staff and fall under City code, adopted design standards, or are recorded with the County. Recommendation #45: Reduce the use of development agreements for routine development activities. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50 This chapter focuses on recommendations speciflc to technology utilization in the development review process. Technology is an integral part of the development review, permitting, and inspection process for local governments. It can be used in various ways and ideally should make the process more efficient for customers and staff. Analysis in this chapter will primarily focus on how the City utilizes its permitting software system, Evolve. 5.1 PERMITTING SOFTWARE SYSTEM BEST PRACTICES The following table provides an overview of best practices in permitting technology utilization. The subsequent subsections outline the key adjustments needed to more effectively utilize and integrate technology into the development review process. BEST PRACTICES IN TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION Process Step Best Practices Intake The applicant submits a full application electronically, including all attachments. Documents that require an engineer or architect stamp or seal are affixed with an electronic stamp or seal. The full record, including site plan and supporting documents, are either attached or linked to the permit record in the software system. The system includes checklists to ensure that all required documents are uploaded at intake. Fee Calculation Calculates application and permitting fees and accepts payment through the software and/or online portal. This may be accomplished through integration with the City’s flnance software or through the permitting system itself. If payments taken through the permitting system, integration with the City’s flnance software should be implemented to enable direct transfer of data and information. An estimated fee feature should be included when an applicant is applying, although fees may not be collected until later in the process. Linking of Permits Permits should be easily linked across and within review disciplines (e.g., entitlement to engineering to improvements to building to electrical). This would include the ability for the system to fiag the permit if there are any open/unresolved code enforcement cases. Distribution and Review Plans are electronically routed to plans reviewers who mark-up documents digitally. Reviewers of different disciplines can see each-others’ comments and mark-ups, directly on the plan sheet. Any written comments / reports are electronically attached to the application record. Reviewers can electronically access any permit history on the project, including past permits issued, conditions associated with prior approvals, and special conditions associated with the property. 5. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51 Process Step Best Practices Comments to Applicant The applicant is notifled via email when comments are available and can follow an electronic link to see comments and (where relevant) marked up plans. Alternatively, the software may email the applicant the comment letter and marked up plan set. As part of the comment feedback, the applicant can identify who made the comment, their role, and contact information. Note – for complex applications it is important for the application/permit project manager to review the comments from all disciplines before they go to the applicant for a response. At this point no technology is able to look at comments from different review disciplines and ensure that they present one clear, consistent set of directions to the applicants. Applicant Resubmittal The applicant uploads a re-submittal once all comments have been addressed (but not before). The system should require a response to every comment from every review discipline. Once resubmitted and accepted by intake staff, the resubmitted version would be easily identifled for the applicant and staff. Re-Review Reviewers can digitally compare the re-submittal with the original submittal. This may include the incorporation of “clouding” or another feature that easily identifles changes from the original submittal. Timeline Status Feature that allows the City development review staff to notify the applicant about the anticipated review timeline, and if there are delays in the review, with an updated completion time. Public Hearings A copy of the full application packet is linked to the public portal. Public hearing video, audio, and minutes are also linked to the application after public meeting. Approval / Issuance The applicant receives an approval letter or permit electronically along with an electronic version of the approved plans and/or any conditions associated with the permit. This includes conditions that were established based on a prior permit (e.g., a planning approval that then turned into a building permit). Approved plans / approval letter is uploaded to the permit tracking system as record of the flnal approval. All previous versions of plans submitted would be archived within the system. All conditions of approval are included in the online record and delineated in the system. If these are linked to another application (e.g., a building permit linked to a planning approval) they should be linked in the system as well. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52 Process Step Best Practices Inspections Inspections can be requested electronically through the applicant portal and are linked to the permit record online. Inspectors can see a link to the flnal approved drawings either from their desktop or from a tablet in the fleld. Inspectors can enter inspection results in electronically in the fleld. All inspection results, including any reasons for failure of inspections, are visible in the City’s permit portal to the applicant and to administrative and professional staff in the office. Inspection results are automatically sent to the applicant/contractor. This may be via email or notiflcation directly from the permitting software system. Certiffcate of Occupancy / Permit Close Out When a certiflcate of occupancy is required, it may be requested through the applicant’s portal. Prior to the ability to request a CO, the system will identify what project close out materials (e.g., as-builts, maintenance bonds, etc.) are required prior to requesting a CO. Once a CO is requested, all applicable inspectors will be notifled of the CO request. CO results will be distributed automatically to the applicant. If approved, the CO will be automatically generated and awaiting staff signature. Once approved, the CO will be emailed directly to the customer. Post-Issuance The system tracks conditions of approval and whether and how these conditions have been met. This will include a workfiow for maintenance bonds and automatic notiflcations prior to the bond expiring for follow up inspections. Reporting The system automatically generates management reports for internal and public use. This will include reports that can be linked to online dashboards. Public report should provide meaningful, clear information regarding timelines, and workloads, and performance over time. The City has been using Evolve for approximately 12 years and has incorporated many of the best practices identifled in the table above. Building Inspections is the primary user of Evolve and has incorporated more of the best practices than other review disciplines. As discussed in the management and process chapters, there are several opportunities to expand the use of the permitting software system to address other recommendations. The current system, when updated (Fall 2025) should have the capabilities to meet many of the previous recommendations made in this report and issues identifled in this chapter. Recommendation #46: Incorporate permitting software technology best practices into the upcoming Evolve update. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53 5.2 INCORPORATE ALL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS INTO PERMITTING SYSTEM As discussed in the Process Chapter, Engineering and Planning have not incorporated all of their development applications and related workfiows into the permitting system. All development applications and inspection processes should be created in the permitting system. This would include the ability to submit all applications online and electronically route to all review disciplines. By having all development application workfiows in the permitting system, it will also allow the City to transition to a digital only submittal, review, and issuance process. Recommendation #47: Create workifows for all development review applications and inspections for building, planning, and engineering applications. 5.3 LINK PARENT AND CHILD PERMITS A challenge with the current setup in the permitting software system is the lack of trade permits being linked to the original building permit. Trade permits (e.g., electrical, plumbing, mechanical, etc.) are not automatically linked to the building permi t. This creates challenges where there may be multiple trade permits associated with the same building permit or during the certiflcate of occupancy process. There have been numerous instances where a building permit has been signed off, but there is an incomplete trade permits associated with the building. To address these issues, workfiows should be updated to automatically link a trade permit to the building permit. Trade permits are “child” permits to the building “parent” permit. This linking will be more efficient for the applicant, intake/permit staff, and inspectors during permit closeout. Trade permits should be linked to the primary building permit, when possible, especially for new construction building permits. Recommendation #48: Update building permit workifows to automatically link Trade permits to the orginal building permit. 5.4 DIGITAL PLAN REVIEW SOFTWARE As the City embraced digital applications, it has necessitated the need for conduct digital plan review. There are several speciflc plan review software platforms in the market. Currently, development staff utilize either Adobe PDF or BlueBeam software p latforms. BlueBeam is a plan review software platform that the City is transitioning too. However, not all application/plan reviewers have access to BlueBeam. All staff who are responsible for conducting application and plan reviews should be provided acc ess to BlueBeam. All plan review should be conducted in BlueBeam , and all staff should markup/comment plan sets in this platform. Review comments can be placed directly on the plan sheet (when applicable) and transmitted back to the applicant through the online application portal. By providing comments directly on the plan set it will reduce the need to generate a comment letter, make it easier for all reviewers to see each other comments directly, and it will allow the applicant to see the where the comment is applicable. Also, when the application is resubmitted, it will allow the reviewer to overlay the two sheets, and the software should identify the changes on the resubmittal. Directly commenting and marking up the plan sheets will increase staff efficiencies during the review, ensure all DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 54 comments have been addressed prior to approval, and during the process to stamp the approved plan sets. Recommendation #49: Provide all development review staff who conduct plan/application reviews access to the City’s plan review software system. Recommendation #50: All review comments should be made directly on the plan sheet and provided to the applicant. 5.5 INTEGRATE GIS INTO THE PERMITTING SOFTWARE SYSTEM The City has invested in a GIS system and public portal. However, not all staff have access to the same version of the GIS system, and it is not integrated into the City’s permitting software platform. There are numerous GIS layers related to planning and development functions and is critical to the review of development applications. The City’s GIS system should be integrated in the permitting software system. Examples of opportunities to integrate GIS into the permitting software system include: • Providing the ability for the applicant to search by address, parcel number, or other identifler through the permitting system that is linked to GIS. This will allow the applicant to link the address/parcel to their application and not have to retype their address when applying. • When GIS is linked to the permitting portal it will automatically populate the application with required information. • GIS layers when linked to the permitting software system, it may automatically identify challenges with the application type (e.g., applying for a residential building permit for a commercially zoned address), and prevent the application from being submitted and rejected. • Modern GIS systems have a “storybook” feature that allows for an interactive approach to help the applicant determine what type of application/permit they need to apply for. Alternatively, the “storybook” approach can be used as a development guide/handboo k to inform the public about the development process. This can be embedded as part of the permitting software system or standalone feature. • GIS can be used to generate adjacent property notiflcation lists and can be automated based on the application type. As part of updating Evolve, GIS should be integrated directly into the system. Recommendation #51: Integrate the City’s GIS layers into the upgraded permitting software system. Recommendation #52: Implement a “storybook” or similar feature into the City’s GIS system to walk the public and applicants through the City’s development process. 5.6 ESTABLISH A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE The technology needs for development review, permitting, and inspection functions may be complex and requires a combination of both technology and development review knowledge. This unique blend of DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 55 experience and knowledge is critical for the successful implementation and continued usage of software systems for the provision of development services. To improve operational efficiencies, it is important to establish a development review technology com mittee. This committee would include representatives from Community Development Department and the City’s information technology team. There are several beneflts of a development related technology committee, and they include: • Ensures that permitting related software systems are maintained and updated as necessary. • There are identifled technology leads in each functional area/team. • This group will serve as the primary flrst point of contact for development technology issues for their division/team. With the intent being that they can resolve issues more quickly as they are subject matter experts and power users of the platforms. • These individuals should be tasked with onboard and in -service training for development speciflc technology systems. • An established team to support each other, staff, and customers when issues arise and when new opportunities are presented. This will allow critical decisions to made quickly. The technology committee should be comprised of representatives from Information Technology, Planning, Building Inspection, and Assessors staff. This committee should assist with the implementation and maintenance of the updated permitting system and othe r supplemental development review technology platforms in the City. Recommendation #53: Establish an internal development technology committee that has representatives from planning, building, code enforcement, and information technology. This group will help lead the implementation and ongoing management of the enhanced permitting software system. 5.7 INTERNAL TECHNOLOGY TRAINING NEEDS The City should standardize and optimize the use of key technology platforms, including Evolve and GIS, to promote consistency efficiency, and transparency across the development review process while introducing new tools to better serve both internal users and the public. A flrst priority is to standardize the use of Evolve across all departments, requiring consistent documentation of reviews, comments, and approvals. This includes ensuring departments such as Fire, Engineering, Legal, and the Assessor’s Office—some of which have historically underutilized the system— are fully integrated into Evolve workfiows. Doing so will support more complete project records, reduce redundant communication, and improve accountability across review functions. To reinforce this transition, it is important that the City create an internal training program with the implementation of the updated and new software platforms. The following elements should be incorporated into the software training program. • Create a comprehensive on-board training program for all new staff that is designed to provide an overview of each system and a more detailed training program for their speciflc role (e.g., intake and permit issuance for intake staff, reviewing and posting comments for plan reviewers, etc.). This DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 56 onboard training program should be provided for all staff prior to the launch of the updated or new software system. • Ensure that staff receive ongoing training for the software as new updates and features are implemented. This may be provided by the vendor or internal staff. • Provide training for managers on how to utilize the software system and performance reporting features. • Create a user guide/desk manual (electronic) so that staff can reference most of their questions. This manual should be updated as new features are released. A formalized training program should be created prior to launching the new/updated software system(s). Additionally, all new hires should receive an on-board training prior to being provided access to the system. Finally, staff should be provided with a digital reference guide. Recommendation #54: Develop and implement an internal training program prior to the launch of new development review, permitting, and inspection software. This will include the creation of new hire on - boarding software training program. Recommendation #55: Create supporting internal and external documentation for the permitting software system. This will include how to guides and resource materials for all parties. 5.8 EXTERNAL TECHNOLOGY TRAINING NEEDS It is just as important to create a training program and resource materials for customers as it is for staff. The more relevant information and training that is provided for end users about how to effectively utilize the new system, the less burden it wil l be on staff. Prior to launching the updated version, City staff need to create a customer training program. This training should initially serve to provide frequent customers with a short training program on how to set up an online account, submit an application, track their application through the online portal, receive comments, upload revised plan sets, obtain their permit, and pay fees through the portal. In addition to providing this training in person or virtually, these sessions should be recorded and be available through the City’s website. Training should be provided for customers when new updates are released that impact the user’s portal. Also, it is important for regularly scheduled training workshops to be provided so that new users can also receive training at least twice a year (or more frequently if needed). Alternatively, the City may create tutorial videos to supplement annual training needs. In addition to creating and implementing a customer training program, a digital resource guide should be developed that walks the user through the most common practices. The resource guide should be posted on the City’s website. The resource guide should include a frequently asked questions component and screenshots that are annotated to guide the customer through the various system processes. The guide should be detailed enough that the average user can successfully set up an account, submit an application, receive comments, resubmit, pay fees, and download their permit. Recommendation #56: Create and provide a customer training program (or videos) for common actions. Examples include how to submit a permit application, pay fees, or request an inspection. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 57 5.9 TRANSPARAENCY AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION Externally, the City should develop a public -facing, web-based fee estimator. This tool will allow applicants to input project details and receive real -time estimates aligned with the City’s adopted fee schedules, improving transparency and reducing time-consuming staff inquiries. An online fee estimator should be created after the revised fee schedule is adopted as part of the accompany fee study update study. To support data-driven management, a citywide performance monitoring dashboard should also be created. The dashboard would track key metrics, such as development applications and inspection workload, performance measures, historic trends, etc. Recommendation #57: Create an online fee estimator. Recommendation #58: Create online development review dashboards. 5.10 EXPLORE AI AND OTHER INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY With the emergence of AI and generative AI technology, there will come a demand for public entities to utilize breakthrough technologies to enhance services and cut costs. Just as e -government was a new phenomenon 20 years ago and eventually became commonplace in government, so will AI functions. Investigating these new technologies over the next few years is vital to the City’s continued commitment to enhanced customer service. The following are some of the reasons to pursue this breakthrough technology: • Increased Elficiency and Speed: AI can automate routine tasks, such as the initial review of applications, checking for completeness (pre-screening), or even ensuring compliance with certain regulations. This automation reduces the workload on human staff, allowing them to focus on more complex aspects of the review process. As a result, permit applications can be processed faster, reducing wait times for applicants and accelerating project timelines. Note: several communities are utilizing AI for building application completeness check and Orange County, Florida is using AI for single family home building permit application review. • Improved Accuracy and Consistency: AI systems can be programmed with the latest regulations and standards, ensuring that all applications are reviewed with up -to-date requirements. This improves the accuracy of reviews and ensures consistency across all projects. AI can also help identify potential issues early in the process, reducing the likelihood of costly mistakes or delays later on. These are important for standardized codes such as the Wisconsin Residential Building Code. • Enhanced Customer Service: AI and technology can provide developers with more accessible and user-friendly interfaces for submitting and tracking their applications. Chatbots and AI -driven support systems can offer 24/7 assistance, answer questions and providing updates on applica tion status. This level of accessibility and transparency signiflcantly enhances customer satisfaction. As mentioned previously, the “storybook” function integrated with GIS can guide the customer to the appropriate application/permit to submit. • Data-Driven Decision Making: The use of AI and technology generates a wealth of data on the permitting process, which can be analyzed to identify trends, bottlenecks, and areas for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 58 improvement. This data-driven approach allows for more informed decision-making, enabling departments to streamline their processes, allocate resources more effectively, and continuously improve service delivery. • Flexibility and Scalability: AI and technology solutions can easily be scaled to meet the demands of a growing city. As development activity increases, AI systems can handle a larger volume of applications without the need for proportionately increasing staff. This scalability ensur es that the department can continue to provide timely and efficient service, even as the city expands. • Sustainability and Environmental Compliance: By digitizing the permitting process and utilizing AI for compliance checks, cities can promote more sustainable development practices. AI can help identify projects that align with environmental regulations and sustainability goals, ensuring that new developments contribute positively to the city's environmental objectives. • Competitive Advantage: Cities that leverage AI and technology in their development services departments can position themselves as attractive destinations for developers. A streamlined, efficient, and transparent permitting process can attract high -quality development projects, driving economic growth and innovation. Investigating and integrating AI and leading technology into the permitting functions of the Community Development Department is not just about keeping pace with technological advances; it's about proactively enhancing efficiency, accuracy, and customer satisfaction. This approach not only beneflts developers and city staff but also contributes to the overall growth a nd sustainability of the community. In the even the City start using AI or similar services, a proper AI policy should be in place for the City to guide the ethical use of the tool as well. Recommendation #59: Explore opportunities where AI may be used in the development review, permitting, and inspection processes. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 59 The following chapter analyzes and develops recommendations for customer interaction and education practices concerning the development review and permitting approaches in the City of Oshkosh. It includes topics related to providing an applicant with both general and speciflc information about the development review process, so they have a chance to be successful in their request. It also covers topics that can provide staff assistance by educating the customer prior to an application is submitted for consideration. 6.1 CREATE A CENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WEBSITE A City’s website is essential for proactively engaging with potential and current development customers. Before engaging with the City about a development proposal, a customer has most likely visited the City’s website. The City’s website is an excellent resource for providing a variety of information related to the City’s processes, requirements, standards, and development environment. A strong online presence can enhance the level of service to the customer and reduce the number of inquiries that require front- end staff time. The Department of Community Development’s webpage currently serves as the primary area on the City’s website that provides information regarding the City’s development review, permitting, and inspection functions. Its primary home page includes the following details: • Summarizes the four divisions and functions of the Department: Assessment Services, Economic Development, Inspection Services (building and inspections) and Planning Services (planning and zoning). • Names and titles of the Directors and Managers, with a general office phone number and office hours listed. • Additional information in a sidebar menu with links to additional each division: o Assessment Services includes additional contact information and office hours, links to revaluation FAQ’s, taxes FAQ’s, property search and building permit search links, assessor forms, and assessor flle downloads. o Economic Development includes information about current projects and employers in the community, a step by step guide to starting or expanding a business in Oshkosh, additional links to speciflc redevelopment projects, and information about the Greater Osh kosh Economic Development Corporation. o Inspection Services is one of two division webpages that provide a link to the Oshkosh Online Permitting customer portal. There are links to permits, applications, fees, building guides, inspection requirements, vacant building registration program information, residential rental inspection program information, building activity reports (current through 2025), flnding my lot line FAQ, and rental complaints and inspections information. This subpage of the Community Development Department’s website has the most comprehensive information. The permit application forms are flllable PDF documents. 6. CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT & EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 60 o Planning Services includes the upcoming Plan Commission calendar with a summary of application requests that will soon be considered. There are links to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Maps (including an interactive Zoning Map viewer), application forms and brochures/guides saved as PDF documents (not flllable forms), meeting schedules and deadlines for the Plan Commission and the Board of Appeals, additional information about City Boards and Commissions, and then a separate webpage link to the City of Oshkosh Neighborhood Association. Lastly, there is a link to the Oshkosh Online Permitting customer portal. While a large amount of information is on these pages, it isn’t highly beneflcial to customers because it requires signiflcant time to search for a particular topic or item. The stakeholder survey results reiterate this difficulty in flnding development review steps on the City’s website. Below are a couple of the multiple-choice statements in the survey about this topic: # Statement SA A D SD 3 If I had a question about technical standards and requirements, it was easy to flnd the answer online 10% 41% 35% 14% 5 If I had a question about the permit application and review process, it was easy to flnd the answer online 12% 48% 30% 11% Statements rating the ease of flnding information online were among those with the lowest agreement rate, with 51% (#3) and 60% (#5). Additionally, the open-ended section of the survey indicated that the online information on the development review process was both a strength and an area for improvement: • Improve Website (10 responses) o “Online permit site improvements” o “looking up information on permits on the online portal ” o “The language online was confusing” o “Online access to all city codes in regards to construction, renovation, etc..” A centralized development review website must be created to streamline the sharing of development- related information. Several of the elements discussed below will require coordinating with all departments/divisions involved in the development review process. Elements of a centralized development review website should incorporate the items listed below. Several of these elements will be discussed in further detail as separate recommendations. ACCESSIBILITY • The centralized development webpage should be located on the City’s homepage and easily flndable. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 61 GENERAL INFORMATION • An overview of the entire development review process in narrative and graphical formats. • Link to a comprehensive digital development guide that overviews the entire development process. • Narrative for responsibilities of the respective departments/divisions involved in the development process. This can also be a visual document, such as a “fiow chart” or “road map.” • Links to individual departmental/divisional development webpages. CONTACT INFORMATION AND MEETING SCHEDULER • Division contact information, including a division-speciflc email address and phone number. Individual email addresses and phone number s can be included for employees who are topic experts (for example, stormwater review). • Link to an online meeting scheduler for “General Inquiries,” “Chats,” and “Pre -Application” meetings. APPLICATION AND PERMIT SUBMITTALS • Simplifled inventory of application and permit checklists, which is easy to flnd. • Explanation of when particular applications and permits are needed. • Informational one-pagers for more complex applications and permit processes. • Link to the Evolve customer portal, including “How To” guides for using the portal and submitting an application or permit. APPLICATION AND PERMIT FEES • A fee schedule and a fee estimator/calculator for all development fees (including impact fees). • Link to the Evolve customer portal, including “How To” guides for submitting an application or permit. MAPS AND ORDINANCES • Link to the City’s Interactive Map directly on the website, with general instructions on how to use and an explanation of the included map layers. • Ideally, a speciflc community development project map can be created like the one in Bozeman, MT. • Webpage link to the City’s adopted ordinances, design standards, and other regulations that are speciflc to the development review, permitting, and inspection processes. INFORMATIONAL HANDOUTS AND FAQS • Informational handouts on speciflc application or permit processes should be created and saved as individual PDF documents. • Updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that include the most frequent questions received from potential applicants and customers about the City’s development review process. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 62 PERFORMANCE HISTORY • Summary of review timelines for each application and permit type. Indicate both the typical time required for initial completeness review and review of resubmittals. • Webpage link to applications and permits currently being processed and reviewed by the City. • Performance reports on the number of applications and permits received and the average review timelines. Ideally, these reports can be auto generated by Evolve. A centralized development review website will require coordination across different divisions and departments. Until this coordination occurs, the Department of Community Development should take the lead on this effort and ensure all development information and guidance is centrally located, including the applications, reviews, and inspections information. It would be important to include any information from affiliated review departments and divisions, including Engineering, Fire, Parks and Transportation. This could initially occur by creating one sidebar menu dropdown option for the City’s development review process. Recommendation #60: Create a high-functioning central development review webpage for people seeking information on navigating the City’s development review process. 6.2 IMPROVE THE EVOLVE CUSTOMER PORTAL As discussed in Technology Chapter, the City requires submitting all building permits through the Evolve customer portal. Building permit inspection requests can also be made through the customer portal, in addition to calling the inspection phone line. Only two types of planning and zoning applications are currently accepted through the customer portal. The portal could be made signiflcantly more intuitive with key changes to include: • Better and more tailored application checklists and guidelines on selecting the correct application or permit from the portal menu. • Automatic fee calculation with submittal. • Easy access to staff review comments when a review is complete. • Automatic application and permit status notiflcations (both through the portal and email); and • Speciflc technology recommendations for the Evolve customer portal are provided in Chapter 5, “Technology,” of this report. Recommendation #61: Develop and provide clear and comprehensive checklists for each application and permit type, identifying the minimum items required to be submitted for review. 6.3 CREATE A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE OR HANDBOOK A digital development guide or handbook should be created to provide a comprehensive overview of the City’s development review process. Such a handbook helps clarify processes for applicants. It can also be used as a resource for staff onboarding (as further discussed in Chapter 5 of this report). DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 63 Below are strong examples of development guides and handbooks that could be used as a starting point to determine the type of information the City of Oshkosh should include : Aurora, CO Development Handbook Clayton, CA Development Handbook Durham, NC Reference Guide for Development While the guide does not need to be all -encompassing, it should provide a clear overview of the different steps involved in a new project from initial concept design through occupancy approval. Recommendation #62: Produce a development guide/handbook that assists applicants and customers with understanding the broader development review process. 6.4 PROVIDE AN ONLINE MEETING SCHEDULER The primary Department of Community Development public counters are open to the public 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Inspection Services)/8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Planning Services), Monday through Friday. There is a Planner of the Day and an Inspector of the Day, who provide counter support from the Inspection Services and Planning Services Divisions. Customers must call, email, or visit in person to obtain information from staff. This is partly due to the difficulty in flnding information on the City’s website (as previously discussed), but also because it is a type of staff availability that has become expected by the customer. Providing staff adequate time to monitor application and permit intake through the Evolve system is essential. One successful way to do that is to provide an online meeting scheduler. This eliminates the need for an individual to come into the office or call a staff member to schedule a meeting. Additionally, there are ways to customize the type of meetings provided. For example, an initial inquiry meeting can occur more frequently during the week and be no more than 30 minutes. They typically are complimentary and require no fee. The following image shows an example of a more robust online scheduling system provided by the City of Bellevue, Washington: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 64 Scheduled meetings that require references to regulatory documents can prevent these types of questions from coming through phone calls or in-person visits at the public counter. It ensures that staff can provide helpful and accurate feedback, and the customer, in the end, leaves the interaction satisfled. While the City’s centralized development services public counter and open hours provide in -person service, several challenges can emerge, affecting staff efficiency and customer satisfaction. Here are some of the key challenges: • Decreased Staff Elficiency: Staff’s workfiow is interrupted as they balance walk-ins with ongoing tasks. This leads to a less efficient workfiow and reduced productivity. Additionally, it eliminates the ability of staff to prepare for speciflc cases in advance, which can lead to del ays in customer service or inconsistent feedback. • Reduced Accountability: Walk-in systems make it harder to document and track interactions and follow-ups, which can lead to accountability issues if problems arise. Without scheduled appointments, there may be less formal tracking of commitments made during interactions, leadin g to missed deadlines or incomplete tasks. • Inequity in Access: A walk-in system may favor those who can arrive early or have more fiexible schedules, potentially disadvantaging others who cannot easily access services during regular hours. These challenges highlight the beneflt of establishing an online appointment scheduling system. The system should allow the customer to select in-person or virtual appointments with staff. Still, it should also require the customer to provide background on what they are inquiring about so that the correct resources are available during the meeting. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 65 Recommendation #63: Provide an online meeting scheduler for virtual and in -person staff consultations. 6.5 APPLICATION AND PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLISTS Permit and application checklists are scattered throughout the Community Development website. An applicant wouldn’t know what each link is by its title alone, so it would require a lot of exploration. Several of the links are not flllable online and can only be viewed. Most of the documents need updating. This recommendation standardizes the look and feel of all development checklists and ensures applicants supply the essential information staff need to determine submission completeness. Until these forms are built directly into the Evolve customer application portal, they will be provided as flllable PDFs that applicants can complete electronically, and departments can review and approve online. Checklists will be sequenced so that core data (e.g., property address, project name) automatically carries forward from one form to the next, minimizing redundant entry and expediting the completeness‐ check process. Recommendation #64: Ensure the application and permit checklists on the website are ffllable in design and align with the Evolve application and permit type options, to integrate the checklists into Evolve’s customer portal. 6.6 UNIFY CUSTOMER COUNTERS INTO A “ONE-STOP SHOP” To improve customer service, streamline communication, and reduce applicants' confusion, the City should explore consolidating development-related customer service functions, such as Planning, Building, Engineering, and Assess or’s Office services, into a centralized “One-Stop Shop.” This model enables applicants to access comprehensive permitting, zoning, and inspection support from a single counter, whether in person or virtually. As a flrst step, the City should conduct a feasibility study to evaluate: • Current counter locations, staffing, and workfiows • Space, technology, and training needs for integration • Impacts on customer experience and internal coordination • Opportunities for virtual “One-Stop Shop” services (e.g., live chat, online intake, consolidated tracking) The study should result in a phased implementation plan that includes staffing alignment, cross -training requirements, shared SOPs, and communication tools. This initiative aligns with best practices in development services delivery and positions the City to provide more efficient, accessible, and customer- friendly support to residents, businesses, and developers. Ideally, the City would consolidate the Planning and Inspections team into a single suite and have a single public counter. To accommodate this consolidation, it would require an extensive renovation of at least half, if not all of the second fioor of City Hall. Recommendation #65: Unify the in-person customer counters into a physical “one -stop shop.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 66 This chapter provides an assessment of areas where the City’s regulatory standards and processes would beneflt from modiflcations. To address persistent challenges in clarity, consistency, and process efficiency within the City’s development review system, several code and procedural reforms are recommended. These actions are designed to resolve key issues highlighted through staff feedback, stakeholder surveys, and code analysis. 7.1 CODE ANALYSIS Concurrently with this study, a comprehensive code audit was completed to evaluate the City’s existing development review processes and framework. This audit involved a detailed review of relevant ordinances, development standards, and procedural provisions, identifying areas where updates are needed to align with current best practices, regulatory and legal requirements, and operational needs. The code audit was thorough in scope and analysis, offering speciflc, actionable recommendations to improve current language. These recommendations are integral to the City’s ongoing efforts to streamline development review and regulatory compliance and should be formally incorporated through a structured update to the municipal code. Stakeholders cited inconsistent application and interpretation of key code sections as a primary source of frustration, particularly during inspections and interdepartmental reviews. Focus on these commonly misunderstood or ambiguous sections for revision will reduce confiict, improve processing efficiency, and provide clearer expectations for applicants. This effort aligns with efforts to foster a more facilitative approach to development regulation and will collectively save staff time expended navigating and explaining unclear sections of the city’s code. Updates to the subdivision code were speciflcally and repeatedly raised as a possible area of focus for this. To address the need for coordinated and timely municipal code updates, it is recommended that the City establish an internal Code Steering Committee composed of representatives from key departmental and divisional leadership, in addition to representatives from legal staff and city management. The purpose of this committee is to provide structured oversight, clear ownership, and interdepartmental collaboration in identifying, prioritizing, and drafting ordinance amendments for Plan Commission and City Council consideration. The Committee would be tasked with: • Evaluating areas of the municipal code that require updates based on operational challenges, staff input, legal review, and community feedback. • Facilitating structured discussion and cross -functional input on proposed amendments to ensure clarity, enforceability, and alignment with City goals. • Ensuring transparency and consistency in communication with the Plan Commission and Council during the ordinance update process. 7. REGULATORY STANDARDS & EXPECTATIONS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 67 It is further recommended that the Committee elect a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members , with one-year terms of service. These leadership roles would be responsible for setting meeting agendas, tracking action items, and reporting progress to executive leadership . This recommendation is intended to alleviate the existing challenge of fragmented code ownership and ensure a consistent, collaborative approach to maintaining a modern, effective municipal code. Additionally, establishing a predictable, biannual code update cycle will promote long-term consistency and shared expectations across departments. Survey and interview feedback identifled concerns with code sections becoming outdated or inconsistently applied due to infrequent updates. A standard update schedule will allow for proactive coordination between departments and ensure that any legislative or regulatory changes, evolving best practices, or recurring user issues are addressed in a timely manner. Prioritization should be given to sections in the code analysis that address modiflcations in state standards or identifled areas causing confusion or inefficiency. Recommendation #66: Utilize the Development Leadership Council as a s teering committee to guide ongoing ordinance updates. Recommendation #67: Adopt a standing biannual timeline for code updates and communicate expectations across departments . Recommendation #68: Prioritize code elements that should be updated. 7.2 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING-RELATED ACTIVITIES As part of the broader code update effort, the City should evaluate and reflne the building code permit requirements. Particular attention should be given to routine or lower risk construction activities to ensure the requirements refiect contemporary construction methods and reduce unnecessary administrative burden. This review should focus on aligning permit applicability with current health and safety standards. It should also identify items that may no longer warrant ongoing inspection based on industry best practices. For example, some of the following items commonly do not require building permits to be issued by municipalities, which are presently required permits in Oshkosh: • Uncovered, at-grade residential patios (typically concrete or pavers) usually don’t require permits as they are not structures and do not impact drainage or utility systems signiflcantly. A zoning review may be required to ensure compliance with setbacks but typically do not require a building permit. • Temporary or low-proflle signs often fall outside permit requirements unless they are illuminated or located in speciflc zoning districts with strict signage controls. • Many cities do not require building permits for fences under a speciflc height (commonly 6 feet in residential areas) unless within a setback, easement, or corner lot visibility triangle. • Special Event or Block Party permits are typically handled via event or police permits rather than through building permitting, as they relate more to traffic control, noise, and safety monitoring than to building code compliance. • Infiatable or portable pools are typically temporary and under the depth threshold (e.g., less than 24 inches) that would trigger code oversight. Most jurisdictions exempt these from permitting unless they are permanently installed or part of a utility system. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 68 • Permits for in-kind replacements of common features in residential buildings. This would include toilets, sinks, light flxtures, etc. In most cases, challenges in obtaining and/or issuing permits are primarily related to process, staffing, technology, or communications, either with applicants or between departments or review entities. However, in some cases options are present to simplify or change regulatory requirements in a way that does not fundamentally compromise the City’s core mission of promoting safe, appropriate development while protecting natural resources and infrastructure. Recommendation #69: Evaluate and reffne what requires a building permit. With an emphasis to eliminate like for like replacements that do not impact life safety or structural components. 7.3 FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS The study identifled signiflcant enforcement challenges related to the completion of required landscaping and public infrastructure improvements associated with new construction. Speciflcally, it was noted that once development approvals have been granted and permits issued, the leverage to compel completion of these improvements becomes limited. At that stage, outstanding items often shift from being part of the development review process to becoming matters of code enforcement. This transition poses practical difficulties, as code enforcement typically lacks the tools or authority to effectively ensure compliance with complex or costly improvement requirements after occupancy has occurred. Wisconsin State Statutes do not prohibit municipalities from requiring flnancial guarantees , such as surety bonds or letters of credit, to ensure the completion of development-related improvements. In both staff interviews and general observations, delays in completing required land use improvements (e.g., landscaping, sidewalks, infrastructure) were noted as a recurring issue at project closeout. By requiring flnancial assurances for any improvements not completed at the time of occupancy, the City can better protect public interests, maintain accountability and enforce standards equally. A performance bond should be required at the point of permit issuance. This policy aligns with common best practices in community development by providing assurances that unflnished work is completed without excessive reliance on staff follow -up or enforcement. Recommendation #70: Mandate ffnancial guarantees for landscaping and infrastructure not completed by occupancy. 7.4 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE AND SIMPLIFICATION Matrix is concurrently conducting a comprehensive fee study designed to address a range of challenges related to development review fees. This effort is intended to evaluate the structure, transparency, and adequacy of existing fees to ensure they are alig ned with the true cost of service delivery and support the City’s overall development review objectives. Throughout the course of this organizational assessment, fee-related concerns were identifled as a barrier. The current fee schedule was described by applicants and staff as complex and difficult to navigate, contributing to confusion and frustration. A revised, customer-friendly fee schedule and fee DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 69 estimation calculator should be adopted featuring a reorganized layout, plain language descriptions, and a logical grouping of fees by application type. This update will improve cost transparency, reduce staff time spent on clariflcations, and better align the City's development services with modern customer service standards. The flndings from the fee study will provide critical data and policy recommendations to support updates to the City’s fee schedule, streamline applicant interactions, and enhance internal consistency in how fees are assessed and applied. When implemented in coordination with other recommended process improvements, this work will help create a more predictable, equitable, and flnancially sustainable development review system. Recommendation #71: Publish a reorganized, customer-friendly fee schedule, with newly adopted fees. 7.5 PLAN COMMISSION QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING The data collected demonstrates a variability in how Plan Commissioners interpret and appl y the code, often with limited formal training or technical background. Establishing qualiflcations and providing ongoing training for Plan Commissioners is critical to ensuring effective, consistent, and legally sound decision-making in matters of land use and development. Plan Commissioners are responsible for interpreting complex policies, reviewing development proposals, and making recomme ndations or decisions that shape the long-term character of the community. Without a foundational understanding of planning principles, zoning regulations, and statutory requirements, commissioners may struggle to evaluate projects objectively or issue defensible decisions. Training and qualiflcations help ensure that commissioners are equipped to apply rules consistently, promote fairness, and uphold procedural due process . In addition to supporting legal compliance, a well - trained and qualifled commission builds community trust by demonstrating a commitment to transparency, competency, and ethical governance. Public confldence in the planning process increases when commissioners demonstrate a clear understanding of their roles, act impartially, and represent the broader public interest. Training also ensures that commissioners stay informed on emerging issues such as housing affordability, climate resilience, and infrastructure planning . This enables proactive engagement with new challenges and state mandates. Professional organizations , including the American Planning Association (APA) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), identify commissioner training as a national best practice, and many municipalities have adopted formal requirements to institutionalize this standard. To ensure consistent and informed decision-making, the City should amend its code to include professional standards or qualiflcations and training requirements for Plan Commission members. This isn’t intended to have all appointed Plan Commissioners with consistent backgrounds and experience but rather may include baseline knowledge of land use planning, confiict of interest training, and a minimum orientation requirement. Strengthening this governance structure supports better alignment between advisory bodies and professional staff, enhancing the overall credibility and efficacy of the development process. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 70 Recommendation #72: Amend code to include qualiffcation and training requirements for Plan Commissioners. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 71 This chapter provides a consolidated summary of key flndings and corresponding recommendations developed through the course of this evaluation. The intent of this report is not only to highlight areas of improvement, but also to offer practical, forward -looking tools to support implementation. These recommendations are designed to assist the organization in enhancing its operations, aligning with best practices, and supporting long-term strategic goals. In addition to guiding immediate improvements, this report serves as a resource for informing future planning, policy development, an d organizational decision-making. The following table provides a summary of the recommendations made in this report. They are presented in the order of the report. After review of the draft report by the City, the project team will assign a priority level, identify timeline for implementation, and identify who should take the lead on implementation. MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION 1. Create a development review speciflc mission statement for all development staff to align their work efforts. 2. Form a Development Leadership Council within the City that is focused on enhanced collaboration across the development review disciplines and functions. 3. Establish and communicate realistic review timeline targets for each stage of the development review process by division and application type. 4. Create standard operating procedures for all City development review functions continuously update them once every two years. 5. Ensure adopted standard operating procedures clarify all staff’s roles and responsibilities throughout the development review process. 6. Adopt internal policy that dictates when development review staff job descriptions are reviewed and updated. 7. Supervisors should employ data-driven management to better monitor project status, workload, review timeliness, cross-department coordination issues, and process improvement needs. 8. Clearly deflne and communicate expectations for performance, process adherence, and accountability as part of the City’s onboarding program and recurring training. 9. Create online reports and dashboards for development review workload and performance. STAFFING & ORGANIZATION 10. Redeflne Economic Development functions and formally coordinate efforts with the Development Leadership Council. 11. Provide descalation training for all development review and inspection staff. 12. Provide body worn cameras for building inspection and code compliance staff. 13. When inspectors are concerned with their safety to perform their duty, have a law enforcement officer accompanying them while they conduct the inspection. 14. Reduce the total number of Building Inspectors from six to flve. 8. FINAL SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 72 15. Reduce the number of Principal Planners from 2 to 1. PROCESS IMPROVEMENT 16. Create an automated e-permit process for simple trade building permits that do not require plan review, in accordance with requirements in municipal code and Wisconsin SPS § 361.30 (1). 17. Create a building permit routing criteria matrix that automates the routing of building permits to different review disciplines. 18. Accept inspection requests only through the online permitting software system. 19. Establish a 4 p.m. cutoff time for next-day inspection requests. 20. Create an inspection guide and provide through the online permitting software system. 21. Establish a new policy/regulation to clarify that no site should have a “0” address. 22. For each type of building permit, identify a case manager to serve as the primary point of contact and shepherd the permit through the approval process. Create clear expectations the case manager must attempt to receive other review disciplines comments. 23. A standard operating procedure should be standardized for the flnal inspection and Certiflcate of Occupancy processes. 24. A Certiflcate of Occupancy permit and fee should be created and required of all applicants. 25. Ensure that all review disciplines that provided comments on the building permit are required to conduct a flnal inspection with a Certiflcate of Occupancy permit, to indicate that all requirements have been met with construction. 26. Ensure applicants submit flnancial securities for outstanding project requirements that will be completed after receiving occupancy. 27. Revise the temporary certiflcate of occupancy process to align with best practices and require performance bonds as part of the submittal requirement. 28. Establish a Building Codes Review Board to serve as an appeal body for building plan review and inspection determinations. 29. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of staff in the City’s code enforcement process. 30. Create a manual that provides oversight of the City’s code enforcement program and responsibilities. 31. Create an online permit submittal process for all engineering permits through the permitting software’s customer portal. 32. Ensure the Engineering Division is involved in the City’s Certiflcate of Occupancy permit and project closeout process. 33. Create a planning application routing criteria matrix that automates the routing of planning applications to different review disciplines. 34. Establish standardized review timelines for all planning application types. Ensure the timelines use the same unit of measurement (e.g. business days vs calendar days). 35. Conduct application completeness check for all application types and reject incomplete applications. 36. Create application checklists for all planning application types that list the required submittal materials for determination of completeness. 37. Create site plan thresholds that determine when a pre-application review is required. 38. Create application submittal material requirements for all pre-application review requests. 39. Determine an appropriate review fee for pre-application reviews. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 73 40. Reflne the role and functions of the Development Review Committee to follow best practices. 41. Transfer administrative tasks from the staff to the applicants when the tasks are speciflc to preparing an application and meeting application requirements. 42. Revise the approach and require Planning and Engineering staff to be involved in the City’s Certiflcate of Occupancy permit and project closeout process. 43. Create an online application submittal process for all planning application types. 44. Implement best practices for Private-Public Partnership (P3) and development agreements for Tax Increment Finance Districts. 45. Reduce the use of development agreements for routine development activities. TECHNOLOGY 46. Incorporate permitting software technology best practices into the upcoming Evolve update. 47. Create workfiows for all development review applications and inspections for building, planning, and engineering applications. 48. Update building permit workfiows to automatically link Trade permits to the original building permit. 49. Provide all development review staff who conduct plan/application reviews access to the City’s plan review software system. 50. All review comments should be made directly on the plan sheet and provided to the applicant. 51. Integrate the City’s GIS layers into the upgraded permitting software system. 52. Implement a “storybook” or similar feature into the City’s GIS system to walk the public and applicants through the City’s development process. 53. Establish an internal development technology committee that has representatives from planning, building, code enforcement, and information technology. This group will help lead the implementation and ongoing management of the enhanced permitting software s ystem. 54. Develop and implement an internal training program prior to the launch of new development review, permitting, and inspection software. This will include the creation of new hire on - boarding software training program. 55. Create supporting internal and external documentation for the permitting software system. This will include how to guides and resource materials for all parties. 56. Create and provide a customer training program (or videos) for common actions. Examples include how to submit a permit application, pay fees, or request an inspection. 57. Create an online fee estimator. 58. Create online development review dashboards. 59. Explore opportunities where AI may be used in the development review, permitting, and inspection processes. CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT & EDUCATION 60. Create a high-functioning central development review webpage for people seeking information on navigating the City’s development review process. 61. Develop and provide clear and comprehensive checklists for each application and permit type, identifying the minimum items required to be submitted for review. 62. Produce a development guide/handbook that assists applicants and customers with understanding the broader development review process. 63. Provide an online meeting scheduler for virtual and in-person staff consultations. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 74 64. Ensure the application and permit checklists on the website are flllable in design and align with the Evolve application and permit type options, to integrate the checklists into Evolve’s customer portal. 65. Unify the in-person customer counters into a physical “one-stop shop.” REGULATORY STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS 66. Utilize the Development Leadership Council as a steering committee to guide ongoing ordinance updates. 67. Adopt a standing biannual timeline for code updates and communicate expectations across departments. 68. Prioritize code elements that should be updated. 69. Evaluate and reflne what requires a building permit. With an emphasis to eliminate like for like replacements that do not impact life safety or structural components. 70. Mandate flnancial guarantees for landscaping and infrastructure not completed by occupancy. 71. Publish a reorganized, customer-friendly fee schedule, with newly adopted fees. 72. Amend code to include qualiflcation and training requirements for Plan Commissioners. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 75 APPENDIX A: CURRENT STATE PROFILE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B: CODE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX C: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS APPENDIX E: PROCESS DIAGRAMS 9. APPENDICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 76 APPENDIX A: CURRENT STATE PROFILE & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT This current state and best management practices assessment outlines the organization, structure, and staffing of the City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin’s development review functions. The information herein was developed through a review of existing city data and a series of in-person interviews with managers, supervisors, and line-level staff from the following departments between March 25 and 27, 2025: Community Development, Public Works (Engineering), Fire, City Attorney, Parks, and Transportation . The primary objective is to document the existing approaches utilized by the City in providing services, focusing on documenting the following items: • The organizational structure of the various department development review, permitting, and inspection operations. • The roles, responsibilities, and service delivery approaches for functional review discipline. • A comparative evaluation of the current practices against best management practices to identify areas for alignment and improvement. • The organizational composition and allocation of staff assigned to development review, permitting, and inspection processes. • Technology utilized by City staff within the existing processes. • Historic workload associated with the development review, permitting, and inspection processes. • Identifying customer outreach efforts and public information related to the development review processes and requirements. This document will summarize the current staffing allocations, duties, and processes utilized. This will allow for comparing recommendations developed for the flnal report to the current state and to the current state and demonstrate the impact of the proposed changes. The Best Management Practices portion of this assessment provides an overview of current operations and processes and identifles initial opportunities for improvement. It is presented in a checklist format and identifles whether current practices meet the target. The project team will analyze the issues identifled in this review further, resulting in the development of the draft flnal report and implementation plan. 1. INTRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 77 The development review, permitting, and inspection processes intersect and rely on signiflcant support from several city departments. Most development reviews and considerations occur within the Department of Community Development (Inspections, Planning, and Assessor functions). The City’s Public Works (Engineering), Fire, City Attorney, Parks, and Transportation departments all play important roles in these processes. Certain reviews also comprise considerations and determinations by the City’s Plan Commission, Common Council, and Board of Appeals. Below is an organizational chart for the City with the departments that have a deflned role or review in the development processes, each of which is highlighted in blue. The City of Oshkosh is organized within 12 departments, 9 of which intersect the development review, building, and zoning entitlement processes. Additionally, the city has 15 Boards, Commissions, and Committees, 6 of which have related roles to these current processes. 2. ORGANIZATION & STAFFING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 78 CITY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Citizens of Oshkosh Citizen Advisory Boards Board of Review Board of Zoning Appeals Business Improvement District Board Housing Authority Plan Commission Redeveloment Authority Mayor & City Council City Manager City Clerk Admin Services Finance Community Development Library Fire Museum Legal Police Parks Transportation Public Works CURRENT STATE AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 79 2.1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Department of Community Development has four divisions: Assessment Services (also known as the Assessor’s Office), Economic Development Services, Inspection Services, and Planning Services. It is budgeted for 30 full-time staff members, with 4 current vacancies. The Director and Assistant Director of Community Development are the supervisory positions and are assisted by an Administrative Assistant. All staff in the Department are involved in development review processes to some extent, emphasi zing the Inspection and Planning Services Divisions. The Assessment Services Division plays a vital role in records retention and property veriflcation but has a limited role in the development review process itself. Economic Development Services staff act as conci erges to assist applicants through the development process but do not have a deflned role in any process considerations or approvals. Inspection Services and Planning Services staff facilitate code enforcement efforts in addition to development review -related operations. An organizational chart of the Department of Community Development is provided below. CURRENT STATE AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSESSMENT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 80 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Director of Community Development (vacant) Assistant Community Development Director Economic Development Specialist (2) City Assessor Property Appraiser (3) Assistant Appraiser Office Assistant Commercial Appraiser (contractor) Planning Services Manager Principal Planner (2) Zoning Administrator Associate Planner Planner Housing Specialist Assistant Planner Office Assistant Chief Building Official Commercial Building Inspector (3) Building Systems Inspector (3) Inspector Inspection Technician Office Assistant Administrative Assistant DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 81 The following table details the city staff within the Department of Community Development. This outline includes each position by title and summarizes its main duties. The duties listed represent the position's primary role and are not intended to encompass all duties performed at the level of detail of a job description. Position Title Authorized Positions Key Roles and Responsibilities Administration Director of Community Development 1 (Vacant) • Manages department operations and budget, supervises division managers, and oversees development processes. Coordinate economic development, housing, grants, and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) efforts. • Liaison to the City Council and City Manager and provides support and assists with general city functions that may or may not relate to department operations. Assistant Director of Community Development 1 • Directs supervisor to Assessment and Economic Development Services Divisions and assists with general operations and projects. • Develops an economic development work plan in the City’s Strategic Plan. • Represents the department in city meetings, lead or serve on various committees, and serves as acting Director when needed. Administrative Assistant 1 • Performs office operations, maintains department budget, invoicing, and prepares public meeting materials (Redevelopment Authority and City Council). • Prepares legal notices for required public noticing. • Supports Community Development Department programs by handling general administrative tasks and assists residents. Assessment Services City Assessor 1 • Required function responsible for commercial and residential appraisals, property research, submits required Department of Revenue Reports and parcel creation. • Supervises division employees and manage division processes and operations. Property Appraiser 3 • Completes residential appraisals, property research and parcel creation. • Analyzes sales and updates property records. • Manages activity within assigned municipal wards, reviews improvements, assesses value and updates property records through on-site pictures. • Inventories and permits all mobile home park units. Assistant Appraiser 1 • Performs discovery and data gathering for property inquires. • Codes permits and assign parcel numbers. • Reviews proposals and submittals in Evolve, coordinate information and needed involvement across divisions. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 82 Olfice Assistant 1 • Provides customer service at front desk. • Supports staff and operations in the Assessment Services Division with part-time support also provided to Planning. Inspection Services Chief Building Olficial 1 • Oversees the Inspections Services Division and manages staff, budgets, and operations. • Collaborates with other city departments, communicate with developers and contractors, and provide project consultations. • Facilitates and improves inspection processes, maintain permitting software, and update municipal codes to align with state regulations • Performs some review of construction plans, issues permits and enforces code compliance through notices and citations. Commercial Building Inspector 3 • Ensures compliance with federal, state and city codes through inspections, enforcement, and plan reviews for commercial construction projects. • Maintains certiflcations in commercial building inspections • Performs on-site inspections, project coordination, and code interpretations. • Coordinates efforts and supports other division staff, provide project guidance and streamline permitting and plan review processes. Building Systems Inspector 3 (1 vacant) • Inspects new construction to verify compliance with local, state and federal codes. • Conducts on-site inspections, enforce code compliance, and provide guidance to architects, contractors and residents. • Reviews construction plans, issue permits, manage projects, and coordinate with other city departments from an operational standpoint. • One inspector is focused on plumbing/mechanical, one on electrical, and one housing inspector Olfice Assistant 1 • Provides clerical and administrative assistance and support staff and operations for the Building Inspector division. Provide customer service for general inquiries . Inspector 1 • Responsible for conducting minimum housing and rental housing inspectors. Includes both proactive and reactive inspections and complaints. Inspection Technician 1 • Oversees the City’s weights and measures licensing and inspection program. • Responds to code enforcement complaints. Economic Development Services Economic Development Specialist 2 (1 Vacant) • Facilitates and supports City economic development priorities. • Works with applicants and the business community to assist through city processes, including land use considerations, development review approvals and inspections. • Manages city-owned and RDA properties, assists with real estate transactions, environmental remediation needs, and facilitation of grants. Planning Services DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 83 Planning Services Manager 1 • Supervises division employees and manage division processes, budget and operations. Oversee implementation and updates to the various City plans. • Assists with creation and approval of Plan Commission and other relative Boards, Commissions and Committees agendas prior to publication and helps with review of staff items slated for consideration. Zoning Administrator 1 • Oversees land use processes, zoning, and planning proposals. • Facilitates Development Review Committee meetings and guide application reviews for administrative and Plan Commission approvals. • Coordinates and distributes information to applicants, ensuring compliance with Planning Services division timelines. Principal Planner 2 (1 vacant) • Provides support to the Plan Commission. • Leads review of development applications for compliance with city codes and assist in report preparation and presentations. • Assists the Planning Services Manager in overseeing projects and activities, review zoning and site plan requests, and manage housing programs. Planner 1 • Reviews applications for compliance with city codes, support the Plan Commission, and guide zoning and land use processes for new developments. • Inputs and manages GIS data for all zoning maps and assist Public Works with street addressing. • Manages land records and assist with Certifled Survey Maps, new plats, annexations, etc. Process new easements for development and requests for easement modiflcations. Associate Planner 1 • Oversees complaint-based code enforcement and assist with variances. • Engages with citizen committees, neighborhood groups, etc. Support planning efforts such as landscaping veriflcation, sustainability, and commercial planning. Assists in review of applications for compliance with city codes and report preparation and presentations. Assistant Planner 1 • Oversees complaint-based code enforcement, in coordination with building staff, assist with variances, zoning veriflcation letters, and updates to the Comprehensive Plan. • Engages with citizen committees, neighborhood groups, etc. Support planning efforts such as historic preservation, sustainability, and transportation planning . Assist in review of applications for compliance with city codes and report preparation and presentations. Housing Specialist 1 • Assists with community housing goals and objectives. • Implements projects that address the elements of the strategic plan. Olfice Assistant 1 • Assists in preparation and distribution of public meeting agendas and packets and public notices. • Compiles meeting minutes for Plan Commission and other city boards as appropriate DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 84 2.2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Public Works Department plays a vital role in development review processes. The key staff involved in formal application reviews include the Public Works Director, Assistant Public Works Director, and 2 engineers within the Engineering Division. Below is the organizational chart for the Public Works Department staff involved with the City’s development review processes. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART The following table details the city staff within the Public Works Department who assist with the City’s development review operations and functions. This outline includes each position by title and summarizes its main duties. The duties listed represent the position's primary role and are not intended to encompass all duties performed at the level of detail of a job description. Position Title Authorized Positions Key Roles and Responsibilities Engineering Principal Civil Engineer 1 • Provides engineering site plan review focused on stormwater/erosion control and compliance with the City’s MS4 permit. Civil Engineer 1 • Performs engineering site plan review focused on general civil components of proposed development and implications to public right-of-way, including stormwater/erosion control. Public Works Director Assistant Public Works Director City Engineer Civil Engineering Supervisor Principal Civil Engineer Civil Engineer • Provides additional administrative support to the Planning Services Division. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 85 2.3 OTHER SUPPORTING DEPARTMENTS (CITY ATTORNEY, FIRE, PARKS, TRANSPORTATION) The following table details the city staff within the City Attorney, Fire, Parks, and Transportation Departments who assist with the City’s development review operations and functions. This outline includes each position by title and summarizes its primary duties. The duties listed represent the position's leading role and are not intended to encompass all duties performed at the level of detail of a job description. Position Title Authorized Positions Key Roles and Responsibilities City Attorney Department City Attorney 1 • Manages department operations and budget, supervises division managers, and oversees processes, etc. • Serves as primary legal consult and support for redevelopment, development agreements, tax increment flnancing district administration, and Board of Review appeals. Deputy Attorney 1 • Serves as legal consult and support for development agreements, encroachment agreements, public easements, planning and zoning use or interpretation inquiries, building inspection procedures and overall municipal code interpretations. Assistant Attorney 1 • Serves as City prosecution for code enforcement efforts related to the Community Development Department. • Assists with public nuisance abatements. Fire Deputy Fire Marshal 1 • Conducts site plan review of development proposals to ensure compliance with Fire codes and safety standards. Parks Department Parks Director 1 • Conducts review of planning applications during entitlement processes. • Ensures City’s Comprehensive Recreation Plan (CORP) is followed with proposed development. Assistant Parks Director 1 Transportation Department DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 86 Transportation Director 1 • Oversees programs and staff within three divisions of Department (Electric, Transit, Sign). • Performs review of submitted transportation studies or analyses associated with development proposals. • Conducts overall review of planning applications during entitlement process. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 87 This chapter includes workload data relevant to the review process, such as the number of planning projects, building plan reviews, and building inspections performed by staff. This data was primarily generated from the Evolve permitting software and aggregated by City Staff. 3.1 BUILDING PERMIT TYPES The current building permit types are provided in the table below. BUILDING PERMIT TYPES Building Exterior Rooflng/Windows/Siding/Doors Commercial Building Assembly Business/Office Commercial Driveway/Parking lot Commercial Pools – Infiatable – Portable Decks Education Erosion Control Factory/Industrial Fence Foundation Repair Hazardous Institutional/Daycare/CBRF Mercantile/Retail Multi-Family Residential Sign Storage Use Conversion Utility/Misc Commercial Minor Alteration Electrical Addition/Remodel Wiring Generator New Building Wiring New Service Service Change Solar/P.V. Temp Service Event Block Party Special Event Fire Recreational Burn Permit HVAC Commercial heating, ventilation, air conditioning Commercial roof top unit replacement Residential heating, ventilation, air conditioning Interior Demolition Lateral Lead Water Service Replacement Sewer/Water/Later Permit Moving New Single or Two Family Dwelling Plumbing New or relocated flxtures New building Replacement flxtures Water heater Raze/Demolition Rental Registration Residential Building Addition Deck/Ramp Detached Garage Fence Foundation repair Manufactured home Patio Pool – in-ground Pool – above-ground Remodel/alteration/other Residential driveway/parking lot Residential pools – infiatable/portable Shed Vacant Building Registration WUBPA/New duplex Zoning/Temporary Outdoor Seating 3. WORKLOAD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 88 3.2 INSPECTIONS SERVICES WORKLOAD This section provides an overview of the building permit and inspection workload. BUILDING PERMIT WORKLOAD The following table represents the total number of commercial and residential building permits processed by the City from 2022 to 2024. TOTAL PERMITS 2022-2024 Permit Type 2022 2023 2024 Building 2,550 2,331 2,459 Plumbing 1,546 1,527 1,392 HVAC 946 837 814 Electrical 896 817 830 Total Permits Issued 7,960 7,535 7,519 The most common permits issued within the building permit type were for rooflng (21%), windows and doors (13.42%), fencing (12.21%), and residential remodels (11.45%). Plumbing permits were issued with almost a third of permits being for water heaters (31.78%). Plumbing replacement flxtures (26.73%) and new plumbing or relocated flxtures (20.27%) made up much of the plumbing permits. HVAC Systems were primarily residential permits in nature with a varied focus on heating, ventilation and air conditioning sy stems. Almost all of the electrical permits were for additions or remodels (64.53%) with service change (18.43%) and new wiring (11.81%) making up signiflcant portions of the remaining permits. INSPECTIONS WORKLOAD The following table represents the total number of building inspections completed by the City from 2022 to 2024. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 89 Inspections Completed 2022-2024 Inspection Type 2022 2023 2024 Building Exterior 309 344 320 Commercial Building 1,021 1,031 985 Demolition 8 11 14 Electrical 1,393 1,343 1,394 HVAC 413 373 384 Lateral 419 403 254 Plumbing 1,273 1,197 1,058 Residential Building 1,072 941 1,061 Well 28 40 26 WUBPA 559 281 441 Total Inspections 6,493 5,964 5,936 The City receives an average of 6,1 31 inspection requests annually, averaging 511 per month and approximately 17 per day. This results in approximately 3 inspections per inspector per day. Electrical, Plumbing, Residential, and Commercial are some of the highest submittals. The flgures have remained generally consistent during the past three years, with an approximately 8% decrease between 2022 and 2023. 3.3 PLANNING SERVICES WORKLOAD PLANNING APPLICATION WORKLOAD The current Planning Division application review workload is difficult to quantify as a lot of the time and effort for applications is currently part of a pre-application review process that is not fully deflned. Additionally, data is not readily available for the speciflc number of administrative reviews that are being performed that do not require further review or approval by the Plan Commission or City Council. PLAN COMMISSION APPLICATION WORKLOAD The following table represents the number of unique planning applications that required Plan Commission review and occurred between 2020 and 2024. This does not represent the complexity of each item received but instead demonstrates the number of applications that needed to be processed and navigated through the application of the Oshkosh Municipal Code and other adopted and relative requirements. Some of these flgures include items that were grouped, such as a General Development Plan amendment and Rezone. Still, they are broken out as separate items below to demonstrate the number of each item brought forward for consideration. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 90 PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW ITEMS 2020 - 2024 Application Type 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) 19 33 22 26 14 Workshop/Preapplication 15 36 26 16 18 General Development Plan (GDP) 18 21 19 20 26 Rezone/Zone Change 11 14 16 17 22 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 15 19 12 10 7 Easement 15 11 16 9 8 Other 18 10 8 8 9 Design Standards Variance 17 7 2 1 6 Acquisition/Disposition of Property 1 5 3 5 8 Right-of-Way 4 4 3 3 2 Design Standard Review 0 3 2 5 2 Municipal Code Amendment 2 2 2 4 1 Annexation 0 0 2 0 5 Tax Increment District (TID) 2 2 2 0 1 Land Division 5 0 0 0 0 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 0 1 1 1 1 Preliminary/Final Plat 1 0 2 0 1 Street Vacation 0 2 0 0 0 Total Annual Reviews 143 170 138 127 132 Over the last flve years, on average, 142 planning applications requiring Plan Commission review were processed each calendar year, or 12 per month. The most common review items include Speciflc Implementation Plan reviews, Workshops, and General Development Plan amendments. The Plan Commission also frequently reviews Rezone requests, Conditional Use Permits, and Easements. PLANNING INSPECTION WORKLOAD The Planning Division performs on-site zoning inspections to verify conformity with applicable standards. During the past three years, there have been a total of 86 inspections completed, with an average of 28.6 inspections performed per year. There were 33 inspections completed in 2022, 35 in 2023 and 18 in 2024. 3.4 SUPPORTING DEPARTMENT WORKLOAD CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT In 2024, the City Attorney Department prosecuted 342 citations initially identifled from Community Development. In 2023, there were 307. This is an average of 27 cases per month for a newly flled citation. Most of the citation cases are issued by Inspections Services with a dozen or so issued by the Planning Services each year. In 2024, there were 20 new abatement actions flled, but this was considered DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 91 a higher year as historically abatements have ranged from 4 -12 each year. The time to address each abatement can vary substantially based on the amount of time it takes for resolution. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 92 The Community Development Department is utilizing the Evolve program, an Infovision Software, for its permitting and licensing systems. The summary below captures all the technology currently being used across the development review disciplines. Name Use Infovision/Evolve Permitting and licensing, code enforcement, weights and measures, and general process workfiow documentation and management. WinWam Weights & Measures program and inspections. EagleView Arial mapping and geospatial data. GIS Manages city data for zoning, land information, utilities, geographic information and more. ExecuTime Time clock management and payroll. Munis City flnancial accounting and reporting, bill process, job application management, budget management. Bluebeam Plan review and collaboration. Docusign/Adobe PDF Plan review, PDF editor and electronic signature. Laserffche 11 Records access and retention. Microsoft Olfice Email, document processing, reporting, general correspondence. Lardeo Records access software for County retained data. 4. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 93 The Community Development Department primarily handles development review, building plan review, site inspections, land development, and entitlement processes. However, the Public Works Department staff performs right-of-way and encroachment reviews for projects. Each team is responsible for providing its own customer service and educational materials to applicants. The City provides front-counter services for building and planning development inquiries and application assistance. The Planner/Inspector of the Day assists with application intake, initial completeness checks, and customer and applicant walk-ins, phone calls and general inquires for their respective division. The Community Development Department’s webpage contains some information for customers and potential applicants. This includes: • Information that describes the operations of each department division, including contact information for Inspections and Planning staff within each division. • The Inspection Services division page provides a link to the Evolve permitting portal, inspection requirements, codes and licensing information, property records and access to SeeClickFix to report code concerns or complaints. There is also information provided for rental property requirements and inspections, vacant building registration, weight and measures, building activity reports and a Diggers Hotline. • The Planning Services division page includes a calendar with meeting schedules and deadlines, helping to clarify what dates are available for Site Plan Review, Board of Appeals and Plan Commission considerations. Links are also provided to zoning ordinances and maps, long-range plans, boundary and interlocal agreements and redevelopment plans. An online submittal form for zoning and land use complaints is also available. • Application forms are readily available with options for PDF applications to be pulled and used from the website in addition to ready access to an online application form. • The brochures on the website for various items provide detailed breakdowns and instructions about what is required to submit a full application for consideration. • Department contact information and office front counter hours. • Fee schedules are posted and available on the City’s website. • Links to housing and other resources are available. 5. CUSTOMER SERVICE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 94 OVERVIEW OF CONTRACTUAL SERVICES The City of Oshkosh utilizes the following contractual services to assist in its development review processes. These services are summarized below with additional details included in current agreements with the city. Associated Appraisal Consultants (AAC) Services The City presently has two agreements with AAC to perform: a. Property Revaluation Services – A Full Interior and Exterior Commercial Revaluation of all taxable real estate for the 2025 Assessment year; b. Annual Maintenance Services for Commercial Assessments; and c. City Assessor Statutory Role Cost City costs relative to the completion of these contracted services include: a. Property Revaluation Services – A sum not to exceed $285,000; and b. Annual Maintenance Services – There is a set annual cost related to each assessment year, which includes: $65,000 for 2025, $67,500 for 2026, and $70,000 for 2027. Length of Agreement(s) The existing agreements presently extend through the following dates: a. Property Revaluation Services – November 30, 2025; and b. Annual Maintenance Services – November 30, 2027 EPLEX/E-Plan Service Commercial plan reviews within 15 business days after full receipt of a complete plan set (where total of additions exceed 5,000 sq ft and where building alterations exceed 10,000 sq ft). These reviews include: Building (architectural/structural), Mechanical (HVAC), Plumbing (upon City request and EPLEX consent) and Fire (sprinkler, alarm, etc.). The City normally reviews plans for smaller commercial buildings . 6. CONTRACTED SERVICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 95 Cost Fees are paid in accordance with the existing fee schedule with the contractor retaining 90% of the fee paid and 10% of the gross plan review Length of Agreement(s) Agreement was executed on May 19, 2023 as a three-year term of agreement with automatic one-year renewals, unless written consent from either party stating otherwise Greater Oshkosh Economic Development Corporation (GO-EDC) Service Provides economic development assistance by facilitating job growth and investment through interagency cooperation and services. Cost In 2015, the estimated cost in the agreement for services was $99,618 – with the ultimate cost per year based on population data Length of Agreement(s) Agreement commenced on January 1, 2015, and extended through December 31, 2019 and has been updated multiple times. A new Agreement is currently being negotiated. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 96 7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a preliminary overall assessment of current operations and processes and identifles initial opportunities for organizational and operational improvements. The evaluation is presented in a checklist format and identifles whether current practices meet the target. The project team will further analyze the issues identifled in this review, leading to the development of the draft report. This analysis will primarily focus on the development review operations , building code, and fee assessment for the City of Oshkosh. 7.2 DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT This diagnostic assessment of best practices is divided into the major subsections of Management and Administration, Customer Information and Interaction, Processes, Technology Utilization, and Regulatory Standards and Expectations. This best management practices assessment represents an important step in reporting on initial key flndings and opportunities related to the City of Oshkosh’s development review, entitlement, permitting, and inspection processes. To assess operational strengths and improvement opportunities, the project team utilized a set of industry best management practices outlining effective operational practices against which to evaluate the various operations and components of the development processes in Oshkosh. Collectively, the best practices consist of: • Statements of “best practices” or “recommended practices” or performance targets derived from national professional service organizations (such as the American Planning Association, International Code Council, etc.). • Statements of “best or prevailing practices” based on the study team’s experience in evaluating high - performing development review operations. • Identiflcation of whether the City meets these performance targets. The diagnostic assessment is one of several tools used to identify opportunities for reform. After this analysis is completed, it will be used, along with information obtained from stakeholder surveys and focus groups, feedback from City staff, and data analysis by the project team , to develop a flnal set of recommendations. 7.3 KEY STRENGTHS Although the diagnostic assessment is designed to identify improvement opportunities, it is also an opportunity to identify existing strengths of the current processes. Some of the key strengths of the City’s development review process include: • The City’s Strategic Plan document is frequently updated and provides a guidepost for City staff. 7. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 97 • The City has signiflcant staff retention and institutional knowledge, with years of experience extending throughout several divisions. • City staff demonstrate a commitment to assisting customers and providing on-site help to answer questions and have an overall focus on customer service through informational guides and materials to dozens of prospective processes. • The City has committed much time and resource to its permitting software technology (Evolve). Oshkosh is established and comfortable in its use of software and has successfully leveraged this for various departments to collaborate and record the various transactions. • The City proactively engages the business community in its processes with staff proactively working to assist and provide options through various development approval processes. • The City has exceptional processing goals and performance for reviewing planning and inspection applications, ensuring engagement of all necessary review parties in the process. • Development review applications receive clear and concise comments within a single document indicating needed improvements and/or next steps. These are just a few examples of the strengths of the current operations and where the City is currently meeting best practices. 7.2 KEY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT The comparison of the City’s current approach to best management practices also identifled some improvement opportunities. Notable issues include: • A fast processing and review time for all application types. However, fast review times may not allow for a thorough and accurate staff review. • Succession planning isn't clearly deflned, and there is a lack of consistent policies and practices to effectively manage staff turnover. • Cross-departmental coordination among City departments involved in the development review process is not always consistent, leading to potential gaps in communication and workfiow alignment. • The pre-submittal process is extensive and may include multiple reviews and Plan Commission work sessions. • Staff roles and responsibilities are fiuid at times and don’t always directly correlate with job descriptions. • Inspection and permit requirements are signiflcant and may not all be relevant for continued permitting/inspections when considering industry best practices. • Training could be expanded to ensure onboard training, use of technology applications, initial and professional development training are consistently available. The above items do not align with best practices and indicate challenges that impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes and operations related to development review, permitting, and inspection DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 98 activities. The project team will expand on these and other issues in subsequent analyses, draft s, and flnal reports. An ‘X’ in the Meets column indicates that the practice does not meet the described operational target. A ‘~’ indicates progress toward the operational target, but the best practices are still unmet. A ‘✔️’ indicates that the best practice is met. Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 1. The City has goals, objectives, and performance measures for development review activities. ~ Performance goals are present within speciflc departments of the city, but overarching performance goals for development review activities are not clearly demonstrated city-wide. 2. Managers routinely review performance (speed, efficiency, customer service) of the development review process. ~ Managers within the Community Development Department (both Department and Division managers) expressed a desire for policies and procedures that allow for a rapid turnaround of review items. However, there is not currently a formal checkpoint for review of performance. Rather this performance data is monitored and reviewed on an as-needed basis within the Evolve software. 3. Managers and staff have access to clear and accurate reports showing current workload, timelines, and other measures of performance. ~ Managers do not currently have access to performance reports. The Evolve software has this capability for standardized performance reports. 4. The department has backup plans in place in the event of the absence or departure of key staff. ~ There are no formalized backup plans in place. However, multiple staff are trained in core functions (e.g., Planner/Inspector of the Day) and informally there are backups in place. 5. Customer satisfaction with each phase of the development process is monitored. X An evaluation of customer satisfaction is not clearly addressed in current processes. 6. Staff are provided with ongoing in-service training opportunities for their professional development. ~ Staff trainings and certiflcations for the Inspection Services and Assessor’s Office position are considered with training compliance in accordance with Wisconsin law. Planning Services staff also appears to have educational background and training necessary to fulflll these roles. Some funding is budgeted for employee training, development, professional licensing and membership in each division, but this isn’t being fully utilized. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 99 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 7. Internal staff training is provided for process and code changes. ~ Internal staff training for process appears to occur within division levels, with some cross- coordination between Community Development Department divisions. Formalized training and communication have not been demonstrated when it comes to established processes across divisions and departments, and any changes made to the existing codes. Additionally, ordinances do not appear to be consistently understood and clear, creating challenges for interpretation and implementation. 8. The organizational structure of each department is designed to promote career progression. X Inspections and Planner classiflcations have hierarchies based on skills, knowledge, and certiflcations. However, the organizational structures of each department need more clarity and consistency when it comes to individual roles and contributions. There have been some opportunities for internal promotion, but these have often resulted in modifying responsibilities based on skillsets and some job description elements have either been removed or disregarded. 9. There is clear oversight and coordination of development review processes. ~ There is limited oversight of the Development review processes from a City organizational standpoint, which can pose challenges as issues arise between individual departments and/or divisions. CUSTOMER INFORMATION AND INTERACTION 10. The City provides easy-to-understand and attractive guides to the planning, building permit, and inspections process. ~ The City provides designated areas within City Hall displaying applications and informational materials tailored to various requests and projects. Likewise, information is readily available on the City’s website for various requests and considerations. Applicants have access to necessary forms, guidelines, and instructions for permits, licenses, and development proposals. There is, however, room to simplify language and graphics used to more clearly communicate process requirements. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 100 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 11. The City has an in-person “one stop shop” that includes all development review entities at one location. ~ The City provides multiple physical counters, within walking steps of one another, that offer relevant information about Planning, Inspections and Assessor’s office development applications. To further enhance ease of access to information, these could be combined to serve customers at a single counter. 12. The City’s website includes a virtual “one stop shop” that provides an overview of all development review requirements and links to development review requirements by department. X While the City’s website contains valuable information across various department and division pages, it lacks a centralized location where users can easily access comprehensive information about applicable development review processes. 13. The fee schedule is published and regularly updated. ~ The fee schedule is adopted and published with each with the annual budget. However, a comprehensive update to the fee schedule is needful and has been requested as part of the overall request for this study. 14. The City proactively engages the business and development community through periodic communications. ✔️ The two economic development specialists are tasked with engaging the local business community and regularly attend meetings with businesses and the development community to involve the City in economic development efforts. Additionally, the City’s contract with Go-EDC makes resources available for continued training and connection with businesses and development groups. 15. The City regularly obtains input from the business and development community, and recent customers on issues related to development review and permitting. ~ Input from the business and development community has been received and considered at times. This is currently gathered informally and not through a proactive or structured process. The City could implement a post-experience survey for all applicants, allowing for continued suggestions for improvement and feedback on what is working well. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 101 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 16. The City provides clear and comprehensive checklists identifying all items required to be submitted for each application type. ~ Checklists for applications for Planning and Inspection are generally clear and allow for both applicants and reviewers to easily identify needed components. There is some underlying confusion and vagueness that needs clarity with preapplication requirements and how much information is required to proceed with this process. For example, the site plan review process references that preapplication is required and it is requisite to submit plans that are 60-90% complete to proceed. This standard is rather vague and leaves possible inconsistencies in standards and requirements across applications. 17. Application forms are available online and can be completed electronically. ✔️ Online applications are the premise for how the city operates and manages its review and maintenance of information received. The City clearly meets and overall exceeds this standard. 18. Long-range planning documents and land development codes are available online. ✔️ These documents are accessible through the Planning Division webpage. 19. The most recently adopted ordinance, regulations, and design standards are available online. ✔️ 20. The City has a dedicated webpage that identifles major ongoing development projects. X There is a webpage that references Community Development projects, but this content is out of date and doesn’t address private development projects. 21. The City’s website provides direct contact information for department staff. ✔️ Each division has a dedicated “contact us” link on their webpage. 22. The City has established standards for responding to customer inquiries. ✔️ The City has staff available to respond to customer inquiries within every division of the department. There may not always be a clear path forward with how a request is navigated and reviewed. An opportunity is present to formalize the process when a question is reviewed, and policies or city code are vague and need further interpretation. PROCESSES 23. Intake staff review applications for completeness at time of submittal. ✔️ Review of the complete status of an application is the flrst step taken in the review process. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 102 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 24. Plans are routed only to departments for whom the project is relevant. ✔️ All of the information provided indicates that the appropriate staff members are involved and engaged in the current plan review processes. 25. Staff uses a case management approach for larger projects. ~ Economic Development staff are responsible for providing a project management approach for larger development projects. Planning staff also play a proactive role by coordinating with applicants during the pre- application phase, helping to clarify process steps and identify potential options. Projects are assigned to staff upon submission to ensure continuity and support throughout the review process. 26. Pre-application meetings are held for major projects. ✔️ Pre-application meetings are held for nearly all projects. There are some beneflts to this but with fees coming in at a later time, the expense and effort of staff is not always captured. 27. Review timelines have been established and are posted on the City’s website. ~ Review timelines vary from division to division. Most of these are not official policy but rather internal guidelines. There are some areas, building permits, for example, where these timelines are more enforced. These timelines were not able to be found on the City’s website. 28. Expedited building plan review services are provided. X Expedited services is not provided. Residential applications average review time is less than 3 days and commercial applications are reviewed in 15 business days by a third-party contract. Expedited plan review may not be feasible or necessary with historic performance. 29. Resubmittal review turnaround times are quicker than new applications. ~ Planning Services has an internal goal to ensure resubmittal reviews are faster or at least the same as the original submittal. The original submittal flrst review comments timeline of 5- working days is extremely efficient and therefore difficult to surpass. Faster resubmittal timelines may not be feasible or needed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 103 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 30. Adopted review timelines are met consistently. ~ This varies from division to division, as there aren’t flrm guidelines and timelines in place across divisions and departments. Planning Services has a well-established 5-working day timeline established for flrst review comments. This timeline includes comments requested for other review disciplines. 31. An internal staff review committee is responsible for ensuring that larger scale developments, involving public improvements, address all City requirements. ✔️ The City hosts a weekly Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting to provide a singular location for the various review disciplines to discuss and coordinate comments on proposals and applications for consideration. Applicants may be engaged by staff in these discussions as deemed appropriate. In person meetings, even if occasionally, might be a consideration to improve relationships and help in unique circumstances where additional coordination is needed. 32. All review comments are incorporated into a single comment letter and distributed to applicant by project manager. ✔️ This letter for building permit review is created automatically by the Evolve software and the applicant is notifled in the customer portal when the letter is available for their review. The letter is created only when all review comments have been submitted and logged into the software. These letters are typically issued when additional items need to be addressed, materials need to be submitted, or the permit is ready to be issued. Planning Services also has template approval letters for site plan reviews. With the recent implementation of BlueBeam, some comments are provided on the respective plan sheets. 33. Review comment letters are consistent in their approach, format, and information provided. ~ The letter created by Evolve is consistent in format, but each review discipline takes a different approach in determining information provided within the letter. Planning staff comment letters seem consistent in approach, format and information provided. 34. Project review / comment letters provide reference to checklist and / or code reference. ✔️ When necessary, reference to municipal code or other applicable building and flre codes are included in review comment letters. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 104 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 35. Plans are reviewed by each review discipline concurrently to avoid delays. ~ Plan reviews are concurrent, but these all have different review timeline expectations, especially for resubmitted revised plans. There are not deflned timelines and guidelines for all groups to follow. 36. For re-submitted plans, reviewers focus on ensuring that comments have been addressed, not issues that should have been brought up in initial review. This BMP will be reviewed as part of the prior customer input. 37. Applicants can track their permit application online. ✔️ Application tracking and access to all historic staff comments and process deadlines, submittal dates, etc., are available through Evolve. 38. Staff reports to Plan Commission and/or City Council are thorough. ✔️ The Plan Commission reports reviewed clearly address the item for consideration, citing applicable references of city code, providing mapping information and discuss the planning implications of the determination. 39. Simple permits (e.g., basic electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits, minor building alterations, PV/EV permits) can be issued on the spot or online with no review, subject to inspection. X All inspection applications are reviewed by an Inspector prior to permit issuance. 40. An online inspection request system is utilized to receive inspections with linkage to the permit information system. ~ Inspections can be requested and scheduled online but also can be called in on the inspection request line, can schedule online. Some requests may be directly to the inspector. 41. Applicants can request inspections up to close of business on the day before; next day inspections are available for 100% of requests. ~ Inspections are completed the next business day if requested. Inspectors regular complete same day inspections, if scheduled in the morning. Applicants can schedule inspections several days/week in advance, if desired. 42. Customers are given an approximate time to expect their inspector. ✔️ An applicant can request an inspection at a speciflc time. It may be the time that it is ready. Inspectors try to hit that time, but not always. 43. Combination inspectors are used to reduce the need for duplicate inspections at a single project. ~ Commercial inspectors have their specialty but can conduct both building inspection and their speciflc trade. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 105 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 44. Building Inspectors conduct between 9 and 12 inspections per day. ~ Historic inspection data indicates that each inspector conducts between 3 and 4 inspections each day. Inspectors are also responsible for plan review and some inspectors rotate as inspector of the day and may spend 8 to 12 hours (2 or 3 half days) in the office as inspector of the day. 45. The City charges a re-inspection fee to encourage builders to make sure work is complete and ready to inspect at time of inspection. ✔️ A re-inspection fee can be charged for re- inspections required. 46. Zoning inspections are completed before the certiflcate of occupancy (CO) is approved. X Final zoning inspections are scheduled one year after a building permit is issued. This is even true for a project that goes through a separate zoning entitlement process. CO from Planning Services is not required to occupy the project. Landscaping also has a year to be installed, and no flnancial guarantee is collected by the applicant/developer to ensure the landscape installation. 47. For a certiflcate of occupancy inspection, all applicable inspectors complete the inspection at the same time. ~ If necessary, all inspectors will conduct the CO inspection. The common approach is for the commercial inspector to check to ensure all inspections have been completed prior to starting the CO process. TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION 48. All review entities have access to the City’s primary permitting and plan review software systems. ✔️ Access is made available to all reviewing entities through the online portal. 49. Applicants can apply, pay for, and receive applications/permits, some instantly, using an online portal. ~ The ability to pay for a permit and application is available for some types that can be submitted online. There is not an automatic approval option for trade building permits. 50. The application/permit software system can calculate the appropriate plan check, permitting, and development review fees. ~ The permit software system will calculate the appropriate application and permit fee, and invoices can be sent automatically to the applicant through the customer portal. 51. Staff can look up the status of an application/permit, including comments from reviewers, online or using the software. ✔️ Evolve is utilized by all development review disciplines in the City. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 106 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 52. Application/permit tracking software is used to manage the permit intake, review, and issuance process as well as related inspections. ✔️ Evolve is utilized for all permit and application tracking. 53. All plan review comments are entered into the system and available to other reviewers, permit techs, and applicants (via the front end). ✔️ All plan review comments entered into Evolve are available to other reviewers. 54. The permitting system electronically routes applications to all reviewers, who can also electronically approve, disapprove, and provide comments. ✔️ Routing to review disciplines can be done automatically through Evolve. 55.The City is moving towards a paperless system for all stages of permitting and development review. ✔️ There is a lot of progress moving toward a paperless system. Employees enter paper applications submitted into Evolve to continue electronic reviews and records management. 56. The permitting system generates clear, user friendly reports on permitting activity which can be posted to the internet. ~ Reports can be created through Evolve but are not being posted to the City’s website. 57. Development staff has access to applicable Geographic Information System (GIS) map layers. ~ Staff have current access to GIS mapping systems. However, all staff are not on the same version of GIS software creating inherent challenges for information sharing, training and overall mapping compatibility. 58. The general public can look up zoning information, fiood zones, and other pertinent information using a web-based GIS. ~ Parcel map and zoning information is available to the general public through the City’s website. The layers that users can select are limited. 59. Inspectors enter inspection results and correction items in the fleld via tablet and have it instantly available and viewable online. ✔️ Inspectors have access to tablets and can result the inspection on the tablets. They also can access the approved plan sets. 60. The application/permitting software system is utilized as a database for all development related information for the parcel/address. ✔️ Tyler Tech IS World is the primary software being used for the Assessment Services Division (which is also being used by the City’s Finance Department). Assessors can access Evolve to obtain information from the building and planning related database. Assessment’s Services receiving notiflcations when building permits are flnalized. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 107 Best Practice / Operational Target Meets Target Improvement Opportunity / Notes 61. Staff users of the permitting software are provided with new user training upon hiring with the City. X This is done informally but not as part of official onboarding. Staff are provided with the equipment and job speciflc knowledge necessary to complete roles. Training varies from employee to employee. This may cause for some gaps in usage and software efficiency. 62. Staff users of the permitting software are provided with training when new features of the permitting software are released. X Staff do not receive formal training when new software updates occur. REGULATORY STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS 63. Routine and highly technical review decisions are made at the administrative level. Only projects that may generate signiflcant public interest or concern require a hearing by Plan Commission or City Council. X Several zoning and planning entitlement applications require review by the Plan Commission, some requiring flnal approval by the City Council. V DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 108 Appendix B: Assessment of the Building and Planning CodesW ROCESS 1.1 INTRODUCTION This municipal code assessment provides an overview of the existing elements most pertinent to the City of Oshkosh’s Community Development processes, in concert with a Request for Proposals issued by the City (dated October 21, 2024 and updated November 8, 2024). This states the desired goal to identify code language that can be amended by the City to encourage development in the community. 1.2 CODE ELEMENTS INCLUDED The analysis encompasses review of adopted building and housing codes, along with land use regulations and public nuisance provisions. The analysis evaluates how these codes interact within the broader development framework, identifying areas of alignment, overlap, and potential improvement to ensure clear, consistent application. This review supports the City's efforts to maintain regulatory compliance, promote streamlined processes, and enhance the efficiency and clarity of development- related procedures. 1.3 GENERAL APPROACH Conducting a code assessment provides a deeper understanding of the City’s existing regulatory policies and their application across current operational processes. This enables the City to recognize its strengths and areas of success within existing guidel ines, as well as to identify inconsistencies or challenges that may hinder service delivery. Evaluating policies with actual practices can also ensure that procedures are practical and relevant to day-to-day functions. The following analysis provides an overview of existing ordinances, including consideration of how these ordinances are applied and conform with State requirements. The Matrix project team will further evaluate the issues identifled in this review, particu larly through the peer jurisdiction comparative, as a contributing factor to the flnal report and implementation plan. 1. OVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 109 As part of this evaluation process, Wisconsin statutes and administrative rules were reviewed to determine relative portions that address the functions of the City’s codes for building, land use, and development review. This chapter summarizes the general abidance of the City to State law and relevant sections of State law for community development functions and powers. 2.1 REVIEW AND APPLICATION OF STATE CODE Overall, there are noticeable and concerted efforts to align the City’s code with the requirements of Wisconsin State Statutes and Administrative Rules. Throughout various sections of the municipal code, references to relevant state statutes and administrative code are clearly included, demonstrating an intent to ensure consistency with state-level legal frameworks and enforcement expectations. The inclusion of these references helps reinforce compliance and supports the lawful implementation of local regulations. Moreover, it is evident that changes to state requirements are actively monitored and incorporated into local code. This is particular ly apparent in the speciflc sections reviewed, which refiect updated terminology, procedural alignment, and enforcement authority that match state requirements. By embedding state code references and maintaining updated provisions, the City fosters a regulatory environment that is both compliant and adaptable, helping ensure that local procedures remain valid and enforceable. This is not considered a fully comprehensive review, nor does this take into consideration the application of all state requirements, rather the scope of this review evaluates provisions deemed most relevant to the City’s building, inspections, land use and development codes. The following sections were identifled as relevant and considered as part of this review: • Citations for Certain Ordinance Violations, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.0113 • City Planning, Wisconsin State Statute § 62.23 • Comprehensive Planning, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.1001 • Historic Properties, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.1111 • Inspections, Wisconsin State Administrative Code § 320 • Land Development; Notiflcation; Records Requests; Construction Site Development, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.1102 • Limits On Residential Dwelling Rental Prohibited, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.1014 • Manufactured Home Installation Regulated, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.1001 • Municipal Administrative Procedure, Wisconsin State Statute § 68 • Municipal Authority, Wisconsin State Statute § 101.65 • Prohibiting Ordinances that Place Certain Limits or Requirements on a Landlord, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.0104 2. STATE OF WISCONSIN REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 110 • Razing Buildings, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.0413 • Regulation of Industry, Buildings and Safety, Wisconsin State Statute § 101 • Traditional Neighborhood Developments and Conservation Subdivisions, Wisconsin State Statute § 66.1027 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 111 This chapter reviews the City’s Municipal Code sections related to building, public nuisances, planning, zoning, and land use. An overview of the key requirements is provided for each component of the municipal code analyzed, as well as key observations and recommendations. Also, a description (when necessary) of how the section of code integrates with state statutes is provided. 3.1 BUILDING CODES The City’s building codes are contained in Chapters 7, 11, 16, and 20 of the Municipal Code, and they outline regulations governing the design, construction, and maintenance of structures within the Oshkosh jurisdiction. It encompasses key components such as structural integrity, plumbing systems, and electrical safety standards to ensure that constructed elements and buildings are safe and functional. This also speciflcally addresses some of the staff required to perform necessary inspections and addresses, in part, the qualiflcations of these positions and their individual roles. In addition to construction requirements, the code addresses minimum standards of housing conditions and settings for habitability. It includes provisions related to public nuisances , such as property maintenance and environmental health concerns. Code Title(s) Components and Analysis Chapter 7, Building (revised 07/25/23) Article II. Building Inspector Key Requirements • The Building Inspector is appointed by the City Manager (§7-2) and has the power and duty to enforce building code, including all ordinances of the City and laws of the State relating to buildings. The Inspector also has the right at all times to enter buildings and premises as long as consent is provided (§7-4). • The Inspector must maintain office hours (§7-5) keep record of all permit applications in a book and number each permit in the order of its issue. Records must also include the number, description and size of all buildings erected, materials used, and the aggregate cost of each building. Records must also be maintained for all inspections, removal and condemnations of buildings , and fees collected (§7-6(A)). Monthly and annual building inspection reports are required to be submitted to the City Manager (§7 -6(B)). • The Community Development Director supervises the operations and functions of Building Inspections and other duties as directed by the City Manager (§2-23). Observations & Recommendations • The application of this code may be difficult at times because the Building Inspector ultimately reports to the Community Development Department Director and City Manager. Because this is codifled, additional clarifying language within 3. MUNICIPAL CODE ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 112 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis the responsibilities of the City Manager and/or the Department Director is needed (§20-3, 2-23, and 2-34). • The need for in-person office hours and the maintenance of a physical book for records is antiquated. The current Evolve software can maintain a digital record, so long as regularly scheduled backup of data occurs and adequate storage of data is maintained. The requirement of a physical record appears inconsistent with the requirements of other permit types issued (plumbing, electrical and housing). All permit types should utilize the same approach to maintain permit records. • Office hours and reporting requirements do not need to be codifled. It is, however, beneflcial to consider the effectiveness of monthly and annual reports, the time required to prepare these as well as the value of information contained therein, distribution to the City Manager, etc. State Statutes • In Wisconsin, a Building Inspector is another name used for the role typically described as a “Building Official.” The general State reference for the responsibility of a Building Inspector can be found in §62.23(9)(a) which is within the Chapter focusing on Cities. Several other sections exist and reference the role and authority of this position indirectly, some of these relevant references are addressed below. The City Code could beneflt from specifying whether inspection and permit records are publicly accessible or available upon request, aligning with Wisconsin’s public records law (Wis. Stat. § 19.35). Article III. Building Permits Key Requirements • No building or structure or any part thereof can be moved, built, enlarged, altered, or demolished, unless otherwise allowed by the code, without obtaining a permit (§7-9). It is unlawful to commence work on any building or alteration, including grading, removal of topsoil and excavating, before a permit has been issued, except landscaping where a permit was issued prior (§7-10(A)). • Building plans and a site plan must be submitted electronically for review, plans may be submitted in paper form with prior approval. The Inspections Division is responsible to collect fees, based on the adopted fee schedule, with plan approval and permit issuance withheld until all fees are paid (§7-13). If work begins prior to permit issuance, penalties and re-inspection fees also apply. • State requirements are outlined for inspections and plan examinations of commercial buildings, including use of certifled commercial inspectors. Commercial building plans are required for a new building or structure, an addition to a building, structure, or building system such as flre alarm, sprinkler, plumbing or HVAC, or an alteration of a building space, element or structure, including replacement of equipment or flxtures within those systems. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 113 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis • The Building Inspector may waive the requirement of flling plans if the character of the work is sufficiently described in the application (§7 -15). • If a proposed building fully complies with City and State standards, the Inspector is required to issue a building permit (§7-25). With every permit issued, the applicant receives a card to be placed conspicuously where construction occurs. A permit may be issued for part of a building before receiving the plans and speciflcations for the entire building (§7 -26). • A building permit is void if work doesn’t begin within 6 -months. All permits lapse 12-months after issuance. Permit extensions require submittal of a written application stating reasons for the extension request, at least 90 days before expiration of the initial building permit. The Chief Building Inspector and Director of Community Development review this request and forward a staff recommendation to the Board of Public Works for a determination. This renewal process is waived if the project is approx. 75% complete and has maintained steady, signiflcant progress 90 days prior to permit expiration (§7-28). • If at any time the Building Inspector flnds noncompliance with laws, orders, plans and speciflcations, a building permit is revoked with written notice posted onsite. No work can proceed until the permit is reissued (§7 -29). • Minor repairs or alterations, less than $1,000, do not require a permit if they do not affect the occupancy, area, structural strength, flre protection, exits, light, or ventilation of a building (§7-30). Observations & Recommendations • Code requires a permit for any building alteration. This is broadly interpreted by the Inspections Division to require all interior and cosmetic improvements to get a building permit (such as installing cabinets, dishwashers, etc.). The exclusion of “minor repairs” further complicates the current interpretation and creates uncertainty about what does and does not require a permit. This lack of clarity leads to permits being required for tasks not considered standard in the industry. • The City is both compliant and accommodating in providing electronic submittals and paper submittals with prior approval. This shows that the City is working toward having all of its processes on a single platform while also providing good customer service for those who may struggle in this transition. • State requirements for commercial inspectors are broken out in code detailing sections of State law. This demonstrates the City’s commitment to adhere to State requirements. To reduce confusion and ensure consistency, referencing compliance with relevant State statutes in the ordinance is likely sufficient without having to further detail the requirements listed within the State statute, as this often creates challenges in keeping code language current. For example, text like this might be used to summarize application without speciflc citations and refiecting updates to the state’s adopted provisions. – “This section must be DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 114 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis implemented in accordance with Wisconsin State Statutes and Administrative Rules, as amended.” • The code allows for the waiver of permit plan submittals without any approval criteria. This discretionary element may unintentionally favor some applicants and introduces inconsistencies in plan review processes regarding parity, thoroughness and records maintenance. • The permit renewal process is utilizing paper submittal. The 90 -day advance notice requirement to request a permit renewal is rather lengthy and a 45 -day period seems a bit more reasonable for applicants to report on the progress and needs of a project, while still providing sufficient time for staff review and determination. The requirement for a project to be approximately 75% complete to waive the renewal application is difficult to quantify and would beneflt from clearer criteria or documentation standards. • The provision allowing for the city to revoke a permit due to noncompliance ensures that applicants adhere to approved plans and maintain compliance with current regulations. State Statutes • The City is given authority by the State to issue building permits. The City may require that an application be submitted in electronic format, which matches current practice (Wis. Admin. Code § 320.09). • The City retains the ability to revoke permits based on incompliance (Wis. Stat.§ 101.65 and Wis. Admin. Code § 320.11). • The State does have a mandatory 10-business day requirement for the approval or denial of a building permit application for 1- to 2- dwelling proposals (Wis Admin. Code § 320.09(11). This timeline is not mentioned in the municipal code. Article IV. Building Inspection Key Requirements • The following inspections are required to determine if work complies with code: erosion control, footing, completed foundation walls, interior drain tiles and stone, general construction and framing, electrical, plumbing and heating systems, insulation, and flnal inspection (§7-31). • Notice of compliance/noncompliance is posted on the building permit at a job site. For noncompliance, the Building Inspector must provide written notice to the applicant or property owner identifying required corrections. No work may be concealed until approved by the Inspector (§7-31(B)). • A building, addition, or alteration requiring an occupancy inspection may not be used until all flnal inspections conflrm no code violations affecting health or safety. Certiflcate of Occupancy (CofO) approval is contingent on correcting any violations, and CofO issuance does not prevent further enforcement of compliance. (§7-32). A CofO must include: the intended use of the building; any DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 115 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis conditions of approval or restrictions on use; maximum occupancy ; and certiflcation of compliance with the City’s zoning ordinances. • Buildings are not to be occupied until a CofO is obtained. (§7-32(B)(1)). • A Temporary CofO may be approved and issued when a structure has been determined reasonably safe to occupy, subject to application, payment of fees and securing the necessary inspection approvals. A temporary CofO cannot extend beyond the expiration date of the approved building plans or building permit, without Community Development Department Director approval (§7-32C)). • Any order or ruling of the Building Inspector may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (§7-33). Observations & Recommendations • The compliance/noncompliance notice would likely beneflt from having one individual, the applicant, in receipt of this. The code includes an and/or provision which could prove problematic in providing adequate and consistent notice. • The process for issuing a partial building permit lacks clarity, particularly in relation to the issuance of a CofO. This creates uncertainty around how and when a structure can be deemed safe for partial use or occupancy. • There are inherit challenges with issuing a Temporary CofO as there is difficulty in stating that a structure has been determined reasonably safe to occupy without all standards being met. There isn’t complete clarity in the code deflning how a building transitions from a Temporary CofO to a Final CofO and what applications, reviews, and inspections are required in that transition. • The appeal process is well established with an appeal authority and the ability to have an issue of dispute reevaluated upon request. State Statutes • Extensive record keeping rules of inspections are outlined for municipalities that have adopted a building code ordinance (Wis Admin. Code § 320.09(6). The City should ensure they are meeting these record requirements that are speciflc to 1-to-2 dwellings: 1) records of each visit to a property, each inspection type performed, and the results, 2) approved plans shall be retained for 4 years after completion of the dwelling, 3) application forms, correction orders, correspondence and inspection records shall be maintained for 7 years. Article V. Construction of Buildings 7-34 to 7-42 Key Requirements • The State Building Code is adopted by the City for the construction of buildings (§7-34(2)), with noted exceptions for nonconforming dwellings. • Foundation walls are required for all dwellings. Small storage buildings less than 100 sq. feet may be built without a foundation if anchored with Building Inspector approval. Detached garages and storage buildings may be built with reinforced DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 116 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis concrete at least four inches thick. Existing walls cannot be used for renewal or extension of a building or for increased height without special permission from the Building Inspector. Existing concrete slabs cannot be used for foundations without special permission of the Building Inspector (§7-36). • Concrete strength, consistency and placement standards are provided in detail (§7-38). • Awnings, mansards, marquees, balconies, projections or structures extending over any portion of a street require having a secured license from the Chief Building Inspector, which may be refused or revoked if creating a public nuisance affecting peace and safety. Observations & Recommendations • City Code references both Chief Building Inspector and Building inspector in multiple references. Additional clariflcation is needed here. • Reference to the State Building Code ensures compliance and establishes some base standards for application. • There isn’t a lot of speciflcation regarding how the Building Inspector determines appropriate reuse of concrete; generally, either through materials testing or review of design elements. Requiring speciflc documentation to show the testing method would ensure that future reviews reference the approved special permission. • It is surprising that the Director of Public Works isn’t referenced when there is structure or structural element that extends into public right-of-way. Article VI. Furnace and Heating Equipment 7-43 to 7-46 Key Requirements • A permit is required, and fees must be paid before starting construction, installation, erecting, alteration or remodeling of any heating, ventilating, or air conditioning system, or a part of a system (§7 -43, 7-44). • Minor repairs or alterations do not require a permit which do not, per the Inspector, involve any changes in the heating/ventilating of the building (§7 -45). • All heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work must be inspected before concealed, with a flnal inspection made after all work is completed. Upon reinspection of a violation, if not corrected, the owner, contractor, or agent responsible for the violation shall pay the reinspection fee. • An HVAC permit lapses and is void if the project has not commenced within 6 - months, and a permit for residential/non-residential structures lapses and is void after 12-months from the issuance date. Observations & Recommendations • A minor typo in § 7-43 includes the word “pat” and is likely intended to say “part.” • The occurrence of the minor repairs/alterations exemption is not clearly deflned . Clariflcation is needed deflning that an application is required and if an exemption is granted that staff will provide this in writing. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 117 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis • It is challenging for the City to designate multiple parties responsible for a reinspection fee as any determined compliance issues may be circumstantial. Having the applicant responsible for any reinspection fee simplifles this and allows any civil or project disputes to be resolved between an applicant and their contractors. Article VII. Razing, Repair, and Demolition of Unsafe Buildings 7-48 to 7-51 Key Requirements • This includes reference to and application of state statutes and violation penalties. The Board of Public Works or Building Inspector determines when a building is in imminent danger of falling or in any manner giving way to endanger safety. The Board of Public Works notifles and requires building owners to make necessary improvements. The City may barricade or repair the building as needed, with costs charged through a property lien. • Demolition requires safety measures to ensure that the building is safely eliminated without impact to public facilities. Those performing demolition must provide at least 24 hours’ written notice to the Board of Public Works, including the state time and location of the demolition (§7-51). Any lot where a building or structure has been removed requires the area to be graded and seeded with cool weather perennial grasses. Observations & Recommendations • There is a typo in the Article title, “Demotion” instead of “Demolition.” • Reference to the state code ensures compliance and establishes some base standards. • These sections of code provide logical process sections to address the phases of building condemnation, repair of unsafe buildings, and demolition of buildings. This considers safety and environmental considerations, as well as actions that are enforceable by the City. • Some of the sentences include in-depth detail and text which can create challenges in deciphering and applying all the requirements. • Regarding notiflcation to the Board of Public Works, it isn’t entirely clear how that notice should be submitted and whether acknowledgement of that notice is required before work begins. • There needs to be an included timeline requirement for grading, seeding and erosion control to take place. Article X. Penalties 7-63 Key Requirements • Violations are subject to a flne between $75 and $500. • Each violation may also incur prosecution costs, and failure to pay may result in up to 60 days' imprisonment. Continuing violations constitute separate offenses. Permits or licenses may be revoked at the court’s discretion. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 118 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis • Issuance of a permit, or errors or oversights by inspectors, do not constitute a defense against violations. Observations & Recommendations • There is a minor typo in this section of code where “nor more than $500” is repeated. • Section B places the responsibility on the applicant to comply with the code. • The violation flnes are a broad range. The code should specify how the City determines a flne amount. Chapter 20, Plumbing (revised 03/26/24) Section 20-2. State Plumbing Code Adopted Key Requirements • The City adopts Wisconsin statutes relative to plumbing and any amendments, by reference. Violations of these state codes are treated as violations of the city's code and are subject to city-imposed penalties. State Statutes • Wis, Stat. § 145 and Wisconsin Admin. Code § SPS 305, 381 –386 Section 20-3. Appointment and Qualiffcations of Inspector Key Requirements • The Plumbing Inspector is appointed by the City Manager. The Community Development Department Director is responsible to supervise the operations and functions of inspections and other duties as directed by the City Manager. • Qualiflcations for the Plumbing Inspector include at least 10 years of experience in plumbing, being a licensed plumber and able to supervise the installation of improvements of plumbing flxtures (§20-3). The inspector cannot have any flnancial interest in plumbing supply or contracting businesses. Observations & Recommendations • The application of this code may be difficult at times because the Plumbing Inspector ultimately reports to the Community Development Department Director and City Manager. Because this is codifled, additional clarifying language within the responsibilities of the City Manager and/or the Department Director is needed (§20-3, 2-23, and 2-34). State Statutes • The qualiflcations for the Plumbing Inspector meet the requirements of Wis. Admin. Code § SPS 305.625. Section 20-4. Duties of Inspector Key Requirements • This position enforces state and municipal plumbing regulations and relevant environmental codes. They are required to keep detailed records of plumbing DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 119 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis permits, plan approvals, inspections, and collected fees. All collected permit and plan fees are forwarded to the city treasury for the general fund. • This includes requirements for assigning permit numbers and documenting all inspections, plan approvals and fees paid. This also includes a monthly and annual reporting requirement to the City Manager. • The inspector submits monthly and annual reports to the City Manager. Observations & Recommendations • The Code language doesn’t specify written records must be maintained for this position thus allowing for electronic data storage and retention. • Requirements to submit a report to the City Manager do not need to be codifled. It is, however, beneflcial to consider the effectiveness of monthly and annual reports, the time required to prepare these as well as the value of information contained therein, distribution to the City Manager, etc. Section 20-5. Authority of Plumbing Inspector Key Requirements • The Plumbing Inspector can enter public or private premises to make inspections and require permits for work in accordance with the code (with consent or warrant). • The Plumbing Inspector is authorized to withhold approval of an application or permit, with the City Manager serving as the appeals authority within 10 days of the Inspector’s determination. Inspectors are not personally liable for damages caused during lawful duties. Inspections do not guarantee defect-free work. Observations & Recommendations • The City Manager is involved in the appeal process. Section 20-6. Interference with Inspector Key Requirements • No one can interfere with plumbing inspections and no plumbing or drainage can be used until inspected and approved, unless special permission is given by the Plumbing Inspector (§20-6). Observations & Recommendations • There is some discretionary authority of the inspector here without clear direction on special permission and circumstances when that might be considered and permitted. Section 20-7. Claims Against the City Key Requirements • Property owners cannot flle claims for damages to sewer or water services caused by public construction in the right-of-way unless advance notice is given to both the Plumbing Inspector and the City Engineer, stating the time and place of any DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 120 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis repair work, the City must inspect the repair, and a written report must be flled by the inspector in their office. • The city may provide available information on the location of public sewer/water lines, including Y-connections and laterals, upon request. However, this information is shared at the requester's own risk regarding its accuracy. Observations & Recommendations • This establishes clear conditions that must be met before a claim ban be made providing a flrm legal foundation, including the need for official inspection and documentation. • Some of the included sentences are complex and may be difficult for the public to easily understand what is required. State Statutes • Best practice would be to ensure this provision is aligned with state municipal claims procedures outlined under Wis. Stat. § 893.80, which governs claims against governmental entities and sets forth notice, timing, and content requirements. Section 20-8. Plumbing Permits, Plan Examinations and Approvals Key Requirements • A plumbing permit is required for all plumbing work, except for minor repairs deflned under Wis. Stat. §145.06(4)(d). No work may begin without a permit. • No permit can be issued until plan examination and approval requirements are met, including payment of fees. • When additional inspections are made due to code violations or other valid reasons, an additional fee is charged for each unnecessary inspection. Work must start within 6 months and flnish within 12 months, or the permit lapses. • New buildings must install sump pumps and connect to the public storm sewer and existing buildings may continue to use foundation drains if they do not create a nuisance. Observations & Recommendations • This includes clear permit requirements and requires a permit be in place to begin work which protects the city and helps reduce issues with plumbing and public storm sewer connections. • The language providing distinction between 6-month and 12-month lapses is confusing. Clarify with a table or explanatory note showing which situations apply to each time frame. State Statutes • This is found consistent with Wis. Stat. § 145 and Wis. Admin. Code SPS 382 – 387. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 121 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis Section 20-9. Delinquent Fees Key Requirements • No permits will be issued to applicants with outstanding fees until accounts are settled. Observations & Recommendations • This provides and outlines protectionary measures for the City to pursue payment of fees. Section 20-10. No Permit to Violators Key Requirements • If plumbing work is found to be in violation of the city's plumbing regulations, the Plumbing Inspector must send written notice to the violator. This notice is sent to the violator’s last known business address listed in the city’s register of licensed plumbers (or to the homeowner, if applicable). • The violator is expected to correct the violation in response to the notice. • Failure to remedy the violation or to respond promptly to official communications may result in the withholding of future plumbing permits. Observations & Recommendations • This is a good protectionary measure for the City and encourages adherence to regulations. State Statutes • The city’s authority to withhold future plumbing permits for unresolved violations is allowed under Wis. Stat. § 101.65, which grants municipalities enforcement authority through inspection and permitting. Section 20-11. Service Beyond City Limits Key Requirements • Connections to any sewer or water lateral servicing any property outside of the city are prohibited, unless the property is included in code and was approved and authorized prior. A valid annexation petition is required for service to occur. Observations & Recommendations • This demonstrates clear policy intent by establishing a flrm boundary on utility service to properties outside city limits, protecting city infrastructure and planning efforts. • Consider updating the data references for prior approvals and explain how future reductions will be tracked. State Statutes • The requirement that properties must be annexed before connecting to city utilities is supported by Wis. Stat. § 66.0813 (municipal utility service outside corporate limits) and § 66.0217 (annexation procedures). These statutes grant municipalities DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 122 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis discretion to limit or condition extension of utility services to areas within their jurisdiction or to areas pending annexation. Section 20-12. Cross Connection Control Key Requirements • This outlines the responsibilities of the Plumbing Inspector to protect the public water system from contamination due to cross connections. The inspector is required to conduct inspections of properties connected to the city’s water system where such risks may exist. The frequency of these inspections is based on potential health hazards and must align with guidelines approved by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. • If a cross connection is found in violation of the ordinance, the Plumbing Inspector has the authority to discontinue water service to the affected property. Water service may not resume until the issue is fully resolved and in compliance with ordinance standards. In urgent situations that pose a risk to public health or safety, service may be terminated immediately, with a written justiflcation flled and an opportunity for a hearing provided within 10 days. Observations & Recommendations • The ordinance prioritizes public health by addressing possible contamination risks, authorizing swift action and addressing state requirements. • Section (C) could be more speciflc about what constitutes an "emergency" and the criteria used to determine immediate risk, which would help ensure consistent enforcement. Section 20-12.2. Private Wells Key Requirements • This outlines requirements for the abandonment or continued operation of private wells on properties connected to the city's public water system. All such wells must be properly fllled and sealed unless the owner obtains a valid well operation permit from the City Plumbing Inspector. Wells that are unsafe, unused, or deemed non-compliant with requirements, must be sealed within 30 days of notice in accordance with certifled standards. • To maintain an operational private well, the owner must meet speciflc conditions, demonstrating that the well meets required standards. The permit is valid for up to three years and may be renewed under the same conditions. Additional requirements include submission of a well abandonment report upon closure and adherence to regulations. Observations & Recommendations • This prioritizes health and safety while also establishing a clear permitting process and outlining requirements to operate and utilize and private well. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 123 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis Section 20-13. Lead Service Line Replacement Key Requirements • This establishes a comprehensive program for the identiflcation and replacement of lead and galvanized service lines within the Oshkosh Water Utility system to protect public health and meet federal water quality standards. • All public and private service lines suspected of containing lead must be inspected and, if conflrmed, recorded and replaced. Inspections must be completed by licensed plumbers, and property owners are required to submit reports. If inspections or replacements are refused, the City may issue warrants or discontinue water service after notice. Replacement is mandatory in cases of leaks, repairs, or partial replacements. • The ordinance also outlines enforcement provisions, including potential service disconnection and penalties for false statements. Property owners may apply for City flnancing to assist with replacement costs, provided the work meets code requirements and is properly documented. The City commits to providing notice by multiple reasonable methods to ensure compliance. Observations & Recommendations • The ordinance strongly emphasizes protecting public health by proactively identifying and replacing lead and galvanized water service lines. Section 20-14. Penalties Key Requirements • This section outlines penalties for violations of plumbing -related regulations within the City. Individuals found guilty of violating these provisions may be flned between $75 and $500 and may be jailed for up to 15 days if flnes are not paid. The City Inspector is also authorized to order the immediate removal of illegal plumbing connections. • More severe penalties apply to violations involving sump pump connections and cross-connections with the sanitary sewer system. These violations can result in flnes ranging from $1,025 to $2,000 per offense, and up to 60 days of jail time if unpaid. Each day a violation continues is considered a separate offense, increasing potential penalties. • For general violations not speciflcally addressed elsewhere, property owners, plumbers, or others responsible may also face the base $75 to $500 flne, jail time of up to 30 days if unpaid, and the same rule that each day constitutes a separate offense. Observations & Recommendations • These provisions support enforcement and promote compliance with city plumbing codes. Chapter 11, Electrical Code, Article I. Electrical Regulations (revised 07/14/20) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 124 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis Section 11-2. National and State Electrical Codes Adopted Key Requirements • The Electrical Code addresses the adoption of national and state electrical codes. This also deflnes general application to electrical work with exceptions to some minor work performed. Section 11-4. Electrical Inspector Key Requirements • The Electrical Inspector and Deputy Inspector enforce the provisions of this code and other duties required by the City Manager. • The Electrical Inspector is required to make a monthly report to the City Manager, and permit fees are required to be remitted each week to the City Treasurer. The Electrical Inspector is required to keep a record of all electrical permits for at least 10 years. Observations & Recommendations • Unlike some of the other inspector positions, the Electrical Inspector position isn’t appointed by the City Manager. However, there are some codifled reporting elements outlined, and the City Manager can broadly direction this position which seems unnecessary to codify as this can already occur. • For the referenced Deputy Inspector position, is unclear who holds this speciflc job title as this isn’t clearly addressed in the department’s organizational structure. Section 11-8. Interpretations of Code by Inspector Key Requirements • The Electrical Inspector has full discretion to interpret this ordinance, so long as this interpretation doesn’t confiict with state code. Observations & Recommendations • There is not full discretion for code interpretation listed for the other inspector positions. Each position is notably different, however, having small variances for each inspector position within the code poses some challenges and risks with interpretation and application. Section 11-13. Inspection Procedure Key Requirements • After completing any permitted electrical installation, alteration, or replacement, the licensee must notify the Electrical Inspector. The inspector will then inspect and determine if this meets the required standards and issue a certiflcate of approval. • Any electrical work that will be hidden by building components or other equipment parts must be inspected and approved before being concealed. Concealing electrical work before it is inspected is a code violation. • Once installation is complete and ready for inspection, the Electrical Inspector must have access to all components of the system for a thorough inspection. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 125 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis Observations & Recommendations • These procedures promote safety and convenience for both those doing the construction work and for the inspector. • The lengthy descriptions and information included can make it difficult to quickly decipher requirements. Section 11-14. Right of Entry Key Requirements • The Electrical Inspector has the authority to enter at reasonable times all buildings and premises to inspect, reinspect, observe, examine or test the electrical equipment or wiring. Observations & Recommendations • Right of entry is maintained to ensure the ability to properly inspect . State Statutes • Through Wis. Stat. § 101.82(2m) the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) are granted authority to ensure inspections are made. Section 11-16. Inspector Not Liable Key Requirements • Any enforcement actions taken by the Electrical Inspector are done on behalf of the City and under its authority. As such, the Inspector cannot be held personally liable for damages resulting from actions performed as part of their official duties. • If a lawsuit arises from such actions, the City Attorney is responsible for defending the Inspector in legal proceedings until their conclusion. This provision protects the Inspector from personal legal or flnancial consequences while carrying out position responsibilities. Observations & Recommendations • This shields employees from personal risk and reinforces institutional responsibility. Section 11-17. City Not Liable Key Requirements • This clarifles that the City assumes no liability for damages caused by electrical equipment or actions taken by individuals or entities. • Additionally, the City is not liable for any harm resulting from issuing or revoking licenses, permits, or certiflcates, or from inspections, approvals, or disapprovals related to electrical work. The City’s role in overseeing compliance with the code does not make it responsible for the consequences of defects or failures in the work being regulated. State Statutes • Best practice would be to ensure this provision is aligned with state municipal claims procedures outlined under Wis. Stat. § 893.80, which governs claims DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 126 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis against governmental entities and sets forth notice, timing, and content requirements. Section 11-18. Liability of Other Crafts Key Requirements • Those associated with crafts other than electrical must in no way alter the character of an electrical installation by placing materials or equipment too close in proximity, concealment, making the system inaccessible, etc. The only exception is when written permission is provided by the Electrical Inspector. Observations & Recommendations • This provision provides clariflcation that those without knowledge and expertise in electrical systems do not alter these. • Allowing for written permission of this creates some possible challenges for the City if approval is occurring with liability not entirely clear in these circumstances. • It seems sections 11-16, 11-17 and 11-18 could be combined and reflned, still containing the same protections. State Statutes • Best practice would be to ensure this provision is aligned with state municipal claims procedures outlined under Wis. Stat. § 893.80, which governs claims against governmental entities and sets forth notice, timing, and content requirements. Section 11-22. Licenses and Certiffcates for Electricians Required Key Requirements • No person or business can install, alter, repair, remove, etc., any electrical equipment or accept any payments without a license as per the requirements of Wisconsin statutes. Observations & Recommendations • The deflnition of electrical equipment is broadly included and needs further clariflcation. State Statutes • Wis. Stat. § 101.862 references “electrical wiring” whereas the City Code references “electrical equipment.” The two are subject to different interpretations. Section 11-32. Permits for Electrical Work Required Key Requirements • Electrical equipment may not be installed, altered, replaced, or connected without flrst obtaining a permit. In emergency situations, work may proceed without a permit if the property owner consents, and a permit application is submitted no later than the following business day. Three exceptions to the permit requirement include low voltage installations in 1-2 family dwellings, reconnection of existing DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 127 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis power supplies for replacement of heating units water heaters, or similar appliances and repairs or replacements to existing electrical components. Observations & Recommendations • Permit requirements for electrical work are industry standard and it is clear that permits are required and how an emergency situation is addressed. • The deflnition of electrical equipment is not entirely clear within the Code. Section 11-33. Application for Permits Key Requirements • Application for a permit must occur in writing with a description of the electrical equipment to be installed and any other needed information as required by the Division of Inspection Services. Section 11-35. Issuance of Permits Key Requirements • Permits are issued upon meeting conditions, requiring all codes to be met in the process. The only electrical work allowed to be performed is outlined in the permit. Section 11-36. Work Without Permits Key Requirements • The Inspector has the authority to stop any electrical work being performed in the absence of a permit. A fee plus the permit fee amount or double the permit fee is required, whichever is greater, when work occurs without a permit. Observations & Recommendations • The deflnition of electrical equipment is needed to clearly deflne what work is not allowed to be performed without a permit. Section 11-37. Lapse of Permit Key Requirements • Once a permit has been issued, if work has not started within 12 months from the date of issuance, the permit is void until a new permit is obtained. Section 11-38. Plans and Speciffcations May Be Required Key Requirements • The Electrical Inspector may require plans, data, information, samples or tests as necessary to determine the fltness of equipment for safe installation and use. Observations & Recommendations • This provision promotes safety and long -term stability, and use of equipment installed. Section 11-39. Permit Fees Key Requirements • The Electrical Inspector is paid fees subject to the approved fee schedule. The number of inspections per permit to be allowed, without further charge, are based DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 128 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis on the type or value of the improvement, or other approved criteria. Additional fees are required for each unnecessary inspection. Section 11-44. Unsafe or Illegal Electrical Equipment Key Requirements • When the Electrical Inspector flnds any equipment to be unsafe or dangerous to persons or property, the Electrical Inspector will provide written notice to remove or make changes or repairs to restore such equipment to a safe condition. If compliance doesn’t occur within the time specifled, is sufficient cause for the Electrical Inspector to disconnect or order the discontinuance of electrical service. In any case of emergency affecting the safety of persons or property, the Electrical Inspector has the authority to immediately disconnect any such electrical equipment. Observations & Recommendations • This addresses and prioritizes safety by granting authority for the Electrical Inspector to act in challenging circumstances. • A deflned timeframe might be helpful to the inspector to establish an appropriate timeline for response as opposed to establishing and adjusting this on a case -by- case basis. Section 11-45. Seizure of Electrical Equipment Key Requirements • The Electrical Inspector has the power and authority to seize and take possession of any electrical equipment, materials, etc., which in his/her opinion are dangerous to life and property or that have contributed to a flre, accident or fatality. The owner may request the return of these items in writing within 90 days of the date of seizure and then materials will be returned after having served needed purposes. Observations & Recommendations • The code allows seizure based on the inspector’s opinion, without requiring clear criteria, documentation, or third-party veriflcation. This could be challenged as lacking due process. Consider additional language requiring the inspector to document the hazard and notify the property owner in writing at the time of seizure. Include a right to appeal or review, consistent with Wis. Stat. § 68.11. • The 90-day return window is helpful but lacks detail on how long the City can retain the property, or what “having served needed purposes” means. Clariflcation is needed regarding what qualifles as “needed purposes” and to set limits on retention consistent with evidence handling or administrative timelines . State Statutes • The authority to act on dangerous electrical materials aligns with the intent of Wis. Admin. Code SPS 316, which adopts the National Electrical Code (NEC) and authorizes municipalities to enforce electrical safety. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 129 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis • Municipal inspectors are generally permitted under Wis. Stat. § 101.86 to conduct inspections and issue stop orders on unsafe work. • No language in State Statute provided speciflc ability to seize electric equipment, with the exception of a criminal investigation. Section 11-57. Penalties Key Requirements • This section outlines escalating penalties for violations of the electrical code. A flrst offense results in a flne of at least $75, a second offense at least $125, and a third or subsequent offense at least $225, with a maximum flne of $500 per violation. • In addition to flnes, violators may be required to pay prosecution costs. If flnes and costs are not paid, the individual may face up to 60 days of imprisonment. This structure is designed to deter repeat violations and promote compliance. Observations & Recommendations • The escalating flne amounts for repeat violations promote compliance and deter repeat offenses by increasing flnancial consequences with each subsequent conviction. State Statutes • Wisconsin law permits courts to impose costs associated with prosecution (Wis. Stat. § 814.63), and jail time of up to 60 days may be imposed for non-payment of forfeitures under Wis. Stat. § 800.095(1)(b). Chapter 16, Housing (revised 06/10/21) Article 1. Housing in General Division 2. Antidiscrimination in Housing (16-3 to 16-9) Enforcement Procedures 16-7.1 Key Requirements • These provisions align with the requirements of Wisconsin Statues and make housing discrimination unlawful. The City is required to assist with investigations and attempted resolutions, although flnal and formal investigation, resolution, and enforcement of unresolved contested complaints occurs by the State of Wisconsin. Complaints with a subject matter consistent with the Ordinance, but outside the scope of the State's jurisdiction, is addressed by the City or a third- party designee to resolve disputes related to the City. • The Fair Housing Commission receives complaints and reviews staff investigation of all complaints alleging any discriminatory practice, holds hearings as necessary and refers disputes. State Statutes • The enforcement of these requirements is addressed in the Wis. Open Housing Equal Rights provisions Wis. Stat. § 106.50. Division 3. Mobile Homes and Key Requirements DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 130 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis Mobile Home Parks (16-10 to 16-19) Permits, Licenses 16-11 and 16-12 • It is unlawful to construct, alter or extend any mobile home park within the City limits without a valid permit issued by the City Council for the construction, alteration or extension proposed. All applications for permits are flled with the City Clerk and reviewed by the Plan Commission. • If found that conditions or practices exist in violation of any provision of this Division, the City Manager is required to give written notice to the person with a license and suspending the license. • At the end of a designated period, the City Manager, or designee, shall reinspect the mobile home park to determine if conditions have been corrected, and if not corrected shall suspend the license and give notice of such suspension, and shall cease operation of such mobile home park. Observations & Recommendations • This includes a reference to Planning Commission instead of Plan Commission • The City Manager likely doesn’t need to be involved in this process, unless the appeal of a decision were to come forward, otherwise, proper staffing and processes are in place to review conditions and determine licensing. Inspection of Mobile Home Parks 16-13 Key Requirements • The City Manager, or designee, is authorized and directed to make inspections of mobile home parks, as necessary, to determine satisfactory compliance, including the power and ability to enter any private or public property to inspect and investigate conditions related to enforcement. • The City Manager retains the power to inspect the register containing a record of all residents of the mobile home park. It is the duty of park management to give the City Manager, or an authorized agent, free access to all lots at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection. The City Manager has authority to order stop any violation found to the person to whom the permit or license has been issued. • The City Manager retains the ability to flnd when an emergency exists and to require immediate action to protect the public health, without notice of hearing, including the suspension of a license or permit. Observations & Recommendations • The enforcement for those in violation isn’t entirely clear with the wording in the Code as park management or individual residents could be deemed incompliant, when the licensing of a mobile home park appears to rest with the park management. • The City Manager doesn’t need to be involved in this process, unless the appeal of a decision were to come forward, otherwise, proper staffing and processes are in place to review conditions and determine licensing. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 131 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis General Requirements 16-15 Key Requirements • Mobile home parks must meet speciflc design standards, including a density limit of no more than 7 units per acre, minimum lot sizes of 4,000 square feet, and a 40 - foot width at the building setback. Units must be separated by at least 15 feet, including any accessory structures. Parks must dedicate 10% of their area as open space for recreation and provide adequate screening with trees or shrubs along boundaries. • Vehicular access must be safe and efficient, and each home must have at least two parking spaces within 250 feet, along with visitor parking. Common pedestrian walkways are also required, with minimum widths and connections to each home. • All mobile homes must meet Wis. Admin. Code standards, be connected to the city’s water and sewer systems, and manage stormwater drainage. Waste must be stored in rodent- and weather-proof containers within 250 feet of each home, collected regularly, and not incinerated on site. • Park management is responsible for maintaining park facilities, reporting occupancy monthly, and collecting fees. Residents must comply with all regulations, including installation standards, maintenance, and pet control. Additions like porches or awnings require park approval, and all trash must be properly disposed. Observations & Recommendations • The policy language covers a wide range of key issues including density, spacing, utilities, safety, access, sanitation, and responsibilities of both park management and residents. This holistic approach promotes consistency, safety, and quality of life within mobile home parks. • Requirements related to setbacks, screening, parking, refuse containment, and utility connections help minimize environmental health risks and ensure basic infrastructure is in place to serve residents effectively. • While park management is required to notify residents of city code requirements, there is no specifled process or veriflcation method outlined. This may lead to inconsistent communication or oversight. • Some provisions (e.g., for porches, storage, pets, or skirting) require park approval or compliance but do not outline clear criteria or city oversight, potentially leading to inconsistent application or confusion for residents. Variances 16-18 Key Requirements • The City Manager, or authorized agent, may in appropriate cases subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, make exceptions to these terms in harmony with general purpose and intent so the spirit of this shall be maintained, public safety and welfare and substantial justice done. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 132 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis • It appears the amounts slated for violation are unclear as the flrst reference on §16-19 describes a penalty ($75-$500) that differs from item (B) in §16-20 that references the above Division 3 being subject to flnes ranging from $125 -$500, and possible imprisonment of up to 60 days. Observations & Recommendations • The ability to make exceptions to terms included in harmony with general purpose and intent according to spirit of the law is a challenging provision to apply equally and fairly across groups. It is important that such exceptions are well-documented and tied to flndings that uphold the spirit and intent of the code. Clear procedures and public transparency are recommended for consistency. State Statutes • This is consistent with Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7), which governs local zoning authority. Article II. Minimum Housing Code Division 1. Purpose; Policy; Scope; Housing Inspections (16- 21 to 16-23) Inspection of Premises 16-23 Key Requirements • The Housing Inspector is authorized to enter and inspect any dwelling or unit covered by this code between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., excluding Sundays and holidays, to ensure compliance. Reasonable notice must be given to the occupant or owner, and entry is only allowed with their permission. If permission is denied, a search warrant is required. • However, if a delay in inspection would pose an immediate threat to life, health, or property, the inspector may enter without notice or a warrant, depending on the situation. In cases of interference, the inspector may request a court order to stop obstruction and allow the inspection to proceed. Observations & Recommendations • This provides a balance of compliance through generally requiring permission and taking into account tenant and property owner rights, while also ensuring the City call fulflll its regulatory responsibilities. • The phrase “serious and imminent threat to human life, health or property” is broad and open to interpretation. Without speciflc criteria or examples, it may lead to inconsistent application or legal challenges. Division 2. Notice; Housing Advisory and Appeals Board; Orders; Hearings; Review (16-24 to 16-32) 16-24 and 16-25, 16-31 and 16-32 Key Requirements • When the Housing Inspector identifles or reasonably suspects a code violation, written notice must be issued to the responsible party. The notice must describe the property, state the alleged violation(s), outline required corrective actions, and provide a reasonable timeframe—up to six months—for compliance. If the issue is not resolved by reinspection, a reinspection fee applies. • Decisions by the Housing Inspector may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals; however, rulings based on the State Building Code are not appealable. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 133 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis • If a dwelling is deemed a public nuisance or a serious risk to health and safety, and the owner or occupant fails to comply within the designated time, the Inspector may declare the property unflt for habitation and post a placard accordingly. Observations & Recommendations • Allowing up to six months for corrective action gives owners fiexibility to address issues, which may be beneflcial for costly or complex repairs. However, this six- month correction window may be too long for violations that pose immediate or signiflcant risks. It would be helpful to establish tiering based on severity. Division 3. Minimum Standard, Requirements and Conditions for Occupancy (16-33 to 16-38) Minimum Standards for Equipment and Facilities 16-33 and 16-34 Key Requirements • The code outlines minimum standards for habitable conditions in dwellings, including the requirement for a kitchen sink, functional bathrooms, hot and cold potable water, adequate water pressure, water heating, and refuse receptacles, all maintained in serviceable condition. Stairw ays and porches must meet safety standards, including handrails and guardrails, with grandfathered features updated to code when unsafe. These requirements reference the Wis. Admin. Code and Uniform Building Code. • Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors must be installed and functional. Tenants must report smoke detector issues in writing, and property owners are responsible for prompt repair or replacement, annual battery changes, and written notice of responsibilities at lease start. Gas appliances must be safely installed and not used if deemed hazardous. Solid core doors are required for exterior access and bedroom privacy. • Additional standards include safe heating, ventilation, and electrical systems; openable, screened windows in good condition; rodent -proof building openings; and proper installation and maintenance of all electrical flxtures and service panels. Natural lighting from windows must equal at least 8% of a room’s fioor area, and exterior entries must be adequately lit. Observations & Recommendations • The code ensures that all essential systems—plumbing, heating, ventilation, electrical, and lighting—meet baseline safety and functionality standards. This helps promote tenant health, safety, and general well-being. • The requirement for handrails, guardrails, and solid-core doors enhances structural integrity and occupant safety, particularly in multi-level and shared housing units. • The clarity of property owner responsibility for smoke detectors is helpful to ensure any rental units have this resource provided. The code goes into quite a bit DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 134 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis of depth about battery replacement and written notiflcation of responsibilities here that may not be necessary. • The Wisconsin Public Service Corporation is involved in evaluating and determining the safety of natural gas ranges. These seems difficult to verify for the municipality. State Statutes • This cites compliance with Wis. Admin. Code and Uniform Building Code. Requirements for Maintenance 16-35 Key Requirements • All habitable buildings are required to comply with the following maintenance requirements, including: - Floors, walls, ceiling, countertops and cupboards in good repair - Every building shell, foundation, doors, windows and roof - Inside and outside stairs, every porch and guardrail, must be safe to use. Stairs and porches shall be kept free of refuse or stored material - Maintenance of plumbing systems, chimney and spoke pipes • No owner, occupant or operator shall cause any required service, facility, equipment or utility to be removed from any occupied dwelling Observations & Recommendations • These provisions, although difficult to enforce, provide a good base standard for quality housing to be offered and maintained within the City. • These provisions provide good protections for rental units as they are required to be maintained to a certain standard. Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants 16-37 Key Requirements • Property owners must maintain dwellings, including common areas and yards, in a safe, clean, and good condition, and ensure pest control. Occupants are responsible for keeping their dwelling and yard areas clean. Owners must provide written notice to occupants on proper garbage storage and curb placement per City Code. Dwellings and Units Which May Be Occupied Housing Inspector – Determinations; Orders; Time for Compliance Extension; Key Requirements • No dwelling unit may be occupied if inspected by the Housing Inspector and determined that such dwelling or dwelling unit does not conform to the requirements in code. • The Housing Inspector orders compliance within a stated period of time not to exceed 6 months. In cases of hardship, the Housing Inspector may grant, with discretion, time extensions not exceeding six months each and not exceeding a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 135 Code Title(s) Components and Analysis Building Inspector -State Law 16-38 total of 1 year from the time of the original order. Extensions shall only be granted upon evidence of substantial effort to, and progress in, removing the violation. • Any dwelling declared structurally unsafe shall be restored or razed in accordance with Wisconsin Statutes. The Building Inspector is designated as an officer to carry out the provisions. Observations & Recommendations • Additional clariflcation would be beneflcial to require documentation when the Housing Inspector grants time extensions that include outlining speciflc flndings. State Statutes • This aligns closely with Wis. Stat. § 66.0104 which clarifles local authority in regulating rental properties. Division 4. Rooming Houses (16-39 to16-46 Key Requirements • Rooming houses or multi-dwelling units must comply with Wis. Admin. Code and obtain an operating license from the Housing Inspector. Anyone renting to more than four rooms must apply for a one-year operating license. The license must include an agent for receiving violation notices, which can be a city resident or the City Clerk. The license, showing the maximum number of residents, must be displayed prominently. Licenses are non-transferable, and written notice is required within 48 hours if ownership changes. • If code violations are found, the Housing Inspector issues a notice requiring compliance. Appeals can be made to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. • Room size standards include 400 cubic feet per occupant over 12 and 200 cubic feet per child under 12, with 150 cubic feet for infants in hospital nurseries. • Penalties for noncompliance include flnes ranging from $75 for a flrst offense to $2,000 for repeat violations, with speciflc flnes for detector-related violations. Observations & Recommendations • Requiring operating licenses for properties with more than four roomers ensures regulatory oversight and helps maintain safe living conditions. • Non-transferability of licenses may lead to brief periods of unlicensed operation between ownership changes, particularly if enforcement lags behind real-time transactions. • Allowing the City Clerk to serve as an agent for violation notices could create confusion or delays in communication unless a clear process is deflned. • Some of the language in this code includes speciflc age requirements may cause for displacement of individuals over time. (16-45(5)(A) State Statutes DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 136 3.2 PUBLIC NUISANCES This section of City Code focuses on the deflnition and practical enforcement of public nuisance regulations. A public nuisance is typically deflned as an act or condition that unreasonably interferes with the public's health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience. The analysi s reviews speciflc provisions within the municipal code that identify actionable nuisances. Code Title(s) Components and Analysis • This aligns closely with Wis. Stat. § 66.0104 which clarifles local authority in regulating rental properties. Division 5. Legal Action and Penalties Residential Rental Contact Registration Required, Residential Rental Inspection 16-48 and16-49 Key Requirements • Owners of residential rental units must register contact information with the Department, including a name, phone number, and optionally an email. Registration is free, but changes in ownership must be reported. • The City conducts scheduled inspections of rental units within the designated neighborhood stabilization and enhancement district, as deflned by ordinance. Inspection fees follow the City’s fee schedule, and violations must be corrected within a specifled timeframe. • All rental properties citywide are subject to inspection upon tenant or citizen complaint. Observations & Recommendations • The requirement for owners to register contact information ensures the City has a reliable way to communicate with responsible parties. This supports efficient enforcement and public accountability. • By restricting scheduled inspections to a deflned district, problem properties outside of this area might go uninspected unless a complaint is flled. State Statutes • This aligns closely with Wis. Stat. § 66.0104 which clarifles local authority in regulating rental properties. Remedies and Application of Other Provisions, Deffnitions 16-50 and 16-51 Key Requirements • The remedies in this section are not to be construed as exclusive of any other remedy within the code, and the Department may take further actions to ensure compliance. • Nothing in this limit, impairs, alters or extends the rights and remedies of owners and tenants that exists under applicable law. Chapter 17, Morals and Conduct, Article IV. Nuisances (revised 03/25/25) Public Nuisances Key Requirements DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 137 17-33 • No person shall erect, contrive, cause, continue, maintain or permit to exist any public nuisance within the City. With deflnitions of public nuisances included. - Dead animals, birds or fowl, decayed matter, stagnant water, and uncovered privies and garbage cans - Noxious weeds, deflned by Wis. Stat. § 66.0407, and by City ordinance as any grasses, weeds, brush, etc., that has grown over 8 inches in height. - Noxious fumes and offensive odors – including stenches extremely repulsive to the physical senses of ordinary persons which annoy, discomfort, injure or inconvenience the health of any appreciable number of persons within the City. - Outdoor solid fuel flred furnaces, stoves, and boilers - Premises where habitual violations of laws have occurred – openly, continuously, repeatedly and intentionally violated - Accumulation of snow and ice on sidewalks - Signs and billboards endangering public safety - Unauthorized devices imitating traffic control devices - Obstruction of Street Intersections – All trees, hedges, billboards or other obstructions which prevent persons driving vehicles from a clear view of traffic when approaching an intersection or pedestrian crosswalk - Limbs Projecting over Sidewalks – a violation of the clearance requirements established by Chapter 26 - Unsafe Structures – All buildings or structures deemed dangerous, unsafe, unsanitary or otherwise unflt for human use. - Low Hanging Wires – All wires over streets, alleys or public grounds which are strung less than 15 feet above the surface of street or ground. - Noisy Animals – Keeping/harboring any animal causing frequent/habitual howling, yelping, barking, crowing or other noises that greatly annoy or disturb a neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. - Unauthorized street obstructions or excavations - Unguarded Excavations – All open and unguarded pits, wells, excavations or unused basements freely accessible from any public street, alley, or sidewalk. - Use of abutting property which causes traffic impediment - Downspouts, sump pumps and other concentrated discharges Observations & Recommendations • The code comprehensively addresses a wide range of public nuisances, from environmental hazards (e.g., dead animals, stagnant water) to structural DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 138 concerns (unsafe buildings, low-hanging wires) and behavioral issues (noisy animals, obstructive gatherings). • Clear examples and thresholds are provided (e.g., weeds over 8 inches, snow/ice not removed), which helps guide enforcement and reduces ambiguity for property owners. • It isn’t entirely clear who is responsible for enforcing the various elements of nuisance ordinances. This creates a challenge in knowing who is most suitable to enforce and how best to address a concern as it is raised. Clarifying the roles and responsibilities in addressing the various nuisances improves customer service. • Enforcement could be further clarifled by creating a category of “minor nuisances” that result in a ticket with a flne (such as tall grass, snow on sidewalks, etc.). State Statutes • This code aligns with the authority granted under Wis . Stat. §§ 66.0413 and 823.01, which provide municipalities the ability to deflne and abate public nuisances affecting health, safety, and welfare. Public Nuisance Affecting Property Usage 17-36 Key Requirements • All structures, both residential and non-residential, including fences, must be maintained in good repair with exterior surfaces properly painted or covered using appropriate siding materials. Owners or authorized users must ensure exteriors are free from broken or deteriorated elements such as siding, shingles, steps, porches, and handrails. Poor exterior maintenance that depreciates property values or poses a hazard is prohibited. • All properties must remain free of junk, debris, or unsightly items such as scrap materials, inoperable vehicles, uncontained garbage, broken appliances, animal waste, and furniture not meant for outdoor use. Excessive yard waste, rutted lawns, and other neglected conditions are not permitted. Landscaping dirt piles in residential zones must be leveled and seeded within 30 days; in commercial or industrial zones, removal is required within one year unless part of a licensed operation. • Outdoor storage of flrewood is not allowed on properties zoned or intended for residential use. • Owners or operators of buildings are responsible for pest extermination when infestations result from improper maintenance of the structure. • If a code violation is conflrmed during inspection, property owners will be charged a separate inspection service fee, in addition to other applicable fees and charges as outlined in the City's fee schedule. Observations & Recommendations DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 139 • The code establishes objective expectations for maintaining the exterior of structures, reducing ambiguity around what constitutes neglect or blight. This supports neighborhood aesthetics, property values, and safety. • Clear deadlines for leveling and seeding landscaping materials (30 days in residential areas; 1 year in commercial/industrial zones) help balance fiexibility with accountability. • The assessment of inspection service fees for conflrmed violations provides a flnancial incentive for compliance and helps recover the cost of enforcement. • Some sections imply that aesthetics alone (e.g., chipped paint or yard appearance) can constitute a public nuisance, which may be questioned from a legal or fairness standpoint unless explicitly tied to health or safety impacts. • The language could be less subjective and more deflnitive on who is responsible for inspections, determinations, and enforcement actions, especially where multiple city departments may be involved. • Enforcement of some of these deflned public nuisances seem impractical. State Statutes • Requiring structures to be maintained in good condition is consistent with local authority to protect health, safety, and welfare under Wis. Stat. §62.11(5). The prohibition of deteriorated exterior conditions and the requirement to use appropriate siding or paint is standard and legally defensible. • The regulation of junk, inoperable vehicles, and other debris aligns with §66.0413 and §823.04, which give municipalities authority to address nuisance properties. The mention of yard maintenance and landscaping is consistent with the city’s zoning and public health authority. Abatement of Public Nuisances 17-38 Key Requirements • This outlines the process for consideration of a complaint and possible enforcement through inspection of premises. • The summary of abatement included in the code includes a notice to the owner by the inspecting officer again, it’s not entirely clear who this is on which items about the public nuisance existing on private property and citing there is a great and immediate danger to public health safety, peace, morals, or decency. Such notice directs the owner, occupant or person causing permitting or maintaining such nuisance to abate or remove such nuisance within twenty-four (24) hours and shall state that unless such nuisance is so abated, the City will cause the same to be abated and will charge the cost thereof to the owner, occupant, or person causing, permitting or maintaining the same. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 140 3.3 PLANNING, ZONING AND LAND USE PROVISIONS This section of code focuses on the deflnition and practical application of planning, zoning, and land use provisions. It addresses conditions such as unauthorized land uses, neglected properties, and violations • If the person causing the nuisance cannot be found within the requested time for abatement, the City Manager, or designee, shall direct the abatement or removal of such public nuisance. Appeals are addressed by the City Manager. • If the public nuisance is likely to result in damage to properties, public facilities, or waters of the state, the City may enter the land and take emergency actions necessary to prevent such damage. Observations & Recommendations • The code outlines a step-by-step abatement process starting with notice to the responsible party. This promotes transparency and gives the violator a deflned opportunity to resolve the issue before the City takes enforcement action. • The language lacks clarity about which official (e.g., which speciflc inspector or department) is responsible for issuing the abatement notice. This can create confusion in enforcement and may delay action if responsibilities are not clearly assigned. • The code provides for the City to recover abatement costs from the responsible party. This protects public resources and discourages neglect by shifting the flnancial burden to the violator. • While the provision references nuisances posing immediate danger, it does not fully specify which types fall under this designation for abatement or emergency response. A clearer reference or tie-back to deflned nuisance types in earlier sections would improve application. • “Whenever complaint is made that a public nuisance exists within the City, the Chief of Police, Director of Public Works, or Building Inspector shall inspect or cause to be inspected the premises and shall make a written report of flndings to the City Manager or designee.” This excerpt of code doesn’t clarify the lead for code enforcement operations, reporting, etc., particularly on the various items. Without this clarity, accountability is difficult and poses challenges to best navigate and ultimately fleld the various requests coming in. Planning is not included as an enforcement group within the code. State Statutes • This portion of the municipal code outlines procedures for complaint-based enforcement of public nuisances and appears to be generally consistent with Wisconsin Statutes, particularly in Chapter 823 (Public Nuisances). The procedure for issuing notices and charging costs of abatement to the property owner is consistent with Wis. Stat. § 66.0627, which permits special charges for current services. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 141 of zoning restrictions that may impact the orderly development and character of neighborhoods. The analysis reviews speciflc provisions within the municipal code that establish land use requirements and outlines the procedures for enforcement through zoning compliance actions, citations, or corrective measures. It also considers the legal thresholds for identifying zoning violations and the city’s enforcement mechanisms, including planning review boards and code enforcement divisions, to ensure alignment with adopted zoning and land use policies. Additionally, this section addresses the application of code and the process of navigating land use approvals in accordance with applicable state and federal guidelines. The analysis reviews speciflc provisions within the municipal code that identify land use -related nuisances and outlines the procedures for enforcement through zoning compliance actions, citations, or abatement. It also considers the legal thresholds for determining when a land use condition constitutes a public nuisance and the city’s mechanisms to ensure alignment with adopted zoning and land use policies. Chapter 2, Administration (revised 06/25/2024) Article VI Citizens Advisory Boards and Commissions, Division 2. Boards and Commissions Plan Commission 2-52 Key Requirements • The City Plan Commission is composed of nine members, including one Council member and eight citizens who are selected based on recognized experience and qualiflcations. Citizen members serve three-year terms, while the Council representative serves for one year. This structure ensures a balance of elected and appointed perspectives in decision-making related to city planning. • The Commission’s responsibilities are outlined in both Chapter 30 of the City Code and Wis. Stat. § 62.23. These responsibilities focus on supporting the City’s planning and zoning efforts through guidance and recommendations. • In accordance with §30-342, the Plan Commission provides recommendations to the Common Council and other stakeholders concerning city planning and development matters. Their role includes consulting with public officials, organizations, and citizens to help shape the future development of the City in alignment with statutory duties and local policy objectives. • Except in instances where the Commission is designated as the flnal authority by ordinance, their actions are advisory in nature. Recommendations are made in accordance with the guidelines and intent of Chapter 30, ensuring thoughtful and consistent application of planning principles across various matters under review. Observations & Recommendations • The code clearly outlines the membership of the Plan Commission, specifying both the number of members and the mix of elected and appointed individuals. This clarity promotes transparency and ensures that there is a mix of perspectives, with citizen expertise complementing elected leadership. State of Wisconsin Statutes • The current City Code provisions governing the Plan Commission demonstrate strong alignment with Wis. Stat. § 62.23. The structure, role, and advisory function DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 142 are appropriately deflned, promoting statutory compliance and a solid framework for planning oversight. Minor clariflcations could further strengthen transparency and procedural consistency. While the advisory role is well-articulated, future ordinance updates should clearly deflne when and for what types of applications (e.g., conditional use permits, certifled survey maps) the Commission acts as the flnal authority to avoid confusion and ensure consistent legal interpretation. Chapter 30, Zoning Ordinance (revised 08/13/2024) Article I. Introduction and Deffnitions Key Requirements • The introductory sections of the zoning ordinance describe the authority granted by Wisconsin State Statutes. The purpose and intent also describe the purpose of protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public, with efforts to also implement certain goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the City does not intend to abrogate or interfere with any constitutionally protected vested right. • The code is considered applicable to all areas within the corporate limits of the City and all areas within the extraterritorial jurisdiction, and all areas where boundary agreements are in place. • This includes a dedicated section providing deflnitions to clarify the meaning of terms used throughout the ordinance. • These ordinances apply to all properties, all development activity, and all land uses. Development activities, redevelopment, building and site renovations, are regulated throughout the zoning ordinances. Where questions of applicability arise, the interpretation of applicability falls under the duties of the Director of Community Development, or designee. Observations & Recommendations • Wisconsin statutes are referenced, and language is included in the City Code to emphasize that Chapter 30 is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by the State of Wisconsin. • In the Rules of Interpretation, § 30-06, it mentions a couple of structures that don’t require building permits as examples and includes an e.g. following. This could result in broad interpretations. It would be best to reference Chapter 7 of the City Code as the section to reference to determine which type of structures do not require a building permit in the building permits. • The included deflnitions ensure consistent interpretation and application of the land use code by establishing clear, standardized meanings for commonly used terms related to land use, development, and zoning regulations. This helps property owners, developers, and city staff apply the code accurately and reduces confusion or ambiguity in understanding regulatory requirements. It is important to ensure consistency and compatibility between zoning deflnitions and building code deflnitions. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 143 Article II. Establishment of Zoning Districts Key Requirements • This discusses the various existing zoning districts grouped by residential and nonresidential. The City currently has 11 residential zoning district designations and 7 non-residential designations. The zoning map is adopted as part of this Chapter. • This provides rules to determine the precise location of any zoning district boundary shown on the Official Zoning Map. In summary, these rules include that zoning districts follow the city boundary limits, that these boundaries follow the centerline of adjacent streets or railroad lines, following platted lot lines and other property lines shown on city and county tax maps, following the centerlines of streams, rivers or other watercourses, ridgelines or watershed boundaries, and where any uncertainty exists, the location of the line shall be determined by the Director of Community Development, or designee. • Each unique zone and its appliable standards is included in this section. These had a limited review as they are speciflc to the various zoning districts and don’t have general administrative application. State Statutes • The zoning map being adopted as part of the code chapter is consistent with statutory requirements. Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(d) emphasizes the importance of maps in identifying district boundaries and ensuring public transparency. Article III. Land Use Regulations Key Requirements • Properties must be able to gain full compliance with all applicable standards and regulations, or to obtain a variance as needed, for land uses they are indicated as permitted by right or requiring a conditional use permit. Land uses that are not speciflcally listed are subject to the interpretation of the Director of Community Development, or their designee, including the determination if an amendment to the code is necessary. • The code further provides a comprehensive list of review and approval requirements, some of these that are noteworthy to common processes include: - All uses are subject to land use permit review and approval. - All development involving physical modiflcations to a site are subject to site plan review and approval. - All land use/development is required to comply with established process and review requirements. • The table of land uses provides a convenient and very clear approach to deflning which uses are allowable in which zones. This uses the same descriptions for applicability across zones promoting clarity of information for both applicants and staff. Observations & Recommendations DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 144 • Land use categories are provided and applied to each of the various zoning districts. This provides signiflcant clarity in applying land uses in each of the zones as the same terminology is being applied and considered creating more consistency and ease of application. • Conditional uses could be reduced, to promote the mixture of uses within the same building or property. Infrastructure capacity and exterior building design guidelines can help. • The code puts the Community Development Director, or designee, in discretionary situations when discussing and granting various allowances. This becomes challenging from a parity standpoint in applying land use ordinances and can cause circumstances where various determinations might be politicized. State Statutes • Conditional use permit procedures should ensure that decisions are based on “substantial evidence” and must adhere to clear and reasonable conditions as required under § 62.23(7)(de). This should be emphasized in the city’s conditional use permit criteria. Article VI. Overlay Zoning Districts Key Requirements • The City currently has 10 established overlay zoning districts that are represented on the Official Zoning Map. These are designed to address and consider speciflc kinds of development including: large-scale governmental, office, educational, medical, research and development facilities, fioodplains, planned development areas, riverfront, shoreland, traditional and neo-traditional well-maintained historic residential homes, neo-traditional residential development, university campus and surrounding developments and parking requirements exemptions. • Within this section, ordinance enforcement and penalties are speciflcally addressed for the Floodplain Overlay Zoning District. Observations & Recommendations • Several overlay districts can create a more complex zoning land use review if subjective design criteria are a part of regulation. This requires frequent code updates to ensure that the original goals and protections that were planned for the overlay districts are adjusted accordingly based on implementation. Article VII. Performance Standards Key Requirements • The City has established standards and minimum requirements for group and large developments, vehicle access, bicycle and pedestrian access, visibility, off - street parking and traffic circulation, off-street loading, exterior lighting, exterior storage, fencing, and outdoor recreational space. The purpose of this being through established standards ensuring group and large developments are properly located and compatible with surrounding areas and the community character of the city as a whole. Common examples of group developments include apartment or condominium complexes with 24 or more units, commercial centers, shopping centers, and office centers with 3 or more buildings. A large DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 145 development is deflned as a new development containing any single building where the area of the building footprint exceeds 50,000 square feet, which may include big-box commercial uses. • There are six zoning districts, three of which are overlay zones, that are exempt from the requirements of this section. Additionally, structures within City parks and nonresidential buildings where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, or designee, that any principal building can be subsequently subdivided in conformance with code. • The review and approval standards for this require that all group and large developments obtain a conditional use permit regardless of whether individual uses within the development are permitted by right within the applicable district. • Large Development rules require that building placement and site layout be evaluated. There are also requirements that the City may choose to impose in accordance with City Code. The challenge with code language that provides options for requirement is that applicants often read this and see that it is something the city does not have to but chooses to require, this can lead to a perspective that the entity is being called-out or required to do more than other development groups at the leisure of the city, even though it is more than likely that staff is being very thoughtful when choosing to require these additional elements with a proposal. • Through the site plan review process, the Director of Community Development, or designee, shall review and approve all proposed driveways and other access points on the subject property. • Through the site plan review process, the Director of Community Development, or designee, shall review and approve all development for conformance with this section. The Director also can require a parking study to determine parking requirements. Where a parking study is required, the study shall contain information on the anticipated number of employees, customers, visitors, clients, shifts, events, or deliveries to the use, and may refer to other studies or similar situations elsewhere. • Vehicular access easements may be approved with cross access easement approval by the City Attorney and flled with the Register of Deeds. • Legally non-conforming lots that don’t meet the minimum setbacks required can be reconstructed with reduced setbacks, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. • The completion of parking requirements may be phased upon approval of the Director of Community Development, with plans including a depiction of the minimum number of required parking spaces. The Director may also permit joint or shared use parking facilities and for joint, day-night use parking to occur based on conditions outlined in City Code. Approval of the day-night joint parking also requires a written legal agreement that is approved by the City Attorney and recorded at the Register of Deeds. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 146 • Off-street parking and circulation areas and required screening and landscaping shall be continuously maintained in good condition and appearance. • There are also built in limitations for parking off -street requiring that all vehicles are registered and display current license plates. Vehicles or equipment not normally associated with a residential use cannot be parked or stored outdoors. There are some challenges with verifying the legality of vehicle registration as well as some vagueness in interpreting and determining the safety of a vehicle in an off-street parking situation. • Off-street parking within residential districts only allow for the parking of passenger vehicles, with a maximum of one commercial vehicle per dwelling unit on residential property provided that the vehicle is used by a resident of that unit, is 10,000 pounds or less, and is less than 21 feet in length. A motor truck, truck trailer, semitrailer or any other vehicle or combination of vehicles, weighing more than 10,000 pounds. Recreational vehicles or motor homes are permitted in a driveway or other legal off-street parking space. • Exterior lighting standards are codifled with a stated purpose to provide illumination levels on sites for function and safety as well as regulating spillover of light and glare on vehicles, pedestrians and nearby land uses to promote traffic safety. Given that this section explicitly addresses the traffic code, it is more than likely that the Police Department would be the enforcement agency. However, depiction of lighting is also included as part of site plan review. There are also requirements to use shielded luminaries with careful flxture placement. The Code provides excellent and measurable detail regarding the permissible allowable lighting levels, also describing the location of flxtures and limiting their placement in buffer yards or within minimum setbacks and also requiring flxtures to be faced downward with no direct light allowed to be transmitted onto adjacent properties. • Fences are reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, or designee, and require a building permit, unless the proposed fence requires a conditional use permit. • This section of code describes the requirements of a building owner to address the vacancy of a building – including submittal of a written statement with contact information of those who are in control of the property and building, and various code enforcement requirements related to this. The flrst year of vacancy requires the installation of a flre department access box for annual flre inspection, as determined necessary. After flve years of vacancy, the city completes a comprehensive maintenance review of the property and may require the property owner to meet the standards of the Property Maintenance and Building Codes. After ten years of vacancy, if a building is not maintained, the city may require the site to be cleared of all improvements and returned to vegetative ground cover. Observations & Recommendations • The requirement to obtain a conditional use permit regardless of whether individual uses within the development are permitted by right within the applicable DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 147 district is problematic. Either the use is permitted by right or requires a conditional use permit. It cannot be listed with varying requirements in the code. • The possible requirement for a small area plan is particularly challenging as this requires possible consideration and approval by the Plan Commission and City Council, which extends the timeline for a flnal determination in some cases. The language describes the small area plan being prepared is a determination of the Plan Commission, which may also extend timelines and review periods. One consideration here is whether these are or should be typically required and if so, why this requirement isn’t in place for all developments of this nature. Another consideration could be that the small area plan determination lies with the Director of Community Development. • Further clariflcation is needed to deflne department and division roles for code enforcement. The code provides good mechanisms for enforcement but a lack of clarity of responsibility can cause this to be inconsistent and disordered. • The code provides very well described and thorough fencing standards. Requiring a building permit for all fencing isn’t best practice, as there are ways to regulate fencing through adopted design standards and height requirements, with fencing of certain heights and materials requiring a building permit but generally allowing these according to city established standards. • Some language reflnement, particularly around discretionary elements and multi- agency responsibilities would bolster transparency and improve defensibility in cases of dispute or appeal. These changes would also help align the City’s practices more clearly with administrative law principles of fairness and predictability. State Statutes • The use of administrative authority is consistent with Wis. Stat. §62.23(7), and the maintenance of nonconforming standards and land use intensity matches statutory fiexibility. Article VIII. Exterior Building Design Standards Key Requirements • This section regulates the design and materials of buildings to enhance the attractiveness and values of property in the community. These standards are deemed applicable to new construction, additions, and alterations, and do not include ordinance repairs or maintenance. There are exceptions and appeals applicable within this section as well. Additional building design standards may apply to group and large developments, conditional use permits, planned development overlay districts and campus overlay districts. • Through the building permit and/or site plan review process, the Community Development Department is responsible and has authority to hear, review, and act upon all proposed exterior architectural plans for all proposed development. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 148 • No existing window or door openings on any façade or gable end shall be boarded up – with temporary closure permitted for a period not exceeding 30 days to protect a broken window, secure the property, etc. • Director of Community Development, or designee, has the ability to approve the appropriateness of porches, decks and patios constructed in keeping with the architectural style of the building. § 30 -241(C)(3) • In the Special Areas – Central Mixed Use District (CMU) Design Standards, Riverfront Overlay District (RF-O) Design Standards, – it is described that Plan Commission review and approval may be required, but without further detail included as to the circumstances when this requirement might go into effect. • (b) Plan Commission review and approval may be required. The three categories and procedural requirements for review and approval are described fully in Section 30-386. • Much of this section addresses the standards for new construction for exterior building materials. This wisely goes into depth standards for residential, commercial, industrial and special areas within the city. • Architectural standards are provided in great depth with flgures and examples providing detailed imagery and description of what the city intends to require and achieve with the code language included. Observations & Recommendations • Frequent updates of design standards are important to ensure that implementation of standards is achieving the design results the City hopes to achieve. • Design guidelines are also included in some of the overlay districts. This can create a somewhat complex zoning and land use review. • Clear thresholds or conditions should be added to identify when Plan Commission involvement is triggered, improving predictability for applicants and consistency in enforcement. • Include or reference decision-making criteria for administrative approvals to ensure compliance with procedural due process and prevent arbitrary enforcement. • While the Director of Community Development's authority is deflned, consider adding procedural guidance or criteria for decision-making—this could help ensure consistency, reduce subjectivity, and clarify the appeals process. • Consider consolidating references to Plan Commission review and approval (e.g., Section 30-386) with a short summary in this section or a reference table that outlines what triggers each review step. State Statutes DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 149 • These requirements are consistent with local authority under Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7), which permits municipalities to adopt zoning and development -related ordinances that promote the public health, safety, aesthetics, and general welfare. Article IX. Landscaping Requirements Key Requirements • Landscaping requirements are established for any use that requires site plan approval but is not applicable retroactively to existing buildings, structures, or paved areas, unless an existing building exceeds 50% of the existing fioor building or site paved areas. The Director of Community Development and Plan Commission, together, have the authority to allow alterations to landscaping plans and have the authority to require the modiflcation of any landscaping plan to better meet aesthetic, environmental, and stormwater goals or objectives. • Installation of any and all landscaping required materials is required to be installed on the subject property within 365 days of the issuance of an occupancy permit for any building on the subject property. The exact placement of plants and structures shall be depicted on a required detailed landscaping plan submitted to the City for approval. Upon completion of the approved landscape improvements, a certiflcation of compliance shall be submitted by the owner or agent. Observations & Recommendations • A bond or other flnancial guarantee could be utilized to ensure that landscaping requirements are met within the prescribed 365 days. State Statutes • These requirements are consistent with local authority under Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7), which permits municipalities to adopt zoning and development -related ordinances that promote the public health, safety, aesthetics, and general welfare. Article X. Signage Key Requirements • This addresses application of the sign code and when permits are required, taking into consideration nonconforming status and basic maintenance, new and replaced signs generally require a permit. The speciflc contents of the sign permit application are also addressed within the code and require that signs be considered in accordance with Building and Electrical Codes. Signs are required to be properly maintained for safety, with improperly maintained signs requiring repair or upon notice of the Director of Community Development, subject to removal. • Signs that encroach into the right-of-way require an encroachment agreement from the city prior to placement of any sign that extends into or over a public right - of-way. In addition, installation of all signs extending over any right-of-way shall be erected by a licensed sign installer and require that a certiflcate of insurance or a sufficient bond is flled with the City Clerk. Observations & Recommendations DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 150 • This and other code sections may be speaking to the elements where Planning is doing the code enforcement versus inspections, although with both divisions under the same department this is unclear. One deliverable that might be helpful to recommend would be a breakdown of responsibilities for enforcing various elements of the code. • Additional clarifying language is needed to deflne w hat qualifles as a licensed sign installer and to help distinguish why some signs are held to this standard and others are not. • The code does not distinguish who is responsible to review signs that lose their nonconforming status and to provide notiflcation of such. State Statutes • Wis. Admin. Code § SPS 361.30 mandates that alterations or new construction adhere to applicable building codes. Additionally, the provision requiring that signage be maintained in a safe condition is consistent with local authority per Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7). This section appears to align with state requirements. Article XI. Administration and Procedures Key Requirements • This establishes responsibilities for the administration of the zoning ordinance, and the enforcement procedures and penalties for non -compliance. This also establishes procedures for zoning text amendments, zoning map amendments, and various development approvals, including conditional use permits, temporary use permits, variances, certiflcates of occupancy, and site plan review and approval. Observations & Recommendations • There is more opportunity for the Council to add here more description about the approach and policies concerning how best to address the building code and code enforcement more generally as a collaborative effort between the divisions and the Police Department. • It appears that every staff member in this department could be considered a designee and as such is provided with speciflc authorization to act and perform the responsibilities tasked of the Director as additional direction is provided. As such, it’s important that expectations are made abundantly to ensure that every tasks is being performed in accordance with code and needed records are being compiled and stored as required. State Statutes • From a review and compliance standpoint, the language appears consistent with the framework provided in Wis. Stat.§ 62.23, which governs city zoning authority. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 151 4.1 COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS Overall, the City’s code governing the development review process is well -written, comprehensive, and thoughtfully structured. It refiects a deliberate and organized approach to presenting complex regulatory information in a manner that is accessible and deflnitive. A particular strength of the code lies in its effort to differentiate between what is permitted and what is prohibited. This is further supported by the inclusion of contextual explanations, illustrative graphics, and explanatory notes that help clarify the rationale behind provisions and the outcomes they are designed to achieve. These features improve usability and help demystify regulatory intent. The City has deflned terminology that outlines when requirements are mandatory versus when they may be applied at staff discretion or based on speciflc site conditions. This sets expectations for applicants and establishes paths for application of the code. Nonetheless, there are opportunities for improvement. Simplifying some of the language to use more plain and direct terms would increase readability. In addition, removing outdated or duplicative content and improving clarity regarding departmental roles and lines of reporting would further strengthen the code’s effectiveness. Certain areas—particularly those related to building permits—would beneflt from more explicit guidance on what work requires a permit, particularly comparing these to what is required for permitting within industry standards. Revisiting these thresholds and considering the removal of permitting requirements for minor improvements that are commonly exempt in other communities could streamline processes. 4.2 CONSIDERATIONS Through this analysis, the following items have been identifled as possible considerations for modiflcations to the City’s Code. • Encourage proactive engagement with a broad range of stakeholders —including builders, developers, architects, planners, code officials, and citizens—to gather input on code elements and identify opportunities for clariflcation, streamlining, or improvement . Stakeholder feedback can offer valuable insights into practical challenges, unintended barriers, and evolving industry practices that may not be fully addressed in the current code. • Consider developing summary materials or user-friendly guides that translate code requirements into clear, accessible language. These overviews should highlight key standards, common application errors, and approval timelines to support greater transparency and consistency in the development review process. Visual aids and fiowcharts may be useful in helping applicants understand expectations. • Establish a cross-departmental code review task force that meets on a regular basis to review code-related issues, discuss trends in enforcement and interpretation, and propose coordinated improvements. This group could also review new state requirements, evaluate the effectiveness 4. SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 152 of current procedures, and prepare draft modiflcations for public and Council consideration. A structured, collaborative approach will help ensure the City’s code remains functional, equitable, and responsive to changing needs. • Overall, the code provides excellent visual diagrams for land use requirements to show how different standards are considered and apply with relation to a site plan. Similar visual diagrams could be included in the building and inspections code to provide additional detail and further clarity of requirements. • While legally sound, the ordinances could beneflt from plainer language or a public summary section to improve accessibility for residents and property owners unfamiliar with legal terminology. Additionally, it is appropriate to consider removing gender speciflc language and using gender-neutral language. • There are portions of the code that weigh heavily into having the Director of Community Development, or designee, create rules and interpretations of the Code. Some of these areas are logical and appropriate; however, with some of these being broadly or subjectively applied based on staff interpretation or preference, this can create some challenging circumstances. • Evaluate current building permit requirements regarding health and safety, determining some permit items that may not be relevant for continued inspection in relation to industry best practices. To ensure effective and equitable enforcement of property maintenance standards, the City could adopt a tiered code enforcement strategy that prioritizes health and safety concerns while introducing a notice-flrst approach for aesthetic-only violations. • Updates to current policies and procedures, including needed subdivision and other code updates. This includes needing to identify a clear process and staffing roles and responsibilities when it comes to updating City Code, policies and procedures. • Clarify who is responsible in addressing the various nuisance and code violations. • Deflne inspection warrant process in code to create parity and make this clearly applicable for both staff and residents. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 153 APPENDIX C: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT As part of the developmental review study, a comparative assessment was conducted of development review, permitting, and inspection operations in other Wisconsin communities. The comparative is designed to gain insight into how peer communities organize, staff, and operate their development review functions. The table below details the Wisconsin communities selected by the City’s project team for this assessment. City Population Oshkosh 66,816 Appleton 75,644 Eau Claire 70,542 Fond du Lac 104,154 Green Bay 107,395 La Crosse 51,327 Neenah 27,319 The following analysis encompasses each of the topics researched – both via searching online and conversations with department staff. Major points of comparison identifled for the study were: • Organizational Structure • Staffing • Building Code Elements • Building Plan Review Approaches • Application Review Timeline Goals • 2024 Workload This assessment does not provide an analysis of the relative merits of different approaches taken by these peer communities; flndings will be used to inform the analysis and recommendations that will be provided in the flnal report. 1. INTRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 154 2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The flrst part of the assessment sought to describe where p lanning, inspections, engineering, code enforcement, economic development, and assessors are located within the city organizational structure. The table below summarizes these results with the names of departments who house each of these operations. Table Key Community Development (or similar) Public Works & Engineering Admin & Finance Police Department City Planning Inspections Economic Development Code Enforcement Engineering Assessors Oshkosh Community Development Community Development Community Development Community Development Public Works Community Development Appleton Community & Economic Development Community & Economic Development Community & Economic Development Community & Economic Development Public Works Community & Economic Development Eau Claire Community Development Community Development Community Development Community Development Engineering Finance Fond du Lac Community Development Community Development Community Development Community Development Public Works Administrative Services (Contracted) Green Bay Community & Economic Development Community & Economic Development Community & Economic Development Community & Economic Development Public Works Administrative Services La Crosse Planning & Development Building & Inspections Planning & Development Building & Inspections Engineering & Public Works Planning & Development Neenah Community Development Community Development Community Development Police Dept Public Works Community Development It is evident that majority of cities have a Community Development (or similar title) department which oversees planning, inspections, economic development, and code enforcement. The two exceptions to this are Neenah, where code enforcement is handled by the Police Departmen t, and La Crosse where there are two departments: Planning & Development and Building & Inspections. Nearly all cities house engineering departments within their Public Works Department, with the exception of Eau Claire which has a separate Engineering Department. Cities differed on the organizational structure of the assessor’s office, with four handling assessment within the Community Development Department and three cities having Assessors under Administrative/Financial Departments. Fond du Lac was the only city with a contracted third-party 2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE & STAFF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 155 assessment team: Catalis Tax & CAMA, Inc, whose obligations are managed by the Administrative Services Department. 2.2 STAFFING The next section of the assessment asked for the staff titles and counts within these departments and divisions to get a better understanding of the micro-structure of city organization. Please note that FTE counts are estimates, and it may be the case tha t not all staff listed work speciflcally on development review. City Total FTE Planning FTE Inspections FTE Engineering FTE Assessment FTE Code Enf. FTE Other FTE Oshkosh 34.00 10.00 9.50 4.00 5.00 0.50 5.00 Appleton 26+ 4.00 8.00 Unknown 5.00 1.00 8.00 Eau Claire 30+ 4.00 Unknown 19.00 5.00 0.00* 2.00 Fond du Lac 22.00 4.70 5.30 12.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 Green Bay 64.00 13.00 15.00 24.00 5.00 0.00* 7.00 La Crosse 49.00 11.00 14.00 19.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 Neenah 18.67 1.00 3.00 7.00 2.67 1.00 4.00 *City has code enforcement operations, but no designated code enforcement position The table above shows the FTE count for staff in planning, inspections, engineering, code enforcement, and assessment. The “Other” column represents positions related to Development Review but not easily flt into the 5 categories analyzed. These are mostly administrative positions such as Director of Development or Administrative Assistant. Some positions are more specialized, such as Community Development Specialists or GIS Coordinators. It is important to note that these FTE counts may have inaccuracies as it may be common for people in certain positions to work in multiple areas and may not be involved in development -related activities.. Area counts were determined based on division/department names and staff titles. It is evident that the City of Oshkosh is in the middle for FTE count for these operations. All cities with relatively high FTE counts (Green Bay – 64 and La Crosse - 49) show higher staff levels across all areas of community development, with relatively similar FTE counts for each area. On the lower end are Neenah and Fond du Lac with 18.67 FTE and 22 FTE respectively, each with similarly low counts in each area. Information about the FTE for the Engineering Division of Appleton and the Inspections Division of Eau Claire was not found. The total FTE count refiected in the table includes all found FTE counts with a “+” symbol to indicate there are additional (unknown) positions not included in the count. • Eau Claire is likely in the middle range for total FTE count if their inspections staffing is consistent with other cities, although their planning department has a relatively low count while engineering has a relatively high count. • Appleton is also likely in the lower-middle range for total FTE count if their engineering staffing is consistent with other cities. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 156 Lists of all positions (titles and counts) for each city and each department can be found in Appendix A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 157 3.1 BUILDING CODE All cities have fully adopted the State Residential Building Code. Two of the listed cities (Eau Claire and La Crosse) have amendments related to flre safety in speciflc zones. City Adopted the State Residential Building Code? Local Amendments Oshkosh Yes Yes Appleton Yes None Eau Claire Yes Yes – Special Building District Fond du Lac Yes None Green Bay Yes None La Crosse Yes Yes – Downtown Fire Limits Neenah Yes None Eau Claire Special Building District (Building Code Sec. 16.04.360) • Special Building District deflned as areas containing congested business and commercial uses which have buildings located in close proximity to one another. • Building restrictions summary: o Construction Type Requirements: All new buildings and additions must use flre-resistant construction types I–IV (per Wisconsin Commercial Building Code). Wood -frame additions are only allowed if they meet these standards. Exterior wood-frame walls may be replaced with noncombustible materials if facing a street, alley, or open court. o Limitations on Combustible Materials: Decorative combustible materials on older buildings are tightly restricted based on distance from property lines (e.g., 0% allowed if within 10 feet). New buildings must comply with state code for exterior combustible flnishes. o Restrictions on Damaged Structures: If a wood-frame building is damaged beyond 50% of its value, it must be removed rather than rebuilt—unless designated as a historic landmark and approved for exemption. La Crosse Fire Limits Construction Rules (Building Code Sec. 103-98) • No wood frame or ordinary combustible construction is allowed for new buildings or extensions within the flre limits. • Speciflc limited exceptions (e.g., small garages, sheds, or certain open structures). 3.2 LIST OF PERMITS All cities have a centralized list of (at least most common) required building permits. The table below contains links to city websites where the lists can be found along with a description of each. City Has centralized list of required building permits? Link to List List Description 3. BUILDING CODE & PERMITS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 158 Oshkosh Yes Permits List of projects which require permits vs. not. Links to applications at the bottom of the page. Building guides for common permits. Appleton Yes Permits & Applications List of all permits and applications with weblinks for each with instructions. Unclear if all permits are listed but appears fairly exhaustive. Eau Claire Yes Building Permits Guide for when a permit is needed with lists of Building vs. Land Use Permits. Note that “The lists above are not all inclusive. Final determination is made by Planning & Development” Fond du Lac Yes Permit Forms & Fee Schedule Guiding packets for common permits such as Fences, Decks, and Garages. List appears non-exhaustive, common basic permits are listed with instructions. Green Bay Yes Permit Guides, Forms, & Fees List of PDF permit guides with instructions, forms, and a submittal checklist. Unclear if all permits are listed but appears exhaustive. La Crosse Yes Construction Related Permits List of all construction permits and associated fees. Neenah Yes Website notes list is on Evolve (need account to view) Unknown Most permit lists include guides for the most common and simple permits such as decks, garages, and fences. Some include fees, and others include clear checklists of documents that need to be submitted with the application. Overall, cities appear to have centralized locations for information on permit types and application steps, though the information provided varies. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 159 5.1 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW All cities perform residential plan review in-house, and most contract commercial plan review to either the State of Wisconsin Department for Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) or a third party (E-Plan Exam). The only two communities who perform all plan review in-house are La Crosse and Fond du Lac. City In-House Plan Review Contracted to E-PLAN EXAM Contracted to DSPS Oshkosh Residential Commercial - Appleton Residential Commercial - Eau Claire Residential New Building or Addition + Existing Building = <50,000 cubic feet Addition < 2,500 square feet on one fioor level, roof <18 ft, exterior wall <12 ft Alteration in building <100,000 cubic feet - Commercial, HVAC Fond du Lac All - - Green Bay Residential Commercial - La Crosse All - - Neenah Residential Commercial - One respondent shared that he has worked in the industry for many years and it has become necessary to use a third-party plan reviewer as the state has not provided enough resources to keep up with demand. A few other respondents mentioned their use of a third party sped up review times as they have been traditionally more efficient than state reviewers (DSPS). Another mentioned there are city staff trained and designated to conduct commercial plan review, but the city lacks resources to hire enough planners to keep up with demand. 5.1 PERFORMANCE GOALS FOR APPLICATION REVIEW Some cities have adopted performance goals for application review. The details of these goals (obtained mostly through phone calls with staff) are detailed in the table below. City Performance Goals? Description Oshkosh Yes All Plan Review 5 business days for reviewers to add comments Appleton Yes Site Plan Review (based on Completeness Check within 10 calendar days 4. PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 160 City Performance Goals? Description Final decision within 90 calendar days Commercial Plan Review 7 calendar days average review time (loose goal) Eau Claire No Speciflc Goals - Green Bay Yes All Building Permits Tell the applicant 2 weeks review, internal goal is 1 week review time “Simple” Permits 1-week review time La Crosse Yes All Applications 1 week between application and pre-meeting 1 week from application submission to start of the review 1-3 weeks total for review time Neenah No Speciflc Goals - Most cities have some type of application review goal, particularly those with larger planning departments (per FTE count in Section 2.2 Staffing). The City of Green Bay and the City of La Crosse both adopt goals within a 3-week turnaround time. The City of Appleton staff mentioned a 7 -day average for commercial plan review as the loose goal, and their site plan review application notes other guide lines such as the 10-day completeness check and 90-day flnal decision timeline. Other cities do not have speciflc performance goals, but some noted on the phone that they have fast turnaround times and haven’t found a need to set goals. No information was found for the City of Fond du Lac, which is why they were not included in this table. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 161 The table below shows the total number of planning applications, residential building permits, commercial building permits, and code enforcement cases in 2024. While this section showed the least success in data collection efforts, some insights can be drawn. City 2024 Planning Applications 2024 Residential Building Permits 2024 Commercial Building Permits 2024 Code Enforcement Cases Oshkosh 441 4995 500 342* Appleton 205 1100 199 918 Green Bay 84 3432 344 2498 La Crosse 25 331 92 1866 Neenah 55 Unknown Unknown 518 *Detonates cases prosecuted instead of total cases (complaints) The table above shows a large range in workload among the cities. • Oshkosh had the highest number of planning applications at 441, and La Crosse had the lowest number at just 25. • Oshkosh also had the highest number of building permits in both categories, while the city of La Crosse had the lowest number for each. • Green Bay had the highest number of code enforcement cases (2,498) and Neenah had the lowest (518) based on available data. Overall, the City of Oshkosh appears to have a relatively high workload, along with the City of Green Bay. Neenah and La Crosse had the lowest workload based on available data, and Appleton was somewhere in the middle for all except planning applications. 5. WORKLOAD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 162 List of positions for all development review related departments in each city. Lists include titles and counts, no personal details. APPENDIX I: FULL LIST OF POSITIONS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 163 SHKOSH 52 Total FTE Community Development Department Admin (3 FTE) 1 Director of Community Development 1 Assistant Director of Community Development 1 Administrative Assistant Assessor Services Division (5 FTE) 1 City Assessor 3 Property Appraiser 1 Assistant Appraiser Economic Development (2 FTE) 2 Economic Development Specialist Inspection Services Division (10 FTE) 1 Chief Building Official 1 Office Assistant 3 Building Systems Inspectors 3 Commercial Bldg. Systems Inspector 1 Inspector 1 Inspection Technician (Weights & Measures/Code Enforcement) Planning Services Division (10 FTE) 1 Planning Services Manager 2 Principal Planner 1 Planner 1 Assistant Planner 1 Associate Planner 1 Zoning Administrator 2 Office Assistants 1 Housing Specialist Public Works Department: Engineering Division Engineering (22 FTE) 1 Engineering Manager/City Engineer 1 Civil Engineering Supervisor 1 Construction Management Supervisor 1 Principal Civil Engineer 5 Civil Engineers 4 Civil Engineer Techs I 3 Civil Engineering Tech II 4 Civil Engineering Tech Program Coord. 1 Utility Locator I 1 Office Assistant APPLETON 26+ Total FTE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 164 Community Development Department Department (26 FTE) Admin (2 FTE) 1 Community Development Director 1 Administrative & Accounting Services Specialist Community Development (10 FTE) 1 Deputy Director of Community Development 3 Principal Planner 3 GIS Specialist 1 Housing Coordinator 1 Community Development Specialist 1 Economic Development Specialist Assessors (5 FTE) 1 City Assessor 1 Property Assessor III 2 Property Assessor II 1 Real Property Lister Inspections (9 FTE) 1 Inspections Supervisor 1 Building Inspector – Commercial 1 Building Inspector – Residential 1 Plumbing Inspector – Commercial 1 Plumbing Inspector – Residential 2 Electrical Inspector – Residential & Commercial 1 Erosion Control Inspector 1 Code Compliance Inspector Public Works Department ENGINEERING DIVISION UNKNOWN Public Works Department (43.66 FTE) NEENAH 18.67 Total FTE Community Development Department Department (10.67 FTE) 1 Director of CD/Assessment 1 Deputy Director of CD/Assessment 1 Chief Building Inspector 1 Plumbing & Mech. Inspector 1 Assistant Building Inspector 1 GIS Coordinator 1 Assistant Planner 1 Property Appraiser II 1 Property Appraiser I 1 Community Dev. Specialist 0.67 Admin Asst/Assessor Tech DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 165 Public Works Department: Engineering Division Engineering (7 FTE) 1 Director of Public Works 1 Civil Engineer III 1 Civil Engineer II 1 Traffic Engineer 1 Engineering Technician 1 Construction Inspector/Engineering Aide 1 Office Manager Other Departments Police Department – Code Enforcement (1 FTE) 1 Code Enforcement Officer GREEN BAY 64 Total FTE Community Development Department Department (35 FTE) Operations & Admin (7 FTE) 1 Development Director 1 Deputy Development Director 1 Administrative Operations Manager 1 Development Support Specialist 2 Inspection Support Specialist 1 Accountant Inspections (15 FTE) 1 Inspection Supervisor 4 Housing Inspector 3 Neighborhood Compliance Inspector 1 Architect/Commercial Building Inspector 1 Commercial Building Inspector 3 Building Inspectors 1 City Sealer, Weights and Measures 1 Residential Housing Investigator Planning and Projects (13 FTE) 1 Zoning Administrator/Senior Planner 1 Principal Planner 1 Planner I 1 Planner II 1 Real Estate Specialist 1 Economic Development Specialist 1 Neighborhood Support Specialist 1 Neighborhood Development Specialist 1 Design Specialist 2 Homeless Outreach Case Coordinator 1 Project and Program Manager (Economic Opportunity) 1 Public Arts Coordinator DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 166 Public Works Department Engineering Division of Department (24 FTE) Project Development & Construction Services (16 FTE) 1 Assistant Public Works Director 1 Assistant City Engineer 3 Civil Engineer I 1 Construction Manager 4 Engineering Technician 5 Engineering Aide 1 Project Coordinator Special Projects (5 FTE) 1 Facilities Manager 1 Civil Engineer I 1 Civil Engineer II 2 Engineering Technician Tralfic Section (3 FTE) 1 Civil Engineer III 1 Right of Way Specialist 1 Engineering Technician Administrative Services – Assessor’s Olfice Assessor’s Olfice (5 FTE) 1 City Assessor 4 Appraiser II + Contracted Staff EAU CLAIRE 30+ Total FTE Community Development Department Admin (2 FTE) 1 Director 1 Admin Associate Planning (4 FTE) 1 Planning Manager 2 Associate Planner 1 Assistant Planner INSPECTIONS DIVISION UNKNOWN Engineering Department Engineering (19 FTE) 1 Director 2 Deputy City Engineers 1 City Surveyor 2 Admin 4 Civil Engineers 1 Electrician 4 Engineering Techs 2 GIS Staff 1 Parking Admin 1 Project Manager DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 167 Other Departments Finance Department – Assessor’s Olfice (5 FTE) 1 Assessment Tech I 3 Property Assessor II 1 Deputy City Assessor LA CROSSE 49 Total FTE Planning & Development Department Planning (11 FTE) 2 Planner 1 Community Development Manager 1 Director of Planning, Development & Assessment 1 Economic Development Coordinator 1 Homeless Services Coordinator 1 Housing Specialist 1 Neighborhood Housing Development Coordinator 1 Administrative Specialist 1 Planning Manager 1 Program Compliance Specialist Assessment (4 FTE) 2 Appraiser II 1 Chief Assessor 1 Deputy City Assessor Building & Inspections Department Community Risk Management - Inspections (15 FTE) 1 Division Chief of Inspection 2 Captain Of Inspection Fire Department 1 Chief Building Inspector 1 Administrative Specialist - Inspections 1 Ordinance Technician/Floodplain Coordinator 1 CRR Specialist 1 Inspector II - Electrical 1 Inspector II - Housing 5 Inspector II – Plumbing 1 Code Enforcement Technician Public Works Department: Engineering Division Engineering (19 FTE) 1 Director of Engineering & Public Works 1 Deputy Director - Engineering & Public Works 1 Deputy Director - Public Works & Utilities 3 Civil Engineer EIT 3 Civil Engineer PE 1 GIS/CAD Specialist 1 Office Coordinator 2 Engineering Technician 2 Senior Engineering Technician 1 Sidewalk and ADA Coordinator 1 Public Works Locator & Code Enforcement Technician 1 City Surveyor/Construction Manager FOND DU LAC 22 Total FTE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 168 Community Development Department Community Development (4.7 FTE) Position titles and counts unknown Inspection (5.3 FTE) Position titles and counts unknown Public Works Department: Engineering Division Engineering (12 FTE) Position titles and counts unknown ** The City of Fond du Lac Assessor is Catalis Tax & CAMA, Inc. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 169 APPENDIX D: CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS The Matrix Consulting Group conducted a stakeholder survey as part of the development review study with the City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The online survey was conducted utilizing SurveyMonkey and distributed to prior customers of the City’s development review process via email. The intent of this survey was to gauge customer perception of the development review, permitting, and inspection processes in Oshkosh. The survey was sent to 5,815 prior City customers and received a total of 423 responses. This represents an overall participation rate of 7.2%. The survey was open from April 3 to May 5, 2025. To supplement the online survey, the project team conducted focus groups and individual conversations with past customers. This interim deliverable outlines the process utilized and the flndings from that effort. 1.1 KEY FINDINGS The following list summarizes several key flndings from the customer survey: • Staff Interactions Generally Positive, But Online Access and Clarity Need Improvement Most respondents praised City staff for being helpful and responsive, especially in person or over the phone. However, many found the City’s website difficult to navigate and reported confusion around permit requirements and documentation. • Experience Varies Sharply by Role, with Developers Reporting Most Frustration Engineers, contractors, and architects generally reported positive experiences, particularly in coordination and review clarity. In contrast, builders and property developers consistently expressed dissatisfaction, especially with unclear processes, delays , and inconsistent communication. • Mixed Feedback on the Development Review Process, with Calls for Greater Consistency While the majority of respondents were satisfled with customer service and the clarity of application comments, there was signiflcant frustration with the lack of consistency in the review process. Particularly, respondents noted frequent confiicts between different departments and unclear instructions, which led to delays and confusion. • Strong Desire for Better Communication, Simpliffed Regulations, and Faster Service Open-ended feedback emphasized the need for improved coordination across departments, fewer rules for simple projects, and faster review times. Many users also asked for clearer guidance and better online tools to reduce confusion and improve transparency. • The customer conversations were primarily negative in nature. This feedback contradicts the overall sentiment of the multiple choice feedback received in the survey. 1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 170 While the survey was anonymous, questions were included to understand the respondents' background and the response pattern differences by key demographics. The following sections summarize the demographics of the respondents. General survey questions were also analyzed by demographic data, shown in Appendix A. 2.1 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS What is your primary role in interacting with the development, permitting, and inspection activities? % # Homeowner 57.0% 241 Business Owner 11.6% 49 Contractor 11.6% 49 Builder 5.0% 21 Property Developer 2.6% 11 Architect / Designer 2.4% 10 Engineer 1.4% 6 Planner 0.2% 1 Environmental Consultant 0% 0 Other 8.3% 35 Homeowners were the highest responding group representing 56.97% of respondents, with 241 responses. The next largest groups were Business Owners and Contractors, each representing 11.58% of respondents. Among the lowest responding groups were Builders, Property Developers, Architects/Designers, Engineers and Planners. The 35 respondents who selected ‘Other’ specifled various roles that can be summarized by the following categories: Renting/Landowning Residents (8), Contractors & Technicians (6), Non-Proflt and Community Leaders (6), Developers & Remodelers (5), Other Jo bs Related to Land Use (4), Other Jobs Unrelated to Land Use (4), and 2 respondents who noted ‘N/A’ and ‘I live in town of Algoma. Do not Annex my township further’. 2. SURVEY RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 171 2.2 GENERAL SURVEY QUESTIONS Respondents were asked which development functions they commonly interact with. Which of these functions do you commonly interact with? % # Building Plan Review and Permits 52.48% 222 Inspections 47.04% 199 Planning and Zoning 31.91% 135 Engineering/Infrastructure Plan Review 11.58% 49 Other (please specify) 16.31% 69 ‘Building Plan Review and Permits’ received the highest response rate of 52.48%, with 222 respondents having interacted with this function. The lowest response rate was for ‘Engineering/Infrastructure Plan Review,’ with only 11.58% or 49 respondents claiming to have interacted with this function. The 69 respondents who selected ‘Other’ gave responses can be summarized by the following categories: Identifled Speciflc Work Performed (12), Permits & Planning (14), Other City Approval (4), Identifled Their Role in Community (9), Response said something to the effect of “None” (25), and Miscellaneous Not-Relevant Responses (5). The next demographic question asked was to assess how frequently the respondents interact with the City’s development process. How frequently do you interact with the City’s development process? % # Several times per month 8.75% 37 Several times per year 17.49% 74 Once or twice per year 19.39% 82 Less than once or twice per year 54.37% 230 54.37% of respondents interact with the City’s development process less than once or twice yearly. The fewest respondents interacted with the City’s development process several times per month, at 8.75%. The respondents were then asked when they most recently interacted with the City. When was your most recent interaction with the City? % # Within the last 3 months 31.44% 133 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 172 When was your most recent interaction with the City? % # Within the last 6 months 15.37% 65 Within the last 12 months 25.53% 108 Over 12 months ago 27.66% 117 72.34% of respondents reported engaging with Oshkosh’s development process within the last year, and nearly one third of respondents (31.44%) reported engaging within the last 3 months. The following sections asked participants about different parts of the development review process and their experience interacting with each part. The results are displayed in percentages showing the agreement or disagreement levels of the participants. Respondents could select “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Agree,” or “Strongly Agree” for several statements under each section of the development process. The multiple-choice responses were sorted by different demographics data to determine if there were any differences between roles (as identifled in question 1), which has also been included in Appendix B. 3.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS This section focuses on the respondents who interacted with the development review process. A total of 320 respondents had engaged in the planning and zoning review process. This section asked respondents to either agree or disagree with the following statement sets. # Statement SA A D SD 1 Permit intake and counter staff provided good customer service 26% 61% 9% 4% 2 Review staff provided good customer service 28% 52% 13% 7% 3 If I had a question about technical standards and requirements, it was easy to flnd the answer online 10% 41% 35% 14% 4 If I had a question about technical standards and requirements, it was easy to receive the answer by consulting a staff member 21% 49% 19% 10% 3. MULTIPLE-CHOICE SECTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 173 # Statement SA A D SD 5 If I had a question about the permit application and review process, it was easy to flnd the answer online 12% 48% 30% 11% 6 If I had a question about the permit application and review process, it was easy to receive the answer by consulting a staff member 24% 54% 16% 7% 7 The City's technology for submitting plans, checking project status, and requesting inspections was easy to use 14% 53% 22% 11% 8 The City's culture is one of facilitation more than regulation 12% 39% 25% 24% 9 It was easy to understand what permits and approvals were required to move forward with my project 13% 52% 23% 12% 10 It was easy to understand what I needed to submit with my application so that it could be reviewed 15% 54% 22% 9% 11 The City did a good job coordinating input from different teams/departments 14% 54% 21% 11% The overall agreement rate (strongly agree and agree) for all statements was above 50%, with the highest being 87.29% agreement for statement #1 and the lowest being 51.05% agreement for statement #3. The top four statements (#1, #2, #4, #6) with the highest agreement rate (>70%) all noted staff provided good customer service and it was easy for customers to receive answers to their questions through staff members. On the contrary, statements rating the ease of flnding information online were among those with the lowest agreement rate with 51% (#3) and 60% (#5). When evaluating the response rate by the respondent’s role in the development review process, perceptions of the city’s development review process varied notably by professional role. • Architects, contractors, and engineers consistently reported higher -than-average agreement across most areas, especially regarding staff helpfulness, online resources, and overall customer service. Architects stood out with high agreement on the usability of technical standards and online tools. • Builders and property developers frequently reported lower-than-average agreement, especially regarding clarity of requirements and customer service. • Business owners and homeowners tended to align more with the average but occasionally expressed lower satisfaction, particularly with staff interactions and the city's regulatory culture. Response rates by role are provided for each question in Appendix B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 174 3.2 PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS The next set of questions was focused on the planning and zoning process. A total of 107 respondents answered this set of statements. # Statement SA A D SD 1 I clearly understood what planning approvals / permits would be required for my project. 21% 48% 25% 7% 2 I clearly understood what information and documentation I needed to include when I submitted my application. 21% 48% 22% 9% 3 If my application required approval from the Plan Commission and/or Common Council, I understood the process and timeline for these public hearings. 23% 53% 19% 5% 4 I clearly understood who had the decision-making authority for my application. 19% 40% 32% 9% 5 The initial review of my application was complete and comprehensive. Additional comments were not provided later that should have been identifled in the flrst review. 16% 52% 22% 10% 6 If my application was reviewed by multiple entities, the City did a good job coordinating this input and providing a clear path forward to approval. 16% 53% 21% 10% 7 The comments I received on my application clearly cited what codes or standards needed to be addressed. 17% 55% 20% 8% 8 After receiving comments on my application, I clearly understood what changes were needed to achieve compliance. 17% 54% 18% 11% 9 The time it took to process my application was reasonable given the complexity of the project. 22% 40% 23% 15% The overall agreement rate for all statements in the planning and zoning process was between 59% and 75%, indicating majority positive responses. The statements with the highest agreement rate were #3 (understanding process and timeline for public hearings), #7 (application comments clearly cited codes/standards to be addressed), and #8 (respondent clearly understood changes needed based on application comments) with agreement rates over 70%. The statements with the lowest agreement rates were #9 (reasonable processing time) with 62% agreement and #4 (understood decision-making authority) with 59% agreement. Responses to these statements varied widely by role. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 175 • Contractors and engineers consistently reported higher agreement, including with clarity of required documentation, review processes, coordination across departments, and reasonable timelines. For statement #1, Engineers had a 100% agreement rate compared to the average 84%. • Architects tended to report above-average agreement, though with more mixed responses, especially on understanding documentation requirements (agreement of 63% opposed to 68% average on statement #2). • Builders and property developers gave more mixed or negative responses, particularly around clarity of processes and timelines, with property developers showing the highest rate of strong disagreement in several areas (37.5% strongly disagree for statements #5 and #7). • Business owners and homeowners generally reported agreement levels close to or below the overall average, often indicating confusion about the process or dissatisfaction with communication and timelines. Details of responses by role are presented in Appendix B. 3.3 BUILDING PROCESS The next set of questions focused on the building inspection process, with 176 respondents to the following statements. # Statement SA A D SD 1 I clearly understood what planning approvals / permits would be required for my project. 19% 57% 17% 7% 2 I clearly understood what information and documentation I needed to include when I submitted my application. 20% 53% 21% 6% 3 It was clear where I needed to submit my application (e.g., through the City's portal or the contractor (EPlan) portal). 19% 55% 19% 7% 4 The initial review of my application was complete and comprehensive. Additional comments were not provided later that should have been identifled in the flrst review. 20% 51% 19% 11% 5 If my application was reviewed by multiple entities (e.g., planning, engineering, flre) the City did a good job coordinating this input and providing a clear path forward to approval. 18% 53% 20% 9% 6 The comments I received on my application clearly cited what codes or standards needed to be addressed. 16% 55% 15% 13% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 176 # Statement SA A D SD 7 After receiving comments on my application, I clearly understood what changes were needed to achieve compliance. 18% 56% 16% 10% 8 The time it took to process my application was reasonable given the complexity of the project. 20% 56% 14% 10% 9 It was clear who to go to if I had questions about my application. 18% 55% 18% 10% Agreement rates for all statements were very similar and majority positive with a range of 70%-76%. When analyzing statements by role: • Engineers consistently reported the most positive experiences, with 0% disagreement and 100% agreement or strong agreement in nearly every category —signiflcantly above the overall average. Noting a sample size of only 6 engineers. • Builders and contractors also reported higher agreement rates, especially regarding understanding requirements and documentation, although builders showed a noticeable drop in satisfaction with the clarity of who to contact (59% agreement vs. 71% avg. on #9) and the completeness of initial reviews. • Property developers had disagreement rates far above the total average across almost all statements—particularly on whether the initial review was complete (80% disagreement vs. 26% avg. on #4) and whether the City coordinated inputs well (80% disagreement vs. 22% avg. on #5). • Homeowners and business owners had response patterns close to the overall average, though business owners reported somewhat higher disagreement around documentation and completeness of reviews. Details of responses by role are presented in Appendix B. 3.4 BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS The next set of questions focused on the building inspection process, with 169 respondents to the following statements. # Statement SA A D SD 1 I clearly understood what inspections were required for my building project. 22% 56% 15% 7% 2 It was easy to request and schedule a building inspection. 24% 62% 9% 5% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 177 # Statement SA A D SD 3 I was able to schedule the inspection for a convenient time. 21% 59% 14% 6% 4 If deflciencies were identifled during an inspection, inspectors indicated the code section at issue. 16% 56% 16% 13% 5 If deflciencies were identifled during an inspection, inspectors were helpful in explaining what I needed to do to address them. 20% 53% 17% 10% 6 Inspectors were fair and consistent in applying the codes and regulations to my project. 19% 54% 13% 13% 7 The process to obtain the flnal inspection/certiflcate of occupancy for my permit was efficient. 19% 59% 12% 10% All statements in this section also received similar agreement rates, with a range of 71% - 86%. Overall, this section had the highest agreement rates of the multiple choice section of the survey. The highest rated statements (#2 and #3) indicated respondents felt it was easy to request and schedule an inspection for a convenient time with agreement rates above 80%. Feedback varied by role. • Builders had high levels of agreement across nearly all statements, while contractors showed more concerns about fairness and clarity of deflciencies (though high agreement rates for the other statements). • Architects and engineers gave consistently favorable, though they did not indicate strong agreement in most areas. • Business owners and homeowners were closer to the average but showed some uncertainty, particularly around understanding deflciencies and inspection fairness. • Property developers reported some of the most negative experiences, particularly with inspector communication and fairness, and were the only group with a high rate of strong disagreement across multiple statements. For example, 83% of developers strongly disagreed with statements #4 and #6, compared to 10% and 23% averages respectively. 50% strongly disagreed with statement #5, compared to 8% average. Details of responses by role are presented in Appendix B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 178 3.5 ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW PROCESS The next set of questions focused on the engineering plan review process (including applications, permits, and inspections) for the City of Oshkosh. A total of 53 respondents answered this set of statements. # Statement SA A D SD 1 I clearly understood what engineering reviews / approvals would be required for my project. 8% 51% 30% 11% 2 The initial review of my engineering application or plan was complete and comprehensive. 8% 49% 33% 10% 3 After receiving comments on my application, I clearly understood how I needed to revise my plans. 12% 57% 18% 12% 4 Comments received outlining any deflciencies that were identifled, including the codes and standards that my plans did not meet. 10% 55% 24% 10% 5 The time it took to process my application was reasonable given the complexity of the project. 12% 48% 24% 16% 6 The engineering inspection requirements are clear. 11% 45% 28% 17% 7 The engineering closeout process is predictable. 9% 53% 23% 15% Overall, all statements received a majority response in agreement. The agreement rate ranged from 55% (#6 clear inspection requirements) to 69% (#3 understood revisions to be made based on comments). The statements with higher agreement spoke to clear application comments (#3 and #4), while the statements with lower agreement (#1, #2, and #6) noted less agreement with understanding the requirements and a comprehensive initial review. Responses varied by role, with engineers showing higher agreement rates across nearly all statements. • Architects and contractors showed mixed experiences —while architects generally agreed with the clarity of information provided, they reported gaps in understanding or predictability, particularly around the closeout process. • Contractors were more critical, especially on the completeness of initial reviews and clarity of inspection requirements. • Builders were split with strong agreement on timelines but high levels of disagreement about the review process itself. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 179 • Property developers and business owners had mixed to negative perceptions, with particularly low confldence in clarity, coordination, and predictability. • Homeowners reported higher disagreement and strong disagreement across several categories, especially around timelines and closeout clarity. Overall, engineers had the most favorable view of the engineering review process, while other roles — especially contractors and homeowners—expressed concerns about communication, consistency, and clarity. Details of responses by role are presented in Appendix B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 180 Respondents had the ability to provide narrative responses to three questions about Oshkosh’s development review, permitting, and inspection processes. This included a section to identify improvement opportunities and strengths in an open -ended section. Overall, a total of 133 narrative responses were received. Please note that some of the strengths or opportunities identifled in the open ended responses may contradict the multiple choice responses or narrative responses. The following section provides an overview of the responses received. 4.1 STRENGTHS OF THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT PROCESS A total of 104 responses were received related to current strengths. Key themes are summarized with examples below. • Staff is easily accessible, knowledgeable, and pleasant to work with (56 responses) These responses aligned with high agreement rates regarding staff interactions in the Development Review Statements #1-2. o “Knowledgeable personnel” o “Staff of planning was friendly and helpful” o “Every staff member I've worked with has been awesome” o “Considerate administrators, most individuals are able see the submission through the submitter's lens, very helpful” o “Planning staff are reachable to get answers to site plan questions, with good clear, defensible answers” o “Inspectors were knowledgeable and easy to work with” • Online process and ease of use (15 responses) o “Easy to navigate website.” o “Online permit applications & upload of permit coordinating documents” o “Ability to connect with staff through the online portal or email” o “Online current code book with revisions, its nice to see the current code book with revisions ” • Timely responses (14 responses) o “Quick turnaround time” o “Reasonable response time” o “Prompt Replies” • Remaining responses ranged from other positive themes (fair process, simple forms, streamlined process) to critiques (indicating there are no strengths, sarcastic comments, etc.). 80 of the 104 4. OPEN RESPONSE QUESTIONS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 181 responses (77%) were positive, while 24 (23%) indicated there were no strengths or made critical comments. 4.2 CHANGES THAT COULD BE MADE TO THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO ENHANCE QUALITY OF SERVICE 110 responses were received when respondents were asked for improvement opportunities to enhance the current processes and services. Key themes are summarized with examples below. • Better Communication & Coordination (40 responses) “Clear area to go for everything and not have to bounce between windows/department.” o “Communication regarding receipt of application” o “provide more proactive responses during plan review” o “Give follow up instructions when something is not approved.” o “Too many different contact points, unclear who to talk to at times for parking lot permitting ” o “Get all the departments involved on the same page.” o “Coordinating all different entities, stormwater, engineering, inspections, planning, etc for a clear concise process” o “Coordination between zoning, engineering, & inspections for those applying for a permit.” o “Inspectors don't communicate well between their own departments giving confiicting information sometimes” o “Inspection staff seem to have differing opinions when actually inspecting permits. Often confiicting ones.” • Minimize rules and regulations for simple projects (25 responses) This aligns with a very high strongly disagree rate (24%) on Development Review statement #8 regarding a culture of facilitation over regulation. o “Too many permits required for simple projects, should review when permits should be required” o “Excessive amount of rules and regulations ” o “I know there are rules to be followed, but sometimes they seem like overkill on relatively simple projects--and I am a rule followers.” o “Way too much permitting” o “I am learning that the City of Oshkosh is well known by the local contractor community for ‘excessive permitting requirements’ “ • Clear expectations & Consistency (20 responses) These comments contradict relatively high agreement rates on statements about understanding required approvals, permits, inspections, reviews, etc. for the project – suggesting the group who is confused about the requirements is likely in the minority. o “Improve clarity on requirements for common requests” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 182 o “Reworking ordinances to be less dense and easier to comprehend for laypeople.” o “More info on processes available to public” o “Access to codes. Example: a list of codes that will be applicable to a project ” o “Best practices and required materials for project. Example: What products should and should not be used in certain projects.” o “Lack of consistency” o “It’s difficult to tell if a permit is needed” o “Improve clarity on requirements for common requests” • Quicker Process (14 responses) o “Speed up the process even on the small projects it takes forever to get things to complete.” o “Need much faster response times” o “Quicker Turnaround when Possible” o “The process is slow and cumbersome.” • Improve Website (10 responses) o “Online permit site improvements” o “looking up information on permits on the online portal ” o “The language online was confusing” o “Online access to all city codes in regards to construction, renovation, etc..” • Some respondents mentioned prices being too high (8), along with other notable comments: o “I was brought on halfway through a project and will be assisting the head Architect, a cheat sheet of departments structure may be beneflcial ” o “We should provide free workshops for Oshkosh residents to learn how to develop a plan and meet the people they need to approve it.” o “I preferred when city staff did the plan reviews and not an outside contractor.” It is notable that several themes outlined in the strengths section were also noted in the improvements open responses, notably the functionality of the website and process turnaround times. This suggests mixed opinions from the customers surveyed, and is refiected in split agreement rates (close to 50% agreement) on statements about using the website (Development Review Statements #3 and #5) and turnaround times (Planning and Zoning Statement #9 and Engineering #5). While no patterns were noted among open-responses compared to role, there may be other factors not captured by this survey that would explain the variation (ex: how comfortable the respondent feels with technology, how familiar they are with typical processing times, etc.) 4.3 ADDITIONAL INPUT ABOUT OSHKOSH’S DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 80 responses were received in the additional input section. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 183 • Overall, the additional input was approximately 61% critiques, 13% compliments, 11% neutral comments, and 15% “N/A” or “No” type responses. • Notable Compliments (out of 10 submitted) o “It has been easy to correspond and work with city staff. As I mentioned above, I prefer that to outside contractors.” o “Oshkosh is the most helpful of any cities I deal with” • Notable Critiques (out of 49 submitted): o “Many architects and engineers that I contacted said it is very hard to work with the City of Oshkosh and wouldn't even take on my projects!” o “Many developers don't want to build in the City due to so many regulations.” o “The city of Oshkosh is hard to work with compared to other communities.” o “The scale of required permits is so ridiculous that I am actively looking at leaving this city due to it.” o “Highest restrictions and most difficult municipality to work with in the fox valley for stormwater/ site improvements.” o “Examples of information needed before arriving to better prepare people who don't do this often.” o “Expedite permitting process with registered local contractor ” o “Communication is key! A help line for questions would be extremely helpful! Patience with those that don’t understand the process.” Overall, the open-ended response aligned with the general sentiment of the multiple-choice responses received. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 184 To supplement the customer feedback in the survey, the project team held three in-person and one virtual focus groups between May 6 and 9. Focus groups were supplemented with individual phone calls with past customers. Overall, a total of 18 participated in discussions with the project team. Participants had interacted with the City’s development process and included homeowners, architects, contractors, and developers. The following themes were received from past customers. • Feedback focused on experiences with poor customer service from City staff. Focus areas included a lack of willingness of staff to provide detailed feedback on plan review comments, changing requirements to receive approval of plan review or inspections, a nd an unwillingness to help customers. • Several customers expressed concerns over the assessment value of their construction projects or tax assessments on their property when annexed into the City. • Excessive permit requirements for items that do not require permits in other jurisdictions. • Inspection and Engineering requirements that were perceived to be irrational, with no willingness to discuss alternative approaches. Several examples were provided where the individual felt that review and inspection staff were deflant. • Staff had a narrowly focused mindset and provided limited information on development review requirements for the City. Perception that staff only cared about their particular requirements and typically did not provide input on other requirements outside of the individual staff member’s processes. There was a perception of a lack of coordination between disciplines and City teams. • Overall perception that the City was anti -development and that they were difficult to work with. Speciflc examples included concerns over current and past City Council members, former City management, and several development staff members. Overall, the feedback received from past customers was primarily negative. Numerous examples were provided of poor customer service and the unwillingness of staff to work with customers to flnd a feasible solution. Verbal feedback contradicted the overall positive sentiment of the survey results. • 5. FOCUS GROUP FEEDBACK DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 185 General survey questions were also analyzed by role type, which is included below. The following table identifles the responses by role and how they interacted with the development process. Which of these functions do you commonly interact with? (check all that apply) Planning & Zoning Applications Engineering/ Infrastructure Plan Review Building Plan Review and Permits Inspections Other Architect / Designer 70% 70% 90% 50% 0% Builder 52% 14% 62% 81% 5% Contractor 29% 10% 61% 67% 6% Engineer 83% 83% 50% 17% 0% Planner 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Property Developer 82% 55% 73% 73% 9% Business Owner 55% 16% 49% 61% 8% Homeowner 21% 5% 51% 35% 20% The majority of people across all roles noted interacting with all four functions. Some exceptions are builders and contractors, who often noted no interaction with engineering/infrastructure plan review. Few contractors noted interaction with planning and zoning applications and few engineers noted interaction with inspections. Only 1 planner responded to the survey, and they noted only interacting with inspections and planning & zoning applications. Skilled professionals in the fleld notably different patterns to home and business owners, where nearly all functions showed interaction rates below 55%. It is also notable that 20% of homeowners selected the “Other” function, whereas other roles selected this option less than 10% of the time. The frequency of interactions with the development process was also analyzed by demographic data. How frequently do you interact with the City’s development process? Several times per month Several times per year Once or twice per year Less than once or twice per year Architect / Designer 10% 60% 30% 0% APPENDIX A: GENERAL SURVEY QUESTIONS BY ROLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 186 How frequently do you interact with the City’s development process? Several times per month Several times per year Once or twice per year Less than once or twice per year Builder 29% 38% 19% 14% Contractor 24% 43% 29% 4% Engineer 17% 50% 17% 17% Planner 0% 0% 100% 0% Property Developer 73% 27% 0% 0% Business Owner 8% 27% 24% 41% Homeowner 1% 3% 16% 79% 73% of Property Developers noted interacting with the city several times per month, by far the highest interaction rate. Homeowners showed the opposite trend as 79% noted interacting less than once or twice per year. The rest show interaction rates in the middle, with builders and contractors showing somewhat more frequent interaction than their engineer and architect/designer counterparts. The 1 planner respondent noted interacting once or twice per year, and business owners showed a range with a plurality (41%) noting interaction less than once or twice per year. Respondents were asked when they most recently interacted with the City, broken down by role below. Trends were similar to the interaction rate, except for home and business owners who were more likely to note a recent interaction than a frequent one. When was your most recent interaction with the City? Within the last 3 months Within the last 6 months Within the last 12 months Over 12 months ago Architect / Designer 50.00% 20.00% 20.00% 10.00% Builder 47.62% 28.57% 19.05% 4.76% Contractor 57.14% 22.45% 16.33% 4.08% Engineer 66.67% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% Planner 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Property Developer 90.91% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% Business Owner 42.86% 10.20% 32.65% 14.29% Homeowner 17.01% 14.52% 28.63% 39.83% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 187 APPENDIX B.1 DEVELOPMENT STATEMENTS RESPONSES BY ROLE #1 Permit intake and counter staff provided good customer service. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 31.25% 62.50% 0.00% 6.25% 3 Contractor 33.33% 61.54% 5.13% 0.00% 4 Engineer 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6 Property Developer 22.22% 44.44% 22.22% 11.11% 7 Business Owner 21.05% 68.42% 7.89% 2.63% 8 Homeowner 25.00% 61.59% 9.76% 3.66% 9 Total 25.00% 59.93% 7.88% 3.42% #2 Review staff (who answer technical questions and who review and comment on the application) provided good customer service. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 44.44% 44.44% 0.00% 11.11% 2 Builder 23.53% 52.94% 11.76% 11.76% 3 Contractor 35.90% 53.85% 7.69% 2.56% 4 Engineer 16.67% 50.00% 33.33% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 22.22% 33.33% 11.11% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 13.16% 63.16% 18.42% 5.26% 8 Homeowner 28.48% 53.80% 12.03% 5.70% 9 Total 25.68% 51.03% 11.99% 6.16% #3 If I had a question about technical standards and requirements, it was easy to ffnd the answer online. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 14.29% 71.43% 14.29% 0.00% 2 Builder 25.00% 18.75% 31.25% 25.00% 3 Contractor 15.79% 44.74% 28.95% 10.53% 4 Engineer 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 11.11% 33.33% 22.22% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 8.11% 37.84% 35.14% 18.92% 8 Homeowner 7.33% 40.00% 40.00% 12.67% 9 Total 8.90% 36.30% 32.19% 12.67% #4 If I had a question about technical standards and requirements, it was easy to receive the answer by consulting a staff member. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 33.33% 44.44% 22.22% 0.00% 2 Builder 35.29% 29.41% 17.65% 17.65% APPENDIX B: MULTIPLE CHOICE SECTION BY ROLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 188 3 Contractor 30.77% 51.28% 10.26% 7.69% 4 Engineer 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6 Property Developer 11.11% 33.33% 22.22% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 13.16% 52.63% 31.58% 2.63% 8 Homeowner 17.76% 53.29% 18.42% 10.53% 9 Total 19.18% 45.89% 17.81% 9.59% #5 If I had a question about the permit application and review process, it was easy to ffnd the answer online. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 14.29% 57.14% 28.57% 0.00% 2 Builder 18.75% 31.25% 37.50% 12.50% 3 Contractor 15.38% 56.41% 23.08% 5.13% 4 Engineer 16.67% 50.00% 33.33% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 11.11% 22.22% 33.33% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 11.11% 44.44% 25.00% 19.44% 8 Homeowner 10.00% 50.67% 30.00% 9.33% 9 Total 10.62% 44.18% 26.03% 9.59% #6 If I had a question about the permit application and review process, it was easy to receive the answer by consulting a staff member. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 33.33% 55.56% 11.11% 0.00% 2 Builder 31.25% 31.25% 18.75% 18.75% 3 Contractor 35.90% 53.85% 7.69% 2.56% 4 Engineer 40.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6 Property Developer 11.11% 33.33% 33.33% 22.22% 7 Business Owner 13.89% 61.11% 22.22% 2.78% 8 Homeowner 21.88% 59.38% 12.50% 6.25% 9 Total 22.26% 52.40% 13.36% 6.16% #7 The City's technology for submitting plans, checking project status, and requesting inspections was easy to use. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 37.50% 37.50% 12.50% 12.50% 2 Builder 33.33% 33.33% 26.67% 6.67% 3 Contractor 25.64% 53.85% 17.95% 2.56% 4 Engineer 16.67% 83.33% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 12.50% 50.00% 12.50% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 5.71% 57.14% 20.00% 17.14% 8 Homeowner 10.34% 53.79% 24.83% 11.03% 9 Total 12.67% 46.58% 19.18% 9.25% #8 The City's culture is one of facilitation ("here's how you can move forward") more than regulation ("you can't do that"). DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 189 SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 22.22% 44.44% 22.22% 11.11% 2 Builder 13.33% 33.33% 6.67% 46.67% 3 Contractor 23.08% 38.46% 23.08% 15.38% 4 Engineer 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 30.00% 10.00% 60.00% 7 Business Owner 10.81% 27.03% 27.03% 35.14% 8 Homeowner 10.26% 43.59% 25.64% 20.51% 9 Total 11.64% 36.64% 22.60% 22.60% #9 It was easy to understand what permits and approvals were required to move forward with my project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 12.50% 62.50% 25.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 18.75% 43.75% 18.75% 18.75% 3 Contractor 25.64% 48.72% 23.08% 2.56% 4 Engineer 16.67% 83.33% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 11.11% 22.22% 44.44% 22.22% 7 Business Owner 8.11% 51.35% 24.32% 16.22% 8 Homeowner 8.75% 57.50% 20.63% 13.13% 9 Total 11.30% 51.03% 20.89% 11.30% #10 It was easy to understand what I needed to submit with my application so that it could be reviewed. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 37.50% 25.00% 37.50% 0.00% 2 Builder 20.00% 40.00% 26.67% 13.33% 3 Contractor 25.64% 53.85% 17.95% 2.56% 4 Engineer 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 33.33% 44.44% 22.22% 7 Business Owner 13.89% 44.44% 33.33% 8.33% 8 Homeowner 10.26% 62.18% 17.31% 10.26% 9 Total 13.36% 51.37% 19.52% 8.22% #11 The City did a good job coordinating input from different teams/departments. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 12.50% 87.50% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 17.65% 41.18% 35.29% 5.88% 3 Contractor 27.03% 51.35% 16.22% 5.41% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 10.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 7 Business Owner 11.11% 58.33% 16.67% 13.89% 8 Homeowner 10.49% 58.04% 19.58% 11.89% 9 Total 12.67% 49.32% 17.12% 9.25% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 190 APPENDIX B.2 PLANNING AND ZONING RESPONSES BY ROLE #1 I clearly understood what planning approvals / permits would be required for my project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 37.50% 25.00% 37.50% 0.00% 2 Builder 27.27% 54.55% 9.09% 9.09% 3 Contractor 41.67% 33.33% 25.00% 0.00% 4 Engineer 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 57.14% 28.57% 14.29% 7 Business Owner 15.79% 57.89% 21.05% 5.26% 8 Homeowner 14.71% 47.06% 29.41% 8.82% 9 Total 20.62% 47.42% 24.74% 6.19% #2 I clearly understood what information and documentation I needed to include when I submitted my application. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 25.00% 37.50% 37.50% 0.00% 2 Builder 27.27% 45.45% 18.18% 9.09% 3 Contractor 45.45% 27.27% 27.27% 0.00% 4 Engineer 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6 Property Developer 25.00% 37.50% 25.00% 12.50% 7 Business Owner 10.53% 63.16% 10.53% 15.79% 8 Homeowner 15.63% 53.13% 25.00% 6.25% 9 Total 20.62% 47.42% 20.62% 8.25% #3 If my application required approval from the Plan Commission and/or Common Council, I understood the process and timeline for these public hearings. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 28.57% 57.14% 14.29% 0.00% 2 Builder 20.00% 70.00% 10.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 54.55% 36.36% 9.09% 0.00% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 37.50% 50.00% 0.00% 12.50% 7 Business Owner 11.11% 55.56% 27.78% 5.56% 8 Homeowner 11.54% 50.00% 26.92% 11.54% 9 Total 20.62% 45.36% 15.46% 5.15% #4 I clearly understood who had the decision-making authority (Staff, Department Director, Common Council) for my application. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 14.29% 57.14% 28.57% 0.00% 2 Builder 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 50.00% 41.67% 8.33% 0.00% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 25.00% 50.00% 12.50% 12.50% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 191 7 Business Owner 16.67% 38.89% 33.33% 11.11% 8 Homeowner 6.67% 40.00% 33.33% 20.00% 9 Total 18.56% 39.18% 25.77% 9.28% #5 The initial review of my application was complete and comprehensive. Additional comments were not provided later that should have been identiffed in the ffrst review. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 14.29% 57.14% 28.57% 0.00% 2 Builder 10.00% 80.00% 0.00% 10.00% 3 Contractor 41.67% 41.67% 16.67% 0.00% 4 Engineer 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 12.50% 37.50% 12.50% 37.50% 7 Business Owner 15.79% 68.42% 15.79% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 14.29% 46.43% 28.57% 10.71% 9 Total 16.49% 49.48% 17.53% 8.25% #6 If my application was reviewed by multiple entities (e.g., planning, engineering, stormwater, ffre) the City did a good job coordinating this input and providing a clear path forward to approval. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 14.29% 71.43% 14.29% 0.00% 2 Builder 10.00% 70.00% 10.00% 10.00% 3 Contractor 45.45% 45.45% 9.09% 0.00% 4 Engineer 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 12.50% 50.00% 12.50% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 11.76% 52.94% 29.41% 5.88% 8 Homeowner 11.54% 50.00% 23.08% 15.38% 9 Total 14.43% 47.42% 15.46% 8.25% #7 The comments I received on my application clearly cited what codes or standards needed to be addressed. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 12.50% 75.00% 12.50% 0.00% 2 Builder 10.00% 60.00% 30.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 33.33% 58.33% 8.33% 0.00% 4 Engineer 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 12.50% 50.00% 0.00% 37.50% 7 Business Owner 15.79% 57.89% 21.05% 5.26% 8 Homeowner 14.29% 50.00% 25.00% 10.71% 9 Total 15.46% 52.58% 16.49% 7.22% #8 After receiving comments on my application, I clearly understood what changes were needed to achieve compliance. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 14.29% 71.43% 14.29% 0.00% 2 Builder 20.00% 50.00% 30.00% 0.00% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 192 3 Contractor 33.33% 58.33% 8.33% 0.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 12.50% 50.00% 12.50% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 16.67% 55.56% 16.67% 11.11% 8 Homeowner 15.38% 46.15% 15.38% 23.08% 9 Total 15.46% 48.45% 13.40% 10.31% #9 The time it took to process my application was reasonable given the complexity of the project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 28.57% 42.86% 14.29% 14.29% 2 Builder 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 10.00% 3 Contractor 41.67% 41.67% 8.33% 8.33% 4 Engineer 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 25.00% 37.50% 12.50% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 16.67% 22.22% 38.89% 22.22% 8 Homeowner 13.79% 55.17% 17.24% 13.79% 9 Total 19.59% 38.14% 19.59% 13.40% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 193 APPENDIX B.3 BUILDING PROCESS RESPONSES BY ROLE #1 I clearly understood what planning approvals / permits would be required for my project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 30.77% 53.85% 7.69% 7.69% 3 Contractor 29.63% 51.85% 14.81% 3.70% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 16.67% 33.33% 16.67% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 13.64% 63.64% 22.73% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 12.79% 61.63% 18.60% 6.98% 9 Total 17.28% 58.64% 17.90% 6.17% #2 I clearly understood what information and documentation I needed to include when I submitted my application. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 30.77% 38.46% 23.08% 7.69% 3 Contractor 25.93% 62.96% 7.41% 3.70% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 16.67% 16.67% 33.33% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 18.18% 50.00% 31.82% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 14.63% 59.76% 20.73% 4.88% 9 Total 17.90% 54.32% 20.37% 4.94% #3 It was clear where I needed to submit my application (e.g., through the City's portal or the contractor (EPlan) portal). SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 30.77% 61.54% 7.69% 0.00% 3 Contractor 25.93% 51.85% 18.52% 3.70% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 16.67% 33.33% 16.67% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 18.18% 63.64% 13.64% 4.55% 8 Homeowner 13.75% 55.00% 22.50% 8.75% 9 Total 17.28% 53.09% 18.52% 6.79% #4 The initial review of my application was complete and comprehensive. Additional comments were not provided later that should have been identiffed in the ffrst review. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 2 Builder 25.00% 33.33% 16.67% 25.00% 3 Contractor 29.63% 51.85% 14.81% 3.70% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 60.00% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 194 7 Business Owner 18.18% 50.00% 27.27% 4.55% 8 Homeowner 17.95% 56.41% 17.95% 7.69% 9 Total 18.52% 48.15% 16.67% 9.26% #5 If my application was reviewed by multiple entities (e.g., planning, engineering, ffre) the City did a good job coordinating this input and providing a clear path forward to approval. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 16.67% 41.67% 25.00% 16.67% 3 Contractor 30.43% 47.83% 17.39% 4.35% 4 Engineer 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 7 Business Owner 14.29% 61.90% 14.29% 9.52% 8 Homeowner 15.00% 60.00% 20.00% 5.00% 9 Total 14.20% 41.98% 16.05% 6.17% #6 The comments I received on my application clearly cited what codes or standards needed to be addressed. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 16.67% 66.67% 0.00% 16.67% 3 Contractor 30.77% 57.69% 7.69% 3.85% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 60.00% 7 Business Owner 13.64% 63.64% 22.73% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 12.33% 57.53% 15.07% 15.07% 9 Total 14.20% 51.85% 12.35% 11.11% #7 After receiving comments on my application, I clearly understood what changes were needed to achieve compliance. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 16.67% 41.67% 25.00% 16.67% 3 Contractor 32.00% 48.00% 12.00% 8.00% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 60.00% 0.00% 40.00% 7 Business Owner 13.64% 68.18% 18.18% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 16.67% 59.72% 13.89% 9.72% 9 Total 16.05% 50.00% 14.20% 8.02% #8 The time it took to process my application was reasonable given the complexity of the project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 2 Builder 16.67% 50.00% 25.00% 8.33% 3 Contractor 25.93% 59.26% 7.41% 7.41% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 195 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 60.00% 0.00% 40.00% 7 Business Owner 13.64% 50.00% 27.27% 9.09% 8 Homeowner 19.75% 60.49% 13.58% 6.17% 9 Total 17.90% 54.32% 13.58% 8.64% #9 It was clear who to go to if I had questions about my application. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 16.67% 41.67% 16.67% 25.00% 3 Contractor 30.77% 46.15% 19.23% 3.85% 4 Engineer 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 13.64% 59.09% 27.27% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 16.87% 59.04% 16.87% 7.23% 9 Total 17.28% 53.70% 17.28% 8.02% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 196 APPENDIX B.4 INSPECTIONS RESPONSES BY ROLE #1 I clearly understood what inspections were required for my building project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 38.46% 61.54% 0.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 36.00% 52.00% 4.00% 8.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6 Property Developer 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 14.29% 61.90% 23.81% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 16.05% 56.79% 20.99% 6.17% 9 Total 20.92% 56.21% 15.03% 6.54% #2 It was easy to request and schedule a building inspection. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 53.85% 38.46% 7.69% 0.00% 3 Contractor 32.00% 52.00% 12.00% 4.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 33.33% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 7 Business Owner 15.79% 78.95% 5.26% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 18.42% 65.79% 9.21% 6.58% 9 Total 22.22% 58.82% 8.50% 4.58% #3 I was able to schedule the inspection for a convenient time. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 38.46% 46.15% 15.38% 0.00% 3 Contractor 29.17% 50.00% 16.67% 4.17% 4 Engineer 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 33.33% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 7 Business Owner 10.53% 84.21% 5.26% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 18.18% 61.04% 12.99% 7.79% 9 Total 19.61% 56.21% 13.07% 5.23% #4 If deffciencies were identiffed during an inspection, inspectors indicated the code section at issue. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 30.77% 53.85% 15.38% 0.00% 3 Contractor 26.09% 47.83% 13.04% 13.04% 4 Engineer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 83.33% 7 Business Owner 5.26% 68.42% 21.05% 5.26% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 197 8 Homeowner 14.75% 60.66% 14.75% 9.84% 9 Total 13.73% 47.71% 11.76% 9.80% #5 If deffciencies were identiffed during an inspection, inspectors were helpful in explaining what I needed to do to address them. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 46.15% 30.77% 7.69% 15.38% 3 Contractor 29.17% 45.83% 20.83% 4.17% 4 Engineer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 16.67% 0.00% 33.33% 50.00% 7 Business Owner 10.53% 68.42% 15.79% 5.26% 8 Homeowner 17.46% 63.49% 11.11% 7.94% 9 Total 17.65% 47.06% 12.42% 7.84% #6 Inspectors were fair and consistent in applying the codes and regulations to my project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 30.77% 53.85% 0.00% 15.38% 3 Contractor 29.17% 45.83% 12.50% 12.50% 4 Engineer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 83.33% 7 Business Owner 5.26% 57.89% 26.32% 10.53% 8 Homeowner 20.00% 60.00% 12.00% 8.00% 9 Total 17.65% 52.29% 11.11% 11.76% #7 The process to obtain the ffnal inspection/certiffcate of occupancy for my permit was elficient. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 30.77% 46.15% 15.38% 7.69% 3 Contractor 32.00% 48.00% 8.00% 12.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 7 Business Owner 10.53% 68.42% 15.79% 5.26% 8 Homeowner 16.90% 67.61% 8.45% 7.04% 9 Total 16.99% 56.21% 10.46% 7.84% APPENDIX B.5 ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW RESPONSES BY ROLE #1 I clearly understood what engineering reviews / approvals would be required for my project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 2 Builder 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 0.00% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 198 3 Contractor 12.50% 25.00% 62.50% 0.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 14.29% 57.14% 14.29% 14.29% 8 Homeowner 6.67% 46.67% 20.00% 26.67% 9 Total 8.16% 51.02% 28.57% 12.24% #2 The initial review of my engineering application or plan was complete and comprehensive. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 12.50% 25.00% 62.50% 0.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 14.29% 42.86% 42.86% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 8.33% 50.00% 8.33% 33.33% 9 Total 8.16% 44.90% 28.57% 10.20% #3 After receiving comments on my application, I clearly understood how I needed to revise my plans. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 2 Builder 40.00% 20.00% 40.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 14.29% 57.14% 28.57% 0.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 0.00% 50.00% 16.67% 33.33% 8 Homeowner 15.38% 61.54% 0.00% 23.08% 9 Total 10.20% 53.06% 16.33% 12.24% #4 Comments received outlining any deffciencies that were identiffed, including the codes and standards that my plans did not meet. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 2 Builder 20.00% 60.00% 20.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 14.29% 71.43% 14.29% 0.00% 4 Engineer 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 8 Homeowner 7.69% 53.85% 7.69% 30.77% 9 Total 8.16% 51.02% 22.45% 10.20% #5 The time it took to process my application was reasonable given the complexity of the project. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 50.00% 33.33% 16.67% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 199 2 Builder 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 14.29% 28.57% 57.14% 0.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 14.29% 42.86% 14.29% 28.57% 8 Homeowner 14.29% 50.00% 7.14% 28.57% 9 Total 12.24% 42.86% 22.45% 16.33% #6 The engineering inspection requirements are clear. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 14.29% 28.57% 57.14% 0.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 14.29% 28.57% 42.86% 14.29% 8 Homeowner 14.29% 35.71% 7.14% 42.86% 9 Total 10.20% 38.78% 24.49% 16.33% #7 The engineering closeout process is predictable. SA A D SD 1 Architect / Designer 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 2 Builder 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 3 Contractor 14.29% 71.43% 14.29% 0.00% 4 Engineer 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 5 Planner 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 Property Developer 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 7 Business Owner 14.29% 28.57% 42.86% 14.29% 8 Homeowner 7.69% 53.85% 7.69% 30.77% 9 Total 8.16% 46.94% 20.41% 14.29% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 200 APPENDIX E: PROCESS DIAGRAMS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 201 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 202 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 203 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 204 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 205 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 206 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 207 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 208 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 209 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 210 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 211 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 212 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 213 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 214 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 215 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 216 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 217 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 218 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY – DRAFT REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 219 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Julie Calmes, Director of Finance D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Report of Bills B a c k g r o u n dBackground Th e item s below are bein g presen ted for approv al by th e O sh k osh Com m on Cou n cil. Th ese item s h av e been properly au dited an d certified by th e City Com ptroller an d are h erew ith su bm itted for you r allow an ce in th e am ou n t of $1 0 ,1 0 3 ,9 7 0 .1 1 . Bills paid Au g u st 8 an d 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 $4 ,4 6 3 ,1 7 8 .6 5 Payroll paid Au g u st 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 $1 ,2 3 5 ,9 0 6 .5 1 R egu lar cycle payables paid th rou gh ou t th e m on th of Ju ly $3 ,6 8 6 ,3 8 6 .5 1 R egu lar UMR payables paid th rou gh ou t th e m on th of Ju ly $7 1 8 ,4 9 8 .4 4 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments 08082025 Check run July 2025 UMR 08152025 Check run July 2025 Vouchers CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 14101 08/08/2025 ADVANTAGE POLICE SUPPLY INC 2,242.89 14102 08/08/2025 AIRGAS USA LLC 6,265.78 14103 08/08/2025 BAKER & TAYLOR BOOKS 1,192.19 14104 08/08/2025 BAYCOM INC 376.25 14105 08/08/2025 BROWN AND CALDWELL 12,067.24 14106 08/08/2025 CAREW CONCRETE & SUPPLY CO INC 1,712.26 14107 08/08/2025 CARYN BEHLMAN 78.40 14108 08/08/2025 CHEMTRADE CHEMICALS US LLC 4,588.10 14109 08/08/2025 CINTAS CORPORATION NO 2 623.33 14110 08/08/2025 DFI SOLUTIONS IN PRINT INC 3,861.20 14111 08/08/2025 DIGITAL PRINTING INNOVATIONS 32.25 14112 08/08/2025 DORNER INC 172,758.56 14114 08/08/2025 ENVISIONWARE INC 15,143.00 14115 08/08/2025 FIRELINE SPRINKLER CORPORATION 525.00 14116 08/08/2025 CENGAGE LEARNING INC 591.14 14117 08/08/2025 GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES INC 6,000.00 14118 08/08/2025 GFL ENVIRONMENTAL 773.98 14119 08/08/2025 GORDON FLESCH COMPANY INC 116.69 14120 08/08/2025 HOLIDAY WHOLESALE 5,971.44 14121 08/08/2025 HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO 7,934.38 14122 08/08/2025 HYDRO CORP 8,781.00 14123 08/08/2025 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 54,685.80 14124 08/08/2025 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC 93,510.20 14125 08/08/2025 JUSTIFACTS CVS INC 1,713.75 14126 08/08/2025 KONE INC 1,486.08 14127 08/08/2025 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT GROUP 3,251.77 14128 08/08/2025 MANDI KATION 56.00 14129 08/08/2025 MCC INC 1,308.00 14130 08/08/2025 MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC 11,949.78 14131 08/08/2025 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 442.60 14132 08/08/2025 MILPORT ENTERPRISES INC 8,458.54 14133 08/08/2025 MSA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC 2,205.50 14134 08/08/2025 NORTHERN LAKE SERVICE INC 2,355.97 14135 08/08/2025 OSHKOSH CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU INC 10,079.76 14136 08/08/2025 OSHKOSH FIRE & POLICE EQP INC 455.00 14137 08/08/2025 PINGRY-CASWELL INC 91.62 14138 08/08/2025 PLYMOUTH LUBRICANTS 2,145.65 14139 08/08/2025 POMP'S TIRE SERVICES INC 1,158.95 14140 08/08/2025 PRIMADATA LLC 10,884.07 14141 08/08/2025 QUALITY TRUCK CARE CENTER INC 17,177.37 14142 08/08/2025 RED SHOES INC 2,000.00 14143 08/08/2025 REINDERS INC 887.36 14144 08/08/2025 ROGAN'S SHOES 644.20 14145 08/08/2025 SADOFF IRON AND METAL COMPANY 1,240.25 14146 08/08/2025 SERVICEMASTER BLDG MAINTENANCE 4,820.00 14147 08/08/2025 SPECIALTY ENGINEERING GROUP LLC 7,000.00 14148 08/08/2025 STAPLES 322.08 14149 08/08/2025 STRAND ASSOCIATES INC 75,359.38 14150 08/08/2025 MCCLONE 49,108.00 14151 08/08/2025 ON TIME EMBROIDERY INC 4,093.00 14152 08/08/2025 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 348.53 14153 08/08/2025 VANGUARD COMPUTERS INC 1,816.00 14154 08/08/2025 WALLY SCHMID EXCAVATING INC 5,400.00 14155 08/08/2025 WI PUBLIC SERVICE CORP 88,452.41 14156 08/08/2025 AUGUST WINTER & SONS INC 10,582.49 5006296 08/08/2025 EMERGENCY LIGHTING AND ELECTRONICS LLC 1,593.47 5006297 08/08/2025 ACCURATE SUSPENSION WAREHOUSE 913.90 5006298 08/08/2025 ALIA WEYLOCK 32.51 5006299 08/08/2025 ASPEN DENTAL 6,122.00 5006300 08/08/2025 ASSURANCE TITLE SERVICES INC 12.74 5006301 08/08/2025 B AND H PHOTO VIDEO 1,489.53 5006302 08/08/2025 BIRDSEYE DAIRY INC 751.66 5006303 08/08/2025 BLACKSTONE AUDIO INC 73.86 5006304 08/08/2025 BOB GRIFFIN CARPENTRY LLC 15,700.00 5006305 08/08/2025 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 3,155.24 5006306 08/08/2025 CHRIS HAEDT 38.50 5006307 08/08/2025 CIVIA INC 2,000.00 5006308 08/08/2025 JO ANNE DAUN ONEILL 17.03 5006309 08/08/2025 DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INC 926.00 5006310 08/08/2025 E POWER MARKETING 4,200.00 5006311 08/08/2025 ELIANA LUKE 87.96 5006312 08/08/2025 ELISHA D SMITH PUBLIC LIBRARY 8.00 5006313 08/08/2025 EQUIPMENT PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE & MECHANICAL 980.00 5006314 08/08/2025 ETHAN MAXSON 14.49 5006315 08/08/2025 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 57.53 5006316 08/08/2025 EXODUS LAWN CARE AND SNOW REMOVAL LLC 1,365.00 5006317 08/08/2025 FARRELL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY 66.00 5006318 08/08/2025 ERIC A JOHNSON 700.00 5006319 08/08/2025 FLYMEFLAG.COM 363.50 5006320 08/08/2025 FOCUS PROPERTIES LLC 113.95 5006321 08/08/2025 FUSION FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 3,514.75 5006322 08/08/2025 GARTMAN MECHANICAL SERVICES 1,389.55 5006323 08/08/2025 GAYLORD BROS INC 196.49 5006324 08/08/2025 GRABNER GLASS LLC 2,250.00 5006325 08/08/2025 GRAEF USA INC 4,053.00 5006326 08/08/2025 GUARANTY CLOSING AND TITLE SERVICES INC 133.38 5006327 08/08/2025 GUARANTY TITLE SERVICES INC 65.98 5006328 08/08/2025 GUNDERSON CLEANERS INC 1,426.16 5006329 08/08/2025 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES LLC 1,820.32 5006330 08/08/2025 ISAAC SCHWARTZ 400.00 5006331 08/08/2025 JACKS MAINTENANCE SERVICE INC 370.80 5006332 08/08/2025 ERIK JACOBSON 47.67 5006333 08/08/2025 JX ENTERPRISES INC 160.02 5006334 08/08/2025 KABEL HELMBRECHT 72.50 5006335 08/08/2025 KITZ AND PFEIL INC 131.48 5006336 08/08/2025 KITZ AND PFEIL POWER CENTER & SERVICE 53.98 5006337 08/08/2025 KMILL INVESTMENTS LLC 47.01 5006338 08/08/2025 WADE OR LINDSEY LALLEMONT 49.79 5006339 08/08/2025 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 285.06 5006340 08/08/2025 M & R RENTALS LLC 37.34 5006341 08/08/2025 MATHESON TRI-GAS INC 1,880.25 5006342 08/08/2025 BARBARA A MCCLAIN 33.46 5006343 08/08/2025 BRETT ANTHONY HALDERSON 9,900.00 5006344 08/08/2025 MIDWEST REALTY MANAGEMENT INC 5.13 5006345 08/08/2025 MITCHELL INSURANCE AGENCY INC 58.12 5006346 08/08/2025 NAPA AUTO PARTS 281.98 5006347 08/08/2025 NATIONAL PUBLIC EMPLOYER LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC 295.00 5006348 08/08/2025 NEENAH PUBLIC LIBRARY 40.95 5006349 08/08/2025 NMT PARTNERS LLC 150.00 5006350 08/08/2025 GAYLE SAVKA 610.00 5006351 08/08/2025 STEPHANY WILDER 57.50 5006352 08/08/2025 SUE ROTHE 57.50 5006353 08/08/2025 WIL SURGE ELECTRIC INC 24.55 5006354 08/08/2025 OSHKOSH HERALD LLC 1,717.30 5006355 08/08/2025 OSHKOSH HOUSING AUTHORITY 14.78 5006356 08/08/2025 PEPSI COLA GENERAL BOTTLNG INC 503.11 5006357 08/08/2025 PHIL STEFFENS 53.59 5006358 08/08/2025 PINE INVESTMENTS OF OSHKOSH LLP 51.63 5006359 08/08/2025 TRACEY PLUMLEIGH 35.62 5006360 08/08/2025 RACE FORWARD 1,000.00 5006361 08/08/2025 RELIANT FIRE APPARATUS INC 180.10 5006362 08/08/2025 RIESTERER & SCHNELL INC 268.32 5006363 08/08/2025 ROBERT REWOLINSKI 9.10 5006364 08/08/2025 SANDY TOLAND 79.66 5006365 08/08/2025 SCHMITT TITLE LLC 114.43 5006366 08/08/2025 SCHMITT TITLE LLC 5,000.00 5006367 08/08/2025 SCHMITZ READY MIX INC 3,060.00 5006368 08/08/2025 IAN S SEWELL 66.06 5006369 08/08/2025 SOFTERWARE INC 4,412.16 5006370 08/08/2025 SPRING-GREEN LAWN CARE 89.70 5006371 08/08/2025 STANARD AND ASSOCIATES INC 46.00 5006372 08/08/2025 T MOBILE 12,778.51 5006373 08/08/2025 TITAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC 454.52 5006374 08/08/2025 TKK ELECTRONICS LLC 469.01 5006375 08/08/2025 TODD MUEHRER 18.20 5006376 08/08/2025 TRUE IMPACT MEDIA INC 17,853.75 5006377 08/08/2025 US BANK TRUST 575.00 5006378 08/08/2025 WALLGUARD.COM 284.62 5006379 08/08/2025 DONNA L WENTZEL 20.11 5006380 08/08/2025 WISCONSIN CENTRAL 528.48 847,491.54 CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE CHECK TYPE VENDOR NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 112441 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 59,735.36 112451 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 143.90 112461 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 2.40 112471 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 10.43 112481 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 208.66 112491 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 247.67 112501 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 537.60 112511 07/14/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 208.66 112521 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 53,935.13 112531 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 142,740.67 112541 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 99.36 112551 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 255.99 112561 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 46.92 112571 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 114.27 112581 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 22.06 112591 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 40.00 112601 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 67.40 112611 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 139.12 112621 07/28/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 497.10 112631 07/28/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 41.40 112641 07/28/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 320.55 112651 07/28/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 32.10 112661 07/28/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 100.22 112671 07/28/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 37.50 990707251 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 2,405.59 990714251 07/14/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 3,599.30 990721251 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 7,902.62 990728251 07/28/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 1,568.61 999070725 07/07/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 57,546.49 999071425 07/14/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 103,831.36 999072125 07/21/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 132,265.76 999072825 07/28/2025 MANUAL 27018 UMR 149,794.24 TOTAL 718,498.44$ CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 14157 08/15/2025 AIRGAS USA LLC 4,407.58 14158 08/15/2025 AMERICAN FENCE CO 2,406.00 14159 08/15/2025 AURORA HEALTH CARE 1,085.50 14160 08/15/2025 BAKER & TAYLOR BOOKS 818.13 14161 08/15/2025 BELSON CO 913.24 14162 08/15/2025 BROOKS TRACTOR INC 552.60 14163 08/15/2025 BROWN AND CALDWELL 1,761.18 14164 08/15/2025 CENTRAL TEMP EQUIPMENT SERVICE 744.29 14165 08/15/2025 CENTURYLINK 36.56 14166 08/15/2025 CHEMTRADE CHEMICALS US LLC 18,278.60 14167 08/15/2025 CINTAS CORPORATION NO 2 676.82 14168 08/15/2025 CONSTELLATION ENERGY SERVICES 404.19 14169 08/15/2025 CORE AND MAIN LP 8,015.00 14170 08/15/2025 CUBIC ITS INC 17,200.00 14171 08/15/2025 DORNER INC 323,347.55 14172 08/15/2025 DR HANSEN PLUMBING LLC 24,600.00 14173 08/15/2025 EMMONS BUSINESS INTERIORS 713.66 14174 08/15/2025 ENERGY CONTROL AND DESIGN INC 1,084.80 14175 08/15/2025 ENERGY SOLUTION PARTNERS LLC 40,354.30 14176 08/15/2025 ENTRANCE TECHNOLOGIES 1, LLC 220.00 14177 08/15/2025 ENVIROTECH EQUIPMENT 770.74 14178 08/15/2025 CENGAGE LEARNING INC 125.94 14179 08/15/2025 GARROW OIL CORP 16,714.48 14180 08/15/2025 GODFREY AND KAHN SC 204.00 14181 08/15/2025 HAROLD CARPENTER AND COMPLETE OVERHEAD 135.00 14182 08/15/2025 HOLIDAY WHOLESALE 1,906.63 14183 08/15/2025 HOWARD ALLEN DAVIS 1,937.50 14185 08/15/2025 KWIK TRIP INC 563.23 14186 08/15/2025 LEAGUE OF WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES MUTUAL INS 33,795.89 14187 08/15/2025 LEE BEVERAGE 297.78 14188 08/15/2025 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT GROUP 1,821.49 14189 08/15/2025 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP LTD 19,740.00 14190 08/15/2025 MCC INC 10,437.37 14191 08/15/2025 MENARDS 254.93 14192 08/15/2025 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 6,274.00 14193 08/15/2025 MILPORT ENTERPRISES INC 8,454.75 14194 08/15/2025 NORTHEAST ASPHALT INC 872.00 14195 08/15/2025 OSHKOSH CITY CAB CO INC 98,251.00 14196 08/15/2025 OSHKOSH CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU INC 200.00 14197 08/15/2025 OSHKOSH FIRE & POLICE EQP INC 1,005.00 14198 08/15/2025 PACKER CITY INTL TRUCKS INC 388.90 14199 08/15/2025 PLYMOUTH LUBRICANTS 337.76 14200 08/15/2025 POMP'S TIRE SERVICES INC 3,108.69 14201 08/15/2025 PROFESSIONAL SVC INDUSTRIES 11,089.33 14202 08/15/2025 P T S CONTRACTORS INC 512,140.24 14203 08/15/2025 QUALITY TRUCK CARE CENTER INC 755.94 14204 08/15/2025 REBECCA GRILL 253.16 14205 08/15/2025 RNOW INC 281.84 14206 08/15/2025 NES ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 42,878.37 14207 08/15/2025 RUCINSKYS PAINT AND DECORATING LLC 985.00 14208 08/15/2025 SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP INC 22,817.45 14209 08/15/2025 SERVICEMASTER BLDG MAINTENANCE 2,874.80 14210 08/15/2025 SPEEDY CLEAN DRAIN & SEWER 2,726.03 14211 08/15/2025 ON TIME EMBROIDERY INC 694.00 14212 08/15/2025 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 62.43 14213 08/15/2025 WALLY SCHMID EXCAVATING INC 27,000.00 14214 08/15/2025 WI PUBLIC SERVICE CORP 151,110.67 14215 08/15/2025 WINNEBAGO AREA LITERACY COUNCIL 1,365.49 14216 08/15/2025 WINNEBAGO COUNTY TREASURER 269.50 5006381 08/15/2025 JFTCO INC 108,285.78 5006382 08/15/2025 ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION INC 455,069.66 5006383 08/15/2025 AT & T 1,310.41 5006384 08/15/2025 BIRDSEYE DAIRY INC 1,326.28 5006385 08/15/2025 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 262.68 5006386 08/15/2025 CARL BOWERS AND SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC 1,176,014.57 5006387 08/15/2025 BRIAN DREHER TRUCKING INC 14.62 5006388 08/15/2025 CARDINAL CONSTRUCTION CO INC 48,117.93 5006389 08/15/2025 CENTER POINT LARGE PRINT 449.46 5006390 08/15/2025 TAMI A CHAMBERS 26.21 5006391 08/15/2025 CRAIG A RAMTHUN 28.00 5006392 08/15/2025 AQUECS INC 382.50 5006393 08/15/2025 DAVID TENOR CORPORATION 77,391.75 5006394 08/15/2025 DORNER COMPANY 730.00 5006395 08/15/2025 ELLIS FENCE CO LLC 1,780.00 5006396 08/15/2025 ENRIQUE ORTEGA 111.30 5006397 08/15/2025 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 103.50 5006398 08/15/2025 EXPERT TOWING & RECOVERY 93.00 5006399 08/15/2025 FELIX AUTO & TIRE LLC 282.18 5006400 08/15/2025 FESTIVE BALLOONS LLC 360.00 5006401 08/15/2025 FOCUS PROPERTIES LLC 10.97 5006402 08/15/2025 FOX VALLEY IRON METAL AND AUTO SALVAGE INC 90.00 5006403 08/15/2025 FUSION FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 1,691.50 5006404 08/15/2025 GRAEF USA INC 12,000.00 5006405 08/15/2025 HYDROCLEAN EQUIPMENT INC 2,301.80 5006406 08/15/2025 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES LLC 2,192.72 5006407 08/15/2025 INNOVATIVE PUBLIC ADVISORS LLC 4,375.00 5006408 08/15/2025 ITPIPES OPCO LLC 12,550.00 5006409 08/15/2025 JACOB DEDERING 21.00 5006410 08/15/2025 JACOBSON CONTRACTING LLC 5,400.00 5006411 08/15/2025 HEIDI JENSEN 643.99 5006412 08/15/2025 JILL VAUGHAN 12.60 5006413 08/15/2025 JX ENTERPRISES INC 2,752.85 5006414 08/15/2025 K AND C PEST 245.00 5006415 08/15/2025 A. KALMERTON WELDING SUPPLIES 456.98 5006416 08/15/2025 KANE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP 19,176.75 5006417 08/15/2025 KITZ AND PFEIL INC 9.48 5006418 08/15/2025 KODI PARKER 67.20 5006419 08/15/2025 LAURIE LAATSCH 492.10 5006420 08/15/2025 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 238.53 5006421 08/15/2025 LEIGH SCHUH 186.90 5006422 08/15/2025 RELX INC 315.00 5006423 08/15/2025 ASCENTEK INC 295.02 5006424 08/15/2025 MARIA FLETCHER 62.30 5006425 08/15/2025 MARK FRANCIS OSTROWSKI 600.00 5006426 08/15/2025 MARTELLE WATER TREATMENT INC 40,548.48 5006427 08/15/2025 MATHESON TRI-GAS INC 9,020.00 5006428 08/15/2025 NAPA AUTO PARTS 1,549.74 5006429 08/15/2025 NEW TITLE SERVICES INC 169.36 5006430 08/15/2025 NORTHERN TELEPHONE & DATA CORP 400.45 5006431 08/15/2025 OAKWOOD GARDENS REIMAGINED LLC 300.00 5006432 08/15/2025 JON MONDAY 195.84 5006433 08/15/2025 ACCU PROPERTIES LLC 674.41 5006434 08/15/2025 ALYSSA BRAYTON 100.00 5006435 08/15/2025 BEEZ ELECTRIC INC 30.00 5006436 08/15/2025 BETHLEHEM LUTH CHURCH 646.90 5006437 08/15/2025 BETHLEHEM LUTH CHURCH 675.03 5006438 08/15/2025 BREELYN BRUSS 300.00 5006439 08/15/2025 CORELOGIC TAX SERVICES LLC 1,911.53 5006440 08/15/2025 DONALD STOLLEY 20.00 5006441 08/15/2025 HAYDEN COHAN 30.00 5006442 08/15/2025 JAHNKE SPECIAL NEEDS BENJAMIN 332.21 5006443 08/15/2025 KAREN WITT 57.50 5006444 08/15/2025 KOENEMAN REV TRUST NEIL C 500.00 5006445 08/15/2025 MEYER REV TRUST 200.20 5006446 08/15/2025 MIKE GELHAR 400.00 5006447 08/15/2025 MOUNTAIN TOP INVESTMENTS I LLC ETAL 226.60 5006448 08/15/2025 NORTH AMY R 700.00 5006449 08/15/2025 OLIVIA SCHROEDER 50.00 5006450 08/15/2025 OSHKOSH RE2 LLC 4,616.06 5006451 08/15/2025 PERPICH JAMES M 17.00 5006452 08/15/2025 RYAN TUSKOWSKI 710.00 5006453 08/15/2025 SNYDER LOREN/JOAN 112.43 5006454 08/15/2025 THALIA SCHWARTZ 100.00 5006455 08/15/2025 WIRTH RUTH 62.00 5006456 08/15/2025 OSHKOSH AREA HUMANE SOCIETY 597.00 5006457 08/15/2025 OSHKOSH RECREATION DEPARTMENT 115,289.10 5006458 08/15/2025 CITY OF OSHKOSH 386.51 5006459 08/15/2025 OSHKOSH HERALD LLC 1,109.90 5006460 08/15/2025 OSHKOSH SATURDAY FARMERS MARKET INC 5,000.00 5006461 08/15/2025 PARK 'N PRINT INC 1,475.95 5006462 08/15/2025 PATRIOT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION LLC 2,317.00 5006463 08/15/2025 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 75.00 5006464 08/15/2025 GLENN OR SARAH PETSIN 27.60 5006465 08/15/2025 PLAYAWAY PRODUCTS LLC 680.89 5006466 08/15/2025 NADINE M HUTMAKER 3,500.00 5006467 08/15/2025 PROTANIC INC 950.00 5006468 08/15/2025 REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LAKESHORE 448.85 5006469 08/15/2025 REBECCA KAISER 60.20 5006470 08/15/2025 RISE LEADERSHIP LLC 11,250.00 5006471 08/15/2025 DANIEL J DOTY 5,500.00 5006472 08/15/2025 ROBROS LLC 37.16 5006473 08/15/2025 ROE NURSERIES INC 270.00 5006474 08/15/2025 RYAN BUSCHING 56.70 5006475 08/15/2025 SARAH DANAHY 292.50 5006476 08/15/2025 SWEET JULES LLC 647.39 5006477 08/15/2025 THE HIGHLAND GROUP 17,600.00 5006478 08/15/2025 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 642.27 5006479 08/15/2025 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 48.45 5006480 08/15/2025 THE TITLE EXCHANGE 46.26 5006481 08/15/2025 TOTAL SECURITY AND SAFETY INC 5,880.00 5006482 08/15/2025 TRUGREEN PROCESSING CENTER 969.56 5006483 08/15/2025 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 628.30 5006484 08/15/2025 UNITED MAILING SERVICES INC 2,165.29 5006485 08/15/2025 WI STATE LABORATORY OF HYGIENE 31.00 5006486 08/15/2025 US SIGNAL COMPANY LLC 55.83 5006487 08/15/2025 WHIMBUBBLE STUDIOS 270.00 5006488 08/15/2025 WHIMBUBBLE STUDIOS 180.00 5006489 08/15/2025 WI DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 90.00 5006490 08/15/2025 WINNEBAGO COUNTY TREASURER 230.81 5006491 08/15/2025 WISCONSIN ALLIANCE OF CEMETERIES INC 185.00 5006492 08/15/2025 ZILLGES MATERIALS INC 1,188.00 3,615,687.11 CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 14068 07/01/2025 13835 ASSOCIATED BANK MERCHANT SERVICES 680.81 14113 07/01/2025 23976 BANKCARD USA 424.94 14184 07/01/2025 22837 DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN INC 5,331.61 14217 07/02/2025 22837 DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN INC 7,187.20 14218 07/09/2025 22837 DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN INC 8,909.91 14219 07/15/2025 22837 DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN INC 4,907.27 14220 07/23/2025 22837 DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN INC 7,754.59 14221 07/30/2025 22837 DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN INC 6,659.55 14222 07/01/2025 19438 DEPOSITORY TRUST CO 524,875.70 14223 07/11/2025 13604 BANK ONE 194,815.60 14224 07/03/2025 341 MISSION SQUARE 74,138.56 14225 07/18/2025 341 MISSION SQUARE 1,000.00 14226 07/18/2025 341 MISSION SQUARE 73,801.64 14227 07/01/2025 538 CITY OF OSHKOSH 484.73 14228 07/23/2025 585 PITNEY BOWES INC 10,000.00 14229 07/01/2025 27478 SOFTERWARE INC 53.38 14230 07/07/2025 19938 TASC 151.57 14231 07/08/2025 19938 TASC 24,394.05 14232 07/22/2025 19938 TASC 24,453.14 14233 07/28/2025 19938 TASC 747.78 14234 07/15/2025 27018 UMR 125,580.39 14235 07/31/2025 12525 US BANK 366,681.26 14236 07/31/2025 12525 US BANK 76,943.77 14237 07/29/2025 12525 US BANK 568,496.88 14238 07/03/2025 25209 US TREASURY 380,921.35 14239 07/18/2025 25209 US TREASURY 386,435.91 14240 07/21/2025 2033 WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES 550.00 14241 07/10/2025 1217 WI DEPT OF REVENUE 78,214.10 14242 07/15/2025 1217 WI DEPT OF REVENUE 6,838.56 14243 07/29/2025 1217 WI DEPT OF REVENUE 74,634.59 14244 07/18/2025 640 WI DEPT OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20.00 14245 07/18/2025 640 WI DEPT OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60.00 14246 07/28/2025 640 WI DEPT OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 280.00 14247 07/28/2025 640 WI DEPT OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 140.00 14248 07/01/2025 805 WI DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 498.00 14249 07/25/2025 812 WI RETIREMENT SYSTEM 648,487.51 14250 07/08/2025 196 WI DEPT OF WORKFORCE DEVEL-UI 832.16 3,686,386.51 D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :June 2025 Financial Reports A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments June 2025 Financial Report Finance Department City Hall, 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130 920.236.5005 http://www.oshkoshwi.gov August 26, 2025 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council, Attached are the Monthly Financial Reports for City for the month of June 2025. Respectfully submitted, Julie Calmes, Finance Director JC/TJ Enc Fund Changes and Amendments Revised Budget Current Year To Date Current Year % of Budget GENERAL FUND $ 55,367,021 $ - 55,367,021 $ 27,671,783 50% SENIOR SERVICES REVOLVING FUND 78,500 - 78,500 33,213 42% CDBG REVOLVING LOAN FUND 257,000 - 257,000 79,457 31% BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 222,110 - 222,110 245,506 111% RECYCLING 1,221,300 - 1,221,300 1,094,942 90% GARBAGE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL 2,060,000 - 2,060,000 2,034,040 99% POLICE SPECIAL FUNDS 95,900 - 95,900 165,747 173% STREET LIGHTING FUND 1,110,600 - 1,110,600 1,093,813 98% SPECIAL EVENTS 4,721,956 - 4,721,956 462,753 10% MUSEUM MEMBERSHIP FUND 176,100 28,250 204,350 27,679 14% SENIOR SERVICES 798,800 - 798,800 569,553 71% FIRE SPECIAL REVENUE 92,286 37,337 129,623 82,111 63% AMBULANCE SERVICES 6,414,700 291,500 6,706,200 7,647,103 114% LIBRARY 4,783,894 - 4,783,894 4,423,605 92% MUSEUM 1,343,400 - 1,343,400 1,074,332 80% MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 54,500 - 54,500 29,038 53% CEMETERY 532,900 - 532,900 484,960 91% COMMUNITY DEVEL SPECIAL FUNDS - - - - 0% PARKS REVENUE FACILITIES 401,000 77,700 478,700 164,578 34% LEACH AMPHITHEATER 114,500 - 114,500 40,174 35% PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL FUND 880,000 - 880,000 157,697 18% POLLOCK WATER PARK 596,100 - 596,100 321,253 54% NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROV LOAN PRGRM - - - - 0% HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATVE 85,000 - 85,000 225,809 266% COMMUNITY DEVLP BLOCK GRANT 801,434 - 801,434 370,527 46% LOCAL GO EDC REV LOAN PROGRAM 100,000 - 100,000 (189) 0% SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT 3,630,300 - 3,630,300 2,126,319 59% CONTRACT CONTROL FUND 28,060,200 - 28,060,200 - 0% ENTERPRISE CAPITAL FUND 19,391,500 - 19,391,500 - 0% EQUIPMENT FUND 16,786,250 84,000 16,870,250 810,000 5% PARKS IMPROVEMENT 1,275,000 - 1,275,000 - 0% PARK SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT 6,000 - 6,000 28,660 478% TREE & BENCH MEMORIAL 110,000 - 110,000 50,240 46% SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REPLACEMENT - - - 2,816,566 0% DEBT SERVICE FUND 13,650,000 - 13,650,000 14,297,873 105% GRAND OPERA HOUSE FUND 170,000 - 170,000 170,000 100% TIF #25 CITY CENTR HOTEL 156,500 - 156,500 163,066 104% OSHKOSH CONVENTION CENTRE 2,557,900 - 2,557,900 828,259 32% TIF #26 AVIATION BUS PRK - - - - 0% PARKING RAMP FUND 120,000 - 120,000 10,920 9% TIF #27 N MAIN IND PARK 410,000 - 410,000 653,094 159% PARKING UTILITY 103,900 - 103,900 81,366 78% TIF #28 - BEACH BUILDING REDEV 53,000 - 53,000 47,388 89% TRANSIT UTILITY 7,924,836 - 7,924,836 3,462,262 44% TIF #29 MORGAN DISTRICT 19,000 - 19,000 16,354 86% TIF #30 WASHINGTON BUILDING 55,000 - 55,000 48,208 88% IND PARK LAND ENTERPRISE FUND 510,000 - 510,000 - 0% TIF #31 BUCKSTAFF REDEVE 600,000 - 600,000 394,813 66% City of Oshkosh, WI All Funds Statement of Revenues June 2025 Adopted Budget $ 50.00% OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/19/2025 04:47 PAGE: 1 City of Oshkosh, WI All Funds Statement of Revenues June 2025 TIF #32 GRANARY REDEVELOPMENT 12,000 - 12,000 11,789 98% TIF #33 LAMICO REDEVELOPMENT 230,000 - 230,000 205,151 89% TIF #24 OSHKOSH CORP E-COAT 173,500 - 173,500 218,471 126% TIF #14 MERCY MEDICAL CENTER 505,000 - 505,000 451,597 89% TIF #15 PARK PLAZA COMMERCE ST 163,100 - 163,100 173,734 107% TIF #16 100 BLOCK REDEVELOPMNT 144,600 - 144,600 129,549 90% TIF #19 NW INDUSTRIAL EXPANSN 274,000 - 274,000 252,672 92% TIF #08 S AVIATION - - - - 0% TIF #17 CITY CENTER REDEVELOP 231,600 - 231,600 213,886 92% TIF #18 SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIAL 479,000 - 479,000 530,768 111% TIF #20 SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOP - - - - 0% TIF #21 FOX RIVER CORR 525,000 - 525,000 468,623 89% TIF #12 DIVISION ST 147,600 - 147,600 133,193 90% TIF #13 MARION RD/PEARL 315,100 - 315,100 297,239 94% TIF #23 SW IND PARK EXP 15,000 - 15,000 13,171 88% WATER UTILITY 23,330,000 - 23,330,000 9,872,546 42% SEWER UTILITY 21,330,500 - 21,330,500 10,556,577 49% STORMWATER UTILITY 16,703,500 - 16,703,500 8,251,445 49% INSPECTION SERVICES 1,007,470 - 1,007,470 633,157 63% TIF #34 OSHKOSH CORP HEADQTRS 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 997,537 83% TIF #35 OSHKOSH AVE CORRIDOR 590,000 - 590,000 593,181 101% TIF #36 MERGE REDEVELOPMENT 422,000 - 422,000 384,751 91% TIF #37 AVIATION PLAZA 167,000 - 167,000 172,099 103% TIF #38 PIONEER REDEVELOPMENT 11,000 - 11,000 914 8% TIF #39 CABRINI SCHOOL REDEV 44,000 - 44,000 38,438 87% TIF #40 MILES KIMBALL REDEVEL 30,000 - 30,000 22,046 73% TIF #41 SMITH SCHOOL REDEVELOP 11,000 - 11,000 10,376 94% TIF #42 MORGAN CROSSING II 500 - 500 30 6% TIF #43 MILL ON MAIN - - - 2 0% TIF #44 - NW OSHKOSH EXPANSION - - - - 0% HEALTH INSURANCE FUND 13,225,200 - 13,225,200 5,674,839 43% WORKERS COMPENSATION 1,011,700 - 1,011,700 1,011,700 100% FIELD OPS INTERNAL SERVICE 6,232,800 - 6,232,800 2,940,164 47% PROPERTY TAXES - - - - 0% TRUST FUNDS 1,314,700 - 1,314,700 1,129,740 86% REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 156,000 - 156,000 258,019 165% Total $ 267,901,257 $ 518,787 268,420,044 $ 120,152,272 45%$ 50.00% OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/19/2025 04:47 PAGE: 1 Fund Adopted Budget Current Year Budget Current Year To Date Current Year % of Budget GENERAL FUND $ 55,359,021 $ $ 55,560,059 $ 24,079,576 43% SENIOR SERVICES REVOLVING FUND 58,700 68,028 15,860 23% CDBG REVOLVING LOAN FUND 239,411 239,411 82,323 34% BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 255,000 255,000 109,663 43% RECYCLING 1,141,524 1,141,778 386,610 34% GARBAGE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL 1,978,990 2,000,652 881,892 44% POLICE SPECIAL FUNDS 229,558 402,907 70,306 17% STREET LIGHTING FUND 1,110,600 1,152,986 444,718 39% SPECIAL EVENTS 3,215,633 6,252,218 2,387,070 38% MUSEUM MEMBERSHIP FUND 269,700 297,950 39,279 13% SENIOR SERVICES 797,374 828,417 334,946 40% FIRE SPECIAL REVENUE 38,873 285,262 104,473 37% AMBULANCE SERVICES 6,398,782 6,461,739 2,286,992 35% LIBRARY 4,640,185 4,640,185 2,133,709 46% MUSEUM 1,351,610 1,351,610 546,158 40% MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 65,900 71,055 11,791 17% CEMETERY 561,821 561,821 204,053 36% COMMUNITY DEVEL SPECIAL FUNDS 10,500 10,500 - 0% PARKS REVENUE FACILITIES 348,137 475,837 139,518 29% LEACH AMPHITHEATER 111,383 111,383 46,165 41% PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL FUND 758,456 758,536 570,456 75% POLLOCK WATER PARK 1,349,195 1,349,195 124,850 9% NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROV LOAN PRGRM 218,100 218,100 - 0% HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATVE 628,076 628,076 173,877 28% COMMUNITY DEVLP BLOCK GRANT 2,256,001 3,291,310 370,527 11% LOCAL GO EDC REV LOAN PROGRAM 400,000 400,000 - 0% SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT 1,307,142 1,307,142 506,090 39% CONTRACT CONTROL FUND 32,590,325 98,112,550 8,022,405 8% ENTERPRISE CAPITAL FUND 86,315,470 162,531,773 1,900,026 1% EQUIPMENT FUND 5,746,294 23,241,130 2,808,460 12% PARKS IMPROVEMENT 4,544,365 6,094,962 233,534 4% PARK SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT - - - 0% TREE & BENCH MEMORIAL 154,000 154,000 19,467 13% SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REPLACEMENT - - - 0% DEBT SERVICE FUND 15,200,000 15,200,000 6,827,442 45% GRAND OPERA HOUSE FUND 35,900 36,588 24,092 66% TIF #25 CITY CENTR HOTEL 150 150 150 100% OSHKOSH CONVENTION CENTRE 2,412,762 2,506,361 865,140 35% TIF #26 AVIATION BUS PRK 150 150 150 100% PARKING RAMP FUND 99,800 99,800 19,300 19% TIF #27 N MAIN IND PARK 100,150 100,150 150 0% PARKING UTILITY 207,447 209,447 37,321 18% TIF #28 - BEACH BUILDING REDEV 150 150 46,711 31141% TRANSIT UTILITY 15,661,171 15,990,809 2,948,980 18% TIF #29 MORGAN DISTRICT 150 150 150 100% TIF #30 WASHINGTON BUILDING 38,150 38,150 150 0% City of Oshkosh, WI All Funds Statement of Expenditures June 2025 Carry-over Encumbrances and Amendments 201,038 9,328 - - 254 21,662 173,349 42,386 3,036,585 28,250 31,043 246,389 62,957 - - 5,155 - - 127,700 - 80 - - - 1,035,309 - - 65,522,225 76,216,302 17,494,836 1,550,597 - - - - 688 - 93,599 - - - 2,000 - 329,638 - - 50.00% OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/19/2025 04:27 PAGE: 1 City of Oshkosh, WI All Funds Statement of Expenditures June 2025 IND PARK LAND ENTERPRISE FUND 30,700 30,700 3,404 11% TIF #31 BUCKSTAFF REDEVE 570,250 570,250 150 0% TIF #32 GRANARY REDEVELOPMENT 11,150 11,150 150 1% TIF #33 LAMICO REDEVELOPMENT 220,150 395,150 150 0% TIF #24 OSHKOSH CORP E-COAT 150 150 150 100% TIF #14 MERCY MEDICAL CENTER 570,723 646,100 45,616 7% TIF #15 PARK PLAZA COMMERCE ST 300,150 300,150 150 0% TIF #16 100 BLOCK REDEVELOPMNT 100,150 100,150 150 0% TIF #19 NW INDUSTRIAL EXPANSN 75,150 75,150 1,115 1% TIF #08 S AVIATION 10,300 10,300 150 1% TIF #17 CITY CENTER REDEVELOP 347,750 347,750 129,425 37% TIF #18 SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIAL 150 150 150 100% TIF #20 SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOP 4,192,786 4,615,801 34,803 1% TIF #21 FOX RIVER CORR 814,050 814,050 126,439 16% TIF #12 DIVISION ST 150 150 129,473 86315% TIF #13 MARION RD/PEARL 79,450 79,450 1,327 2% TIF #23 SW IND PARK EXP 392,650 392,650 202,500 52% WATER UTILITY 21,505,967 21,768,978 8,158,067 37% SEWER UTILITY 16,772,533 17,015,241 7,485,734 44% STORMWATER UTILITY 9,766,350 9,925,036 4,549,595 46% INSPECTION SERVICES 1,177,034 1,177,034 576,905 49% TIF #34 OSHKOSH CORP HEADQTRS 1,200,150 1,200,150 150 0% TIF #35 OSHKOSH AVE CORRIDOR 178,217 178,217 799,443 449% TIF #36 MERGE REDEVELOPMENT 315,150 315,150 150 0% TIF #37 AVIATION PLAZA 150,150 150,150 150 0% TIF #38 PIONEER REDEVELOPMENT 150 150 150 100% TIF #39 CABRINI SCHOOL REDEV 35,150 35,150 150 0% TIF #40 MILES KIMBALL REDEVEL 27,150 27,150 150 1% TIF #41 SMITH SCHOOL REDEVELOP 10,150 10,150 150 1% TIF #42 MORGAN CROSSING II 150 150 150 100% TIF #43 MILL ON MAIN 400,150 400,150 150 0% TIF #44 - NW OSHKOSH EXPANSION - - 150 0% HEALTH INSURANCE FUND 12,933,789 12,933,789 3,874,544 30% WORKERS COMPENSATION 1,017,237 1,017,237 397,783 39% FIELD OPS INTERNAL SERVICE 7,133,584 7,217,421 3,060,349 42% PROPERTY TAXES - - 31 0% TRUST FUNDS 305,267 305,267 262,759 86% REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 120,360 120,360 260,856 217% Total $ 328,970,653 $ $ 496,623,657 $ 89,907,400 18% - - - 175,000 - 75,378 - - - - - - 423,015 - - - - 263,011 242,708 158,686 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 167,653,004 - - 83,837 - - 50.00% OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 08/19/2025 04:27 PAGE: 1 FUND NET CHANGE FUND BALANCE 100 GENERAL FUND 3,026,480.80 (26,513,887.75) 201 SENIOR SERVICES REVOLVING FUND 59.31 (221,934.18) 202 CDBG REVOLVING LOAN FUND (4,685.45) (374,287.85) 209 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (28,609.02) (308,021.66) 211 RECYCLING 46,873.86 (3,923,231.37) 212 GARBAGE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL 150,595.14 (1,040,189.81) 215 POLICE SPECIAL FUNDS 16,537.46 (580,871.71) 223 STREET LIGHTING FUND 84,648.26 (945,955.25) 224 SPECIAL EVENTS 836,800.84 869,288.64 227 MUSEUM MEMBERSHIP FUND 17,722.37 (696,004.22) 231 SENIOR SERVICES 40,695.94 (260,472.78) 235 FIRE SPECIAL REVENUE (39,340.71) (307,009.54) 237 AMBULANCE SERVICES 187,307.59 (5,360,110.37) 239 LIBRARY 312,928.02 (2,341,302.81) 241 MUSEUM 89,388.96 (691,795.89) 242 MUSEUM COLLECTIONS (3,459.46) (869,849.62) 247 CEMETERY 35,341.03 (676,911.23) 249 COMMUNITY DEVEL SPECIAL FUNDS - (178,110.76) 255 PARKS REVENUE FACILITIES (25,228.35) (778,050.85) 256 LEACH AMPHITHEATER 16,417.56 (108,344.72) 257 PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL FUND 109,944.32 618,252.02 259 POLLOCK WATER PARK 18,646.00 (70,642.37) 271 RENTAL INSPECTIONS - (45,770.20) 301 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROV LOAN PRGRM - (290,188.25) 302 HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATVE 30,107.95 (2,522,201.67) 303 COMMUNITY DEVLP BLOCK GRANT - (3,976,995.29) 304 LOCAL GO EDC REV LOAN PROGRAM 189.20 (2,073,392.28) 307 SENIOR CENTER - (129,408.31) 311 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION FUND - 4,965,560.63 315 STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND - (11,341,010.39) 317 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT 395,339.97 (20,406,725.63) 321 CONTRACT CONTROL FUND 1,741,489.80 4,338,349.17 322 ENTERPRISE CAPITAL FUND 116,888.97 1,800,815.41 323 EQUIPMENT FUND 823,542.21 (10,302,391.99) 325 PARKS IMPROVEMENT 17,078.23 (887,818.86) 327 PARK SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT (600.00) (462,868.77) 329 FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FUND - (2,000.00) 333 TREE & BENCH MEMORIAL 4,296.92 (7,262.29) 335 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REPLACEMENT - (5,845,214.50) 401 DEBT SERVICE FUND 6,072,520.82 (9,831,736.32) 501 GRAND OPERA HOUSE FUND 4,233.41 4,075.87 502 TIF #25 CITY CENTR HOTEL - (309,023.30) 503 OSHKOSH CONVENTION CENTRE (59,554.01) (10,481,250.88) 504 TIF #26 AVIATION BUS PRK - 3,780,178.08 505 TIF RESERVE FUND - (41,754.53) 506 PARKING RAMP FUND (9,351.23) (461,499.39) 508 TIF #27 N MAIN IND PARK - (158,265.78) 509 PARKING UTILITY (2,080.01) (3,034,157.13) 510 TIF #28 - BEACH BUILDING REDEV - (60,516.95) 511 TRANSIT UTILITY (332,247.59) (12,336,117.51) 512 TIF #29 MORGAN DISTRICT - (66,681.06) City of Oshkosh, WI Change in Fund Balances June 2025 514 TIF #30 WASHINGTON BUILDING - (121,723.09) 515 IND PARK LAND ENTERPRISE FUND 1,974.14 (2,894,199.21) 516 TIF #31 BUCKSTAFF REDEVE - (431,673.14) 518 TIF #32 GRANARY REDEVELOPMENT - (19,057.94) 519 TIF #33 LAMICO REDEVELOPMENT - (594,500.49) 520 TIF #24 OSHKOSH CORP E-COAT - (475,971.68) 522 TIF #14 MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - (1,691,812.27) 524 TIF #15 PARK PLAZA COMMERCE ST - (3,558,550.86) 526 TIF #16 100 BLOCK REDEVELOPMNT - (957,747.51) 528 TIF #19 NW INDUSTRIAL EXPANSN - (1,494,741.56) 529 TIF #08 S AVIATION 150.00 (24,722.51) 530 TIF #17 CITY CENTER REDEVELOP 129,275.00 (726,648.89) 532 TIF #18 SOUTH WEST INDUSTRIAL - (963,768.15) 533 TIF #10 MAIN & WASH - 0.29 534 TIF #20 SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOP 25,532.17 (2,233,636.65) 535 TIF #11 OSH OFFICE CENTR - (0.08) 536 TIF #21 FOX RIVER CORR 123,100.00 (1,258,556.37) 537 TIF #12 DIVISION ST - (863,868.30) 539 TIF #13 MARION RD/PEARL 1,133.70 24,611.16 540 TIF #23 SW IND PARK EXP 202,250.00 3,566,209.14 541 WATER UTILITY (718,944.04) (90,851,317.89) 551 SEWER UTILITY (800,273.65) (93,736,102.27) 561 STORMWATER UTILITY (895,183.83) (89,698,156.51) 571 INSPECTION SERVICES (110,335.25) (3,107,844.92) 580 TIF #34 OSHKOSH CORP HEADQTRS - (986,584.08) 581 TIF #35 OSHKOSH AVE CORRIDOR 143.79 (2,210,654.62) 582 TIF #36 MERGE REDEVELOPMENT - (449,177.83) 583 TIF #37 AVIATION PLAZA - (237,134.75) 584 TIF #38 PIONEER REDEVELOPMENT - (16,869.05) 585 TIF #39 CABRINI SCHOOL REDEV - (84,960.34) 586 TIF #40 MILES KIMBALL REDEVEL - (11,153.13) 587 TIF #41 SMITH SCHOOL REDEVELOP - 968.45 588 TIF #42 MORGAN CROSSING II - 2,820.97 589 TIF #43 MILL ON MAIN - 65,523.32 590 TIF #44 - NW OSHKOSH EXPANSION - 1,150.00 601 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND 302,458.13 (7,666,562.14) 603 WORKERS COMPENSATION 16,531.22 (1,241,442.73) 609 FIELD OPS INTERNAL SERVICE 69,172.76 1,889,363.43 701 PROPERTY TAXES - 145,842.43 707 TRUST FUNDS (488,293.46) (16,765,352.56) 901 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (500.00) (8,322,538.91) CASH ON HAND FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2025 Beginning Balance Period Change Ending Balance OPERATING CASH TREASURY CASH - OPERATIONS 148,372,986.17 (13,079,760.28) 135,293,225.89 0707 - TRUST FUNDS 80501 - CEMETERY TRUST 26,236.37 587.06 26,823.43 80615 - OPL MEMORIALS 1,242.58 0.10 1,242.68 80649 - OPL-W POINTE BANK-CHECKING 62,559.60 62,559.60 80801 - FISK-GALLUP TRUST 42,677.83 140.50 42,818.33 TRUST AND INVESTMENTS TREASURY CASH - OPERATIONS 32,404,843.55 131,287.06 32,536,130.61 0227 - MUSEUM MEMBERSHIP FUND 105,667.95 370.28 106,038.23 0242 - MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 843,826.37 7,383.19 851,209.56 0541 - WATER UTILITY 1,298,265.53 4,549.31 1,302,814.84 0551 - SEWER UTILITY 2,276,608.25 50,566.39 2,327,174.64 0561 - STORMWATER UTILITY 609.14 2.13 611.27 0707 - TRUST FUNDS 80501 - CEMETERY TRUST 1,224,797.28 29,238.88 1,254,036.16 80502 - HARVEY C CLUTE TRUST 76.70 0.27 76.97 80503 - HEYMAN TRUST 40,814.07 150.37 40,964.44 80504 - ROBERT J HUME TRUST 1,511.54 5.29 1,516.83 80505 - AMBER H MAXWELL TRUST 8,431.40 32.68 8,464.08 80506 - JOHN FRANCIS ROBERTS TRUST 2,801.09 9.81 2,810.90 80507 - LOUISE SARAU TRUST 6,099.25 21.36 6,120.61 80601 - OPLCIF HOXTEL (OACF) 28,945.21 1,037.62 29,982.83 80605 - OPLCIF ARCHER (OACF) 2,889.87 103.57 2,993.44 80607 - OPLCIF A GRUENWALD (OACF) 4,372.34 156.74 4,529.08 80609 - OPLCIF G HILTON (OACF) 18,488.15 662.75 19,150.90 80612 - OPLCIF E W KELSH (OACF) 4,380.40 157.04 4,537.44 80613 - OPLCIF G KENNY (OACF) 15,228.83 545.90 15,774.73 80618 - OPLCIF SCHUSTER BOOKS (OACF) 267,417.09 9,586.39 277,003.48 80627 - OPLCIF S ZELLMER (OACF) 139,701.77 5,008.03 144,709.80 80628 - JOHN HICKS TRUST FUND 200,703.25 783.81 201,487.06 80629 - LIBRARY DEV & SUPPORT (OACF) 710,416.74 139,486.60 849,903.34 City of Oshkosh, WI Cash and Investment Report For the Month Ended June 30, 2025 Beginning Balance Period Change Ending Balance 80630 - LIBRARY FACILITY IMPROVEMENT (OACF)1,953,461.55 70,027.66 2,023,489.21 80631 - LIBRARY PROGRAMMING SUPPORT (OACF)1,279,789.05 45,877.87 1,325,666.92 80632 - LIBRARY TECHNOLOGY (OACF) 1,310,728.07 46,986.96 1,357,715.03 80633 - LIBRARY COLLECTION IMPRVMT (OACF) 1,351,080.16 48,433.50 1,399,513.66 80634 - PRO SUPP FUND - MARY MALNAR (OACF) 31,805.75 1,140.16 32,945.91 80635 - LIBRARY TECH FUND - AV TRUST (OACF) 41,310.23 1,480.91 42,791.14 80636 - LIBRARY TECH - JOHN NICHOLS (OACF) 53,107.97 1,903.83 55,011.80 80637 - OPLCIF-G JACKSON (OACF) 2,600.93 93.24 2,694.17 80638 - OPLCIF-W STEIGER (OACF) 17,171.30 615.54 17,786.84 80640 - RON METZ CENTENNIAL FUND (OACF) 39,280.08 1,389.44 40,669.52 80642 - GEORGE HILTON LIBRARY & MUSEUM TRST 4,449.42 39.98 4,489.40 80643 - G HILTON SPECIAL (OACF) 1,038.74 9.19 1,047.93 80644 - FRANK & ANNA ROJAHN TRUST 10,610.44 903.78 11,514.22 80645 - MARGUERITE E ZELLMER TRUST 12,408.66 110.38 12,519.04 80646 - 0ACF CONVENTION CENTER MAINT FUND 380,338.23 (61,485.72) 318,852.51 80647 - POLICE DEPT FUND (OACF) 684,829.85 49,838.90 734,668.75 80648 - OPL - BRUCE L DECKER FAC IMP (OACF) 506,376.08 18,152.58 524,528.66 80650 - ABBEY S HARRIS TRUST 1,839.64 16.56 1,856.20 80651 - OPL-CIF-RASMUSSEN (OACF) 57,290.26 2,053.73 59,343.99 80652 - OPL-CIF-ROJAHN 4,726.60 169.40 4,896.00 80701 - ETHEL J BEHNCKE MUSEUM TRUST 167,967.99 588.11 168,556.10 80702 - WILLIAM E BRAY MUSEUM TRUST 12,339.45 53.86 12,393.31 80703 - FREDERICK S & MARION H DUROW TRUST 3,190,477.17 17,538.85 3,208,016.02 80704 - LONA & EDWARD G KITZ TRUST 95,775.73 11,420.38 107,196.11 80705 - RICHARD KITZ DIRECTORS TRUST 173,941.24 609.02 174,550.26 80706 - MUSEUM ENDOWMENT TRUST 463,845.88 13,973.87 477,819.75 80707 - R KITZ BEQUEST 255,601.68 2,528.51 258,130.19 80709 - MUSEUM CAPITAL CAMPAIGN FUND (OACF)661,062.09 23,383.83 684,445.92 80801 - FISK-GALLUP TRUST 5,780.02 20.24 5,800.26 80802 - EMMA J GOULD TRUST 4,529.06 15.86 4,544.92 80803 - SOPHIE L HUHN TRUST 5,241.63 18.35 5,259.98 80804 - JULIA L STANHILBER LIB & PKS TRUST 761,130.16 2,092.13 763,222.29 80805 - JULIA L STANHILBER PARKS TRUST 1,489.19 5.21 1,494.40 80903 - FIRE DEPT FUND (OACF) 21,561.68 572.58 22,134.26 INVESTMENTS-DEPRECIATION FUND 0541 - WATER UTILITY 165,633.69 3,678.94 169,312.63 INVESTMENTS-REVENUE BOND RESERVE 0541 - WATER UTILITY 5,426,389.91 37,332.10 5,463,722.01 0551 - SEWER UTILITY 6,091,899.13 45,501.72 6,137,400.85 0561 - STORMWATER UTILITY 8,513,012.49 65,341.06 8,578,353.55 D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Approve Common Council Meeting Minutes 08.12.25 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments DRAFT Minutes 08.12.25 D R A F T CITY CO UNCIL MINUTES 0 8 .1 2 .2 5 Presen t:Matt Mu g erau er, Mayor; Kris Larson ; Joe Steph en son , Depu ty Mayor; Karl Bu elow ; Brad Span bau er; DJ Nich ols Absen t:Jacob Floam Staff:R ebecca G rill, City Man ager; Lyn n Loren son , City Attorn ey; Dian e Bartlett, City Clerk WORKSHOP Th e O sh k osh Com m on Cou n cil w ill be h oldin g a w ork sh op on th e Wash in gton Hou sin g Dev elopm en t at 5 :0 0 pm in R oom 4 0 4 of City Hall. Wash in gton Hou sin g Dev elopm en t Work sh op Materials CALL TO ORDER 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL INVOCATION - VOTING FIRST - Cou n cilor Bu elow PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROCLAMATION Civ ility Mon th , Au gu st 2 0 2 5 Nation al See Track s? Th in k Train Week , Septem ber 1 5 -2 1 , 2 0 2 5 PUBLIC STATEMENTS TO COUNCIL - none CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS R eport of Bills May 2 0 2 5 Fin an cial R eports Approv e Com m on Cou n cil Min u tes R eceipt & Filin g of Min u tes - Library Board, 0 6 .2 6 .2 5 R eg u lar Meetin g an d 0 7 .1 7 .2 5 Special Meetin g R eceipt & Filin g of Min u tes - Mu seu m Arts an d Cu ltu re Board, 0 6 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 R eceipt & Filin g of Claim Filed with th e City's In su ran ce Com pan y - Kristen & Ch ristoph er Kin dt R eceipt & Filin g of Claim Filed with th e City's In su ran ce Com pan y - Dav id Mik esell R eceipt & Filin g of Claim Filed with th e City's In su ran ce Com pan y - Joe Nem eth R eceipt & Filin g of Claim Filed with th e City's In su ran ce Com pan y - G ary R eid R eceipt & Filin g of Claim Filed with th e City's In su ran ce Com pan y - Cath erin e Stein ert Res 25-396 Disallow an ce of Claim - Lin da Sch m idt G oss Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-397 Appropriate AR PA In terest Fu n ds for Im ag eCast Cen tral / Cen tral Cou n t Hig h Speed Ballot Processor Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-398 Approv e Am en dm en t an d Correspon din g Bu dg et Adju stm en t for Addition al Sprin k ler an d Fire Door In stallation Serv ices R elated to Con stru ction of G O Tran sit Fire Protection Project ($6 6 ,7 6 8 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-399 Approv e O sh k osh Hou sin g Au th ority R equ est to Con dition ally R edeem R ev en u e Bon ds issu ed in 2 0 0 6 in R espect to th e Marian Man or Hou sin g Facility as Approv ed by City of O sh k osh Cou n cil R esolu tion 0 6 -3 0 7 Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-400 Approv e Pu rch ase of R oad Salt for Win ter 2 0 2 5 -2 0 2 6 for th e Departm en t of Pu blic Work s th rou g h Wiscon sin Departm en t of Tran sportation from Com pass Min erals ($4 1 6 ,8 7 5 .2 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-401 Approv e Am en dm en t No. 1 to Profession al Serv ices Agreem en t w ith Don oh u e & Associates, In c. for Wastewater Treatm en t Plan t Tertiary Treatm en t Filtration Facility Desig n (+$7 5 3 ,4 2 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-402 Approv e R esolu tion Au th orizin g th e Issu an ce an d Sale of Up to $1 ,1 6 0 ,0 0 0 Taxable Priv ate Lead Serv ice Lin e R eplacem en t Loan Prog ram R ev en u e Bon ds, Series 2 0 2 5 , an d Prov idin g for O th er Details an d Cov en an ts w ith R espect Th ereto Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-403 Approv e Safe Drin k in g Water Loan Prog ram Fin an cial Assistan ce Agreem en t w ith th e Wiscon sin Departm en t of Natu ral R esou rces for Project No. 4 8 7 4 -1 8 (5 0 % Assistan ce) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-404 Approv e Safe Drin k in g Water Loan Prog ram Fin an cial Assistan ce Agreem en t w ith th e Wiscon sin Departm en t of Natu ral R esou rces for Project No. 4 8 7 4 -1 9 (Cen su s Tracts 4 , 7 , an d 1 2 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-405 Approv e Ch an ge O rder No. 2 for Digester Clean in g Serv ices for th e Wastew ater Treatm en t Plan t (WWTP) / Fu ll Serv ice O rgan ics Man ag em en t, LLC (+$3 2 ,3 4 2 .9 7 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-406 Approv e Am en dm en t No. 1 to Pu rch ase Ag reem en t with Math eson Tri-G as, In c. for Water Filtration Plan t Tem porary Bu lk Liqu id O xygen Equ ipm en t Lease an d Liqu id O xyg en Su pply (+$7 5 ,0 0 6 .6 7 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-407 Approv e Determ in ation of Necessity to Acqu ire an d Approv e an d Execu te R elocation O rder for Street R econ stru ction an d Sidewalk In stallation on Bowen Street from O tter Av en u e to East Park way Av en u e Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-408 Accept Storm Water Pon d/Basin Easem en t Located Sou th w est of 2 0 2 2 O liv ia R oad, Parcel 9 1 2 7 6 1 5 0 1 0 0 (Lak e Bu tte des Morts Dev elopm en t) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-409 Aw ard Bids to Express Elev ator LLC an d CR Foch s Electrical Con tractors for Elev ator Modern ization s at th e O sh k osh Pu blic Library an d O sh k osh Pu blic Mu seu m for G en eral Serv ices ($5 8 8 ,8 4 2 .0 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-410 Aw ard Bid to Sw idersk i Equ ipm en t In c. for Articu lated Loader Sn ow Plow Attach m en t for th e Streets Div ision ($3 8 ,3 1 0 .0 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-411 Approv e Cooperativ e Pu rch ase of Sin g le Axle Tru ck Ch assis from Q u ality Tru ck Care Cen ter an d Du m p Body, Hoist, Plow , Win g, Spreader an d Pre- Wet System from Mon roe Tru ck Equ ipm en t for Streets Div ision ($3 1 9 ,7 3 1 .0 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-412 Approv e Cooperativ e Pu rch ase of tw o Tan dem Axle Tru ck Ch assis from Q u ality Tru ck Care Cen ter an d Du m p Body, Hoist, Lift, Spreader an d Pre-Wet System s from Mon roe Tru ck Equ ipm en t for Streets Div ision ($6 9 1 ,8 2 4 .0 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-413 Approv e CIP Bu dg et Am en dm en t an d Cooperativ e Pu rch ase of Sem i- Tractor from Q u ality Tru ck Care Cen ter for Streets Div ision ($1 7 5 ,8 1 5 .0 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-414 Approv e gen eral dev elopm en t plan for a com m ercial dev elopm en t located on th e east side of Jack son Street, n orth of West Sn ell R oad (Parcel 9 1 5 2 7 1 9 0 1 0 0 ) (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-415 Approv e Specific Im plem en tation Plan for a daycare facility located on th e east side of Jack son Street n orth of West Sn ell R oad (Parcel 9 1 5 2 7 1 9 0 1 0 0 ) (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-416 Approv e Specific Im plem en tation Plan for an ou tdoor storage area at 2 7 5 0 Vin lan d Street (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-418 Approv e salary prog ression for City Man ag er in accordan ce w ith em ploym en t ag reem en t Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-419 Approv e Mu seu m Collection s Fu n d Bu dg et Am en dm en t for Collection s Appraisal Serv ices ($3 ,0 0 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-420 Approv e O PM Mem bersh ip Bu dg et Am en dm en t for Ch icago Collects Exh ibit Down Paym en t ($1 0 ,0 0 0 ) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-421 Approv e en terin g in to an Exh ibition Loan Ag reem en t with Th e R ich ard H. Drieh au s Mu seu m for Ch icag o Collects: Jew elry in Perspectiv e Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-422 Approv e Special Ev en t - HC En tertain m en t to h ost th e Mexican R odeo at Su n n yv iew Exposition Cen ter, Au gu st 1 7 , 2 0 2 5 Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-423 Approv e Special Ev en t - O sh k osh Aren a - Ven u Work of O sh k osh LLC, d/b/a Fox Valley Pro Bask etball, to h old th e INB In tern ation al Boxin g ev en t at th e O sh k osh Aren a, Au g u st 2 3 , 2 0 2 5 Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-424 Approv e Special Ev en t - Arise Balan ced Welln ess, LLC to u tilize O pera Hou se Squ are for th e Harv est & Heart: Arise & Sh in e free com m u n ity yog a ev en t, Au gu st 2 3 , 2 0 2 5 Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-425 Approv e Special Ev en t - Th om as Urben to u tlize R ed Arrow Disc G olf Cou rse for th e R ed Arrow Disc G olf Fu n draiser Tou rn am en t #2 , Septem ber 2 0 , 2 0 2 5 Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-426 Approv e Tem porary Liqu or Licen se Exten sion - O sh k osh Aren a "Liv e You r Life Motorclu b Car Sh ow an d Cru ise In " ev en t on Septem ber 7 , 2 0 2 5 . Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-427 Approv e Appoin tm en ts to Div ersity, Equ ity, an d In clu sion (DEI) Com m ittee an d Lon g R an g e Fin an ce Com m ittee Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA Res 25-417 Approv e Specific Im plem en tation Plan Am en dm en t for driv e-th ru m odification s at 9 0 Wiscon sin Street (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) App rova l for la yover until 08.26.25 - due to verb ia ge and atta chments Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed NEW ORDINANCES (NO TE: n o form al action tak en at th is m eetin g) *Ord 25-428 Am en d Section 2 7 A-1 1 of th e Mu n icipal Code Pertain in g to park in g regu lation s on 1 6 th Av en u e *Ord 25-429 Am en d Park in g an d Loadin g Zon e R egu lation s on Alg om a Bou lev ard in fron t of R ead Elem en tary Sch ool *Ord 25-430 Am en d Section 2 -1 0 (b) of th e City of O sh k osh Mu n icipal Code Pertain in g to R egu lar Meetin gs of th e Com m on Cou n cil to Prov ide for Establish m en t of an An n u al Sch edu le of Meetin g s NEW RESOLUTIONS Res 25-431 Approv al of th e cooperativ e agreem en t for con tin u in g tran sportation plan n in g for th e O sh k osh , Wiscon sin m etropolitan plan n in g area between th e City of O sh k osh /G O Tran sit, th e State of Wiscon sin , Departm en t of Tran sportation an d East Cen tral Wiscon sin R eg ion al Plan n in g Com m ission an d th e O sh k osh Metropolitan Plan n in g O rg an ization Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Karl Bu elow , Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 5 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-432 Aw ard Bid to Elev ate9 7 for LED Electron ic Message Cen ters for Park s Departm en t ($1 1 9 ,9 2 6 .0 0 ) Cou n cilor Larson n oted th at h e wou ld be a n o on th is resolu tion . He does n ot th in k th is is th e righ t u se of fu n ds. Cou n cilor Bu elow n oted h e wou ld be a yes on th is. He su pports th e sig n s an d in form ation in h igh -traffic areas. Bu elow stated th at it h as a h igh price tag , bu t it's also a g ood-qu ality produ ct th at we're goin g to be pu ttin g u p, w h ich will last a lon g tim e. Cou n cilor Nich ols ask ed Park s Director Mau rer if an y research h ad been don e th at sh ows h ow residen ts get th eir in form ation from th e city. Park s Director Mau rer replied th at abou t 3 1 % get th eir in form ation from th e sign s, social m edia are ran k ed th e h igh est, th e n ewspaper is at 3 9 % an d th e oth er is word of m ou th . Depu ty Mayor Steph en son n oted th at staff h ad already g on e ou t to bid for th is, posted it an d awarded a v en dor. Th erefore, ou t of respect for th e CIP, ou t of respect for th e v en dor an d ou r process, Steph en son w ou ld be a yes on th is. Cou n cilor Span bau er stated h e was also tak en aback by th e cost bu t n oted th at th ese sig n s w ou ld be better placed in h ig h er traffic areas an d h av e th e poten tial of reach in g m ore people. Mayor Mu gerau er stated th at th e cou n cil's poin ts are v ery v alid. He u n derstan ds an d appreciates th e com m en ts on h ow to better u se th ese dollars, bu t h e also u n derstan ds tryin g to m ark et, tryin g to attract, tryin g to catch people's eye an d to try to brin g residen ts to th ese fu n ction s. Mu gerau er n oted th at h e did n ot h av e a problem w ith th is in th e CIP. Th erefore, h e w ill su pport th is resolu tion . Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow , Brad Span bau er No:Mayor Matt Mu g erau er, Kris Larson , DJ Nich ols 3 - 3 Fa iled Res 25-433 Approv e prelim in ary plat for th e creation of a 9 1 -lot sin g le-fam ily residen tial su bdiv ision east of Clairv ille R oad, ¼ m ile n orth of West 2 0 th Av en u e, parcels 9 1 3 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 9 1 3 4 7 1 3 0 0 0 0 & 9 1 3 3 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 (Fifth addition to Casey's Meadow sou th prelim in ary plat) (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-434 Approv e prelim in ary plat for th e creation of a 2 5 -lot m ixed residen tial su bdiv ision east of Sh erm an R oad, parcels 9 1 5 6 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 & 9 1 5 6 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 (2 n d Addition to Islan d View Estates prelim in ary plat) (Plan Com m ission recom m en ds approv al) Mayor Mu gerau er n oted th at ov er th e last sev eral years, th ey h av e talk ed a lot abou t h ou sin g, an d it is g reat to see th e city m ov in g forw ard an d th at dev elopers are m ov in g forw ard. Mu g u rau er is glad to see som e dev elopm en t h appen in g on th e far n orth side an d look s forw ard to con tin u ed dev elopm en t th rou gh ou t th is com m u n ity. "Ev ery h ou se th at goes in to th e g rou n d, ev ery com m ercial bu ildin g th at g oes u p, an d ev ery m ixed-u se bu ildin g w ill on ly h elp u s as a com m u n ity grow", said Mu gu rau er. Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed Res 25-435 Approv e con dition al su rren der of Com bin ation "Class B" Beer/Liqu or Licen se an d issu an ce of Com bin ation "Class B"/Liqu or licen se (G ayle Sav k a, Jock ey Clu b II LLC, 2 4 G ru en wald Av en u e to Adam Tan n er, Jock ey Clu b 8 3 LLC, 2 4 G ru en wald Av en u e) Motion To Approv e - Karl Bu elow Secon d By - Kris Larson AYE:Mayor Matt Mu gerau er, Kris Larson , Depu ty Mayor Joe Steph en son , Karl Bu elow, Brad Span bau er, DJ Nich ols 6 - 0 Pa ssed COUNCIL DISCUSSION, DIRECTION TO CITY MANAGER & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Discussion and Direction to City Ma na ger In du strial District Im perv iou s Su rface Policy Proposal (Steph en son ) Depu ty Mayor Stev en son wou ld lik e staff to draft a policy proposal th at w ill requ ire in du strial districts to h av e th e sam e im perv iou s su rface requ irem en ts. Som e h av e 7 0 % im perv iou s, oth ers h av e 8 0 % im perv iou s, etc -- Steph en son w ou ld lik e to see som e con sisten cy th rou gh ou t. Steph en son is n ot look in g to w aiv e setback s or storm w ater requ irem en ts; h e wou ld lik e to brin g con sisten cy to all. All cou n cil m em bers are in fav or of th is. Direction to Staff reg ardin g Mu n icipal Code Ch apter 1 4 : Post-Con stru ction Storm water Man agem en t O rdin an ce Updates Laid ov er from th e last m eetin g , staff wou ld lik e direction s with regard to th e con stru ction of Storm w ater m an agem en t ordin an ce u pdates. Cou n cil an d Pu blic Work s Director R abe discu ssed poten tial u pdates th at w ere presen ted. After discu ssin g th e option s presen ted, th e cou n cil ag reed th at staff sh ou ld m ov e forward w ith scen ario 5 . Direction to Staff R eg ardin g Poten tial ATV UTV O rdin an ce Cou n cil ag reed th at th is sh ou ld g o to th e tran sportation com m ittee with th e Win n ebag o Cou n ty ordin an ce for th eir rev iew an d in pu t. Future Agenda Items, Meeting s, and Workshop s Work sh op - Matrix Dev elopm en t Process an d Code An alysis R ev iew , Tu esday, Au g u st 2 6 th , 5 pm Work sh op - Leagu e of Wiscon sin Mu n icipalities Mu n icipal In su ran ce, Tu esday, Septem ber 9 th , 5 pm COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS Profession al Serv ices Ag reem en t with McMah on Associates, In c. for a Join t Fire Departm en t Stu dy ($2 5 ,0 0 0 ) Profession al Serv ices Ag reem en t with Stran d Associates, In c. for Expert Witn ess Serv ices for Crim son Lan e (City of O sh k osh v . G ran t Sch u ltz an d Nan cy Sch u ltz) ($6 0 ,0 0 0 ) 1 st Q u arter Em ployee R ecogn ition Aw ards Cu rren t In itiativ es ADJOURN 7:10 p .m. SUBMITTED BY DIANE BAR TLETT, CITY CL ER K THE FULL AUDIO /VIDEO R ECO R DING O F THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE O N O UR WEBSITE THE FULL TR ANSCR IPT O F THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE O N THE YO UTUBE PLAYBACK CHANNEL S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Receipt & Filing of Claim Filed with the City's Insurance Company - Lauren Wiedemeier D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 C l a i m I n f o r m a t i o nClaim I n f o r m a t i o n Claim an t: Lau ren Wiedem eier Date of Loss: 0 7 .1 8 .2 0 2 5 Su m m ary of Claim : Alleges to h av e been stru ck by a m otor v eh icle ow n ed by th e City of O sh k osh . S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Receipt & Filing of Claim Filed with the City's Insurance Company - Ilona Zamora D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 C l a i m I n f o r m a t i o nClaim I n f o r m a t i o n Claim an t: Ilon a Zam ora Date of Loss: 0 7 .0 1 .2 0 2 5 Su m m ary of Claim : Alleges dam age to h er v eh icle from a san itation tru ck . T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Tim Heiman, Fire Chief D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-436 Approve Budget Amendment for 2025 Fire Special Revenue Fund Funding Assistance Program to approve an increase in expenditures ($12,310.00) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e O sh k osh Fire Departm en t u n derstan ds th at accu rate, pertin en t data presen ted in an easily u n derstan dable an d fu n ction al w ay is k ey to th e su ccess of th e org an ization . O u r prim ary sou rce of data related to respon ses is ou r Im ageTren d reportin g software, w h ich is u sed to record all aspects of ou r respon se activ ities, in clu din g Fire, EMS, an d Com m u n ity R isk R edu ction . Im ageTren d h as released a greatly en h an ced reportin g featu re called Con tin u u m , w h ich is able to tak e ou r data an d com pile it in to com preh en siv e, v isu al dash boards an d reports, m ak in g ou r data m ore relev an t, pertin en t, an d real-tim e. Con tin u u m au tom ates data processin g , prov idin g an AI su bstitu te for th e Man ag em en t An alyst position th at we n o lon g er h av e, an d facilitatin g real-tim e u tilization , v isu alization , an d sh arin g of ou r data. Du e to m u ltiple staffin g ch an g es at th e adm in istrativ e lev el ov er th e past tw o years, th e prev iou s Su bject-Matter Experts in th e areas of HIPAA/Priv acy com plian ce an d Im ag eTren d Software are n o lon g er with u s. Th ese are two critical sh ortfalls th at w e n eed to address ASAP. Th e train in g fu n din g in clu des System Adm in istrator train in g for Im agetren d Softw are an d Certified Am bu lan ce Priv acy O fficer (CAPO ) Certification . A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS A bu dg et am en dm en t for 2 0 2 5 is n ecessary to allocate fu n ds to pu rch ase th e item listed abov e. Th e fu n din g th at will be u sed is from rev en u e gen erated by th e State of Wiscon sin Fu n din g Assistan ce Program th at is in ten ded to su pport Em erg en cy Medical Serv ices prov iders. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T A bu dg et am en dm en t is n ecessary to allow for an expen ditu re of $1 2 ,3 1 0 .0 0 from th e follow in g accou n ts: 0 2 3 7 0 2 4 0 -6 4 1 5 -2 0 5 6 3 Su bscription /Licen sin g Con tracts ($4 ,8 0 0 .0 0 ) an d 0 2 3 7 0 2 4 0 - 6 4 2 1 -2 0 5 6 3 Em ployee Train in g & Dev elopm en t ($7 ,5 1 0 .0 0 ). Th ere are m ore th an su fficien t fu n ds av ailable in th e fu n d balan ce. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Th e recom m en dation w ou ld be th at Com m on Cou n cil approv e th is am en dm en t to accept th e aw ard an d su bsequ en tly m ak e pu rch ases w ith th e gran t dollars. Th is pu rch ase of serv ices w ill be of direct ben efit to th e departm en t, th e City of O sh k osh , an d th ose we serv e. A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-436 08/26/2025 25-436 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR 2025 FIRE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO APPROVE AN INCREASE IN EXPENDITURES ($12,310.00) INITIATED BY : OSHKOSH FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Common Council has adopted the 2025 Operating Budget, which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, the Oshkosh Fire Department is requesting an amendment to the 2025 Budget to allocate funds from fund balance for reporting software and additional training opportunities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the 2025 Operating Budget, on file in the City Clerk's Office, is hereby amended to increase expenditures for reporting software and additional training, within the following accounts to the amounts listed below: Acct. No. 02370240-6415-20563 Subscription/Licensing Contracts - $4,800.00 Acct. No. 02370240-6421-20563 Employee Training & Development - $7,510.00 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-437 Appropriate ARPA Interest Funds and Approve Agreement with Legal Files Software, Inc. for Software, Training and Support for File Management System for Legal Department ($10,453.00) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e City Man ager ask ed departm en ts to iden tify specific n eeds an d efficien cies th at wou ld assist departm en ts in th eir operation s. Th e City Attorn ey's office cu rren tly relies on a m ix of paper files an d file m an agem en t th rou gh electron ic files stored on th e city n etwork s. Th e system is ou tdated an d in con sisten t an d lack s search ability fu n ction s all leadin g to in efficien cies. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Procu rem en t of an efficien t file m an ag em en t system w ill assist th e departm en t in track in g cases as well as projects, im prov e search ability an d w ill assist w ith project an d tim e m an agem en t. Staff rev iew ed sev eral option s, obtain ed in form ation from oth er m u n icipalities w h o u se v ariou s softw are, work ed with IT to en su re com patibility w ith city system s an d w ork ability of th e softw are, an d set u p a dem on stration w ith Legal Files Software, In c. w h ich is bein g u sed by sev eral oth er m u n icipalities with in th e state in clu din g West Allis. Staff w as im pressed with th e apparen t ease of th e system , its flexibility for v ariou s types of m atters, th e in tercon n ectiv ity w ith calen darin g an d em ails, its search ability an d its reason able pricin g option s. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th e total fiscal im pact for 2 0 2 5 is $1 0 ,4 5 3 .0 0 w h ich in clu des start u p, train in g an d a prorated cost for fou r m on th s of th e in itial su bscription . Th e attach ed resolu tion w ill appropriate $1 0 ,4 5 3 .0 0 of AR PA in terest fu n ds to A/N# 0 2 2 4 0 1 1 0 -7 2 3 0 -1 5 4 9 1 AR PA -- Leg al Files Softw are for th e 2 0 2 5 costs of th is ag reem en t. Th ere is su fficien t in terest in com e in th e AR PA fu n d to cov er th is pu rch ase. Th e an n u al su bscription cost of $5 0 0 0 .0 0 for th is software will be in corporated in to th e 2 0 2 6 operation s bu dg et for th e followin g year. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Section 1 2 -1 6 prov ides th at su bject to th e approv al of th e City Man ager profession al serv ices m ay be procu red with ou t follow in g a form al biddin g or qu otation process an d Section 1 2 -1 1 of th e Mu n icipal Code prov ides th at su bject to approv al of th e City Man ager, pu rch ases m ay be m ade with ou t follow in g a form al com petitiv e biddin g process w h en th e pu rch ase is from on ly on e sou rce of su pply or wh en stan dardization or com patibility is th e ov erridin g con sideration . Th e procu rem en t, train in g an d m ain ten an ce of software for legal file serv ices is a m ixtu re of profession al serv ices an d goods, alon g w ith th e n eed for com patibility with th e city's existin g com pu ter h ardw are an d softw are. Based on th is staff recom m en ds pu rch ase of Legal Files Software from Leg al Files Softw are, In c. with ou t form al biddin g or qu otation in th e am ou n t of $1 0 ,4 5 3 .0 0 for th e rem ain der of 2 0 2 5 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-437 08/26/2025 25-437 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROPRIATE ARPA INTEREST FUNDS AND APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH LEGAL FILES SOFTWARE, INC. FOR SOFTWARE, TRAINING AND SUPPORT FOR FILE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR LEGAL DEPARTMENT ($10,453.00) INITIATED BY : LEGAL DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Common Council has adopted the 2025 Operating Budget, which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, the Legal Department is requesting an amendment to the 2025 Budget to allocate ARPA Interest Funds for the purchase of software, training and support for a file management system for Legal Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the 2025 Operating Budget, on file in the City Clerk's Office, is hereby amended to appropriate $10,453.00 ARPA interest to account number 02240030-7230-15491 ARPA – Legal Files Software for the purchase of software, training and support for a file management system for Legal Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officials are authorized and directed to enter into and take those steps necessary to implement an appropriate agreement with Legal Files Software, Inc. the purchase of software, training and support for a file management system for Legal Department for the remainder of calendar year 2025 in an amount not to exceed Ten Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Three and no/100 dollars ($10,453.00). Money for this purpose is hereby appropriated from: Acct. No. 02240030-7230-15491 ARPA – Legal Files Software T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kimberly Gierach, Planning Services Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-438 Approve Conditional Use Permit request for a vehicle service facility located on the north side of the 1600 block of Ripon Lane (parcel 91334212008) (Plan Commission recommends approval) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e su bject area in clu des a 0 .4 8 -acre v acan t property on th e n orth side of R ipon Lan e. Th e su rrou n din g area con sists of residen tial u ses im m ediately to th e east an d w est an d com m ercial u ses alon g West Sou th Park Av en u e an d Sou th Koeller Street. Th e su bject property an d su rrou n din g area are zon ed Su bu rban Mixed-Use District (SMU) an d slated for In terstate Com m ercial u se in th e 2 0 4 0 Com preh en siv e Lan d Use Plan . Th e applican t is proposin g a 2 ,2 7 5 sq. ft. v eh icle serv ice facility. Veh icle serv ice an d repair u ses requ ire a CUP in th e SMU District. A n eig h borh ood m eetin g was h eld on Ju ly 7 , 2 0 2 5 , w ith on e n eigh bor in atten dan ce. Th e n eigh bor in atten dan ce w as g en erally su pportiv e of th e proposed u se, bu t h ad qu estion s related to storm drain ag e an d n oise. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e proposed facility w ill h av e a sin g le driv eway access from R ipon Lan e. Th e proposed site plan m eets requ irem en ts for setback s, park in g , an d im perv iou s su rface ratio. Th e applican t h as n oted th at th ere will be n o ou tdoor storag e of in operable v eh icles. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Approv al of th is m ay resu lt in an in crease in th e assessed property v alu e for th e site. Th e applican t is an ticipatin g spen din g approxim ately $6 5 0 ,0 0 0 on th e proposed project. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Th e Plan Com m ission recom m en ded approv al of th e requ ested Con dition al Use Perm it on Au gu st 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 . Please see th e attach ed staff report for m ore in form ation . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-438 CUP 0 Ripon Ln 08/26/2025 25-438 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A VEHICLE SERVICE FACILITY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 1600 BLOCK OF RIPON LANE (PARCEL 91334212008) INITIATED BY : ROBERT MACH PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved w/ findings and condition WHEREAS, the Plan Commission finds that the conditional use permit request for a vehicle service facility at parcel 91334212008 is consistent with the criteria established in Sections 30-52 (C) and 30-382 of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that a conditional use permit request for a vehicle service facility at parcel 91334212008, per the attached, is hereby approved, with the following findings: Is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan as the Interstate Commercial future land use classification includes higher intensity commercial uses. 1. Would not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on nearby property, the character of the neighborhood, environmental factors, traffic factors, parking, public improvements, public property or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, or general welfare because the proposed site will comply with zoning requirements for the SMU District and is compatible with neighboring properties zoned SMU District. 2. Maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use impacts as related to the environs of the subject property because the vehicle service facility use of the property is consistent with the SMU zoning designation of the subject property and neighboring properties. 3. The conditional use is located in an area that will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any of the improvements, facilities, utilities or services provided by public or private agencies serving the subject property as existing infrastructure is in place for use of the subject site. 4. The potential public benefits outweigh any potential adverse impacts of the proposed conditional use, after taking into consideration the applicant’s proposal and any requirements recommended by the applicant to ameliorate such impacts because the vehicle service use is compatible with SMU District zoning and existing commercial uses in the surrounding area. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following are conditions of approval of a Conditional Use Permit request for a vehicle service facility at parcel 91334212008: Final landscaping and lighting plans shall be approved by the Department of Community Development.1. ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Request for a Vehicle Service Facility Located on the North Side of the 1600 Block of Ripon Lane (Parcel 91334212008) Plan Commission Meeting of August 19, 2025 Applicant: Robert Mach Property Owner: MMJ Group LLC Action Requested: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for development of a vehicle service facility. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: Vehicle service and repair uses are permitted only through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Suburban Mixed-Use District (SMU) as regulated in Section 30-52 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Criteria used for CUPs are located in Section 30-382 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property Location and Background Information: The subject area includes a 0.48-acre vacant property on the north side of Ripon Lane. The surrounding area consists of residential uses immediately to the east and west and commercial uses along West South Park Avenue and South Koeller Street. The subject property and surrounding area are zoned Suburban Mixed-Use District (SMU) and slated for Interstate Commercial use in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Subject Site Existing Land Use Zoning Vacant SMU Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Existing Uses Zoning North Commercial SMU South Commercial SMU East Residential SMU West Residential SMU Recognized Neighborhood Organizations None Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use 2040 Land Use Recommendation Interstate Commercial The applicant is proposing a 2,275 sq. ft. vehicle service facility. Vehicle service and repair uses require a CUP in the SMU District. A neighborhood meeting was held on July 7, 2025, with one neighbor in attendance. The neighbor in attendance was generally supportive of the proposed use, but had questions related to storm drainage and noise. Site Design & Access The proposed facility will have a single driveway access from Ripon Lane. The proposed site plan meets requirements for setbacks, parking, and impervious surface ratio. The applicant has noted that there will be no outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles. Required Provided Front Setback (south) 25 ft. 25 ft. Side Setback (east) 10 ft. building 5 ft. pavement 10 ft. building 5 ft. pavement Side Setback (west) 10 ft. building 5 ft. pavement 34.3 ft. building 5 ft. pavement Rear Setback (north) 25 ft. building 5 ft. pavement 109 ft. +/- building 54 ft. +/- pavement Required Provided Parking Spaces Min: 8 Max: 25 9 Impervious Surface Max: 70% of lot 53.8% of lot Signage - No signage plans were submitted with this request. However, the proposed building elevations include an area on the front façade reserved for wall signage. The proposed area appears to be within the maximum wall sign area of 50 sq. ft. Final signage plans will be addressed under a separate building permit. Lighting - The applicant has submitted a photometric lighting plan. The proposed plan utilizes wall mount fixtures along with 15’ tall light poles, which is under the maximum light fixture height of 23’ (including base) for the SMU district. Lighting levels meet the minimum of 0.4 fc for parking/drive areas, but exceed the maximum lighting level of 0.5 fc at the side property lines. This will be addressed during Site Plan Review. Storm Water Management - The applicant has been in contact with the Department of Public Works regarding storm water management for the subject area. The final storm water management plans will be approved during the Site Plan Review process. Landscaping - Code requires building foundation, paved area, street frontage, and yard landscaping requirements to be met for the proposed site. Building Foundation - A minimum of 40 landscaping points per 100 linear feet of building foundation is required for each building. The landscape plan is meeting the building foundation planting requirement for the vehicle service building. Paved Area - A minimum of 50 landscaping points per 10 parking stalls or 10,000 sq. ft. of paved area is required. The code further specifies 30% of all points will be devoted to tall trees and 40% will be devoted to shrubs. The landscaping plan shows a combination of trees and shrubs around the parking lot to meet the paved area requirements. Street Frontage - Code requires 100 landscaping points per 100 feet of right-of-way. Code further specifies that 50% of the required points shall be devoted to medium trees. The landscaping plan is meeting the street frontage landscaping point requirements. Yards - Code requires 20 landscaping points per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The landscaping plan exceeds the yard landscaping requirement. Although bufferyard is not required as the neighboring properties are also zoned SMU District, the applicant is providing 6’ solid fencing and evergreen trees along the east and west property lines to provide screening from the existing neighboring residences. Building Facades - The applicant has provided building elevations for the vehicle service building. The elevations include a combination of prefinished architectural metal wall panel, brick veneer, and storefront glazing. The plans include 50% Class I materials on the front and side facades to comply with commercial design standard requirements. FINDINGS/CONDITIONS: In its review and recommendation to the Common Council, on an application for a CUP, staff recommends the Plan Commission make the following findings based on the criteria established by Chapter 30-382 (F)(3): (1) Is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan as the Interstate Commercial future land use classification includes higher intensity commercial uses. (2) Would not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on nearby property, the character of the neighborhood, environmental factors, traffic factors, parking, public improvements, public property or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, or general welfare because the proposed site will comply with zoning requirements for the SMU District and is compatible with neighboring properties zoned SMU District. (3) Maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use impacts as related to the environs of the subject property because the vehicle service facility use of the property is consistent with the SMU zoning designation of the subject property and neighboring properties. (4) The conditional use is located in an area that will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any of the improvements, facilities, utilities or services provided by public or private agencies serving the subject property as existing infrastructure is in place for use of the subject site. (5) The potential public benefits outweigh any potential adverse impacts of the proposed conditional use, after taking into consideration the applicant’s proposal and any requirements recommended by the applicant to ameliorate such impacts because the vehicle service use is compatible with SMU District zoning and existing commercial uses in the surrounding area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP for a vehicle service and repair use located on the north side of the 1600 block of Ripon Lane (parcel 91334212008) as proposed with the findings listed above and the following condition: • Final landscaping and lighting plans shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. Plan Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit on August 19, 2025. For a comprehensive record of the proceedings, the official minutes can be obtained by contacting Planning Services. Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Ripon Lane Auto Service Narrative An automobile service garage is proposed for parcel number 91334212008 located on Ripon Lane. The property is currently vacant. The proposed garage will have 5 employees. The estimated number of customers visiting the facility is 15 per day. 25 daily trips to the site are anticipated. The proposed facility is a 2,275 square foot service center with ancillary pavement, parking and other facilities. The proposed site will be 54% impervious. Detailed site statistics are listed on sheet C2.0 of the attached plans. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday. The adjacent properties to the east and west are residential uses. The properties to the north and south are commercial uses. The majority of the block bound by Koeller, South Park and 20th is occupied by commercial properties. There appears to be 3 residential properties in this area, all of which are on Ripon Lane. The adjacent residential properties will be screened by a 6’ fence on the east and west property lines. Extensive landscaping will also be installed to buffer the neighborhood. The 0.4 buffer was applied to the landscape design as if the adjacent properties were zoned residential. Traffic impacts to the area are low and the area is already heavily commercialized. All vehicle repairs will be performed in the proposed building during the proposed hours of operation in order to minimize noise impacts on the area. The dumpster on site will be screened from view and there will not be any outside storage of materials. No significant impacts to air quality are anticipated. The project will have stormwater management facilities installed to minimize environmental impacts. Lighting is designed to have minimal impacts on neighboring properties. All lights will be cutoff fixtures. Page 10 27' 24' 28' 9' TYP 18' 5.5'10' 51' 8' 10' 10' 34.6' 34.3' 6.5' 9' TYP 18' 15' 15.5' 10' R30' R30' R30'R30' R5' R5' R5' R2' 35' 65' PROPOSED BUILDING 26' 15' ST RIPO N L A N E 1 0 ' S E T B A C K 25' S E T B A C K 1 0 ' S E T B A C K 25' S E T B A C K S 3 6 ° 1 0 ' 5 6 " E 2 5 7 . 4 0 ' S65°1 7 ' 4 3 " W 7 3 . 3 8 ' N 3 6 ° 2 7 ' 3 8 " W 2 5 1 . 6 7 ' N53 ° 3 7 ' 1 6 " E 8 0 . 0 0 ' S00°42'13"W 11.44' 86' 15' N O D I S T U R B A N C E 5 ' P A V E M E N T S E T B A C K 5 ' P A V E M E N T S E T B A C K 5' DATE: DRAFTED BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DRAWING NUMBER SHEET NUMBER NO . RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N OF 22 6 0 S a l s c h e i d e r C o u r t G r e e n B a y , W I 5 4 3 1 3 PH : 9 2 0 - 5 6 9 - 5 7 6 5 ; F a x : 9 2 0 - 5 6 9 - 5 7 6 7 ww w . m a c h - i v . c o m 8 9 107654321 A B C D E F G 8 9 107654321 R: \ J o b s \ 2 3 5 7 - 0 1 - 2 5 A l b r i g h t R i p o n L n A u t o G a r a g e \ D R A W I N G S \ 2 3 5 7 - 0 1 - 2 5 E n g . d w g 7/ 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 0 0 : 4 4 P M MM J G R O U P L L C SI T E P L A N JULY 7, 2025 RPH 2357-01-25 C2.0 ? 1 CI T Y C O M M E N T S 7 - 1 0 - 2 0 2 5 AL B R I G H T R I P O N L A N E AU T O G A R A G E 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 401020 SHEET KEY NOTES: STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER STOOP LOCATION; REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS DUMPSTER PAD DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, TO BE BOARD ON BOARD OR SAME MATERIAL AS BUILDING; REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ADA HANDICAP STALL, SYMBOL ADA HANDICAP SIGN ADA HANDICAP WARNING BOLLARD 4" WIDE PAINT STRIPE; COLOR BY OWNER BICYCLE PARKING DRY DETENTION BASIN; SEE SHEET C4. CONCRETE FLUME BUILDING MOUNTED SIGN FUTURE CONCRETE SIDEWALK; TO BE INSTALLED WHEN PUBLIC SIDEWALK IS INSTALLED LIGHT POLE; REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT LOCATION AND TYPE WALL MOUNTED LIGHT; REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT LOCATION AND TYPE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SITE STATISTICS PARCEL ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: PARCEL SIZE: ZONING: EXISTING SITE GREEN SPACE: IMPERVIOUS AREA BUILDING: PAVEMENT: TOTAL IMPERVIOUS: PROPOSED SITE TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: GREEN SPACE REQUIRED: GREEN SPACE PROVIDED: IMPERVIOUS AREA BUILDING: PAVEMENT: TOTAL IMPERVIOUS: PARKING PROVIDED PARKING SPACES REQ'D/CALCS: PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: RIPON LANE 91334212008 20,585 SF (0.473 AC) SMU: SUBURBAN MIXED USE 20,585 SF (100%) 0.0 SF (0.0%) 0.0 SF (0.0%) 0.0 SF (0.0%) Area Square Feet; Acres 30% (6,176 SF) 9,511 SF (46.4%) 2,275 SF (11.1%) 8,799 SF (42.7%) 11,074 SF (53.8%) 1 STALL / 300 SF GFA (MIN); 1.25 STALL / 300 SF GFA (MAX) 2275 / 300 = 8 MIN., 12 MAX. 9 STALLS, INCLUDES 1 ADA HANDICAP 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X 4 11 TYP 12 13 1 3 3 11 TYP 14 14 13 15 14 MMJ GROUP LLC 84 W. WAUKAU AVENUE OSHKOSH, WI 54902 OWNER 15 16 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 GENERAL NOTE 1.OPEN OUTDOOR STORAGE OF INOPERABLE VEHICLES IS PROHIBITED. 17 18 17 18 17 1818 18 1 Page 11 PROPOSED BUILDING ST RIPO N L A N E 1 0 ' S E T B A C K 25' S E T B A C K 1 0 ' S E T B A C K 25' S E T B A C K S 3 6 ° 1 0 ' 5 6 " E 2 5 7 . 4 0 ' S65°1 7 ' 4 3 " W 7 3 . 3 8 ' N 3 6 ° 2 7 ' 3 8 " W 2 5 1 . 6 7 ' N53 ° 3 7 ' 1 6 " E 8 0 . 0 0 ' S00°42'13"W 11.44'15' N O D I S T U R B A N C E 5 ' P A V E M E N T S E T B A C K 5 ' P A V E M E N T S E T B A C K DATE: DRAFTED BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: DRAWING NUMBER SHEET NUMBER NO . RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N OF 22 6 0 S a l s c h e i d e r C o u r t G r e e n B a y , W I 5 4 3 1 3 PH : 9 2 0 - 5 6 9 - 5 7 6 5 ; F a x : 9 2 0 - 5 6 9 - 5 7 6 7 ww w . m a c h - i v . c o m 8 9 107654321 A B C D E F G 8 9 107654321 R: \ J o b s \ 2 3 5 7 - 0 1 - 2 5 A l b r i g h t R i p o n L n A u t o G a r a g e \ D R A W I N G S \ 2 3 5 7 - 0 1 - 2 5 E n g . d w g 7/ 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 0 0 : 5 0 P M MM J G R O U P L L C SI T E P L A N W I T H A E R I A L JULY 7, 2025 RPH 2357-01-25 C2.0A ? AL B R I G H T R I P O N L A N E AU T O G A R A G E 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 401020 MMJ GROUP LLC 84 W. WAUKAU AVENUE OSHKOSH, WI 54902 OWNER Page 12 TAILWIND AV CAPITAL DR R I P ONLA W 20TH AV S K O E L L E R S T W SOUTHPARKAV J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2023 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katrinam Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 5/16/2025 1 in = 160 ft 1 in = 0.03 mi¯NOTICE MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkoshassumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Page 13 T A I L W I N D A V RIP O N L A WSOUTH PARKAV S KOELLER ST W 20TH AV TA I LW I N D AVTAILWIND AV RIP O N L A WSOUTHPARKAVS KOELLER ST W 20TH AV I SMU SMU-PD SMU-PD J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2023 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katrinam Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 7/7/2025 1 in = 120 ft 1 in = 0.02 mi¯ZONING & AERIAL MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkoshassumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Page 14 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kimberly Gierach, Planning Services Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-439 Approve Conditional Use Permit request for a group development located at the northwest corner of East Tennessee Avenue and Mount Vernon Street (parcel 91505340100) (Plan Commission recommends approval) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e su bject area in clu des a 1 .1 9 -acre v acan t property with fron tag e on East Ten n essee Av en u e, Mou n t Vern on Street, East Cu ster Av en u e, an d Harrison Street. Th e su rrou n din g area con sists prim arily of residen tial u ses alon g w ith an au to body sh op on th e adjoin in g property to th e west/sou th an d an in stitu tion al u se to th e east. Th e su bject property is zon ed Urban Mixed- Use District (UMU) an d slated for Neigh borh ood Com m ercial u se in th e 2 0 4 0 Com preh en siv e Lan d Use Plan . Th e applican t is proposin g th ree tow n h om e bu ildin g s, totalin g 1 5 u n its. Tow n h ou ses of th ree to eigh t u n its are perm itted in th e UMU district. G rou p dev elopm en ts with th ree or m ore prin cipal stru ctu res requ ire a CUP regardless of wh eth er th e in div idu al u ses with in th e dev elopm en t are perm itted by rig h t with in th e applicable district. A n eig h borh ood m eetin g was h eld on Au g u st 5 , 2 0 2 5 . Th e n eigh bors in atten dan ce were gen erally su pportiv e of th e proposed u se, bu t n oted possible con cern s related to th e proposed residen tial u se bein g adjacen t to th e existin g au to body sh op to th e west/sou th , an d recom m en ded prov idin g solid fen cin g or lan dscapin g to bu ffer th e residen tial u se from th e com m ercial u se. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e proposed site w ill h av e sev en driv eway accesses to attach ed g arages from Mou n t Vern on Street an d a sin gle driv ew ay access from Harrison Street. Th e proposed site plan m eets requ irem en ts for setback s, bu ildin g separation , park in g, residen tial den sity, an d im perv iou s su rface ratio. Mu lti-fam ily u ses are requ ired to prov ide ou tdoor recreation area at a m in im u m of 2 0 0 sq. ft. plu s 2 5 sq. ft. per bedroom (1 ,3 2 5 sq. ft.). Th e proposed site plan prov ides su fficien t yard space an d patio areas to m eet th is requ irem en t. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Approv al of th is m ay resu lt in an in crease in th e assessed property v alu e for th e site. Th e applican t is an ticipatin g spen din g approxim ately $5 m illion on th e proposed project. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Th e Plan Com m ission recom m en ded approv al of th e requ ested Con dition al Use Perm it on Au gu st 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 . Please see th e attach ed staff report for m ore in form ation . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-439 CUP - 0 Mt Vernon St - 1300 block 08/26/2025 25-439 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GROUP DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST TENNESSEE AVENUE AND MOUNT VERNON STREET (PARCEL 91505340100) INITIATED BY : ADAM HERTEL – AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL GROUP PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved w/ findings and condition WHEREAS, the Plan Commission finds that the conditional use permit request for a group development at parcel 91505340100, is consistent with the criteria established in Sections 30-171 and 30-382 of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that a conditional use permit request for a group development at parcel 91505340100, per the attached, is hereby approved, with the following findings: Is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan as it meets the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goal to “encourage compatible land use development”, as the proposed multi-family use is compatible with neighboring residential land uses. 1. Would not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on nearby property, the character of the neighborhood, environmental factors, traffic factors, parking, public improvements, public property or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, or general welfare because the proposed site will comply with zoning requirements for the UMU District and is compatible with neighboring residential land uses. 2. Maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use impacts as related to the environs of the subject property because the multi-family use of the property is consistent with the UMU zoning designation of the subject property and neighboring residential properties. 3. The conditional use is located in an area that will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any of the improvements, facilities, utilities or services provided by public or private agencies serving the subject property as existing infrastructure is in place for use of the subject site. 4. The potential public benefits outweigh any potential adverse impacts of the proposed conditional use, after taking into consideration the applicant’s proposal and any requirements recommended by the applicant to ameliorate such impacts because the multi-family use is compatible with UMU District zoning and existing residential uses in the surrounding area, and also meets the group development standards found in Section 30-171(F) of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following are conditions of approval for a Conditional Use Permit request for a group development at parcel 91505340100: Final landscaping and lighting plans shall be approved by the Department of Community Development.1. ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Request for a Group Development Located at the Northwest Corner of East Tennessee Avenue and Mount Vernon Street (Parcel 91505340100) Plan Commission Meeting of August 19, 2025 Applicant: Adam Hertel – American Architectural Group Property Owner: Randy Schmiedel – Intrepid Investments, LLC Action Requested: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a group development. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: Group and large developments are permitted only through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as regulated in Section 30-171 of the Zoning Ordinance. Criteria used for CUPs are located in Section 30-382 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property Location and Background Information: The subject area includes a 1.19-acre vacant property with frontage on East Tennessee Avenue, Mount Vernon Street, East Custer Avenue, and Harrison Street. The surrounding area consists primarily of residential uses along with an auto body shop on the adjoining property to the west/south and an institutional use to the east. The subject property is zoned Urban Mixed-Use District (UMU) and slated for Neighborhood Commercial use in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Subject Site Existing Land Use Zoning Vacant UMU Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Existing Uses Zoning North Residential UMU & UMU-PD South Residential TR-10 East Residential & Institutional MR-12 & I West Residential SR-9 Recognized Neighborhood Organizations Midtown Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use 2040 Land Use Recommendation Neighborhood Commercial The applicant is proposing three townhome buildings, totaling 15 units. Townhouses of three to eight units are permitted in the UMU district. Group developments with three or more principal structures require a CUP regardless of whether the individual uses within the development are permitted by right within the applicable district. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 5, 2025. The neighbors in attendance were generally supportive of the proposed use, but noted possible concerns related to the proposed residential use being adjacent to the existing auto body shop to the west/south, and recommended providing solid fencing or landscaping to buffer the residential use from the commercial use. Standards applicable to group and large developments are found in Section 30-171(E) of the Zoning Ordinance and include the following: (1) Land uses and development shall comply with the applicable requirements of this Chapter, including, but not limited to, density, intensity, bulk, setback, and building separation requirements; building and site design standards; landscaping and green space requirements; access, parking, loading requirements; and signage requirements. (2) The applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed development relates to each of the following criteria: a. Complements the design and layout of nearby buildings and developments. b. Enhances, rather than detracts from, the desired character of the surrounding area. (3) Architectural Quality. All buildings within the group and/or large development shall be compatible with one another in terms of architectural quality and design, as determined by the Plan Commission. Site Design & Access The proposed site will have seven driveway accesses to attached garages from Mount Vernon Street and a single driveway access from Harrison Street. The proposed site plan meets requirements for setbacks, building separation, parking, residential density, and impervious surface ratio. Multi-family uses are required to provide outdoor recreation area at a minimum of 200 sq. ft. plus 25 sq. ft. per bedroom (1,325 sq. ft.). The proposed site plan provides sufficient yard space and patio areas to meet this requirement. Required Provided Front Setback (E. Tennessee Ave.) 25 ft. 30.5 ft. Front Setback (Harrison St.) 25 ft. pavement 5 ft. pavement 43 ft. building 5 ft. pavement Front Setback (E. Custer Ave.) 25 ft. 25.5 ft. Steet Side Setback (Mount Vernon St.) 12 ft. 22 ft. Side Setback (south) 7.5 ft. 17.7 ft. Side Setback (west) 7.5 ft. 30 ft. Building Height Max: 35 ft. 29 ft. Required Provided Parking Spaces Min: 15 34 Lot Area Min: 1,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 3,442 sq. ft. per unit Impervious Surface Max: 75% of lot 49% of lot Signage - No signage plans were submitted with this request. Lighting - A photometric lighting plan has been provided, which shows wall mount fixtures on each building. Lighting levels on the plan are within the maximum of 1.0 fc at the public right- of-way and 0.5 fc at the interior property lines. The plan does not show lighting levels for the driveways. This will be addressed during Site Plan Review. Storm Water Management - The applicant has been in contact with the Department of Public Works regarding storm water management for the subject area. The final storm water management plans will be approved during the Site Plan Review process. Landscaping - Code requires building foundation, paved area, street frontage, and yard landscaping requirements to be met for the proposed site. Building Foundation - A minimum of 40 landscaping points per 100 linear feet of building foundation is required for each building. The landscape plan is meeting the building foundation planting requirement for each building. Paved Area - A minimum of 40 landscaping points per 10 parking stalls or 10,000 sq. ft. of paved area is required. The landscape plan is meeting this requirement. The code further specifies 30% of all points will be devoted to tall trees and 40% will be devoted to shrubs. The plan does not specify the number of points devoted to tall trees and shrubs, which may be addressed during Site Plan Review. Street Frontage - Code requires 100 landscaping points per 60 feet of right-of-way. Code further specifies that 50% of the required points shall be devoted to medium trees. The landscaping plan is meeting the street frontage landscaping point requirements. One of the street frontage trees appears to be located within the 20’ X 20’ corner vision triangle. This tree will need to be moved outside of the vision triangle and may be addressed during Site Plan Review. Yards - Code requires 10 landscaping points per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The landscaping plan meets the yard landscaping requirement. Building Facades The proposed townhomes are two-story buildings with the exterior consisting primarily of vinyl siding along with window and door areas for each unit. The inclusion of dormers, varying roof heights, and window placement provide building articulation. The proposed exterior materials (vinyl siding) are compatible with materials utilized on residential structures in the surrounding area. Code requires 20% of street facing facades to be comprised of window and door area. The plan is meeting this requirement for all street facing facades, with the exception of the north façade of the 5-unit building (facing East Custer Avenue). Planning staff, with the Community Development Director or designee, determined the site has unusual difficulties related to this requirement as it has four street frontages. The proposed plans exceed the 20% door/window area requirement on the primary facades of all buildings and sufficient articulation is provided on this building end. Staff will permit the window/door area reduction as proposed, as this exception is in keeping with the purpose of this Section. 7-unit building elevations 5-unit building elevations 3-unit building elevations FINDINGS/CONDITIONS: In its review and recommendation to the Common Council, on an application for a CUP, staff recommends the Plan Commission make the following findings based on the criteria established by Chapter 30-382 (F)(3) (1) Is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan as it meets the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goal to “encourage compatible land use development”, as the proposed multi-family use is compatible with neighboring residential land uses. (2) Would not result in a substantial or undue adverse impact on nearby property, the character of the neighborhood, environmental factors, traffic factors, parking, public improvements, public property or rights-of-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, or general welfare because the proposed site will comply with zoning requirements for the UMU District and is compatible with neighboring residential land uses. (3) Maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use impacts as related to the environs of the subject property because the multi-family use of the property is consistent with the UMU zoning designation of the subject property and neighboring residential properties. (4) The conditional use is located in an area that will be adequately served by, and will not impose an undue burden on, any of the improvements, facilities, utilities or services provided by public or private agencies serving the subject property as existing infrastructure is in place for use of the subject site. (5) The potential public benefits outweigh any potential adverse impacts of the proposed conditional use, after taking into consideration the applicant’s proposal and any requirements recommended by the applicant to ameliorate such impacts because the multi-family use is compatible with UMU District zoning and existing residential uses in the surrounding area, and also meets the group development standards found in Section 30-171(F) of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP for a group development located at the northwest corner of East Tennessee Avenue and Mount Vernon Street (parcel 91505340100) as proposed with the findings listed above and the following condition: • Final landscaping and lighting plans shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. Plan Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit on August 19, 2025. For a comprehensive record of the proceedings, the official minutes can be obtained by contacting Planning Services. Sign_______ Staff ________ Date Rec’d ________ City of Oshkosh Application Conditional Use Permit **PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT USING BLACK INK** APPLICANT INFORMATION Petitioner: _________________________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Petitioner’s Address: ________________________________________ City: ______________________ State: _____ Zip: ________ Telephone #: ( ) _________________ Email: _______________________ Contact preference: Phone Email Status of Petitioner (Please Check): Owner Representative Tenant Prospective Buyer Petitioner’s Signature (required): _______________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ OWNER INFORMATION Owner(s): __________________________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Owner(s) Address: __________________________________________ City: ______________________ State: _____ Zip: ________ Telephone #: ( ) _________________ Email: _______________________ Contact preference: Phone Email Ownership Status (Please Check): Individual Trust Partnership Corporation Property Owner Consent: (required) By signature hereon, I/We acknowledge that City officials and/or employees may, in the performance of their functions, enter upon the property to inspect or gather other information necessary to process this application. I also understand that all meeting dates are tentative and may be postponed by the Planning Services Division for incomplete submissions or other administrative reasons. Property Owner’s Signature: ___________________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ SITE INFORMATION Address/Location of Proposed Project: __________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Project Type: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Estimated Cost: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Current Use of Property: ________________________________________________________________Zoning: ________________ Land Uses Surrounding Your Site: North: ___________________________________________________________________ South: ____________________________________________________________________ East: ____________________________________________________________________ West: ___________________________________________________________________ **Please note that a meeting notice will be mailed to all abutting property owners regarding your request. It is recommended that the applicant meet with Planning Services staff prior to submittal to discuss the proposal. Application fees are due at time of submittal. Make check payable to City of Oshkosh. Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee. FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE For more information please the City’s website at https://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/CommunityDevelopment/ SUBMIT TO: Dept. of Community Development 215 Church Ave., P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903-1130 Room 204 PHONE: (920) 236-5059 Email: planning@ci.oshkosh.wi.us Adam Hertel - American Architectural Group 7/7/2025 3350 S. River Road West Bend WI 53090 262 334-3811 adam@teamaag.net X X Randy Schmiedel - Intrepid Investments, LLC 7/7/2025 230 Ohio Street, Suite 200 Oshkosh WI 54902 920 230-3802 X X Property bound by E. Custer Ave, Mt. Vernon St, Tennessee Ave, and Harrison St. Condominiums $5 million Vacant UMU 7/7/2025 7/7/2025 rschmiedel@discovery-properties.com UMU-PD & SR-9 TR-10 MR-12, I, & TR-10 SR-9 & UMU Page 9 2 Briefly explain how the proposed conditional use will not have a negative effect on the issues below. 1. Health, safety, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. 2. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation and safety. 3. Noise, air, water, or other forms of environmental pollution. 4. The demand for and availability of public services and facilities. 5. Character and future development of the area. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS – Must accompany the application to be complete. (Submit only digital files. If file size exceeds 10 mb, please send through a file transfer. Please note at the discretion of Community Development staff may request a hard copy) A narrative of the proposed conditional use and project including: Proposed use of the property Existing use of the property Identification of structures on the property and discussion of their relation to the project Projected number of residents, employees, and/or daily customers Proposed amount of dwelling units, floor area, landscape area, and parking area expressed in square feet and acreage to the nearest one-hundredth of an acre Effects on adjoining properties to include: noise, hours of operation, glare, odor, fumes, vibration, etc. Surrounding land uses Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent and other properties in the area. Traffic generation Any other information pertinent to adequate understanding of the intended use and its relation to nearby properties A complete site plan including: Digital plans and drawings of the project Title block that provides all contact information for the petitioner and/or owner, if different Full name and contact information of petitioner’s engineers/surveyors/architects, or other design professionals used in the plan preparation The date of the original plan and latest date of revision to the plan A north arrow and graphic scale. Said scale is not to be smaller than one inch equals sixty feet (1”=60’) unless otherwise approved by the Department of Community Development prior to submittal All property lines and existing and proposed right-of-way lines with bearings and dimensions clearly labeled All required and proposed building setbacks and offset lines All existing and proposed buildings, structures, and paved areas, including building entrances, walks, drives, decks, patios, fences, walls Location of all outdoor storage and refuse disposal areas and the design and materials used for construction Location and dimension of all on-site parking (and off-site parking provisions if they are to be employed), including a summary of the number of parking stalls provided per the requirements of Section 30-175 City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance Location and dimension of all loading and service areas on the subject property Location, height, design, illumination power and orientation of all exterior lighting on the property including a photometrics plan Location of all exterior mechanical equipment and utilities and elevations of proposed screening devices where applicable (i.e. visible from a public street or residential use or district). Mechanical equipment includes, but is not limited to; HVAC equipment, electrical transformers and boxes, exhaust flues, plumbing vents, gas regulators, generators The majority of the surrounding land is single-family and multi-family residential. The proposed development is residential that will complement the surrounding buildings. The proposed development will have the same type of pedestrian and vehicular traffic as most of the surrounding area. The development will produce minimal noise, air, water, and environmental pollution and at the least will not add anything that is already present in the area. Public utilities are available to the proposed property and should not put a large demand on the system. The proposed buildings will have the same character and aesthetic as the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Page 10 3 A complete landscaping plan including (If deemed necessary by Planning Services): The location, species, and installation size of plantings. A table summarizing all proposed species and required and provided landscaping points for all applicable landscaping components: building foundation, paved areas, street frontages, yards, bufferyards. Architectural plan including a percentage breakdown of exterior materials applied to each building façade (if deemed necessary by Planning Services). Any other necessary information as determined during pre-submittal meeting with City staff. Planning Staff may waive certain requirements if deemed not applicable to the project review. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge all required application materials are included with this application. I am aware that failure to submit the required completed application materials may result in denial or delay of the application request. Applicant’s Signature (required): _________________________________ Date: _____________________ 7/7/2025 Page 11 Project Narrative – Mt. Vernon St. Townhomes This new development will be 15-unit townhouse style homes divided into 3 separate buildings. Each unit will comprise of 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms or 3-bedroom 2.5 bath townhomes with separate entrance to each unit and its own 1 or 2-car private garage. This neighborhood currently is a mixed-use neighborhood with commercial properties, apartments, condos, and single-family homes to the north of this property. So, we feel this newer style home will fit very well into this area. This development will fill a missing niche in the market and will also be a set of restrictive covenants for this property that each owner will have to comply with. The following are BSM requested: • 5–8 unit townhomes prohibited in UMU district – BSM needed. We are requesting a BSM since 5-8 unit townhomes are not allowed in UMU district. • The density of 12.6 units/acre exceeds maximum of 10 units/acre – BSM needed. We are requesting BSM since we exceed a maximum of 10 units/acre. • The impervious surface ratio of 46.46% does not exceed the maximum of 50% - No BSM needed. • Pedestrian access and bicycle parking are not provided – BSM needed. We are requesting BSM not to have pedestrian access and bicycle parking. All units have their own garage/driveway for bicycle parking. • Recreation area: Min. 200 s.f. + 25 s.f. per bedroom – BSM needed. 1,325 s.f. recreation area required (45 Beds X 25 s.f. + 200 s.f. = 1,325 s.f.). We are requesting a BSM to have multiple recreation areas in lieu of one single area. Each unit will have their own 80 s.f. concrete patio (15 units x 80 = 1,200 s.f.) for sitting, sunbathing and grilling. There will also be miscellaneous grass areas and driveways for recreational activities. In addition to the concrete patios we are providing a 500 s.f. recreational area for a swing set, sandbox and picnic table for a total of 1,700 s.f. of recreational space. Additional Site Features: • Curbing is shown around drive lanes. • All homes will have their own garbage/recycling containers. • There will be no signage on the site. • Each building will have its own room for water service and metering shall. Randy Schmiedel Principal 230 Ohio Street, Suite 200 Oshkosh, WI 54902 Ph: 920-230-3802 Fax: 920-426-4606 www.discovery-properties.com Page 12 Pat i o Ga r a g e Por c h Gar a g e Ga r a g e 13 14 Pat i o Pat i o Por c h Por c h PorchPorch PorchPorch Patio Garage Patio Garage 5 3 Patio Garage 1 Patio Garage 2 Porch Patio Garage Porch Patio Garage 6 4 Patio Porch PatioPatio Porch Meter Porch Patio Porch Patio Porch Garage Garage Garage 9 811 GarageGarage 10 Room Porch Garage Meter Room Patio 712 15 Me t e r Ro o m X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7/29/2025 C1.02 12 2 W i s c o n s i n S t r e e t , W e s t B e n d , W I 5 3 0 9 5 26 2 . 3 4 6 . 7 8 0 0 w w w . p a r i s h s e . c o m PRELIMINARY OS H K O S H T O W N H O M E S MT V E R N O N S T R E E T OS H K O S H , W I 5 4 9 0 1 \AM-120-24\ PROPOSED SITE PLAN KJP KJP KJP Page 13 JEFFERSON ST MT VER NON ST EA STMAN ST JE FF E R S ON ST E TEN NE SSEE AV E C U S T E R AV JEF F ERSON S T E N E VA D A AV E N E VA D A AV N MAIN ST W N E WYORK AV HARRISON ST E N EW YO R K AV MountVernonTot Lot J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2023 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katrinam Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 7/8/2025 1 in = 160 ft 1 in = 0.03 mi¯NOTICE MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkoshassumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Page 14 E TEN NE SSEE AVJ EFFERSON ST E C U S T ER AV E C U S T E R AV MT VER NON ST E T EN NE SSEE AV JE FF E RSON ST MT VER NON ST HARRISON ST HARRISON ST E TEN N ESS EE A V E CUS TER AV E CUSTER AV MT VERNON ST JEFFERSON ST JEFFERSON ST JEFFERS ON S T HARRISON ST I MR-12 MR-12 SR-9 TR-10 TR-10 TR-10 UMU UMU-PD J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2023 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katrinam Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 7/25/2025 1 in = 120 ft 1 in = 0.02 mi¯ZONING & AERIAL MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkoshassumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Page 15 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kimberly Gierach, Planning Services Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-440 Approve Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for parking lot modifications at 90 Wisconsin Street (Plan Commission recommends approval) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e su bject area lies with in th e com m on area of th e R adford Squ are Con dom in iu m s, w h ich w as approv ed in Decem ber of 2 0 0 1 an d is zon ed Urban Mixed Use w ith a Plan n ed Dev elopm en t O v erlay (UMU-PD). Th is com m on area is approxim ately 2 .4 2 acres in size an d con sists of park in g stalls, driv e aisles, pedestrian walk w ays, an d g reen space. R adford Squ are Con dom in iu m s con tain s m u ltiple bu sin esses, su ch as Prospera Credit Un ion , Jim m y Joh n s, Big Apple Bag els, an d oth ers. Th e su bject site is bordered by th ree street fron tag es: Wiscon sin Street on th e w est, Pearl Av en u e on th e n orth , an d Marion R oad on th e east, an d a pu blic park in g lot on th e sou th . Th e su rrou n din g area con sists of com m ercial, in stitu tion al, in du strial, an d m u lti- fam ily lan d u ses. O n O ctober 8 , 2 0 0 2 , Com m on Cou n cil approv ed con stru ction of a restau ran t bu ildin g on th e sou th ern en d of th e su bject site. Th e Plan n ed Dev elopm en t w as am en ded on Septem ber 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 to allow for addition al restau ran t park in g an d again in 2 0 2 1 to allow for two accessory bu ildin gs in th e con do com m on area, beh in d 3 0 Wiscon sin Street. Addition ally, in 2 0 0 7 a Con dition al Use Perm it (CUP) was gran ted for in stallation of an EMC sign at 9 0 Wiscon sin Street; in 2 0 0 8 a rev ised CUP was approv ed for a n ew driv ew ay off of Pearl Av en u e. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e applican t is requ estin g an SIP Am en dm en t to allow for con stru ction of a n ew driv e aisle on th e n orth side of th e property th at w ill accom m odate th e u se of an exterior ATM m ach in e at Prospera Credit Un ion . Th e proposal requ ires th e rem ov al of n in e park in g stalls an d relocation of a lan dscape islan d. Accordin g to th e applican t, th is project will slig h tly redu ce th e cu rren t im perv iou s su rface ratio on th e site becau se th e n ew layou t allow s for a larger lan dscape area an d a n ew grass area. Code requ ires a m in im u m of on e park in g space per 3 0 0 sq. ft. of grou n d floor bu ildin g area for th is site, resu ltin g in a m in im u m of 6 8 park in g spaces requ ired. Th e site cu rren tly prov ides 1 5 3 park in g spaces, so th e loss of n in e spaces to accom m odate th e n ew driv e aisle does n ot im pact th e m in im u m code requ irem en t. Th e proposed project also does n ot im pact th e existin g access to th e site. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Th e Plan Com m ission recom m en ded approv al of th e requ ested Specific Im plem en tation Plan Am en dm en t on Au g u st 5 , 2 0 2 5 . Please see th e attach ed staff report for m ore in form ation . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-440 SIP Amendment - 90 Wisconsin St 08/26/2025 25-440 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS AT 90 WISCONSIN STREET INITIATED BY : D & F INVESTMENTS OF OSHKOSH LLP PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved WHEREAS, the Plan Commission finds that the Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for parking lot modifications at 90 Wisconsin Street is consistent with the criteria established in Section 30-387 of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that a Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for parking lot modifications at 90 Wisconsin Street, per the attached, is hereby approved, with the following findings: The proposed Planned Development project is consistent with the overall purpose and intent of this Chapter as the site will maintain sufficient parking for the tenants and customers (one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of ground floor building area). 1. The proposed Planned Development project would maintain the desired relationships between land uses, land use densities and intensities, and land use impacts in the environs of the subject site as only minor changes to the site are being proposed by moving a landscape island, removing parking spaces, and installing a new drive aisle next to the existing aisles. 2. The proposed Planned Development project will positively contribute to and not detract from the physical appearance and functional arrangement of development in the area by decreasing the overall impervious surface ratio. 3. ITEM: Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for Parking Lot Modifications at 90 Wisconsin Street Plan Commission Meeting of August 5, 2025 Owner: D & F Investments of Oshkosh LLP Applicant: Tim Carlson Action(s) Requested: The petitioner requests Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendment approval for modification to the approved parking arrangement at 90 Wisconsin Street. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: Planned Development standards are found in Section 30-387 of the Zoning Ordinance. Background Information Property Location and Type: The subject area lies within the common area of the Radford Square Condominiums, which was approved in December of 2001 and is zoned Urban Mixed Use with a Planned Development Overlay (UMU-PD). This common area is approximately 2.42 acres in size and consists of parking stalls, drive aisles, pedestrian walkways, and greenspace. Radford Square Condominiums contains multiple businesses, such as Prospera Credit Union, Jimmy Johns, Big Apple Bagels, and others. The subject site is bordered by three street frontages: Wisconsin Street on the west, Pearl Avenue on the north, and Marion Road on the east, and a public parking lot on the south. The surrounding area consists of commercial, institutional, industrial, and multi- family land uses. On October 8, 2002, Common Council approved construction of a restaurant building on the southern end of the subject site. The Planned Development was amended on September 23, 2003 to allow for additional restaurant parking and again in 2021 to allow for two accessory buildings in the condo common area, behind 30 Wisconsin Street. Additionally, in 2007 a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was granted for installation of an EMC sign at 90 Wisconsin Street; in 2008 a revised CUP was approved for a new driveway off of Pearl Avenue. Existing Land Use Zoning Commercial UMU-PD Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Existing Uses Zoning North Commercial UMU-PD South Industrial UI-RFO East Multi-Family UMU-PD West Institutional I-PD Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use 2040 Land Use Recommendation Center City Use: The applicant is requesting an SIP Amendment to allow for construction of a new drive aisle on the north side of the property that will accommodate the use of an exterior ATM machine at Prospera Credit Union. The proposal requires the removal of nine parking stalls and relocation of a landscape island. According to the applicant, this project will slightly reduce the current impervious surface ratio on the site because the new layout allows for a larger landscape area and a new grass area. Site Design: Code requires a minimum of one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of ground floor building area for this site, resulting in a minimum of 68 parking spaces required. The site currently provides 153 parking spaces, so the loss of nine spaces to accommodate the new drive aisle does not impact the minimum code requirement. The proposed project also does not impact the existing access to the site. The reduction in pavement by 1,160 sq. ft. will result in approximately 81.8% impervious surface ratio for the site, which is about a 1% reduction in overall impervious surface. The proposed impervious surface ratio will remain under the allowed maximum of 85% for commercial land uses in the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) District. Current Site Layout Proposed Site Layout Signage & Lighting: No plans were submitted with this request. Storm Water Management/Utilities: The existing drainage flows on the site will be maintained. Landscaping: Beyond a new grass area and relocation of a landscape island, no additional landscaping is proposed or required for this request. Findings/Recommendation/Conditions: In its review and recommendation to the Common Council on an application for a Planned Development district, staff recommends the Plan Commission make the following findings based on the criteria established by Chapter 30-387 (C)(6): (a) The proposed Planned Development project is consistent with the overall purpose and intent of this Chapter as the site will maintain sufficient parking for the tenants and customers (one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of ground floor building area). (c) The proposed Planned Development project would maintain the desired relationships between land uses, land use densities and intensities, and land use impacts in the environs of the subject site as only minor changes to the site are being proposed by moving a landscape island, removing parking spaces, and installing a new drive aisle next to the existing aisles. (d) The proposed Planned Development project will positively contribute to and not detract from the physical appearance and functional arrangement of development in the area by decreasing the overall impervious surface ratio. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan Amendment as proposed with the findings listed above and the following condition. Except as specifically modified by this Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendment, the terms and conditions of the following Planned Developments remain in full force and effect: • Resolution 01-508A, dated December 26, 2001 • Resolution 02-363, dated October 8, 2002 • Resolution 03-393, dated September 23, 2003 • Resolution 07-182, dated June 26, 2007 • Resolution 08-398, dated October 28, 2008 • Resolution 21-587, dated December 14, 2021 Plan Commission recommended approval of the Specific Implementation Plan Amendment on August 5, 2025. For a comprehensive record of the proceedings, the official minutes can be obtained by contacting Planning Services. 6/3/25 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 SITE PLAN NARRATIVE PROSPERA CREDIT UNION – 90 WISCONSIN – RADFORD SQUARE JUNE 20, 2025 Prospera Credit Union proposes to Add a new ATM machine to the most northern existing curbed island at their current drive-thru located at 90 Wisconsin Street. With the addition of the ATM, a new drive lane access is needed and will be constructed with gravel base and asphalt surface with gravel base and 6” thick reinforced concrete at the island for durability. The location of the new drive lane access will require nine parking spaces to be eliminated as well as a stone landscape mulch area. This will be replaced by the drive lane, new stone landscape mulch area and new seeded lawn area. Overall, this will reduce the current impervious area on-site slightly. Existing drainage fiows will be maintained and because of that there will be no curbing on the new driveway as currently the driveways do not have curbing due to the original drainage fiow. D & F Investments of Oshkosh LLP is the sole owner of condos 40 through 90 Wisconsin and Mr Grant Schwab has reviewed the design and is in full support of the project as indicated by his consent on the Planned Development Application dated June 3, 2025. Other items to be noted: • This project will NOT change the ingress/egress to the site or interfere with current traffic patterns on adjacent streets. • The loss of nine parking spaces will still leave the site with more than the minimum code requirement. • The new drive lane will have sufficient queuing space for flve cars behind the vehicle at the ATM. • No new exterior lighting or tree / shrub landscaping is proposed for the project. Page 8 W E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO BM - 1 WIS C O N S I N S T R E E T MA R I O N R O A D P E A R L A V E N U E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 111 . 3 3 ' N38 ° 1 5 ' 3 1 " E 120 . 6 0 ' N43 ° 5 8 ' 0 9 " E 2 6 7 . 0 1 ' S 5 2 ° 1 3 ' 1 3 " E 463 . 7 8 ' S37 ° 4 6 ' 4 7 " W S T O STO STO STO ST O ST O ST O E E E E E E E E E MA R I O N R O A D E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 2 6 7 . 0 1 ' 463 . 7 8 ' RE V I S I O N S MJ I B U I L D I N G S E R V I C E S 62 0 N L y n n d a l e D r i v e , S u i t e 1 1 0 Ap p l e t o n , W I 5 4 9 1 4 Ph o n e : 9 2 0 . 4 6 2 . 4 3 8 2 ww w . b u i l d w i t h m j i . c o m MJ I B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s L L C p r o v i d e s dr a w i n g a n d d a t a , r e g a r d l e s s o f fo r m , a s i n s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e . A l l ri g h t s , i n c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t s a r e re t a i n e d b y M J I B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s LL C . T h e C l i e n t a n d / o r r e c i p i e n t ag r e e s t o i n d e m n i f y a n d h o l d ha r m l e s s M J I B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s LL C f o r a n y r e u s e o f o r c h a n g e s ma d e t o t h e o r i g i n a l d r a w i n g o r da t a w i t h o u t p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of M J I B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s L L C . Co p y r i g h t 2 0 2 5 MJ I B U I L D I N G S E R V I C E S L L C D R A W N : T G C 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DA T E 27 M A Y 2 0 2 5 PR O J E C T N U M B E R TB D CH E C K E D DR A W N MJ I TG C ARCHITECTURAL C1.1 ZONING DATA PARKING REQUIREMENTS OWNER/APPLICANT: SITE/PROJECT INFORMATION SITE PLAN C1.1 2 1" = 20'-0" SITE DEMOLITION PLAN NORTH C1.1 4 N.T.S. ATM DETAIL ATM ISLAND NOTES: DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL: PF E F F E R L E M A N A G E M E N T AT M D R I V E W A Y A C C E S S PR O S P E R A C R E D I T U N I O N 90 W I S C O N S I N S T | O S H K O S H , W I S C O N S I N SITE PLAN SHEET INDEX 5-27-2 0 2 5 C1.1 3 N.T.S. LOCATION MAP NORTH SITE C1.1 1 1" = 20'-0" SITE PLAN NORTH Page 9 750 752 753 75 2 752 752 751 751 75 4 752 75 4 7 5 3 7 5 3 75 1 75 2 75 3 75 4 7 5 2 752 752 RE V I S I O N S MJ I B U I L D I N G S E R V I C E S 62 0 N L y n n d a l e D r i v e , S u i t e 1 1 0 Ap p l e t o n , W I 5 4 9 1 4 Ph o n e : 9 2 0 . 4 6 2 . 4 3 8 2 ww w . b u i l d w i t h m j i . c o m MJ I B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s L L C p r o v i d e s dr a w i n g a n d d a t a , r e g a r d l e s s o f fo r m , a s i n s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e . A l l ri g h t s , i n c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t s a r e re t a i n e d b y M J I B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s LL C . T h e C l i e n t a n d / o r r e c i p i e n t ag r e e s t o i n d e m n i f y a n d h o l d ha r m l e s s M J I B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s LL C f o r a n y r e u s e o f o r c h a n g e s ma d e t o t h e o r i g i n a l d r a w i n g o r da t a w i t h o u t p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of M J I B u i l d i n g S e r v i c e s L L C . Co p y r i g h t 2 0 2 5 MJ I B U I L D I N G S E R V I C E S L L C D R A W N : T G C 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DA T E 27 M A Y 2 0 2 5 PR O J E C T N U M B E R TB D CH E C K E D DR A W N MJ I TG C SITE DETAILS AND C3.1 C3.1 1 N.T.S. STANDARD ASPHALT PAVING SECTION C3.1 2 N.T.S. CONCRETE PAVING SECTION OVERALL / LOCATION PLAN PF E F F E R L E M A N A G E M E N T AT M D R I V E W A Y A C C E S S PR O S P E R A C R E D I T U N I O N 90 W I S C O N S I N S T | O S H K O S H , W I S C O N S I N C3.1 3 1" = 30'-0" OVERALL SITE PLAN NORTH PE A R L A V E N U E WISC O N S I N S T R E E T MAR I O N R O A D Page 10 PEARL AV MARION RD WISC ONSIN ST J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2023 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katrinam Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 7/7/2025 1 in = 80 ft 1 in = 0.02 mi¯90 WISCONSIN STNOTICE MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkoshassumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Page 11 PEARL AV MARION RD WISC ONSIN ST PEARL AV PEARL AV MARION RD WISC O NSIN ST I-PD UI-RFO UMU-PD UMU-PD-UTO J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2023 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katrinam Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 7/7/2025 1 in = 80 ft 1 in = 0.02 mi¯90 WISCONSIN STZONING & AERIAL MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkoshassumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Page 12 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Jon Urben, General Services Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-441 Award Bid to Cardinal Construction Company, Inc. for Downtown Transit Center Facility Expansion for GO Transit ($2,403,203.00) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND G O Tran sit com pleted a dow n tow n tran sit cen ter site selection an d feasibility stu dy in 2 0 2 0 . Th e stu dy ev alu ated th e Down town Tran sit Cen ter location , an d G O Tran sit's cu rren t an d fu tu re n eeds for th e tran sit operation facilities. Im m ediate an d lon g -term n eeds w ere con sidered an d recom m en dation s w ere m ade. G O Tran sit w as able to address th e im m ediate n eeds of th e cu rren t cen ter in 2 0 2 1 -2 0 2 2 u sin g Federal Cares Act fu n ds. Th at ph ase of th e project addressed accessibility im prov em en ts, m itig ated trippin g h azards, u pdated lan dscapin g , pav em en t an d fixtu res, added break space for tran sit driv ers, u pdated driv er restroom s for ADA com plian ce, an d en h an ced w ork space for th e operation s su perv isor as well as cu stom er serv ice. Th e pu rpose of th is m em o is to award th e secon d ph ase of th is project, follow in g th e recom m en dation s of th e stu dy. Th is secon d ph ase facility expan sion will in clu de a secon d bu s platform to accom m odate a safer loadin g /u n loadin g area an d prepare for fu tu re growth , a h eated pu blic w aitin g area w ith restroom s an d a resu rfaced park in g lot. Exten siv e real estate an d en v iron m en tal processes pu sh ed th is project in to th is year. Th rou gh an R FP process, th e city en g ag ed Ku en y Arch itects in May 2 0 2 4 for $2 2 1 ,3 4 2 .0 0 to desig n th is project expan sion , prepare bid specifics an d m an age con stru ction ov ersigh t. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Work in g w ith Ku en y Arch itects an d G O Tran sit staff, Pu rch asin g prepared bid specification s for th is project. Th e bid w as adv ertised in th e local n ewspaper an d posted on O n v ia Dem an dStar. Bids w ere du e Au g u st 4 , 2 0 2 5 . Th e bid tab is attach ed. Based on th e bid rev iew , it was th e con sen su s of PEC an d City staff th at th e low bid from Cardin al Con stru ction Com pan y, In c. m et all th e m in im u m bid requ irem en ts. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th e Com m on Cou n cil allocated $4 M in th e 2 0 2 4 CIP for th is facility expan sion , w ith G O Tran sit receiv in g an d FTA allocatin g approxim ately $1 .8 m illion in AR PA fu n ds an d $1 .6 m illion in 5 3 3 9 Federal Capital fu n ds for th is project. Th e requ ired local m atch for th is project is $4 0 0 ,0 0 0 (1 5 %). Th e fiscal im pact of th e bid is $2 ,4 0 3 ,2 0 3 .0 0 . With th e in clu sion of Ku en y's design fees of $2 2 1 ,3 4 2 .0 0 , th e total fiscal im pact of th is secon d ph ase of th e project is $2 ,6 2 4 ,5 4 5 .0 0 . Th is project w ill be ch arged to A/N# 0 5 1 1 1 7 2 8 7 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 (Bu ildin gs & Bu ildin gs Im prov em en ts). R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Pu rch asin g recom m en ds th e Com m on Cou n cil aw ard th is bid to Cardin al Con stru ction Com pan y, In c. for $2 ,4 0 3 ,2 0 3 .0 0 . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-441 Bid Tab GO Transit Center Facility Expansion Master Facility Site Plan Facility View #1 Facility View #2 Facility View #3 08/26/25 25-441 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: AWARD BID TO CARDINAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR GO TRANSIT DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER FACILITY EXPANSION FOR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ($2,403,203.00) INITIATED BY : GENERAL SERVICES DIVISION WHEREAS, the City of Oshkosh has heretofore advertised for bids for the GO Transit Downtown Transit Center Facility Expansion; and WHEREAS, upon the opening and tabulation of bids, it appears that the following is the most advantageous bid for this project: CARDINAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 1183 INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY FOND DU LAC, WI 54937 Total Bid: $2,403,203.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the said bid is hereby accepted and the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an appropriate agreement for the purpose of the same, all according to plans, specifications, and bid on file. Money for this purpose is hereby appropriated from: Acct. No. 05111728 7214 11112 (Buildings & Buildings Improvements) BID TAB CITY OF OSHKOSH GO TRANSIT DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER FACILITY EXPANSION GO TRANSIT DEPARTMENT MONDAY – AUGUST 4, 2025 BIDDER BID ADDENDUM PREQUAL BID BOND Cardinal Construction Co Inc 1183 Industrial Parkway Fond du Lac, WI 54937 $2,403,203.00 YES YES YES Miron Construction Co Inc 1471 McMahon Drive Neenah WI 54956 $2,729,015.00 YES YES YES SMA Construction Services LLC 201 W Walnut St., Suite 301 Green Bay WI 54303 $2,865,000.00 YES YES YES (FOR Ø60 POLES) 461.416[461.42] 349.96[350.0] 349.8 60 ∅76 (FOR Ø60 POLES) 461.416[461.42] 349.96[350.0] 349.8 60 ∅76 (FOR Ø60 POLES) 461.416[461.42] 349.96[350.0] 349.8 60 ∅76 PROPOSED BUILDING 1,515 SQ/FT EXISTING DRIVER SUPPORT BUILDING EXISTING BUS PLATFORM NEW BUS PLATFORM PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION (ALREADY COMPLETED) 4 0'-0" 4 0'-0" 1 2'-0" 17'-4" 17'-8" 25'-4" 24'-0" 22'-0" 1 2'-0" 4 0'-0" 9'-6" 9'-6" NEW SIDEWALK CURB BOTH SIDES OF WALK ROLLED CURB FOR SNOW MOVEMENT SNOW STORAGE HIG H A V E N U E B R O W N S T R E E T P E A R L A V E N U E M A R K E T S T R E E T 53 PARKING STALLS NEW SUPPORT BUILDING EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE USED FOR NEW DRIVE SEE CIVIL PLANS 18'-5 27/32" 24'-0" 14'-0" 24'-0" 2 0'-4 1/2" EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN ( EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN PAVER AREA kuenyarch.com ©2025 Kueny Architects L.L.C. -All Rights Reserved PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" A101City of Oshkosh - GO Transit - New Public Support Building and Bus Platform May 6, 2025 Master Facility Site Plan 110 Pearl Avenue, Oshkosh, WI 54901 1" = 20'-0"1 Site - Master Plan kuenyarch.com ©2025 Kueny Architects L.L.C. -All Rights Reserved SCALE: R 01City of Oshkosh - GO Transit - New Public Support Building and Bus Platform July 4, 2025 View #1 110 Pearl Avenue, Oshkosh, WI 54901 kuenyarch.com ©2025 Kueny Architects L.L.C. -All Rights Reserved SCALE: R 02City of Oshkosh - GO Transit - New Public Support Building and Bus Platform July 4, 2025 View #2 110 Pearl Avenue, Oshkosh, WI 54901 kuenyarch.com ©2025 Kueny Architects L.L.C. -All Rights Reserved SCALE: R 03City of Oshkosh - GO Transit - New Public Support Building and Bus Platform July 4, 2025 View #3 110 Pearl Avenue, Oshkosh, WI 54901 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Jon Urben, General Services Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-442 Approve Purchase of Lighting Poles to Enterprise Lighting LTD for Menominee Park Siewert Trail for Electric Division ($37,513.00) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e Com m on Cou n cil allocated fu n ds in th e 2 0 2 5 CIP for th e Siewert Trail project, wh ich in clu des pav in g, sidewalk s, driv eways an d u tilities. As part of th is project, th e City's Electric Div ision is to pu rch ase an d su pply th e ligh t poles an d fixtu res, to en su re com plian ce w ith th e City's lig h tin g stan dards. In stallation of th e equ ipm en t will be coordin ated by th e electrical su bcon tractor for th e project. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Beg in n in g in 2 0 1 8 , th e City establish ed th e Su n lig h t poles as stan dard lig h t poles for Park s' projects. Th e Su n ligh t poles were selected for stan dardization based on th eir park -style appeal, LED en ergy efficien cy an d su perior lig h t distribu tion . Electric Div ision staff secu red a proposal for th e Su n lig h t poles for th e Siewert Trail project from En terprise Lig h tin g LTD, th e su pplier of th e City's stan dardized ligh tin g poles an d fixtu res. Pu rch asin g h as con firm ed th is pu rch ase is in accordan ce with Section 1 2 -1 1 (sole sou rce/stan dardization exception ) of th e Mu n icipal Code. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th e cost of th e 2 3 Su n ligh t poles from En terprise Ligh tin g LTD is $3 7 ,5 1 3 .0 0 , wh ich is bein g ch arg ed to A/N# 0 3 2 5 0 6 1 0 7 2 1 6 6 2 0 1 0 (Park s Im prov em en t/Lan d Im prov em en t- Men om in ee Park ). Th is pu rch ase is in clu ded with in th e total estim ated cost for all Traffic Im prov em en ts CIP- related item s for th is project. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Section 1 2 -1 1 of th e Mu n icipal Code prov ides th at, su bject to th e approv al of th e City Man ag er, pu rch ases m ay be m ade w ith ou t followin g a form al com petitiv e biddin g process w h en th e pu rch ase is from on ly on e sou rce of su pply or wh en stan dardization or com patibility is th e ov erridin g con sideration . In accordan ce with Section 1 2 -1 1 of th e Mu n icipal Code an d w ith approv al by th e City Man ag er, Pu rch asin g recom m en ds th e Com m on Cou n cil approv e th is ligh tin g poles pu rch ase from En terprise Lig h tin g LTD, 2 0 0 7 Pewau k ee R oad, Wau k esh a, WI 5 3 1 8 8 in th e am ou n t of $3 7 ,5 1 3 .0 0 . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-442 08/26/25 25-442 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE PURCHASE OF LIGHTING POLES FROM ENTERPRISE LIGHTING LTD FOR THE MENOMINEE PARK SIEWERT TRAIL PROJECT ($37,513.00) INITIATED BY : GENERAL SERVICES DIVISION WHEREAS, the Common Council allocated funds in the 2025 CIP for the Menominee Park Siewert Trail project which includes paving, sidewalks, driveways and utilities; and WHEREAS, the city has previously adopted standards for uniform lighting poles for Parks to be used throughout the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed pursuant to Section 12-11 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code to purchase lighting poles and fixtures from: Enterprise Lighting LTD 2007 Pewaukee Road Waukesha, WI 53188 Total: $37,513.00 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an appropriate agreement for the purpose of same. Money for this purpose is hereby appropriated from: Acct. No. 03250610 7216 62010 (Parks Improvement/Land Improvement- Menominee Park) T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Steven M. Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works/Utilities General Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-443 Adopt Updated Lead Service Line Replacement Policy B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e City of O sh k osh (City) first adopted a m an datory lead w ater serv ice lin e replacem en t ordin an ce an d related policy in 2 0 1 7 . Sin ce th en , th e policy an d ordin an ce h av e been u pdated to reflect n ew regu lation s an d g u idan ce from th e Un ited States En v iron m en tal Protection Agen cy an d th e Wiscon sin Departm en t of Natu ral R esou rces (WDNR ) an d to in crease th e m axim u m am ou n t of fin an cial assistan ce prov ided to property ow n ers. From 2 0 1 7 th rou gh 2 0 2 3 , th e WDNR fu n din g to th e City for fin an cially assistin g property ow n ers w as prin cipal forgiv en ess loan s an d th e requ irem en ts were fairly stable. In 2 0 2 4 , th e sou rce of fu n din g ch an g ed at th e Federal lev el an d h ow th e City cou ld u se th e fu n din g to assist property ow n ers ch an g ed. Th e City receiv ed a low in terest (0 .2 5 %) loan th rou gh th e Safe Drin k in g Water Loan Program (SDWLP) / Bipartisan In frastru ctu re Law, wh ich requ ired th e City to pay th e fu ll replacem en t am ou n t to receiv e reim bu rsem en t from WDNR for th e prin cipal forg iv en ess portion of th e loan . Th e property ow n ers th en en tered in to a loan ag reem en t with th e City for repaym en t of th e n on -prin cipal forg iv en ess portion of th e replacem en t or paid th eir portion of th e replacem en t to th e City im m ediately after th e w ork w as com pleted. In 2 0 2 5 , th e City w ill be receiv in g tw o (2 ) loan s from th e WDNR for lead serv ice lin e replacem en t. Th e first h as sim ilar requ irem en ts to th e loan th e City receiv ed in 2 0 2 4 . Th e secon d loan is for a 1 0 0 % prin cipal forg iv en ess loan for properties th at are located w ith in th e City's Disadv an tag ed Cen su s Tracts of 4 , 7 , an d 1 2 . Th is loan w ill prov ide 1 0 0 % fin an cial assistan ce to property ow n ers for lead serv ice lin e replacem en t with a lim it on th e m axim u m am ou n t of assistan ce. Both of th ese loan ag reem en ts w ere approv ed by Com m on Cou n cil (Cou n cil) at th e Au g u st 1 2 th Cou n cil m eetin g . A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS As Cou n cil is aware, lead water serv ice lin es pose a poten tial h ealth risk , especially to you n g ch ildren . Th e ability to con tin u e to fin an cially assist residen ts to replace lead serv ice lin es is a critical piece to g ettin g property own ers to com ply w ith th e replacem en t requ irem en t. Th e City is sch edu led to receiv e a 5 0 % prin cipal forg iv en ess loan an d a 1 0 0 % prin cipal forgiv en ess loan th rou gh th e SDWLP. Th is 1 0 0 % prin cipal forgiv en ess loan will allow for th e City to h av e th e design ated fu n din g sou rce to fin an cially assist property own ers in replacin g th eir lead serv ice lin e for properties located with in th e City's Disadv an taged Cen su s Tracts of 4 , 7 , an d 1 2 . Th e cu rren t policy states, wh en a design ated fu n din g sou rce is av ailable, th e City will reim bu rse th e property ow n er fifty percen t (5 0 %) of th e cost of replacin g th e priv ate-side lead water serv ice lin e w ith a m axim u m reim bu rsem en t of $2 ,7 0 0 . Th is n ew loan w ill requ ire th e City to rev ise th e policy, for th ose in Cen su s Tracts 4 , 7 , an d 1 2 , to prov ide 1 0 0 % fin an cial assistan ce to th ese property own ers. O v er th e past few years, th e av erag e cost of replacin g th e priv ate-side lead w ater serv ice lin es h as risen . Th e cu rren t $5 ,4 0 0 m axim u m ($2 ,7 0 0 of fin an cial assistan ce at 5 0 %) is adequ ate to replace a priv ate-side lead w ater serv ice lin e w h ere sidewalk rem ov al is n ot n ecessary. In order to allow for th e en tire cost of a lead w ater serv ice lin e replacem en t to be eligible, staff is recom m en din g addin g $1 ,3 0 0 m axim u m ($6 5 0 of fin an cial assistan ce at 5 0 %) for h ard su rface replacem en t to assist an d en cou rag e property ow n ers to com plete th eir priv ate-side lead w ater serv ice lin e replacem en t. O th er m in or ch an ges an d u pdates were m ade to brin g th e docu m en t u p to date an d coordin ate addition s. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th ere is n o fiscal im pact to th e City related to approv in g th e am en dm en t to th e prog ram . Fin an cial Assistan ce is on ly prov ided w h en a desig n ated fu n din g sou rce is av ailable. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION I recom m en d approv al of th e am en dm en ts to th e Lead Serv ice Lin e R eplacem en t Policy. Th e ch an g es allow for 1 0 0 % fin an cial assistan ce wh en th e fu n din g sou rce allows an d in creases th e allowable am ou n t of expen ses to $6 ,7 0 0 . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-443 Amended LSLR policy 08/26/2025 25-443 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: ADOPT UPDATED LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT POLICY INITIATED BY : DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WHEREAS, The City of Oshkosh adopted an updated Lead Service Line Replacement Policy by Resolution 24-576 on November 12, 2024 to be consistent with the new loan program instituted in 2024 by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource (WDNR); and WHEREAS, additional changes are now required to incorporate changes and update the policy to include provisions pertaining to the two WDNR Financial Assistance Agreements (FAA) in the current 2025 year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the attached "Lead Service Line Replacement Policy" incorporating the changes necessary for the 2025 WDNR Financial Assistance Agreements (FAA) is hereby approved and the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to take those steps necessary to carry out the City's responsibilities under the Policy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Policy replaces all prior Policies and versions of any policy or procedure covering the same subject matter and shall be effective upon adoption. I:\Engineering\Lead Service Lateral Replacement\Policy\Amended LSLR Policy_8-26-25.docx Page 1 of 7 Lead Service Line Replacement Policy Contents 1. Acronyms and Definitions 2. Background and Purpose 3. Authorities 4. Replacement Requirements 5. Notice 6. Exception 7. Responsibilities of the City 8. Responsibilities of Private-Side LSL Owners 9. Financing Private-Side LSLR by City 1. Acronyms and Definitions “Child-care facility” shall mean any state-licensed or county-certified child-care facility including, but not limited to, licensed family childcare, licensed group centers, licensed day camps, certified school-age programs, and Head Start programs. “City” shall mean City of Oshkosh. “Confirmed water sample test” shall mean a tap water analysis completed after a prior analysis that indicated lead levels at the United States Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) action level, and conducted in accordance with the Lead and Copper Rule, with Chapter NR 809.547, Wis. Adm. Code., and with instructions provided by the City. “Contractor” shall mean a person, firm, corporation, or other entity pre-qualified by the City of Oshkosh to complete private side lead service line replacements. “Federal Safe Drinking Water Act” shall mean 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 300f-300j-26. “GIS” shall mean Geographic Information System. “Hard surface” shall mean concrete pavement, asphalt pavement, or crushed stone pavement used for pedestrian or vehicle access. “High-risk lead service” shall mean any lead water service line where a confirmed water sample test of a customer’s tap water reveals a lead concentration at or above the USEPA action level. I:\Engineering\Lead Service Lateral Replacement\Policy\Amended LSLR Policy_8-26-25.docx Page 2 of 7 “Lead and Copper Rule” (LCR) shall mean the rule created by the USEPA and adopted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in response to the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which provides maximum contaminant-level goals and national primary drinking water regulations for controlling lead and copper in drinking water including approved corrosion-control treatment techniques, lead service line replacement, and public education. The rule may be found in 56 FR 26460, 40 CFR part 141.80-141.90, and Chapter NR 809.541-NR809.55, Wis. Adm. Code. “Lead Service Line” (LSL) shall mean (i) all or a portion of a water service line constructed of lead, and/or (ii) all or a portion of a water service line constructed of galvanized material that is or was downstream of lead. The term includes both private-side water service lines and public-side water service lines. “Lead Service Line Replacement” (LSLR) shall mean full replacement of an LSL. “Licensed Plumber” shall mean a person, firm, corporation, or other entity licensed to perform plumbing work in the City by the State of Wisconsin. “Ordinance” shall mean City of Oshkosh Municipal Code, Chapter 20 – Plumbing and /or Chapter 28 - Water. “ppb” shall mean parts per billion. “Private-side water service line” (Private-side) shall mean the water pipe running from the customer’s meter to the curb stop, which is the Water Utility shut-off valve. This portion is owned by the property owner and is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain. “Public-side water service line” (Public-side) shall mean the water pipe running from the City’s water main to and including the curb stop, which is the Water Utility shut-off valve. “SDWLP” shall mean the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program. “water service line” shall mean the pipe that connects the water main to the customer’s meter. “Water Utility” shall mean the City of Oshkosh public water system, also known as Oshkosh Water Utility. 2. Background and Purpose The City has several thousand Lead Service Lines (LSLs) located on both public and private property. The Federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) under the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that samples taken at customers’ taps have less than fifteen (15) parts per billion lead. To comply with the LCR, the City controls LSL corrosion with the addition of a phosphate-based corrosion inhibitor and a pH adjustment chemical at the water treatment plant. I:\Engineering\Lead Service Lateral Replacement\Policy\Amended LSLR Policy_8-26-25.docx Page 3 of 7 Recent scientific studies, proposed changes in LCR sampling procedures, and incidents of elevated lead levels in public water systems have driven regulators and municipalities to reconsider LCR requirements, regulatory compliance, LSL replacement policies, and public communication about lead and drinking water. Prior to 2017, the City had replaced the public portion of LSLs in conjunction with water main replacements; however, the corresponding private-side portions of the LSLs were not required to be replaced. To reduce the potential exposure to lead in drinking water, the City adopted revisions to the City of Oshkosh Municipal Code Chapter 20 – Plumbing to make full lead water service line replacement mandatory. Wisconsin Public Service Commission approval is needed to use water utility funding on private- side water service lines. This policy describes how Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR) requirements in the Municipal Code will be implemented and how homeowners may receive financial assistance for LSL replacement. 3. Authorities The authority for implementation of the policy are Federal, State, and local regulations described in the following subsections: Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The SDWA was enacted into law in 1974 to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. This law gave the USEPA authority to set drinking water quality standards and requires all owners and operators of public water systems to meet these standards. In 1991, USEPA published the Federal Lead and Copper Rule to control lead and copper in drinking water. Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 809—Safe Drinking Water. The USEPA has designated the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as the “Approval Authority” responsible for oversight of implementation of the SDWA and its rules and amendments in the state of Wisconsin. This code generally repeats the Federal lead and copper regulations. City of Oshkosh Municipal Code (Ordinance). The LCR gives public water systems authority and responsibility to implement necessary local regulations. Provisions in Chapter 20 and Chapter 28 of the Municipal Code apply to LSLR and form the basis for the LSLR Policy, including Section 20-13 Lead Service Line Replacement, Section 20-14 Penalties, and Section 28-10 Private Side Lead Service Line Replacement Financing. 4. Replacement Requirements The LSL shall be replaced whenever any of the following occurs: A. A leak or failure has been discovered on either the private- or public-side of the LSL. I:\Engineering\Lead Service Lateral Replacement\Policy\Amended LSLR Policy_8-26-25.docx Page 4 of 7 B. A portion of an LSL is replaced or repaired. C. A request is made by a property owner to replace the private-side LSL. The remaining lead portion of the water service line shall be completely replaced within one hundred eighty (180) days of any repairs. No permanent repairs to the lead portion of a water service line shall be allowed. 5. Notice In the event of a water service line leak, failure, or emergency replacement of the public-side service, the City shall provide written notice to the property owner that replacement of the private-side LSL is required within one hundred eighty (180) days of the notice. In the event of a planned replacement of the public-side service, the City shall provide written notice of the private-side LSL replacement requirement to the property owner at least thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of the planned replacement of the public-side LSL. In the event of a water service line leak, failure, or emergency replacement of the private-side LSL, the City is required to replace the public-side LSL within one hundred eighty (180) days of the private-side LSL being completed. Please note other timelines may be required to qualify for financial assistance. 6. Exception The City may, at its discretion, grant a temporary exception to Section 4, provided that doing so will not create a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. When considering exceptions, the City may look at factors including, but not limited to: scheduled replacement and/or whether the lateral is in service, as well as any other factors that may be relevant. The maximum time extension shall be one (1) additional year beyond the one hundred eighty (180) days allowed. 7. Responsibilities of the City The City shall: A. Maintain a water service line material inventory. The database is available here: https://tinyurl.com/453uz9zu or at the QR code to the right. B. Create a voluntary LSL replacement list based upon requests from property owners. C. Prioritize replacement of LSLs to maximize efficient use of public funds and minimize potential risks to public health by replacing LSLs in conjunction with water main replacement projects; replacing LSLs at child-care facilities, schools, and locations with high-risk lead services; replacing LSLs from approved property owner requests; and replacing LSLs from completed water main projects where the private-side LSLs were not replaced. D. Complete the City’s home inspection form or provide form to Licensed Plumber(s). I:\Engineering\Lead Service Lateral Replacement\Policy\Amended LSLR Policy_8-26-25.docx Page 5 of 7 E. For planned LSLRs as part of City water main replacement projects, the City shall provide information to private property owners regarding the property owners’ responsibilities and resources that may be useful in meeting those responsibilities. F. When funds are available to subsidize private-side LSLR and the LSLR meets the eligibility criteria, the City shall: a. Provide to private property owners private-side LSLR financial assistance in accordance with Section 9 of this Policy. Property owners should contact the Department of Public Works at (920) 236-5258 to determine eligibility. b. Pre-qualify Contractor(s) to perform private-side LSLRs. c. Provide list of pre-qualified Contractor(s) to private property owners. G. Provide lead filter devices for temporary use during LSLR work and for a period of six (6) months after the completion of LSLR work. H. Provide public information on health risks associated with lead in drinking water and ways to reduce potential risks. I. React appropriately to noncompliance with communication, and, if necessary and appropriate, with enforcement as allowed under the Ordinance. 8. Responsibilities of Private-Side LSL Owners Upon receipt of the notice in Section 5, or upon approval from the City of a submitted request from the property owner, the private-side LSL owner shall: A. If the Water Service Line Material Inventory (see Section 7 for link) shows the private-side line pipe material as “UNKNOWN”, allow the City, or hire a Licensed Plumber, to complete City-approved water service line inspection. B. Replace the private-side LSL by contracting with a pre-qualified Contractor. The work shall be performed in accordance with all applicable State and local regulations and utility standards. It is recommended that property owners obtain multiple quotes. a. Property owner must meet and follow all City Eligibility Requirements listed in Section 9, Financing Private-Side LSLR, to qualify for financial assistance. C. Coordinate, as necessary, to complete timely replacement of a LSL. D. Contact the City of Oshkosh Plumbing Inspector for a final inspection in a timely manner. E. The property owner is ultimately responsible for hiring the contractor, complying with the financial assistance requirements below, and directly paying the contractor for any work completed not covered by Section 9 of this Policy. a. Participation in the financial assistance program, if available, is voluntary. Property owners must provide completed copies of all necessary paperwork. b. Costs above $5,400 for LSLR-related plumbing and electrical work and $1,300 for replacement of hard surfaces disturbed by LSLR are entirely the responsibility of the property owner. 9. Financing Private-Side LSLR by City When designated funding sources are available and within LSLR program eligibility requirements, described below, the City will subsidize the cost of private-side LSLR as follows: A property owner may apply for financial assistance from the City for private-side LSLR up to the amounts identified below. Property owners seeking financial assistance must complete I:\Engineering\Lead Service Lateral Replacement\Policy\Amended LSLR Policy_8-26-25.docx Page 6 of 7 all applications and meet the eligibility requirements listed below. Financial assistance may be provided in the form of a private-side LSL loan which shall be a lien upon the property and shall be repaid in installments as a special charge upon each year’s annual tax bill. City shall provide financial assistance as allowed by the funding source. Alternatively, property owners who are considered “Very Low Income”, as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the year the project takes place, may be eligible for assistance in paying for the private-side LSLR. This assistance may cover one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of the private-side LSLR, but is subject to the City’s annual Federal allocations. To apply for private-side LSLR financial assistance, property owner must submit completed Lead Service Line Replacement Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application and submit it to the Planning Services Division, 2nd floor, City Hall. The property owner must use a current LSLR Pre-qualified Contractor and follow all CDBG requirements. Eligibility Requirements (Non-CDBG funded LSLR): A. Property owners must meet all of the eligibility requirements. B. Service line replacement must be coordinated so the public-side and private-side service line replacement are completed within one hundred eighty (180) days of each other. Failure to meet the 180-day requirement will result in the property not being eligible for financial assistance. The 180-day requirement does not apply to partial service line replacements completed prior to August 8, 2024. C. Private LSL replacement must be approved by the City prior to starting replacement work. To receive approval, the property owner must: a. Complete and submit the appropriate Financial Assistance Application for Private-Side Lead Service Line Replacement. b. Complete and submit the appropriate Lead Service Line Replacement Financial Assistance Program Waiver/Release of Liability. c. Receive confirmation of approval for financial assistance from the City; information may include Financial Assistance conditions and may include a draft Promissory Note and Covenant containing terms of repayment. Conditions of approval must be shared with the Contractor and followed to ensure financial assistance eligibility. D. Work must be completed by Contractor on the City’s current year pre-qualified LSLR Contractor List. Provide a copy of any approval conditions to your Contractor. All work must follow any conditions of approval. E. After completion of work, including final inspections from the City of Oshkosh Inspection Services, the Contractor shall submit the following: a. Completed current Contractor Payment Application for Private-Side Lead Service Line Replacement. Please note that the property owner must sign this form. b. Invoice for work completed i. Invoice must contain the property address where the LSLR work was performed. ii. Invoice must contain an itemized list of the work completed and only pertain to the LSL replacement. Only LSLR costs will be considered/paid. F. After completion of work, including final inspections from the City of Oshkosh Inspection Services, the Property Owner shall do the following: I:\Engineering\Lead Service Lateral Replacement\Policy\Amended LSLR Policy_8-26-25.docx Page 7 of 7 a. Make appointment to close on the Promissory Note and Covenant or pay City the balance due. G. All work must be done in accordance with all sections of this document. a. Failure to provide necessary documentation or meet the required timelines will result in the City not paying the Contractor, resulting in no financial assistance from the City and the property owner owing the Contractor the full amount. T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-444 Approve Budget Amendment and Award Bid for Public Works Contract No. 25-03 to Vinton Construction Company for Washington School Reconstruction ($824,321.63) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e pu rpose of th is Project is to in stall sewer an d water laterals in th e pu blic righ t-of-way to th e form er Wash in g ton Sch ool Site, as well as con stru ct th e site gradin g an d priv ate on site storm w ater m an agem en t to allow th e eigh teen (1 8 ) n ewly-created lots to be bu ilder ready. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS En gin eerin g staff rev iewed two (2 ) bids. Th e low Bid was receiv ed from Vin ton Con stru ction Com pan y, In c. of G reen Bay, Wiscon sin . F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Fu n din g for th e Wash in gton Sch ool R econ stru ction Project is in th e 2 0 2 5 Capital Im prov em en t Prog ram (CIP) (Accou n t No. 0 3 2 3 0 7 4 0 -7 2 1 6 -6 3 0 2 2 /Pln g - Hou sin g Stu dy). Th e bu dget w ill be adju sted to address th is cost. Both Accou n t No. 0 3 2 3 0 7 4 0 -4 9 4 3 -6 3 0 2 2 /Sale of Lan d-Pln g - Hou sin g Stu dy an d 0 3 2 3 0 7 4 0 -7 2 1 6 -6 3 0 2 2 /Pln g - Hou sin g Stu dy w ill be in creased by $6 3 0 ,0 0 0 each . Followin g is a su m m ary of th e av ailable fu n ds (after th e bu dg et in creases) an d th e estim ated total con stru ction cost, in clu din g an cillary costs su ch as en g in eerin g fees, lan dfill tippin g fees, con stru ction m aterials testin g fees, an d oth er con stru ction -related expen ses. CIP Section CIP Fu n ds Bu dgeted an d In creased Estim ated Total Con str u ction Cost Com m u n ity Dev Pr op Im pr $8 4 0 ,0 0 0 $8 3 8 ,1 8 6 Totals $8 4 0 ,0 0 0 $8 3 8 ,1 8 6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION I recom m en d aw ard to th e low bidder, Vin ton Con stru ction Com pan y in th e am ou n t of $8 2 4 ,3 2 1 .6 3 an d am en din g th e bu dget. A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-444 25-03 bid tab 08/26/2025 25-444 RESOLUTION PURPOSE: APPROVE CIP AMENDMENT AND AWARD BID FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT NO. 25-03 TO VINTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR WASHINGTON SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION ($824,321.63) INITIATED BY : DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WHEREAS, the City of Oshkosh has heretofore advertised for bids for installation of sewer and water laterals in the public right-of-way to the former Washington School site and construction of site grading and private onsite storm water management in the City of Oshkosh; and WHEREAS, upon the opening and tabulation of bids, it appears that the following is the most advantageous bid: Vinton Construction Company 1322 33rd Street Two Rivers, WI 54241 Total Bid: $824,321.63 WHEREAS, the Common Council has adopted the 2025 Capital Improvement Program and Budget, which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the 2025 Capital Improvement Program Budget to add additional funding for this purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the 2025 Capital Improvements Budget, on file in the City Clerk’s Office, is hereby amended as follows: Increase Account No. 03230740-4943-63022 (Planning Division-Sale of Land-Plng - Housing Study) by $630,000. Increase Account No. 03230740-7216-63022 (Planning Division-Land Improvement-Plng - Housing Study) by $630,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said bid is hereby accepted and the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an appropriate agreement for the purpose of same, all according to Plans, Specifications, and Bid on file. Money for this purpose is hereby appropriated from: Acct. Nos. 03230740-7216-63022/Planning Division-Land Improvement-Plng - Housing Study Contract 25-03 Washington School Redevelopment (#9745752) Owner: Oshkosh WI, City of Solicitor: Oshkosh WI, City of Bid Opening: 07/14/2025 11:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Section 1 $824,321.63 $873,281.51 1010 Clearing; complete as specified Lump Sum 1.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1020 Grubbing; complete as specified Lump Sum 1.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1050 Mobilization; complete as specified Lump Sum 2.00 $40,500.00 $81,000.00 $20,000.00 $40,000.00 1120 Removing concrete and asphalt sidewalk and driveway; complete as specified Square Feet 2,000.70 $1.86 $3,721.30 $3.00 $6,002.10 1200 Unclassified excavation; complete as specified Lump Sum 1.00 $43,000.00 $43,000.00 $21,204.00 $21,204.00 1309 7" concrete pavement HES removal and replacement; including sawing; pavement ties; dowel bars; bond breaker; integral curb and fine grading; turf restoration; and traffic control; complete as specified Square Yards 1,667.90 $109.78 $183,102.06 $110.00 $183,469.00 1360 Adjust manholes and inlets; complete as specified Each 7.00 $450.00 $3,150.00 $450.00 $3,150.00 1370 Turf restoration; complete as specified Square Yards 1,191.20 $18.54 $22,084.85 $12.00 $14,294.40 1500 4" concrete sidewalk with 3" CABC and grading; complete as specified Square Feet 1,000.00 $12.50 $12,500.00 $13.50 $13,500.00 1550 No. 4 reinforcing rods - deformed; epoxy-coated; complete as specified Linear Feet 480.00 $1.00 $480.00 $1.00 $480.00 1560 Drilled No. 4 sidewalk tie bars - deformed; epoxy- coated; complete as specified Each 80.00 $6.00 $480.00 $6.00 $480.00 2001 Furnish and install 8" storm sewer; complete as specified Linear Feet 1,254.00 $52.84 $66,261.36 $75.00 $94,050.00 Vinton Construction Company Carl Bowers & Sons Const. Co., Inc. 1322 33rd Street Two Rivers, WI 54241 I:\Engineering\2021 - 2030 Contracts\2025 CONTRACTS\25-03 Washington School Redev\Administrative\Contract Information\25-03 Bid Tab_7-14-25 Page 1 of 8 Contract 25-03 Washington School Redevelopment (#9745752) Owner: Oshkosh WI, City of Solicitor: Oshkosh WI, City of Bid Opening: 07/14/2025 11:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Vinton Construction Company Carl Bowers & Sons Const. Co., Inc. 1322 33rd Street Two Rivers, WI 54241 2004 Furnish and install 12" RCP Class III storm sewer; complete as specified Linear Feet 14.00 $104.57 $1,463.98 $200.00 $2,800.00 2201 Furnish and install standard storm sewer manhole (4' diameter); complete as specified Vertical Feet 10.00 $846.05 $8,460.50 $750.00 $7,500.00 2205 Furnish and install standard storm sewer manhole (8' diameter); complete as specified Vertical Feet 10.00 $2,911.31 $29,113.10 $2,500.00 $25,000.00 2235 Furnish and install Type 1 inlet (with 18" sump); complete as specified Each 2.00 $2,954.44 $5,908.88 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 2237 Furnish and install Type 3 inlet (with 18" sump); complete as specified Each 1.00 $2,445.40 $2,445.40 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 2408 Furnish and install storm sewer lateral inlet; complete as specified Each 18.00 $2,104.75 $37,885.50 $1,800.00 $32,400.00 2500 Furnish; install; maintain; and remove Type A inlet protection; complete as specified Each 22.00 $135.00 $2,970.00 $100.00 $2,200.00 2506 Furnish; install; maintain; and remove Type D inlet protection; complete as specified Each 4.00 $135.00 $540.00 $100.00 $400.00 2512 Furnish; install; maintain; and remove stone tracking pad; complete as specified Each 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.01 $0.01 2514 Furnish; install; maintain; and remove silt fence; complete as specified Linear Feet 1,626.00 $2.35 $3,821.10 $3.00 $4,878.00 2600 Furnish and install topsoil 6" depth; complete as specified Square Yards 13,704.00 $5.86 $80,305.44 $4.50 $61,668.00 I:\Engineering\2021 - 2030 Contracts\2025 CONTRACTS\25-03 Washington School Redev\Administrative\Contract Information\25-03 Bid Tab_7-14-25 Page 2 of 8 Contract 25-03 Washington School Redevelopment (#9745752) Owner: Oshkosh WI, City of Solicitor: Oshkosh WI, City of Bid Opening: 07/14/2025 11:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Vinton Construction Company Carl Bowers & Sons Const. Co., Inc. 1322 33rd Street Two Rivers, WI 54241 2620 Furnish and install turf grass; complete as specified Square Yards 13,704.00 $0.75 $10,278.00 $2.00 $27,408.00 2632 Furnish and install Class I; Urban; Type A erosion control mat; complete as specified Square Yards 13,704.00 $1.75 $23,982.00 $2.00 $27,408.00 2804 Remove 30" and smaller storm sewer; complete as specified Linear Feet 14.00 $30.89 $432.46 $250.00 $3,500.00 2812 Remove storm sewer manholes and inlets; complete as specified Each 2.00 $541.75 $1,083.50 $500.00 $1,000.00 2850 Connect to existing storm sewer main; complete as specified Each 4.00 $961.81 $3,847.24 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 3200 Furnish and install 8" x 4" sanitary sewer factory wyes or tees; complete as specified Each 18.00 $699.03 $12,582.54 $1,500.00 $27,000.00 3230 Furnish and install 4" sanitary sewer laterals (new); complete as specified Linear Feet 543.00 $69.59 $37,787.37 $150.00 $81,450.00 3236 Furnish and install sanitary sewer lateral marker balls; complete as specified Each 36.00 $87.07 $3,134.52 $25.00 $900.00 3238 Furnish and install clay dams; complete as specified Each 18.00 $322.22 $5,799.96 $100.00 $1,800.00 3300 Furnish and install connection to existing 8" sanitary sewer mains; complete as specified Each 36.00 $655.07 $23,582.52 $200.00 $7,200.00 4042 Furnish and install 1" water service (new); complete as specified Linear Feet 1,117.00 $67.83 $75,766.11 $120.00 $134,040.00 4048 Furnish and install 1" corporation and stop box; complete as specified Each 18.00 $1,475.11 $26,551.98 $1,500.00 $27,000.00 I:\Engineering\2021 - 2030 Contracts\2025 CONTRACTS\25-03 Washington School Redev\Administrative\Contract Information\25-03 Bid Tab_7-14-25 Page 3 of 8 Contract 25-03 Washington School Redevelopment (#9745752) Owner: Oshkosh WI, City of Solicitor: Oshkosh WI, City of Bid Opening: 07/14/2025 11:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity Unit Price Extension Unit Price Extension Vinton Construction Company Carl Bowers & Sons Const. Co., Inc. 1322 33rd Street Two Rivers, WI 54241 4055 Furnish and install water service clay dams; complete as specified Each 18.00 $322.22 $5,799.96 $100.00 $1,800.00 Bid Total:$824,321.63 $873,281.51 I:\Engineering\2021 - 2030 Contracts\2025 CONTRACTS\25-03 Washington School Redev\Administrative\Contract Information\25-03 Bid Tab_7-14-25 Page 4 of 8 Contract 25-03 Washington School Redevelopment (#9745752) Owner: Oshkosh WI, City of Solicitor: Oshkosh WI, City of Bid Opening: 07/14/2025 11:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity Section 1 1010 Clearing; complete as specified Lump Sum 1.00 1020 Grubbing; complete as specified Lump Sum 1.00 1050 Mobilization; complete as specified Lump Sum 2.00 1120 Removing concrete and asphalt sidewalk and driveway; complete as specified Square Feet 2,000.70 1200 Unclassified excavation; complete as specified Lump Sum 1.00 1309 7" concrete pavement HES removal and replacement; including sawing; pavement ties; dowel bars; bond breaker; integral curb and fine grading; turf restoration; and traffic control; complete as specified Square Yards 1,667.90 1360 Adjust manholes and inlets; complete as specified Each 7.00 1370 Turf restoration; complete as specified Square Yards 1,191.20 1500 4" concrete sidewalk with 3" CABC and grading; complete as specified Square Feet 1,000.00 1550 No. 4 reinforcing rods - deformed; epoxy-coated; complete as specified Linear Feet 480.00 1560 Drilled No. 4 sidewalk tie bars - deformed; epoxy- coated; complete as specified Each 80.00 2001 Furnish and install 8" storm sewer; complete as specified Linear Feet 1,254.00 Unit Price Extension $914,860.00 $1,590.00 $1,590.00 $1,590.00 $1,590.00 $18,625.00 $37,250.00 $2.10 $4,201.47 $54,897.45 $54,897.45 $128.00 $213,491.20 $640.00 $4,480.00 $7.40 $8,814.88 $13.25 $13,250.00 $1.05 $504.00 $6.30 $504.00 $86.00 $107,844.00 PTS Contractors, Inc I:\Engineering\2021 - 2030 Contracts\2025 CONTRACTS\25-03 Washington School Redev\Administrative\Contract Information\25-03 Bid Tab_7-14-25 Page 5 of 8 Contract 25-03 Washington School Redevelopment (#9745752) Owner: Oshkosh WI, City of Solicitor: Oshkosh WI, City of Bid Opening: 07/14/2025 11:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity 2004 Furnish and install 12" RCP Class III storm sewer; complete as specified Linear Feet 14.00 2201 Furnish and install standard storm sewer manhole (4' diameter); complete as specified Vertical Feet 10.00 2205 Furnish and install standard storm sewer manhole (8' diameter); complete as specified Vertical Feet 10.00 2235 Furnish and install Type 1 inlet (with 18" sump); complete as specified Each 2.00 2237 Furnish and install Type 3 inlet (with 18" sump); complete as specified Each 1.00 2408 Furnish and install storm sewer lateral inlet; complete as specified Each 18.00 2500 Furnish; install; maintain; and remove Type A inlet protection; complete as specified Each 22.00 2506 Furnish; install; maintain; and remove Type D inlet protection; complete as specified Each 4.00 2512 Furnish; install; maintain; and remove stone tracking pad; complete as specified Each 1.00 2514 Furnish; install; maintain; and remove silt fence; complete as specified Linear Feet 1,626.00 2600 Furnish and install topsoil 6" depth; complete as specified Square Yards 13,704.00 Unit Price Extension PTS Contractors, Inc $160.00 $2,240.00 $765.00 $7,650.00 $2,750.00 $27,500.00 $2,435.00 $4,870.00 $2,905.00 $2,905.00 $1,400.00 $25,200.00 $74.00 $1,628.00 $79.00 $316.00 $1,785.00 $1,785.00 $1.90 $3,089.40 $6.20 $84,964.80 I:\Engineering\2021 - 2030 Contracts\2025 CONTRACTS\25-03 Washington School Redev\Administrative\Contract Information\25-03 Bid Tab_7-14-25 Page 6 of 8 Contract 25-03 Washington School Redevelopment (#9745752) Owner: Oshkosh WI, City of Solicitor: Oshkosh WI, City of Bid Opening: 07/14/2025 11:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity 2620 Furnish and install turf grass; complete as specified Square Yards 13,704.00 2632 Furnish and install Class I; Urban; Type A erosion control mat; complete as specified Square Yards 13,704.00 2804 Remove 30" and smaller storm sewer; complete as specified Linear Feet 14.00 2812 Remove storm sewer manholes and inlets; complete as specified Each 2.00 2850 Connect to existing storm sewer main; complete as specified Each 4.00 3200 Furnish and install 8" x 4" sanitary sewer factory wyes or tees; complete as specified Each 18.00 3230 Furnish and install 4" sanitary sewer laterals (new); complete as specified Linear Feet 543.00 3236 Furnish and install sanitary sewer lateral marker balls; complete as specified Each 36.00 3238 Furnish and install clay dams; complete as specified Each 18.00 3300 Furnish and install connection to existing 8" sanitary sewer mains; complete as specified Each 36.00 4042 Furnish and install 1" water service (new); complete as specified Linear Feet 1,117.00 4048 Furnish and install 1" corporation and stop box; complete as specified Each 18.00 Unit Price Extension PTS Contractors, Inc $2.65 $36,315.60 $1.30 $17,815.20 $60.00 $840.00 $415.00 $830.00 $1,935.00 $7,740.00 $3,100.00 $55,800.00 $140.00 $76,020.00 $49.00 $1,764.00 $115.00 $2,070.00 $10.00 $360.00 $70.00 $78,190.00 $1,240.00 $22,320.00 I:\Engineering\2021 - 2030 Contracts\2025 CONTRACTS\25-03 Washington School Redev\Administrative\Contract Information\25-03 Bid Tab_7-14-25 Page 7 of 8 Contract 25-03 Washington School Redevelopment (#9745752) Owner: Oshkosh WI, City of Solicitor: Oshkosh WI, City of Bid Opening: 07/14/2025 11:00 AM CDT Section Title Item Code Item Description UofM Quantity 4055 Furnish and install water service clay dams; complete as specified Each 18.00 Bid Total: Unit Price Extension PTS Contractors, Inc $235.00 $4,230.00 $914,860.00 I:\Engineering\2021 - 2030 Contracts\2025 CONTRACTS\25-03 Washington School Redev\Administrative\Contract Information\25-03 Bid Tab_7-14-25 Page 8 of 8 TO:Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM:Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer DATE:August 26, 2025 SUBJECT:Res 25-445 Approve CIP Amendment and Approve Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Engineering Services for Oregon/Jackson Street Water and Sanitary Replacement Design ($134,721.67) BACKGROUND A proposal w as requ ested from HDR En gin eerin g , In c. (HDR ) for prov idin g en gin eerin g serv ices for O regon Street an d Jack son Street water an d san itary replacem en t desig n . Th e serv ices to be prov ided will in clu de w ater m ain design , san itary sew er desig n , cu stom railin g desig n for th e O reg on /Jack son Street bridge, an d ligh tin g an alysis. Th ese serv ices w ill be coordin ated with HDR 's desig n serv ices for th e Wiscon sin Departm en t of Tran sportation (WDO T) for th e O reg on /Jack son Street bridge. ANALYSIS Th e Departm en t of Pu blic Work s requ ested a proposal from HDR du e to th eir existin g con tract for desig n serv ices for WDO T for th e O reg on /Jack son Street bridge. FISCAL IMPACT Th e cost of th e proposal is $1 3 4 ,7 2 1 .6 7 . Fu n din g for th is Project is av ailable from CIP Projects w h ich h av e com e in u n der bu dget: $7 ,5 8 3 .3 6 w ill be tran sferred from Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 1 -0 4 1 1 8 (Con tract Con trol- Pav in g -2 1 -1 8 Pion eer R iv erw alk Ph ase1 ) to Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 1 -0 4 9 5 3 (Con tract Con trol-Pav in g-2 9 -0 3 Jack son -O regon St Bridge R epl). $9 ,8 3 2 .1 4 w ill be tran sferred from Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 1 -0 4 2 0 1 (Con tract Con trol- Pav in g -2 2 -0 1 Bow en St In terceptor Sew er) to Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 1 -0 4 9 5 3 (Con tract Con trol-Pav in g-2 9 -0 3 Jack son -O regon St Bridge R epl). $1 6 ,6 8 8 .8 1 will be tran sferred from Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 1 -0 4 2 0 2 (Con tract Con trol- Pav in g -2 2 -0 2 East 9 th Av e R econ stru ction ) to Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 1 -0 4 9 5 3 (Con tract Con trol-Pav in g-2 9 -0 3 Jack son -O regon St Bridge R epl). $1 5 ,8 9 5 .6 9 will be tran sferred from Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 1 -0 4 3 0 9 (Con tract Con trol- Pav in g -2 3 -0 9 Bradley St Asph alt/Utility) to Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 1 -0 4 9 5 3 (Con tract Con trol-Pav in g-2 9 -0 3 Jack son -O regon St Bridge R epl). $3 1 ,6 2 4 .1 4 will be tran sferred from Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 2 -0 4 2 0 5 (Con tract Con trol- San itary Sewer-2 2 -0 5 E Lin coln & R osalia St R econ s) to Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 2 -0 4 9 5 3 (Con tract Con trol-San itary Sew er-2 9 -0 3 Jack son -O reg on St Bridg e R epl). $1 8 ,3 7 5 .8 6 will be tran sferred from Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 2 -0 4 3 2 5 (Con tract Con trol- San itary Sewer-2 3 -2 5 S Koeller Con crete Pav in g ) to Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 2 -0 4 9 5 3 (Con tract Con trol-San itary Sew er-2 9 -0 3 Jack son -O reg on St Bridg e R epl). $3 1 ,5 5 1 .1 7 will be tran sferred from Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 3 -0 4 2 0 5 (Con tract Con trol- Water Main -2 2 -0 5 E Lin coln & R osalia St R econ s) to Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 3 -0 4 9 5 3 (Con tract Con trol-Water Main -2 9 -0 3 Jack son -O regon St Bridge R epl). $3 8 ,4 4 8 .8 3 will be tran sferred from Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 3 -0 4 3 0 2 (Con tract Con trol- Water Main -2 3 -0 2 W Lin coln /Mck in ley R econ st) to Accou n t No. 0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 0 3 -0 4 9 5 3 (Con tract Con trol-Water Main -2 9 -0 3 Jack son -O regon St Bridge R epl). RECOMMENDATION Chap ter 12 of th e Mu n icipal Code of th e City of O sh k osh prov ides th at profession al serv ices of a specialized n atu re, in clu din g en g in eerin g serv ices, m ay be procu red w ith ou t th e u se of form al, sealed qu otes. I h av e rev iewed th e proposal an d in accordan ce with Section 12-16 of th e Mu n icipal Code, I am h ereby recom m en din g th at th e Com m on Cou n cil approv e th is profession al serv ices agreem en t an d am en din g th e CIP. Atta chments Res 25-445 29-03 HDR Proposal-Wtr & San Repl Des 08/26/2025 25-445 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE CIP AMENDMENT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR OREGON/JACKSON STREET WATER AND SANITARY REPLACEMENT DESIGN ($134,721.67) INITIATED BY : DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WHEREAS, the Common Council has adopted the 2025 Capital Improvement Program and Budget, which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the 2025 Capital Improvement Program Budget to transfer funds for Engineering Services for Oregon/Jackson Street Water and Sanitary Replacement Design. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the 2025 Capital Improvements Budget, on file in the City Clerk’s Office, is hereby amended as follows: To transfer $7,583.36 from Account No. 03210410-6801-04118 (Contract Control-Paving-21-18 Pioneer Riverwalk Phase1) to Account No. 03210410-6801-04953 (Contract Control-Paving-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl). To transfer $9,832.14 from Account No. 03210410-6801-04201 (Contract Control-Paving-22-01 Bowen St Interceptor Sewer) to Account No. 03210410-6801-04953 (Contract Control-Paving-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl). To transfer $16,688.81 from Account No. 03210410-6801-04202 (Contract Control-Paving-22-02 East 9th Ave Reconstruction) to Account No. 03210410-6801-04953 (Contract Control-Paving-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl). To transfer $15,895.69 from Account No. 03210410-6801-04309 (Contract Control-Paving-23-09 Bradley St Asphalt/Utility) to Account No. 03210410-6801-04953 (Contract Control-Paving-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl). To transfer $31,624.14 from Account No. 03210410-6802-04205 (Contract Control-Sanitary Sewer-22-05 E Lincoln & Rosalia St Recons) to Account No. 03210410-6802-04953 (Contract Control-Sanitary Sewer-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl). To transfer $18,375.86 from Account No. 03210410-6802-04325 (Contract Control-Sanitary Sewer-23-25 S Koeller Concrete Paving) to Account No. 03210410-6802-04953 (Contract Control-Sanitary Sewer-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl). To transfer $31,551.17 from Account No. 03210410-6803-04205 (Contract Control-Water Main-22-05 E Lincoln & Rosalia St Recons) to Account No. 03210410-6803-04953 (Contract Control-Water Main-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl). To transfer $38,448.83 from Account No. 03210410-6803-04302 (Contract Control-Water Main-23-02 W Lincoln/Mckinley Reconst) to Account No. 03210410-6803-04953 (Contract Control-Water Main-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the proper City officials are hereby authorized to enter into and take those steps necessary to implement an appropriate professional services agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Engineering Services for Oregon/Jackson Street Water and Sanitary Replacement Design in the amount of one hundred thirty four thousand seven hundred twenty one dollars and sixty seven cents. ($134,721.67). Acct Nos. 03210410-6801-04953 Contract Control-Paving-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl 03210410-6802-04953 Contract Control-Sanitary Sewer-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl 03210410-6803-04953 Contract Control-Water Main-29-03 Jackson-Oregon St Bridge Repl T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Steven M. Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works/Utilities General Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-446 Approve Change Order No. 1 for Rare Earth Chloride Solution for the Wastewater Treatment Plant for 2025 / Martelle Water Treatment, Inc. (+$250,000) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Ch an ge O rder No. 1 for th e rare earth ch loride solu tion for th e Wastewater Treatm en t Plan t (WWTP) for 2 0 2 5 is sch edu led for con sideration by th e Com m on Cou n cil (Cou n cil) at th e Au gu st 2 6 th Cou n cil m eetin g. Th e bid w as orig in ally awarded to Martelle Water Treatm en t, In c. Jan u ary of 2 0 2 5 . Th e con tract in clu ded an estim ated 6 0 ,0 0 0 g allon s of th e solu tion at $1 1 .7 6 /gallon . A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th is ch em ical is u sed to replace Ferric Ch loride for ph osph oru s rem ov al. It is m ore expen siv e to pu rch ase th an th e Ferric Ch loride it replaces, bu t prov ides a cost recov ery in oth er parts of th e treatm en t process, wh ich m ak es th e ov erall u se of th is solu tion cost n eu tral. It was origin ally estim ated th at th e WWTP wou ld requ ire 1 6 0 g allon s per day of th e solu tion . Th e actu al u sage w as approxim ately 2 2 0 g allon s/day. To get u s th rou gh to th e en d of 2 0 2 5 , an addition al estim ated 2 1 ,2 0 0 g allon s will n eed to be pu rch ased at approxim ately $2 5 0 ,0 0 0 . By exten din g th e pu rch ase of th e solu tion th rou g h th e en d of 2 0 2 5 w ill prov ide u s better in form ation on th e an cillary ben efits to u tilizin g th is solu tion . F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Fu n din g is av ailable in Accou n t #0 5 5 1 1 9 1 0 -1 5 0 7 / Sew er Utility Adm in istration -In v -- Ch em icals. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION I recom m en d approv al of Ch an ge O rder No. 1 for rare earth ch loride solu tion for th e WWTP for 2 0 2 5 in th e am ou n t of +$2 5 0 ,0 0 0 to Martell Water Treatm en t, In c. A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-446 08/26/2025 25-446 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR RARE EARTH CHLORIDE SOLUTION FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR 2025 / MARTELLE WATER TREATMENT, INC. (+$250,000.00) INITIATED BY : DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WHEREAS, the City previously entered into an Agreement with Martelle Water Treatment, Inc. for Rare Earth Chloride Solution for the Wastewater Treatment Plant for 2025; and WHEREAS, the bid was originally awarded in January of 2025; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh Oshkosh that the following Change Order is hereby approved: MARTELLE WATER TREATMENT, INC. 2275 Royal Oaks Drive Janesville, WI 53548-0112 Net Increase to Contract: $250,000.00 PURPOSE: Purchase of additional 21,200 gallons of rare earth chloride solution Money for this purpose is hereby appropriated from: Acct. No. 05511910-1507 Sewer Utility Administration-Inv - Chemicals T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Steven M. Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works/Utilities General Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-447 Declaring Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures from Proceeds of Borrowing in Relation to Wastewater Treatment Plant Tertiary Treatment and Ultra-Violet Disinfection Upgrades B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e City of O sh k osh (City) Wastew ater Treatm en t Plan t (WWTP) is operatin g u n der its approv ed Wiscon sin Pollu tan t Disch arge Elim in ation System (WPDES) Perm it WI-0 0 2 5 0 3 8 -1 0 -0 . To con form w ith its WPDES perm it an d th e Upper Fox an d Wolf R iv ers' total m axim u m daily load (TMDL) approv ed in 2 0 2 0 , th e City com pleted a series of stu dies to ev alu ate altern ativ e com plian ce strategies for th e water qu ality-based efflu en t ph osph oru s lim its w h ich wen t in to effect Jan u ary 2 0 2 5 . As a resu lt of th ese ev alu ation s, th e City selected to u se th e Mu lti-Disch arg er Varian ce (MDV) from 2 0 2 5 to 2 0 2 7 an d to con stru ct an d operate a n ew Tertiary Filtration Facility at th e WWTP to com ply with TMDL-based perm it lim its. In con form an ce with its WPDES perm it com plian ce sch edu le, th e City prepared th e City of O sh k osh Wastew ater Utility 2 0 4 2 Facilities Plan an d th e City of O sh k osh Wastew ater Treatm en t Plan t Filtration Facility Design R eport for rev iew an d approv al by th e Wiscon sin Departm en t of Natu ral R esou rces (WDNR ). Th e WDNR approv ed th e City of O sh k osh Wastewater Utility 2 0 4 2 Facilities Plan in Decem ber 2 0 2 3 . Also, in com plian ce w ith th e perm it, th e City's MDV application was su bm itted for WDNR rev iew in Ju n e 2 0 2 3 . Th e City in ten ds to add tertiary filtration to its secon dary treatm en t system to m eet th e TMDL an d in stall an u ltra-v iolet (UV) disin fection system to replace th e cu rren t ch lorin e disin fection system . A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e con stru ction of th e Tertiary Treatm en t an d UV Disin fection System s is an ticipated to cost approxim ately $3 6 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . It is an ticipated th e City will u se th e Clean Water Fu n d Loan Prog ram (CWFLP) to fu n d th e Project. Th e Project m ay receiv e som e prin cipal forgiv en ess fu n din g . Th e City w ill n ot receiv e th e CWFLP fu n din g u n til after th e Project is bid. As a resu lt, an y paym en ts prior to th e closin g m u st be paid by th e City an d will u se m on ey on h an d. In order to allow th e City to poten tially reim bu rse th ese cu rren t expen ditu res from th e issu an ce of fu tu re debt for th is Project, th e City m u st adopt a resolu tion declarin g its in ten t to do so as requ ired by In tern al R ev en u e Code regu lation s. Failu re to adopt an in ten t resolu tion cou ld oth erw ise resu lt in th e City h av in g to iden tify oth er resou rces to pay for th ese Project costs. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Utilizin g th e CWFLP m ay prov ide th e City with som e prin cipal forgiv en ess fin an cin g for th e City, in addition to prov in g an opportu n ity for a low er total cost of fin an cin g th e Project. Passag e of th is resolu tion w ill allow th e City to in clu de cu rren t expen ses in relation to th e Project in th e fin al debt issu an ce. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION I recom m en d approv al of th e R esolu tion Declarin g O fficial In ten t to R eim bu rse Expen ditu res from Proceeds of Borrowin g in R elation to WWTP Tertiary Treatm en t an d UV Disin fection Upg rades. A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-447 08/26/2025 25-447 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: DECLARING OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF BORROWING IN RELATION TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TERTIARY TREATMENT AND ULTRA-VIOLET DISINFECTION UPGRADES INITIATED BY : DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WHEREAS, the City of Oshkosh Wastewater Treatment Plant is operating under its approved Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit WI-0025038-10-0; and WHEREAS, to conform with its WPDES permit and the Upper Fox and Wolf Rivers’ total maximum daily load (TMDL) approved in 2020, the City plans to undertake a project to add tertiary filtration to its secondary treatment system and install an ultra-violet (UV) disinfection system to replace the current chlorine disinfection system (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the construction of the Tertiary Treatment and UV Disinfection Systems is anticipated to cost approximately $36,000,000.00; and WHEREAS, the Municipality expects to finance the Project on a long-term basis by issuing tax-exempt bonds or promissory notes or incurring debt through the Clean Water Fund Loan Program (CWFLP) (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, because the Bonds will not be issued prior to need to pay expenditures for the Project, the Municipality must provide interim financing to cover costs of the Project incurred prior to receipt of the proceeds of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, it is necessary, desirable, and in the best interests of the Municipality to advance moneys from its funds on hand on an interim basis to pay the costs of the Project until the Bonds are issued; and WHEREAS, to comply with applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 1.150-2 of the Income Tax Regulations, it is necessary, in order to reimburse such expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds, that the City as Issuer declare its official intent to make such a reimbursement of expenditures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that: Section 1. Expenditure of Funds. The Municipality shall make expenditures as needed from its funds on hand to pay the costs of the Project until Bond proceeds become available. Section 2. Declaration of Official Intent. The Municipality hereby officially declares its intent under Treas. Regs. Section 1.150-2 to reimburse said expenditures with proceeds of the Bonds, the principal amount of which is not expected to exceed Thirty-Six Million Dollars ($36,000,000.00). Section 3. Unavailability of Long-Term Funds. No funds for payment of the Project from sources other than the Bonds are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside by the Municipality pursuant to its budget or financial policies. Section 4. Public Availability of Official Intent Resolution. This Resolution shall be made available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk within 30 days after its approval in compliance with applicable State law governing the availability of records of official acts including Subchapter II of Chapter 19, and shall remain available for public inspection until the Bonds are issued. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon its adoption. T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kimberly Gierach, Planning Services Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-448 Grant sanitary sewer easement and storm water drainage easement at 3200 West 20th Avenue (Rusch Park) to 3270 West 20th Avenue, parcel 91333010000 (Plan Commission recommends approval) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e applican ts are requ estin g approv al for th e City to gran t a san itary sew er easem en t an d storm drain ag e easem en t th rou gh property own ed by th e City of O sh k osh Park s Departm en t located at 3 2 0 0 West 2 0 th Av en u e. R u sch Park , th e 4 2 -acre su bject site is located on th e n orth side of West 2 0 th Av en u e east of Clairv ille R oad. Th e Park is a passiv e recreation al area cov ered by wetlan ds an d sm all stream s flow in g in to Sawyer Creek . Sou th an d w est of R u sch Park is a 1 7 -acre v acan t lot with an approv ed dev elopm en t plan for a 2 0 8 -u n it apartm en t com plex (Saw yer Creek Crossin g). Th e applican ts are requ estin g th e gran tin g of a san itary sew er easem en t to allow th e Saw yer Creek Crossin g dev elopm en t to con n ect to City San itary sewer located in R u sch Park . In addition , th e applican ts are requ estin g th e g ran tin g of a storm drain ag e easem en t to allow su rface water em an atin g from th e Sawyer Creek Crossin g dev elopm en t to en ter R u sch Park an d flow in to a sm all creek an d w etlan ds. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e san itary sew er easem en t is proposed to be 1 5 -feet wide by 2 0 -feet lon g located n orth of th e Sawyer Creek Crossin g dev elopm en t. Th e easem en t is n eeded to allow th e dev elopm en t to con n ect to an existin g 1 8 -in ch san itary sewer located in R u sch Park wh ich ru n s parallel w ith th e dev elopm en t's n orth lot lin e. Th e easem en t w ill allow th e dev eloper to in stall an d operate its priv ate san itary sewer facilities located w ith in th e easem en t area. Th e storm water drain age easem en t is proposed to be 3 0 -feet w ide by approxim ately 1 9 5 -feet lon g located n ear th e n orth east corn er of th e Saw yer Creek Crossin g dev elopm en t. Th e easem en t is n eeded to allow su rface w ater exitin g th e dev elopm en t to en ter R u sch Park an d flow in to existin g w etlan ds an d a sm all stream . Th e drain age m u st operate per th e approv ed storm w ater m an agem en t plan an d com ply w ith Wiscon sin Departm en t of Natu ral R esou rces regu lation s. Th e City Attorn ey's O ffice is in th e process of draftin g n ecessary easem en t docu m en ts. Th e easem en t will be recorded at th e Win n ebago Cou n ty R egister of Deeds u pon Com m on Cou n cil approv al. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Th e Plan Com m ission recom m en ded g ran tin g th e easem en ts on Au g u st 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 . Please see th e attach ed staff report for m ore in form ation . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-448 Easements - 3200 & 3270 W 20th Ave 08/26/2025 25-448 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: GRANT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AND STORM WATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 3200 WEST 20TH AVENUE (RUSCH PARK) TO 3270 WEST 20TH AVENUE (PARCEL 91333010000) INITIATED BY : CITY OF OSHKOSH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the City hereby grants a sanitary sewer easement and a storm water drainage easement from 3200 West 20th Avenue (Rusch Park), to 3270 West 20th Avenue (parcel 91333010000), per the attached, and the proper City officials are authorized and directed to execute any and all documents necessary for purpose of same. ITEM: Recommendation Pertaining to Granting of a Sanitary Sewer Easement and Storm Water Drainage Easement at 3200 West 20th Avenue (Rusch Park) to 3270 West 20th Avenue (Parcel 91333010000) Plan Commission Meeting of August 19, 2025 Applicant: City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works & Thomas Rusch, Castle Rock Land Company, LLC Owner: City of Oshkosh Parks Department Action Requested: The applicants are requesting approval for the City to grant a sanitary sewer easement and storm drainage easement through property owned by the City of Oshkosh Parks Department located at 3200 West 20th Avenue. Under Section 62.23 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Chapter 30 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Plan Commission is responsible to review and advise the Council on interests in land for public utility purposes. The Council will then, based upon the recommendation from Plan Commission, make a final determination on whether to grant the easements as requested. Property Location and Background Information: Rusch Park, the 42-acre subject site is located on the north side of West 20th Avenue east of Clairville Road. The park is a passive recreational area covered by wetlands and small streams flowing into Sawyer Creek. South and west of Rusch Park is a 17-acre vacant lot with an approved development plan for a 208-unit apartment complex (Sawyer Creek Crossing). The applicants are requesting the granting of a sanitary sewer easement to allow the Sawyer Creek Crossing development to connect to City Sanitary sewer located in Rusch Park. In addition, the applicants are requesting the granting of a storm drainage easement to allow surface water emanating from the Sawyer Creek Crossing development to enter Rusch Park and flow into a small creek and wetlands. Analysis: Sanitary Sewer Easement The sanitary sewer easement is proposed to be 15-feet wide by 20-feet long located north of the Sawyer Creek Crossing development. The easement is needed to allow the development to connect to an existing 18-inch sanitary sewer located in Rusch Park which runs parallel with the development’s north lot line. The easement will allow the developer to install and operate its private sanitary sewer facilities located within the easement area. Analysis: Storm Water Drainage Easement The storm water drainage easement is proposed to be 30-feet wide by approximately 195-feet long located near the northeast corner of the Sawyer Creek Crossing development. The easement is needed to allow surface water exiting the development to enter Rusch Park and flow into existing wetlands and a small stream. The drainage must operate per the approved storm water management plan and comply with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources regulations. The proposed easement does cross an existing City Sanitary Sewer. The City will retain the right to operate, maintain and replace the sanitary sewer as needed. The City Attorney’s Office is in the process of drafting necessary easement documents. The easement will be recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds upon Common Council approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request to grant a sanitary sewer and storm drainage easement at 3200 West 20th Avenue (Rusch Park) to 3270 West 20th Avenue. Plan Commission recommended granting the easements on August 19, 2025. For a comprehensive record of the proceedings, the official minutes can be obtained by contacting Planning Services. Page 3 Page 4 P R E S E R V E C T MO R N I N G S T A R LA C A S E Y T R W 20TH AV I I MR-12-PD SR-3 SR-5 SR-5 SR-5 SR-5 H:\jeffn\Arc_GIS_Pro_Projects\Planning_Base_Map\Planning_Base_Map_2025.aprx User: jeffn 3200-3270 W. 20TH AVENUE ZONING & AERIAL MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkosh assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. For full disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer Printing Date: 8/11/2025 ¯110 0 110 22055 Feet Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI 1 inch equals 0.038 miles 1 inch equals 200 feet Storm Water Drainage Easement Sanitary Sewer Easement Page 5 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-449 Accept Water Main Easement at 3300 West 20th Avenue (Parcel 91329343000) from Castle Rock Land Co. LLC (Plan Commission recommends approval) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e su bject property is v acan t bu t is sch edu led to u n derg o n ew dev elopm en t for th e pu rpose of bu ildin g a m u lti-fam ily com plex. Th e City of O sh k osh 's (City) existin g water m ain is cu rren tly located with in th e u n dev eloped property. Both th e City an d th e property own er h av e agreed to form alize an easem en t alon g th e parcel's sou th property lin e for an area directly adjacen t to th e pu blic righ t-of-way on West 2 0 th Av en u e. Th e property is located alon g West 2 0 th Av en u e betw een Clairv ille R oad an d Sou th O ak wood R oad. Th e pu blic rig h t-of-w ay fu n ction s as a prim ary arterial roadway for com m ercial, in du strial, an d residen tial u se. Th e existin g 1 2 " pu blic water m ain 's prim ary fu n ction is to serv ice th e local area an d fu tu re expan sion of th e City, w h ile also deliv erin g w ater to th e City's Sou th west In du strial Park . A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e proposed easem en t will allow th e City to u tilize th e easem en t area for all pu rposes related to its m u n icipal w ater distribu tion system . Th is in clu des operatin g, m ain tain in g , an d replacin g an y related in frastru ctu re w h en n ecessary. Th e proposed easem en t will be 1 5 feet w ide an d approxim ately 8 1 5 feet lon g, wh ile rem ain in g adjacen t an d parallel to th e n orth righ t-of-way lin e of West 2 0 th Av en u e. Th e City Attorn ey's O ffice h as prepared a draft of th e easem en t docu m en ts. Th e sign ed easem en t agreem en t w ill be recorded at th e Win n ebag o Cou n ty R eg ister of Deeds u pon approv al by th e Com m on Cou n cil. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th ere is n o fiscal im pact to th e City at th is tim e. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Th e Plan Com m ission recom m en ded acceptin g th e easem en t on Au gu st 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 . Please see th e attach ed staff report for m ore in form ation . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-449 Accept Wtr Mn Easement-3300 W 20th Ave 08/26/2025 25-449 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: ACCEPT WATER MAIN EASEMENT AT 3300 WEST 20TH AVENUE (PARCEL 91329343000) FROM CASTLE ROCK LAND CO. LLC INITIATED BY : DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the City hereby accepts a water main easement from Castle Rock Land Co. LLC, at Parcel 91329343000, per the attached, and the proper City officials are authorized and directed to execute any and all documents necessary for purpose of same. ITEM: Accept Water Main Easement at 3300 West 20th Avenue (Parcel 91329343000) From Castle Rock Land Co LLC Plan Commission Meeting of August 19, 2025 Applicant: City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works Owner: Castle Rock Land Co LLC Action Requested: The City of Oshkosh is requesting the acceptance of water main easement from Castle Rock Land Co. LLC along the south edge of Parcel 91329343000. Property Location and Background Information: The subject property is vacant but scheduled to undergo new development for the purpose of building a multi-family complex. The City’s existing water main is currently located within the undeveloped property. Both the City and the property owner have agreed to formalize an easement along the parcel’s south property line for an area directly adjacent to the public right- of-way on West 20th Avenue. The property is located along West 20th Avenue between Clairville Road and South Oakwood Road. The public right-of-way functions as a primary arterial roadway for commercial, industrial, and residential use. The existing 12” public water main’s primary function is to service the local area and future expansion of the City while also delivering water to the City’s Southwest Industrial Park. Analysis: The proposed easement will allow the City to utilize the easement area for all purposes related to its municipal water distribution system. This includes accessing the easement area, and installing, operating, maintaining, and replacing any related infrastructure when necessary. The proposed easement will be 15 feet wide and approximately 815 feet long, while remaining adjacent and parallel to the north right-of-way line of West 20th Avenue. The City Attorney’s Office has prepared a draft of the easement documents. The signed easement agreement will be recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds upon approval by the Common Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval to accept the new water main easement located at (what is to be known as) 3300 West 20th Avenue. Plan Commission recommended acceptance of the easement on August 19, 2025. For a comprehensive record of the proceedings, the official minutes can be obtained by contacting Planning Services. Page 3 MORNINGSTAR LA W 20TH AV PRESER VE DR PRESER VE CT MORNINGSTAR LA W 20TH AV I I MR-12-PD SR-3 SR-5 SR-5 SR-5 SR-5 J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2023 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katrinam Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 8/12/2025 1 in = 200 ft 1 in = 0.04 mi¯ZONING & AERIAL MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkoshassumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer SUBJECTSITE Page 4 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-450 Approve Determination of Necessity to Acquire and Approve and Execute Relocation Order for a Storm Sewer Easement at 3820 Jackson Street (Parcel 91527190100), 3835 Summerset Way (Parcel 91527310000), and 3847 Summerset Way (Parcel 91527320000) (Plan Commission recommends approval) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e City of O sh k osh (City) is requ estin g approv al to acqu ire a storm sewer easem en t for an existin g storm sewer th at drain s from Jack son Street to Su m m erset Way from ADVO CAP In c. (3 8 2 0 Jack son Street), Con n or Miller an d Abigail Pan sk e (3 8 3 5 Su m m erset Way), an d Debra Kerrig an (3 8 4 7 Su m m erset Way). Th e proposed easem en t area con tain s storm sew er th at was in stalled at som e poin t w ith ou t k n ow ledg e by th e City. It m ay h av e been in stalled by a priv ate party dev elopin g on e (1 ) of th e adjacen t properties or possibly by th e Wiscon sin Departm en t of Tran sportation (WDO T) in con n ection with a con stru ction project on Jack son Street. Specific in form ation regardin g w h en th is storm sew er was in stalled is u n k n ow n . An easem en t was apparen tly n ot secu red from th e property own ers at th e tim e th e storm sewer w as con stru cted. O n ce th e Departm en t of Pu blic Work s w as m ade aware of th e storm sew er in con n ection with rev iew of a n ew com m ercial dev elopm en t, it w as su rv eyed an d in spected. Prelim in ary telev isin g sh ow s fen ce posts driv en th rou g h th e top of th e pipe creatin g obstru ction s in large rain ev en ts. Th e su bject properties con sist of th e proposed n ew com m ercial dev elopm en t off of Jack son Street an d two (2 ) residen tial properties off of Su m m erset Way. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th is existin g storm sewer drain s th e Jack son Street rig h t-of-w ay. City staff h as rev iewed th e storm drain ag e in th is area an d recom m en ds m ain tain in g th is pipe. Th e Jack son Street corridor su pports a wide v ariety of u ses in clu din g com m ercial, in du strial, an d residen tial. Th ere are also a n u m ber of v acan t sites av ailable for dev elopm en t. Th e proposed easem en t will allow th e City to u tilize th e easem en t area for all pu rposes related to th e m u n icipal storm sew er system . Th is in clu des in stallin g , operatin g, m ain tain in g , an d replacin g an y related in frastru ctu re w h en n ecessary. As in dicated abov e, w ork will n eed to be don e on th e storm sewer to fix th e fen ce post dam ag e to allow for th e pipe to operate at fu ll capacity. Th e proposed easem en t will be 2 0 feet w ide, approxim ately 4 0 0 feet lon g, cen tered on th e storm sewer startin g at th e eastern Jack son Street righ t-of-way lin e h eadin g east towards Su m m erset Way, en din g at th e w estern Su m m erset Way rig h t-of-w ay lin e. Th e City Attorn ey's O ffice will draft th e in itial easem en t docu m en ts w h ich will be u sed in th e n egotiation process. Th e sig n ed easem en t agreem en t w ill be recorded at th e Win n ebag o Cou n ty R egister of Deeds u pon approv al by th e Com m on Cou n cil. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th ere is n o fiscal im pact to th e City at th is tim e. As th e Departm en t of Pu blic Work s an d th eir real estate con su ltan t m ov e forw ard with th e process, th e acqu isition will be on a fu tu re Cou n cil Agen da, wh ich w ill in clu de th e fiscal im pact. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Th e Plan Com m ission recom m en ded acqu irin g th e easem en t on Au gu st 1 9 , 2 0 2 5 . Please see th e attach ed staff report for m ore in form ation . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-450 Attachments for Res 25-450 (Legal Descriptions and Map) PC Staff Report-Jackson-Summerset SW Easement 08/12/2025 25-450 RESOLUTION PURPOSE: APPROVE DETERMINATION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE AND APPROVE AND EXECUTE RELOCATION ORDER FOR A STORM SEWER EASEMENT AT 3820 JACKSON STREET (PARCEL 91527190100), 3835 SUMMERSET WAY (PARCEL 91527310000), AND 3847 SUMMERSET WAY (PARCEL 91527320000) INITIATED BY : DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved WHEREAS, the City has identified an existing storm sewer that drains the Jackson Street right-of-way which does not have an existing easement; and WHEREAS, the Jackson Street corridor supports a wide variety of uses including commercial, industrial, and residential and staff has reviewed storm water management in the area and for the health, safety and welfare of the public using Jackson Street and protection of property in the area recommends maintaining the existing storm water connection and formalizing an easement for the existing storm water pipe; and WHEREAS, the proposed easement will allow the City to utilize the easement area for all purposes related to the municipal storm sewer system and allow the City to make necessary repairs to the existing storm water pipe in this area; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works is recommending the acquisition of an easement over portions of Parcels 91527190100, 91527310000, and 91527320000 for the storm sewer, per the attached; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has reviewed and recommends approval of the acquisition of the storm sewer easement as proposed; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt a Relocation Order under Section 32.05(1)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes to proceed with acquisition of the storm sewer easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that it determines that it is necessary and a public purpose for the City to acquire the below-described property for purposes of a storm sewer easement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution and its attachments constitutes the relocation order required under Section 32.05(1)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes for purposes of acquiring a storm sewer easement at 3820 Jackson Street (Parcel 91527190100), 3835 Summerset Way (Parcel 91527310000), and 3847 Summerset Way (Parcel 91527320000). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City staff and representatives are hereby authorized and directed to execute any and all documents necessary for implementation of this Relocation Order and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Relocation Order with the Winnebago County Clerk within twenty (20) days of its adoption. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff and representatives are hereby authorized and directed to begin the process for acquisition of this storm sewer easement as provided in Wisconsin Statutes Section 32.05 including but not limited to obtaining an appraisal and beginning the negotiation process with persons having an interest in the above-described property. Attachments: Descriptions of Property to be acquired Map showing location of property and existing infrastructure Easement for Storm Sewer Parcel 1527190100 Owner: ADVOCAP INC. Address: 0 Jackson Street Being a part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, Township 19 North, Range 16 East, Third Ward, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at the northwesterly corner of Lot 2 of CSM 5284 Doc No. 1260486; thence southernly 14.4 feet along the westerly line of Lot 2 to the point of beginning; thence easterly along a straight line parallel the northerly line of Lot 2 a distance of 276.5 feet to a point on the easterly line of Lot 2; thence south along the easterly line of Lot 2 a distance of 20.0 feet; thence westerly along the line parallel to the north property line of Lot 2 to the westerly property line to a point of Lot 2; thence north from this point along the westerly property line of Lot 2 back to the point of beginning. Easement for Storm Sewer Parcel 1527310000 Owner: Connor Miller/Abigail Panske Address: 3835 Summerset Way Being a part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, Township 19 North, Range 16 East, Third Ward, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 12 Block 2 1st Addition to Windsor Green also known as the point of beginning; thence west along the northerly line of Lot 12 to the southwest corner of Lot 12; thence south along the westerly line of Lot 12 a distance 10 feet; thence east parallel to the northerly line of Lot 12 to a point on the easterly line of Lot 12; thence north 10 feet back to the point of beginning. Easement for Storm Sewer Parcel 1527320000 Owner: Debra Kerrigan Address: 3847 Summerset Way Being a part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, Township 19 North, Range 16 East, Third Ward, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 13 Block 2 1st Addition to Windsor Green also known as the point of beginning; thence west along the southerly line of Lot 13 to the southwest corner of Lot 13; thence north along the westerly line of Lot 13 a distance 10 feet; thence east parallel to the southerly line of Lot 13 to a point on the easterly line of Lot 13; thence south 10 feet back to the point of beginning. JA C K S O N S T R E E T SU M M E R S E T W A Y PARCEL 1527190100 0 JACKSON STREET PARCEL 1527320000 3847 SUMMERSET WAY PARCEL 1527310000 3835 SUMMERSET WAY 20.0' 276.5'120.0' 20.0' P.O.B FOR 3835 & 3847 SUMMERSET WAY 14 . 4 ' P.O.B. FOR 0 JACKSON STREET CI T Y O F O S H K O S H EN G I N E E R I N G D I V I S I O N GR A P H I C SC A L E : ( I N F E E T ) 1 I N C H = 6 0 F E E T 0 30 60 DR A W N : 8- 2 1 - 2 0 2 5 FI L E N A M E : S t o r m S e w e r E a s e m e n t ST O R M S E W E R E A S E M E N T JA C K S O N S T R E E T - S U M M E R S E T W A Y ITEM: Recommendation Pertaining to Acquisition of a Storm Sewer Easement at 3820 Jackson Street (Parcel 91527190100), 3835 Summerset Way (Parcel 91527310000) and 3847 Summerset Way (Parcel 91527320000) Plan Commission Meeting of August 19, 2025 Applicant: City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works Owners: ADVOCAP Inc.; Connor Miller & Abigail Panske; Debra Kerrigan Action Requested: The City of Oshkosh is requesting approval to acquire a storm sewer easement from ADVOCAP Inc. (3820 Jackson Street), Connor Miller & Abigail Panske (3835 Summerset Way), and Debra Kerrigan (3847 Summerset Way) that drains from Jackson Street to Summerset Way. Under Section 62.23 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Chapter 30 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Plan Commission is responsible to review and advise the Council on the acquisition of interests in land for public utility purposes. The Council will then, based upon the recommendation from Plan Commission, make a final determination on whether to acquire the easements as requested. Property Location and Background Information: The subject properties consist of a proposed new commercial development off of Jackson Street and two residential properties off of Summerset Way. Information regarding when this storm sewer was installed is unknown. An easement was not secured from the property owners at that time. Plans are currently under review for a new childcare incubation center at the Jackson Street site (Parcel 1527190100) which will utilize the storm sewer. This existing storm sewer drains the Jackson Street Right-of-Way. The Jackson Street corridor supports a wide variety of uses including commercial, industrial, and residential. There are also a number of vacant sites available for development. The proposed easement will allow the City to utilize the easement area for all purposes related to the municipal storm sewer system. This includes accessing the easement area, and installing, operating, maintaining, and replacing any related infrastructure when necessary. The proposed easement will be 20 feet wide, approximately 400 feet long, centered on the storm sewer starting at the eastern Jackson Street Right-of-Way line heading east towards Summerset Way, ending at the western Summerset Way Right-of-Way line. The City Attorney’s Office will prepare a draft of the easement documents. The signed easement agreement will be recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds upon approval by the Common Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request to acquire a storm sewer easement located at 3820 Jackson Street, 3835 Summerset Way and 3847 Summerset Way. Plan Commission recommended approval of the request to acquire on August 19, 2025. For a comprehensive record of the proceedings, the official minutes can be obtained by contacting Planning Services. CH AT E A UTER S UM M ERS ET WAY J A C K S O N S T CHAT EAU TER SUMMERSET WAY J A C K S O N S T DR-6 MR-12 SMU-PD SR-3 SR-3 SR-5 J:\GIS\Planning\Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template\2023 Plan Commission Site Plan Map Template.mxd User: katrinam Prepared by: City of Oshkosh, WI Printing Date: 8/12/2025 1 in = 100 ft 1 in = 0.02 mi¯ZONING & AERIAL MAP City of Oshkosh maps and data are intended to be used for general identification purposes only, and the City of Oshkoshassumes no liability for the accuracy of the information. Those using the information are responsible for verifying accuracy. Forfull disclaimer please go to www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/GISdisclaimer SUBJECTSITE Page 3 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-451 Approve Special Event - UW Oshkosh to utilize City streets for their Move-In days, August 31 through September 1, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-451 UWO Move In Attachment UWO Move In Attachment 08/26/25 25-451 RESOLUTION CARRIED 4-0-1 PRESENT PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIAL EVENT - UW OSHKOSH TO UTILIZE CITY STREETS FOR THEIR MOVE-IN DAYS, AUGUST 31 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to UW Oshkosh (Lori Develice Collins) to utilize city streets on Sunday, August 31, from 8:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. Monday, September 1, 2025, for their Move In Days in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. B. C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of approval, the Event Organizer shall pay the City’s actual costs for extraordinary services. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted as approval to conduct the event during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such an event. Approval of this event shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such an event and all events shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Extraordinary Services None SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION Application fees are $25 for a single day event or $35 for a multi-day event GENERAL INFORMATION Official Name of Event: Start Date: End Date: List times for each day: MON TUES WED THURS FRI SAT SUN SET UP TIME START TIME END TIME CLEAN UP TIME LOCATION OF THE EVENT City Park: Public Property (list street(s), building(s), etc.) County Park / Property: City Park: Other: ORGANIZATION SPONSOR Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Check this box if this organization is tax exempt (a copy of Wisconsin Sales & Use Tax Exempt form is required) Date Filed: Application Fee Paid: Loading Zone on Irving in front of Horizon Loading Zone on High Ave in front of Taylor. Kolf side of street will be NO Parking. T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-452 Approve Block Party - Tina Fillmore to utilize Fox Tail Lane for their neighborhood block party, September 7, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-452 Fillmore Block Party attachment Fillmore BP Map attachment 08/26/2025 25-452 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE BLOCK PARTY - TINA FILLMORE TO UTILIZE FOX TAIL LANE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PARTY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to Tina Fillmore to utilize Fox Tail Lane for a neighborhood block party on Sunday, September 7, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of approval, the Event Organizer shall pay the City's actual costs of extraordinary service. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted is approval to conduct the block party during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such an event. Approval of this block party shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such block parties and all block parties shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations, and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Extraordinary Services None T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-453 Approve Special Event - Habitat for Humanity of Oshkosh, LLC to host the Restorative Art Fest in the parking lot at 1640 S. Koeller Street, October 4, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-453 Restorative Art Fest attachment 08/26/25 25-453 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIAL EVENT - HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF OSHKOSH LLC TO HOST THE RESTORATIVE ART FEST IN THE PARKING LOT AT1640 S KOELLER STREET, OCTOBER 4, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to Habitat for Humanity of Oshkosh, LLC (Nicole Ise), to host the Restorative Art Fest on October 4, 2025, from 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. B. C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of approval, the Event Organizer shall pay the City’s actual costs for extraordinary services. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted as approval to conduct the event during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such an event. Approval of this event shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such an event and all events shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Extraordinary Services None T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-454 Approve Special Event - Lourdes Academy to utilize City streets for their Eucharistic Procession, September 4, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-454 Lourdes Eucharistic Procession attachment 08/26/2025 25-454 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENT - LOURDES ACADEMY TO UTILIZE CITY STREETS FOR THE LOURDES EUCHARISTIC PROCESSION, SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION WHEREAS, the Lourdes Academy is requesting, per Section VII (C)(d)(iii), that the Council waive all costs for Extraordinary Services provided by the City for the event; and WHEREAS, the Common Council has considered the list of criteria listed in the Municipal Code pertaining to a request for a waiver of application and extraordinary fees, including but not limited to: 1) benefit to the quality of life to the City as a whole; 2) tradition of the event in the City; and 3) culture and/or historical significance of the Special Event. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to Lourdes Academy to utilize City streets (Guenther Street, 5th Avenue and Knapp Street) to hold the Lourdes Academy Eucharistic Procession on Thursday, September 4, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m., in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. A waiver of the cost of application and extraordinary services fees per Section VII(D) considerations of the Municipal Code Cost Estimates for Special Events Extraordinary Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that per section VII(C)(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Code, the City is waiving the costs for application fees and extraordinary services listed below. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted as approval to conduct the event during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such an event. Approval of this event shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such an event and all events shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Special Events Extraordinary Services Police Staffing $189.09 (preliminary estimate includes 4.5 CSO hrs., and 1 Sgt. Supervisor hrs.) Supplies/Materials $22.00 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated use of supplies) T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-455 Approve Special Event - Lourdes Academy to utilize City streets for their Homecoming Parade, October 3, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-455 Lourdes Homecoming Parade attachment 08/26/2025 25-455 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIAL EVENT - LOURDES ACADEMY TO UTILIZE CITY STREETS FOR THEIR HOMECOMING PARADE, OCTOBER 3, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION WHEREAS, Lourdes Academy is requesting, per Section VII (C)(d)(iii), that the Council waive all costs for Extraordinary Services provided by the City for the event; and WHEREAS, the Common Council has considered the list of criteria listed in the Municipal Code pertaining to a request for a waiver of application and extraordinary fees, including but not limited to: 1) benefit to the quality of life to the City as a whole; 2) tradition of the event in the City; and 3) culture and/or historical significance of the Special Event. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to Lourdes Academy to utilize City streets (W 5th Avenue, Knapp Street, Durfee Avenue, and Josslyn Street) to hold the Oshkosh North Homecoming Parade on Friday, October 3, 2025, from 5:15 p.m. – 5:45 p.m., in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. A waiver of the cost of application and extraordinary services fees per Section VII(D) considerations of the Municipal Code Cost Estimates for Special Events Extraordinary Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of approval, the Event Organizer shall pay the City’s actual costs for extraordinary services. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted as approval to conduct the event during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such an event. Approval of this event shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such an event and all events shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Extraordinary Services Police Staffing $199.60 (preliminary estimate includes 5 CSO hrs., and 1 Sgt. Supervisor hrs.) Public Works Staffing $76.58 (preliminary estimate includes 1 hr. streets personnel) Equipment/Vehicle $63.62 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated use of equipment and vehicles) Supplies/Materials $198 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated use of supplies) T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-456 Approve Special Event - Skogens Festival Foods to utilize the Oshkosh Seniors Center, City streets and sidewalks for the annual Turkey Trot, November 27, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-456 08/26/2025 25-456 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIAL EVENT - SKOGENS FESTIVAL FOODS TO UTILIZE THE OSHKOSH SENIORS CENTER, CITY STREETS AND SIDEWALKS FOR THE ANNUAL TURKEY TROT, NOVEMBER 27, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to Skogens Festival Foods (Steve Sagmeister) to utilize the Oshkosh Seniors Center, and City streets and sidewalks (N.Campbell Rd., Taft Ave., Witzel Ave., Ohio St., Algoma Blvd., Oshkosh Ave., Sawyer St., Buchanon St., and Bauman St. on Thursday, November 27, 2025, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. for the Festival Foods Turkey Trot in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. B. C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of approval, the Event Organizer shall pay the City’s actual costs for extraordinary services. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted as approval to conduct the event during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such an event. Approval of this event shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such an event and all events shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Extraordinary Services Police Department Staffing $3,695.84 (preliminary estimate includes 22 officer hrs., 6 Supervisor hrs., and 20 CSO hrs.) Equipment / Vehicle Use $79.56 (preliminary estimate included dedicated use of vehicles for 4 hrs.) Supplies / Materials $55 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated use of cones and no parking signs) Street Department Staffing $689.22 (preliminary estimate includes 18 dedicated staff hrs. for the delivery and pick-up of barricades and signs) Equipment / Vehicle Use $312.12 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated use of truck and trailer for the delivery and pick up of barricades and signs.) Supplies / Materials $522.50 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated use of barricades & signs) Fire Department Staffing $679.76 (preliminary estimate includes a dedicated paramedic crew for 4 hrs.) Equipment / Vehicle Use $193.28 (preliminary estimate includes a dedicated ambulance for 4 hrs.) T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-457 Approve Special Event - Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 437, to utilize South Park for the POW MIA Remembrance Ceremony, September 20, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-457 POW MIA Attachment 08/26/2025 25-457 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIAL EVENT - VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, CHAPTER 3437, TO UTILIZE SOUTH PARK FOR THE POW MIA REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY, SEPTEMBER, 20, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to the Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 437 (Duane Canon) to utilize South Park War Monument on Saturday, September 20, 2025, from 1:00p.m. to 2:00 p.m. for the POW MIA Remembrance Ceremony in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. B. C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of approval, the Event Organizer shall pay the City’s actual costs for extraordinary services. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted as approval to conduct the event during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such an event. Approval of this event shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such an event and all events shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Extraordinary Services None T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-458 Approve Special Event - UW Oshkosh Athletics to host the UW Oshkosh Home Football Games at JJ Keller Titan Stadium, September 8, September 20, October 4, October 12, October 17, October 18, November 2, November 8, and November 15, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-458 UW Oshkosh Football Games attachment 08/25/2026 25-458 RESOLUTION CARRIED 4-0-1 PRESENT PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIAL EVENT - UW OSHKOSH ATHLETICS TO HOST THE UW OSHKOSH HOME FOOTBALL GAMES AT JJ KELLER TITAN STADIUM, SEPTEMBER 8, SEPTEMBER 20, OCTOBER 4, OCTOBER 12, OCTOBER 17, OCTOBER 18, NOVEMBER 2, NOVEMBER 8, AND NOVEMBER 15, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Athletics (Selena Schaeffer) to host the UW Oshkosh Home Football Games at Titan Stadium on Septemer 8, September 20, October 4, October 12, October 17, OCtober 18, November 2, November 8, and November 15, 2025, in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. B. C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of approval, the Event Organizer shall pay the City’s actual costs for extraordinary services. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted as approval to conduct the event during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such event. Approval of this event shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such event and all events shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Extraordinary Services Fire Department Staffing $6,117.84 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated paramedic hrs. for each event) Equipment/Vehicle $1,739.52 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated ambulance hrs. for each event) T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Kathy Snell, Special Events Coordinator D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-459 Approve Special Event - First Congregational Church to utilize City streets to host Fall Fest, September 14, 2025 A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-459 08/26/25 25-459 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE SPECIAL EVENT - FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH TO UTILIZE BROWN STREET TO HOST THE FCC FALL FEST, SEPTEMBER 14, 2025 INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that approval is granted to First Congregational Church (Aspyn Rafac) to utilize Brown Street and to host the FCC Fall Fest, September 14, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. in accordance with the municipal code and the attached application, with the following exceptions/conditions: A. B. C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition of approval, the Event Organizer shall pay the City’s actual costs for extraordinary services. Approval of this request shall not be interpreted as approval to conduct the event during any period of emergency order or declaration prohibiting such an event. Approval of this event shall not be interpreted to supersede any emergency order or declaration applicable to such an event and all events shall remain subject to all applicable ordinances, orders, declarations and requirements for public gatherings. Cost Estimates for Extraordinary Services Police Staffing $21.02 (preliminary estimate includes 1 CSO hr.) Public Works Staffing $328.29 (preliminary estimate includes 1 hr. streets personnel) Equipment/Vehicle (preliminary estimate includes 1 hr. dedicated use of vehicles) Supplies/Materials $33 (preliminary estimate includes dedicated use of barricades and signs) T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Diane Bartlett, City Clerk D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-460 Approve Original Class "A" Beer License for Baymont by Wyndham Oshkosh Airport (1581 W South Park, Nikul Chaudhari, Agent) A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-460 Baymont App 08/26/2025 25-460 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE ISSUANCE OF CLASS “A” BEER Baymont by Wyndham Oshkosh Airport, 1581 W South Park, Nikul Chaudhari, Agent INITIATED BY : CITY CLERK WHEREAS, Baymont by Wyndham Oshkosh Airport, Nikul Chaudhari, Agent (the “applicant”), has submitted an application and all required documentation for issuance of a Class “A” license and paid the appropriate fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh hereby finds all reviews and inspections required by city ordinance have been completed for the issuance of this license to the applicant, and no violations or other issues have been noted that would prevent the issuance of the liquor license at this time. Review Complete Required completion/corrections Review and approval of the Licensee by the Oshkosh Police Department x none Inspection and approval by the Winnebago County Health Department x none Inspection and approval by the Oshkosh Fire Department x none Review and approval by the Department of Community Development for location and zoning compliance x none BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following license be granted to: NEW LICENSE HOLDER: Baymont by Wyndham Oshkosh Airport AGENT: Nikul Chaudhar LOCATION OF PREMISES: 1581 W South Park Ave LICENSE YEAR: August 26, 2025 - June 30, 2026 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Jim Collins, Director of Transportation D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Ord 25-461 Amend Section 27A-11 of the Municipal Code Pertaining to parking regulations on 16th Avenue B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th is 1 5 -m in u te park in g , located on th e n orth side, from O regon Street to 5 5 feet west of O reg on Street, is n o lon ger n eeded du e to th e retail bak ery in th e adjacen t bu ildin g switch in g from a retail location to a stag in g an d storag e facility. Th e requ est is from th e bak ery own er. B O A R D /C O M M I S S I O N I N F O R M A T I O NBOARD/C O M M I S S I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Th e Tran sportation Com m ittee recom m en ds approv al of th e requ est (4 -0 ). F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th ere is n o fiscal im pact for th e rem ov al of th is sig n . R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Staff recom en ds requ est. A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Ord 25-461 8/26/2025 25-461 ORDINANCE SECOND READING 8/12/2025 25-428 ORDINANCE FIRST READING CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: AMEND PARKING REGULATIONS ON 16TH AVE INITIATED BY : TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - APPROVED A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 27A-11 PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS. WHEREAS, the Transportation Department recommends approval to amend parking regulations on 16th Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 27A-11 pertaining Parking Regulations on designated streets and alleys is hereby amended as follows: A-11 PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS 16th AVENUE Delete Therefrom: 15-minute parking, north side, from Oregon Street to 55 feet west of Oregon Street SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its Passage and publication. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted ordinance #25-461 on August 26, 2025, AMEND PARKING REGULATIONS ON 16TH AVE (A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 27A-11 OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS). The ordinance deletes a 15-minute parking zone on 16th Avenue from Oregon Street to 55 feet west of Oregon Street. The full text of the ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Avenue and through the City’s website at www.oshkoshwi.gov, Phone: 920/236-5011. T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Jim Collins, Director of Transportation D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Ord 25-462 Amend Parking and Loading Zone Regulations on Algoma Boulevard in front of Read Elementary School B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Cu rren t con dition is bu s loadin g zon e between 7 :3 0 a.m . an d 4 :3 0 p.m . on sch ool days h ow ev er, sch ool adm in istration h as requ ested it be ch an g ed to 7 :0 0 a.m . an d 4 :3 0 p.m . to accom m odate bu ses an d paren ts th at drop off earlier th an 7 :3 0 a.m . A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Upon on -site observ ation , th e ch an ge to 7 :0 0 a.m . sh ou ld allev iate th e issu e an d still leav e am ple street park in g in th e area. B O A R D /C O M M I S S I O N I N F O R M A T I O NBOARD/C O M M I S S I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Th e Tran sportation Com m ittee recom m en ds requ est (4 -0 ). F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th e fiscal im pact is th e cost of th e sig n ag e. Th e sign age cost w ou ld com e ou t of th e Sig n Departm en t operation al bu dg et. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Staff recom m en ds requ est. A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Ord 25-462 8/26/2025 25-462 ORDINANCE SECOND READING 8/12/2025 25-429 ORDINANCE FIRST READING CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: AMEND PARKING AND LOADING ZONE REGULATIONS ON ALGOMA BLVD IN FRONT OF READ ELEMENTARY INITIATED BY : TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - APPROVED A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 27A-11 PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS. WHEREAS, the Transportation Department recommends approval to amend parking regulations on ALGOMA BLVD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 27A-11 pertaining Parking Regulations on designated streets and alleys is hereby amended as follows: A-11 PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS ALGOMA BLVD Delete Therefrom: Bus loading zone, no parking, stopping, standing, waiting, on Algoma Blvd. from 260’ north of Vine Avenue to 440’ north of Vine Avenue between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on school days. Add Thereto: Bus loading zone, no parking, stopping, standing, waiting, on Algoma Blvd. from 260’ north of Vine Avenue to 440’ north of Vine Avenue between 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on school days. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted ordinance #25-462 on August 26, 2025, AMEND PARKING AND LOADING ZONE REGULATIONS ON ALGOMA BLVD (A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 27A-11 OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS). The ordinance will change the enforcement times for the bus loading zone in front of Read Elementary School on Algoma Boulevard from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm to 7:00 am to 4:30 pm on school days. The full text of the ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Avenue and through the City’s website at www.oshkoshwi.gov, Phone: 920/236-5011. T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Ord 25-463 Amend Section 2-10(b) of the City of Oshkosh Municipal Code Pertaining to Regular Meetings of the Common Council to Provide for Establishment of an Annual Schedule of Meetings B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Wiscon sin Statu tes requ ire Cou n cils to establish by ordin an ce a tim e for h oldin g regu lar m eetin gs. For m an y years th is regu lar m eetin g tim e for th e City of O sh k osh Com m on Cou n cil h as been th e secon d an d fou rth Tu esdays of each m on th . In th e past th ere h av e been in stan ces w h ere th is m eetin g sch edu le is altered becau se of election s or h olidays, lack of qu oru m or oth er reason s. Th e city h as also recen tly u pdated th e city w ebpag e to in clu de a m on th ly calen dar of m eetin gs wh ich prov ides access to th e calen dar ou t in to fu tu re m on th s an d years. With th e n ew electron ic calen dar form at an d in lig h t of th e an n u al n eed to ch an g e certain dates staff is recom m en din g th at th e city con sider plan n in g ah ead each year an d dev elopin g an an n u al calen dar th at can be u ploaded an d will be v isible to th e pu blic for each calen dar year in adv an ce of sim ply prov idin g th e n ext few u pcom in g m on th ly m eetin gs. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e proposed ordin an ce rev ision w ou ld m ain tain th e gen eral secon d an d fou rth Tu esday of each m on th cou n cil m eetin g sch edu le bu t prov ide cou n cil th e opportu n ity to alter th at by prov idin g an an n u al sch edu le of m eetin gs by ordin an ce. Cou n cil cou ld still ch an g e th at sch edu le, ag ain by ordin an ce, bu t prov idin g an an n u al calen dar w ill allow staff an d th e pu blic to better u n derstan d th e cou n cil sch edu le for th e year an d adequ ately plan for w h en item s m ay be brou g h t to th e cou n cil an d con sidered. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th ere is n o fiscal im pact to th e City of O sh k osh . R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Staff recom m en ds approv al of th e O rdin an ce. A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Ord 25-463 Amend Chapter 2 - set council mts annually - clean Amend Chapter 2 - set council mts annually - redline 8/26/2025 25-463 ORDINANCE SECOND READING 8/12/2025 25-430 ORDINANCE FIRST READING CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: AMEND SECTION 2-10(B) OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL TO PROVIDE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ANNUAL SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS INITIATED BY : CITY ADMINISTRATION A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 2-10(B) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes require the Council to establish by ordinance for the time of holding regular meetings; and WHEREAS, the City has developed an updated online electronic calendar; and WHEREAS, there are reoccurring circumstances which require the alteration of the Council meeting calendar, such as elections and holidays, and with the new electronic format it would be more efficient and transparent to annually identify those occasions when the general schedule will be altered so that the Council, staff and the public can appropriately plan well in advance of the meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 2-10(B) of the City of Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining Regular Meetings of the Common Council is hereby to read as shown on the attachment to this ordinance. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its Passage and publication. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted ordinance #25-463 on August 26, 2025, AMEND SECTION 2-10(B) OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL TO PROVIDE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ANNUAL SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS (A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 2-10(B) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR). The ordinance amends the current code language to provide for the annual establishment of a common council meeting calendar which shall be published on the city website. The full text of the ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Avenue and through the City’s website at www.oshkoshwi.gov, Phone: 920/236-5011. City of Oshkosh Municipal Codes Revised 06/25/2024 City of Oshkosh Chapter 2 – Page 1 Municipal Codes CHAPTER 2 ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE III. LEGISLATIVE SECTION 2-10 COUNCIL MEETINGS (B)Regular Meetings (1) Time and Place The regular meetings of the Council of the City of Oshkosh shall be held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall or such other place as may be properly noticed. Regular meetings will generally be held on the second and fourth Tuesday in each month at 6:00 o'clock p.m. with exceptions thereto noted on an annual schedule adopted by the Council and published on the City’s website. [Statutory Reference §64.07(5) Wis. Stats.] City of Oshkosh Municipal Codes Revised 06/25/2024 City of Oshkosh Chapter 2 – Page 1 Municipal Codes CHAPTER 2 ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE III. LEGISLATIVE SECTION 2-10 COUNCIL MEETINGS (B) Regular Meetings (1) Time and Place The regular meetings of the Council of the City of Oshkosh shall be held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall or such other place as may be properly noticed. Regular meetings will generally be held on the second and fourth Tuesday in each month at 6:00 o'clock p.m. with exceptions thereto noted on an annual schedule adopted by the Council and published on the City’s website. on the second and fourth Tuesday in each month at 6:00 o'clock p.m.; except that if a regular meeting falls upon the same date as an election the regular meeting of the Council shall be held upon the Wednesday of that week. [Statutory Reference §64.07(5) Wis. Stats.] T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Jim Collins, Director of Transportation D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :*Ord 25-464 Amend Section 27A-11 of the Municipal Code pertaining to parking regulations on Washington Avenue B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e Down town O sh k osh YMCA h as ou tg row n th eir cu rren t off-street park in g lots. Th ey are in th e process of expan din g th eir park in g lot. How ev er, th at project will tak e at least a year. Th e YMCA h as in qu ired if it is possible to rem ov e th e tim ed park in g restriction in th is area of Wash in gton Av en u e. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Neigh borin g bu sin esses h av e n o objection to rem ov in g th e 2 -h ou r restriction . B O A R D /C O M M I S S I O N I N F O R M A T I O NBOARD/C O M M I S S I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Tran sportation Com m ittee recom m en ds approv al. F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T Th ere is n o fin an cial im pact on th e rem ov al of sig n ag e. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Staff recom m en ds approv al of th e requ est. A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Ord 25-464 08/26/2025 25-464 ORDINANCE FIRST READING ORDINANCE PURPOSE: AMEND SECTION 27A-11 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE 2-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION ON WASHINGTON AVE (TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL) INITIATED BY : TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - APPROVED A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 27A-11 OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee recommends approval to remove the 2-hour parking restriction on Washington Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 27A-11 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to parking regulations on designated streets and alleys is hereby amended as follows: A-11 UPDATE PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS: Washington Avenue Delete Therefrom: Remove the 2-hour parking restriction, south side, from 54’ east of Court Street to Broad Street SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, publication and removal of the appropriate signage. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted ordinance #25-XXX on September 9, 2025, ADD UPDATING PARKING REGULATIONS ON WASHINGTON AVENUE. A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 27A-11 OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS. The ordinance will remove the 2-hour parking on Washington Avenue. The full text of the ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Avenue and through the City’s website at www.oshkoshwi.gov Clerk’s phone: 920/236-5011. T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Diane Bartlett, City Clerk D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Res 25-465 Approve Combination "Class B" Liquor License (Water City Pub, 216 Main Street, Nicholas Malesevich, Agent) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND 2 1 6 North Main Street, LLC / Nich olas Malesev ich (th e applican t) prev iou sly h eld a Com bin ation "Class B" Liqu or Licen se for property located at 2 1 6 Main Street an d com m on ly k n ow n as Water City Pu b. Th e applican t beg an th e ren ewal process bu t faced delays du e to th e late su bm ission of n ecessary docu m en tation , specifically th e proof of seller's perm it an d Safe Serv e certificate. Th ese docu m en ts w ere filed post-deadlin e, resu ltin g in th e requ irem en t to process th is as a n ew liqu or licen se application . Fu rth erm ore, a sale of th e property w as an ticipated du rin g th e ren ewal period, wh ich rem ain s in com plete, w ith th e property still on th e m ark et. Cu rren tly, th e restau ran t/bar is n ot operation al. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e application an d all requ ired docu m en tation for a licen se h av e n ow been su bm itted. Th e appropriate fees h av e been paid an d rev iews an d in spection s requ ired by city ordin an ce h av e been don e an d are n oted on th e attach ed resolu tion . R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Sh ou ld th e City Cou n cil approv e th is liqu or licen se requ est, staff su g gests th at a specific date for th e com pletion of an y m an datory action s, correction s, or sale of th e property be establish ed an d agreed u pon . A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Res 25-465 Water City Pub App and Supp. App 08/26/2025 25-465 RESOLUTION CARRIED 5-0 PURPOSE: APPROVE COMBINATION "CLASS B" LIQUOR LICENSE (WATER CITY PUB, 216 MAIN STREET, NICHOLAS MALESEVICH, AGENT) INITIATED BY : CITY CLERK WHEREAS, Nicholas Malesvich, Water City Pub, 216 North Main Street, LLC (the “applicant”), has submitted an application and all required documentation for issuance of a "Class B" license and paid the appropriate fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh hereby finds that all reviews and inspections as noted below are required by city ordinance for the issuance of this license to the applicant: REVIEW COMPLETE REQUIRED COMPLETION/CORRECTIONS Review and approval of the Licensee by the Oshkosh Police Department X None Inspection and approval by the Winnebago County Health Department X Approved to sell beverages and prepackaged food/candy Inspection and approval by the Oshkosh Fire Department X see note Initial inspection complete, the applicant will need to pass a final fire inspection before operation. Review and approval by the Department of Community Development for location and zoning compliance X None - inspection done at the onset of the original application/development BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following license be granted to: NEW LICENSE HOLDER: 216 North Main Street, LLC /dba/ Water City Pub AGENT: Nicholas Malesvich LOCATION OF PREMISES: 216 Main Street LICENSE YEAR: August 26, 2025 - June 30, 2026 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the required corrections as noted above are not completed by the date established by council (DATE: ), staff shall report this to the council, and the council may take action to revoke or non-renew the license. T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Direction to staff regarding regulation of e-bikes, motor bikes and bicycles on sidewalks and in bike lanes B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND E-bik es an d m otorized bik es h av e becom e in creasin gly popu lar ov er th e past sev eral years. Both e-bik es an d m otor bicycles are bicycles wh ich h av e m otor u n its -- e-bik es by defin ition h av e an electric m otor, w h ich are lim ited to 2 0 m ph , an d m otor bik es by defin ition are a bicycle to wh ich a power u n it h as been added th at can allow th e bik e to trav el u p to 3 0 m ph . With th e in creased popu larity of th ese bik es, th e city h as also seen a rise in com plain ts related to th eir u se, m ost particu larly in relation to th eir u se on sidewalk s, in particu lar, related to speed an d failu re to be respectfu l of pedestrian s an d oth er sidew alk u sers. E-bik es an d m otor bicycles gen erally h av e all righ ts an d respon sibilities gran ted by statu tes to tradition al bicycles in th e pu blic righ t-of-way, m ean in g th ey m u st abide by th e ru les of th e road an d are allocated th e sam e rig h ts as bicyclists on th e road, for exam ple, in relation to yieldin g righ t of way. Th ese bik es are u n iqu e, h owev er, in th at th ey m ay operate sim ilarly to a tradition al bicycle w ith pedals in som e in stan ces an d m ore lik e a m otor v eh icle, at h igh er speeds, w ith th eir power u n it en g ag ed. With reg ard to sidew alk s, staff h as rev iewed th e applicable statu tes an d iden tified th ree option s for regu lation of e-bik es an d m otor bik es: Allow e-bik es an d m otor bik es on sidew alk s, sim ilar to oth er bicycles. It sh ou ld be n oted th at bicycles are requ ired to yield to pedestrian s an d exercise du e care u n der cu rren t ordin an ces, th ou gh th is is on e of th e issu es th at h as been n oted in com plain ts receiv ed by staff an d cou n cil in th e past. Ban all bicycles from sidewalk s, wh ich w ou ld in clu de tradition al bicycles Allow e-bik es an d m otor bik es on sidew alk s on ly in pedalin g m ode (with ou t th e pow er u n it en gaged); e-bik es an d m otor bik es m ay operate on th e roadw ay eith er in pedal m ode or w ith th e power u n it en g ag ed. Staff recom m en ds th at th e City con sider an ordin an ce im plem en tin g th e th ird option iden tified abov e, allow in g e-bik es an d m otor bik es on th e sidew alk on ly wh en operated in pedal m ode, an d th at th is m atter be referred to th e Tran sportation Com m ittee for rev iew an d recom m en dation . Staff also recom m en ds rev iew of th e followin g issu es pertain in g to bicycles, e-bik es an d m otor bicycles at th is sam e tim e: Sh ou ld e-bik es an d m otor bicycles be perm itted in desig n ated bik e lan es (with an d w ith ou t th e power u n it en g ag ed)? City ordin an ce cu rren tly proh ibits m otor bicycles in desig n ated bik e lan es, bu t does n ot address e-bik e u se in bik e lan es Sh ou ld bicycles, e-bik es an d m otor bik es be proh ibited on sidew alk s u n der certain con dition s or in certain areas? Madison proh ibits ridin g a bicycle on a sidewalk th at is im m ediately adjacen t to a bu ildin g Are th ere certain streets or areas w h ere u se of bicycles on sidew alk s sh ou ld be lim ited? For exam ple, Main Street or portion s of O reg on Street. TO:Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM:Rebecca Grill, City Manager DATE:August 26, 2025 SUBJECT:Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with AECOM for Environmental Services during Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Project for the 2026 Capital Improvement Projects (+$12,350) BACKGROUND A profession al serv ices ag reem en t with AECO M for prov idin g su bsu rface an d geotech n ical en gin eerin g ev alu ation serv ices for th e 2 0 2 5 an d 2 0 2 6 Capital Im prov em en t Prog ram s (CIP) w as reported to th e Com m on Cou n cil on May 2 7 , 2 0 2 5 . Du rin g th e cou rse of th e Project, addition al serv ices were requ ested by City Staff. ANALYSIS Th e scope of serv ices requ ested in th is am en dm en t in clu de addin g th ree (3 ) addition al streets to th e 2 0 2 6 su bsu rface an d g eotech n ical ev alu ation serv ices. FISCAL IMPACT Staff h as rev iewed th e am en dm en t an d th e costs. Th e am ou n t of th is am en dm en t is tim e an d m aterials n ot to exceed $1 2 ,3 5 0 , w h ich will brin g th e total ag reem en t am ou n t to $5 4 ,5 3 5 . Th e cost for th ese serv ices will be split am on g th e Street Pav in g, Storm Water, Water, San itary Sew er, an d Property Im prov em en t CIP section s. Fu n din g was bu dgeted in all fiv e (4 ) section s of th e 2 0 2 5 CIP (Accou n t #0 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 -6 8 X X -X X X X X /Mu ltiple Fu n ds an d #0 3 2 3 1 7 1 7 -7 2 1 6 - 6 3 0 0 1 /Park in g Lot Im prov em en ts-Lan d Im prov em en t-Park in g Lot Im prov em en ts. RECOMMENDATION Chap ter 12 of th e Mu n icipal Code of th e City of O sh k osh prov ides th at profession al serv ices of a specialized n atu re, in clu din g en g in eerin g serv ices, m ay be procu red w ith ou t th e u se of form al, sealed qu otes. In accordan ce with Section 12-16 of th e Code, I am h ereby su bm ittin g th is report regardin g th is am en dm en t. Please con tact m e if you h av e an y qu estion s con cern in g th is am en dm en t. Atta chments AECOM 2026 Env Support during Geotech CA #1 T O :T O :Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council F R O M :F R O M :Jon Urben, General Services Manager D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Professional Services Agreement with Facility Engineering Inc. (FEI) for Architectural/Engineering Services for Sawyer House Windows and Carriage House Building Envelope Rehabilitation ($44,250.00) B A C K G R O U N DBACKGROUND Th e O sh k osh Pu blic Mu seu m an d Facilities Main ten an ce staff h av e been w ork in g to address w in dow repairs at th e Sawyer Hom e bu ildin g an d bu ildin g en v elope/reh abilitation issu es at th e Carriag e Hou se. Th e scope of th is work is to iden tify specific repairs to th e estim ated 9 0 + w in dows of th e Sawyer Hom e th at are in n eed of v ariou s lead abatem en t, restoration an d pain tin g. Th is project w ill also in clu de bu ildin g en v elope/reh abilitation w ork on th e Carriage Hou se bu ildin g to address deterioratin g m ason ry, stu cco, wood, sealan t an d pain t. A N A L Y S I SANALYSIS Th e city en gaged FEI to iden tify an d prepare th e bid specification s for th ese repairs/reh abilitation , w ork with th e Wiscon sin Historical Society for th eir rev iew/approv al an d prov ide con stru ction m an agem en t after th e projects are awarded, h opefu lly som etim e in 2 0 2 6 . FEI is v ery fam iliar w ith th e Pu blic Mu seu m , h av in g been en g ag ed in v ariou s facility projects, an d m ost recen tly, th e Waldw ic G allery ren ov ation . F I S C A L I M P A C TFISCAL I M P A C T FEI w as en g ag ed at a cost of $4 4 ,2 5 0 .0 0 , fu n ded from th e rem ain in g fu n ds from th e Pu blic Mu seu m 's Waldw ic G allery ren ov ation project in th e 2 0 2 4 CIP. Staff h av e su bm itted a placeh older requ est of $4 2 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in th e 2 0 2 6 CIP to address th e Saw yer Hom e win dow repairs an d th e Carriag e Hou se bu ildin g en v elope/reh abilitation w ork . R E C O M M E N D A T I O NRECOMMENDATION Ch apter 1 2 of th e Mu n icipal Code of th e City of O sh k osh prov ides th at profession al serv ices of a specialized n atu re, in clu din g th ese serv ices, m ay be procu red with ou t th e u se of com petitiv e biddin g or qu otation process. In accordan ce w ith Section 1 2 -1 6 of th e Code, an d becau se th is serv ice is less th an $7 5 ,0 0 0 , I am h ereby su bm ittin g th is report. Please con tact m e if you h av e an y qu estion s on th is agreem en t. D A T E :D A T E :August 26, 2025 S U B J E C T :S U B J E C T :Current Initiatives A t t a c h m e n t sAttachments Current Initiatives 08.26.2025 City of Oshkosh Status of Current Initiatives Date of Initial Request Affected Department(s) (if applicable) Initiative Current Status Next Status Report/Update Other Notes 1/10/2023 DPW/Legal Sanitary District Negotiations Mediation continues.9/23/2025 Mediation session is scheduled for September 4th to work through contract language. 4/16/2024 DPW & Community Development Undergrounding Utilities A draft policy was discussed at the 7/8/25 Council meeting and language to include wider streets/boulevards in those considered for utility undergrounding was requested. 9/9/2025 Updated draft policy will return to Council for approval. 11/26/2024 Public Works / Finance / Legal Special Assessment Deferral Policy A draft policy was discussed at the 7/8/25 Council meeting and some modifications given with regard to early payments and length of deferal. 10/14/2025 Related ordinance changes are also being drafted, which may incorporate all of the policy items discussed. This item will be referred to Long Range Finance Committee for a recommendaton (next meeting 10/1/25), at which point the policy and/or ordinance changes will come to Council for consideration. 7/8/2025 Legal / Community Development Fair Housing Ordinance The City's Fair Housing Ordinance was discussed at 7/8/25 meeting and there was sufficient consensus among Council to direct staff to look into potential implcations and opportunities of modifications to the ordinance. 9/23/2025 8/26/2025