The Meeting of the Common Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. It was noted that the meeting had been announced and a notice posted at City Hall.
Roll call was taken, with the following members present: Mayor Jim Bialecki, Ald. Diane Oldani Wulf, Ald. Gary Gonczy, Ald. Jim Olson, Ald. Kim Smith, Ald. Clarence Stellner, and Ald. Mike Giese.
Also present were: HR Specialist Elsa Kulig, Financial Services Director Fred Buehler, City Attorney Gerard O’Flaherty, Land Use & Development Director Jason Gilman, City Engineer Jarrod Holter, Police Chief Randy Williams, Park and Recreation Director Dan Wick, Omni Director Tom Hammill, and Tourism Director Jean Lunde.
Item 2 - Pledge of
Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was declared.
Item 3 - Approval of minutes from previous meeting.
Amendment to the June 2, 2006 Joint Special Common Council and CDA Minutes:
Line 1 should read the Joint meeting of the Special Common Council and CDA.
Amendment to the June 13, 2006, Common Council Minutes:
Line 946 should read Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation to approve. The total of the two grants is $240,165 rather than $14,760.
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Stellner, to approve the minutes as amended above from the previous meetings as printed and on file in the City Clerk’s Office. On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 4 - PUBLIC INPUT: (limited to 3 minutes/individual)
Mayor Bialecki turned the agenda item over to anyone wishing to provide input.
Mike Benco
815 Windhill Street
“I stand here today to speak against the cell phone tower proposal. I think it’s Item 10 (g) on your agenda. I represent not only my views but those of the people standing with me today and the Onalaska citizens who signed a petition against building a tower on the bluff. You should have received a copy of this petition and its introductory letter prior to this meeting. I’m not against cell towers, I just don’t think they belong on our bluffs. There are many reasons for not building on the bluffs - in the petition papers we pointed out three of them. Our bluffs should be protected from development because of their prominence in the city affecting both tourists and citizens alike. The comprehensive plan calls for protection of the bluffs, and along this tower to be built sets some potentially troublesome precedents for the city. I’d also like to point out that other municipalities in the area are moving toward protecting their bluffs from development. Holmen now has a 12% slope restriction, the town of Onalaska has a 20% limit - both of these are more restrictive than the City of Onalaska’s, which is 30%. So the city won’t be alone in deciding to protect the natural gifts we’ve been given. And I’d also like to say that Onalaska has the opportunity to take the lead in this movement. Finally, the comprehensive plan adopted in 2005, clearly defines Onalaska’s bluffs as treasures to be protected and preserved. I urge you to set a precedent supporting that plan and vote against this cell tower proposal. Thank you”.
V. Vance
1041 Windhill Street
“I just want to say that I spent several years selecting the site that we moved to in Onalaska, and I cherish that a great deal. One of the primary things always in real estate is location, location, location, and I think it’s a beautiful location. One of the factors that I really enjoy is the view we have from our home, and the tower would not help that view at all. And I’m very much opposed to that and I want to register my complaint”.
Jim Trusoni
1033 Windhill Street
“We would be looking directly at the bluff. We had moved up here from Illinois about six years ago. We moved on the river, my wife loved the river, but she also loves the bluff. We moved from the river down by Stoddard to this location so we could see this bluff. And we think that a structure such as this would hinder the view and the appearance, and we would like to see the bluffs preserved. Thank you very much”.
Mayor Bialecki asked if there was anyone else that would like to address the council.
Item 5 - REPORT FROM THE MAYOR.
A. Appointment of
Mike Gargaro, 451 R. Stephan Place, Onalaska to the Community Development
Authority Board.
Mike Gargaro will replace Steve Christianson. Steve came on board a month or two ago, well intended, however, he is not a resident of the City, and therefore, that prompts the change, and obviously Mr. Gargaro is. His term will be expire in April, 2007.
Motion by Ald. Wulf, second by Ald. Gonczy, to approve the appointment of Mike Gargaro to the Community Development Authority Board.
On voice vote, motion carried.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR APPROVAL AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION FROM THE FOLLOWING
COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/BOARDS:
Item 6 – FINANCE
COMMITTEE:
A. Vouchers.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, to approve Vouchers No. 1400 through No. 1627, expended since the last Common Council meeting of June 13, 2006, in the amount of $944,410.87. On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Emergency Operations Plan.
Ald. Smith indicated this item was forwarded without a recommendation and turned the item over to Police Chief Williams.
Chief Williams reported that there were two things being sought in conjunction with the approval of the plan by the City Council as follows:
Chief Williams indicated that it was approved by A & J and also by Finance and Personnel pending these two requirements.
Ald. Gonczy indicated that no further action is necessary as the rules were suspended and it was given its first, second and third reading at A & J.
Item 7 – PERSONNEL COMMITTEE:
A. Personnel Policies:
1.
Revised Citizen Complaint and Internal Investigations.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Personnel Committee to accept the revision.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Out-of-State travel request:
1. Officer Winjum to attend Internet Crimes Against
Children Undercover Investigations from September 11 – September 15, 2006, in
Annapolis, MD.
OR
2. Officer Winjum to attend Internet Crimes Against
Children Undercover Investigations from October 23 – October 27, 2006, in
Portsmouth, NH.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Personnel Committee to approve Officer Winjum to proceed with securing attendance at one of these events.
On voice vote, motion carried.
3. Dan Weigel to attend Western Section International
Association of Electrical Inspectors from September 17 – September 20, 2006, in
Traverse City, MI.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Personnel Committee to approve Mr. Weigel’s attendance at this seminar.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Non-Union Compensation Plan.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Personnel Committee to implement a 3-year compensation adjustment plan with Phase I increasing the annual wage of employees with greater than 3 years of service who are being paid less than the proposed minimum wage by 1/3 of the deficit effective July 1, 2006. The estimated cost of this is approximately $12,000.00 annualized.
Under discussion, Ald. Stellner, suggested implementing this program within 2 years rather than a 3-year program.
Ald. Gonczy questioned if the benefits side was evaluated to come up with a formula to determine what is the value of the benefits public employees have versus private, specifically, the ability to retire at age 55.
Ald. Smith answered, “To address Gary’s question a little bit, we did resurrect some of the information that was used in compiling this that had the health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, retirement, sick leave, vacation, vacation carry over, holiday, etc., from several cities which were considered somewhat comparable to Onalaska. And in reviewing those, I did not find that to be – there were some that were better, there were some that were worse, but I did not believe that the City of Onalaska’s compensation plan was greatly different either to the plus or the minor than comparable communities”.
Ald. Gonczy asked, “Well was there a comparison to the private sector? Because that was part of the thing when we established the first committee was to make a comparison there similar to what the state did quite a few years ago when they froze salaries for quite a while because of the higher benefits that the public sector had. And I’m just asking, I haven’t seen that done, yet”.
Ald. Smith answered, “I can pass this document down if you want. I don’t know, I’m not sure actually where it originated from, but if you want to look at it I understand you don’t want to take into consideration information you haven’t had before the meeting. But it does not take into consideration the private sector – I think the similar comparables were used that we look at when we do our union negotiations”.
Ald. Olson suggested making a decision on this tonight; however, as Ald. Gonczy has a good point, he suggested moving forward in concept and principle, and then revisit it at the next council meeting on that particular issue.
Ald. Olson added that the original concept that F & P had to implement a 3-year plan makes sense fiscally over a period of time. Ald. Olson said, “I feel more comfortable in being able to promise something to the employees and deliver it and do it in a fiscally responsible way”.
Ald. Giese explained, “I’m going to vote for the motion. I would caution everybody that this is a perishable table. I think the table was done over a year ago. And because it is perishable, it’s something that has to be constantly updated and so what we have here in the recommendation of the motion, needs to be able to be changed. So as we look at it 6 months from now or 12 months from now or whatever it is, this is a target that we’re shooting for, but it’s not a commitment to fulfill. The other point I would make is that the concerns of the compensation committee initially was to address the questions of internal and external validity, and I think we’ve done that, but again, even that’s going to have to be looked at on an ongoing basis. Now I don’t suggest that that should be done annually, but I think we should make a decision of how often are we going to complete that survey again to make sure that we keep this correct. And the last point I want to take at this time is that this compensation grade that drives dollars is also very useful in terms of making management decisions, so once again I emphasize that we need to see these grades on every job description and we need to see these grades attached to jobs in flow charts and organizational diagrams because that will give us the information of whether we’re increasing productivity or not, so with that I will be voting for the motion”.
Mayor Bialecki said, “And I want to make a comment here, too, because I agree with Mike and just so all council members are aware here, too, that for the personnel involved here, we did discuss it at length, too, and I would lean more toward the 3-year because it’s a start in the right direction, but I need to say that we’re still restricted by the state in operational spending in the 2007 budget. I’m not sure how to take 2008 or 2009, so anything can change and that’s where I lean toward, Mike. And I think it’s been cleared to staff, too”.
Motion by Ald. Stellner to make it two years instead of three.
As there was no second to the motion, the motion fails and returns back to the original motion of a 3-year plan.
Ald. Wulf noted that having received the spreadsheets, she did research, made notes, and arrived at numerous figures concerning this issue. Ald. Wulf said, “One consistent comment that I’ve heard the last couple of weeks is that people at City Hall want to work for a fair employer, and in order to work for a fair employer they want to feel like everyone is treated the same, and I believe that.”
Ald. Wulf commented that she feels very strongly that F & P’s proposal is a great start because of the necessity to get something on the table regarding this.
Ald. Wulf added, “And I agree with the Mayor that something has to come out of this tonight. I kind of liken, if we only do so much for people who have only been here longer than three years, I kind of liken it to, ‘If the boat is sinking, you need to save everyone – not only those who happened to have boarded the boat first’. If you got on the boat last, well, we’re just going to let them sink, we’re going to let them drown, and I don’t think that in all fairness that we should do that. Because in some ways those people who we have just hired recently and I’m going to talk about positions because we always talk about positions and not people, we’ve hired a couple of positions just recently and what have we done? We have looked at the flow chart and said what is the target dollar, and we hired them at that position. So, based on that criteria alone, I say, let’s bring everyone on board”.
Ald. Wulf added, “Now if there are people on this council who say, ‘I feel a little bit concerned’, and I do agree, I think as much as I’d like to go ahead and go with a 2-year plan, I think we have to be very prudent and very conservative and be careful with how much money we have and make sure that we don’t make promises that we can’t keep. If anyone feels like maybe we can’t make that promise and cut it in thirds or whatever, maybe we can’t be that aggressive. Well, whatever we have to do, I just really firmly believe that we need to bring everyone on board. So what I would propose is that we do bring everyone on board, people that F & P mentioned earlier this month, we bring all those people on board, and those people remaining, those positions remaining, (and the ones that I’m speaking about particularly, I would propose that we also bring on board the building and ground superintendent). I know there was talk about those people who have already been given their step increases or those people who have step increases to be had in the future. Well, I think those positions that are in question or those positions that, for example, we have two clerical. I think one has been here one year and one has been here four years. I think those positions that there are some questions on, for example, where I believe it was the Municipal Court Supervisor and the Human Resource Specialist. Those couple of positions if there are questions, if their job description needs to be looked at and revised, I say we should look at and revise, I say we should go ahead and bounce those back to F & P and have Human Resources or the City Clerk, or Fred or whoever needs to look at those between now and council, those need to be looked at brought back, and have 100% of those positions down to council next month. Because I think there’s got to be an answer”.
Ald. Olson replied, “I disagree with you, respectfully, and the reason for that is I think that an awful lot of people have gone through an awful lot of work to try to put together something that’s meaningful, fair, and decent, and I think that in all fairness to Kim, who has really worked very hard trying to come up with a legitimate answer for something that’s fair and equitable, and not a fact of embarrassing Kim but she’s an honest, good person with a good soul, and did the best she can. Now, that’s good enough for me. And part of being in a leadership position is not, I’m not interested in making everyone happy. I’m interested in doing what I think is the right thing with the right set of values and that’s the best I’m going to do. And so that’s my comment. I think the plan that we are starting to move ahead with here is perfectly okay”.
Ald. Gonczy asked “Just on the spreadsheet for clarification, Kim, where the “difference column” is, the ones in black are underpaid, is that correct by the comparison”?
Ald. Smith replied, “That is correct. The ones in red are above the proposed minimum wage or the incumbent is currently being paid above the minimum proposed wage and the ones in red are being paid below the proposed minimum wage”.
Ald. Gonczy asked, “So I would assume that if those positions are vacated and when we announce them we’ll go back to what our recommended wage is. I’m not saying we take anybody backwards – I just wanted to clarify”.
Ald. Smith answered, “Right. The current policy which the finance and personnel committee, and the council has adopted is that when new positions are being filled, we are targeting their wages at the minimum of the proposed range”.
Ald. Gonczy asked, “Okay, then on the payment that we’re approving tonight is the payment of what’s under Plan Year 1, correct”?
Ald. Smith stated, “It would be Plan Year 1 of the 3-Year Plan which is approximately one third of the total deficit. What is on the table as a motion right now is to approve these salary changes effective July 1 at the annualized rate. However, people need to keep in mind that it is practically the start of our budget year already. So, while I respect Diane’s comments and those concerns that she had were my concerns also. And what I’ve tried to put together is a compromise that we can all, as a council, agree to and move forward. And then these details, which we all know what they are, we have until, in my opinion, I would like to take until the end of the year to resolve them in a fair manner, which won’t be one month, but it would only be a couple before we’re back in the budget process again”.
In response to a question from Ald. Gonczy, Ald. Smith noted that all people who were in deficit of the minimum proposed range will have been caught up within three years.
Fred reminded that Year One was going to be half of that figure as it was going to start on July 1st.
For clarification Ald. Giese questioned, “I believe the grades were based on job descriptions, not on incumbencies, and so any deviation from job description would be taken into consideration, so it may be possible that somebody who was in a job description title who may not have experiences or other minimum qualifications for that job could expect an adjustment to make it compliant with the grade”.
Ald. Smith answered, “I’ll just address the question, Mike. And that is exactly one of my concerns with excluding people with less than three years of service. Because in reviewing the jobs and the job descriptions in this situation, I feel comfortable that all people with greater than three years of service, are meeting their job requirements and I’m not feeling questionable about the minimum proposed wage at all. It isn’t until we get into people that have less than three years of service that I think the job descriptions or the minimum proposed wage is not in line with the experience of the incumbent, and that’s not to be disrespectful to anyone, it’s our own internal problem that we need to work out.
I actually have three reasons why the greater than three years and I’ll just be very brief:
In response to a question from Ald. Wulf, Ald. Smith indicated that the job audit will have to be completed before the end of the year before the next phase of the compensation plan adjustment.
Ald. Wulf stated that one of her concerns when looking at the positions and the job description and job requirements in comparison to the pay, that this is not in balance.
Mayor Bialecki asked if there was any other discussion on the motion.
On voice vote, motion carried. 3 – yes, 2 - no, and 1 abstention.
Item 8 - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE:
Item A - Approval of Operator’s Licenses
Name Location Type of Application
Joshua R. Berg Stoney Creek Inn Renewal
Karla M. Bialek Olive Garden Renewal/Provisional
Kathy J. Burch Kwik Trip New/Provisional
William A. Deigmann The Wharf Renewal/Provisional
Betsey J. Doroghazi The Wharf Renewal/Provisional
Shelley A. Hall The Wharf Renewal/Provisional
Kelly J. Hanson Burrachos New
Timothy L. Harris Skogen’s New/Provisional
Justin M. Heberlein Kwik Trip Renewal/Provisional
Thomas B. Hodde Olive Garden Renewal
Bruce A. Hraback Festival Foods Renewal/Provisional
Sarah L. Huber American Legion Renewal
Adam P. Jensen Hillside Inn Renewal/Provisional
Kristen L. Johnson Skogen’s Renewal/Provisional
Michael J. LaVelle The Wharf New/Provisional
Jessica A. Limberg Applebee’s New/Provisional
Brenda K. Lueck Ciatti’s Renewal
Mark A. Madsen Festival Foods Renewal/Provisional
Cheri A. Mally Hock’s Scoreboard Renewal/Provisional
Lindsay R. Nelson The Wharf Renewal
Troy T. Nelson The Wharf Renewal
Timothy J. Niebuhr Unemployed Renewal
Martin S. Ostromencki Hillside Inn Renewal
Sue L. Page American Legion Renewal/Provisional
Susan A. Pedretti The Wharf Renewal/Provisional
Joshua L. Post Ciatti’s Renewal/Provisional
Carlos J. Rodriguez The Wharf Renewal/Provisional
Erin N. Shanley Festival Foods New/Provisional
Ryan D. Stearns Cedar Creek Renewal
Jacob M. Stuebs Olive Garden New/Provisional
Vernon J. Weisensel Jr. Olive Garden Renewal/Provisional
Gregory J. Wirtz Olive Garden Renewal/Provisional
Sharon J. Wunsch Ciatti’s Renewal/Provisional
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, to approve the Operators Licenses as listed. On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Emergency Operations Plan (see Finance B).
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Administrative Committee to approve the Emergency Operations Plan as written with the changes that Chief Williams noted tonight.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Amend Liquor License for the Onalaska American Legion for the Legion Community Days, August 25-27, 2006.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Administrative Committee to amend the liquor license for the above days.
On voice vote, motion carried.
D. Placement of
additional benches in the Onalaska Cemetery by the Onalaska American
Legion.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, upon recommendation of the Administrative Committee to allow these additional benches to be placed in the designated area that is set aside in the cemetery for the memorial.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 9 - BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS:
A. Transportation Assessment District study – authorization of Phase II by Ayres Associates.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation for approval pending funding source review.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy questioned if we found the funds.
Jarrod reported that it is the 12th Avenue project which is being paved tomorrow. The 12th Avenue project was bonded $1 million and the project bid came in at approximately $775,000, so there are adequate funds in that capital improvements project to fund this $9600.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Street opening permits – 3 year guarantee.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation to approve involving when streets are opened, the extension of the guaranty from repair process.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy reminded that the ordinance will need to be changed and requested to put it on the agenda for A & J.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Funding for catch basin repair throughout the City.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation to authorize repair.
Under discussion, Ald. Giese reminded that Jarrod was going to come back on a funding recommendation.
Jarrod indicated that was from the storm sewer fund.
On voice vote, motion carried.
D. Sanitary Sewer
System Compliance Maintenance.
1. Annual Report (CMAR).
Jarrod reported, “We’re doing an annual compliance maintenance report which is a self check list based on about a ten page report. It’s financial. It includes maintenance activities of our lift stations and sanitary sewer system. We received an “A” grade on this report meaning we were going in the right direction and things were heading in the right areas. The resolution that’s to follow is actually the reason the DNR wants to file a resolution is if we have anything with a “C” grade or below, they want to make sure that the council knows that and that we should be taking steps to fix those things. We had nothing in the report that had a “C” or lower grade so the resolution is going to be very easy for council members to pass.
2. Resolution 23-2006 - City of Onalaska
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources NR 208 – Compliance Maintenance
Resolution 2005 Onalaska, Wisconsin.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation to approve Resolution 23-2006.
On roll call vote: Diane Oldani Wulf – yes, Gary Gonczy – yes, Jim Olson – yes, Mike Giese – yes, Clarence Stellner – yes, Kim Smith – yes.
On roll call vote, motion passes – 6 yes votes.
E. No parking on Irvin Street – railroad tracks to alley.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation to place it on the A & J Agenda.
On voice vote, motion carried.
F. Savannah Oaks Development Agreement and utility plans.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Olson, to approve with the recommendations that are listed below on Item 4 and Item 3.
Under discussion, Jason indicated that Item 4, which is on the second to the last page, needs to be stricken from this agreement. This was replaced by Item 3, which was drafted by Sean O’Flaherty. On voice vote, motion carried.
G. Schedule public hearing for Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. for Omni Center Expansion Project.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation from the Board of Public Works.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 10 - PLAN COMMISSION:
A. Conditional
Use Permit application filed by Mark Koller, La Crosse Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, 123 10th Avenue South, Onalaska, for the purpose of
constructing a church on the property located at 2218 Germann Court (Parcel #
18-3570-53).
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the conditional use permit application with nine conditions.
Mayor Bialecki indicated that after speaking with Mark Koller, he has requested alternate sites for them to consider.
Jason stated that he has spoken with Mr. Koller.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Planned Unit
Development Application (PUD) filed by Bethany Lutheran Homes, Inc., 2575
7th Street South, La Crosse, for the property north of Mason Street,
east of Overhill Drive for the purpose of a senior housing campus (Parcel #
18-4514-29).
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve PUD filed by Bethany Lutheran Homes, Inc. with 11 conditions.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Wisconsin Act
477 related to Impact Fees and limitations on Subdivision Development
fees.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation for authorization to proceed.
On voice vote, motion carried.
D. Revisions to plat for Savannah Oaks submitted by Jon Sopher, Intrust Development LLC, due to wetland delineation and development agreement request.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Wulf, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission to accept the previous application determining that it’s not a significant change.
Under discussion, Ald. Gonczy questioned if this is the new draft.
Jason explained, “Yes, what you have before you – there is actually two parts to No. 6, the first part was a revision to the plat itself, which the Planning Commission approved, the second part if the draft development agreement which we have been working on with the City Attorney. What you have in front of you is the most recent draft. There is one change, however, and that is that Item No. 4 on the second to the last page needs to be removed. That is the old paragraph and Item No. 3 is what Sean O’Flaherty advised the city to replace Item No. 4 with. Other than that, I think everything is in order”.
Ald. Wulf expressed concern of the possibility of rushing this issue.
Jason indicated that the city attorney did a thorough job of looking everything over and his recommendations were implemented. Jason added, “These did not change the intent of most of the issues, just mainly the wording to make sure that the city was protected for the intent”.
Ald. Gonczy asked, “Just a procedural question – with Mike’s motion, does it sound like we’re approving the previous document versus the new document that was presented today”?
Attorney Gerard O’Flaherty answered, “It seems like the current motion relates to 10 (d) and that’s revisions to the plat. I think the Savannah Oaks Development Agreement is under 9 (f), so acting on 10 (d) I don’t think will have any bearing on the development agreement at this point in time”.
Mayor Bialecki asked if there was any further discussion on the motion.
On voice vote, motion carried.
E. Unified Development Code – draft.
Ald. Giese turned the item over to Jason.
Jason reported, “This was an information item I handed out the most recent draft to the Planning Commission. We will have that draft on line shortly so the council can access it via the city’s web page. And we’re continuing the work forward at revising and amending so that we can hit our objective of having a new unified development code adopted by December 31 of this year. If anybody would like to see a hard copy, I do have binders in my office”.
F. Agreement
with LB White regarding new north/south road requirement.
Ald. Giese reported that this item was withdrawn at the Planning Commission.
G. Reconsideration of a Conditional Use Permit application filed Cingular Wireless, Dick Rogers, representative, for a stealth facility at the Riders Club Road reservoir site.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the conditional use permit application filed by Cingular Wireless, Dick Rogers, representative.
Claude Krawczyk addressed the council, “I’m a bit confused, you said the recommendation from the Planning Commission was to deny this application”?
Ald. Giese answered, “That’s correct”.
Claude Krawczyk said, “I guess that’s not what I understood from the minutes of the Planning Commission from June 27. Is that what you’re referring to? I’m looking at your minutes from June 27th and perhaps I misunderstood, but I did not understand that the Plan Commission had recommended a denial of the application. My understanding was that there was a amendment in your May Planning Commission meeting, the recommendation was to permit a 105’ monopole facility. This came back to the council at June 13th, and there was some discussion about the height of the tower, and it was pushed back to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission then met on the 27th, and my understanding of that meeting was that the Planning Commission then recommended to go along with an 80’ monopole, not to deny the application. Am I misunderstanding the –“?
Ald. Gonczy replied, “No you are not, when I read the minutes, that’s how I took it to that Planning was recommending that we approve with the 80’ tower, is how I read it and that’s what I expected the motion to be so –“
Ald. Giese added, “Well when I reviewed the minutes I didn’t see any specific notation as to a motion being made”.
Mayor Bialecki said, “And I’ll follow that, from the last council meeting, it came forward to council, council questioned the 105’ tower height, and then put that back to the Planning Commission to look at it, and that’s what they did, they looked at it, and put 80’, so now it’s back”.
Jason added, “I don’t believe there was any motion made at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding the 80’ tower. There was some reconsideration and discussion, but no motion”.
Mayor Bialecki stated, “And, in fact, toward the end here that there was a stipulation that Mr. Temte put on and I believe it had to do if there is ever any changes in technology down the road, that these towers would be removed. But that’s the item that was voted on”.
Ald. Gonczy suggested withdrawing the motion.
Motion withdrawn by Mayor Bialecki, second by Ald. Olson.
Ald. Giese – Apparently it comes with no further recommendation than referral – no action taken at planning leaving the decision to be made at council with no recommendation.
In response to a question from Ald. Smith, Ald. Giese said, “The vote was apparently on the recommendation by Mr. Temte to suggest that whenever new technology is available, the old technology is withdrawn”.
Claude Krawczyk said, “So, excuse me if I might, I was not at the Planning Commission Meeting, but my understanding was Mr. Temte’s motion was to add one additional condition to the conditional use permit, and that was recommended on a six to one vote by the Planning Commission. And the condition that was added, as I understand it, was to require that the structure be removed once that technology allowed for some other better way to transmit and receive wireless signals. That’s my understanding of what happened on the 6th, or excuse me, on the 27th. Again, we’ve been here quite a few times now, and Cingular basically put this to the Planning Commission on the 27th of June indicating that we would be happy to have either a 105’ or an 80’ monopole structure. Mr. Gilman at that time had recommended from the Planning staff, an 80’ structure. But the Planning Commission made a recommendation for a 105’ structure and the reason that was made is because it would allow more co-location opportunities in the future. But it came back to this board, or to this council on June 13, I think there was a sentiment to lower it down to 80, and it was referred back to Plan Commission. Plan Commission looked at that on the 27th, they made one additional condition as a requirement of the permit and made a recommendation to move forward. That’s where I think we are right now. Again, Cingular would be happy to have either an 80’ or a 105’ or leaving it in the city’s hands and we know that there is a trade off between co-location and visibility”.
Jason explained, “Your Honor, my original staff recommendation was that the land disturbance and structures, including the monopole not be visible to the public. That was stated in the conditions list that was referred to the Plan Commission. Cingular provided two alternates – the 80’ and the 105’ tower. The Planning Commission made an initial recommendation to go with the 105’ tower. The second time it came to Plan Commission, I stated that the 80’ tower looked like a better alternative than the 105’ because it’s lower and less visible but that the Plan Commission should also consider the minimum diameter and the color, but my recommendation from staff stands that I would prefer that the structure be invisible to the public”.
Mr. Krawczyk replied, “And if I may address that, we discussed that at length at the Plan Commission on June 13th – that’s not possible. That doesn’t allow us to transmit and receive signals if this tower is lower than the tree line, so the Plan Commission did remove that condition on June 13 as part of their recommendation for a 105’ structure. That’s where we currently stand I think at this point”.
Ald. Giese noted, “I’d like to acknowledge that you are correct in your reading of the minutes, and I was in error in terms of the scope of the motion, and I apologize for that so there is not misunderstanding on that anymore. Thank you”.
Mr. Krawczyk replied, “I’m glad we got it straightened out”.
Ald. Gonczy said, “And with that I also understand the position of Planning and I understand that their recommendation coming out is for the 80’ and the additional restriction. However, I also feel, I think was what Jason was alluding to is that we do have an area there that I think that we need to take a look at and say, do we want to disturb this area or not. And I think it’s important that we not. And so, as a council member, I’ll make a motion that we deny the permit”.
Motion by Ald. Gonczy, second by Ald. Wulf, to deny the permit application filed by Cingular Wireless.
Under discussion, Ald. Stellner questioned the diameter of the proposed 80’ tower.
Mr. Krawczyk answered, “The 80’ monopole, first of all I do want to clarify that it’s a monopole, not a tower, so people understand the difference. It’s not an Eiffel tower, it’s a Cingular pole, if you will. It’s 50 inches in diameter at the base, but it tapers to 22 inches at the top. So it is much like a light pole or a flag pole that starts with a wider base and gets to a narrower top. This thing is designed to look like a large flag pole. In fact, I think it was Mr. Stellner, who discussed at the last council meeting about putting a flag on this. That’s not our preference, but that’s something we could do, if that’s something that makes this more palatable – put a flag and light this thing 24 hours a day. But that only makes it more visible, I think, to the public”.
In response to a question from Mayor Bialecki, Mr. Krawczyk indicated that there are cell towers all over the world, including Europe. He went on to explain that there are satellite communication systems, but those are not widely used and they are not practically used in many applications.
For the record Ald. Wulf indicated that she has received phone calls, e-mails, and numerous signatures on the petition against the proposed cell tower; however, she has not received one phone call, e-mail, or petition in support of the cell tower.
Ald. Wulf added, “Therefore, I do urge my fellow council members to support Ald. Gary Gonczy’s motion to deny”.
Ald. Giese explained, “I would point out that the graphic presentations and the photo shop photos indicate that the pole is visible so that would indicate that it would be difficult to meet all of the conditions if we should approve this anyway. Having said that, I would go on to say that I think it’s in the best interest of the community to deny the pole at this time”.
Mayor Bialecki asked if there was any other discussion on the motion.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 11 - JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:
A. Ordinance No.
1269-2006 – to amend section 5-5-4 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Onalaska relating to Declaration of Emergency (First and Second
Reading).
Motion by Ald. Wulf, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Judiciary Committee to suspend the rules and give Ordinance No. 1269-2006 its first, second, and third reading.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Wulf, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Judiciary Committee to give Ordinance No. 1269-2006 its first, second, and third reading.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Ordinance No.
1270-2006 – to annex lands located in the Northwest ¼ of the
Northwest ¼ in Section 32, Township 17 North of Range 7 West from the Town of
Onalaska to the City of Onalaska (International Church of the Foursquare
Gospel)(First and Second Reading).
Motion by Ald. Wulf, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Judiciary Committee to give Ordinance No. 1270-2006 its first and second reading.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 12 - LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE:
No meeting this month.
Item 13 - UTILITIES COMMITTEE / MASS TRANSIT:
UTILITIES
No report
MASS TRANSIT
A. Onalaska/Holmen/West Salem Public Transit.
Ald. Stellner reported, “We had our meeting on the 28th of June. We heard a report from Mr. Running from the Shared Ride so that Onalaska Shared Ride is going to be incorporating with Holmen and West Salem and I believe that service is now in operation. And also that Mr. Running gave the Village of Holmen 50 free passes so that the people can become more acquainted with the service that’s available to them”.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, to receive and place on file the financials from Mr. Running for the Shared Ride Program for May 2006. On voice vote, motion carried.
MTU
1. 2005 Annual Report.
Ald. Stellner – Received an annual report which copies were distributed. That’s going to be held at a later date for more details on it. This is for information only.
Item 14 - PARKS & RECREATION BOARD:
A. Consideration for Park land dedication or purchase (Savannah Oaks).
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Wulf, upon recommendation of the Park Board to accept land in lieu of fees, and the parcel of land that will be dedicated to the city will be adjacent to the Greens Coulee Park. On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Request from North American Squirrel Association to install binoculars at the gazebo at the Sunfish Wayside.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Park Board to approve this item. On voice vote, motion carried.
C.
Request from Wisconsin Coulee Artists to hold art fair during Special Olympics
event – July 15, 2006.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Park Board to approve this item. On voice vote, motion carried.
D. Eagle Scout Project:
1. Greens Coulee Community Park
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the Park and Rec Board to approve an Eagle Scout Project for Greens Coulee Park. On voice vote, motion carried.
E. Request for proposals for Ad Sales in bi-annual activity guide.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the Park and Rec Board to approve this item. On voice vote, motion carried.
F. Fundraiser opportunity with the Outback Steak House to be held on July 30, 2006.
Outback is willing to provide a meal for 300 people in Rowe Park as a fundraiser for the department – 100% of the proceeds will come to the Park and Recreation Department. Pepsi Cola of LaCrosse is also donating 12 cases of water for the event.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Wulf, upon recommendation to approve this item. On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 15 - TOURISM COMMISSION
A. Our Town TV segment June 10-18, 2006
Ald. Olson reported that the segment turned out very well with Mayor Bialecki, Sophia Stout, and Gary Lass being interviewed on the 5:00 News. They had Lake Onalaska and the Sunfish flashing in the background and then they would have all these folding in around the person that was doing the segment.
B. All – Class Reunion – July 1, 2006.
Ald. Olson turned the item over to Jean Lunde.
Jean reported, “We did have approximately 1200 alumni that attended the event. We had a lot of groups that didn’t make it to the All-Class Reunion because they were actually planning their own reunions around the All-Class Reunion as well as Paul G. had his retirement also. So it was a very, very fun event, and I think everybody really appreciated it. We got phone calls from all over. We had a lot of people coming from Japan. We’ve had people from all over the United States as well as all over the world. So I think it brought recognition to the City of Onalaska and also to the school district just to see what’s going on within our community. And a lot of people haven’t been here for probably about ten to twenty years. They haven’t been back. So it was a very great event for I think the community and also the people that have graduated from Onalaska”.
C. Military Homecoming – July/August.
Ald. Olson reported, “The 458th will be returning sometime around July 26th – they may be delayed 3 to 5 days and then the 32nd will be back two weeks after that. So somewhere in that time frame, these guys should be back and the legion I guess is going to be doing a parade and a lot of good things so hopefully the community will get out and welcome our men back home”.
Mayor Bialecki reminded that there will be notification of the exact date at the appropriate time.
D. Stren Series
Bass Tournamount – July 12-15, 2006.
Ald. Olson reported, “That starts tomorrow and final weigh in will be at Walmart, Onalaska. They will be docking and leaving Copeland Park in LaCrosse. They’ve been getting quite a bit of press coverage and we welcome them to our city again”.
E. Exception to ordinance for All-City Garage Sale – July 22, 2006.
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Wulf, to make an exception to the ordinance for the All-City Garage Sale as our ordinance states that you can only have one a year. This would have been the second one, but in this particular case an exception. On voice vote, motion carried. It was clarified that Onalaska Ordinances state the individuals may have two garage sales per year.
F. National Scenic Byways Wisconsin Mississippi River Planning Commission project ranking.
Ald. Olson said, “Due to a lot of hard work and I’ll thank Jason for this, we are now No. 1 in the National Scenic Byways Ranking.”
Jason added, “It’s $1.2 million, but it’s split into two phases - $600,000 a piece”.
Ald. Olson said, “And we took that over two years, so we should hear on that in October”.
Ald. Olson thanked Jason and Jean for their hard work on this.
Item 16 - JOINT
COOPERATIVE COMMISSION:
No meeting this month.
Item 17 - SENIORS COALITION:
No meeting this month.
Item 18 - REPORT FROM LIBRARY COMMISSION:
No meeting this month.
Item 19 - REPORT FROM TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE:
A. Finalize mission statement and goals with emphasis on fiscal responsibility.
Motion by Ald. Wulf, second by Ald. Gonczy, upon recommendation of the Technology Committee to approve the mission and goals for July, 2006. On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 20 - REPORT FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY:
A. Report on Events.
Tom Hammill reported, “Light schedule this past month, but we’ve still been busy. Since our last report, we played host to the Franciscan Skemp Neonatal Picnic, two job fairs – one by Golden Plump and the other by Ashley Furniture. Park and Rec summer programs have been active up there on Tuesday and Thursdays. We had two wedding receptions, and then we had the All-Class Reunion, which we felt was a big success.
Upcoming events include four wedding receptions, Stamp Camp, Coulee Region Cat Show, Franciscan Skemp Employee Picnic, Pride Festival, and Wisconsin Jaycee’s Magic Show”.
Item 21 - REPORT
FROM POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT LIAISON:
No report.
Item 22 - REPORT FROM THE SHOP RELOCATION COMMITTEE:
A. Choice of Add or Alternate Bid Items.
Jarrod reported that the shop relocation committee met yesterday afternoon and received a report in approximately 90% completion on the drawings. The add alternate bid items included eight items as follows: