All right.

I am going to it is six o'clock, so I'm going to call the Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 Common Council meeting to order.

We will start with roll call.

Rico Camacho said that he will not be in attendance tonight.

Christine.

Here.

Everett.

Wigderson.

Here.

Piper.

Here.

Van Trieste.

Here.

Wells.

Here.

Manion.

Here.

Moltson.

Here.

Witeska.

Here.

Anderson.

Here.

Helgested.

Here.

Matthews.

Here.

Miklitz here.

Lemke.

Here.

Camacho's absent.

All right.

Please rise for the public Pledge of Allegiance.

Under indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

As a matter of note, a motion will be made to convene and close session pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 19.85 Parents 1 Parents G to confer with legal counsel regarding the possible settlement of an excessive assessment lawsuit captioned SBV Fox River LLC versus City of Waukeshaw.

A motion will then be made to reconvene in open session pursuant to Wisconsin statute 19.85 Parents 2, and action will be taken on matters discussed in closed session.

Next up, we have public comment.

First, I have Doreen Wiggerson.

It is very funny.

Hello.

And just for the record, I'm Doreen Wiggerson for those at home, Alderman for District 3.

I live at 1100 Anoka Avenue.

I wanted to start off with Revitalize.

This program is vital to keeping our seniors in their homes safe, independent, and in the neighborhoods that they've loved for decades.

I'm asking all of you if you know of a homeowner owner who could benefit or what you're wondering at home whether your own home qualifies for this, please reach out to Revitalize Milwaukee.

And they're available online, or you can call them too to see if you're eligible for funding.

These funds are here to be used, and the more residents we refer, the more homes we keep standing and more families we keep in place.

Secondly, I wanted to follow up on the workshop that our city administrator arranged on June 23rd with Ted Knightsky.

He came to speak with us.

For those who missed it, it was really a fantastic team building session.

We talked about what makes a highly effective council, staying focused on issues, working as expeditiously as possible and serving our community with facts over feelings.

One idea that stood out was rethinking how we should handle referrals, routing them through the city administrator rather than directing them at the committee level.

That change could make us more efficient and cut down on duplicate efforts across committees.

I found a real value in our conversations, and I don't think we should let the momentum stop.

I'd strongly encourage Tony to arrange to bring Ted back to speak with us.

And just for the record, he has the Smart Thinking podcast that's available on Apple.

Back for another training session so we can continue the work of becoming a more effective, more unified council for the people of Waukesha.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Lisa Saul.

Good evening, Lisa Salb 434 Madison Street.

In regards to the zoning code, um R and 4, Residential Neighborhood 4.

It's listed for providing buffers and transitioning between commercial, major streets, and lower density neighborhoods.

So the area between Albert Street and Barstow, which is by the laundromat on North Street, that is now an R and four.

People down there are fixing up their one and two-story homes.

The new code would allow a six-story building there.

That's 60 feet.

Is that really a gradual transition?

I would ask that you either change the neighborhood to RM3 or bring the height back down to 40 feet, like it was before.

Several friends there have two-story homes there.

They said that a six-story building in their neighborhood would be ridiculous.

Next with the zoning map.

With the removal of the historic overlay on the lower Blair property, the city disagrees that the special uh H Historic District overlay includes the Blair property down to Delafield.

Well, I respectfully disagree with that.

However, tonight I'm here to talk about what was added to the map, and that's 139 East North Street.

It's has the historic preservation district overlay on it.

It is a local landmark.

It was built in 1866.

It's the Waukeshaw Manufacturing Company building.

It was part of the wool and mills complex, which was put together by William Blair, and it was the building that he stored the wool in.

And if you take a look at the handout that I put at each of your desks, um, we did um an open records request in an email on October 15th, 2024.

Charlie Griffith wrote to Alex Edgington, who is the compliance officer at the State Historic Preservation Office.

And I'm gonna read it right off of here.

Charlie said clearly the location and the associated views were a factor in Senator Blair's decision to build his house there.

As the Madison Street District nomination form puts it, quote, Blair could look down upon his two successful businesses from his nearby home located three blocks to the northwest on the top of the Madison Street Hill.

Um he also says the the buildings that housed Senator Blair's businesses were raised before the creation of the Madison Street Historic District, and also before his house was individually.

30 seconds remaining designated.

That is not true.

Um 139 East North Street is still there.

Um the information that was given to the state uh for the conservation easement is incorrect, whether it was in ignorance or an intentional um event may be for a judge to decide.

I have shown on the handouts the view preservation if you take it from the Blair House to William Blair's business.

And um this showed up on the new zoning map after the conservation easement was voted on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone else here for public comment?

No.

Moving right along.

Uh approval of minutes.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting?

Thank you.

Alder Person McClitz.

Is there a second?

Alder Person Molson.

Yes, second.

Excellent.

All right, please vote when it is before you.

Alderman Everett.

All right, that motion does pass.

14 to 0.

Um, next up we have consent agenda.

Are there any items to be removed from consent agenda?

No.

All right.

Then consent agenda is passed.

Uh, next up we have our new business section.

First is proposed revisions to municipal code chapter 9, compliance with Act 73 and other changes.

Miles, I'm assuming you are handling this.

Uh maybe if I can, if I can get my microphone on.

All right.

Um yes, in conjunction in conjunction with the um respected members of ordinance and license committee who might also want to talk about uh uh something pertaining to this matter.

I believe this has been before the common council uh uh several times already.

However, because of a clerical error, it's actually only on for second reading, um, even though I know all of you have probably seen this a number of times.

It is um changes that have to be made for the most part to our chapter 9 code regulating liquor licensing because the state changed the laws to a large degree, and we have to make sure our ordinance matches up with the laws created by the state.

So that's most of what is in there.

Um there are a couple of other things that were cleaned up uh just because uh they needed some rewriting um in order to be easier to understand, and also there were a couple of things that were removed.

Uh I would just uh point out in case it hasn't been pointed out in previous meetings that it does remove the prohibition on uh liquor sales at gas stations, um, and also it removes the prohibition on uh restaurants selling alcohol for off-premise consumption.

But other than that, uh most of it is is just uh revisions to uh necessary because of changes to state law.

And because this has been in front of you a number of times, I suggest you consider um also uh moving to suspend the rules so that it doesn't have to come back here again for a third reading when it's actually been here already, I think at least three times, if not four.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

There are any questions, Alder Person Witesca.

Um Miles did go take a look while we were doing other stuff.

This was at ONL on May 11th.

It was at the council May 19th and June 2nd.

And June 2nd was the one where we forgot to attach the actual amendment.

So I mean I am happy to do either or make a motion to approve it or make a motion to suspend the rules so that we can approve it because in my mind this is at a minimum the third reading, if not the fourth, and I don't think there's any reason to bring it back, but I'll open the I will defer to your legal opinion on this one.

And I don't think there's any reason to bring it back.

But I'll open the question.

I will defer to your legal opinion on this one.

The the boss told me there was an issue with the first time around, also.

Um so and I I have no way of verifying if that's actually the case, but it would make both of the times it appeared here before invalid.

So that I would recommend you still consider it the second reading.

Um obviously uh the alder person may be completely correct.

I just don't have that information available, and the boss said this was a second reading.

So uh I advise um that you uh move to suspend the rules if you want to not have to deal with this one again, which I understand if you don't.

I I appreciate that.

Uh Alder Person Witchesca, do you have do you have a motion or uh Alder Person Lemke?

I move to suspend the rules and take care of it tonight.

Excellent.

Is there a second?

Uh Alder Person Witcheska seconds.

Is there any discussion about suspending the rules?

All right.

So that would mean that uh a yes vote would be to suspend the rules and vote on these changes tonight.

Uh please vote when it is before you.

All right, that uh that motion does pass 14 to 0.

Um so now we are on the main topic of conversation.

Alder Person Lemke.

I move that we uh vote on the proposed revisions to the miserable code chapter 9 compliance with Act 73 and other changes.

Excellent.

And Alder Person Witeska seconds.

You didn't actually say you wanted to approve it.

You just said you wanted to vote on it.

Yes, vote to approve.

Vote to approve.

All right, thank you for the clarification.

Uh is there any discussion?

Alder Person Wiggerson.

I actually just have a question for clarification.

So I'm not sure if you'll be able to answer it, but I hope so.

Um in 9.08, we have under the operator's license the provisions allowing the clerk to issue renewal license without committee or council approval are clarified.

The clerk can issue renewal operator licenses without further approval if the applicant has zero conviction since the last issuance.

I just want to make sure that this is this change is only occurring for the renewal and that they can still go ahead and do this the things even for new applicants.

Correct.

This change was just made for this section.

I just want to clarify.

This only uh at least what I'm looking at here only concerns renewal applicants.

Okay.

I just want to clarify that it doesn't, it's not for everything.

It's not for everything.

Okay, perfect.

That's my understanding also.

Any other discussion?

All right, then please vote when it is before you.

All right, that motion does pass.

14 to 0.

Um next up we have review review and possible action on a budget amendment to increase capital expenses for the city hall security improvement project.

Joe?

Um with I'll defer to Alderman Lumpke in that I was on vacation for this finance committee meeting.

So I'll defer to Rick.

So this item in your packet, uh, it's for approximately $31,000 for security upgrades.

Uh the main expense is for two ballistic glass on the main clerk's office and upstairs at the uh city planning uh public works uh building.

Um there have been numerous instances of disgruntled folks pre uh creating security uh issues.

Uh in fact, uh we've been found that uh two uh employees actually left field threatened and what have you.

And Chief Thompson uh is strongly in favor of this.

We all know that the public, not all of them, 99.9% of the public is wonderful, but there are a lot of folks out there, whatever their cause or reason they think that they want to be violent, and this is just a way of securing our facility.

They're also gonna put some bollards in front of uh the utility uh connections.

They're gonna number the doors so that when if anybody does push the panic button, uh all of the doors with the police uh will have numbers on them.

All the office buildings will have certain numbers to identify exactly where the uh the problem occurs.

And I uh uh this is being paid for with interest on city funds, so it is not um uh gonna increase taxes.

Um but we do have to get a budget amendment because it's not approved in the CIP.

So I urge you all to vote in favor of this.

If there are any questions, refer to Tony or anyone else.

buildings will have certain numbers to identify exactly where the uh the problem occurs and I uh uh this is being paid for with interest on city funds so it is not um uh gonna increase taxes um and but we do have to get a budget amendment because it's not approved in the CIP so I urge you all to vote in favor of this if there are any questions refer to Tony or anyone else but passed it passed four to zero out of finance way we do need a supermajority so I move to review uh and take possible action to to for the budget amendment to increase the capital expenses for the city hall security improvement projects it passed four to zero and so to clarify that's to approve to approve correct the the budget great thank you um alder person wiggerson and then Chrisine I'll second the motion um I spoke at FIDANS in favor of this um particularly I did a little research on several other municipalities that spent money um to increase security in their in their clerk's office and just to give you an idea I thought three hundred and nineteen thousand dollars is a drop in the bucket as Madison spent twelve million dollars on security upgrades for their um for their security um in the in the buildings down there so I thought that 319 thousand was um actually quite reasonable um I also want to make it clear that you know we we obviously care about the safety of our clerks and people that work here at the city and um it's just very important you can't put a price tag on somebody's life so I am um of course seconding the motion to approve and to fully support this this um this motion thank you alder person Christine thank you mayor I was a visitor on finance meeting and I came in my background what I do professionally is building building management and uh paying for such things I spoke out several things about I I felt that they didn't explore other options um besides the glass the ballards the numbering of the exits entryways and main windows uh in the facility I fully supported that it was just the uh only in my mind they only had one one plan was the glass uh I supported just keeping the uh shutters that are closed right now and I heard a lot of things about they wanted to make it look very similar to where you pay your your tickets uh basically how the building was designed uh I suggested just having some uh windows put in the drywall uh but what really changed my mind was uh Rebecca Peterson from uh the city um uh spoke about employee retention that is what essentially changed my mind I was l focusing on the building side of things and the cost but uh we could put no cost as uh Alder Woman Wiggerson said on city staff and retention so I just wanted to make that known as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alder Person Matthews.

Yeah just to mirror a little bit what uh Alderman Christine said this once again just to clarify we'll actually update and be on a very similar method to what's just a few feet over by the clerk on the window there so very aesthetically we'll look the same and it's very similar it's not uncommon safety procedures when we literally have it just a few feet over for the municipal curk clerk.

Um second part is we also did discuss and I'd like to continue that discussion too any new buildings any new structures you know three hundred and nineteen thousand dollars is a good capital expense but it probably could be lessened if we incorporate that into buildings for new buildings and updates.

So I think that needs to be further part of the conversation going forward.

It is important the security is good.

I'm in favor of it but uh also would like to see maybe some cost savings in the future incorporating this into an initial building design but I am in favor of this.

Thank you.

Alderperson Piper and then Wills.

Thank you.

Um I'll also speak in favor of it it's um as the board of directors for the city it's our ultimate responsibility to ensure that our our employees and staff are safe at work and that they have all the tools that they have to prevent unfortunate incidents from happening.

Why it wasn't incorporated into the original design of the building it's hindsight.

And unfortunately things have changed in our world very quickly and very rapidly.

So to alderman Alderman Matthews point hindsight would have been that we would have incorporated this when we constructed the building you know a little less than a decade ago but we didn't uh and these changes are needed to reflect uh kind of an unfortunate reality in our society today and I'd ask that you all support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Alder Person Wells I feel like Joe Roy Tney we did discuss some security provisions when we were designing city hall and what we discussed at the time and decided not to do was metal detectors and I'm I'm glad we didn't put that in effect then because what we're putting in now is a better now we're in the building we understand it what we would have put in when we built the building is not this probably would not have been effective um I think we should put in now that we know what the threat is and what the concerns are but it was something we discussed and I'm kind of glad we waited a little bit to get something that's actually going to work for our building.

Um but it was something we discussed, and I'm kind of glad we waited a little bit to get something that's actually gonna work for our building.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

All right, then please vote when it is before you.

All right, uh that motion does pass 13 to 1.

Uh next up, we have the public hearing uh for the zoning code update.

Um Charlie, I'm gonna toss this over to you.

I know this has been before us several times, so I'm I'm just gonna let you take it over.

There we go.

All right.

So uh as all of you know, uh the city has been working since early 2024 on uh full scale rewrite to our zoning code.

Um the council, the plan commission, the consultants at House Elevine, and city staff have all put in a great deal of effort uh to put the drafts together uh uh that are uh available for your review tonight.

Um and uh we're very pleased to be able to present them to you for hopefully uh a final vote on approval.

Um this was initially presented to the council in April, and uh at the time we had noted that uh the city attorney's office was doing uh some final review, and they were gonna be making updates mostly to the formatting of the code.

Uh they have uh made some of those updates and they've also changed the wording of a few sections.

Um they've uh they've just they've stressed that none of the uh none of the ideas in the code have changed.

It's just that they've uh they've worded them a little bit differently uh to make those ideas a little bit more clear and more legally defensible.

Um we've also corrected a couple of errors that were uh present in the zoning map previously.

Uh there was a map error in the the map that was uh presented in April, so it didn't properly show the existing planned unit development uh overlay districts.

Um and we don't want those to change.

So uh so those are that's been corrected.

Um there was also an error, a little bit of a discrepancy between uh two of the other overlay districts uh in the wording of the code, the uh the between the map and uh and the code itself.

Um so that uh it was just the name of the districts on the map was wrong, so that's been corrected as well.

Uh and we uh have been able to show uh uh a rezoning that happened this spring uh in the map uh as well.

So uh with those changes, we are recommending of the recommending approval of the new code.

Um, and as I mentioned, we're hoping for a vote on approval tonight.

Um we did bring this back to the plan commission uh and we have it as a public hearing uh because uh just to uh sort of be on the safe side uh with those changes.

We felt that it was just enough that it was worth uh bringing back to the plan commission.

The plan commission did recommend approval uh at their June meeting.

Um because it went back to the plan commission, uh the uh city attorney's office has told us today that they uh they would believe that that is uh based on the council rules uh that would be that restarted the uh reading process.

So uh that would have been the first reading, and this is technically the second reading.

Uh so if you do vote to approve it, uh the city attorney's office is advising that uh you would suspend your uh council rules uh to vote on the second reading of of this particular final draft of the code.

Um we do feel that that would be appropriate since uh as you know, we've had pretty extensive discussion both at the council and at the plan commission.

Uh and the code has been available in almost identical form uh for the past several months.

Um so there's been ample ample opportunity to uh you know to learn about it and to understand it uh both for the council and members of the public and many of you and many uh members of the public have done so.

So we don't feel that there's much to be gained from having more discussion and and more uh delay on on a final vote.

And we are also we've been shooting for an implementation date of September set or September 1st.

Um and uh in order to uh make that happen, we need to make some changes to our approval processes and uh and the uh applications and the you know the educational materials that we have on the code.

Uh so that takes some time.

We've started that, but uh uh in order to uh go much further, we really need to have certainty on what's going to be in the new code and that these changes are gonna happen at all.

So uh we're recommending approval of uh the new chapter 22, replacing uh chapter 22 and chapter 27 of the existing code in their entirety.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Um this is a public hearing, so I will open it up.

Is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on this item?

All right.

And I will take that as a no, so we will close out the public hearing.

Are there any comments or questions?

Uh yes, Alder Person Vantriester.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I was looking over the the draft and uh wanted to see what the old ordinance looked like versus the new one.

And Charlie, maybe you can give me some clarity here.

Uh the new one, the way I understand it is uh somebody from the city, and this is uh 22 uh dot zero seven, and somebody from the city regarding landscaping, natural resources can come on to any resident's property in the city of Waukeshaw without permission and do a look around.

Is that correct?

I I don't think that's in uh 22.07.

That's well.

I guess uh are you is there a we could I yeah I there were 262.

I just looked at at uh at the uh city logo as they were flipping by, but I I count it 262 pages, and it kind of reminds me of you know what they do out in DC where you get a thousand pages dumped on your lap and you got 48 hours to respond to it.

So that's the reason for my question.

I do have uh another one too, a follow-up in regards to uh the uh I gotta get back to it here.

This would would also be in 22.

It's uh dot one uh sub two uh and then a and a two and an H and an I.

And apparently uh this this comes from the city attorney's office in regards to uh if they knock on your door and and uh they're not allowed inside your home, then they can go out and get a warrant for it.

Did we have that before with the warrant and the old ordinance that was there?

I don't believe it was spelled out in the zoning ordinance, but it is uh that is something that the city has the authority.

So that can you make sure that you use the microphone?

That is new then it's uh it's sorry.

I I don't believe it's spelled out in the in the current zoning ordinance uh that that much specificity as far as uh code enforcement, but the city does do code enforcement of the the current ordinance uh and in cases where a warrant is needed, uh the city does have the authority to obtain one.

I it's never really necessary with the zoning ordinance because it's mostly exterior regulation.

But the reason I asked is we had a personal experience uh with that uh what was several years after we bought our home, they wanted to come in, the tax assessor wanted to come in.

I wasn't home, my wife went let them in.

And uh then we waited to see what would happen, and down the road we we re-engaged with them and we were uh our assessment was marked as as a premium uh cabinet siding, everything.

And uh when I asked if we could get adjudication on that uh and and uh re reset the bar, so to speak, on our tax assessment, uh I was told there's no recourse.

So just looking out for my constituents in district five.

Sure.

And in regards to your um question regarding the landscaping and being able to go on someone's property at any given time.

The only time we would ever inspect landscaping is when um a project has been approved and it was approved with a landscape bond to assure that the landscaping would be completed at the end of that project.

Um so by giving us that bond, they're essentially giving us permission to go on and check that landscaping.

Once we've approved the landscaping and returned that bond, we would have no need to go back on someone's property.

We wouldn't go to just into a single family home and go looking for anything if that's what you were getting at.

Um that sounds like a commercial response as far as development goes, but I'm talking about uh individually the residents themselves individually.

Would there ever be an instance where somebody from the city is walking around to see how your you know your property looks and what's going on?

No, not landscaping-wise.

Um sometimes there is complaints where they'll complain about tall grass or something like that, and then an inspector will go out there and look.

Um there's no need to but outside of quote enforcement.

Right, outside of quote enforcement, there'd be no need for us as a planning staff to go on to someone's land to check landscaping, especially on a single family or uh duplex property.

We don't really oversee landscaping on those.

It's only on the commercial properties, larger multifamily projects.

Thanks for the clarification.

Alder Person Piper.

Charlie, I've got a question that's probably in the weeds a little bit.

It's under 2204.

Um as it relates to like dumpster enclosures and such.

We've the code has been updated to allow like a composite material or like a to be allowed in that in that construction.

Is that correct?

Uh yes, I believe so.

Okay.

I've I've had some personal experience in some development I've done in the city from a nonprofit standpoint where that came up and that was allowed at the time, and I encourage the city to allow that material to be used for dumpsters and closures because it's a little bit more economical than masonry, especially for some of our nonprofits.

So I'm glad that I'm glad to confirm that that's in here as we've discussed.

So thank you.

Uh Alder Person Lunkey.

It was brought up uh in public hearing that uh I don't think your mic's on.

It is.

Oh, sorry.

It was brought up uh in public hearing uh that uh there are places in this city where we would allow uh six-story buildings and such.

Obviously, something like that, while it's allowed, I don't necessarily think I would be in favor of, but the common council and the planning uh commission uh still has authority to say, yeah, this place we don't think a six-story would go.

We'd be in favor of a four.

So something like that would still have to come to planning and get approved by the they couldn't just automatically build one.

Is that correct?

Right.

Any any commercial construction would require a site plan and architectural review approval.

There are some instances where uh it would just be um planning, it would just be a staff review if it met all of the conditions in the code and it wasn't adjacent to a property that had a lower level of zoning.

Um but uh in most for the most part those will uh still go to the plan commission for review as well.

Thank you.

Alder Person Manion That was an excellent segue into what my question was going to be.

Um when we discussed this offline, or I discussed it with staff offline.

Um I had expressed some concerns about this administrative review process.

Um we had some discussions around possible uh mechanisms for informing the public and the alders of uh um potential developments that are occurring or going through that re that review process.

Has any more I guess clarity been um brought to that, what that process could look like going forward.

Yeah, we're working through that right now as we're also implementing our new software, so implementing the new code and the new software and trying to develop a plan around that, but um we envision it as like a matter of report to the plan commission on what projects have come in and you know what their status is, at least in terms of how it would appear on an agenda for um notification, and then what we're also working on with our new software is a notification mechanism for the alder person so that when we get a project in they get this notification, this project came in, and and then you if you have questions, you can call and ask, and we can discuss it that way too.

So right now, those are some of the things we're talking about in terms of that.

Thanks, Jennifer.

Um I'm just gonna make a comment.

Uh I I'm not willing to, I guess, stand in the way of this massive project over that one item, but I think it's important for the council to bear in mind that we throw the word transparency around a lot in the years that I've been on the council.

And when we talk about moving things to administrative review, that means it isn't going through a public process necessarily to the same degree that it does when it comes to a planning commission meeting, an open meeting, or to council.

Um so I had some concerns about that, and I think that we need to keep a close eye on the kind of things that go through that administrative review, and if that's the best process going forward, um, you know, our constituents may feel like they are cut out of the process.

Um, you know, I got into city politics a long time ago because of developments that were happening in the vicinity of my neighborhood.

Um, you know, coming to planning commissions and making sure that my uh my voice was heard and my concerns were heard long before I sat in this chair.

Um so I you know I'm uncomfortable with this change being made, but I'm not willing to stand in the way of you know the greater process here, but I do think that this is something we need to keep a close eye on and make sure that it is the best thing going forward and you know potentially pull those reins back if need be in the future.

Thank you.

Alder Person Wells.

This was something that we discussed quite a bit at the Plan Commission.

Um it definitely was concerned we're very much trying to balance setting clear standards and providing a mechanism for developers for builders for businesses to know exactly what the city was going to expect from them, that they can adequately prepare plan the kind of development that that we want we as a city want and have some expectation that if they follow all the rules that they can get approved.

Umknown city process where you really don't know whether something's gonna be approved based on the whims of a planning commissioner or council.

So we worked very hard to set good standards, good expectations, be very clear.

Part of the trade-off though is is we need certainty that if you follow the rules, you can get it approved.

The compromise we came up with was we do know that residents are very concerned about what goes next to their homes, and new development is is necessarily gonna be some of it goes in after the neighbors are already there.

So what we kind of came up with was that if a development is going into a plot or a property that is adjacent to residential, that it automatically gets Plan Commission review.

So if there's an empty parcel next to your home, you can know that it will go through plan commission.

What can sail through on a staff approval is something that is not going next to residences?

So anything that has a needs an exception or needs to break the rules even slightly, get approval for something different, has to be approved by Plan Commission.

If it's next to a residence, it has to be approved by Plan Commission.

And that was the compromise we came up with because we still wanted that certainty that when developers came, they they know if they follow all the rules we've set, they can get approval.

They can they can plan on that, they can get all their financing, they can get all their partners involved.

And it's it's gonna be a trade-off, it's different than we we've done before, but it's not something that we didn't take time to discuss and talk through and and work through.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Alder Person Matthews.

Is that part of procedure now?

Is that formal, or is that just a an agreement?

Or where is that written down or what's the policy or written?

Is it written down?

Yeah, that's that's work through a code.

I I don't know if staff wants to highlight where those are, but that's definitely something that we work through.

I believe it's mostly contained under uh chapter 11, the review and decision making procedures.

Yeah, that's exactly where it is.

It's um under the site plan and architecture review process.

It clearly spells out uh where the process is for different types of development, uh, when it can be staff approved or when it can when it will have to go uh to the plan commission and what those exceptions are.

Uh also at the beginning of every design section, there's a there's a statement of of what the exceptions are.

Are there any other comments or questions?

Uh Alder Person Molson.

I move to waive the council rules and use this as the third or uh avoid the third reading and take action on this particular draft.

I think the readings, the rules have intended that the draft will change from the first to the second to the third, so that we anticipate that there'll be many changes, and we have uh reviewed this many times.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Alder President Lemke.

I second the waiving of the rules as there haven't been changes that are significant.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion about uh suspending the council rules?

No, then please vote when it is before you.

That motion does pass 13 to zero with one abstention.

Um now we are back to the main topic of discussion.

Alder Person Lemke.

Alder Person Molton.

I move to um replace chapters 22 of the zoning code and chapter 27 signs with the new zoning ordinance as presented in this draft.

Thank you.

Alder Person Lemke.

I will uh second that motion.

Thank you.

Uh any other discussion on this ordinance.

Uh uh Alder Person Piper.

Thank you.

Um just to be on the record, I certainly support the changes.

I've had more than one meeting with staff.

I've also come to, I think, two or three planning commissions where this item's been discussed.

And I echo a lot of what Dan said about making sure that aldermen are notified of projects that are going to be coming up in their district.

And Jennifer assured me that that is that is worked into the process.

And I also would remind the common council that we also too have a responsibility to be talking to staff about what's coming up in our respective aldermatic districts as well.

So it is as many things in this job, it's a two-way street as it relates to communication.

Um so I know we all probably do that.

I probably do that more than I should in some respects.

But um it's something that we all take, it's part of the job that we all take very seriously in knowing what's coming in our district.

Um my district's fairly residential, pretty built out, but I know there's other districts in town that aren't.

And I would encourage all of us to you know drive around our district and continue to ask Jennifer and staff about what's going on with the site and that type of thing.

And I'm confident um that that'll allow us to make sure that we're um adequately informing our constituents about what's coming up and get making sure that we've got the information to get their questions answered.

And to Alderman Wells' point, and what I've heard many times as I attended the plan commission meetings is that economic development and redevelopment is important, and giving folks that are making investments in our community a level of certainty around what can be built, what cannot be built, and allowing them to do that in a timely fashion while balancing the needs of our constituents and community is very important.

That's why I'm supporting this this supporting it this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

All right, then please vote when it is before you.

All right, that motion does pass 13 to 1.

Uh, I want to say thank you to city staff, especially um community development, but I know that this was a group effort, so thank you to all of you for putting in so much work over the past what year and a half.

So thank you for that.

Uh next up we have uh transit commission report.

Uh and it sounds like we are gonna get an update on transit service levels, Brian.

Yes, uh good evening, Brian Engle King, uh, transit manager.

If we have not met, I'm gonna bring up my presentation momentarily here.

Um yes, the the city administrator uh asked that I come to provide an update on the transit service levels that are in the city.

Um we have made significant changes if you're not on the transit commission or you know, you just see these things on consent agenda.

Um you may not have seen you know the totality of what we have done over the last um four or five years.

I've got this hand, I've got this handout, and I know I kind of give you the dessert right at the beginning with this big chart, but I'm actually gonna float down to the bottom of this page and really first talk about the major initiatives and studies that we've conducted over the last um four four or five years.

And I should just take a step back, and one of the things that um even before COVID, we saw a declining uh ridership.

And so um we had engaged with sewer PAC to do what's known as uh a transit development plan.

They actually started this uh pre-COVID and then COVID came and kind of slowed us down.

But for those that have been on the council for a while, um in December of 22, we had sewer PAC come and present the final um transit development plan.

It's a five-year plan on our service levels, and really it focused in on what is the service levels that we are gonna have or we should be at in the post-COVID world because our world um transportation did uh change extensively.

Um we we don't have to get too much into you know work from home, things of that nature, but um teledoc, all all of those things have come into play.

Um addition to that, and I'm not gonna go through all of these initiatives and and things, but there's been a number of other ones that we've done.

I have them listed here at the bottom of this page.

And this is a pretty aggressive uh number of studies for a system R size, and we really wouldn't be able to do it without the great partnership with SUERPAC.

They've had their hands in most of these or have helped us out, and um also with great data a number of years ago, uh well, not a number of years ago, but uh three years ago, the council uh approved us to have automatic pastric counters on all of our buses.

So we know now where everyone is getting on and off and what time they're getting on and off.

And so that really helps us plan our service much better.

So if we have to make changes, we can make changes uh to try and minimize the impact, the negative impacts on the passengers, but also look for opportunities as well.

Um now I'm gonna go back up to uh the top of the chart and just kind of walk you through kind of where we were in the pre-COVID world.

So this the this 883 hours, that's hours of service within the city of Waukeshaw, and that's our fixed route service, so the big buses, number of hours of service that we had in the pre-cOVID world, and then in June of 23, that's when we implemented much of SURE PAC's transit development plan.

Um, in fact, I'd say 95% of that we we put into place.

And um a lot of that was um just straighten out routes, you know, maybe we're missing, maybe we don't go into some of these neighborhoods as much that have lower ridership.

And I know when we presented this to the council, there was concerns, and one of the things we reassured is yes, for the vast majority of the passengers we are still going to serve.

There are some that's going to be negatively impacted, but with what what is where our demand for ridership is and also where our funding, because we get funding for both not only the city, but we also get funding from the state and from the federal government where we saw that going, we had to make changes.

We just have to we had to make changes, and so um we implemented that with a full route restructure and included extending Route 1 to Freighter in 2023, and we did, although our overall service expanded, expanded outside the cities uh particularly on Blue Mound Road, Waxhaw County, Milwaukee County paid for that within the city.

We actually, when we implemented the uh the redesign, we actually did about a 9% decrease in service hours.

And then in 24, because this was like our first, and this was the first really major um change.

We have tweaked things in quite a number of years, so we wanted to see how that played out.

But in the interim in 24, we looked at we could find little things that we could tweak, so we did some minor adjustments, and then you see this big drop again in 25.

Well, what we were doing in 24 was really evaluating the system redesign, and we had already we're already seeing some trends six months to a year in, and also city administrator brought out the um financial management plan, and so we were kind of looking at okay.

Well, this might be something that we could do, and then the financial management plan comes out, and it's like it just seemed like that was the perfect segue to look at doing a consolidation.

And so, this consolidation, what we did is we went from 10 routes in the city down to eight.

And so we eliminated the Route 2, which serves like the Arcadian area completely, and then we combined uh route seven and eight on the west side.

Um, and we really looked at how we can do this to minimize the impact, and for most most point most part, these impacts on the existing riders, you know, we're talking a single percentages, and I'm not trying to marginalize those folks because there are some folks that were impacted from these changes, but we really looked at you know what aggregate, how can we provide enough service or we can provide service in our fiscal reality?

And that change um that was a significant drop.

That was another 14% drop.

And then we haven't really done any studies.

We've just been kind of recalibrating.

We've actually done three kind of reductions in January, then we did one in June, and then we have one coming up in August at the end of August, and that'll get us down another about 10%.

So all total our service hours compared to like the pre-COVID world, we're about a third less service hours, or we will be come August when we start up getting ready for the new school year.

So we've made a significant uh decrease, and this was planned.

This wasn't just things that we just uh uh just came on a whim.

We use a lot of data, we talked to folks, we talked to our riders, we talked to you know, the passengers, we had public hearings for some of these, and there are some impacts.

There have been some negative impacts, but we really tried to focus in on serving the vast majority of these individuals of our of our passengers.

Um, just to give a matter of perspective, the uh that just over 600 hours a week that we'll be going to, and maybe you think that's still a large significant number, but just to give a perspective, I had to go back into our audit materials, and that's going to be the lowest uh level of service we've had in the city since 1990.

That was a while ago.

Some of us may have been in high school, and then but we'll won't talk about that.

Um also another thing uh is just to note is that our 2026 contribution, the city's contribution, financial contribution is the lowest that we have had since 2011.

Um we understand the constraints that the city as a whole has, and we've we've tried to do our part to try and make this as efficient as possible.

Um I'm going over to page two, and just at the top of this page, it just breaks down some of the bigger things that we have done to the individual routes and some of the other uh things.

Probably the only thing I really want to highlight is this last point is operating and capital budgets go hand in hand, and there is also significant cost savings in these reductions on the capital side because we are planning over the next three to four years of reducing our fixed sleep, our fixed fleet uh buses by six, so it's about 26% of our buses.

So that's uh a 4.2 million dollar reduction in fleet replacement costs.

So that the f you know the federal government will play pay 80 percent of that, but there is that 20 percent that still needs to be matched one way or another.

Um, and so that's one thing that we've you know, we're we've been focusing on too is especially as we look out in the outer years.

Um, federal funds are probably gonna start from what we're seeing in Washington, federal funds are gonna start uh drying up for grants so uh for capital projects.

So another advantage of doing this was to reduce some of our our uh our fixed fleet bus replacements, and this will start next year.

We're we're getting three buses, but we're gonna be retiring five, and then in um in the subsequent years we'll be retiring more than we are bringing in.

So it is not all gloom and doom.

We've had one of our big things that we really wanted to look at besides just trying to preserve our service for as much of our riding public as we can is we really want to improve passenger efficiency.

And as you can see in 2022, we're down to just over six right around six and a half percent.

So uh passengers per hour.

So every hour of service we had, we averaged six just 6.4 passengers per hour.

Well, through uh May of this year, we're now at 9.3.

So it's a 45% increase, and we the way we're trending was probably will trend to about 50 percent.

So this is one of the things we didn't just want to arbitrarily make cuts, we wanted to make strategic so we can make the system more efficient.

Um the last thing I want to point out, or though the last section I want to talk about is although we've reduced our fixed route service significantly, we're starting to see with our MetroLift, which is for the disabled individuals that ride the smaller buses.

Um we're seeing, and I put this larger longer trend uh graph here, kind of in 2013 we're at about just over 12,000 rides, and then we kind of just kind of pre-COVID up to 19.

But we've rebuilt this, and then 24 um we we saw some significant we saw things take off from 22 to 25, and 25 we actually have hit uh a higher ridership that we've seen for you know over a decade.

And in I I should have put in the estimated amount for 26, but we're gonna be over 14,000 rides easily.

So we're seeing a a steep increase here, and so the demand we we the the that causes a demand for more drivers, more buses out on the road.

Um we we are gonna be requesting additional bus um in the CIP just to keep up with it.

Um just to give a perspective, our 2025 um ridership was a little bit more than 2013.

In 2013, we had a uh we had a metro feat fleet of seven buses and we would have five out in operation.

We're currently doing it with four buses, and it it we're we're getting to the point where if we have any kind of breakdown, it's uh it's almost like NASCAR with the on weekdays for the um mechanics to try and get that bus back up.

So this is a good thing to have.

Um, you know, we want to have mobility for our seniors and our disabled individuals in our community.

It's just it does it will increase it does it is increasing some of our costs.

And um just to pre matter perspective, from 24 to 25, the our average service hours increased 28 hours per week.

So that is an extra part-time employee.

Now the good news is um because of the reductions we've done on the fixed route side, we have reduced it on the city service alone.

There's five driver positions that have been eliminated along with a supervisor position.

So it has um we have had a net decrease, and then there's been reductions on our contracted service as well.

But we have this quarter or that this third drop has resulted in less um uh less staff.

I will put this caveat out there that this would these these reductions and staff were done when those positions were open.

So it just what it did is it reduced our overtime that we had to do.

So um with that, I know I ran through that quite kind of quickly, but with that, if you have any questions or comments, I'll be happy to answer them.

So uh Alder President Evert.

Yeah.

Let me ask you said that there's like six point one percent people perhaps right now are the the rides per hour are average throughout the whole entire system right now is about nine point three.

Nine point three.

How many buses?

Well, there's eight routes.

Uh uh given day we'll have this time of year 11 buses out on the road.

72.

It's a lot of empty buses.

Sorry.

Uh Alder Person Anderson.

Just out of curiosity, um your viewpoint or the city's viewpoint or transit commission's viewpoint, is the city bus service an amenity or an essential service.

Um I mean, I would say it's an essential service.

I mean, the federal government when COVID hit uh felt it was an essential service.

I I mean when you look at the demographics of the people that ride our bus or the typical rider either doesn't have a car or does not have a license, they're riding to go to work um or to the doctor or to shop uh with uh employment being 50 percent of our ridership.

That that's been pretty consistent.

So if the city does not want to invest in uh resources that will help their citizens that do not have transportation get to gain full employment, um yeah, I I guess that's that's the argument is are are there other things that you could do.

I think it is valuable.

I mean, I've been doing this for almost 28 years, so um, but we have made a lot of uh we we we understand the constraints that the city is financially, and that's the big reason why we have done these reductions that we have.

So thank you.

Uh Alder Person Lumkey.

I didn't see it in your presentation, and I don't need an exact, but is the ballpark cost per ride over the course of a year?

The like in other words, it cost $15 a ride to operate our system or $10.

$10.

So we could not pay somebody a taxi or an Uber for $10.

Yeah.

So it's a matter of this is cheaper.

Yep, yeah.

I think one of the things that like about 10 years ago when Uber and Lyft were trying to get into transit when Uber and Lyft was a lot less was a lot less expensive.

Well, they abandoned that though, like I think right after COVID, because they realized they weren't gonna make the kind of money that they need.

Um especially when somebody is making $15 an hour paying $20, $25 to go across town in an Uber one way, you know, $20, you know, 40, $50, that's just not feasible.

Alder Person Wells.

Brian, can you clarify what that 9.1 per transit hour means?

Because I'm concerned that some people are hearing that and hearing that we're moving 9.1 passengers per hour of the week.

And if I understand your number here, it's it works out to be over 5,000 riders per week.

Yeah, um, it's 9.3.

That's the average number.

Uh every hour of service that we have, we're um we average 9.3 rides.

Now some routes are not as efficient as others.

Like uh Route 4 and Route 5, they're at like 15 rides per hour, whereas some of the others are a little bit less.

Um, so it's a balance.

And we have looked at that and the routes that perform better, the service hours are typically larger or longer.

So I guess just to clarify for the public, when we're looking at 600 hours per week, that is 600 hours of central driving time.

Correct.

So if you if you were an employee working 40 hours, that would be what I'm saying is it's not it is not nine riders.

It's it is 9.3 riders per hour the buses are in operation.

Correct, correct.

Which works out to over 5,000 riders per week in a city of 70,000.

That's not a small population that's using the bus service regularly.

Yeah, I mean, typically what we'll see is um on average 1500 rides a weekday.

It's less, it's about a thousand on a Saturday and Sunday it's uh 550 to 600.

So thank you.

Alder Person Matthews.

Yep, a couple of quick questions.

Number one, you talked about the cost um at roughly ten dollars per ride.

Is that the same for MetroLift or is there an extended cost?

And part two is you got a almost 22, 23 percent increase year over year from 24 to 25.

What do you attribute the sudden increase in MetroLift between that time period?

And do you expect that to continue?

Yeah, excellent question on MetroLift.

That is more expensive because it's more of an individualized, it's a smaller bus, and even though it's a smaller bus, it's one driver going to uh you know we only average like there uh passengers per hour is two and a quarter, two two and a quarter passengers per hour.

So of course it's gonna be more expensive.

Um last year our audit amount was just under 40 dollars per ride.

And that's uh and that actually is uh looking at what the state averages are.

It's a little bit higher than some of our peers, but it's a little bit lower than some of our kind of on the high middle ground.

So um as far as what we attribute that, um part of it is just uh in and this is almost this isn't because we go out to freighter.

We do have some riders that will go out to freighter, but it's not a it's only about five percent of our riders.

Um it's mainly just within the city.

Um uh the new perspectives, it's a senior facility uh off of Broadway.

That has been a huge, we we we just continuously get more and more residents signing up for MetroLift there.

So as and and we we talked about this with there is like uh a coalition of trans senior transportation providers about 10 years ago uh that the that the countwalks county had put together.

We talked about the silver tsunami that was coming.

Well, it it's here, and you know, so this was anticipated.

Um it's I we anticipate that MetroLift will continue to grow.

And it's required by the ADA, so there is we're very limited in what we can do, you know, as far as you not providing it.

Uh about the only thing you can do is raise fares, and that's is something that we're looking at uh for 27.

Are there any other questions?

Uh Alder Person Ventrias A.

Thank you.

Uh Brian, uh you and I have talked about this when I did the tour.

Uh I've been looking at this uh the transit uh and I uh had a discussion many years ago with the director back in the day about uh nowadays it would be called a Corolla versus uh escalade on the highway.

And I just educate me at the public and uh those that that need to know this.

But if we were to run just metro lift size buses around uh on all of our routes and um and use that, we wouldn't uh make the mechanic uh pulling his hair out trying to get that fifth bus that metro bus operable.

Um the ridership uh 9.3 per hour.

Uh it seemed to me that we could run uh the smaller buses uh and and have them all metro lift capable around the city.

And uh it it would it would reduce our our overall.

I think you said that our contribution is 20 percent, correct?

Yeah, I mean it's roughly 20 percent, yeah.

Yeah, and we even uh federally we even lease the tires that go on these buses.

So with that, I would like to have you uh commit to exploring that avenue.

It just change all the buses to to a metro lift bus.

And then uh, you know, it it seemed to me it'd take care of two issues, one being handicapped uh rides and the other one being uh you know getting back and forth to work.

Actually, it would increase our expenses.

We'd have to hire uh probably double our mechanic staff because those smaller buses just uh we're gonna be doing a uh presentation which we'll invite all the council to um hopefully uh later this month or next month about why we use the size of the bus that we do.

Um there's there's a number of things involved with that, and uh I've had conversations too, and you we can have a conversation with Mr.

Weinkoff from the City Garage about the difference between a heavy-duty uh chassis and a medium-duty chassis.

That's a that's one of the that's just one of many factors that come into play with uh the buses, the bus size that we use.

So thank you.

Yep.

Alder Person Piper and then Lemke.

Well, I'm I'm not gonna steal any of Brian's thunder as it relates to the size of buses.

Um I've I've been on the transit commission for a bit, and I can a couple of things I wanted to mention for the council and for the public is that Brian and his team are constantly changing routes and evaluating routes and moving bus stops and closing bus stops.

So I mean there's there's a constant evaluation by the transit commission as it relates to levels of service with buses.

Um I too have asked for years, why not run smaller buses?

And I've been educated in the fact that a couple of things that are reality and are well out of the control of all of us on this board is that there's only so many companies in this country that make buses, and there's only so many different sizes of the buses that they make, and these companies have a very strong lobby with the federal government around what sizes of buses they want to make and sell transit authorities like ours.

So I would love to have a 12-foot bus, but Gilly doesn't make a 12-foot bus.

They make a couple of different sizes of buses, and that's what they make.

And these companies know that the federal government pays 80% of the cost of these buses, so there's really no motivation for them to make smaller buses.

And that's the stinky reality of some of the things that we have to face as a as a common council and as a transit commission is and as the chair of the finance committee that I've asked for for many years.

So I I look forward to Brian's discussion around the size of buses because I've had that conversation with constituents for many, many years and other council members, and it is not me.

I'm certainly not making an excuse for anyone, but I also know what sometimes is an unfortunate reality that we face, and that is the unfortunate reality that the they only make so many different sizes, there's only so many companies, some companies that make buses, and the larger buses do last longer than if the city were to run the metro lift size buses throughout their entire fleet.

So I talked more on that than I wanted to because I didn't want to steal Brian's Thunder as it relates to an upcoming presentation.

But I wanted to share that with the public and the council this evening.

So thank you.

If I could just say uh follow up, there's right now there's two manufacturers that make uh buses that are by America compliant buses.

There are some that are looking to get on, but there's basically two.

Um and one of the two is Alderman Piper.

You know, he's asked uh he's asked me multiple times why can't we go to a 30-foot instead of a 35-foot, which that's part of our our discussion.

Well, the those are the 30-foot bus only is two percent of the buses that are being produced in the country right now.

They're 35, 40, and then you get up to 60 foot articulated buses.

So they're going to bigger ones because a lot of part of it you also have to remember is a lot of people a lot of systems are doing what we're doing because the there's less funding, so it's less routes, less service, so that demand gets pushed on to fewer vehicles.

So uh Alder Person Lumpy.

One last question.

The big buses are on a fixed route, and the metro lift is kind of goes where the people need because they're handicapped, they got to go to their doctor, they can't get to the fixed route.

So we have this the short buses, that's the metro lift, and we have the big buses or that's on the fixed routes.

That is correct.

And I'm sorry if I didn't explain that.

I probably jumped in too far, so I apologize for that.

So thank you.

And there are any other questions.

I know there's been um some discussion about uh empty buses today.

Um the city did put together a nice video about two months ago.

It's still available on our YouTube channel.

So I would encourage both um the Alders as well as members of the public if you have questions about why sometimes you are seeing empty buses.

Uh River can tell you all about it on our YouTube page.

Uh all right.

Any other comments uh regarding transit?

I will take that as a no.

Uh water utility commission report.

Alder Person Matthews.

Yes, thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Um, had the opportunity to tour the new building, the new facility is coming along well.

We're really looking forward to it.

One thing I think it's important to mention is the consolidation efforts and what the impact is going to be from a cost from the water utilities.

Being able to have everything housed in one building and and maximize services in one area, it's going to save a fortune in transportation and allocations as well.

Also, too, as you will the council will see coming forward, you're going to see more buildings be coming um up and and open for um distribution.

So uh a lot of good things were happening with that building.

Um, and it's not just a uh rebuilding of a new building and a new facility.

There's going to be a lot of value and a lot of add to that particular piece.

So looking forward to it and and a report.

Thank you.

Um IT board report, Alderperson Manion.

Our July meeting, which would have been uh last week Wednesday was canceled.

End of report.

Uh Landmarks Commission Alderperson Chrisine.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh we had uh three applicants come before and request request some funds for their uh maintenance and upkeep of their historic properties.

Um speaking of a national historic property, the water utility has a non-local historic property, uh hopefully coming before common council on what to do with it.

We finally got to see the inside of that property, and uh that was the one of the highlights of the evening.

On hopefully it'll uh come here, and you guys get to see the uh unfortunate uh uh history of the inside of that property, so and report.

Thank you.

Uh redevelopment authority, Alderperson Lunke.

No meeting, no report.

Okay, uh Parks Recreation and Forestry Board, Alder Person Wells.

Thank you.

Uh no meeting, but I did want to thank the PRF board and or PRF staff and city staff for all their hard work on the over the weekend, but on the independence day events and celebrations.

Um sure speak for May City residents who very much appreciated the excellent fireworks and the parade.

Um please check out your activity guide for all the other great events that we're putting on the summer and uh enjoy your summer programs.

Thank you.

And I do want to add uh a thank you to our parks foundation for our beautiful new flag in Lowell Park.

So if you weren't at the fireworks, definitely check it out.

Uh library board report, uh, Alder Person Halgasted.

Thank you.

Um our meeting is this Thursday at 445 at the library.

Um, if anyone's interested, please come join us.

Uh I would encourage everyone again to join the summer reading program and also mention that the this year's Walkshaw Reads book has been announced.

It is uh 33 placed by Alice Austin, and it will be available starting September 8th.

And a report.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Uh cemetery commission report, Alderperson Christine.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh last meeting we discussed Walkershaw unlocked, and we are having two days at the cemetery.

And I'm gonna go back to landmarks, landmarks, and the spring commission is opening up some of the spring houses for Waukeshaw unlocked, and the uh July meeting is not scheduled for cemetery, so our next meeting on cemetery is Monday, August 10th.

Thank you.

Uh housing authority report, Alder Person Piper.

No report this evening.

Okay.

Community development block grant, Jennifer.

No report.

All right.

Um public art committee report, Alder Person Molson.

No report.

All right, Plan Commission.

Uh Jennifer, I will oh nope, we're throwing it over to Jeff.

Yep.

Thanks.

Um, so this is a request that went through the plan commission as coming to common council for review and possible action on a request by Habitat for Humanity of Waukeshaw, Jefferson, and Rock Counties to waive impact fees for the construction of two new single family and one duplex in the Tower Hill neighborhood.

The single families are at 128-134 Caldwell, and the duplex is at 909 Madison Street.

These are the next um houses that they're gonna be building after they complete Dominica Park, which should wrap up this fall.

Um construction over there should wrap up, so they're gonna move over to this neighborhood.

Um so for um impact fees.

Uh our section four um 108C of the code allows the common council upon recommendation from the plan commission to waive impact fees for low-cost housing.

And the income level of these habitat families typically ranges between 40 percent and 80 percent of the the county median income level.

Um so in the past we've weighed them for uh Dominica Park, we wouldn't for uh the Prairieville neighborhood on White Rock, where there's some single family, some duplex, and on the little pocket neighborhood.

Um and then the other justification in this area is three of the all three of these lots previously did have homes on them.

Those were torn down by the hospital.

Um as they did their project for the new entryway, they realized that some of these they didn't need anymore, so um they decided to give them to have a habitat to develop some more homes in the area.

So that's um so with that we'd recommend granting uh impact fee waiver for all impact fees for the new homes being developed by Habitat at 128 and 124 Caldwell and 909 Madison Street.

Okay, uh Alderperson Matthews.

I'll make a motion to waive the impact fees for the construction of the two new single-family homes on Caldwell Street and the duplex on Madison Street.

Thank you.

Alderperson Helgestad.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

Uh Alderperson Lemke.

I normally would be uh adverse to um waiving impact fees until I found out that there were homes on 128, 134, and 909 Madison Street, and those homes originally before they were torn down, did pay the impact fee.

So a new home on this site here would basically be getting double the impact fees uh where all the infrastructure and parks and everything have already been paid for technically from the impact fees.

So I did change my mind uh about this, and not because it was Hobb Habitat for Humanity Income Levels, but just I think the double impact fees per lot uh wasn't right.

So uh I I will be supporting this.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Uh Alderperson Van Trieste.

Uh all right.

Uh anyone else.

All right.

Uh then we do have a motion in a second, so please vote when it is before you.

Alderman Van Trieste.

Aye.

All right.

That motion passes 14 to 0.

Uh thank you.

Is there anything else for Plant Commission?

I will take that.

Like I will take that as a no.

All right.

Uh next up we have finance committee report.

Alderperson Piper.

Thank you.

Um, no items tonight, but I did wanted to remind the council and the public that uh the budget calendar, the budget review calendar is out.

Uh Tony sent that out in an email on the 15th of June.

Um, the first meeting um is probably the probably the best meeting of the year in my humble opinion, and that's the show and tell the capital equipment show and tell uh on August 25th at 6 o'clock at the city garage on Century Drive.

Encourage all the members of the council to attend, and certainly the public is very welcome to come and see the various vehicles and pieces of equipment that are being requested in the 2027 budget.

If you have any questions on that, please you can certainly reach out to myself, Tony, or Joe Shurell.

End of report.

Can I ask a question about three ports?

Sure.

Alder Person Lumke, go ahead.

We always go to the garage and it's a great thing, but we kind of get surprised when we go to the garage as to what they're showing us.

They give us a little form.

Would it be possible, Tony, to get that form to us a little earlier, maybe by um by our uh communications so that we aren't surprised when we get there and have not so much time to investigate before we get there.

So just to clarify basically a list of the vehicles that will be presented on that evening.

Yeah, but that's I don't know if it's possible, it might not be, but you know, I always get there and say, Oh, you know.

Yeah, I don't let me talk that through with um certainly the departmental staff and the fleet manager, but I think that that's a possibility that we can certainly explore.

Thank you.

Excellent.

All right.

Uh building and grounds uh committee report, Alder Person Molson.

Well, everybody's had a lot of good ideas for building and grounds lately.

Um as of yesterday, uh the balance in the buildings and grounds account is now zero dollars.

So um if you have any further good ideas, you'll need to wait till January.

Uh we're not accepting uh uh additional referrals unless the referral you think costs zero dollars, and then we'll be happy to look into it.

Um otherwise I guess that's it.

Thank you for that update.

Uh next up, ordinance and license committee report.

Alder Person Witeska?

Um, yeah, we've got uh an item here to review an amendment to municipal code 9.115 to allow temporary extensions of license premises onto municipal lot 13.

And I'll I'll pass it over to Jim because this was his referral.

So Jim go ahead.

Thanks.

Yeah, this uh the item is being brought forth is for the extension of premises for Maddie's bar.

Uh I'm fighting for fairness with this because uh it seems that that original 9115 uh was made for uh the House of Guinness, and other bars immediately joined in with them, and I'm only asking that Mattys have the same respect with the with the parking lot behind their bar that they have an extension of premises.

They get a lot of overflow from the Friday night live.

Um it was passed unanimously through committee, so I'm just asking that this be uh be passed through.

Thank you.

And just as a reminder, this is the second reading, so we are not taking action on this tonight.

Um are there any uh comments or questions?

Alder Person Witeska?

Um yeah, so to Jim's comment, this did pass through ONL uh unanimously to come to council or to recommend approval to the council.

Um I'm with Jim, right?

This is only fair in my opinion to pass this and allow you know Mattys to use that parking lot if they desire.

Um it's not particularly fair to allow you know a few places that happen to be adjacent to one of our municipal lots and not allow others if they want to.

So I guess in my opinion, the only two options are either remove it completely and not let anybody do it, or you know, allow lot 13 to also be used.

So I'm supportive.

Alder Person Wells?

Just for clarification, is this for a one weekend uh extension of premises, or is this a because my understanding is that the uh house again is extension of premises is for St.

Patrick's Day.

Would this be a blanket throughout the year or just a one-off?

So just to for clarification, the ordinance.

Um so this isn't the permit, this is the ordinance, and the ordinance would allow them to theoretically do it any time that they get the permit for it.

That's why I was missing.

Thank you.

Yep.

Um, yeah, Alder Person Manion.

Um, that was a question that came up at the ONL meeting um that I asked, and Brian actually uh sent me an email last week clarifying that.

So um currently the restriction is based on the fact that under the municipal code, an extension of premise um has an aggregate limit of 90 days.

So just so everybody's clear, there could be some unintended consequences here because there is that is the limit upon this.

So I'm not saying that Matty's is going to do it, but under the current code, they could request up to 90 days of extensions in that parking lot.

Thank you.

Yeah, well, you are concerned about that.

And uh I did manage to speak with uh somebody at the uh licensing, and they told me that uh 90 days is the maximum.

However, it at 40 a day, I don't think that'd be cost prohibitive.

Uh Alder Person Wateska.

Apologies, one other thing I thought of.

Um, typically when we think of extension of premises, it's like a sidewalk cafe or something like that.

Um that is not the case here.

This is a closure of a public lot.

It requires it uh same as it does for um the other House Againess, thank you.

Um they would be required to follow our street closure um requirements.

So this isn't they're just gonna set up a sidewalk cafe in the parking lot whenever they want, right?

They have to apply for license, they have to follow our municipal code around shutting down the parking lot so that nobody is gonna drive in, right?

They can't just take advantage of it, need requires a permit, those kinds of things.

These were all discussed during ONL.

It's kind of slipped my mind before.

So that was what I wanted to add.

Alder Person Wickerson.

I just want to clarify that this ordinance is strictly just the modification with lot 13 being added.

What Pa what Alderman Witeska is talking about is you know, this does not stop Matt.

Matty would have to provide a blueprint and come to ONL with their extension premises permit and their blueprint of what they're going to be needing.

This ordinance only designates lot 13.

That is just the the change.

You're not approving or not looking at all these additional things.

That's all a separate process for ONL.

This ordinance strictly just adds lot 13 to the current ordinance where lot three, the clock tower lot is for the House of Guinness.

So I just want to make sure that everybody understands that the permitting process and the and the blueprint that Maddie provides is not part of what we're talking about.

Thank you.

Alder Person Anderson.

Uh, just out of curiosity to Alderman Weteska's comment.

Um what's to stop the cascade of additional municipal lots being added to this?

And you know, if it's fair here, it's not fair there.

I mean, do we just make every lot available to people?

Alder Person Witesca.

That is certainly a possibility that another owner near a parking lot would or municipal lot would come and ask us for the same permission, right?

Another amendment to open them all up.

We certainly could open them all up for this.

I think that's something we all have to consider is what the future is.

Um, again, from my perspective, it's fair until somebody ruins it, right?

And then we have to talk about taking it away from everybody.

Um, but it's a it's a great question.

All right.

Any other questions or comments?

All right.

Again, this is the second reading, so this will come back to us at a later date.

So moving right along.

Um HR committee report, Alder Person Anderson.

Our next meeting is scheduled for July 15th, 6 p.m.

in this room.

Thank you.

Uh Board of Public Works report.

Uh Brandon.

Uh all items were on consent, so nothing further.

Excellent.

Um, so I'm gonna assume that's your report, then it's all okay.

Like, yeah, you've got two things here.

Um, all right, uh city attorney's report, anything?

Uh no report, thank you.

All right, uh, city administrators report.

Yeah, just a couple items uh coming back to the 2027 budget uh for capital.

We received all departmental requests early last week, so we're slowly coming through those.

Uh one thing you'll likely see if you compare this year's CIP to the proposed one is that there are probably several projects that will be moved around, especially for 2028, because there are a lot of requests, uh, some of which are mandatory that are putting us at a dollar threshold that I don't think we ideally want to be.

Um, so again, you'll probably see a lot of projects move around.

Um, the other thing is just thanking the council for the investment in the upgrades or enhancements, if you will, in this building.

Um, I think part of being uh a good employer is making workplace safety a priority.

Um, so I think that's important to any organization, but probably even more so one where we have so many public-facing facilities like this.

Um so I think that's important to any organization, but probably even more so one where we have so many public facing facilities like this, and as an extension of that to what Alder Person uh Chrisine had mentioned, um it really is a recruitment and retention piece, and we have a very strong staff here, and I feel like it's my responsibility, it's our responsibility to make sure that we're creating the type of environment to make sure that we maintain those standards.

And I think tonight was certainly a reflection of that and what you see from the community development staff related to the zoning code.

Um you guys just undertook a pretty significant um approval by really laying out the framework for what the community development is going to look like for the next 20, 30 years, but then also on the work that Brandon did, or Brandon, excuse me, Brian does in terms of the transit system and where he's been able to take that to make improvements along the way.

Um so that is the end of my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, next up is my report.

I just wanted to make sure that I'm calling attention to um the invitation that you should have all received in your email uh regarding a clean water plant tour.

Um, just a reminder to RSVP by July 17th, if you would like to attend that, and I would highly encourage you to do that if you are available, um, especially if you're a newer Alder.

It's uh it's a very exciting experience and be prepared for some walking.

Uh all right.

Next up, referrals, any referrals.

Uh Alder Person Lemke.

I would like to make a referral to Tony uh to investigate.

Uh every one of us every year probably gets block party applications, and I know I've gotten 10 of them in my seven years or 12 of them, and the people always have to come to my door or meet to arrange somewhere for me to sign off their approval.

And so I'm thinking that they can make an application, give it to Katie, and then she can send it to me and I can email her.

Yeah, this one's okay.

They don't have to come to my door to to have me sign their we already do that paper.

Well, I know, but I was told that we can't, and therefore, yeah, you gotta sign it.

So I just want to make sure that that's still the policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any other referrals.

All right.

Um, then next up we have a closed session.

Uh Alder Person Manion.

I move that we uh go into closed session uh pursuant to Wisconsin statute 19.85 parent one parent G to confer with legal counsel regarding the possible settlement of an excessive assessment lawsuit captioned SBV Fox River LLC versus the city of Waukesha.

All right, uh Alder Person Halgastad.

Second.

All right.

Any discussion about going into closed session?

No, please vote when it is before you.

All right, that motion passes, and it looks like the doors have closed, and the members of the we're back on.

All right.

Yeah.

Uh Alder Person Paper.

Make a motion to reconvene in open session.

All right, is there a second?

Alder Person Manion.

I will second that motion.

All right.

Any discussion about reconvening in open session?

No.

All right, please vote when it is before you.

Wigerson aye.

Anderson aye.

And Tree SDI.

All right.

That motion does pass 14 to zero.

We are now back in open session.

Uh Alder Person Molson.

I move to uh uh approve the settlement of the lawsuit between S V V Fox River LLC and the City of Walker as discussed in closed session.

Uh Alder Person Manion.

I'll second that motion.

Is there any additional discussion?

No.

Then please vote when that is before you.

Wigderson aye.

Anderson aye.

Patriot S Aye.

All right.

That motion also passes 14 to 0.

Thank you very much.

Uh that was the last item on our agenda.

So if there are no objections, we are adjourned.

Please continue.