Present: Mayor Ed McAleer, Ald. Phil Schuman, Ald. Paul Craig, Ald. Bud Mathey, Ald. Rick Lieblang, Ald. Linda Quartaro, Ald. Kathy Aldridge, Ald. James Romanowski, Clerk, M. Czubkowski, Attorney William Chapman

Absent: Administrator Matt Carlson

Call Meeting to Order

Pledge of Allegiance

1. APPROVE MINUTES of August 21, 2000 and September 2000 (Mathey/Romanowski) Carried.
Alderman Craig stated he received several calls on the minutes and he reviewed the tape personally.  If anyone would like to challenge the minutes, they should see him.

Mayor McAleer made a statement prior to taking citizen comments.  He said he is taking responsibility for not having the foresight to see this several months ago. He asked the Common Council to pass a resolution this evening for a two-part referendum to be put on the ballot for the spring election on April 3, 2001.  The first part of the question will be "should there be a stand alone water system in the downtown TIF district" and he asked this to be a binding referendum.  The second question would be "should the water supply treatment and distribution system feasibility study and master plan be adopted".

2. CITIZENS COMMENTS ON ITEMS PERTAINING TO THIS AGENDA.
? Michele Krause, 936 Main Street. She read letter to Council, a five-year capital improvement plan that was prepared by Jim Romanowski, Mike Scaff, Mike Scaff and Marilyn Czubkowski.  Milwaukee Street between Main and downtown area.

? Mary Zahorik, 1948 West Shore Drive.  Stated Jim Romanowski held meeting for his district.  Suggested all aldermen go door to door introducing themselves.  Mayor should go out and talk to the people.  If there is documented potential health problem, it must be revealed to us.  Please understand reaction of the people when compromising the quality of life.  Table or vote no on issues until all information is presented to the public. Administrator's position is to manage or direct.

? Jim Zahorik, 1948 West Shore Drive.  Asked Mayor to state original statement that he opened meeting with.  Mayor again stated it would be a yes or no vote on independent downtown water system within TIF #3 and the second part would be a yes or no vote on a master plan that was presented for water throughout the City.  Mayor stated we have not drafted a resolution but the intent is a yes or no vote on either one of those scenarios.  Mr. Zahorik said if he interprets this correctly, if there is a no vote on the downtown area, a no vote on a master plan, would he be correct that the water system would stay as it currently exists on the corner of Hwy 83 and I-94.  Mayor stated that was exactly his intention.  Mr. Zahorik then asked if Council had seen direct legislation that he presented.  Clerk Czubkowski stated they had not.  Mr. Zahorik gave each Council member a copy of a petition with direct legislation that was composed, circulated and given to Clerk Czubkowski on Tuesday of last week with 487 signatures.  By the law, she has 15 days to review what was brought in to make sure that it is proper, the people signing the petition for direct legislation do reside in the city, etc.  He went to the state attorney general to get interpretation and the interpretation he received regarding state statute 56.065 and 197 is that if we were to expand that water system, you don't need a referendum.  From the Public Service Commission, another hearing is not necessary, which means that water system that was installed in 1994 and 1995 was placed there because we had received an order of convenience and necessity which allows to operate underneath that statute.  He then asked attorney general what other recourse they had.  If we want citizens to vote, whether or not, they want this system expanded.  Under state statues 9.20, direct legislation..this is the format and we followed it to the book.  Our group, the Delafield Coalition for Sensible Water and Land Use has not filed with the City Clerk, our papers and we're registered and after 15 days, the Council should have copies of all of this, which means you now have 30 days to decide whether or not you will accept it as written, unaltered or put it to a referendum.  If it goes to a referendum, the timing would be cold with what you are proposing so if you don't accept it, you now would have 3 referendums.  Mr. Zahorik stated he also signed the Mayor's nomination papers. All the aldermen, in one way or another, are now trying to interact with their constituency and answer questions, etc.  One thing that concerned me is the fact that we now have realtors going door to door asking people if they want to sell and we (the community) have ability to dispel some of the statements that have been going around concerning the plume including objective hydrology prognosis.  Spoke with Jim Smith, DNR, remediation and development team supervisor, who oversees Tom Wentland, the engineer with the DNR for remediation and development and is responsible for maintenance at the Nickel's landfill.  His only job is getting that landfill back so we don't have a problem.  In speaking to those two people, when I mentioned that plume is moving to the northwest, the people that are involved with the borings and so forth, that movement is not coming out of that office.  Unfortunately, the person from EarthTech isn't here.  At the informational meetings two weeks ago, Matt Carlson and EarthTech said plume is moving and it went into the print and the media picked it up.  Mayor stated some of that may have been misstated.  He doesn't know if it's moving or not, but thinks we need to find out.  The reason it has not brought it up, that is the reason we tried not to hang our hat on why we're putting the water system in to start with. Mr. Zarhorik stated the people responsible for monitoring that perimeter around the landfill are also saying that they're not aware of a plume movement.  In conclusion, he has nothing but respect for the Council because they are listening and it is commendable and he is not apologizing for what I have to do because at the last meeting, they were told a referendum was not required by the statutes so he only did what he had to do to help the other people.

? Dr. Richard Bischke, Subsurface Consultants and Associates, Houston, TX.   Represents Delafield Coalition for Sensible Water and Land Use.  Addressed issue of plume.  Has a BS and MS from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in geology and did visit the glacial terrain in the area and surrounding area.  From there, he went to Columbia University and studied in civil engineering department.  Studied water flow problems.  Became adjunct professor of engineering at Drexel University.  Worked for international exploration, in environmental engineering division as ground geo-physicist.  Wrote book on sub-surface mapping.  The site is being treated.  Glacial material examined in the area, relatively porous material. Had surface map of the groundwater.  Can make predictions which direction groundwater will flow.  He showed Pewaukee and Nagawicka Lakes and where the site was.  Map indicates it would start to head north.  It shouldn't deflect to the right into Pewaukee Lake.  The ridge runs alongs south side of Lake Nagawicka.  His interpretation of the map is that the plume will stay on the northeastern side of the lake.

? Val Gottschalk, 1465 Milwaukee Street.  Not in favor at this point of the referendum.  Right now trying to build up a trust factor and feels Council is generally sincere and felt very good about it and there is no maliciousness involved.  Listened at last meeting and was told we're going to get the information, all the facts out on the table.  Wants to hear what's going on.  At this point, if a resolution was set down or referendum, that might not be what comes out of all these meetings and thinks is premature.  We haven't had second workshop or hearing.  Would like issue to be tabled until we have all the facts, read and understand all the information.

Mayor McAleer stated there should be a municipal water system but after listening to Tom Kelley's comments about tearing the city apart and if that's the case, then trying to force the issue is not in the best interest of the City and thinks it's probably best the electorate have the final voice for setting a policy issue that is so major and so dramatic for our community.  That's why he wrote the letter to the paper.

Ms. Gottschalk stated she can not connect to the e-mail on the website.  Would like to e-mail some thoughts.

? Colleen Costigan, 1613 Milwaukee Street.  Representing downtown business people and neighbors.  Handed out minutes from the April 1994 Common Council meeting and a letter from Bob Lang to TIF #3 Joint Review Board.  Has been trying to research where TIF #3 came from.  Feels it started at the Common Council in 1994.  She read parts of the minutes and letter.  Mayor Behrend stated this was a new TIF that Council had been talking about with Mr. Lang.  She is uncomfortable about the Council talking with Mr. Lang in creating TIF #3.  Mayor Behrend then stated that a survey showed 30% of 180 residents want water in downtown.  Alderman Plotz was concerned about one TIF on top of another.  Have taken a major undertaking at Hwy 83 and I-94 intersection. Mayor Behrend stated Mr. Lang approached him over a year and a half ago and he did not want to tie the two TIFS together.  The Lang letter states it has become more and more apparent that the city does not have the streets, sidewalks and water system to allow this type of development to continue.  It states to make a decision today to support the continuation of this process by voting in favor of the TIF district.  Ms. Costigan has talked to 24 downtown business owners who after six years of this TIF still don't want water.  Talked to a person in Madison who oversees all the TID and TIF districts and was told at any time in the first seven years of creating a TIF, the funds may be redirected, the monies can be spent on anything else.  We don't have to spend the TIF money on water.  Wonders if we shouldn't be putting the money into something else.  The Common Council has the power to vote on that and you can decide how the TIF money can be spent.  You have until September 2001 to decide how you would like to have that money spent and she is begging everyone to please reconsider on what we're going to put this money towards, schools, new library.  Has lived here 30 years and loves Delafield.  Does not want downtown water.  Feels Hwy 83/I-94 is a mini-Bluemound.

? Lynn Reich, 484 Garrison Court.  Asked if referendum meant if all people in the city decide whether the few people in the downtown are going to have water and if that is the case, why is that because they're not going to be paying for it, why do they get the opportunity to decide if she will have to pay to put in a lateral and pay for water every month.  Reminds her of the Brewer tax voted on her by people up north that she can't vote out of office.

Mayor stated what he is proposing is totally different than anything the facilities plan show.  Talking about a stand alone downtown system within the TIF boundaries and doesn't know if numbers would work or not but would expect that the TIF could probably pay for the whole thing so that people would not have to have assessments for hook-ups, just user fees.  The TIF money that is put into the TIF would go into the general fund that would benefit all the citizens of Delafield.  If water system went just into the TIF just using TIF dollars that would only benefit the downtown area, the citizens would be paying for part of that because TIF money would not be spread out amongst them for the general fund.

? Ms. Reich stated it would be a mandatory hook and will still be paying for a lateral and fees.  Mayor stated again he doesn't know the numbers.  Ms. Reich agrees that we need to wait until we get all the facts.  Thought the water meeting was excellent, Matt listened to us, very useful.  Hopes we'll be very careful about how referendum is worded.  Mayor wants it worded as simply as possible.  Doesn't believe in referendums that are reverse condition or you don't really know what you're voting on.  Wants referendum to be as simple as possible and he does believe if two-part referendum that he is proposing came to pass that every registered voter would have the opportunity to vote on it.  Ms. Reich said most of the people at the meetings are the people that are going to be affected by the water.  There are people with strong views outside of downtown district and there are people who don't know much about the water system being proposed.  They are going to vote for something for me that I don't want that they're not going to have to have.  Asked if there could be two separate ballots.

? Bill Broydrick, 191 Fieldstone Road.  Believes Clerk received petition and wondered if Attorney had a chance to review that petition.  Asked if petition is valid.  That petition is under our state law known as direct legislation.  Asks on behalf of the citizens of the city to enact an ordinance in effect would for some period of time, not allow water system.  If you fail to act on petition, then you are obliged to have a binding referendum.  As he understands, the referendum is not binding.  Mayor is asking for it to be.  Mr. Broydrick didn't think it could be a binding referendum.  The difficulty of having a referendum that would be binding as opposed to advisory referendum.

? Attorney Chapman stated the issue was whether the petition was direct legislation.  There are three ways in which a water utility can be created:  66.06 requires a referendum, how it's to be financed; 197.01 no referendum requirement.  The city can construct a water system, that was done 7 years ago.  The order granting the right to create that water system was not limited to I-94 and 83, it was city wide.  If you do have a referendum and it's not required, it's only advisory, even if you call it binding.  It's only as binding as the elected officials want to make it.  In one instance, they had a referendum, an extension of water system and the Council went ahead and did it anyway and the court said it was only advisory.  You can't have the Mayor's "binding referendum" and direct legislation.  You can't have direct legislation that is administrative in nature and not legislative in nature.  It has to be legislative, it can not be administrative.  Administration is up the Common Council.

? Attorney Chapman also stated the second most important issue is whether this is a re-pealer of what's already been done.    What has already been done is you've applied for a permit for a water system, you got an order for a water system from the Public Service Commission and it covers the entire city.  That was legislative in nature.  These questions have to be resolved.

? Mr. Boydrick stated the intent was not to repeal.  The intent was to stop the extension of the current water system.

? Attorney Chapman replied the expansion of the current water system may not be legislative in nature, it may be administrative.  The stopping of the extension, should the council deem it necessary to do so, might be administrative and not legislative.  He talked to the League of Wisconsin Municipalities and they said it was administrative and not legislative.

? Alderman Craig asked for examples of what is administrative.  Attorney Chapman stated it would be something temporary in nature, not legislative, which is intended to be permanent.

? Mr. Broydrick stated we don't whether you can have direct legislation.  The City Attorney is saying he doesn't know if it qualifies but to act a referendum tonight.  He asked for a draft of the proposed wording for the referendum.  Attorney Chapman stated the Mayor wants indication from the Council that they would like to pursue a resolution.  Mr. Broydrick stated we agree that this Council is unable, under current state law, to establish a binding referendum.  Attorney stated he and Mr. Broydrick agree.  Attorney Chapman said it can only be repealed within two years by the electors, after two years, by the Council.

? Ms. Reich asked Attorney Chapman about having two separate ballots.  He stated if it's city legislation, it's city wide.  How can you limit a referendum unless is strictly advisory, the property owners or the electors, how do you restrict group of voters?  Downtown is not an election district, a ward, a school district, a management district, utility district, sanitary district, it's a group of people.  You can't bind a district.

? Mark Weber, 2534 Grove Court.  Mr. Weber stated he is from outside the downtown district.  He is questioning why just the downtown can not have a referendum.  The Mayor responded that the TIF dollars are subsidized by the whole city.  Mr. Weber stated no matter what the legal opinion is, this council has the ability to change what can happen after that two-year period of time.  If council discovers we do have a problem, at that point, the council has the power but the important thing is to provide accurate information to people who have elected you, share that information, involve in that decision making process, listen to what we have to say.  At that point in time, we can make a decision, people would stand behind and believe it.

? Tom Kelley, 2218 West Shore Drive.  Met with 25 members of the coalition.  When making decision regarding water, it will also affect Lake Nagawicka because if water comes in here, the building around the community is going to be astronomical.  A referendum will be voted down.  People want to slow everything down, no more expansion of 83, water coming into the downtown area.

? The Mayor stated in order to have a moratorium, you have to have a reason like we did for cell towers, a 90 day moratorium until we develop a policy to deal with cell towers, you have to have a reason.  A new master plan would be a reason, or a comprehensive update of the master plan would be a reason and for a specific period of time.

? Mr. Kelley questioned the zoning of the land for Hawks Commons.  The Mayor stated a planned unit development with the zoning density that's there, there has to be a public hearing.  If they want more density and ask for it to be rezoned, there has to be a public hearing.  Either case, there is going to be a public hearing and we're going to take citizens comments.

? Mayor stated the master plan was done about nine years ago and spent about $40,000 to do it.  We can revisit the master plan, there are consequences both ways.  There are people out there that hold large tracks of agricultural land that want more dense zoning than the 2-acre rural estate that we have on all the agricultural land.  They'll be pressuring for having more density.  Even with a revised master plan, people that have had zoning for a number of years have history and you can not arbitrarily down zone their parcels and give them less value than they have or you're going to be challenged in court also.  We can re-do the master plan but expect that zoning is not going to change dramatically and he is not in favor in increasing density on any of the agricultural land.

? Jim Zahorik asked if TIF dollars are used for the infrastucture, maybe one of the consideration is to put the small business owner's minds to ease would be voluntary perpetual hook-up.  They wouldn't have to hook-up until they felt it was necessary.

? Mayor thinks those statements can be made but would not want to see it as part of the referendum.  Could make that as addendums.

? James LaFore, 1441 Genesee Street.  Regarding density issue, has anybody looked at or approached in any way of being forced to have 235 housing in this area and start putting high density areas.  All these businesses out here, people are being trucked from the inner city now.

? Mayor suggests that we would fight that at the highest level, in the courts.

? Terry Schultz, 352 Mulberry Drive.  He asked if TIF district got water, what would trigger the rest of the city to want it.  If the city got it, at some future point, some type of development would trigger the rest of the city getting it.

? Mayor stated it would trigger that new development to get it.  Waters Edge Condominium development put their water system in to city spec so if pipe was run by Milwaukee Street, they would hook-up.  Any new development would be asked to put their water system in to the city spec and we would work to get them hooked into city water.

? Betsy Busch, 830 Wells Street.   Continuing about triggering water.  Water to downtown area.  If you look at the TID map, even in 1994, it includes Mr. Lang's land that is now called Hawks Commons.  It includes a fair amount of housing downtown, a fair amount of people just like me.  She is curious what triggered it.

? Mayor stated the minutes that Colleen provided indicated that a survey was done and he doesn't remember that.  The new water plan and how many unsafe wells are in the downtown in the last five years.

? Ms. Busch wished more information was more forthcoming when they bought their home.  When TIF map was originally done, was there a count of how many homes and businesses were in there?  Wasn't the original plan to bring water into the Lang Campus and Cushing School?

? Mayor looked at TIF map and noted boundaries.  He thought the original concept was to have a stand alone system.  Matt Carlson's recommendation was to hold off passing a resolution until after the public hearing.  Mayor felt it was necessary to bring this up tonight because of Mr. Kelley's comments about tearing the city apart.

3. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approve bartender licenses for:
Zachery Carter, 3624 Nagawicka Shores Drive, Hartland PDQ, 2 yr
Steven Thom, 36728 Lower Lake Road, Oconomowoc, Brewhaus 1 yr
Stuart Oliver, 2424 N. 2nd Lane, Oconomowoc, Water Street Brewery, 1
MOTION TO APPROVE BARTENDER LICENSES (Quartaro/Craig). Carried.

4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 a. Licenses
 b. Plan Commission
 c. Lake Welfare Committee
 d. Park and Recreation Commission
 e. Public Works Committee
 f. Del-Hart Commission
 g. Recycling Committee
 h. Police & Fire Commission
 i. Cable TV
 j. Library Board
 k. Other committees

5.   OLD BUSINESS

6. MAYOR'S REPORT
a. Appointments (none)

7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion/resolution regarding water referendum
Alderman Romanowski asked if we would be re-examining mandatory hook-up alternatives five years-ten years.  Are we going to examine financial impact of what that might be.  Mayor responded we would.

Another workshop and public hearing will be held regarding water system.  Alderperson Quartaro stated one of the end results of the workshop and public hearing would be to change the proposal.  Drafting a resolution at this point would be premature.  Asked Matt Carlson to put on agenda to study the pollution issue and fire protection for businesses.  Mayor said it will be put on agenda for next meeting.

Alderman Mathey stated we should take a no action approach until some of these issues are ironed out.  There seems to be a concensus that a lot of things have to happen here before we can vote on anything.  As far as a referendum goes, he's not for it but issues have to be addressed.

Alderman Romanowski stated we have to take some action to investigate this.

Alderman Quartaro asked about timeline for referendum.

8. ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

9. CLERK'S REPORT
a. Public Hearings
1) Del-Hart (sludge) 9/27/00
2) Kettle Ridge (amendment) 9/27/00

10. FINANCIAL REPORT
a. Approval of voucher list
b. Treasurer's Report for June 2000
MOTION TO APPROVE VOUCHER LIST(Quartaro/Romanowski) Carried.

11. CORRESPONDENCE
a. Correspondence dated September 11, 2000 from Waukesha County Executive regarding recycling program dividend
b. Correspondence dated September 1, 2000 from Shirley Allison regarding water

12. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:30 PM (Craig/Romanowski) Carried.

Respectfully submitted,
Ellen O'Brien
Deputy Clerk-Treasurer