Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN OlHKOlH ON THE WATER REGULAR MEETING held Tuesday, May 27, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall. Mayor Tower presided. PRESENT: Council Members Tony Palmeri, Burk Tower, Dennis McHugh, Paul Esslinger, Bryan Bain, Jessica King and Mayor Frank Tower. ALSO PRESENT: John Fitzpatrick, Acting City Manager, Pamela Ubrig, City Clerk, Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney, and David Patek, Director of Public Works. Council Member Palmeri read the Invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Brooke Bayless from Emmeline Cook Elementary School; and Angel Ortiz and Jade Goudreau from Oaklawn Elementary School. Mark Ziemer, Director of Senior Services, presented Senior Service awards to Clara Dorcey, Steven Herman and Susan Kreibich. A proclamation was presented by Mayor Tower declaring June 8, 2008, as "Race Unity Day" in the City of Oshkosh. Public Hearing The Mayor ordered the following Public Hearing: Resolution 08-173 Final Resolution -Street Improvements, Utilities, Sidewalk and Driveway Approach /Various Streets There were no appearances and the Public Hearing was CLOSED. MOTION: ADOPT (Palmeri; second, Esslinger) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Palmeri, Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Mayor Tower Consent Agenda The minutes of the May 13t", 2008, 3:00 p.m.; May 13t", 2008, 5:00 p.m.; May 13t", 2008, 6:00 p.m., and May 20t", 2008 meetings were approved as presented. The Report of the Acting City Manager was read. The bills were presented in the amount of $2,984,139.79. 1 Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 The report of the City Clerk was read. Resolution 08-174 Release Easements: A) 3197 Bellfield Drive B) 3201 Bellfield Drive Resolution 08-175 Dedicate Right-Of-Way /South Side of Farmington Avenue Resolution 08-176 Approve Street Name Changes: A) Omro Road B) Oshkosh Avenue Resolution 08-177 Grant Conditional Use Permits; Approve Planned Development: A) 1585 South Oakwood Road B) 1735 Bowen Street Resolution 08-178 Approve Agreement with Town of Black Wolf Sanitary District Number 1 Council Member Palmeri questioned why it took so long to discover homes that were not paying sewage fees and if the city was aware of all properties that had not complied. Mr. Patek explained that when the district was reviewing properties in their district last year, a resident in the City objected to the investigation. At that time, the City was made aware and determined that there were other properties to be investigated. He stated that the City had looked through its lists and the City's maps. He stated that all properties that were in the town and are now in the City had been accounted for. Resolution 08-179 Approve Donation to The Oshkosh Area Community Foundation / Downtown Facade Restoration Project Melanie Bloechl, 2388 Abbey Avenue, questioned where the rest of the $250,000 would come from, who was doing the fundraising, and when the $10,000 would be given. She stated that the $10,000 was not accounted for in the fiscal budget, as was the loss of four contract arbitrations. She explained that the $10,000 would be better used to offset future debt in the next budget cycle rather than to be used for the downtown facade restoration project. Council Member Esslinger stated that to put the gnomon back in Opera House Square was counter productive to the facade restoration in downtown. He questioned amending the resolution to approve the donation as long as the sundial was not put backup. He asked for the Council's thoughts on the sundial. He reiterated that the gnomon was given through private funds. Deputy Mayor Bain questioned the process of funding and once the funding was gathered, how it would be implemented. He stated that once a plan was in place for implementation, communication regarding it be available to the Council as well as the public. He requested a 2 clarification of the facade project -was it only for the 400 block or a larger area. He stated that it was a unique opportunity and complimented Mr. Fitzpatrick on working with staff and the Foundation on the idea. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Council Member Palmeri questioned if the resolution would exist if the $10,000 was obsolete. Council Member McHugh questioned the intention of the gnomon. He stated that he had citizens requesting that it not be reinstated. Mayor Tower explained that there would be fundraising from private entities for the rest of the remaining $150,000 for the downtown facade restoration project. He stated that the $10,000 would be given when the entire amount was accumulated. John Fitzpatrick stated that he, as well as other City Staff, had been approached by citizens who did not want the sundial reinstated. He stated that other private groups had suggested raising money for the possibility of a new fountain and relocating the sundial. He explained that if there was a change, a new idea or relocation of the sundial approval would have to go through the proper departments and then to the Council. He explained that the sundial cost was approximately $120,000. Before decisions were made about the fountain, there would be more dialogue so that the donors knew the city was extremely grateful. He explained the process - the Foundation had seta $250,000 goal, the Foundation received approval to donate $100,000, and from a recent discussion with the Foundation Director, there were single donors that may donate a large portion. He stated that it would take time to gather all of the funds necessary. He explained that the City's Planning Department had documents on historical facade restoration. Other communities across the Unites States had been studied and draft documents had been established. He stated that once the process moves forward, more would be refined as to the sort of programs and the match element. He stated that historically, it was difficult to succeed with the match element and depending upon how much money was raised, the match element would be established. He stated that traditionally, it was 50%, however, in order to make it a success; the level might have to be reduced. He stated that communication would continue with Council and the public. He stated that the resolution exists due to the $10,000 donation provided to the City. He stated that the city's intention was not to put the gnomon up until facade plans were further explored. Ms. Lorenson explained that the Community Foundation had no control over the gnomon being replaced or not, that was a decision the Council was to make. Resolution 08-180 Award Bid for Public Works Contract No. 08-04 /Concrete Paving /Utilities (Vinton Construction Company, $2,385,274.69) Resolution 08-181 Award Bid for Front End Loader & Loader/Backhoe for Street, Water Distribution & Parks Departments (Various, $277,225.76) Resolution 08-182 Disallow Claim / Spanbauer Resolution 08-183 Disallow Claim / Kranz 3 Resolution 08-184 Approve Appointments Resolution 08-185 Approve Miscellaneous Licenses Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Council Member McHugh questioned license holders and requested that applicants come before the Council on June 10, 2008 - Howards Johnson, Andy's Place and Fox River Pizza. He stated that there were a number of people that would like to obtain a license. Some of these had been extended other years and these licenses had not been used. Ms. Lorenson questioned if the licenses being laid over was due to the licenses not been used within the past year. MOTION: ADOPT CONCENT AGENDA (Bain; second, McHugh) MOTION: LAYOVER THE FOLLOWING LICENSES IN RESOLUTION 08-185 (ANDY'S PLACE, FOX RIVER PIZZA AND BUFFET, AND HOWARD JOHNSON'S) UNTIL JUNE 10, 2008 (McHugh; second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Palmeri, Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Mayor Tower VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA EXCLUDING RESOLUTIONS 08-179 and 08-185 CARRIED: Ayes (7) Palmeri, Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Mayor Tower Resolution 08-179 Approve Donation to The Oshkosh Area Community Foundation / Downtown Facade Restoration Project MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Mayor Tower; Noes (1) Palmeri Council Member Palmeri stated that when resolutions like this come before the Council, it would be best to wait until the budget cycle. He explained that there was the cost of lost arbitrations, the cost of contracts and legal fees, the Council stipend increase, significant increase in the Mayor's salary, a proposal to take money out of City's reserve fund for the Convention Centre, and at budget time, the Council struggles with small amounts. He stated that with expenditures made, it puts more pressure on private entities to raise money. He stated that if it was closer to budget time, he would probably support it, however, not at this time. Resolution 08-185 Approve Miscellaneous Licenses MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Bain) MOTION: ADOPT TO DIVIDE 08-185 INTO PART A AND B; PART A BEING EVERYTHING EXCLUDING PEABODY'S; AND, PART B BEING PEABODY'S (Tower; second, McHugh) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Palmeri, Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Mayor Tower 4 MOTION: ADOPT RESOLUTION 08-185A (Bain; second, Esslinger) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Palmeri, Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Mayor Tower MOTION: ADOPT RESOLUTION 08-1856 (Bain; second, Esslinger) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Palmeri, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Mayor Tower; Present (1) Tower Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Council Member Tower stated that he would like the resolution divided. He had a conflict with Peabody's and would like to remove it due to the fact there was a family member involved. Action Taken on Ordinances and Resolutions Ordinance 08-186 Amend Ordinance Duties of the Mayor -Awarding Keys to the City and Council Meetings MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Palmeri) LOST: Ayes (2) Palmeri, Esslinger; Noes (5) Tower, McHugh, Bain, King, Mayor Tower Council Member Palmeri stated that there was a key given out and there was no public announcement for that meeting and the name of the recipient was never publicly identified. He stated that the resolution would allow the Mayor to nominate individual/individuals to receive a Key to the City, subject to Council approval. The Key to the City would have to be announced at a Council Meeting or at some other publicly noticed event. He stated that receiving a Key to the City was to honor someone with the full knowledge of the public. He stated that the City and Council would be held accountable and it would strengthen the position of the Mayor. Deputy Mayor Bain questioned whether an event publicly noticed allowed anyone to attend the event. He stated that his concern was weakening the powers of the Mayor and for that reason, he would not support the resolution. Ms. Lorenson stated that if it was a meeting under the open meetings law, then it would be open to the public and have to be accessible. Mayor Tower explained that it was the gentleman who had helped coordinate and organize the movie here in the City. He stated that EAA and Oshkosh North key recipients had never come before the Council. Ordinance 08-187 Approve Traffic Regulations FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Ordinance 08-188 Approve Voluntary /Living Waters - Rusch Park FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Resolution 08-189 Determination of Necessity to Acquire Property; Establish Fair Market 5 Value; Authorize Purchase; Accept Funds / 120 Jackson Street MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second McHugh) MOTION: AMEND REFER BACK TO PLAN COMMISSION, DEED LAND BACK TO CHAMBER; AND, HAVE RDA APPLY FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR DOCKS AND DEEP PILINGS (King; second, Bain) WITHDRAWN Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 MOTION: AMEND REFER BACK TO PLAN COMMISSION, DEED LAND BACK TO CHAMBER; AND, HAVE RDA APPLY FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR DOCKS AND DEEP PILINGS (King; second, Bain) LOST: Ayes (2) King, Bain; Noes (5) Palmeri, Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Mayor Tower MOTION: ADD CONTINGENCY THAT WHEN THE OFFICE BUILDING WAS AT 50% CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION PRIOR TO THE CITYACQUIRING THE CHAMBER BUILDING (Tower; second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (4) Tower, Esslinger, Bain, Mayor Tower; Noes (3) Palmeri, McHugh, King MOTION: AMEND $550,000 TO $516,555 (Mayor Tower; second, Esslinger) CARRIED: Ayes (5) Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, Mayor Tower; Noes (2) Palmeri, King VOTE ON AMENDED RESOLUTION LOST: Ayes (3) Tower, Bain, Mayor Tower; Noes (4) Palmeri, McHugh, Esslinger, King Ken Bender, 806 Oak Street, stated that it was blackmail and was not needed. He stated that the City was being forced into investing and he supported the money to be used for the waterfront walkway. He suggested that the City put a stipulation on the agreement with the Chamber that the City would retain 20% of that property. He stated that for the future, any building no longer in use would go back to the City free of charge. Wally Wagner, 2260 North Haven Lane, stated that the Chamber needed to move, however, a better location would be near Highway 41, near EAA, or a place where there was easy access for information regarding the City. Wendy Hielsberg, 3365 Nelson Road, Executive Director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, stated her support due to the fact that it relates to tourism. The City was in need of hotel rooms, and an amazing developer was on hand, with an amazing hotel run by the Supple's whom were a reputable franchise managing company. She stated that Oshkosh has 821 hotel rooms and the Fox Cities have 4,200 hotel rooms. She stated that Oshkosh has events and no space to support the visitors, and that causes a loss of money for the City. Judy Frier, 712 West 9t" Avenue, stated that she was against it and the City needed to stop 6 spending taxpayers' money like it was their own. Shawn Casper, 19 Waugoo Avenue, stated that he would like to see documentation showing the intersection was unsafe and would require one million dollar expenditure to purchase building, raise it, and relocate the intersection. He suggested that the City give the property to the Chamber and let the Chamber sell the building. He stated that he was supportive of the hotel. He stated that there was office space available in the City and he would not support this just so a business had a better view of the water. He wanted the marketplace rule and decide the value of the property, to give the Chamber the land underneath their building, and be done with it. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Dick O'Day, 715 Hazel Street, stated that there was no reason to move the Chamber building and he was against it. Tim Rikkers, Akcess Acquisition Group, 301 North Broom Street, Madison, stated his support and wanted to clear up a couple of misconceptions. He stated that the letter of intent did not state that the City would have to acquire the Chamber building and that the extortion perception was blown out of proportion. He stated that another misconception was that the law firm represents the Chamber -they are both downtown tenants. He stated that the best thing was working with the Supples, they were working hard to make the riverfront happen and it was a sound business decision. He stated that they were the right team, had the right financing, and they just need some help to move forward. He stated that to move forward was to finalize commitments with the Chamber and the law office, plans for lease documents, and purchase sale agreements for the office building, the plan was to build parallel with the hotel. He stated that construction drawings would be completed as soon as possible with potential to put the building in the ground before frost. He stated that the six acre parcel of land was for retail use, the west side of the lot was to be a continuum concept with UWO, and the land was to sit vacant until it was filled with decent and responsible retailers. He stated that the developers were looking for occupancy, the agreement states an established value of $31.4 million was to be in ground by 12/31 /10, and occupancy looks more attractive for financing. He stated that he was not sure what would take place next if the resolution was not passed due to the fact of limited resources and time. He stated that he was willing to move forward with a contingency, however, it degrades the value for financing and conventional financing was approved later in the project. He stated that the hotel and office building projects would be constructed at the same time, however, the financing of the two would not be tied together. He stated that he was not sure how the financing would take place with a contingency. He stated that it would have some impact on financing because there was a binding contract, but that it should not be a problem. He stated that the Chamber building was critical to the success of the deal due to the fact that the Chamber building stops the flow of traffic to the downtown area. He asked that the completion of construction be more defined. Jay Supple, 1621 Congress, provided information on the hotel. He stated that the Four Points by Sheridan Hotel had 130 in the world and included awork-out room, pool along the river, free YFI, a patio holding up to 100 people with an outside bar and grill. He stated that it had a complete kitchen and would be serving a full breakfast with options to serve lunch and dinner. He stated that it was a premier, new urban, upscale hotel that was created approximately six months ago and would bring employment to fifty people. He stated that it was a great project with a great partner. He stated that it was best to work with local businesses. He stated that the 7 hotel, as well, would complete final documents in a three to four week time period. He stated that to be in the ground by late fall, was a goal to work together due to the fact that there would be a savings cost of construction completed parallel with the office building. Ed Williams, 219 Washington Avenue, representing the law firm, stated that they had 75 attorneys and practiced statewide and had been located in the same building for 27 years. He stated that they were in need of more room and updated facilities. He stated that they were not a fly-by-the night company -they were promoters of Oshkosh. He stated that this was a great asset on the river and they needed a partner to go into the building. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Lois Luebke, 619 Division Street, stated that she was against this due to the fact that the Chamber could move into City Centre or in the bank downtown. She urged the Council to refer the resolution back to the Plan Commission and let the Chamber sell the building themselves. Dennis Schwab, 601 Oregon Street, stated this was not shifting businesses, but anchoring them. He stated that there were two out of town businesses interested in moving to Oshkosh to a classy location. He stated that businesses would grow with support and taxes would substantially be more. He stated that the intersection was not safe for pedestrians. Patricia Definer, 30 Eveline Street, stated her support for a hotel as the City was in need of hotel rooms. Bill Hare, Oshkosh Industrial Corporation Board Chairman, stated his support to enhance the economic development, increased collaboration with businesses, and would bring a business assistance center. Ray Knudson, 994 Trillium Trail, stated his support to Akcess Acquisition Group bringing in a 22 million dollar plus river front development. He stated that the completion of the realignment to Marion, Jackson and Division Street needed to move forward. He stated that by allowing the Chamber to purchase the space would bring in more tax base dollars, improve vehicle traffic, and supports the River Walk project by improving the flow of pedestrian traffic past the Jackson Street bridge. Jim James, 3515 North Main Street, stated that the Chamber did not plot the intersection of Marion, Division and Jackson Streets; they did not order an appraisal be done in 2003; the City owns the land because it had been given for the purpose of the Chamber building construction; appraisals include land, tax rolls do not; and typically, a bail out means the business is considered for bankruptcy or close to bankruptcy. He explained that a 20 million dollar investment brought in more tax money and the Chamber was going to add another $750,000, which was on the tax roll. He stated that the Chamber had enough liquid assets to support more than 50% of the funds. John Casper, Chamber CEO, stated that this was progress. It was correcting the intersection and improving traffic flow in advance of the water front development. He stated that in 2007, the City Assessor completed a fair market value on the building of $384,800. The adjacent land 8 owned by the Chamber is $36,300 and the leased land is $94,955, totaling $516,555, so voting yes was telling the community the City was progressing. Robert Cornell, 548 West Smith Avenue, recommended that the Chamber use part of the $750,000 of the money requested from the City and the remaining amount be put into the building. He stated that the taxpayers cannot afford this, but on the other hand, to see progress, the City cannot afford being non-supportive. Jason Monet, 2415 Plymouth Street, stated his support due to the fact that it would expand the tax base, fix the flow of traffic, it would be safer for pedestrians crossing, and included a potential for business expansion. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Melanie Bloechl, 2388 Abbey Avenue, questioned if the Council had seen documentation providing conventional financing to the Akcess Group. She stated that occupancy went from 50% to 1 /3. She stated that the tax base would increase, however, taxpayers would not see any benefit for 20 years. She stated that Mr. Williams stated that the law firm made a commitment. She reminded him that the taxpayers made a commitment as well with TIF monies. She stated that the taxpayers deserved more respect and urged the Council to do the right thing. Bernie Pitz, 617 West Irving Avenue, stated that usually, when a tenant wants out of a lease, the tenant pays to get out -the owner does not pay the tenant to leave. Art Dumke, 2020 Menominee Drive, stated his support for the Chamber. He suggested a contingency be added to the contract that if the Chamber does not receive financing, the City would not have to purchase the building from the Chamber Jon Dell Antonia, 1768 River Mill Road, stated that the City move forward or residents can stare at a vacant piece of land that generates no money. He stated that the Division Street project was a risk and he was proud to say he was a part of that decision to move forward. Mike McGraw, 222 Ohio Street, stated that he owns office space that sits empty and he still supports the project. He stated that it was about attracting more businesses notjust relocating within the City. He stated that the project was awin-win situation for everyone. He stated that taxpayers benefit due to the fact that more businesses bring more jobs, more homes are purchased, and allows for more money to be spent. He stated that it was a win for the developer because there were good qualified people to run it. Carl Sosnoski, 2475 Knapp Street, stated his support for the hotel on the riverfront, but was not in support of the Chamber moving. He stated that the Chamber currently had a beautiful space and it was only a 30-year old building. He stated that the intersection change was not needed and he felt this was economic blackmail. He stated that private businesses had utilized the river and it was now time for the people in the City to enjoy it, it should be a place to gather, not an office space. Council Member King stated that she had incredible faith in Mr. Rikkers and Mr. Supple, and that 9 local partners were great in projects. She had two problems; one was expecting the Council to rely on an appraisal done in 2003 and the appraised value included land that the City already owned. She stated that she wanted to support Rikkers, Supple, the riverwalk and the waterfront development, but supported a way to better finance it. She suggested a developer's agreement and that the City convey the property back to the Chamber. She did not think the intersection needed to be done immediately. She stated that TIF money was used for public improvements and that developers were generally not requested to do such work. She questioned the deadline on grants. She stated that she was not pleased about a contingency due to the fact that the intersection either needed to be done or not. She stated that the best case scenario was to restore public confidence in the waterfront development and that the Chamber no longer be boxed in. She questioned if all entities needed to move at the same time or if it would be done in phases. She questioned that with all the bootstrapping of funds, how the Chamber was to receive financing. She stated that the price would need to be reduced because of the lease hold on the land. She stated that she heard of seven different businesses in the downtown area file bankruptcy within the last year. She questioned why the Chamber would not sell on a higher Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 end if the City was purchasing at a lower end. She stated that the development could be done another way and she would not support the resolution. Council Member Tower questioned if the resolution went through, what were the next steps. What would the next step be if Council Member King's suggestion happened and if the resolution did go through. He questioned if the hotel and office space would be built at the same time and what would happen to the rest of the land -what was the overall plan. He questioned the financing and thoughts on the contingency plan. He stated that he would like to see a summary from the Public Works and Transportation Departments regarding the Marion, Division and Jackson Street intersection. He stated that timing was a factor in his decision in July and the time was better now. He explained this was a key piece in getting things started on the riverfront and there were positives about the development. The City was in desperate need of a hotel and the Four Points was a great brand name and chance for a first class office building. He stated that he was going to support this with a contingency that the office building be 50% built and then the City acquire the Chamber building. If there was no office building, then the deal was off. He stated that if the development happened, the intersection would need to be done. Council Member McHugh stated that many deadlines had been missed and questioned the delay if another means of financing needed to take place. He questioned what the penalty was for not having buildings in the ground by the end of 2008 and if there were no penalties, why even have a deadline. He stated that he was not in support and to delay the resolution was a disservice to the citizens. He stated that he believed in the developer, the need for a hotel was there and maybe a need for office space. He questioned why the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Oshkosh Foundation were not looking to build on the waterfront. He stated that due to the fact that they were leaders of the community and looking elsewhere to build, he questioned their faith in the development. He stated that he would not support the resolution. Council Member Esslinger stated that grants made him nervous due to the fact of being burned on the 100 Block to the tune of a couple of million dollars. He questioned why the City would convey the property to the Chamber only to buy back at a later date. He suggested looking into other options for the intersection. He questioned the amount of accidents there had been in the 10 past five years at that intersection. He questioned if traffic would increase dramatically with the development to become a problem. He stated that we had crooked roads all over Oshkosh. He questioned why River Way Drive was not brought through to Marion Road and why the road was put in so far to the west. He questioned if the roads were put in based upon the final plan of development. He stated that he was in favor of purchasing the building for the least amount of money. He stated that he was dealing with three issues regarding the resolution: there was no need to purchase building from a traffic standpoint; Mr. Supple had sold him on the hotel and that was good for Oshkosh; and his third issue was the office building. He gave Mr. Rikkers an A+ for his effort in sales; however, taxpayer's don't want to risk their money. He stated that he would rather see a vacant lot than a vacant building and so he was not supporting the resolution. Council Member Palmeri questioned if this was a request for the Council to vote on a substitute resolution. He wanted to look at other options if the resolution was lost. He questioned if it was normal to bring something back to Council when it was voted on less than a year ago. He questioned if Mr. Strong, Transportation Director, if the previous Transportation Director of 30 years, was consulted and if he felt the need that the intersection be re-constructed. He urged the Council to vote the resolution up or down. He questioned if the Mayor had a conflict of Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 interest with regard to being on the Chamco Building Board. He stated that 18 months ago, the development had been for mixed use. A couple of months after that, it was to be an office building and people were not excited about that. Enthusiasm went down at that point. He stated that last December, Akcess was having problems getting tenants. It was rejected by a 7-0 vote last July and he felt the correct thing to do was to reject it and go back to the drawing board. He stated that he was not in support of this and would vote against the amendment and the resolution. Deputy Mayor Bain stated that the Council had tuned down purchasing the Chamber building two other times and in the deed was an agreement not to build a street through their building. He suggested not supporting the Strand report for construction of that intersection. He questioned if the Council wanted to hear from the Public Works and the Transportation Director if it was different than what was heard at the July meeting. He stated that he too, would like to have had a contingency plan, stating 50% of completion of construction before the City acquired the Chamber building. He stated some positive accomplishments by the development: the need for a hotel; jobs; $19 million in new value; $450,000 tax revenue, reconstruction through TIF, moving forward with green space grants, and a new park on the river. He stated a necessity cannot be held if there was a contingency, a necessity was either needed or not. Mayor Tower explained that he was on the Board due to the fact he was the Mayor of the City and that was the role for him on the Board. He questioned if the amount was $550,000 or $516,555. He stated that he was excited about a hotel and office building. It was moving the community forward and would create tax base so he was going to support the resolution. Mr. Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development, stated that the next step was for Akcess to work out the final purchase agreement with the Chamber, the lease agreement with Davis and Kuelthau, finalize financing and put together construction drawings. He stated that the City would complete permitting of the seawall, begin the bond process to begin to pay for seawall and river walk improvements. He stated that green space grants needed to be 11 submitted to the DNR to assist with the cost of the riverwalk and park area. He stated that the green space grants could be put through at anytime and the riverwalk grants had been submitted. He stated that if the resolution did not go through, it would back things up a little more due to the fact that the agreement states that buildings need to be in ground by end of 2008 and Akcess has to guarantee tax dollars in 2011. He stated that there were no penalties if deadlines were not met; however, it was presumed they would be in ground due to the fact that tax prevision was for 2011 to help cover any short falls. He stated that if Akcess pulled away, it would bring the City back to square one. He stated that deadlines were put into agreements to gage borrowings for public improvements. He explained that the numbers he had given were the assessed value and Mr. Casper's numbers were the fair market values for 2007. He stated that the appraisal took into consideration the remaining 71 years of use rights left on the land and the rental fee was assessed in the value of the land. He explained that rather than pay for a new appraisal, one would add 2.5% inflation factor per year. Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned that the acquisition of property was leaving it to open market. He stated that it was not necessary, at this point, to construct a new intersection, but in time, if the land was conveyed back to the Chamber, the City would purchase it back at a later date and at what cost then. He respectfully requested that Council listen to dialogue from the Public Works Director and the Transportation Director before making a final decision. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Mr. Chris Strong, Transportation Director, stated that challenges were the intersection operation, access to properties already there, pedestrian and bicycle crossing, large vehicle, cost and compatibility with a future bridge. He suggested looking at the big picture and urged the Council not to get hung upon safety issues. He stated that evidence suggests realigning Division Street and it was good timing. He stated that as development begins, cost increases, and there is greater impact on businesses and residents. He stated that it made the most sense to do it now with development. He stated that the Strand Report stated that the intersection had less than the average amount of accidents at an intersection. He stated that he had consulted with the previous Transportation Director and he did not feel the same way. He stated that Mr. Huddleston had an accounting background and had concerns about the finances where his background was in engineering. Mr. Patek stated that the road was not guaranteed due to the fact that there was a factory in the way and if the road was completed with the factory, it would need to be a crooked road. He explained that near Lowes, they built the road to be proactive for development in the future. He stated that the City was planning for the future, that it did not make sense to wait until after a 30 million dollar building is built or twenty years from now when the bridge was replaced. He stated that two streets, River Way Drive and Dawes Street, provide circulation for the existing area. He stated that back in the 80's, the City purchased the Deltox building, which made re-construction of the bridge easier due to the fact that they could demolish the building. Mr. Steven Schwoerer, City Assessor, explained components to look at when figuring the valuation of the property. He stated that the purchase price for the Chamber building was at the lower end of fair market price for office space. Ms. Lorenson stated that a contingency could be put on with a necessity. 12 Resolution 08-190 Award Bid -Approve Fund Transfer /Convention Center Renovation MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Bain) MOTION: AMEND LAYOVER UNTIL JUNE 10, 2008 (Esslinger, second,) LOST: LACK OF SECOND MOTION: ADD ALTERNATE #2 - SIGNAGE FOR $4,970 (Bain; second, King) CARRIED: Ayes (4) Palmeri, Tower, Bain, King; Noes (3) McHugh, Esslinger, Mayor Tower VOTE ON AMENDED RESOLUTION CARRIED: Ayes (5) Palmeri, Tower, Bain, King, Mayor Tower; Noes (2) McHugh, Esslinger Wendy Hielsberg, 3365 Nelson Road, Executive Director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, stated that over one year ago, room tax dollars were raised to pay off TIF and debt of the Convention Centre to free up some funds and start a development fund. She stated that the fund was successful and created $1.5 million for the Sports Complex. She stated that there was a three month loss of convention business. She stated that there had been no sales or Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 outbound marketing for the Convention Centre and the vote had passed thirteen months ago to do something and nothing yet. She stated that the City still owned the Centre with debt and are paying on an empty Convention Centre. She explained that small conventions of 400 people over three days brought hundreds of thousands of dollars to the downtown. She stated that the facility at the EAA was a two story exhibition center; the second story was to be a VIP area, with the ground level still an expo center. She stated that EAA was not interested in being a convention center. She stated that building a new Centre would cost millions. John Supple, 16921 Congress Avenue, stated that the Convention Center was great for the City as conventions brought new dollars to town. He stated that the current place was not respectable. Robert Cornell, 548 West Smith Avenue, stated that the job needed to be done right and not debate any longer. Eileen Connelly-Keesler, 404 North Main Street, stated that Oshkosh Truck had given $50,000 toward the project. She stated that space for 600 people was needed and the hotel space proposed was not large enough. She urged Council to vote and get started on construction of the Centre. Bernie Pitts, 617 West Irving Avenue, stated that the Council upped the budget and then when some items were taken out, the budget went up more. He stated that the Convention Center should be bulldozed down and a new one built near the highway where it would be seen. He stated that the people that work for the Convention Center did not have confidence in the current building due to the fact that their offices were not there. 13 Council Member Esslinger stated that it would be a miracle opportunity to have the facility located at the EAA grounds. He stated that EAA was asking for two million dollars in assistance and suggested requesting they alter plans to help with the Convention Centre. He stated that the prices keep going up, but the amenities kept going down. He suggested waiting until the June meeting when EAA was present and talk to both to possibly save millions. He questioned if Mr. Poberezny was aware there may be some financial incentives for them to have the Convention Center, such as hotel/motel tax dollars to help reduce the debt obligation. He questioned the reserve balance and what the cost was for catastrophic problems. He questioned if the reserve was built by over taxing. Deputy Mayor Bain questioned the approximate cost of $3 million for renovation compared to what kind of new facility $3 million could build. He questioned what was being taken out to help with cost reduction. He stated that the signage was confusing. He stated that he was not sure skimping on fundamentals was the way to proceed. He stated that he would like to add $4,970 in the bid to include signage for the area south of the bridge. Council Member McHugh stated that that the Council committed to $2.8 million dollars and were not allowed to bid out. He stated that this would not be the last time there would be a request for money and he felt it is time to start cutting and go with the amount the Council passed the first time. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Mayor Tower stated that the impression he had received during the meeting with Mr. Poberezny was that the building at the EAA grounds was to be used several times throughout the year and it was hoped that the Convention Center would be used every weekend. Council Member King thanked the Oshkosh Foundation and the Convention and Visitors Bureau for doing their homework and the work they did for extra support. Council Member Palmeri questioned the $260,000 from the cash reserves and what the reserve funds were used for. He questioned if this was considered catastrophic and who decides what was or was not catastrophic. He questioned if the reserve fund was the same fund used for the bathrooms at the Leach Amphitheater and if there were concerns about the bond rating going down because of such uses. He questioned if there were other options that could be used. He stated that he was going to support this because he believes the Convention Centerwould bring money to downtown. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that in a meeting with Mr. Poberezny, he was interested in keeping the EAA facility as an expo center and not a replacement for the Convention Center, but as a compliment to it. He stated that the hotel/motel tax dollars were exclusive for the Convention Center and Grand Opera House. He stated that the talk with Mr. Poberezny included the TIF process and requirements. He stated that these were the funds used for the bathrooms and as long as it was a one time use for a capital item and not for something structural with ongoing use, there was not a problem. The Council decides what was catastrophic. He stated that on June 11t", the City had applied for emergency disaster grant money. He stated that the reserve 14 fund was not used on a regular basis for expenditures. Mr. Kinney stated that there was no sign from the south side of the bridge -once under the bridge, there would be a sign. He stated that the chillers were roof-top units and City staff was maintaining them so if there was a problem, they would be fixed. Justin Racinowski, Project Architect, The Kubala Washatko Architects, Inc., stated that the letters would be red LED lights mounted to the building. Mrs. Steeno, Finance Director, stated that the reserve funds were usually used for catastrophic events and this was not catastrophic. She stated that there were no other funds in the budget or in the CIP. She stated that reserve funds were built up by over-taxing. She stated that she spoke with Moody's and it would not affect the bond rating. She stated that she declared it a high priority item rather than catastrophic. Resolution 08-191 Initiate Designation of Landmark Status /Water Filtration Plant Tower MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Palmeri) LOST: Ayes (2) Palmeri, Bain; Noes (5) Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, King, Mayor Tower Terry Laib, 500 North Main Street, stated that any building could be landmarked. He stated that the Grand Opera House was not landmarked. He stated that he was supportive of having more time to get the water tower landmarked. He stated that the tower was made of limestone, had four clock faces on it, copper gutters, and stood 125 feet tall. He stated that it was a cultural icon Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 of Oshkosh on the water. In 1970, the strobe light was added and it represented the sale of the private water works and the first time the City had a utility. He explained that the prior pumps were run by steam and when there was a fire, they would blow as many sounds as the fire house number that needed to respond. Shirley Mattox, 1313 Jackson Street, stated that local landmarks did not have to be eligible for the national register to be local. She urged the Council to let the water tower be landmarked. Patricia Diener, 30 Eveline Street, thanked and gave credit to the two young ladies that completed the petition. Carol Schuenke, 1267 Merritt Avenue, stated that there were 378 signatures on the petition, which was 95% of the total number that had been asked to sign. Harold Buchholz, Landmarks Commission Chairman, questioned if the budget had included the amount of funds needed for structural repair to the tower and if not, could funds from the CIP be used for that use. He questioned when the water tower would be considered public domain. He questioned if there was an option that the pumps be moved to the side of the tower and all of the buildings around the tower come down. He stated four points to keeping the tower: it's used as a navigational point and warning light; community had interaction with the sight; breach of public 15 trust and it was historic by age, design and its uniqueness. He stated that if the only buildings that were to be saved were landmarked buildings, the Landmarks Commission would have to get busy and landmark anything of interest. He stated that preservation should not be a burden, but an obligation. He questioned if landmarked, could the resolution be overturned. Robert Cornell, 548 West Smith Avenue, questioned why this resolution was put before 08-192, due to the fact that if this one passed it was taking options away from the other resolution. Bernie Pitts, 617 West Irving Avenue, questioned once the tower was tore down, where the pumps were going and during demolition, what pumps were being used. He questioned why the new pumps were not able to go into a separate building instead of on the foundation of where the tower was and what the expense was to extend the pipes to the other building. Sue Jones, 1339 Winnebago Avenue, urged Council to save tower and place the pumps on the side. Council Member Palmeri stated that the tower was disrespected and discarded. He questioned if the tower met the criteria for the historic preservation ordinance: did the property show cultural and political history; did it reflect distinctive, important architectural elements; was it identified with national historian events or people; was it representative of notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect; did it represent influenced age of the city; and did it yield, information important to history. He stated that the Landmarks Commission never had the chance to save the tower and urged the Council to vote yes. He questioned the amount of time it was going to take to go through the Landmark process. He questioned that if something was landmarked, could the ordinance be turned over and taken away by a future Council. He stated that if 08-191 passed, he would want to table 08-192 to look for private funding and the cost for restoration. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Deputy Mayor Bain questioned if the resolution was approved, wouldn't the next resolution that had three options be eliminated, or out of the three options, wouldn't it only have option C? He questioned how the 120-day wait would affect the project. Council Member Esslinger questioned the increase to be $250,000 due to the delay from last time. He stated that it was at a cost already of $1.5 million and he explained that there were numerous amounts of funds from several different entities requesting money. Council Member King stated that staff needs a preservation system in place, but Council needed to prioritize and there had been opportunity for people to come forward with funding. Council Member McHugh stated that tearing it down was the least expensive and the towerwas not a focal point for Oshkosh. Many people probably did not know it was there and he was not in support. Mayor Tower stated that the resolution was put first because if the decision was to landmark, they would not need other options. He stated that the beacon was going to be retained on the three story structure. He stated that he was not supportive of this, but had positives for the 16 opportunity to work with Landmarks Commission. Mr. Patek stated at an earlier Workshop, it was explained that the tower was going to be removed. He stated that the tower was not being used, what were used were the tanks under the tower for the new pump station. He stated that it was not able to handle the amount needed to be flushed. He stated that other pumps were available to use during construction and it was all worked into the sequence of construction. He stated that the pumps were being connected to old in-tanks that were still usable; he's keeping options open with all pipes because there was need to keep every pipe available for such uses. He explained that it was just one thing, to move pipes would be to purchase new tanks. He stated that it was a significant amount more to keep the tower than the cost to tear it down. He explained the bid had been good until June 1St with the 45 day extension to July 15t", the bid had increased $80,000. Tony Meyers, CH2M Hill, stated that the use was six to seven times greater than what the tower would provide. He stated that the pumps would go directly beneath where the tower was; only these pumps were compliant with DNR codes. He stated that the cost was $250,000 to delay six months, and $40,000 to $50,000 every month after. Ms. Lorenson stated that an ordinance could be overturned by the Council at anytime. She stated that option A was out and options B and C would remain. Resolution 08-192 Approve Plan For Water Filtration Plant Modifications -Options: A) Award Bid for Public Works Contract No. 08-05 /Water Filtration Plant Modifications and Demolition Project ($6,070,273.00) B) Direct Staff to Pursue Option to Retain Existing Water Tower and Locate New Pump Station Under/Around the Tower Foundation C) Direct Staff to Pursue Option to Retain Existing Water Tower and Locate New Pump Station Away from the Tower Foundation MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Bain) Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 MOTION: DELETE OPTIONS A AND B (Bain; second, Palmeri) LOST: Ayes (2) Palmeri, Bain; Noes (5) Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, King, Mayor Tower MOTION: DELETE OPTIONS B AND C (Mayor Tower; second, Palmeri) CARRIED: Ayes (5) Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, King, Mayor Tower; Noes (2) Palmeri, Bain VOTE ON AMENDED RESOLUTION CARRIED: Ayes (5) Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, King, Mayor Tower; Noes (2) Palmeri, Bain Terry Laib, 500 North Main Street, stated that there was a problem with the Planning Department retaining older buildings and it seems Oshkosh lost more than it gained. Robert Cornell, 548 West Smith Avenue, stated that he had no problem with preservation if 17 people can support the funding for it. Carol Schuenke, 1267 Merritt Avenue, stated that when the ramp came down, it doubled in cost and time and the tower had been built the same way. She questioned the amount to save it compared to demolishing it. Harold Buchholz, 1165 Algoma Boulevard, Landmarks Commission Chairman, stated that there was an obligation to historically preserve it. Shirley Mattox, 1313 Jackson Street, stated that the tower had sentimental value to the history of Oshkosh and when it was gone there were no more reminders. The value of it was worth more than monetary. Patricia Definer, 30 Eveline Street, stated that the Planning Commission needed to investigate more before discussions were made. Steve Barney, 1260 Elmwood Avenue, looked at the cost of savings compared to the lifetime of the building. Deputy Mayor Bain explained his reason for option C was less constructional risk; kept the tower in its original form, and less utility funding needed than in option B. He questioned if the $600,000 from other funding for the tower needed to be committed now if Option B was passes. Council Member Palmeri stated that to pass option C was sticker shock. He stated that other communities embrace historic structures and Oshkosh had a historic nature that was being lost. Council Member King stated that it was not a case of sticker shock. The City had lost four arbitrations and was looking at the potential of removing ten positions off the organizational chart. She stated that last year, there was no money to get trees in the cemetery and money was taken from the reserve fund to help with the Convention Center. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Council Member Tower stated that there needed to be more planning to work historical preservation into sustainability. He stated that he was not going to support the resolution, it would be too much money, its location, it was non-functioning, and there was ongoing maintenance. He stated that money should be taken and put into other places. Council Member Esslinger stated that prioritizing was necessary, there was too much need in other places for funding. He questioned if the City put so much money into the CIP, what was the amount to be taken out without the State penalizing and if the City was close to that amount. Mr. Patek stated that to go with option C, there would be no need for funding. He explained that they would have to go back to plan differently and come before the Council again. Mrs. Steeno stated that the cap amount was $3.8 million and the amount was not close to that 18 debt capacity currently. Resolution 08-193 Approve Issuance and Sale of Water Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 2008C MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Bain) CARRIED: (7) Palmeri, Tower, McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Mayor Tower Additional Action Items Mayor Tower /discussed and determined questions for the City Manager candidates to respond to during the community forum scheduled for June 7t", 2008; discuss and determine final refinement to the interview process for City Manager Candidates on June 6t" from 6-8, 2008. Steve Barney, 1260 Elmwood Avenue, suggested that the Council include questions pertaining to sustainability and green house litigation. Mayor Tower suggested going with questions 12 and 24. He stated that the first part of the forum was for one hour where the candidates were to answer two prepared questions and the last hour was for individuals to question the candidates. He stated that he chose those two because he wanted a broader subject that dispersed some debate. He stated that the Council was to decide on the questions prior to the interview and they could be original as long as each candidate was asked the same question. He stated that the consensus was question 12 and 24 for the citizen forum. He reminded the Council of the change of Tuesday to Sunday, June 8t" due to Council Member Tower leaving for vacation. Deputy Mayor Bain stated questions 12 and 24 were his choice. Council Member Palmeri stated that question 12 had to do with sustainability and he also chose 24. He questioned when the Council interviewed what questions were to be asked and by who. Council Member Esslinger questioned if the questions were to come from the citizens because of public interaction. He stated question 32 was good. Council Member Tower stated his choice was 26 and 24. Proceedings of the Common Council -May 27, 2008 Citizen Statements None Council Member announcements, Statements and Discussion Council Member Esslinger stated that there had been something in Mr. Rieckman's column in the Northwestern that had some incorrect information. However, Mr. Rieckman retracted it and apologized and the apology was accepted. He stated the status on Campbell Creek, Westhaven Golf Course and other potential options for storm management. He stated that the residents had 19 a drive to change the covenant would include not allowing the types of things included forwater retention ponds and if the City went through with it, there was to be a couple hundred lawsuits that would be costly. He stated that it was loud and clear the residents did not want this and it was time to drop the proposal and look for something else. Mayor Tower announced the time for the community interview of the City Manager candidates to be from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. June 7t" in the Council Chambers. He reminded the Council of the next Workshops; June 10t" Single Stage Recycling; June 24t" Storm Water and the 1St Workshop in July to address the Ambulance Billing consensus. He stated that the Museum Workshop was delayed because of some things pertaining to the expansion and it would be re- scheduled for fall. MOTION: ADJOURN (Esslinger; second, McHugh) CARRIED: VOICE VOTE The meeting adjourned at 1 a.m. PAMELA R. UBRIG CITY CLERK 20