Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P C C ROCEEDINGS OF THE OMMON OUNCIL C O,W ITY OF SHKOSH ISCONSIN REGULAR MEETING held Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall. Mayor Tower presided. PRESENT: Council Members Jessica King, Tony Palmeri, Dennis McHugh, Bryan Bain, Paul Esslinger, Burk Tower and Mayor Frank Tower ALSO PRESENT: John Fitzpatrick, Acting City Manager, Pamela Ubrig, City Clerk, Lynn Lorenson, Assistant City Attorney and David Patek, Director of Public Works Council Member King read the Invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Blake Hartman and Colen Kemp from Jefferson Elementary School; and, Ashley Shea and Morgan Stinemates from Smith Elementary School. Public Hearings The Mayor ordered the following Public Hearings: Resolution 08-78 Approve Final Resolution – Paving and Utilities / Various Streets There were no appearances and the Public Hearing was CLOSED MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Ordinance 08-79 Approve Zone Change / 501-531 East Parkway Avenue and 520-532 Broad Street There were no appearances and the Public Hearing was CLOSED FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Ordinance 08-80 Approve Zone Change / 2088 and 2092 Witzel Avenue There were no appearances and the Public Hearing was CLOSED FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Consent Agenda 1 The minutes of the February 26, 2008 meeting were approved as presented. Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 The Report of the Acting City Manager was read. Doug Pregie from My Tech Servi ces the consulting firm for AT&T, stated the noise would be minimal due to traffic control and there was less traffic at night. He stated they requested 2 to 3 weeks to complete the project and with good weather it may take less time. Council Member Bain questioned request #5 regarding a variance to the City’s noise ordinance for AT&T. He questioned what was involved in testing. He stated in the residential area AT&T would work from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and w ould be in the commercial area during the overnight hours. He explained the amendment to their request would require them to provide notices to the property owners within whatever the City radius was to provide notices for plan developments. Council Member Palmeri questioned what kind of affect this has had on other areas. Mr. Patek responded. The bills were presented in the amount of $5,630,119.37. The Report of the City Clerk was read. Resolution 08-81 Approve Master Developer Agreement Terms – MK-1 LLC and MK-2 LLC (Burns Development) Council Member Bain questioned if in Phase 2, the Pay Go Bonds would come to Council for approval. He also questioned if the RDA granted an extension if that too would have to come back to the Council. Mr. Kinney, Director of Community Development, explained if the terms were to be considered in the future it would need to come back to Council for approval. He stated it would be doubtful for a request for the Pay Go Bonds in Phase 2 of the project. He stated the extension would be granted by the RDA. Council Member McHugh suggested that developers develop with their own money, not supported by the City. He stated that other cities have less TIF districts than Oshkosh and that they were thriving communities. He stated the developer made the profit while the City takes all of the risks. He stated the City needed to pull the reigns in on some developers; therefore he would not support the resolution. Council Member Palmeri requested an overall review of what Burns development was proposing. He also questioned what other developments Burns’ has done in the community and what kind of support was given from the City. He questioned why Burns’ had request ed TIF money for the project. He explained that State Law states committees should only say yes to TIF if the development would not take place without TIF money. He questioned what impact on the neighborhood was expected to happen from the project. He re quested an explanation of 2 infill development. Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 Brian Burns, 1750 Cliffview Drive, Principal of Burns Development, stated he was excited to present a plan in the South Shore Redevelopment Area. He stated the first phase was a 32 unit project, with attached garages; each townhouse would have a separate entry, a high quality development. It was an area in transition and would be good for the community. He explained that a city that used TIF was a city that had priorities. He stated that Division Street was three separate RFP’s and that project was 100% occupied and was not a TIF project. He explained th the redevelopments of the bank on 9 Avenue and Oregon Street along with the former South Side Library. He stated construction cost had risen while the cost of renting had not. He stated he would walk away from the project if TIF money would not be used. He stated he expects the project to be successful and a desirable place to live. He explained infill development was filling in land that was vacant with development; opposite of greenfill development, which meant to buy farm land and expand the city that way. He explained the projected rent would be $695 for two bedroom; $485 to $495 for one bedroom. The rehab program would be approximately $435 per month and were all one bedroom apartments. He stated he was comfortable with the project; on the results of Division Street and that townhouses with attached garage were more secure than apartment complexes. Council Member King stated that Burns Development had done a wonderful job on projects they completed in the community. She questioned what the projected rent would be when Phase 1 was completed. She questioned the 11 units in Phase 2 that would be part of the rehabilitation program and what the rent would be. She stated she really liked that the utilities would be underground. She questioned about the perspective tenants in that area. Resolution 08-82 Authorizing the Issuance of a $375,316 Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bond of the City of Oshkosh to MK-1 LLC or Assigns Resolution 08-83 Grant Conditional Use Permits; Approve Planned Development A) 230 Ohio Street B) West South Park Avenue, between 1477 and 1495 West South Park Avenue Resolution 08-84 Approve Initial Resolution – Paving, Grading and Graveling, Sidewalk, Driveway Approach, Utilities / Various Streets Resolution 08-85 DELETED BY STAFF Resolution 08-86 Award Bid for Pickup Truck for Street Division (Ewald Hartford Ford, Hartford, $36,777.00) Resolution 08-87 Approve Appointments Resolution 08-88 Approve Miscellaneous Licenses 3 MOTION: ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA EXCLUDING RESOLUTIONS 08-81 AND 08- 82 (Esslinger; second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 Resolution 08-81 Approve Master Developer Agreement Terms – MK-1 LLC and MK-2 LLC (Burns Development) MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, McHugh) CARRIED: Ayes (5) King, Palmeri, Bain, Tower, Mayor Tower; Noes (2) McHugh, Esslinger Council Member Esslinger questioned if the City owned the property would it make sense to parcel the land and sell them to individuals to build homes. He questioned if a developer would not be interested in the property without funding. He questioned if TIF districts should be used for larger developments, ones that do not compete with other entities in the community. He stated he was pleased to see Mr. Burn s come forwarded on the project, his history on other projects he had done in the community were wonderful. He explained he felt assistance was being given to one individual and not allowing assistance to another individual and there could be a loss of tenants for this. He stated that he would not support the resolution. Council Member King stated she ha d talked to several sec tors of the community about the project. She stated as a Council they needed to look at policies with regard to our rental rehab program. She stated as a future goal for Council it needed to look at rental units throughout the City and not just in certain areas. She stated new housing stock was needed with good quality so it would last and was useful for the next generation requiring housing. She stated she liked that the development was dense and secure therefore she would support the development. She explained she wanted land lords in the community to know that it was her intention to pursue policies that may allow them access to rental rehab funds. She stated she supported the concept of TIF money used to create more jobs. Council Member Palmeri stated he agreed with most of Council Member King’s statements. He explained his support of the resolution due to accomplishments on Division Street. He stated TIF funds used should be used with developers with good credibility and those that love the community. He stated he would like to see City staff do a better job with explaining benefits of TIF. He explained how the City of Dallas used a sheet of credentials to decide if TIF should be used. Council Member Tower explained this was a leader project in the area and expressed his support. Council Member McHugh stated that all Council Members received a letter from a gentleman explaining that when areas were overbuilt, slums were created. Mr. Kinney stated that developing single family homes in the area was not what the adopted plan suggested. He explained townhouse, apartments and multiple family developments was really 4 th what the area needed. He stated the area to the south of 9 Avenue was an area that could be similar to the near east program in the future. He stated to achieve the quality and intensity of the development, the cost of construc tion exceeded the value, which creates a short fall and explains Pay Go Bonds would deal with that. He stated TIF #20 was a very large tax incremental district and that TIF’s were the #1 economical development tool in the state and this would assist with redevelop in the area. Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 Resolution 08-82 Authorizing the Issuance of a $375,316 Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Bond of the City of Oshkosh to MK-1 LLC or Assigns MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (5) King, Palmeri, Bain, Tower, Mayor Tower; Noes (2) McHugh, Esslinger Ordinance 08-89 Amend City of Oshkosh Comprehensive Plan MOTION: ADOPT (Bain, second, Esslinger) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Jerry Frey, Chairman for the Town of Oshkosh, 4804 Island View Drive, urged Council to approve the plan. He stated it was a good starting point for the City and Township to work together. Ken Bender, 806 Oak Street, questioned the City controlling 3 miles beyond city limits. He stated this was dictatorship. He stated he would like to see compromises with the township and City. Council Member Palmeri questioned if this could start a slope where before long the agricultural land would be gone. He questioned if the City could not have residential development in the area. He questioned what th e amendment would do. He questioned that if th e resolution passed what the goal of staff would be to preser ve the agricultural character. He also questioned under what conditions would make it possible to lose the agricultural land. Mr. Burich, Director of Planning, responded that in rural areas they would not promote new residential uses that were not agricultural related. He explained that it would allow for limited ability to create new residential uses on an infield basis in those areas. He stated the Plan Commission did not think it was a negative impact on the goal that was trying to be achieved, that is why they came up with the narrow language. He stated it stills preserves farm land. He stated he did not feel this was a negative impact on the ability to preserve the rural preservation in these areas. He explained that people were buying 5 acres of land and not retaining the farm that was why they had been rejected. He explained that the intent was to maintain those areas. Council Member King questioned where houses could be built. Ordinance 08-90 Amend Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance / Of f-Street Parking and Loading Facilities 5 MOTION: AMEND SECTION 30 -36 (A)(4)(A) TOW TRU CKS, WRECKERS OR CARRIERS EXCEPT THAT ONE LIGHT DUTY TOW TRUCK (NOT A ROLL BACK, FLATBED, OR CARRIER TYPE) WITH A GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING NOT EXCEEDING 12,000 POUNDS MAY BE PARKED ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT WHEN ON CALL OPERAT ING UNDER THE ROTATING CALL LIST E STABLISHED AND KEPT BY THE OSHKOSH POLICE DEPARTMENT (Mayor Tower, second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 MOTION: AMEND EXISTING PARKING LOTS WITH 50 STALLS OR LESS NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE STORM SEWER S ON RECONSTRUCTION (Esslinger, second, Palmeri) LOST: Ayes (3) Palmer, McHugh, Esslinger; Noes (4) King, Bain, Tower, Mayor Tower MOTION: REMOVE SECTION E AND REFER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE (Palmeri, second, McHugh) WITHDRAWN MOTION: REFER SECTION 30-36 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD (Palmeri, second McHugh) LOST: Ayes (2) Palmeri, Esslinger; Noes (5) King, McHugh, Bain, Tower, Mayor Tower MOTION: AMEND SECTION 30 -36 (E)(8)(g) EIGHT FEET TO SIX FEET (King, second, Mayor Tower) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower VOTE ON ORDINANCE AS AMENDED: CARRIED: Ayes (5) King, McHugh, Bain, Tower, Mayor Tower; Noes (2) Palmeri, Esslinger Ken Bender, 806 Oak Street, stated that trees were problems when plowing and could cause icy spots. He stated the City need ed to make it more compatible for businesses and he urged Council not to support the amendment. Bill Aubrey, AEC architects, 2014 Shawnee Lane, questioned clarification on reconstruction of parking lots. He stated that with the reconstruction of the parking lot at Player’s owned by Carl Sosnoski, the City had requested that storm water be collected on site and piped to the storm water in the street. He stated in the reconstruction it did not allow water to go over the sidewalk as it did in the past which made a significant cost to the business owner. He stated the City requires minimum of six foot high trees but have a minimum of an eight foot vision clearance on trees and th ose d id not go together. He stated there needed to be flexibility related to ordinances regarding existing lots. He explained the owner had repaved the parking lot and then found out the City wanted storm sewer. Rather than removing $25,000 of pavement, put in the multiple connections. He stated that these requirements could lead business owners to leave parking lots in disrepair rather than spend for improvements. He stated he agreed that the storm 6 sewer was a better system but needed to be some degree of flexibility. He stated each property was unique and staff needed to be flexible. He stated he was the architect also for Lang Oil on Bowen Street and would like to see flexibility with the requirements for walkways and pedestrian access. Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 Carl Sosnoski, 2475 Knapp Street R oad, stated he fe lt the dialogue between the City and citizens was better than it had been in the past. He stated that the off-street parking ordinance was created in 1986 and was not enforced in all areas of t he city. He stated that the requirement for parking lot s that c ould hold five cars must have storm sewer was ludicrous, when there are driveways that c ould hold five cars. He shared various pictures showing icy walkways in parking lots that had storm sewers and those that do not. He understood that the City would like to make parking lots look better and he supported grass and bushes around the entrances. He stated it could be helpful with collecting the gas and oil that runs off of parking lot. He stated it is ridiculous to require all business owners to put in storm sewer due to limited land to work with and that parking was needed. He stated his contention was existing businesses in the community being required to spend thousands of dollars on this issue. He felt money could be spent on green space to catch the run off, it would be better looking, collect more contaminants and save money. He explained if an owner of an existing parking refurbished it, the City calls it a new parking lot and he did not agree with that. He stated that he felt existing parking lots should have less restrictions regarding storm sewers. Council Member McHugh questioned the grandfather clause that 50 stalls or less would not need to have curbing. He stated storm sewers which served parking lots should be designed to accommodate a 10 year storm. He questioned what size pipe was appropriate for a ten year storm. He questioned how to address the issue of pollutants go ing directly into Lake Winnebago. He questioned if pollutants go in either way, was it ridiculous to make business owners put in storm sewer s on small parking lots. He explained he d id not question design expertise in the Department of Public Works. He stated there should be a grandfather clause with existing businesses. Mr. Burich explained that anything storm sewer related in a parking lot was required to have a plan submitted by the developer subject to approval by Department of Public Works. He suggested an amendment to add language regarding the tow trucks-light duty. He explained that as trees matured and became fuller the intent was to keep a vision clearance. He stated he would not be opposed to taking out the eight foot clearance do to they could always come back with a vision problem to resolve the master. He stated that pedestrian walks had some flexibility in it and he was willing to look at it. He explained that if there was a disagreement regarding an ordinance or something that a staff had done that the Board of Appeals is the outlet. He stated there was no time sensitive material or the ordinance was not passed, staff would continue to operate under the current ordinance. He explained that as new development occurred it would be under the existing ordinance with no landscaping requirements or current concessions. 7 Ms. Lorenson explained that in reference to parking areas, they were to be designed in a manner not having a negative surface water drainage impact on adjacent properties and to provide a functional relief in the area. Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 Mr. Patek explained that it was required more for people that ha d 25 stalls that could impact neighbors and people using the public right-a-way. He responded to the pictures that had been shown, he explained the winter had a record snow fall and over all it was an unusual winter. In normal situations the sewer would not be plugged with ice and the water would not be an issue. He stated that each situation needed to be looked at. He stated that to compare a Lowes and a small business parking lot was misleading. He stated that Council would deal with staff and the assumption was Council trust ed staff to make decisions. He explained the storm water committee worked with consultants on pollution control plans required by the DNR. He advised Council that the committee could review situations and then be brought back to Council. Council Member Bain questioned if tow trucks would be allowed to park on streets in front of their home or in their driveway. He stated that if the Environmental Committee was going to look at amendments, then they should review the entire section. Council Member King questioned if it was feasible to incorporate the architect thoughts about the tree heights. She stated the importance of safety and engineering expertise on the issue. She explained there were checks and balances for small businesses. She explained the work of the Environmental C ommittee; that they look toward s adopting and analyses approach to address and quantify the City’s environmental base line. She stated that the Environmental Committee did not have the tools needed to review the chapte r in a month timeframe. She stated the amendment should be voted up or down. Council Member Esslinger stated he would like to be business friendly to businesses especially small businesses that were the back bone of the community. Council Member Palmeri questioned the issue was more about one size fits all. He questioned if the resolution was limited to the first sentence and not the second sentence that specifies storm sewers, would that provide the flexibility. He questioned how the disagreement with Mr. Sosnoski and the City would be worked out. He questioned if the Council would get involved if there are areas where disagreement occurs between Public Works, Community Development and a business owner. He stated when Council was to vote on policies there was an assumption that they were to understand. He expressed that some serious environmental issues had been raised concerning the the drainage of the storm sewer into Lake Winnebago. He explained this was one of the reasons the Environmental Committee was created. 8 Council Member Tower stated there was a Board of Appeals that citizens could appear before to handle issues. He stated he was going to vote against the amendment. Mayor Tower stated he would vote against the amendment due to reasons that ha d been brought forth by other Council Members. He stated he would like to get the new ordinance in place due to it provided some flexibility. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated he agreed that the Environmental Committee had great potential but would be unfair to give them this task at this time. The Council took a break at 8:20 p.m. and resumed at 8:30 p.m. Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 Ordinance 08-91 Approve Zone Change / Northeast Corner Stearns Drive and County Trunk Highway T MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger, second, Palmeri) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Ordinance 08-92 Amend Special Privilege Permit for All Night Parking (Correcting Street Boundaries) MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger, second, Palmeri) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Ordinance 08-93 Approve Lake View Park Annexation MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger, second Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmer, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Resolution 08-94 Grant Conditional Use Permit; Approve Planned Development / 1701 Fountain Avenue MOTION: ADOPT (Bain, second Esslinger) LOST: Ayes (1) McHugh; Noes (6) King, Palmeri, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Loren Rangeloff, 1701 Fountain Avenue, explained five out of the six conditions were made to the property. He explained that the front half of the building would be tore off and about 70 to 200 feet would be added. He requested a year extension to get the new site plans submitted now that the DOT has informed him of the plans. He stated he had been in business for 27 years and hoped to continue. He explained he was a licensed dealer and everything was kept in order not scattered. He expl ained they would continue services of truck repair, towing and sales. He stated the sale of cars started last summer with 10-12 cars sold. He stated he had sold cars for 20 years and never had a problem with DOT and had never been told he was in 9 violation of the law. He stated that the appraisal was completed with the understanding of the conditional use for selling used cars and towing. Dave Kent, 4224 Oakridge Count, Stevens Point, Area Manager for Edison Development Crew, stated he was present on behalf of the homeowners and property owner. He explained that the company tried to keep the investment presentable and the area being discussed was an eye sore and a potential danger. He asked the Council not to renew the request for the benefit of the ho meowners. He stated the property he was representing was across the road with approximately 90-100 sites and 300 residents. Dan Dowling, 5580 Highway 116, encouraged the Council to have this individual be held to the same standards as other businesses in the area. Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 Attorney Russ Reff, 217 Ceape Avenue, representing Omni Paint and Glass, stated his clients were opposed to the extension of the Conditional Use Permit and would request the Council to deny the extension. He explained that a CUP was a privilege and what they were granted for. He explained that what was going on there was not compatible with neighboring properties. Attorney David Winkler, 36 Jewelers Park, Neenah, representing Mr. Rangeloff, explained the history of the property, the truck stop had been there for a long time. He explained th at businesses had built after his client needed to be good neighbors and should not require his client to meet their expected standards. He explai ned what the DOT w ould be doing to the property in the future and his client was requesting a one year extension. He explained that communications came out recently after the DOT made their final plans. He stated that DOT told his client that they had communicated with the City. He stated his client spoke with the City in August about the conditions not being made. He stated when he received the authority from DOT to go ahead with an engineer to develop a site plan and contact the planning department. He stated the sale of cars would stop if the extension was not granted. He explained the DOT had agreed to pay for some construction that would need to be done on the land. Council Member Palmeri questioned if the vehicles stored on the site were in violation of the CUP condition, which prohibits outside storage of vehicles. He questioned what would be done if the extension was not granted. He questioned what would happen if the CUP was granted and what the purpose of the development would be. Council Member King questioned the revenue of sales for the last two years. She questioned if communication took place with the City regarding the conditions. She questioned if the CUP was denied would the DOT lower the valuation assessment or lower the condemnation value. She explained why she would not support the extension and expressed her concerns with communication. Council Member Tower questioned what would happen if the extension was not granted. He questioned the revenue amount from the sale of vehicles. 10 Council Member McHugh questioned why this issue was brought before the Council, he felt it was evident that everything required was done except for the area that would be taken over by the DOT. Council Member Palmeri questioned if the conditions had been completed. He questioned how the outstanding codes affect the City and if the individual was doing was consistent with the industrial zoning. Mr. Burich stated Mr. Rangeloff had complied somewhat, but there were other municipal codes that were outstanding. He explained that inoperable vehicles were not allowed to on the property but to be placed in the screened storage. He explained there are open storage violations that were not consistent with industrial zoning a nd violation of municipal code. He explained that the condition of the site had gotten progressively worse over the last two or three years. He explained the City recommends denial based on the last two years of experience and the progressive decline and the negative impact it had on properties in the area. He stated Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 that was why there was a two year term, so the City could see what the property looked like at beginning and how it look ed currently. He stated if denied t he City could go after all of the unlicensed vehicles and any inoperable vehicles stored on site. Council Member Bain questioned if the CUP was denied what would happen to the property. He questioned how long the new highway 41 corridor discussions had been taking place. Council Member Esslinger questioned if it would be better to grant the extension to rectify the problem in the area. Mayor Tower explained this resolution was presented to Council with a recommendation from the Plan Commission to deny. Citizen Statements Ken Bender, 806 Oak Street, stated the quarry would be a good spot for a retention pond and could used for swimming. Steve Barney, 1260 Elmwood Avenue, stated the Advisory Bike Committee no longer existed and would like to see that committee in action again. He explained that he would like to see greenhouse gas mitigation added to the recruitment profile of the City Manager and advertising for the City Manager to be placed on the green jobs website. Council Member Statements Council Member King stated she worked with various entities of the C ity and the Community Foundation to put together an educational brochure that would reach citizens quarterly to educate them about the opportunities they had to make a difference. She stated the brochure would come out with water bills. She explained she was trying to get educational workshops organized to inform citizens of the community. 11 Council Member Esslinger wished the Oshkosh West girls basketball team good luck at state and thanked Oshkosh North and West for hours of excellent entertainment over the year. Mayor Tower explained he would like to move forward with the profile of the City Manager. He stated he would like to see the $130,000 in the advertisement allowing the candidates to see what the City would pay for the position. MOTION: ADOPT ADVERTISEMENT FOR CITY MANAGER (Bain; second, King) MOTION: REPLACE $130,000 TO SALARY COMPETITIVE (Palmeri; second, Esslinger) LOST: Ayes (3) Palmeri, McHugh, Esslinger; Noes (4) King, Bain, Tower, Mayor Tower MOTION: SALARY OF $130,000 IN ADVERTISEMENT (Bain, second, King) CARRIED: Ayes (4) King, Bain, Tower, Mayor Tower; Noes (3) Palmeri, McHugh, Esslinger Proceedings of the Common Council – March 11, 2008 MOTION: ADD – DETAILED RECRUITMENT PROFILE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE AT www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us (Bain; second, Mayor Tower) CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower VOTE ON AMENDED ADVERTISEMENT OF CITY MANAGER CARRIED: Ayes (7) King, Palmeri, McHugh, Bain, Esslinger, Tower, Mayor Tower Council Member McHugh stated he received comments concerning the salary amount of $130,000 was ridiculously high. He stated he felt the salary should depend on the candidate and it was premature to guess what that might be. Council Member Palmeri questioned the actual amount given; why not put salary competitive. He questioned if the Council believed there should be more specifics in the ad. Sue Brinkman, Personnel Generalist, explained it is common in public sector to put the wage in advertisements and that it was a range of plus or minus 10%. She stated the City did not want to get into the position of salary compression with other employees. She stated that typically the cost for advertising was a range, depending on how many words for a dollar amount. Council Member Bain stated he agreed at first glance the salary seemed high, but after looking at the responsibilities and commensurate to a CEO of a private sector it was probably low. Council Member King stated publishing the salary allowed for candidates to know what they would be getting if chosen. She stated she supported the $130,000 with the plus and minis. Council Member Esslinger stated he would like to see individuals apply for a job not the salary. 12 Council Member Tower stated he was fine with the salary listed and keeps it open to the public. th st Mayor Tower reminded Council of the future workshops - March 25 for the Urban Deer; May 1 th nd Leach Workshop, May 8 would be IWF and the near east neighborhood for the May 22. Whatever Else is Pertinent or for the Good of the City Mr. Fitzpatrick announced the library had been recognized by the Wisconsin State Reading Association for its significant contributions to literacy in the Oshkosh community. He stated there would be an informational meeting held on March 19th and 26th for the storm water management project, held at Westhaven Golf Course at 6:30 p.m. MOTION: ADJOURN (Esslinger; second, Bain) CARRIED: VOICE VOTE The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. PAMELA R. UBRIG CITY CLERK 13