Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05. Common Council Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN MAY28, 2019 REGULAR MEETING held Tuesday, May 28,2019, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, City Hall Mayor Palmeri presided. PRESENT: Council Members Matt Mugerauer, Jake Krause, Bob Poeschl, Bill Miller, Deb Allison-Aasby, Steven Herman and Mayor Lori Palmeri ALSO PRESENT: Mark Rohloff, City Manager; Pamela Ubrig, City Clerk; and Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney Council Member Mugerauer read the Invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Mugerauer. PRESENTATION Shirley Brabender Mattox presented the 2019 Acanthus Awards for the work completed at the William Doe House (456 Mount Vernon Street), The Howard (405 Washington Avenue) and the Riverside Cemetery Chapel. PUBLIC HEARINGS Resolution 19-291 Authorize Submittal of 2019 CDBG Action Plan MOTION: ADOPT (Allison-Aasby; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Mugerauer, Krause, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Present (1) Poeschl Council Member Herman requested an explanation of the highlights of the application and the plans for the grant funds. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated the City received the federal grant funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He explained the proceeds could be used for housing and urban development activities, and had been allocated for rehabilitation of affordable housing in the City, blight elimination and public services to meet the needs of low and moderate income residents. He stated they would also be used towards administration costs and fair housing items that were required. Council Member Herman questioned how citizens could receive additional information. Mr. Davis stated citizens could contact Community Development at 920-236-5055 if they had an interest in utilizing any of the programs. He explained they would need to meet certain HUD requirements. Mayor Palmeri asked for an explanation of how priority one areas were distinguished from priority two areas. Mr. Davis explained he believed the distinction was made on census information from the American Community survey that was updated every other year. Darlene Brandt, Grant Coordinator, explained priority areas had been determined based on eligibility for certain activities within the community development block grant program. She stated the category of housing rehabilitation had eligible properties scattered throughout the community; they just had to be income qualified. She explained central City redevelopment, which included slum and blight removal, was required to be located in a low to moderate income census tract. She stated the census tracts had changed since the creation of the priority map, therefore the priority areas were no longer being used any longer. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there was a consultant being hired to update the impediments to the fair housing report. Ms. Brandt stated yes. Mayor Palmeri questioned what the time frame was on the report. Ms. Brandt explained City staff should be able to provide it to Council for approval before the end of the year. 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Poeschl stated he would vote 'present' as his employer was one of the beneficiaries of some of the funds that would be distributed. CITIZEN STATEMENTS Steve Barney, 1335 Summit Avenue, stated he was following up on emails he had sent regarding Round Up or glyphosate. He explained he had learned his landlord was using the product on his property, and noted there were pesticide application notices on the property of the Oshkosh Public Library. He stated he had called the phone number on the notices and questioned if they used Round Up, and although the company said they did not, he believed he should have asked if they used glyphosate. He explained he would like confirmation that the City was not using Round Up or any kind of lawn pesticide that contains glyphosate, as the World Health Organization had determined that it was a probable carcinogen. He stated he assumed there were alternatives that would not fall into that category. He explained although it was not yet illegal in Wisconsin, it was illegal in California, and there were ongoing lawsuits regarding the product. Mr. Rohloff stated he did not have an answer to the question, and that he had not received Mr. Barney's email. He explained if he forwarded the email to him, he would direct it to the appropriate City staff. CONSENT AGENDA Report of Bills by the Finance Director Approval of Cash Report from January, February, March & April 2019 Receipt & Filing of Oshkosh Public Museum Minutes from April 4, 2019 Receipt & Filing of the Oshkosh Common Council Minutes from May 14, 2019 Receipt of Claims filed with the City's Insurance Company: A) Eric Miller for alleged damages due to sanitary lateral not being connected after street repair on Michigan Street B) Stacie Voss for alleged damages due to vehicle damage from a City vehicle Resolution 19-292 Approve Planning Services Fee Schedule 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Resolution 19-293 Approve Agreement for Sale of Southwest Industrial Park Land to Illinois Cement Company, LLC ($205,765.00) Resolution 19-294 Approve Professional Services Agreement for Design Services for West Waukau Avenue Bridge / Strand Associates, Inc. ($93,500.00) Resolution 19-295 Approve Contract for Wisconsin Hazardous Materials Response System Services Resolution 19-296 Approve Spot Blight Designation; Authorize Redevelopment Authority to Acquire; 613 West 91h Avenue ($24,200.00) (RDA Recommends Approval) Resolution 19-297 Approve Spot Blight Designation; Authorize Redevelopment Authority to Acquire; 653 Mount Vernon Street ($18,000.00) (RDA Recommends Approval) Resolution 19-298 Approve Releasing & Accepting Various Easements within the Morgan District; Generally Located North of West 61hAvenue, from Iowa Street to Nebraska Street (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) Resolution 19-299 Approve Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for Signage Modifications for Oshkosh Corporation; 1917 Four Wheel Drive (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) Resolution 19-300 Approve Sale of the Carousel at Menominee Park Children's Amusement Center Council Member Herman asked for an explanation of why the City was selling the carousel from Menominee Park. Chad Dallman, Assistant Director of Parks, explained the Menominee Park carousel had been out of commission since 2015, due to disrepair. He stated based on the age of the unit and the number of repairs required, it would cost approximately $130,000 to maintain going forward. He explained City staff had determined it was no longer feasible to operate and requested Council's approval to sell the unit. He stated it was a parks model carousel and could not be part of a travelling carnival. He explained City staff was looking into various options to determine the item's value. 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Krause questioned if the proceeds from the sale would be put towards future amusement equipment. Mr. Dallman stated the plan would be to place the funds in the revenue account, so it could be decided if the amusement area should be reevaluated or a different attraction purchased for that location. Council Member Krause clarified that the funds would be reserved for that purpose. Mr. Dallman stated yes. Resolution 19-301 Approve Purchase of Manhole / Inlet Castings for the Streets Division of the Department of Public Works ($29,108.81) Resolution 19-302 Award Sid for Public Works Contract No. 19-12 to Wood Sewer & Excavating, Inc. for Miscellaneous Utility Improvements ($594,444.50) Resolution 19-303 Award Sid to Envirotech Equipment for Tandem Axle Truck Chassis & Compacting Side Loader for Recycling Division ($198,014.40) Resolution 19-304 Award Sid to Airgas USA, LLC for 2019 Liquid Oxygen for the Water Filtration Plant ($113,750.00) Resolution 19-305 Award Sid to Michels Materials, MCC Inc. & Northeast Asphalt Inc. for 2019 Road Materials for Various Departments Resolution 19-306 Approve Special Event — Expansion Theory Productions to utilize Opera House Square,Peabody's Ale House&Twisted Roots Parking Lots for the Oshkosh Main Street Music Festival / July 24, 26 & 27, 2019 Resolution 19-307 Approve Special Event — Lourdes Academy to utilize City streets & sidewalks for the Lourdes Academy Eucharistic Procession / September 5, 2019 Resolution 19-308 Approve Special Event — River-East Neighborhood Association to utilize Riverside Park for their Neighborhood Night Out Picnic / August 6, 2019 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Resolution 19-309 Approve Appointments Boards & Commissions Resolution 19-310 Approve Combination "Class A" Licenses, Combination "Class B" Licenses, Special Class "B" Licenses, Operator & Taxi-Cab Driver Licenses MOTION: ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA EXCLUDING 19-292 AND 19-309 (Poeschl; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Resolution 19-292 Approve Planning Services Fee Schedule MOTION: ADOPT (Poeschl; second, Allison-Aasby) Council Member Mugerauer stated he understood a new short term rental fee was proposed. He questioned how City staff had arrived at the$100 dollar amount. He stated he understood the process would be that individuals would first work with the county to get their inspections done and then receive their license from the state, which would then be presented to City staff. He explained because City staff was not required to do any inspections, he did not understand why the fee would be $100. Mark Lyons, City Planner, explained the fee was based off of an estimate of the time required to administer the process, which included reviewing the documentation to ensure the applicants met the license requirements and the renewal notices that would be sent out annually. Council Member Mugerauer stated he believed $100 was hefty; he had not been in favor of the short term rental license to begin with and was not in favor of a fee. MOTION: AMEND TO REDUCE SHORT TERM RENTAL FEE TO ZERO (Mugerauer; second, Krause) Council Member Herman explained he was concerned about the fee. He stated he believed the short term rental fee should be introduced similar to the special event fees by starting at a lower amount and increasing it over time. He explained it could then be determined exactly how much time City staff would spend administering the process. He stated he agreed with Council Member Mugerauer; City staff would essentially be reviewing paperwork from the County, where individuals would likely also incur a fee. He explained he did believe there needed to be a fee established as there would be City 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 staff time involved,however,he believe it should be phased in similar to the special event fees. Council Member Miller questioned if City staff had an estimate of how many applications were anticipated. Council Member Mugerauer questioned how many had been filed with the County. Mr. Rohloff stated he believed it was less than ten. Mr. Lyons explained with the ordinance changed to 'more than sixteen days' it was difficult to estimate how many applications there would be. He stated a rough estimate would be approximately five. Mr. Rohloff stated it may be more than that, however, it was a self-reporting program. Council Member Miller explained it was his understanding it would not result in substantial revenue. Mr. Rohloff stated that was correct; it was just a matter of determining what the appropriate fee would be. Council Member Miller questioned if City staff would feel comfortable starting the fee at $25 dollars. Darryn Burich, Planning Services Manager, stated it could begin at that threshold and be reevaluated in the future. Mr. Lyons explained he believed it was a reasonable request to evaluate how much time was spent on the applications. He stated there was a range in fee amounts throughout various municipalities, and City staff had determined what the average was and considered how much City staff time would be spent reviewing applications. Council Member Krause explained he believed City staff would be reviewing short applications. Mr. Lyons stated the initial review would not be lengthy. He explained City staff established similar fees because typically applicants did not have everything they needed the first time; there was often discussions going back and forth and a second review involved. He stated it would also include the City staff time spent generating and 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 sending out letters for renewals. Council Member Krause stated the popular term around town was 'money grab' and he believed citizens could perceive this fee as such. Mr. Rohloff explained the fee was not built into the budget and would not have a major impact if Council preferred to begin at a different amount. Council Members Mugerauer and Krause withdrew their amendment motion. MOTION: AMEND TO REDUCE SHORT TERM RENTAL FEE TO $40 AND REVIEW AFTER FIRST YEAR (Herman; second, Krause) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Allison-Aasby questioned if it had been determined what City staff position would be reviewing the applications. She explained it would make sense to consider the hourly rate of that City staff member and estimate how long it would take to administer the process. Mr. Burich explained it would be a blend of City staff positions that would administer the process, so using that method would not be clear cut. Council Member Allison-Aasby clarified if that meant one individual would not be responsible for the review, similar to Kathy Snell with special events. Mr. Lyons stated that was correct; various City staff members may be involved as they would want to help the individual as quickly as possible when they arrived at the counter. Council Member Allison-Aasby questioned if City staff believed $40 dollars was an adequate starting point to cover the cost of the application review. Mr. Lyons stated yes. Mr. Davis explained when the budget season arrived, there would be five months of data that Council could examine, and reevaluate the fee if necessary. Mr. Rohloff stated he disagreed, as the fee would not be implemented until August, after EAA had taken place, therefore he did not believe there would be significant data to 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 review until next year. Mr. Lyons explained that was correct. Council Member Poeschl asked for an explanation of the information City staff had gathered from other communities who had similar fees. Mr. Lyons stated$100 dollars was equivalent to what the City of Green Say charged while Ashwaubenon charged nearly$500 dollars. Council Member Poeschl questioned how long they had been managing the ordinance. Mr. Lyons stated Green Say had their ordinance in place for approximately three years, and Ashwaubenon had been a similar time frame. Council Member Poeschl questioned if those municipalities had instituted a full fee right away or if they had implemented a graduated fee. Mr. Lyons stated Green Say had implemented a straight fee and he was not certain about Ashwaubenon. Council Member Poeschl stated those communities were not the same size as Oshkosh. He questioned if the conditional use recording fee was new. Mr. Burich stated yes; it was a result of the code change on the ordinance. He explained the intent was that each time a conditional use permit was obtained it would be recorded at the County, so when the property changed hands, the new property owners would be aware there was a conditional use permit on the property. He stated the cost to record a document at the County was at least$30, so City staff selected $40 for the fee to cover the potential range. VOTE ON AMENDED RESOLUTION CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Resolution 19-309 Approve Appointments to Boards & Commissions Mayor Palmeri explained she had pulled the resolution from the consent agenda as it had come to her attention that there were a number of concerns. She stated Oshkosh had an abundance of volunteerism and the City was fortunate to have had an overwhelming 9 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 response of applicants for the vacant Council seat and the various boards and commissions. She explained Council encouraged engagement by citizens, and new engagement by citizens with a variety of backgrounds could only occur when openings on the boards were created, either through citizens moving on to new opportunities, through loss or when terms expire. She stated the City was honored to have such passionate citizens wishing to be part of local government, and to experience individuals with different perspectives stepping forward. She explained she was proud of Oshkosh, and the hospitality and grace the City had to accept new people and recognize the service of past members. Nancy Taylor, 730 Powers Street, stated she was excited for a new era in City government and wished to express her support for the Mayor's appointments to the boards and commissions. Margy Davey, 885 Portside Court, explained it was the 1001h anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote. She stated the equal rights amendment had a tremendous impact on things such as court cases where women were involved. She explained the new appointments included five males and five females, which reflected the City was striving for gender equality. She commended the Council for selecting representation that mirrored the population of the City. Scott Engel, 910 Cozy Lane, stated he had been confused by the process and had not experienced past mayors 'shaking up' the boards and commissions. He explained he did not agree with the individuals who had been terminated from their positions as it was a generic letter. He stated he would like to see more involvement from the Council, as he explained he had been informed by the Mayor that it was her discretion. He explained the individuals who were not reappointed had put a lot of time and resources into serving the City and they were hurt. He stated he believed the Mayor's appointments were handpicked friends of hers. He explained he was disappointed and did not agree with her actions. Deb Martin, 164 Wyldewood Drive, stated she had attended the Council meeting on May 141h where fourteen candidates vied to fill the vacant Council seat. She explained one of the things she had heard Council mention throughout the process was that they were glad to see the diversity amongst the candidates. She stated after a new Council Member was selected, the remaining candidates were encouraged to apply to the various boards and commissions. She explained she had not been aware that there were two hundred positions available amongst the various boards and commissions, and although she applied, she had not been appointed as there was only twelve openings. She stated she had been excited to hear that the Council wished to add more diversity, and the boards 10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 and commissions were a great place to start. She explained those who had served may need to recognize that it was an opportunity to let others serve. Alicia Johnson, 1816 N. Main Street, stated she had voted for Mayor Palmeri and had been excited for the changes she would bring as the first elected female Mayor of Oshkosh. She explained she was proud to say she had voted for someone who was following through and acting upon the promises she had made during her campaign. She stated change was not always easy, and it was time for Oshkosh leaders to listen to new voices and understand how residents from diverse and minority demographics experienced the City differently than those making City decisions. She explained by appointing new and more diverse voices to boards and commissions, Mayor Palmeri had given the Council a chance to understand different perspectives and lived experiences. She stated she hoped Council would accept the opportunity and continue to support the diversification for positions of power in Oshkosh. She explained she was in support of the Mayor's appointments and reappointments. Mushe Subulwa, 1776 Graber Street, stated he was in support of the resolution. He explained over the past few months, he had opportunities to engage in discussion with Council. He stated Council had expressed a need to listen to new voices in the community and now a new group of appointed members would join various boards and commissions. He explained the new appointees were answering a calling and Council should support them. MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Allison-Aasby) MOTION: DIVIDE INTO A- REAPPOINTMENTS, B- NEW APPOINTMENTS (Herman; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (4) Mugerauer, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman Noes (3) Krause, Poeschl, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Allison-Aasby questioned what Council Member Herman wished to discuss about the new appointments. Council Member Herman explained he believed Council needed to be made aware of how the new appointments came up and what the reasons were for some of the changes. He indicated Council had just received information on some of the individuals earlier in the day. Council Member Poeschl stated he understood approving the reappointments separately. He questioned if the intention was then to vote on the reappointments or if it would just be discussion regarding the process. 11 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Herman explained it was to appoint the various individuals, however, he had concerns regarding some of their qualifications, and questions as to why some individuals were not reappointed when they had qualifications beyond the new proposed appointees. Council Member Poeschl stated it was his understanding there would be two separate votes; one for the reappointments and one for the new appointments. Council Member Herman agreed. Council Member Poeschl explained it was his second time serving on Council, and it had not been uncommon in his experience for the mayor to appoint new individuals to serve in positions where the term had been up. He stated he specifically remembered the former Mayor Esslinger doing so, and did not believe there was a concern with the process. He explained he believed it was one of the mayor's duties. He stated he intended to vote no, as he believed the mayor had been elected to fill the positions. He explained in the past, he had never been approached by the mayor prior to the appointment meeting and asked who should fill the positions. He stated the process could be more open as transparency was important. Council Member Krause agreed with Council Member Poeschl. He explained the individuals Mayor Palmeri was appointing were qualified to serve on the boards and commissions. He stated when he was appointed to Council he was a UAW factory worker, and he believed he had brought a lot to the table. He explained he intended to vote no to separating the resolution. Council Member Allison-Aasby stated she was surprised by the direction of the conversation, as she had anticipated speaking about boards and commissions and not other items. She explained there had been a number of candidates for the vacant Council seat who had been encouraged to apply for the boards and commissions, and was unaware if any of them had applied. She stated in the past, she believed there had been additional communication outside of members being sent a letter indicating they would not be reappointed. She explained she was confused as at the previous Council meeting they had discussed alternates to the boards and commissions. She stated it would make sense to fill positions for those who wished to move on or retire, however, in the past, aside from former Mayor Esslinger, it had been her experience that if someone wished to continue to serve, and they had been a good contributor, they were reappointed. She explained she believed with the alternate positions, new members could be mentored. She stated she did not believe it was a situation where the appointees were not qualified; she believed there was some miscommunication and confusion, which was what she 12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 hoped to discuss. Council Member Miller questioned if it was only two members who were upset that they were not being reappointed. Council Member Mugerauer indicated he believed it was three individuals. Council Member Miller questioned who the third individual was. He suggested pulling those three individuals out of the pool and addressing them separately. Mayor Palmeri asked for clarification. Council Member Miller explained Council would vote on the remainder of the appointments in the resolution, and discuss the three individuals separately, followed by another vote. Ms. Lorenson requested that the first motions be voted on to avoid confusion. Council Member Krause questioned what would happen if the resolution was voted down; if the individuals who were not being reappointed would then be appointed by Council. Ms. Lorenson explained Council could approve or not approve Mayor Palmeri's appointments, however, they could not amend the resolution to appoint a different individual. Resolution 19-309A Approve Reappointments to Boards & Commissions MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Mugerauer questioned if Mayor Palmeri had reached out, either through the board chairs or City staff, to confirm that the individuals wanted to be reappointed. Mayor Palmeri stated on April 161h there had been a discussion about appointments and reappointments. She explained it was stated at that time that those interested in being appointed or reappointed could express their interest, however, it was not automatically guaranteed. She stated new appointees had either submitted a paper application or 13 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-MAY 28, 2019 applied through the online portal, which was what most had selected. She explained a copy of the application was forwarded to the City Manager's office, the Mayor and the staff liaison. She stated she reached out through a variety of means, including phone, email, through the staff liaison and board chairs. She explained there was a high volume of interest with over fifteen new applications. She stated not everyone had responded, however, there were term expirations in place for a reason. She explained it allowed for new individuals to participate and was not a reflection of performance. She stated she had worked hard on the appointments, along with City staff and board chairs. She explained if he was questioning if time and due diligence was spent, the answer was yes. She stated it was a judgement call to evaluate those in positions where the terms had expired to make room for new appointments. Resolution 19-309B Approve Appointments to Boards & Commissions MOTION: SEPARATE OUT LIBRARY BOARD (Mugerauer; second, Miller) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri MOTION: APPROVE LIBRARY BOARD APPOINTMENT (Herman; second, Krause) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Present (1) Mugerauer Mayor Palmeri indicated that the residency of the applicant to the advisory parks board was in question. She explained the individual may not live within the City limits, and that would need to be confirmed prior to appointment. MOTION: SEPARATE OUT ADVISORY PARKS BOARD (Allison-Aasby; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri MOTION: LAYOVER ADVISORY PARKS BOARD APPOINTMENT UNTIL JUNE 11, 2019 PENDING STAFF CONFIRMATION OF RESIDENCY OF APPLICANT (Mugerauer; second, Poeschl) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri 14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Poeschl clarified if the question was whether or not the appointee's address was within the City limits. Council Member Herman questioned if that could be answered right away. Council Member Mugerauer stated the address did not appear to be within the City limits. Mr. Rohloff explained he believed it would be appropriate to speak with the individual and confirm their residency, in case the address was inadvertently typed wrong. MOTION: SEPARATE OUT COMMITTEE ON AGING, HOUSING AUTHORITY, LONG RANGE FINANCE COMMITTEE, PUBLIC ARTS & BEAUTIFICATION, RENTAL HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD, SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD (Herman; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri MOTION: APPROVE APPOINTMENTS FOR COMMITTEE ON AGING, HOUSING AUTHORITY,LONG RANGE FINANCE COMMITTEE, PUBLIC ARTS & BEAUTIFICATION, RENTAL HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD, SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD (Mugerauer; second, Poeschl) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Mugerauer thanked everyone who had applied to the boards and commissions, including those individuals who had applied for the vacant Council seat and subsequently turned in an application for a board or commission. He encouraged citizens to continue to apply, even if there was not a current opening. MOTION: APPROVE PLAN COMMISSION APPOINTMENT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (4) Krause, Poeschl, Allison-Aasby, Mayor Palmeri Noes (3) Mugerauer, Miller, Herman Council Member Herman stated the Mayor did have the authority to appoint applicants to any board or commission she felt appropriate. He explained he had some transparency concerns because ultimately the Mayor made the appointments with Council approval. 15 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 He stated some of the individuals who were not going to be reappointed received letters prior to this Council meeting, which meant it was prior to Council's vote. He explained the Mayor had the ability to make appointments, however, Council had to then act on them. He stated he believed sending the letter without any kind of explanation was a 'slap in the face' to those who had served. He explained he had concerns specific to the plan commission appointments, as Mr. Bowen had served for five terms, and had a substantial background in the subject matter. He stated the individual Mayor Palmeri appointed did not have any background in the subject matter; her background was related to her work in the health department. He explained the plan commission was one of the most important board/commission that Council had; it was important to have the expertise listening to City staff, developers, proposals and making decisions. He questioned what criteria was used to make such a significant change. He stated there had been discussion regarding alternate members, and that was the direction he had believed they were going with a lot of the new applicants. He explained it would allow them to gain experience, vote if there was not a quorum and if someone stepped down they would likely be able to fill the seat. He stated he was disappointed in the process;Council did not receive applications until earlier that day. He explained he believed there should have been more time allotted, and the individuals who received letters should not have received them until after the vote. He stated the new appointee would serve on two boards/commissions, and the member with many years of experience would not serve on any. He explained he did not believe the process had been smooth or transparent, and he did understand that the terms had expiration dates. He stated many of the candidates who had applied for the vacant Council seat had applied for various boards and commissions, however, now it appeared the discussion on alternates was stagnant. Council Member Krause stated he believed timing was difficult for the letters to the individuals not being reappointed, as it would not be appropriate to not communicate until after they did not see their names appearing in the Council agenda. He explained it was not a lifetime appointment, and ten years was a significant amount of time to have served. He stated change was inevitable and usually there were positives as a result. He explained there were many benefits to appointing Ms. Erickson and Mr. Mitchell. He stated some boards and commissions did not want new members as they wished to maintain the status quo by maintaining the same members who have served for many years. Council Member Mugerauer explained when Mayor Palmeri had described the process of appointments, she had mentioned that not reappointing existing members was not a reflection of performance, along with the need for new voices and new ideas. He stated he agreed with the need for new voices and new ideas. He explained he had believed the process was going to be geared towards appointing alternates. He stated he was a firm 16 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 believer in all aspects of City government that the process was important, and he believed this process was mishandled. He explained it demonstrated a lack in management experience and a lack of working with people when individuals were treated with this type of disrespect. He stated there were individuals on multiple boards who had dedicated several years of service to the community, for no pay or benefits, who received letters preemptively, thanking them for their service and indicating their service as no longer needed. He explained he believed that was rude and demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who would hopefully continue to help move the City forward. He stated to not inform City staff who could have helped facilitate conversations was disheartening. He explained he understood the seats had term limits and that it was fully within the Mayor's role to make appointments, however, it was fully within Council's authority to not approve the appointments. Mayor Palmeri requested Council Member Mugerauer to yield as there were additional Council Members who wished to speak. Council Member Mugerauer stated no;he was within his allotted time to speak. Mayor Palmeri indicated he had one minute left to speak. Council Member Mugerauer explained he wanted to reiterate that the process was important, as were the people serving in the positions, and they deserved respect. He thanked the members who had dedicated their time, those who would begin service and those who expressed interest. He explained he hoped there would be better management going forward. Council Member Miller thanked those that had applied for the positions. He explained he did not believe there were transparency concerns; he believed the process should be reevaluated. He stated while the Mayor did everything correct according to her authority, he believed Council could take additional steps in the future, such as talking to the board chairs to determine who was invested. He explained he believed things could have been handled better by several individuals, not just the Mayor. He stated he believed the members of the boards and commissions needed to be treated with respect, and although he did not think the Mayor intended to disrespect them, she had a 100 day plan that she was busy implementing. He explained he believed there was a problem with miscommunication from several parties. Mayor Palmeri reminded Council it was not for them to make a determination regarding her choice to not reappoint a member, only to approve new appointments. 17 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Allison-Aasby stated as Council Members and elected representatives from the community it was sometimes necessary for them to relay information to those who reached out, which occasionally resulted in being the bearer of bad news. She explained there was a responsibility to communicate and talk through the process, which did not necessarily mean that Council was challenging a decision. She stated in regards to the plan commission, there was an individual she currently served on a board with, and they were highly participatory. She explained she was not familiar with the second individual through the boards or commissions,however, through community interaction understood that they were a good candidate. She questioned if an individual reached out and indicated that they would like to continue to serve in some capacity, if the alternate positions that had been discussed two weeks ago could be explored. She stated it may be a way to bring a community together with individuals who had served for some time in collaboration with those who wished to participate. She questioned if some sort of mentoring program would be a fair compromise. She stated it was not an item that needed to be voted on that evening; it was a suggestion. Mayor Palmeri explained that anyone who had a term expire was able to apply, either to a different board/commission or the same, and the alternate discussion would be discussed separately in June. She stated later during the meeting there would be a discussion about bringing back the boards and commissions study that had been completed in 2017. She explained there may be room in that workshop to discuss the potential for alternates. She stated the way that the topic was left was that time would be given to each of the boards and commissions for discussion regarding whether they would like to add alternates. She explained to date, she was only aware the rental housing advisory board voting to add two alternates. She stated an individual whose term had expired had the ability to reapply and become a part of the applicant pool. Council Member Allison-Aasby explained at the meeting two weeks prior, she had not been certain which direction Council was headed in related to alternates. She stated it was a discussion worth having in the future. She explained in the future, to avoid miscommunication and hurt feelings of those who had dedicated time to the City, she would recommend utilizing the Council liaison to communicate information if there was going to be a decision to not reappoint a board/commission member. She stated she understood the discretion ultimately went to the Mayor, however, she believed it would be helpful. Mayor Palmeri explained when the applications were submitted to the City Manager's office, a copy was forwarded to the Mayor and the City staff liaison. 18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Miller questioned if members whose terms were up should reapply for their positions. Mayor Palmeri stated they were able to. Council Member Miller questioned if it would be beneficial for them; if that was what was recommended. Mayor Palmeri stated she was not recommending anything; Council was discussing the approval of the plan commission appointment. Council Member Miller explained he understood; he was just questioning if it may be a better way to facilitate the process. Council Member Poeschl stated it was his understanding that the process that took place was not much different from the process that had taken place under previous mayors. Mayor Palmeri explained she was the Council Member who had asked for applications to start accompanying the list of new appointments. She stated that had been a recent addition prior to the end of 2018. She explained they had just started receiving applications as Council Members, and there had not been any vetting or questioning. She stated the mischaracterization of lack of transparency was false. Council Member Herman explained she had stated the lack of transparency was false, however, he indicated she had sent letters prior to Council approving the appointments. He stated he appreciated her bringing forward the request for the applications to accompany the list of new appointments. He explained looking at the criteria, he had no concerns regarding the appointment of Mr. Mitchell as he met the requirements. He stated the other applicant did not, and he believed as important as that commission was, Mr. Bowen should have been reappointed. He explained he was not the mayor, and while she had the right to appoint individuals, Council had the right to approve the appointments. He stated he had concerns regarding the criteria she used or did not use, as the qualifications in the applicant were not there. Council Member Poeschl stated it was his understanding that the only criteria that someone applying for a board/commission position needed to meet was that they needed to be a citizen of the City of Oshkosh. He explained the criteria did not touch on education or socio/economic status; the application asked why the applicant wanted to serve and what they could bring to the board/commission that could strengthen, adapt or modify the conversation at hand. He stated it was concerning to begin to deem one citizen more qualified than another. He explained work as a public health educator was 19 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 applicable to planning and citizens should be encouraged to pursue whatever level of education they were able to sustain; it should not be diminished. He stated the applicant was part of the future generation of Oshkosh. He explained Council should be encouraging young people to become involved in government and the community. He stated he did not have concerns about the individuals being replaced, as they were already involved in the community and would continue to be. He explained the new applicants were eligible to serve as they were citizens of Oshkosh and brought to the table their experience, their different viewpoints and the desire to serve. He stated he believed Oshkosh had a number of people who wished to serve the community, and as much as current members may enjoy their positions, it was important to give others the opportunity to do so. He explained the process to request and encourage citizens to apply had only gotten better. He stated Council should want a variety of individuals to apply. Council Member Krause agreed with Council Member Poeschl. He stated it came down to change, and while it was difficult to hear of a member not being reappointed who had served for ten years without monetary gain, they were able to spend that time serving and it was time to let someone else gain the experience. Council Member Allison-Aasby stated in the spirit of cooperation she had suggested a compromise that did not seem to gain any traction. She explained in the spirit of moving forward, Council needed to vote. She stated she understood Mr. Bowen had been a major contributor to the plan commission, and if there was not an opportunity to reappoint him and have an alternate within the next two weeks to a month, she explained she would honor the suggestion of the Mayor and vote for the new appointments. She explained she hoped Mr. Bowen, based on his attendance and contributions, would honor the City by applying and serving on another board/commission. Mayor Palmeri thanked the applicants. She explained it had been difficult in the past to get people to apply, and she was inspired and excited to see the number of new applicants. She stated she hoped citizens would understand that when a term expired, it was not a reflection on performance if they were not reappointed; it was a request to allow more room at the table for others to participate. MOTION: MOVE CITIZEN STATEMENTS AHEAD OF PENDING ORDINANCE (Poeschl; second, Allison-Aasby) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri 20 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 CITIZEN STATEMENTS TO COUNCIL Margy Davey, 855 Portside Court, stated she believed it was time to discuss the Oshkosh Civility Project and reminded Council that there was a civility poster hanging in Council chambers. She explained throughout the meeting she had witnessed both careful, respectful statements and disrespectful statements. She recommended Council review that civility project tenant of'be agreeable' which did not mean Council had to agree with each other, however, they needed to disagree civilly. She stated she believed 'don't gossip' applied to the situation as well. She explained she was providing constructive criticism as she wanted Council to be respected and work together well. She stated it was important to have discussion and dissent, however, it needed to be conducted in a respectful manner. ACTION TAKEN ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ordinance 19-311 Approve Zone Change from Institutional (I) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD) at 913 Nebraska Street (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Ordinance 19-312 Approve Zone Change from Institutional District (I) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD); Northeast Corner of Punhoqua Street & Rainbow Drive in Rainbow Memorial Park (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) (Staff Recommends Waiving the Rules & Adopting on First Reading) MOTION: SUSPEND RULES (Mugerauer; second, Krause) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Poeschl asked for an explanation for the request of waiving the rules and adopting on first reading. Ray Maurer, Parks Director, stated there was a contractor prepared to begin the project; significant rainfall had delayed the season, and due to the change in weather, the contractor was ready to begin. He explained Sydney Supple had assisted in raising funds for the project, and it was her hope that prior to leaving for college she would be able to 21 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 participate in an opening celebration. Council Member Miller questioned if the neighbors were informed of the request to waive the rules and move the project forward quicker. Mr. Maurer explained the plan commission had discussed the topic the previous Tuesday, and he had not had an opportunity to contact the neighbors yet. Council Member Miller questioned if there had been any opposition to the project. Mr. Maurer stated three neighbors had participated in the plan commission meeting, and their biggest concern was parking. He explained lighting had to be approved by the plan commission and Council and were not part of the zone change request. He stated he had informed the neighbors that as part of the Rainbow Memorial Park master plan, there was additional parking planned. He explained City staff was aware there would be additional needs for parking at Rainbow Memorial Park and Lakeshore Park. Council Member Miller stated it was his understanding that there was no opposition to the project itself;just concerns regarding parking. Mr. Maurer agreed. Mayor Palmeri stated she had attended the plan commission meeting and had heard a number of neighbors concerned about parking. She explained it was her understanding from speaking with City staff that neighbors were going to be contacted prior to Council waiving the rules. Mr. Maurer stated he had made an attempt and had been unable to get out to the neighborhood. Council Member Poeschl questioned if the neighbors in question were located along Punhoqua Street and Rainbow Drive. Mr. Maurer stated he believed the three individuals who spoke at the plan commission meeting lived across from the ball diamond on Punhoqua Street. Council Member Poeschl questioned if he had communication with those neighbors throughout the process. Mr. Maurer questioned if he meant the ball diamond process. 22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Poeschl stated yes. Mr. Maurer explained he had. He stated the parks board had approved the project last summer and there had been discussions since then. He explained he had not communicated with the neighbors since the most recent plan commission meeting. MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Krause) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Mugerauer explained when he had watched the plan commission meeting,he had the impression that City planning and park staff had identified that there may be areas for improvement within the City's planning process. He stated he believed it had been questioned if City parks should be required to go through the plan development stage to complete certain park improvements. He asked for an explanation of the discussion and potential future plans. Mark Lyons, Principal Planner, explained the City needed to evaluate how the institutional zoning district handled some of these cases. He stated it was a broad zoning district that included parks,municipal facilities, church usage and other non-profit usage. He explained all of the development standards for those uses were the same across the board. He stated there had been discussion about how to separate some of those uses, such as parks, that had significantly different development patterns than other municipal or church uses. He explained it was especially applicable to items such as fencing, which was what had prompted the zone change request. Council Member Miller thanked Sydney Supple for her work raising funds. He questioned how much she raised. Mr. Maurer estimated the amount to be slightly over $100,000 dollars. Council Member Miller explained she had done an amazing job for the community. Ordinance 19-313 Amend Various Sections of Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES 23 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-MAY 28, 2019 Ordinance 19-314 Approve Parking Restrictions on Otter Avenue, in the cul-de-sac between Lake Pointe Drive & Sunnybrook Drive, Custer Avenue & Court Street FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Resolution 19-315 Approve Annual City Licenses (Renewals) MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Resolution 19-316 Approve Combination "Class B" License —Beckets & Screwballs Sports Pub MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Mugerauer, Krause, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Present (1) Poeschl Council Member Poeschl explained he would vote present as he had family members who were the proprietors of the businesses. Resolution 19-317 Approve Specific Implementation Plan for Building Additions at 913 Nebraska Street (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Allison-Aasby) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Mayor Palmeri questioned if this was related to the construction of the classrooms between the church buildings. Devin Winter, 100 Camelot Drive, stated that was correct. Mayor Palmeri requested an explanation of expected enrollment and growth, as well as anticipated traffic for pick-up and drop-off of students. Ben Leibl, 722 Clemans Court, Omro, Principal for Grace Lutheran, explained next year with the building project they anticipated an increase of thirty students. He stated there 24 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 were afterschool events and parent pick-up times that impacted the corner of Nebraska Street and 101h Avenue for approximately ten to fifteen minutes from 2:50 p.m. until 3:05 p.m. He explained there was basketball and volleyball events that utilized street parking. He stated there was a parking lot across from the property on Nebraska Street as well as a City lot that was used after hours. He explained they attempted to alleviate the parking concerns, however, it was not often that they occupied a lot of the street. He stated with the building project, they did anticipate growth in future years. He explained they anticipated to be at 225 students in five years, and they were currently at 135. Mayor Palmeri questioned if the capacity was 225. Mr. Leibl stated yes. Mayor Palmeri questioned if that would result in a significant increase in the traffic pattern. Mr. Leibl stated that was correct. Resolution 19-318 Approve Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for Vehicle Sales at 1911 West Snell Road (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) MOTION: ADOPT (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Mugerauer stated it was his understanding that the applicant had numerous issues with meeting compliance over the last several years. He asked for an explanation of how the approval would help get them in compliance and improve the overall nature of the property. Mark Lyons, Principal Planner, explained there had been a number of issues at the site for several years. He stated City staff and the legal department had been working closely with the applicant to try to come up with a plan that the applicant felt they could meet, and continue to meet, to improve the site. He explained it would include landscape, fencing and other improvements. He stated this was an attempt to wipe the slate clean and move forward with a new site plan. Council Member Mugerauer explained his biggest concern was it was indicated in the City staff report that 'the applicant had a history of being unwilling or unable to follow through with conditions placed on the site related to outside storage'. He questioned 25 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 what change was taking place to improve the compliance. Mr. Lyons stated the applicant had made a good faith request, indicating he intended to move forward, which was why City staff had collaborated to come up with the plan. Council Member Herman questioned if there was a timeline established as the applicant had been non-compliant for over ten years. Mr. Lyons explained the final condition placed on the request was that the applicant would need to be in complete compliance with the full plan within 180 days. Council Member Herman questioned what would happen if the applicant was not compliant within that timeframe. Mr. Lyons explained if there were outstanding issues, City staff would go through the violation process. Council Member Herman stated it was an eyesore and was hurting development in the area. Council Member Allison-Aasby questioned if there had been constant communication, why City staff would allow them 180 days to become compliant as opposed to 90 days. Mr. Lyons explained there was significant modifications that would need to be completed, and City staff had determined that 180 days would be a reasonable timeframe. Council Member Allison-Aasby clarified that it was not the first time the applicant had learned of the non-compliance. Mr. Lyons agreed. Council Member Allison-Aasby questioned why the City would allow the applicant an additional six months to become compliant. Mr. Lyons stated it was the timeframe that was discussed and that the applicant had suggested. He explained Council would be able to shorten the timeframe if they believed it was appropriate. Council Member Poeschl questioned if a tiered approach could be used during the 180 days; for example, at 30 days deadline 'a' would be required, and so on. 26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Amy VandenHogen, Assistant City Attorney, explained she had worked with the applicant's attorney, and as Mr. Lyons had indicated, there was significant work to be done. She stated the tiered approach had not been approved by the applicant. She explained if Council decided that approach was best, she was not certain the applicant would accept it, and may continue litigation. She stated the applicant would need to provide complete landscaping and storage plans for approval, and after that was complete would need to have landscaping, a piling post, fencing and the property would need to be striped. She explained if the work did not occur within six months, enforcement actions would be taken. Council Member Miller questioned if the plan commission had voted unanimously in favor of the plan. Mr. Lyons stated he believed they had. Council Member Krause explained reading through the analysis notes made him question why the City would reward bad behavior; the applicant had been historically non-compliant. Mr. Lyons explained the applicant was putting forth a good faith appeal to become compliant. He stated he had made every indication that he would do so. Council Member Krause stated he would have expected the applicant to be present to discuss the plan. Ms. Lorenson explained the City had been engaged in litigation with the applicant and there had been significant discussion back and forth. She stated this plan cleaned up the concern and made a clean slate for the City. She explained the expectations were clear and it would be easier for the City to proceed if future litigation were to occur. Council Member Mugerauer stated it was his understanding if it was not approved, litigation would continue and it would be difficult for the City. Ms. Lorenson explained it would be more difficult for the City. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if Council approved the resolution, and in six months the applicant had not met the conditions, how long would it take for the City to be able to force compliance once litigation began again and what options would they have at that time. 27 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Ms. VandenHogen stated the process began with a notice that gave the owner a certain period of time to comply; this notice was not affiliated with the court system and was issued by the planning department. She explained issuing a citation would be a relatively quick process, however, a full blown lawsuit could take some time. She stated it would be dependent on the severity of the violation at that time. She explained City staff would be monitoring the progress, and there would be different options if the applicant was not compliant. She stated it was difficult to put an exact timeline on how long it would take the City to remedy the situation if the applicant did not become compliant as there were a number of variables. Council Member Mugerauer stated he understood it was difficult to attribute an exact amount of time. He explained he was not excited to approve the plan, although he understood the ends would justify the means. He stated he wanted to stress that the applicant needed to get in compliance and he expected City staff to reinforce that. Council Member Poeschl explained he was struggling with the idea of Council being responsive to how quickly the concern could be resolved. He stated after the 180 days there was still potential for the applicant to remain uncompliant, and may extend even further depending on how long it took City staff to force compliance at that point. He questioned if Council could be provided a status update in three months. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated City staff could provide an update in three months. Council Member Mugerauer questioned if that language needed to be added to the resolution, or if it would be direction to staff. He explained he believed in three months it would need to go back to the plan commission for their update, and then reported to Council. Council Member Allison-Aasby agreed. She explained although she was not pleased with 180 days, she did respect the work from City staff and the plan commission. She stated once the 180 days was reached, if compliance was not met, she would no longer be sympathetic. Council Member Miller questioned if the agreement gave the City something concrete to enforce. Ms. Lorenson stated yes. Mr. Rohloff explained the agreement gave the City the best chance of being able to enforce 28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 compliance. He stated he would add the topic to the 'outstanding issues' portion of future agendas with a three month timeline so that Council would receive an update. He explained he initially had the same reaction to the agreement as Council; however the attorney's office had indicated it would give the City the best opportunity to enforce compliance. Resolution 19-319 Approve General Development Plan & Specific Implementation Plan for Restaurant / Indoor Entertainment Venue; 2105 South Koeller Street (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Krause) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Bob Poch, W4989 Mariearl Lane, Fond du Lac explained he was the architect and builder for the project, should it go forward, and was present to answer any questions. Council Member Miller questioned if any part of this approval would result in funding from the City. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated no; the resolution as related to the general development plan which described the concept for the location, and the specific implementation plan described what they wished to build and where it would be located. Council Member Miller clarified that there would be no tax payer dollars spent on the project at this stage. Mr. Davis stated that was correct. Mayor Palmeri questioned why the general development plan and specific implementation plan had been presented together. Mark Lyons, Principal Planner, explained City staff gave applicants the option to present the items separately or together; in this case the applicant was relatively far along with the plans they had developed and felt comfortable submitting them together. Council Member Mugerauer stated he understood that the applicant sought to use a significant amount of class four material such as split block. 29 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Mr. Lyons explained the class four material was corrugated metal. He stated the applicant did want to use split block on the bottom of the building. Council Member Mugerauer stated he understood City staff had requested that be replaced with a higher class material. He explained he believed the applicant had identified that it would pose a significant cost increase. He thanked the plan commission for remembering past discussions, especially regarding Oshkosh Avenue, related to the better image the City was trying to project with new developments and to hold them to that standard. He stated he understood the visibility of the project as the building would be visible from all four sides, and would need to look like it belonged in the location from all four sides. Council Member Mugerauer requested a point of privilege. He thanked Darryn Burich, Planning Services Manager, for over 20 years of service for the City and wished him luck in his new endeavors. Mr. Burich thanked Council, previous Council, property owners and residents for the opportunity to serve nearly 25 years. Council Member Allison-Aasby stated she had been elected 8 years ago and she and Mr. Burich had different communication styles and thought processes. She explained he never gave up on the fact that they could achieve some common ground, which she appreciated. She stated he was leaving behind a great legacy and wished him the best. Resolution 19-320 Direct Staff to Negotiate an Agreement with the Town of Oshkosh& a proposed Sanitary & Water Service District in the area currently served by water through the State of Wisconsin through the Winnebago County Mental Health Institute MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri Council Member Mugerauer explained he understood the City may enter into an agreement with the Town of Oshkosh and provide some water service. He questioned if the infrastructure was sound in the area and if it could support what was needed. James Rabe, Director of Public Works, stated the City was already providing the service through the Wisconsin Mental Health Institute (WMHI) so the infrastructure was capable of providing what was necessary. 30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Mugerauer apologized for misunderstanding. Mr. Rabe stated since WMHI attached to the City's water service, they had continued to provide service through their system to the properties in the area. He explained the one exception that needed approval was providing water service outside of the municipal boundary. Mayor Palmeri questioned if there would be additional fiscal impact. Ms. Lorenson explained there would be City staff time and the hiring of consultants required, so there would be some cost. She stated the City services were good up to WMHI; it was their system that was failing. She explained City engineering staff would need to review the system to make sure it was adequate when they attach the new system. Mr. Rabe stated the properties were currently served through WMHI, and this would result in forming a new sanitary district. He explained there would be a signal point connection between the City's system and the sanitary district, which was where the master meter would be installed. He stated there would be City staff time and consultant costs, and the public service commission would need to approve a wholesale rate for the City to sell to the district. Mayor Palmeri questioned if he had a rough estimate of the anticipated cost of City staff time and consulting. Ms. Lorenson indicated she may utilize outside Council for some review, and would estimate her cost to stay under $25,000 dollars. Mr. Rabe stated from a water analysis standpoint, the City was already providing service to WMHI, so the system capabilities had been analyzed. He explained there would be time spent reviewing plans that the district and their engineers prepared in order to make the connection. He stated establishing the wholesale rate with the public service commission would likely require engaging Ehlers for an analysis. Council Member Miller stated he wanted to ensure there was a recovery mechanism in place for the City's costs. Mr. Rohloff explained the City staff costs were soft costs that were built in, and the goal from the beginning was that the City would not pay for the infrastructure, which was estimated at one million dollars. He stated the City had no obligation to fund that portion. He explained the Town would be required to pay the wholesale rate for the 31 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 service and an ongoing meter charge. Mr. Rabe stated although this would be the first wholesale rate case he had been involved in,he expected that would be the case. He explained the resolution would authorize City staff to work on the agreement, which would include the cost recovery mechanisms. He stated sanitary agreements with various townships included cost recovery language that would be similar. Council Member Miller explained he expected that City staff would do well with negotiations;he stated his concern was that the average taxpayer may be concerned about the use of wholesale rates. He explained citizens may question why the Town would receive wholesale rates when customers in the City would not. Ms. Lorenson stated it was more of a reference to how it was metered; the City would meter at the sanitary district line, and the Town would be responsible for the individual bills. Mr. Rabe explained the City was providing service to a municipal entity, and the Town would be responsible for the charge to residents. He stated Ehlers would be engaged to assist in determining the cost of delivering that service. Resolution 19-321 Approve Specific Implementation Plan for a Sall Diamond Generally Located at the Northeast Corner of Punhoqua Street & Rainbow Drive in Rainbow Memorial Park (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) MOTION: ADOPT (Herman; second, Allison-Aasby) MOTION: AMEND TO REMOVE RESTRICTION OF LIGHTING (CONDITION #2) AND REQUIRE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN TO MEET CITY CODE (Mugerauer; second, Poeschl) CARRIED: Ayes (6) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman Noes (1) Mayor Palmeri Council Member Mugerauer stated he understood the plan commission had added the prohibition of field lights. He explained he was aware the original Rainbow Park master plan included lights on the field. He stated he understood the funds were not available for lighting at this time, however, to have the prohibition of lighting on the plan was a concern, as if lights were to be added in the future, it would need to go back before the 32 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 plan commission. Ray Maurer, Parks Director, explained at the plan commission meeting he had requested that the prohibition of lights be withdrawn from the plan. He stated he understood the neighbors' concerns it should be brought through the process. He explained there was an adult softball umpire on the plan commission, who indicated the current available lighting systems focused the light on the field itself. He stated once the plan commission, Council and residents could see that, he believed it would be less of a concern. He explained he would have preferred for the lighting prohibition to not be included, however, he was okay with the plan moving forward. Council Member Miller questioned how many lighted ball diamonds the City had. Mr. Maurer stated there were two at Reetz, one at Spanbauer and three at Red Arrow for a total of six. Council Member Miller questioned how many ball diamonds the City had total. Mr. Maurer stated it was approximately fifteen, including small neighborhood ball diamonds in parks. Council Member Miller questioned if that meant there was a shortage in lighted ball diamonds. Mr. Maurer stated yes. Council Member Poeschl questioned if the concern was that the lights would be pointed at the residences located behind home plate. Mr. Maurer stated he believed that was the neighbors' concern,however,he believed City staff could demonstrate that with the advancements of the lights, there would not be spillover, and the lights would be focused on the field. He explained that was where the light was needed, for the safety of the ballplayers and quality of play. Council Member Miller questioned if it was safe to say that this field would be the flagship diamond. Mr. Maurer stated yes, for the youth. Council Member Miller explained he would like to take the prohibition of lights out at 33 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 this meeting so the battle would not need to be fought in the future. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated when lighting was considered on projects in the community, applicants needed to provide specifications on the lights in regards to the height and type of fixtures, and a photometric plan was completed. He recommended including that as a requirement if Council was considering removing the lighting prohibition. He stated although it may not address the neighbors' concerns, it would meet City code, and demonstrate that the plan was to not have the light spill over into the neighborhood. Mr. Maurer explained according to Mark Lyons, Principal Planner, there was a height restriction on the poles. Mr. Davis stated that was correct. Mayor Palmeri explained the plan commission had made it clear that they did not want to remove the restrictions on the lighting. She stated she would not be in support of amending it at this time. Council Member Poeschl questioned if the lighting restriction was left in place, would the City be able to provide the photometric plan, and have the plan appear again before the plan commission and Council. Mr. Davis stated yes. Council Member Poeschl stated it was his understanding that they were debating something that would potentially take place through the normal process anyway. Council Member Miller explained he believed the biggest obstacle and the reason there was a shortage of lighted ball diamonds in Oshkosh was due to getting neighbors approval, which had been an obstacle with chicken coops and beehives as well. He stated he would like to address the restriction, as there was a shortage of ball diamonds, specifically lighted ball diamonds. Mayor Palmeri explained that the photometric plan would only address if light spilled over onto adjacent properties. She stated given that there may be a number of shift workers or other individuals sensitive to the extra lighting, she believed Council should stand by what the plan commission advised. She explained she would not support the amendment. 34 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Herman stated he would support the amendment as there were sufficient boards and commissions that would review the future lighting plan. He explained the Lakeshore master plan remained undetermined. He stated it would not result in lights being immediately installed; it was removing the prohibition of lighting for the future. He explained he agreed with Council Member Miller; there was one lighted hard ball diamond in the City. Council Member Poeschl questioned if there was a plan to address parking in the area. Council Member Herman stated the Rainbow Park master plan addressed parking. Mr. Maurer explained it was in the park master plan; there was proposed additional parking north of the ball diamond and there was potential for additional parking related to the Lakeshore master plan, near the end of Punhoqua Street. Mayor Palmeri requested the map be displayed. Mr. Maurer pointed out on the map the area he had referenced. Council Member Poeschl explained he had concerns related to parking, and he hoped that there would be a parking area so that street parking remained minimal. Mr. Maurer stated he could not disagree that there was a shortage in parking outside of street parking. Council Member Krause questioned if the field was designated for children. Mr. Maurer stated it was a youth field. Council Member Krause stated lights would likely not be turned on until between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., and to feel the full impact of a dark night would not occur until 9:00 p.m. Mr. Maurer explained during most summer evenings, it would be approximately 8:30 p.m. Council Member Krause questioned if youth games would last that late. He stated he believed the lights would never be used. Mr. Maurer stated he would not state that they would never be used; it would depend 35 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 on the scheduling of the games, however, youth games tended to end between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Council Member Poeschl explained based on what Council Member Krause stated, he was considering leaving the lighting restriction as there was not necessarily a later evening need. He stated Council Member Miller and Mr. Maurer had indicated it would be the flagship ball diamond; he asked for an explanation of that statement. Council Member Miller explained it would be the focus of continued fundraising and would be a great field. He stated what many people did not understand about youth sports, especially girls' softball, was that if they were rained out, the teams played double headers. He explained it would be convenient to be able to play double headers on the lighted field until approximately 9:30 p.m. He questioned how long the lights were left on at Reetz. Mr. Maurer stated park hours ended at 11:00 p.m., however, the lights were typically turned off before that. Council Member Miller explained the lighting would be a huge asset to youth players, especially girls' softball. Council Member Poeschl questioned if there was a restriction on how late the lights could be on, similar to the noise ordinance. Mr. Maurer stated it was typically park hours, which was 11:00 p.m.,however, it was rare that a youth field had lights on that late. Council Member Mugerauer clarified that when considering the time when lights would be needed, Council needed to consider beyond the daylight hours of July. He stated baseball and softball were played during April and May as well. He explained he had grown up playing the sport, and the sun set much earlier in April and May, which was when the lights were needed the most to accommodate the young athletes. Council Member Herman explained the Convention and Visitors Bureau had conducted a study of athletic fields in the City approximately five years ago, and reported that Oshkosh was seriously lacking fields. He stated during the summer, there were youth leagues trying to fundraise, that could not hold tournaments because they did not have lights. He explained the amendment would not immediately result in lights; it removed the restriction so that if funding was available in the future, there would be an opportunity. 36 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 VOTE ON AMENDED RESOLUTION CARRIED: Ayes (6) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman Noes (1) Mayor Palmeri COUNCIL DISCUSSION, DIRECTION TO CITY MANAGER &FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Palmeri stated Council needed to provide direction to City staff regarding inactive licenses for Matschi's and Uptown 2. Mr. Rohloff explained the businesses were not operating or using their Class B liquor license. He stated there was a story behind each of them, and City staff had a recommendation for Council. He explained Council policy was to bring the liquor license back when there was a period of inactivity for one year. He stated the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) had considered purchasing Matschi's, however, there was a federal tax lien, and although they had filed for a renewal of the license, City staff believed it was appropriate to go through a non-renewal process. He explained there were two vacant licenses and the idea was to pool the licenses for the City so that when projects came forward there would be licenses available. He stated if the businesses did not have their licenses renewed, and later were able to resolve the issues preventing them from being active, they would be able to apply for a license at that time. He explained the pool method worked; he had experience in it, and it allowed the City the opportunity to work with new projects. He stated Uptown 2 was slightly different, as they were ready to open, however, they were located at 1601 Oregon Street;it was not a self-imposed problem, due to the heavy construction, the business was impeded. He explained City staff recommended going through the process and renewing the license, and if they were not performing after construction was complete, the license could be reviewed at that time. He stated doing a grand re-opening of a bar in the middle of a construction project was likely not a good business plan. He explained there was another business that was inactive and had not reapplied; if they did not reapply there would be a third license in the pool. He stated if Council chose to pursue a non-renewal process with Matschi's, there would be a hearing and the owner would come before the Council. He explained since the City had started this process, businesses had been understanding and trusting, and it allowed for more flexibility. Council Member Poeschl stated he was not familiar with Matschi's, and asked for the address of the business. Mr. Rohloff indicated the address was 668 N. Main Street. 37 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Mayor Palmeri explained it was next to Pedestrian Arts. Council Member Miller questioned if Council was looking at taking the licenses away from the businesses. Mr. Rohloff stated City staff was asking for direction to schedule a non-renewal hearing, in which they would have an opportunity to present their case for keeping the license. Council Member Miller questioned if the owners had been notified that the discussion was taking place, and if they had been given the opportunity to come and speak. Mr. Rohloff stated the non-renewal hearing would give them the opportunity to speak; Council would need to provide direction to City staff to get the process started. Council Member Mugerauer explained he agreed with City staff's proposal to bring Matschi's forward for a non-renewal hearing, and allow Uptown 2 to renew if they applied, given the circumstances of construction on Oregon Street. Council Member Herman stated he agreed. He explained he thought at one point there had been a review of a license after six months,however,he wanted to stay on the current course of action as he believed the other option was more difficult. Ms. Lorenson explained it would be more difficult. Council Member Herman explained he supported moving forward. Mayor Palmeri agreed. Mr. Rohloff explained he appreciated the direction. He stated City staff would like direction from Council regarding incorporating the new parks operations facility into the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) five year plan. He explained Council had provided direction regarding the creation of new debt policy, and the two items would be connected. He stated the goal was to show Council how it could be accomplished within the City's borrowing plan. He explained he and Trena Larson, Finance Director, would incorporate other projects into the debt policy, and prioritize. He stated a number of items would be dependent on the economy; if the City did not receive an increase in equalized value, it would be difficult to bring the parks facility project forward. He explained the City was down close to sixty percent of the debt limit and had done better than expected in the original debt policy. He stated the question was now where to go next with the debt policy, and how flexible Council wanted to be. 38 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 Council Member Herman explained he would like to discuss the topic at the next Council meeting as he did not believe two of the Council members had seen the park study or the debt policy from the long range finance committee. He stated he supported incorporating the parks facility into the Capital Improvement five year plan, as he did not believe the City should spend up to $300,000 dollars to repair the parks facility when it would be a temporary fix. Several Council Members agreed. Mr. Rohloff stated there was no urgency. Council Member Krause stated he agreed with Council Member Herman; he did not believe the City should invest money into such a poor facility. Mayor Palmeri stated she would like to move the discussion on the boards and commissions study to the June 111h Council meeting due to the late hour,number of items left on the agenda and the closed session. Council Member Herman explained he believed the discussion on the open Council seat process should also take place during the June 111h Council meeting. Council agreed to discuss the items at the June 111h Council meeting. CO UNCIL MEMBER ANNO UNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS Council Member Herman reminded Council there would be a closed session on June 251h to complete the mid-year evaluation of the City Manager. He requested Council provide him anything they would like to add for consideration, however, he did not want the information electronically. He explained the information was confidential as it was related to a closed session. CITY MANAGER ANNO UNCEMENTS & STATEMENTS Mr. Rohloff stated the owners of City Center had indicated they planned to open up the parking garage for free public parking during the Festival Foods Fireworks. He explained City staff had learned other municipalities were having success with events of limited scope, area and time in which the public was allowed to consume alcohol on City streets. He stated the City had experimented with the concept slightly over ten years ago, with an event in Opera House Square. He explained Pioneer Drive was not yet a City park, although the City owned it, and it would be a popular spot for citizens to watch the fireworks. He stated he believed it was an opportune time to see if the public could 39 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 28, 2019 respond responsibly. He explained City staff would like to bring it forward at the last Council meeting in June, so that it could be in place by July 41h. He stated if it was successful, the City could consider allowing it at additional events. He explained from a competitive standpoint, City staff was aware that other communities were successfully allowing it. He stated most communities did not allow the consumption to continue into the evening hours and outside of the fireworks, the City planned to have it geared more towards daytime events. He listed Octoberfest and Mile of Music in Appleton; alcohol consumption was only permitted in the streets until 6:00 p.m. Council Member Miller stated he did a fair amount of traveling, and he believed Oshkosh was 'behind the times' for being Event City. He explained a number of cities he travelled to allowed consumption on City streets. Council Member Mugerauer stated he would support a resolution regarding this topic, given the limited scope and the thought process behind it. He explained it especially made sense with the unique opportunity with the new location for the 41h of July fireworks. Mr. Rohloff explained it would be an ordinance, and even if it took two readings,it would be adopted prior to the 41h of July. He recognized the newly established Menominee North neighborhood association. Council Member Herman stated he lived within the neighborhood, and it was a large association of over 450 residential properties. He explained he was excited that the north side of Oshkosh had embraced the idea of neighborhood associations. Mayor Palmeri suggested moving recognition of neighborhood associations to the beginning of future Council agendas. Mr. Rohloff stated that was a great idea. He stated Oshkosh Media had received four excellence awards from Wisconsin Community Media at their recent conference. He explained there was a cooperative purchase of an emergency generator for the safety building as it was 30 years old and had been in the budget. He stated based on earlier conversation, he would add the status update for the property at 1911 W. Snell Road to the status of outstanding issues list. He explained the POLCO survey was now open for Lakeshore Park and encouraged the public to share their thoughts. 40 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL-MAY 28, 2019 MOTION: CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS BARGAINING OPTIONS, STRATEGY,PARAMETERS AND TERMS RELATED TO THE NEGOTIATION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MARION ROAD REDEVELOPMENT SITES H, I AND J AND THE REDEVELOPMENT OF AVIATION PLAZA PURSUANT TO SECTION 19.85(1)(E) OF THE WISCONSIN STATE STATUTES WHERE COMPETITIVE BARGAINING REASONS REQUIRE A CLOSED SESSION (Herman; second, Mugerauer) CARRIED: Ayes (7) Mugerauer, Krause, Poeschl, Miller, Allison-Aasby, Herman, Mayor Palmeri MOTION: ADJOURN (Mugerauer; second, Herman) CARRIED: VOICE VOTE The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. PAMELA R. UBRIG CITY CLERK 41