I would call to order the meeting of our common council for Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026.

Clark.

Thank God we have 12 members for present to the room and 12 members of the voting cloud.

All right.

Now please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for an invocation offered by Alder Presley.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and which it stands.

Alder Presley.

Approval of the minutes.

Motion to approve made by Alder Prophet.

Seconded by Alder Stevens.

Any changes here.

Seeing none, all in paper say aye.

Oppose nay.

The ayes have it.

The minutes are approved.

Approval of the agenda.

Motion to approve made by Alder Presley and seconded by Alder Hinkfus.

Any changes here.

Seeing none, all in paper say aye.

Oppose nay.

The ayes have it and the agenda has been approved.

Report by the mayor.

Um plenty of things to say, but I'll keep it to uh Shawnee Avenue and short-term rentals.

So um just an informational item on the uh INS report, but um want to thank Director Houston and Assistant Director Brunette uh for both providing an update on a kind of a recap on what was done in 2025 and then also sharing with the council and the community what is planned for 2026.

I think the highlight there is Shawnee Avenue um being improved with our our mill and pay program.

Um yes, everyone's very excited.

Uh we wished uh the state would have moved a little faster and um and take taking care of this obligation which which is theirs, but recognizing how much this street has deteriorated over the years.

Um I think everybody agrees that this is the right move.

Um so very excited to see that happen in uh in early summer of 2026.

Next, uh short-term rentals.

We've had a lengthy conversation about short-term rentals um in this body here and in the community, and I think we're we're at a good spot given the constraints that our council gave us the constraints we're operating under with state law, so just want to recognize Chief Walds and uh and our planning folks, um, our Alders who uh initiated a lot of this conversation, Equal Rights Commission citizens who've been very actively engaged.

Um as I said, I think we we got to a good point with it.

Um so looking forward to approval on that item later this evening.

Uh announcements from council.

No announcements.

Reappointments.

Motion to approve the reappointments was made by Alder Prophet and seconded by Alder Galvin.

Any comments?

Seeing none, all paper say aye.

Aye.

Oppose nay.

The ayes have it, and those reappointments are made.

We have one public hearing.

This is miscellaneous ordinance number zero one-26, an ordinance adopting an amendment to the Go Big Green Bay 2050 comprehensive plan of the city of Green Bay related to the property located at 801 and 821 Lime Film Road from neighborhood commercial to regional commercial, CPA 26-01.

Anyone here would like to speak to that item?

Anyone here who would like to speak to that item?

Anyone here who would like to speak to that item?

Uh clerk, please let the record reflect there's no one here to speak to that item.

Next uh ordinances, second reading for adoption.

Motion to suspend the rules made by Alder Prophet.

That was seconded by Alder Hinkfus.

That's uh to suspend the rules, take up these items with one roll call vote.

All in favor will say aye.

Oppose nay.

Motion to adopt um made by Alder Eck.

Sounds good.

Seconded by Alder Hinkfus.

Uh any discussion on that.

Seeing none, we'll use the board.

Take just a moment.

It's not also and uh those ordinances are adopted 10 to 2.

Report of the redevelopment authority.

Motion to approve by Elder Prophet.

Seconded by Elder Presley.

Any comments here?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Close nay.

Guys have it.

That item has been approved.

Report of the improvement and services committee.

Motion to approve my bell to delay, seconded by elder act.

Items here to be handled separately.

16.

16.

Any others.

All right.

Hearing none others, all in favor of approving the remainder of the report.

We'll signify by saying aye.

Close nay.

Yeah, I have it.

The report has been approved, the exception of item 16.

Uh Alder Johnson.

Yeah, just a question for Director Juice.

And again, this is specifically related to the Shawnee Avenue, Mill and Pave.

Uh, have has your department done an estimate of cost on uh what it's gonna cost the city to do that stretch.

We did a rough estimate and we're looking at 400 to 500,000.

It's still being, you know, the mill and pave uh contract is still um being put together.

Um so we don't have bid results yet.

Okay.

And then um from your professional uh experience when normally you resurface a road, uh what is the average lifespan?

Ten years maybe on a stretch like that.

Um I had that information in one of the prior INS sentences I don't have it in front of me.

Um I'm not looking for yeah, it was precision, but I I don't know recall if it was 10 or 20 years.

Okay, yeah, and I think I've seen just through my online search results, right?

20 years can be uh common, but if you're on a sort of high impact road that a shorter lifespan uh might be more appropriate.

And part of the reason I'm asking, uh it's all gonna lead to something.

So the um the reconstruction that the state is scheduling currently engineering.

Um are we about five years out on that yet?

It's planned for 2031, and then in 2030 we would need to do utilities.

Right.

Okay.

So it you know, and and I certainly obviously appreciate the enthusiasm from the gallery here around the fact that we are resurfacing it, but uh I'm equally excited about it.

I mean, this is something obviously we've been really trying to press the state on for a while, and I know when one of our more recent um meetings that we had with the DOT when we talked about this, I know I personally raised the point that I I did not think it was acceptable for this pavement to stay in this condition for the next five to six years while this project uh was was engineered recognizing the uh I I think you'd probably be pretty universal if you pulled people what's the worst road in Green Bay.

And it would obviously only get worse.

And um, you know, my concern here now, of course, is that it is a state road.

It is the state's responsibility.

And now the city is going to spend upwards of a half a million dollars uh to get really five years out of a road when normally we'd spend a half a million dollars and get twenty ten to twenty years uh out of that that same work.

And when we think about the amount of work that we have here in our community that needs to be done, um it just is obviously disappointing to me.

Um that we can't find a path forward with the state.

I know mayor's office definitely tried, and and I appreciate that.

Uh, but I just want to put a spotlight on this because obviously we get a lot of criticism around things like the wheel tax.

And just as a reminder, the wheel tax generates around two million a year, probably nets a million a year after you take away the special assessment deferments.

That means half of our annual wheel tax is going to fix this to get you know 25 to 50 percent of what normally would be the lifespan that you'd want to get out of this type of investment on a road that we're not even responsible for maintaining.

But it has to be done, and I get that.

And so uh I just wanted to make these comments to hopefully draw a little bit of attention um to all of us to maybe do some outreach with our state reps to see if there's uh any type of way that the state can help support this.

They clearly have um a much larger budget.

This is a rounding error on some of their accounts, uh, but it is not a rounding error to a local municipality like ours.

Um so it's certainly not the hill I'm gonna die on, but I at least want to put a little bit of a spotlight on um what this decision means.

Um, because as much as I do want to applaud, there is uh unfortunately a drawback to the decision that has to be made.

So can I clarify that it's gonna be a mill and pave though, not a resurfacing?

So if it were true resurfacing, it would be a much higher cost.

Yep.

Sorry, I apologize.

I'm kind of using the terms interchangeably, but absolutely right.

And by the way, kudos, I mean, public works department really for uh developing that.

I know Alder Hutchinson was on the front of that too, to really you know try to find a way for us to do more roads with the same resources and uh really excited to see that roll out.

And I believe the city uh Facebook page put out a video um that was created about sort of the ins and outs of mill and page.

So uh Michael, uh that was a really good piece.

I encourage the public to go check that out.

Appreciate comments.

Uh Alder Gallon.

Uh Director Juice, and I and I don't know if you have this information, Andy, but as I was sitting here, I was thinking back.

The state of Wisconsin gives us money every year to maintenance state roads.

Correct.

Do you know approximately how much that is?

I do not have that in front of me.

No.

Okay.

I I guess the point I'm making is I've been an alder for 10 years now.

I've been hearing about Shawnee Avenue for 10 years.

I remember at one point I said something on a social media, and I got a shot back from one of our state reps who said, Well, we give you, and at that time it was $650,000 a year.

Yeah.

Now, granted, prices have gone up, but when you think about that and what we're paying, just the mill, it you know, and we've got how many other miles of state roads that we have to maintain and take care of.

I mean, it's it's it's not doing us justice, uh, what's going on in the state.

And I just want to make that point also.

Yeah, and I know we had some recent conversations about Shawnee and you know, the future design of that.

Um this section of road, I believe it's it was under a hundred thousand that we get for that section.

Um, because I know we talked about if we you know we were to reduce the lanes, um, there would be a reduction in the amount we get from the state.

Sure.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, any other comments?

Okay, I don't think we need a motion since it's informational.

So we'll move along to protection and policy committee.

Motion to approve, maybe Alder Profit seconded by Alder Stevens.

Items here to be handled separately.

Any others none others all in favor of approving the remainder of that report?

Signify with saying aye.

The eyes have it.

The report has been approved, the exception of items one and five on item one, Alder Stevens.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, we need to make a recommendation to refer this back to protection and policy.

And before we vote on it, if city attorney coach hard could uh fill us in on the recommendation for Stevens uh moves to refer this back to committee seconded by Alder Morgan, attorney coach.

Yeah, so my recommendation to Alder Stevens to refer it back is just because some additional information records were provided to the Alders just before the meeting.

Um and city staff, including Officer Mavis hasn't had an opportunity to review that.

Uh, but we did also uh meet with the petitioner and he agreed to the um the understanding this can be referred back and heard on Monday at PMP and then a final decision will hear and we have an agreement also about um his dog as well.

Okay.

Any uh comments or questions on that?

Uh Alder Johnson.

Yeah, thank you, attorney.

Uh just for clarity's sake, uh, I know this is on here as an appeal.

Was this intended to be a quasi-judicial hearing?

No, it's not intended to be because that was um that was held at PNP on Monday.

Um, that's hence the reason for the additional documents recommendation.

And the petitioner brought up um just to note that he had received the uh police department's records.

So just in in sort of caution about process, uh, that was my recommendation to refer it back.

So all of the records could be reviewed by the committee, and then their new recommendation will come back to the subsequent meeting.

Okay, and then just uh part of the reason I asked the question is recognizing obviously when when it's a quasi judicial hearing at their um obviously recommendations and maybe limits on um any type of engagement uh that council should be having would that apply here.

Yeah, so that was my concern about the additional records that were distributed prior to the meeting, and then also I as I said the petitioner uh brought up the point that he did not have his records or some records that he requested.

I don't have all the details prior to the PNP meeting.

So, in order to just make sure everybody's had a chance to review all the records that have been provided to the alders and others, uh that was my recommendation referred back.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So there was a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Close nay.

The ayes have it, and that item has been referred back to committee.

Next up is item five to approve a draft uh general ordinance zero six-26 related to designated outdoor refreshment area.

Uh uh Alder Prophet makes a motion to open the floor, seconded by Alder Hutchison.

All in favor will say aye.

Close nay.

The ayes have it, and the floor is open.

Uh if anyone would like to speak to that item, the designated outdoor refreshment area.

And if you just wanted to state your name and address uh for the council, you have three minutes.

Hi, I'm Kristen Johnson.

I live at 115 East Walnut Street in the Metro Apartments.

And I'm not against Dora.

I've learned a little bit more after talking to Alder Prophet.

And um, I feel like my concerns are probably going to be addressed, but I just wanted to reiterate for the council that um this will be occurring right outside my bedroom window.

And uh my neighbors, you know, we're kind of a sleepy building, and we there's not very much noise unless it's on the weekend, and then you expect it on Walnut Street and Washington Street.

But a lot of the neighbors that live alongside the river, you know, are used to being able to go to bed and wake up and go to work in the morning.

We have a lot of medical professionals in the building that I want to make sure that this doesn't interfere with um the quiet that we're used to, although I am in favor of fun as well.

And it it it seems like it would be an economic benefit to the area, and I do appreciate that, but I want to make sure that my neighbors are educated on exactly what this will entail and and the rules that will be around it, specifically addressing the the time.

And I I worry that 10 o'clock is maybe too late, which makes me sound really old.

But um, and then there's another concern that I have about kids because there are a lot of people who bring their families down to the river walk, and I I wouldn't want children to get a hold of any empty containers that were or you know, half filled containers that were left along the river or trash in the river.

Um, you know, there's concerns like that that can probably be addressed.

Um the other bigger concern I have is safety and specifically traffic safety on the corner of Walnut in Washington.

Some of you are aware that last well, Halloween 2024, I was hit as a pedestrian while I was walking across the street, and it was only 6:30 p.m.

So if there are people drinking on the river walk and getting in their cars and driving through our neighborhood, that's that's a big concern for me and for a lot of the other people that walk to the next location.

Um, so those those are my concerns, and I would just ask that you know, before anything be implemented, maybe there could be um a meeting for people who are interested parties to learn more about this program and to see if there's any other things that need to be done to ensure that it is safe and um good for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else who'd like to speak on that one.

Motion to close the floor made by Alder Profit and seconded by Alder Students.

All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Close nay.

You guys have it, floor's closed.

Alder Profit.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve made by Alder Profit and seconded by Alder Johnson.

And then just brief comment.

Um, I've been in touch with Kristen.

Um, I've offered a neighborhood meeting, and I'm gonna hold up my end of the bargain, but also um been in contact with downtown Green Bay, Inc.

about um having other types of meetings with the business owners as well that are gonna be affected by this.

So I'm definitely gonna hold true to my word there.

Um but we have a second reading coming up at our next one.

Um so gonna have some of those conversations in between.

But what's in front of us tonight, I am I still feel strongly are some really good bones to move forward.

So that's why I made the motion to approve.

And Kristen, I saw your email.

We will set up a date and I will make myself available to any questions and we'll bring in any staff.

I know the clerk will be involved in a meeting this week um yet with um some of the business owners.

So we're we're certainly open to that.

And as Alder Johnson alluded to alluded to earlier, um, Michael's really good at putting out some informational videos.

Uh, so we'll make sure we we got some media here, I think that are interested in this topic as well.

Um, business owners that could put up um some information right within their business.

Uh we'll make sure that the community is informed about how this program will work before it's rolled out this summer.

That's great.

So those comments, anything else?

Alder Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor.

And and thank you, Kristen, for coming out as well and sharing your perspective.

It's always important to hear maybe some of those ways that policies might impact um others within our neighborhoods that maybe aren't participating or using uh what that item might be.

Um in this case, I I was gonna suggest the same thing that Alder Prophet alluded to, which is I think downtown Green Bay may probably in partnership with the neighborhood association could likely hold some type of neighborhood meeting to really kind of talk about this.

And uh Chief Davis, I was also maybe thinking this could be incorporated into the safety summit that we do for the businesses in May.

Um seems like a timely and appropriate topic to make sure that those who are within that footprint um have every opportunity, I guess, to understand the rules and and how things will be enforced with that.

Umone who has experienced this in other communities.

Um, I think sometimes the just the initial idea of it uh can be somewhat overwhelming.

Sometimes our minds might drift to this idea that there's gonna be a huge party in the street, and from my experience with other communities, it's it's a pretty uh low-key type of thing.

Uh and I think what it does is it helps address maybe some of the chronic challenges or issues that we've had uh with enforcement on the city deck.

Um, for those not overly familiar, the city deck is technically considered a park.

And so um, we obviously have a couple of businesses that run adjacent to the city deck that oftentimes overflow into the city deck.

And while I think we addressed uh one of those businesses uh with a with a lease agreement that we had done maybe a year or so ago.

Um, but I I think this just kind of helps create a better blanket policy uh so that way we're not running a foul of the law, um, but still allowing some of those um responsible fun things uh to happen.

So thanks, Alder.

Any other comments, questions?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Okay, posed nay, the ayes have it, and that item has been approved.

Report of the Green Bay Police Department granting operator licenses.

Motion to approve made by Alder Prophet and seconded by Alder Ritterbush.

Any abstentions or names to be handled separately?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose nay, the ayes have it.

That report has been approved.

Plan commission.

Motion to approve made by Elder Prophet.

Seconded by Alder items here to be handled separately.

Any others?

Three.

One and three.

Hearing none others, all in favor of approving the remainder of that report.

Signify by saying aye.

Yes, have it.

The report has been approved with the exception of items one and three on item one, Alder Prophet.

Um, after some conversation with both staff and the applicant, I'd like to offer an amendment to strike recommendation number four uh from the conditional use permit.

So out of those eight recommendations that came out of plan commission, would like to strike four.

Um, I don't know if uh director wants to add any more, but um, the applicant is is here and have talked to them.

They're in favor of it, and staff is in favor of it.

So that is my amendment.

Is there a second for Alder Profit's amendment?

Second, seconded by Alder Hinckfus on that, Director Rainer Wick.

Anything I think this was a point at the plan commission and Alder Hutchinson.

We talked about this as well.

Um, there was some there was a design element on the project, and um our zoning administrator met with the team over there, and we're able to come together with a compromise on that design.

So that's number four that's being removed.

So very good.

Any other comments on the amendment?

Alder Johnson, the neck.

Yeah, I was just looking for clarity.

So uh list of recommendations, item number four, uh, which is uh no building addition shall extend past the front building facade.

Okay, just want to be sure we're yeah.

I believe the agreement uh was we're okay now with that coming out um with the desire to have a window there um to just kind of match the other side of the building, and I believe the applicant and staff are all in agreement with with that plan moving forward.

Nothing that was it.

Okay, sounds good.

Any other comments?

Seeing none, all in favor of all the profits amendment, signify by saying aye.

I have aye.

You guys have it.

That amendment has been adopted.

Motion to approve is amended made by Alder Prophet and seconded by Alder DeLee.

Any discussion there?

Elder Johnson?

Not really discussion, but maybe just more of an extension of gratitude.

Um obviously we have a lot of need in our community, and I think anytime you have um an existing facility that uh really has a track record of success when they're able to expand their services to continue to serve those in need in our community.

Uh you'll always have my appreciation and um look forward to seeing how this comes together.

Absolutely.

Well said anything else?

All right, all in favor will signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it, and that item has been approved as amended.

Item three to approve amendments to section 44-1580J of the Green Bay Municipal Code on short-term rentals.

Um that was Alder Hinkfis.

I'm gonna move to approve um, but amend it to say to add um to the app occupancy that they're expecting, which I talked to planning, and then if we can add if it's owner or non-owner occupied.

That was a request that just came in from one of our so it's basically the application and adding.

Okay.

So Alder Hinkfis has an amendment.

Can you just restate that?

Um, the the amendment would be that we add to the application the occupancy, meaning whatever they're gonna market it at.

The maximum occupancy.

Yes.

And number two, whether it's owner or non-owner occupied.

So when they go out and they look on the GIS system, they would be able to know that when once that gets put out there.

Okay, is there a second for that amendment?

Seconded by Alder Stevens.

Um Rector Pernir Wig or Shirley.

Anybody want to comment on that or Chief Alds?

Just really anybody at all.

I I mean, I think we should be fine with that.

I think what we'll want to do before the ordinance gets approved, is just verify.

Um if someone does not put an on the application that it's home or owner, excuse me, owner occupied or not, um, if we can deny it, I think it'll be denied based on the application being incomplete, as opposed to we can't deny if it's owner occupied or not owner occupied.

So just make that clear.

So we can require it.

I think we can require it on the application.

That's what we'll have to research, but we can't deny if it's owner occupied or not.

Right.

That this is more informational for the community, not to deny or approve.

It's just informational so that when they go out and look on the GIS, they know.

That information would be.

Yes, that information would be available.

Okay.

Mr.

Leroy, anything on that?

Note for owner occupied.

If you were to rent out a room in your house, be it for short term or for long term, you do not need to apply for a permit for short-term rental.

If in your own occupied, you it's just it isn't applicable to a short-term rental now.

I do acknowledge that you could have something where you rent out your house for a weekend and you go somewhere else.

So, but typically speaking, I just want to make it known that if you're living there and you happen to rent out a house or say a room in your house, you do not need a short-term rental permit.

Uh a duplex would be its own individual unit.

So if you're living in that unit itself and you're then traveling to go somewhere else for say a weekend, um, yes, you're not living in that unit at the time, but um, it'd be the same habitability as a single unit or two family.

But a duplex is not considered to be owner-occupied if you're renting out the it's a separate unit.

It's not, yeah, whether it's owner-occupied or if it's a different renter, that's the typical more long-term rental.

Right.

Okay.

So what you're saying is that it if it's part of your house you're renting out, you don't need short-term rental.

So we can basically anything that's out there is non-owner occupied.

There's a difference as far as how you would treat the house.

If you if you were to you own the house, you occupy it, but let's say you put it onto a short-term rental site and you want to rent it out for a packer weekend, and you leave.

So you're not occupying the house at that point.

At that point, you need an STR permit.

But if you are, I just want to make it known if you're somebody who happens to rent out a room, whether it's short-term or long term, you don't need to have a permit for that for a short-term rental.

That's all.

Just pick some clarification for that.

Yeah.

And I think that will even make it clearer.

So then we I will remove that amendment because we can assume anything that's out there is non-owner occupied.

So if we add in the maximum or whatever the occupancy, whatever they're marketing it for, that's that's it.

Uh yeah, just one second.

Alder Presley on that.

Elder Hinkfist, I think you should keep your amendment.

Um, because you can have the difference the there's three things we're talking about here.

There's just the regular short-term rental where you own the house, but you don't live there and you rent it out.

There's owner occupied, which means it's your primary address, um, but you leave for the weekend and then you rent it out for a packer game or whatever it is.

It's your uh it's your address, you live there, but you're just for a temporary time renting it out, which means you do need the permit.

Um, and then there's home share, which is when you have just a room in your house if you have a spare bedroom and you're renting it out while you're living there as well.

So I think if in the interest of transparency, since it is required to have a permit for owner occupied, then I I think your your amendment is good there.

And it uh Mr.

Leroy, am I right there?

Yeah.

Um, Alderack.

I and I understand how um what you're saying, older Presley.

Um, the only thing is is at the time that it's being rented, it won't be owner occupied.

They won't be there.

So it kind of still doesn't apply.

I understand they own it, but if they're renting it out and they have to leave so that somebody can rent the whole house, they're still not going to be there.

Does that make sense?

That's what I was confused about.

Well, you do still need a permit, but they you're still not gonna be there.

The is what my point is.

Mr.

Leroy.

We're looking at as owner-occupied as being it's your you live there, that's your house.

So you're occupying the home.

You're asking for a short-term rental permits because you're going to lease the home for a short amount of time when you're not actually there, but you won't you occupy that the majority of the time.

It's just in this case, you're leaving and letting somebody else rent the place for a predetermined amount of time.

Right, uh Alder Grant on the amendment.

Um, and just a question, I guess, for clarification from Alder Hinkfist, and I'm okay with the amendment, but what are you hoping to be transparent about?

Are you hoping that it gives the information to neighbors that if there's a complaint, the owner is there?

Or is that I guess what is the goal behind it?

Well, the goal behind it is when they find out there is one, that the information is available.

They don't have to call the city, they'll know if it's owner occupied.

Well, we know it's not owner-occupied because it has a short-term rental um license, but then they will also know how many people, what is the max occupancy?

Because one of the things within the ordinance is that we don't want to have visitors when we talk about house rules, that you know, there's 20 people there, we don't want to invite 20 more.

So that will also help our lease if there are any calls.

Yep, no, mine I was more asking for clarification on the owner-occupied part because if it's uh who do they contact, should they go to the owner because they should be on the premises.

I don't want to create the idea that it is owner-occupied when they have left for the weekend and the owner isn't there, and they think, oh, I can call the owner, they should be there.

So that's the only reason that I'm asking about the owner-occupied part is the goal that the person knows that if there's an issue, they can contact that owner and they should be there to handle it, or the owner should be keeping an eye on it.

So there should be less issues, because if they're not there, they're not there to monitor it, I guess is my point.

So I want to make sure if we're adding that amendment that we're not giving a false idea to neighbors when they're seeing that information that the owner is there monitoring it, because that may not be the case in some situations, it sounds like there wouldn't be a short-term rental license for that one for what you just said.

So it wouldn't even be out there on the team.

Yes.

This is fairly confusing.

But I think if you leave for the weekend, yeah.

Uh John, you said if so I I own my house, I leave for the weekend and rent it just for the weekend, that would require short-term rental permit, correct?

Correct.

But I would that would come or be registered as an owner occupied because I own it's my primary residence.

I live there 95% of the year, I'm leaving for that weekend.

Right, because the property would when you're questioning who's the owner, the the address is the owner who's occupying the house, yes.

So that's what I'm saying.

If you're if you if someone then were to look at my house and see that there's loud noises, Jen should be there and know what's going on, but I'm not.

So that's the only reason.

If we're going to disclose that information, I just want to make sure that it's consistent and makes sense, is all.

And then on max occupancy, um, I think Director Renierwick just wanted to clarify.

Well, I just wanted to clarify that.

If you you rent out a place, like a short-term rental place, right?

Let's say you're gonna have an event or a wedding or something, there may be max capacity, and usually that's referring to sleeping overnight.

So our max capacity is 20 people in this house, but you may have 50 people there during the day for that event.

So I just because you what you said would contradict that.

You know, if you if the max capacity on the sign said 20, I would assume that's 20 people that could sleep there, but there may be more than that there during the day.

Right.

But when we talk about house rules, we've actually listed within the house rules that we don't want to have a bunch of extra visitors.

Um, from what I understand, at least from what I read.

So mine is just putting the occupancy out there, that's the amendment.

Sure.

Chief Holmes.

Yeah, Alder Hinckfess, you're you're correct that some short-term rentals will say no parties or you know, max occupancy during the day.

But what Director Renee Wigg is just saying is that when there's max occupancy, typically that just means the number of people that can sleep there overnight.

So it could be confusing to someone if the house rule doesn't say no parties, right?

And then it's basically no parties, and and it I don't even want to say max occupancy.

I just want to say occupancy.

It's whatever they're renting it for.

So when you're referring to house rules, though, that's that's the private owner's house rules.

Under what we don't dictate that.

So a private owner can say, hey, we don't want any parties at the short-term rental.

And I think that's a fairly common rule.

Yeah.

Short-term rental lines would have a better sense of that, obviously.

But it's something that I've seen, you know, in short-term rentals.

But when you're talking about house rules, it's a private agreement.

That's not something that the council is dictating.

Right.

Okay.

Alderek.

Um I don't would it help to say maximum bed occupancy or sleeping maximum.

I'm just trying to let the neighbors know how many people they can expect if when they move in.

Yeah.

I we just want to it's just being a courtesy real.

I don't think you want to set false expectations though, either.

The occupancy relates to how many people can sleep in the facility or in the residency.

Right?

Hutchison.

Um in terms of um determining if it's owner occupied or not, wouldn't it be better to have just a question?

Is this an owner occupied?

Is this a primary owner uh does the owner is this where the owner stays primarily instead of you know, then we know okay, so the owner's there and then they're not instead of you know just so just add the question.

So just owner's primary residence.

Is it the owner's primary residence?

Yes.

So then you know they live there, but they may be gone.

So people know how to an amendment to Alder Hinkfis's amendment.

Yeah, I would say I would recommend that as uh to add to your amendment.

All right, Alder Hutchson makes an amendment uh to change owner occupied to uh owner's primary residence.

Is there a second for that?

Seconded by Elder Prophet discussion on that.

Seeing none, all here say aye.

Yeah, I have it.

Um this is to approve the amendment as amended.

Umder profit makes that motion seconded by Alder Ritterbush discussion on that.

All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Guys have it.

That amendment has been adopted, Larek.

Okay.

So I just wanted to clarify we're keeping maximum occupancy versus maximum sleeping capacity.

Yes, that's what's in the amendment currently.

You could amend the amendment.

Can I amend the amendment?

You may I just want to make it clear, like you said, transparency, so people know what to expect and not have false expectations.

Um, because I think that it's not unusual that if you're visiting somebody from out of town that you might be visiting family and they're gonna come over to the house that you're renting to visit you.

Sure.

I recently had that experience.

Yeah.

So um, yeah, I would like to make an amendment on that.

Just on the language, I don't maybe we want to go to Mr.

Leroy for suggestions.

Yes, so just to note what's an initial application is to note number of bedrooms available.

So if that's looking to be amended to something different, is it to clarify?

Is that what you're seeking to change that portion?

Uh number of bedrooms available.

Correct.

Okay, but there might be four beds in one bedroom.

So I I think that we have to be a little more specific.

Max maximum sleeping sleeping occupancy.

Is that a number that's provided?

That's sleeping occupancy, is challenging because of what it means for different ages and different ingress egress in a home, uh, to where the occupancy for sleeping can vary based off of how many kids are in a play, adults are in play, and things of that sort.

So bedrooms is where uh when talking with folks from different backgrounds is where we came to uh uh conclusion that made the most sense.

Okay, but there is not a cut and dried way to actually designate overnight capacity or no for the sake of a living room.

You could have an area where he has intercept that happens to have a couch, and that can count as sleeping area, or it may not, because you may not have that type of um sleeping arrangement, so it varies quite a bit on each individual situation that could change as simple as taking out a couch or a bed and in a facility or adding one in, but there is still room.

Okay, uh elderly.

Yeah, I feel like we're kind of digging too far into the language on this because anytime you look up a short-term rental, it it's gonna state occupancy of the place, and when you add in what kind of capacity you're bringing with to that short-term rental, it's gonna regulate whether you can rent it or not.

So I feel like we're digging too deep.

I think occupancy is is fine on what the house is and the regulations are after that.

I just want to make sure we actually are able to designate what that occupancy number would be.

It doesn't seem like staff is confident in that.

So yeah, we'll hang fit.

What I'm really trying to get at is whatever they're applying for.

Okay.

I they're not we're not saying how many they can put in the house, but they are gonna market that house, which for so many people.

So I'm asking what are they gonna market it for?

So, how many people are you going to have?

What's what's the occupancy you're gonna on the market?

That's really what I'm looking for.

So the neighbors know.

I'm not trying to stop them from having 25 or 15 or whatever.

It's just what are you marketing it for?

So the neighbors understand.

Okay.

So default.

And just to add to that, if they put down whatever whatever number it is, and the neighbors have a concern with it, their answer then is or there what they should do is call the short-term rental owner so they can address it, and it'll be between the owner and the renter, because like PD or inspection is not gonna enforce that because that's a private house rule.

Okay, someone could read.

So we have uh the motion that's been amended.

Entertain uh on that, Alderley.

Can we just reread the amended motion right now?

Do you have that?

So what I have only is amend to maximum sleeping occupancy, but the original motion from Alder Hinkfist was amend add to the application the occupancy.

Seemed like you backed off from maximum.

Um, and whether um owner or non-owner occupied is informational for community.

The owner, non-owner occupied was amended to owner's primary residence, and so now we're left with all their X motion that is not yet been voted on.

Okay, so just to clarify the owner's primary residence, that language replaced replaced owner occupied, correct?

So we have owner's primary residence and non-owner occupied and the occup and the occupancy language, yes, in the original motion, correct?

All right, enter motion to approve is amended, made by alder profit, seconded by Alder Ruderbush.

More discussion on Alder Delee.

No, I was oh seconded by Elder Delete.

Sounds good.

All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Oppose nay, the ayes have it, and that item has been approved as amended on to the report of the finance committee.

Um I think it's just occupancy.

Okay.

Um sorry, we moved and seconded, moved by alder profit, seconded by Alder Ritterbush.

Items here to be handled separately.

Hearing none, all in favor will say aye.

Park committee.

Motion to approve mid by elder delete.

Seconded by Alder Prophet.

Items here to be handled separately.

Hearing none.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it.

That report has been approved.

Personnel committee.

Motion to approve made by Alder Prophet and seconded by Alder Hinkfis.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Oppose nay.

The ayes have it.

And that report has been approved.

Public arts commission.

Motion to approve, made by Alder Presley.

Seconded by Alder Profit.

Any discussion?

Seeing none?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it.

That report has been approved.

Traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian commission.

Motion to approve made by Alder Stevens.

Seconded by Alder Presley.

Items here to be handled separately.

Four.

Any others.

Hearing none, others, all in favor of approving the remainder of that report.

Signify by saying aye.

Okay.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it.

That report has been approved with the exception of item four.

Alder Act.

Sorry, I was quickly trying to bring it up and I I meant to actually take a peek at this before our meeting, but under finance, um, there was an amendment made.

And the um the wording on here does not reflect the change made.

Recommended change at finance.

Can we just put that in the parking lot until we dispense with item four?

Okay, sorry.

I just I wanted to make sure we sound good.

Uh item four was pulled by Elder Johnson.

Yeah, I'd make a motion to approve the committee report, and then I'll speak to that.

All right.

Uh motion to approve the report, seconded by Elder Prophet.

Elder Johnson?

Yep.

Uh and just for clarity to approve the hold.

Um it's simply because I know that I won't be here by the time this goes to traffic commission and then makes its way back to council.

I at least wanted to uh kind of point out a few things.

This is related to the no uh parking condition that exists on Washington Street between uh really I mean midnight and 3 a.m.

Uh you know, I supported and encouraged even traffic commission to hold this because PD hadn't had a time to uh really digest this and make uh their their recommendation.

Um I do think though it is one since many of you will likely be back here in the next term when this comes back.

Um I do think that there is an opportunity here for us to reconsider how this works.

It's been more than a decade uh since this policy has been in place.

There were obviously very specific needs that needed to be addressed at the time uh at the next traffic commission.

I hopeful that PD will be able to provide us an update with whether or not those same conditions continue to persist or uh if if it's equitable within the area where this exists, but something to keep in mind is when we we close this down, we put hoods over those meters.

Uh, I think as early as 6 p.m.

Uh our staff you know goes out there and does this, so that's time, but also then even though it's no parking from midnight, you're sending the message that you're blocking those spots off from six o'clock until midnight at a time when you have the highest volume of people visiting downtown.

And so I I just hope that there's an opportunity for the next body to really rethink uh how this policy uh is is not only enforced, but maybe how we implement it.

So even if there are portions that remain in place um that we can consider a pickup drop-off zone to help with our Uber Lyft drivers.

Um, and uh in and maybe the the meters are covered at a slightly different time so as not to bring those stalls offline really before they need to.

So I just wanted to take the liberty, I guess, to make that appeal, but support the hold right now to allow the committee to continue to do their work.

Sounds good.

Thanks for the comments.

Anything else?

The motion is to hold.

All in favor will say aye.

Aye oppose nay, the ayes have it.

That item has been held to the next T BMP meeting.

Um, Alder Act, which item were you talking about?

Q five.

All right, so you would you like to move reconsideration?

Alder Eck moves to reconsider item Q5, seconded by Alder Delee.

All in favor will say aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it.

That item has been reconsidered, and it's down in front of the body.

Alder E.

Just trying to now gotta go back down to it.

Um, it's under four.

So is it was approved as amended.

Three correct it was approved and as amended, but the wording has not been changed on the document, so I just want to make sure.

Uh maybe explain.

Yeah, sure.

Okay, yeah.

So um it says approvals uh locations from the innovation fund above 50,000 require common council approval in keeping with existing city policy, and that was changed to all funds must be require council approval.

Correct.

Yeah.

Um I don't know if we really need an amendment.

I mean you're you're stating the record accurately.

Yes, I want to make sure the record reflects that correct.

Um we need an amendment, elder attorney coach.

Okay.

Very good.

Um is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Made by elder act seconded by Alder Hinckfus.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose nay.

The ayes have it.

And that has been approved.

Um sustainability commission.

Oops oh, it's just informational.

So I think we're good.

Um committee of the whole.

Item one is consideration possible action on general ordinance number six-26 and ordinance amending sections 42-131 through 42-140 relating to well head protection.

Uh chart are you speak to that?

Okay.

Uh, sure.

So this is from the water utility.

Uh, we're just making some changes uh to these sections based on uh compliance with state law and some adjustments according to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Motion to approve made by Alder Eck, seconded by Elder Hinkfus.

Um discussion.

All in favor will say aye.

Oppose nay, have it.

Um as I'm sitting here, just going back to the finance committee agenda.

We actually don't have any action items on any of the or motions on any of the items, so they all say consideration with possible action.

Um we might need motions on all of them, which is just too probably the way it was, yeah.

Yeah, I think it was just transferred over as Alder Johnson said from the committee report to the agenda.

So I don't know if we just want to explicitly move that all items are approved.

Oh, it's just not consistent with the rest of the packet.

Okay, absolutely.

Okay, we're good.

Sorry for that.

Um, item two under committee of the whole for consideration of possible action on ordering the improvements constructed and levying the assessment of the following projects.

Public hearing held 225 2026.

Um just wanna explain that, Director Justin.

Sure.

We uh held a public hearing at the uh prior INS committee meeting, and it was to um to receive public comment on um special assessments for the three resurfacing streets and the asphalt uh reconstruction project uh north maple.

And uh we didn't receive any um public comments at the the meeting, and this is this agenda item is to place um to have the the wording for approval to go along with that public hearing, and I believe there's also a right resolution later on as well.

Okay, instructor motion to approve made by Alder Profit, seconded by Alder Delee.

All in paper will say aye.

Oppose nay, the ayes have it, and that item has been approved.

Uh finally, to grant final authority to protection policy committee to approve an expansion of licensed premises to Irish Temper 240 North Broadway for an event in March.

Motion to approve by Alder Prophet, seconded by Elder Stevens.

Any discussion here?

Alder Johnson Mayor.

Alder Johnson notes and abstention.

Anyone opposed is opposed to the St.

Patrick's Day.

Uh all in favor.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

That items approved.

Uh next informational.

We've got January municipal court report included in the packet.

Resolutions.

Motion to suspend the rules made by Alder Profit.

Second by Alder Stevens uh to take up these items with one roll call vote before we get their um director Allenbecker.

It looks like we have the same issue in number three and four, which were also finance items that were carried over.

They're really probably not ordered.

Um applying to the other ones.

They're resolutions.

They just okay, those are all resolutions as well.

They are resolutions, they belong there, but they really left the consideration portion in there.

Okay, so just stating these are all actually resolutions here.

Um their profit made a motion to suspend the rules.

All in favor will say aye.

The ayes have it.

Rules are suspended.

Motion to adopt made by Alder Prophet, seconded by Elder Delee.

Any discussion?

We'll use the board.

And Alder make this.

Yes.

All right, those are approved unanimously.

Ordinances first reading.

Alder Prophet makes a motion to suspend the rules for these items with the exception of three.

Seconded by Alder Delee.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor will say aye.

Oppose nay.

The rules are suspended.

Um brand three in talking about.

That's excluded though.

We still do we're just advancing the others.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Cool.

Motion to advance made by Alder Presley, seconded by Alder Prophet.

Um, any discussion there?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Opposed nay.

The ayes have it, and those items have been advanced to a second final reading with the exception of item three.

Well, um, make a motion to amend to reflect the changes regarding primary residence and occupancy within the application portion.

Very good.

Is there a leave is two A1?

Seconded by Alder Delee.

Any discussion on that?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose nay.

The ayes have it.

Motion to advance as amended.

Second.

Alder Profit makes a motion to advance as amended.

That was seconded by Alder Presley.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Pose nay.

The ayes have it.

And that item has been amended and advanced.

Adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Made by Alder Presley, seconded by Alder Ritterbush.

All in favor say aye.

Pose nay.

The ayes have it.

We're adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.