[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6185242,"mediaKeyId","5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918","parentId",5082714,"title","Votes at a glance: Superior council moves on CDBG, budgets, bonds, ordinances and contracts","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",69000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918&start=69&end=69","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918/thumbnail_69000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6185242/Superior/Douglas-County/Wisconsin/Votes-at-a-glance-Superior-council-moves-on-CDBG-budgets-bonds-ordinances-and-contracts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6185242-44fe12d51bad801391dfbf9053ae8059/orig.mp4?Expires=1777162589&Signature=ExiUhiYWqvJm8I~~CLIby2BU1HHm-7nJkZGECzBLJ2hLgUO6UKYGvF3hYTiwuVRdkJD2N192A2xIyf4ytngwvQw2CNX7x0beAn3YGPv2Fn2maLYUT8pRiLSC0oFsaZHhFnDbrFyW7roku9bwL9vmq9veZyGuPdhDTnudq~JH0B~IBBOv5dea4kXnkNZU71NDv-C8uZHG3JXh7EJimWfYy1IwZvphYdbnznCkXzcNFN8~-baKqME43v1uSUPjdmyChE1TkaXH95Hr15BTZBUVRKPAeOzoFuem4N3llH2vgWX1KIUe2GmI78-fVtzRBCfGkFG~40sSbldNIP7Wek4~SA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Superior, WI","date","2025-06-26T15:28:14Z","article","At its Oct. 21 meeting the City of Superior Common Council approved a slate of routine and substantive items. Most passed with voice votes; several required roll-call action or public hearings. Key outcomes listed below are drawn from the meeting record.

• Streets vacation resolution (Item 5.1): Plan Commission resolution to vacate two streets between Lots 5 and 6 in Blocks 500–502 (public hearing held; no public comment). Outcome: passed by voice vote.

• CDBG 2015 action plan (Item 5.2): Community Development Division request to approve the 2015 Community Development Block Grant action plan and authorize staff to submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Outcome: public hearing held; plan approved by council voice vote.

• 2015 general fund operating budget public hearing (Item 5.3): Public hearing conducted and council approved the budget by motion and voice vote.

• General obligation bonds (Items 10.2 and 10.3): Council approved an initial resolution authorizing issuance of general-obligation bonds not to exceed $3,870,000 for 2015 street improvements (10.2), and approved issuance and sale of general-obligation street improvement bonds, series 2015A (10.3). Outcome: both motions approved by voice vote.

• Internal auditor services contract (Item 7.1): Finance director recommended approval of a contract with Thomas Anderson for internal-auditor services at $40,000 annually through December 2015. Outcome: motion passed by voice vote.

• Depository designation (Item 10.1): Council designated certain banks and investment firms as depositories for city funds. Outcome: approved by voice vote.

• False alarms ordinance (Item 11.1): Council approved an ordinance amending Chapter 54 to add a $50 charge for each false alarm after five or more false alarms in a calendar year. Outcome: adopted by voice vote.

• Panhandling ordinance (Item 11.2): Council adopted an ordinance amending Chapter 86 to prohibit panhandling in specified areas (generally within 300 feet of businesses and key public points); a member of the public and the police chief spoke in favor of restricting locations while preserving the right to request assistance. Outcome: ordinance adopted by voice vote.

• Recycling fee ordinance (Item 11.3): The council adopted an ordinance to amend Chapter 58 to implement a $3.50 monthly recycling fee beginning Nov. 1, 2014; recorded roll-call vote was 7–3 in favor.

Several of these items were moved earlier on the agenda or advanced from consent after public hearing periods. Public hearings for the CDBG plan, the general fund budget and the streets-vacation resolution produced no substantive public testimony and each item was approved following the close of the hearing.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","October 21, 2014, Common Council Meeting, Superior, Wis.","oneSentenceSummary","The Common Council conducted multiple public hearings and approved several resolutions, ordinances and contracts including CDBG 2015 action plan, the 2015 general fund budget, bond resolutions, an internal-auditor contract, depository designations, and ordinances on false alarms and panhandling.","taxTitle","Superior, Douglas County, Wisconsin","taxId",69153,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6185247,"Superior JC’s dog-park proposal referred back to Parks & Rec; city agrees to partner on project",3045,283000,3328000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918&start=283&end=3328","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918/thumbnail_283000.jpg","/articles/6185247/Superior/Douglas-County/Wisconsin/Superior-JCs-dog-park-proposal-referred-back-to-Parks-Rec-city-agrees-to-partner-on-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6185247-9afb338055470ad1b51d6a18db87895d/orig.mp4?Expires=1777162589&Signature=NPMvpV98OB12PqNzWcrXKZbnq4GXy4L0UHFvPDJDae1PhrgVAINBY~yV5dUQ6eSfyyBlNbjoXi6zy9E8xVhv19K7Ouf3aBukC4fxNEjQ1wHFmvAQEPpQxyh4Pi1BF8rcbl1wbUvfLMVqH7NoNd1UQ-G1oiHNf4-GIzHssIbhJByZR~ezG42Y5oi7PG10U2US2qW93KiwlkDkmDB-60rLZQDzuki03D7eigeDSDhd9dy2dz7dxao4pCl2rvxQkxp1bwg12sxCGEdXzrZwAWBJRZPG0gv4eEgjZ~UTppV5aBIkz3XA7lljU2ecM6AhJ3Yd~j7ETfb6hRIdFSNYjg9FFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Common Council voted to refer the Superior JC’s proposed dog-park project to the Parks and Recreation department and to approve a partnership between the city and the Superior JC’s to develop a fenced, off-leash dog park. Councilors asked parks staff to review potential sites and bring findings to the council at a subsequent meeting.

Amber Peterson, president of the Superior JC’s, presented the proposal and said the group had narrowed potential locations to a vacant field behind the Billings Park Civic Center. The JC’s provided preliminary cost figures for the primary expense — fencing — and said they had received a bid of roughly $23,000 for the proposed 440-by-220-foot enclosure. Peterson said the JC’s would fund approximately 75 percent of the fence cost (about $17,000) and would raise the remaining 25 percent (about $5,700), with any excess fundraising dedicated to park improvements.

Parks, Recreation and Forestry Director Mary Morgan (listed in the packet) and JC’s representatives described planned city contributions: a 20-by-20 concrete entry slab, a gravel accessible path from the Billings Park Civic Center parking area, porta-potty access, printed aluminum signage and installation support. The JC’s said the park would include a small (about 20%) separate area for dogs 20 pounds and under, a gated double-vestibule entrance, posted rules and an expectation that owners pick up after their animals. The JC’s proposed planting buffers and future amenities as fundraising allows.

Neighbors and other speakers told the council they had limited notice of the public meeting the JC’s held, expressed concern about noise, odor and impact on green space, and asked the council to consider alternate locations. John Manion, who lives closest to the proposed site, said neighbors had not been given adequate notice and urged more outreach. Susan Horvath and others asked the council to consider sites farther from residences.

Councilors emphasized the motion’s two parts — referral to staff for vetting of site options and an in-principle approval to partner with the JC’s — and limited the discussion to whether to refer and to the partnership question. Several councilors supported referral; others emphasized the need for more neighborhood outreach and verification of alternatives. The council approved the two-part motion and referred the item to Parks & Recreation and planning for further site analysis, to return for council consideration in November.

","A two-part motion to refer a proposed Billings Park dog park to Parks & Recreation and to approve a partnership with the Superior JC’s passed after public comment from neighbors and proponents.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6185251,"Council gives consultant direction on pay study: use ‘all’ comparables, match market and adopt step plan",1859,309000,2168000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918&start=309&end=2168","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918/thumbnail_309000.jpg","/articles/6185251/Superior/Douglas-County/Wisconsin/Council-gives-consultant-direction-on-pay-study-use-all-comparables-match-market-and-adopt-step-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6185251-1c228c22a364ae878a06b1b8a2c2d124/orig.mp4?Expires=1777162589&Signature=J73YUfAD6LKyOF5xvLg9X5MDKN3pFPr~WhXDXmsm5UBw58-v6Rwmn5aSoVw6m~~6tNIkqIFmB9uRGztRZ1ibnRA5h4IIIE0TZL5jcUv2afhFkrmJtujEd~u6Bp0guiMO-V3lHLD4giGfHg~r~W~HXlcTV4GLTCBXt8xsXnK3ELXIpqIAad9RAHHA2LzkK8IhMpLOAfL5F9t8~1qWkTCZiAqWauOJESlGg7-kSsJEm2am633l8Q1Ckkg8Z8EvRdJOa1Ox7oTVYJjCueNbvMHDNzLWoeQhUehnrKZtY~L4T8JlSVkmWJc9~FJ9YvBt-tVWDhljX~1LSb2eH297bdAmzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Common Council directed Carlson Dettman Consulting to use a combined public-and-private comparables pool, to position the city to match the market, and to design a traditional step pay plan, with a final pay-plan ordinance or resolution expected for consideration at the Nov. 18 meeting.

Consultant Mr. Carlson (Carlson Dettman Consulting) told council members his firm’s analysis covered a little over 200 employees and more than 100 job classifications; approximately half of the classifications could be closely matched to external benchmarks. He said the firm produced three comparable sets (cities only; public sector only; public plus private) and that the overall market index did not vary substantially across the sets. He recommended the council pick the comparable group it preferred so the firm could draft full pay-plan options.

Councilors discussed three policy choices Carlson presented: (1) the market-comparables set, (2) whether to position the city above/match/below market, and (3) whether to adopt a traditional step system or a variable (performance-based) pay plan. Carlson recommended the combined public-and-private pool, urged against choosing below-market positioning, and advised that the council was not yet ready to adopt a wide variable pay-for-performance system without more development of performance measurement and training.

Councilor Sweeney asked whether fringe benefits were included in the market comparisons; Carlson replied benefits were not included in the pay figures and that the city had taken steps in its health program that mitigated direct benefit comparisons. Councilor Herrick asked whether the consultant had aged data forward to reflect a planned 2% 2015 adjustment; Carlson said he had not included the 2% in the presented results but would “age” the data forward and incorporate the 2% when preparing the pay-plan proposal for the council.

On council motions, members voted (voice) to adopt the consultant’s recommendation to use all comparables (public and private), to position pay to match the market and to implement a step pay system with the consultant returning recommended pay ranges and an appeal process for incumbents. Carlson said the firm expects to return a drafted pay plan for council consideration at the Nov. 18 meeting.

","After hearing Carlson Dettman Consulting’s market analysis, the council chose a combined public/private comparables pool, decided to match the market and favored a traditional step pay plan to be returned for formal adoption next month.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_46":104,"_48":105,"_50":106,"_52":107,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":108,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":109,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6185256,"Superior council approves $3.50 monthly recycling fee after months-long landfill shortfall debate",2171,2225000,4396000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918&start=2225&end=4396","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5082714-9cfd89b49ca59ab1f0ad3adfbc4a5918/thumbnail_2225000.jpg","/articles/6185256/Superior/Douglas-County/Wisconsin/Superior-council-approves-350-monthly-recycling-fee-after-months-long-landfill-shortfall-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6185256-5092f8b74ea436aa11f1d1bbe364a9f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1777162589&Signature=GsDWZvOjv6e~IjKGYQ5Ya8sIjcts8Ce75c3vcP0uS71mhvjgU8UEO8ruO1rKclgPGtQOqq4chDt8XKzEMwoH-AnuHePDsVyyuk0e1RU5ZaarvVJsY5AoNuaBB154KMq~UO53aafk551g9hhu10nllZDXNMZoZByCarhDLAB01DrmRJNtXJk-TFe1sEws57DaHfd7Ykc9gf61a0Nam106kX9QOVyj3db4Wn-Kq~jhB~LoHAvjQvYN~KYTJ6aXe0Gdoy~SNpdkQs4HEiH9GFiIMqWqqDXSqFRzrU~rS1ORLg1wm1E8ajy1vzjug7396OMeMLQX2~Q2leBe9X0nxJYTYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Superior Common Council voted to impose a monthly residential recycling fee of $3.50 beginning Nov. 1, 2014, and approved the 2015 landfill budget after an extended public discussion of landfill costs and state regulatory fees.

The item drew sustained public comment and more than an hour of council debate about long-term landfill costs and shrinking tipping revenues. Mayor (unnamed) and councilors described rising state fees, large capital costs to build new cells and a growing general-fund subsidy covering landfill operations.

Councilors and staff said the landfill’s finances have deteriorated because of higher regulatory and construction costs and declining tonnage. The council heard specific figures from staff and the mayor: a new engineered cell can cost roughly $8 million to construct, covering an existing full cell can cost about $2.5 million, and state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fees now total about $13 per ton. The council was told the city paid about $1.7 million to the state last year in DNR tipping fees. The proposed 2015 landfill budget is roughly $6.0–6.3 million; councilors said the landfill is being subsidized from the general fund by about $1,000,000 and that revenue trends make that subsidy likely to grow.

Finance Director Vito presented the need for an operating revenue stream distinct from the general fund. Assistant Finance Director Bronson introduced the landfill budget and put the budget motion before the council; the motion passed by voice vote.

Public commenters voiced mixed views. Resident Mick McKenzie urged enforcement of mandatory recycling rules and suggested alternate collection schedules; resident John Manion and others said neighbors near the proposed dog-park site wanted more notice about that project. Resident Lynn Halter volunteered to help maintain a dog park if established. Several residents and Councilor Esther Dalbeck warned about the fee’s burden on fixed-income residents.

Council discussion focused on limited remedies: cutting municipal services, finding new revenue sources, or charging a user fee. Some councilors proposed a smaller initial fee; others argued immediate action was required so the city could collect a fee before potential state legislation limited local fee authority. Councilor Finsland emphasized moving forward and said the fee could be rescinded if a different solution were found later. The council ultimately adopted the ordinance implementing the $3.50 monthly recycling fee by roll call vote (7–3).

The council also approved the 2015 landfill budget in a separate motion. Staff said an RFP to explore sale or lease options for the landfill is in development and should be ready in about three months. Councilors said the city will continue seeking operational changes, increased recycling compliance and other long-term solutions.

Clarifying details included in council discussion: the landfill footprint cited by staff (approximately 40 acres), an estimated $8,000,000 cell construction cost, about $2.5 million to cover a full cell, state DNR fees of roughly $13 per ton (totaling about $1.7 million paid last year), and a 2015 landfill budget estimate of about $6.0–6.3 million. Staff said curbside collection costs (collection and trucks) are about $600,000 per year and have not increased since 1999; the larger expense drivers are landfill capital and regulatory costs. Councilors also noted the city’s levy-limit constraints and the cumulative effect of state legislation they said has imposed or shifted costs to municipalities.

The council directed staff to continue work on long-range options (including an RFP to test the market for sale/lease), and to return updates as work proceeds. Public-comment requests and neighbor concerns raised during the landfill discussion will be forwarded to the appropriate departments for follow-up.

","After extended public comment and council debate about an operating shortfall at the city landfill, the Common Council passed a $3.50 monthly residential recycling fee and approved the 2015 landfill budget.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Superior council moves on CDBG, budgets, bonds, ordinances and contracts

Superior JC’s dog-park proposal referred back to Parks & Rec; city agrees to partner on project

Council gives consultant direction on pay study: use ‘all’ comparables, match market and adopt step plan

Superior council approves $3.50 monthly recycling fee after months-long landfill shortfall debate