Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN O.IHKOf H ON THE WATER REGULAR MEETING held Tuesday, March 22, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall. Mayor Esslinger presided. PRESENT: Council Members Bob Poeschl, Burk Tower, Tony Palmeri, Steve Cummings, Jessica King, Steven Herman and Mayor Paul Esslinger ALSO PRESENT: Mark Rohloff, City Manager; Pamela Ubrig, City Clerk; Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney; and Dave Patek, Director of Public Works Mayor Esslinger asked for a moment of silence to honor Officer Craig Birkholz, a City of Fond du Lac Police Officer who died in the line of duty. Council Member Poeschl read the Invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Henry and Ava Artus and Lauren Spiller from Oakwood Elementary School; and Alex Counts and Christina Rabe from Jacob Shapiro Elementary School. CITIZEN STATEMENTS Anthony Covill, 2010 Wisconsin Street, stated he believed there should be written or separate definitions for a bite and a scratch in the Municipal Code under Chapter 6 Animals. Bob Cornell, 548 W. Smith Avenue, thought the State of the City Address should be marketed toward citizens not involved in Boards and Commissions or in the public eye. He also invited the Council to have lunch at the Senior Center on March 31 PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance l l -114 Approve Zone change from C -3 Central Commercial to R -2 Two Family Residence for area bounded by Court Street / Broad Street/ Waugoo Avenue / Otter Avenue (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) FIRST READING: LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Bills Presented by the Finance Director 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Receipt and filing of Common Council Minutes from March 8, 2011 Approval of cash report from February, 2011 Receipt and filing of Museum Board Minutes from February 3, 2011 Receipt of Claim filed with the City's Insurance Company / Chee Xiong for alleged damages to her vehicle as a result of being hit by a snow plow. Receipt of Claim filed with the City's Insurance Company / James Feest for alleged damages to his portable ice shanty, auger and underwater camera as a result of being hit by a dump truck. Resolution 11 -115 Approve Conditional Use Permit for Animal Day care /Grooming Establishment at 1921 South Washburn Street; Ruff Cuts, Petitioner (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) Resolution 11 -116 Approval of Change Order No. 2 for Public Works Contract No. 10 -07 with Carl Bowers and Sons Construction Co. for Various Concrete Paving and Utility Projects — Northeast Side Paving Project (- $70,110.95) Approval of 2011 Business Improvement District Operating Plan and Budget Resolution 11 -117 Award Bid for Public Works Contract No. 11 -01 to De Groot, Inc., for Tipler School Area Storm Sewer Construction ($849,174.62) Resolution 11 -118 Award Bid for Public Works Contract No. 11 -04 to LaLonde Contractors Inc., for Various Concrete Paving and Utility Projects - Central City Area ($5,851,713.22) Resolution 11 -119 Award Bid for Public Works Contract No. 11 -09 to Donald Hietpas and Sons, Inc., for 9 th Avenue Water Main Construction ($835,147.75) Resolution 11 -120 Award Bid for Public Works Contract No. 11 -10 to Carl Bowers and Sons Construction for Planeview Drive Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Construction ($221,073.75) Resolution 11 -121 Award Bid to L & S Truck Center for a 4WD Pickup Truck with Plow for Fire Department ($34,286.00) Resolution 11 -122 Approve and Submit Storm Water Program Annual Report Council Member Palmeri noticed on the fiscal analysis table that the City went significantly over budget in stormwater expenses in 2010 and also, the budget for 2011 was substantially higher than the 2010 budget; he asked for an explanation. 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Mr. Rohloff stated most likely, the fiscal analysis table contained unfinished projects from 2009. He would research Council Member Palmeri's questions and report back to the Council. Resolution 11 -123 Amend Special Assessment Policy Relative to Storm Sewer Lateral Installation Resolution 11 -124 Approve Wildlife Management Plan Council Member Palmeri complimented Parks Director Maurer and the Urban Wildlife Committee on their efforts in completing the Wildlife Management Plan. He stated it was an impressive document. Resolution 11 -125 Approve Land Purchases at 1039 -1041 West South Park Avenue and 1043 -1045 West South Park Avenue for the Quarry Park Landfill Gas Venting System Project Resolution 11 -126 Approve Land Purchase at 1400 South Westhaven Drive for the Westhaven Circle Area Stormwater Detention Basin Project Resolution 11 -127 Approve Rescission of Property Taxes Resolution 11 -128 Initial Resolution Regarding Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the Benefit of the Oshkosh Community Young Men's Christian Association, Inc. As Required by State law, Information Regarding the Expected Job Impact of the Project to be Financed with the Bonds on the Project Site and Elsewhere in the State of Wisconsin will be Available at the Time of Consideration of the Initial Resolution Council Member Palmeri requested for an explanation of the resolution. Ms. Lorenson explained that the original bonds for the YMCA on 20 Avenue were issued by the Town of Algoma. The YMCA would like to refinance the bonds and since the property had been annexed into the City of Oshkosh, the City had to follow the initial process for industrial development revenue bonds. Council Member Poeschl questioned why the resolution was not brought forward at the time of annexation. Ms. Lorenson replied the decision was up to the YMCA and they did not request it when the property was annexed into the City. Resolution 11 -129 Resolution Regarding Public Bidding and Non - Discrimination in Connection with Industrial Development Revenue Bond Financing on Behalf of the Oshkosh Community Young Men's Christian Association, Inc. 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Resolution 11 -130 Approval of Special Event — UW- Oshkosh LGBTQ Resource Center to Utilize City Streets for 2 " Annual LGBTQ Ally March —April 14, 2011 Resolution 11 -131 Approval of Special Event — Oshkosh Jaycees to Utilize South Park for Jaycee's Easter Egg Hunt — April 23, 2011 Resolution 11 -132 Approval of Special Event — UW- Oshkosh Adapted Physical Education Program to Utilize Menominee Park for Fishing Has No Boundaries — May 21 and 22, 2011 Resolution 11 -133 Approval of Special Event — Houge's Bar to Utilize Menominee Park (Miller's Bay) for 16 Rouge's Walleye Warm -Up — May 28, 2011 Resolution 11 -134 Approval of Special Event — Waterfest, Inc. to Utilize leach Amphitheatre for Waterfest — June 9, 2011 through August 31, 2011 (every Thursday Night Except Last Event Would be on a Wednesday Night) Resolution 11 -135 Approval of Special Event — Boys and Girls Club of Oshkosh to Utilize Sidewalks and Menominee Park for Boys and Girls Club of Oshkosh Kids on Parade — June 15, 2011 Resolution 11 -136 Approval of Special Event — Oshkosh Chamber of Commerce to Utilize Opera House Square and Market Street for Live at Lunch June 15, 2011 through August 10, 2011 (Every Wednesday) Resolution 11 -137 Approval of Special Event — Otter Street Fishing Club to Utilize Menominee Park for Otter Street Fisheree — August 13, 2011 Resolution 11 -138 Approval of Special class "B" Licenses and Operator Licenses MOTION: ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA (Tower; second, Palmeri) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Poeschl, Tower, Palmeri, Cummings, King, Herman, Mayor Esslinger ACTION TAKEN ON ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS Ordinance 11 -139 Approve Amendment to Chapter 6 Animals, to Allow Urban Chickens in R -1 Single Family Zoning Districts or R -2 Two Family Zoning Districts (Petition Filed in Support of Ordinance) MOTION: ADOPT ( Poeschl; second, Palmeri) 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 MOTION: AMEND TO REFER TO PLAN COMMISSION PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL - ALSO, HAVE APPROVAL OF NEIGHBORS (Cummings; no second) LOST: LACK OF SECOND MOTION: AMEND TO REQUIRE WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM ABUTTING NEIGHBORS TO ALLOW CHICKENS (Esslinger; second, Cummings) CARRIED: Ayes (4) Tower, Cummings, Herman, Mayor Esslinger; Noes (3) Poeschl, Palmeri, King MOTION: AMEND SECTION 8 (C) 8 TO READ: CHICKEN ENCLOSURES SHALL MEASURE A MINIMUM OF SEVEN (7) SQUARE FEET IN AREA OR THREE (3) SQUARE FEET IN AREA PER CHICKEN, WHICHEVER IS GREATER WITH ONE NEST BOX PROVIDED PER EVERY TWO CHICKENS AMEND SECTION 8 (C) 11 TO READ: NO CHICKEN ENCLOSURE, FOOD STORAGE UNIT, OR WASTE COMPOST SHALL BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 25 FEET TO ANY PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON AN ADJACENT LOT AND MUST BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY, AS DEFINED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE STRUCTURE MUST ALSO MEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS, AS REGULATED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND SECTION 8 (C) 13 TO READ: IN ADDITION TO AN ENCLOSURE, CHICKENS SHALL BE PROVIDED ACCESS TO AN OUDOOR ENCLOSED RUN AREA FOR THE MAJORITY OF DAYLIGHT HOURS, WEATHER PERMITTING; AND AMEND SECTION 12 TO READ: THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION TO BE EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2011 (Tower; second, Poeschl) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Poeschl, Tower, Palmeri, Cummings, King, Herman, Mayor Esslinger MOTION: AMEND TO PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF COOP ON PROPERTY (Herman; second, Esslinger) WITHDRAWN MOTION: VOTE ON AMENDED ORDINANCE CARRIED: Ayes (5) Poeschl, Tower, Palmeri, King, Herman; Noes (2) Cummings, Mayor Esslinger Melissa Blaske, 1928 Hubbard Street, supported the ordinance as she felt it promoted sustainability and provided a way to teach children responsibility. 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Daniel Hoyt, 242 W. 15 Avenue contacted the Assessor's Office in the City of Madison to inquire if property values had decreased since the City passed a chicken ordinance in 2004. The assessor he spoke with had not heard of any negative impact to property values as a result of allowing chickens on the property of a home or a neighbor's home. He stated the organization, Oshkosh Backyard Chickens, provided a website with information and was committed to educating people about raising chickens. Council Member Palmeri asked Mr. Hoyt what his thoughts were regarding an amendment to the ordinance requiring one nest box per chicken. Mr. Hoyt replied it was an unnecessary requirement in his opinion. He felt one nesting box per four chickens was sufficient. Council Member Palmeri asked Mr. Hoyt if he felt an amendment requiring chicken coops to be kept in backyards would be an issue for individuals who wanted to raise chickens. Mr. Hoyt believed a requirement for chicken coops to be constructed in the backyard would not be an issue for people wishing to raise chickens. Council Member Palmeri asked Mr. Hoyt if he was opposed to the ordinance not taking effect until July 1, 2011 to allow City staff time to prepare. Mr. Hoyt stated he did not have an issue with the ordinance taking effect July 1, 2011. Mandy Riddle, 1321 Otter Street, supported the ordinance. Diane Lowe, 1329 N. Main Street, stated she was eager to raise chickens and encouraged the Council to approve the ordinance. Justin Mitchell, 652 Monroe Street, thought there was a misconception in the community that chicken coops were eye sores and provided pictures of various sample chicken coops. He completed nine months of research into urban chicken ordinances in other cities and found there were few, if any nuisance complaints. Rebecca Robe, 1938 McCurdy Street, attended several educational meetings regarding backyard chickens and was impressed with the amount of effort, thought and consideration that went into the implementation of the ordinance. Marcy Clark, 1926 Iowa Street, supported the ordinance and applauded the in -depth research that led to the execution of the ordinance. Mary Rasmussen, 1010 Alpine Court, was in favor of the ordinance. 0 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Bob Cornell, 548 W. Smith Avenue, did not support the ordinance citing it would be a digression for the City of Oshkosh. He also felt there were more important issues facing the City that needed the attention of the Council. He was concerned that chicken coops in the backyards of central city neighborhoods would offset the efforts of the Neighbor Works Program to enhance the aesthetics of those neighborhoods. He would like an amendment to the ordinance requiring permission for chickens from all abutting neighbors of both R -1 Single Family Zoning Districts and R -2 Two Family Zoning Districts. Steve Barney, 1335 Summit Avenue, wanted the Council to research whether the welfare of the urban chickens would be protected under the anti - cruelty statutes. Robyn Anderson, 831 Waugoo Avenue, believed owning backyard chickens benefited owners physically, mentally, and spiritually. Christina Hoyt, 242 W. 15 Avenue, stated that citizens from different income levels and neighborhoods would raise chickens if the ordinance was approved. Jennifer Neary, 3880 Pau- ka -tuk Lane, stated she was in favor of the ordinance and felt the petitioners provided extensive research to support a backyard chicken ordinance. Council Member Cummings asked why chicken owners were not required to notify neighbors in R -1 Single Family Zoning Districts. Mr. Burich stated in their research of other city's ordinances his department routinely found the requirement for notifying neighbors in R -2 Two Family Zoning Districts. He explained it did not occur to the Planning /Zoning Department to incorporate required notification to R -1 Single Family Zoning Districts in the ordinance. Council Member Cummings wanted to know if people applying for chicken permits would have to provide drawings of what their coops would look like and where they would be placed on the property. Mr. Burich replied the ordinance contained requirements for a minimum standard size of a chicken coop, however there was no minimum standard for what a coop should look like. Council Member Cummings asked if the outdoor enclosed run areas would be enclosed on all four sides as well as the top. Mr. Burich stated he interpreted "enclosed" as being all four sides and the top. Council Member Cummings stated there was no procedure in the ordinance for disposing of dead or unwanted chickens. As a Realtor, he felt having chickens on adjacent properties would adversely affect a homeowner's ability to sell his/her home. He believed there were too many uncertainties and that the ordinance should be reviewed by the Plan Commission before Council approval. 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Council Member Herman wanted clarification regarding if the ordinance required chicken permit applicants to provide a diagram of where their coops would placed on the property and what the coops would look like. Mr. Burich stated if the ordinance was passed, his department did not want the ordinance to go into effect until July 1, 2011 to give his staff time to develop a permit. He explained in order to receive a permit an applicant would need to provide a site plan showing where the coop was located and how big it was, however the City would not require a building permit to construct a chicken coop and City staff would not inspect the coops once they were constructed. Council Member Herman asked if the Oshkosh Health Department was slated to enforce the chicken ordinance, what would happen if the Oshkosh Health Department consolidated with the Winnebago County Health Department. Mr. Rohloff stated it would have to be negotiated as part of the final agreement between the two health departments. Council Member Herman stated he felf the citizens of Oshkosh should vote on the chicken ordinance and suggested a referendum be place on the ballot at the next election. He was concerned that the ordinance would not be enforced and City staff would only rely on citizen complaints for compliance. Deputy Mayor King found the people in support of backyard chickens provided data to support their arguments, while the people who did not support backyard chickens seemed to rely on their emotions. She disputed that having chickens would decrease property values. Council Member Tower asked for an explanation of the amendment requiring chicken enclosures to be seven (7) square feet in area or three (3) square feet in area per chicken, whichever is greater with one nest box provided per chicken. Mr. Burich explained City staff needed to develop a standard for chicken enclosures. He stated after reviewing other chicken ordinances and listening to experts they decided on enclosures to be seven (7) square feet in area or three (3) square feet in area per chicken, whichever is greater with one nest box provided per chicken. Council Member Tower supported the ordinance as he felt the Backyard Chicken Group completed their due diligence. He also felt the ordinance could be easily reversed if unforeseen problems occurred. Council Member Poeschl stated his support for the ordinance. He explained he was opposed to the ordinance going back to the Plan Commission for review as the Planning /Zoning Department already reviewed the ordinance and recommended amendments. He felt neighbors should communicate with one another prior to obtaining chickens. 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Council Member Palmeri stated his support for the ordinance. He explained the Oshkosh Backyard Chicken organization demonstrated rare activism with regard to educating the public and promoting the concept of raising urban chickens. Mayor Esslinger was concerned that chicken coops could be considered an eye sore to neighbors. He was also concerned that property values could decrease. He proposed an amendment that would make it necessary for abutting neighbors to give written consent to allow chickens. Justin Mitchell, 652 Monroe Street, did not feel abutting property owners should have control over whether or not their neighbors could raise chickens. Melissa Blaske, 1928 Hubbard Street, wanted to know what would happen if neighbors changed their minds or if a property was sold and the new owner objected to chickens already on the abutting property. Mayor Esslinger stated once a permit was issued to raise chickens, the permit would be valid as long as the property owner owned the property. Patricia Diener, 1316 Broad Street, thought property owners should be able to do what they want to their properties as long as it met the Municipal Code. Daniel Hoyt, 242 W. 15 Avenue, objected to a requirement of having written permission from abutting neighbors in order to receive a permit to raise chickens. He felt it was discriminatory. Bob Cornell, 548 W. Smith Avenue, felt citizens should be notified about the goings on in their neighborhoods and supported an amendment to require written permission from abutting property owners to allow their neighbors to have chickens. Rebecca Robe, 1938 McCurdy Street, stated that meeting the code requirements should be sufficient for people who wanted to raise chickens. Council Member Poeschl did not support an amendment requiring written permission from abutting neighbors in order to have chickens. While he felt neighbors should communicate with each other, he did not believe citizens should have control over neighbors who want to raise chickens. Deputy Mayor King was not opposed to citizens notifying their neighbors of their intent to have chickens, however she did not support an amendment requiring neighbors' consent before a property owner could have chickens. Council Member Palmeri agreed that it was reasonable to require notification to abutting property owners concerning neighbors having chickens. He stated he did not believe abutting property owners should give written consent for their neighbors to raise chickens. Z PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Deputy Mayor King explained there was sufficient testimony that one nesting box per chicken was unnecessary and recommended the Council amend the ordinance to require one nesting box per every two chickens. Council Member Herman recommended an amendment requiring property owners to provide a diagram of where the coop would be placed on the property. Mr. Burich explained that while not stated in the ordinance, part of the permit requirements for raising chickens would be to provide a diagram of where the coop would be placed on the property. Ordinance 11 -140 Establish Revised Sanitary Sewer User Charges MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Poeschl) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Poeschl, Tower, Palmeri, Cummings, King, Herman, Mayor Esslinger Ordinance 11 -141 Approval of Changes in Permit Parking, Leased Parking and Short- Term Parking in the Otter East and Jefferson Parking Lots, and Revision of All Night Parking Restriction in Municipal Parking Lots FIRST READING: LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Ordinance 11 -142 Removal of Designated Handicapped Parking Area on Church Avenue FIRST READING: LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Resolution 11 -143 Approval of Special Event — Joe Kubiak to Utilize Main Street for Oshkosh Pub Crawl —April 16, 2011 MOTION: ADOPT (Palmeri; second, Cummings) MOTION: AMEND TO REQUIRE $1,500.00 DEPOSIT TEN (10) DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT (King; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (4) Palmeri, Cummings, King, Herman; Noes (1) Poeschl; Present (2) Tower, Mayor Esslinger MOTION: AMEND TO ADD: SANITATION DIVISION GARBAGE /RECYCLING; STREET CLEANUP ($200.00 - $1,000.00 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE) (King; second, Poeschl) CARRIED: Ayes (5) Poeschl, Palmeri, Cummings, King, Herman; Present (2) Tower, Mayor Esslinger MOTION: VOTE ON AMENDED ORDINANCE CARRIED: Ayes (5) Poeschl, Palmeri, Cummings, King, Herman; Present (2) Tower, Mayor Esslinger 10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Council Member Palmeri asked for an estimate of property destruction as a result from the pub crawl event in past years. Chief Greuel characterized the damage as minor, but stated there had been broken windows, debris and minor damage to downtown store fronts. Council Member Herman inquired as to where the barricades would be placed. Ms. Lorenson stated barricades would be places along the sidewalks to keep participants channeled within the sidewalk area. Chief Greuel stated he was not in favor of barricading the sidewalk as barricades tended to become projectile objects. He explained the police officers on foot and bicycles would control cross walks and pedestrian safety. Council Member Herman questioned if the Police Department expenses in the special event application included the Tactical Unit and Swat Teams to be on standby. Chief Greuel stated his department was not utilizing the Tactical Unit or Swat Team. He explained there would be ten to twelve officers on foot patrol and bicycles in the pub crawl area with specific directions as to crowd management. Council Member Herman questioned if second shift police officers would be held over to third shift. Chief Greuel answered if, based on calls, the need arose officers would be held over from second shift to third shift. Council Member Herman questioned if the pub crawl event posed a problem for the ambulance staff. Chief Franz stated his department did see an increase in service calls during events such as the pub crawl. He explained another impact of the volume of the pub crawl was difficulty in regulating the maximum occupancy of participating establishments. Council Herman asked Chief Franz if he would schedule extra EMTs or firefighters on the day of pub crawl. Chief Franz stated he would not schedule extra staff on the day of the pub crawl nor would he deploy staff to set up in the area of the pub crawl. Deputy Mayor King questioned if the City had made arrangements for clean up of the increased amount of trash. 11 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Ms. Lorenson stated during the special event meeting with the pub crawl organizers it was indicated they would have people picking up trash. She explained if City staff had go back through after the pub crawl and pick up trash the pub crawl organizers would be invoiced for the service. Council Member Poeschl questioned the estimated number of participants in the pub crawl. Chief Greuel stated in the past the spring pub crawl had 1800 participants and fall pub crawl had 2100 participants. He anticipated a crowd of 2100 participants for the current pub crawl. Council Member Cummings suggested instead of billing the pub crawl organizers for extraordinary services after the event had taken place that the City require a deposit from the pub crawl organizers to cover some of the anticipated extraordinary expenses. Deputy Mayor King stated for an event such as the pub crawl, an upfront deposit was merited. She also felt an estimated cost for street and sidewalk clean up in the range of $200.00 to $1,000.00 should be added to the extraordinary costs of the event. Council Member Palmeri asked Mr. Rohloff if he agreed with requiring a deposit. Mr. Rohloff stated for the type of event such as a pub crawl, it would behoove the City to require a deposit. Mayor Esslinger questioned what would happen if the pub crawl organizer did not want to pay a deposit. Ms. Lorenson explained if the deposit was a condition of the permit, and the event organizer did not comply with the conditions of the permit, the event organizer could be cited for having a special event without a permit. Anthony Covill, 2010 Wisconsin Street, thought the City should provide trash cans along Main Street to encourage pub crawl participants not to litter. OTHER BUSINESS Appeal to Vicious Animal Decision by City of Oshkosh Health Director — Covill MOTION: ADOPT (Poeschl; second, Cummings) LOST : Noes (7) Poeschl, Tower, Palmeri, Cummings, King, Herman, Mayor Esslinger Anthony Covill, 2010 Wisconsin Street, contended his dog was a puppy at the time of both incidences and maintained the actions of his dog did not meet the definition of a vicious animal. 12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 Megan Engers, 2010 Wisconsin Street, stated she was home at the time of both incidences and asked the Council to consider the dog was a puppy at the time. Mayor Esslinger explained that the Council was not deciding whether or not Mr. Covill's dog was vicious. The Council was voting on whether Interim Health Director Mark Ziemer followed the criteria outlined in the City ordinance while making his determination if the dog met the definition of vicious. Ms. Lorenson added that term "vicious animal" was not a commentary on a dog's disposition but a defined term under the ordinance. Per the ordinance, two injuries whether bites or scratches, defined the term "vicious animal ". Mr. Rohloff clarified that the Council voted in the affirmative, thus if they felt Mr. Ziemer's determination of the dog being vicious was incorrect they should vote "yes" to appeal his decision. If the Council believed Mr. Ziemer's determination of the dog being vicious was correct they should vote "no" to the appeal. Council Member Palmeri asked Mr. Ziermer to explain his decision that Mr. Covill's dog was a vicious animal. Mr. Ziemer stated he held a meeting with Mr. Covill, Health Department Staff, Assistant City Attorney Praska, and the police officers who took the complaints. The circumstances of the incidents were discussed by all parties and with the assistance of City staff he followed the procedures set forth in the ordinance to determine whether Mr. Covill's dog met the definition of a vicious animal. Mr. Covill expressed his displeasure upon hearing the Council's decision. Appeal to Vicious Animal Decision by City of Oshkosh Health Director — Liska MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Cummings) LOST: Noes (7) Poeschl, Tower, Palmeri, Cummings, King, Herman, Mayor Esslinger Patricia Diener, 1316 Broad Street, did not think her dog was vicious and wanted a definition of the term. Mayor Esslinger explained to Ms. Diener that she could look up the meaning of "vicious" in the ordinance and informed her that she needed to speak to the matter of Ms. Liska's appeal. COUNCIL DISCUSSION, DIRECTION TO CITY MANAGER & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items 13 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL — MARCH 22, 2011 COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENT & STATEMENTS Mayor Esslinger pulled the item regarding the Mayor's role in Economic Development. He announced that the Oshkosh Memorabilia Club would hold an antique appraisal show on City of Oshkosh pieces at the Oshkosh Senior Center on March 26 Also, on March 31 there would be a debate for Mayor and City Council at Reeve Memorial Union on the UWO campus. CITIZEN STATEMENTS Patricia Diener, 1316 Broad Street, was concerned about people moving out of the Steven's Park Area, particularly Eveline Street. Steve Barney, 1335 Summit Avenue, questioned if the City had any plans to avert the potential transit crisis when the State Budget Repair Bill was passed. Mr. Rohloff stated he could not comment on any progress however the City was involved in discussions with the transit union. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS Mr. Rohloff stated the City contracted with AECOM for various 2011 concrete paving projects. Also, he was in the process of setting up a meeting with American Transmission Company and Rivermill Condominium residents. MOTION: ADJOURN (Palmeri, second; Cummings) CARRIED: VOICE VOTE The meeting Adjourned at 9:30 p.m. PAMELA R. UBRIG CITY CLERK 14