[8:13] All right, it is 7 o'clock on Tuesday, September 22, 2026, and I will call to order the regular meeting of the City of Bearbrew Common Council. We will start with a roll call. I'm sorry, a call of order, roll call and Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Kent.

[8:28] Beth Watson.

[8:30] Edith Hoz.

[8:31] Geft.

[8:32] Ezard Kent.

[8:33] Lumbar.

[8:34] Alington.

[8:35] Swollen.

[8:36] Schindler.

[8:37] Halfum.

[8:39] Dogs

[8:44] are believed to have led on the United States of America.

[8:48] Education is to be followed for which it stands.

[8:50] One nation under God in the了吧, with liberty and justice for all.

[8:58] Alright.

[8:59] Thank you.

[9:00] Minutes from our September 8th meeting were sent to you via email earlier this afternoon.

[9:05] I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

[9:09] Okay, we have a motion in a second to approve the minutes of September 8th, any correction

[9:13] or discussion on the minutes.

[9:16] Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

[9:18] Aye.

[9:19] Minutes are approved.

[9:20] You have an agenda in front of you.

[9:22] It's not been modified.

[9:22] I'll entertain a motion to approve tonight's agenda.

[9:25] So moved.

[9:26] Second by hazard.

[9:27] Okay, we have a motion in a second to approve the agenda.

[9:29] All in favor, please say aye.

[9:31] Aye.

[9:32] We have an agenda for tonight.

[9:33] Madam Clerk, are we in compliance with the agenda?

[9:35] the open meeting process.

[9:36] Yes.

[9:36] All right.

[9:36] Thank you.

[9:37] We have no presentations tonight.

[9:39] We have no public hearings tonight.

[9:40] So we're right on the item 8.

[9:41] Public invited to speak.

[9:42] Any citizen has a right to speak of an item of business, which is on the agenda tonight.

[9:47] For those of you who knew to this, we do limit comments to three minutes.

[9:51] So we do ask you to be succinct.

[9:53] We will start with Spencer Net.

[10:11] Mayor Nelson, council members.

[10:12] Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[10:14] I'm here representing the IFF Local 5429.

[10:17] I've spoken several times to this very counsel throughout this process, so I'll keep my comments brief.

[10:22] I want to acknowledge that I believe is an important change to the letter before you tonight.

[10:26] It recognizes that the financial changes facing the district were not created in one single issue.

[10:31] And more importantly, it recognizes the reductions to the operating budget will result in service capabilities.

[10:37] Reducing the capital replacement plan by $600,000 is a financial decision about how quickly an existing obligation is addressed.

[10:44] cut in an additional 400,000 from operations is something fundamentally different.

[10:50] These decisions affect people, apparatus availability, ambulance coverage, fire response,

[10:55] ultimately the level of service available to this community.

[10:59] The city's request for $200,400 and $600,000 scenarios gives a commission an opportunity to put

[11:05] actual consequences beside those numbers.

[11:08] I believe that analysis should occur before anyone decides that $400,000 is a predetermined

[11:13] number is the correct answer. There are legitimate efficiencies available, the local will help

[11:20] and take part in that conversation. We have never taken the position that the district

[11:24] is beyond scrutiny or that nothing can change. We have consistently asked that the decisions

[11:29] affecting emergency service capabilities be based on evidence rather than an arbitrary

[11:33] number. Show what each option saves, show how the staffing remains, show what apparatus remain

[11:40] available. Show the response and mutual aid implications and let the commission and the municipalities

[11:45] make that informed decision. I also appreciate the city's willingness to discuss

[11:49] changes to the IGA and government structure. There are legitimate lessons to learn on how we got here,

[11:54] but our financial oversight, clear capital policies and greater accountability can strengthen this

[11:59] district. Local 5429 is willing to participate in that work. My request tonight is simple. If you

[12:04] to authorize this letter, allow the analysis to request what's actually and actually guide

[12:10] the decision that follows.

[12:11] Do not decide to cut first and then determine the consequences afterward.

[12:15] Determine the consequences first, and then decide what this community is willing to give

[12:19] up.

[12:20] Thank you.

[12:21] All right.

[12:21] Thank you.

[12:24] Next, we've got Roberta Philanj.

[12:29] Philanjie?

[12:43] I'm here under my first amendment, right?

[12:49] The United States Constitution, freedom of speech and to redress grievances for government.

[12:57] I am in no way shape or form, okay with the implementation of the FOX system cameras.

[13:05] Who is this?

[13:08] Can you just give us your name again in your address?

[13:09] Roberta, Philanjee, District 1, Ward 1.

[13:14] Thank you.

[13:19] Privacy isn't a privilege or a luxury.

[13:21] It's inherent right from the Creator.

[13:26] Governments were instituted to protect those rights,

[13:30] not to just say, willy-nilly, oh, we need mass surveillance on everyone.

[13:36] Have you ever been a member or a person, unfortunately,

[13:39] that succumbed to domestic violence?

[13:44] Have you?

[13:45] Do you like your information out there in the hands of people

[13:49] that shouldn't have access to your life?

[13:54] No. In the text of the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident that

[13:59] men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator. We're certain unalienable

[14:05] rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure

[14:10] these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent

[14:15] of the government. I do not consent with flak, safety, surveillance, axon, motorola, whoever you got.

[14:24] That when any form of government derives destructive to the ends, it is the right of the people

[14:28] to alter or to abolish and institute any new government laying its foundation of such principles

[14:35] and organizations as powers inform as to those seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

[14:42] Yes, prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed

[14:48] for the light of transient causes.

[14:51] Unalienable rights, they existed before government, and all those rights, the right to travel

[14:57] an ordinary course of one's business.

[15:01] The right to privacy and confidentiality, free from unwarranted evasions. You all, and so do the Chiefs War, and oath to this Constitution. It is your job to protect those rights of the private people, not corporations, not whoever signed a donation check in order to go ahead and fight for these cameras. And then in order to go to another business,

[15:29] in order for them to go ahead and take our information without consent. I didn't

[15:35] consent. Where's the opt out? And you can say, well, you've got a cell phone. I

[15:40] control the cell phone. I can opt out. I can leave it at home. Or if you're not

[15:45] doing anything wrong, well, why do you care? To find wrong. Something could be

[15:51] wrong. And then tomorrow, it could be fine. We'll go ahead and start wrapping it up.

[15:56] please. Okay. How did time please? So anyway, we've got the shard foodery. Eric sees me.

[16:01] Shattery versus United States. It was just overruled that regarding geo-fensing

[16:06] carbon-deraversus United States cell phone records without a warrant cannot be held.

[16:12] Cats versus United States, your information, your location and conversations,

[16:16] and Kylo versus United States use of technology to learn information that would be impossible

[16:21] to know without such technology.

[16:25] These are all supreme court cases regarding privacy.

[16:28] I'd also like to know why there is ESLag,

[16:32] Leonardo's signal trace, devices on the corner of A Street,

[16:37] in old 12, and South Boulevard, and the old 12 as well,

[16:42] that capture all your data.

[16:44] We're going to wrap it up there, we'll pass that up.

[16:46] So I'd like you to stop this.

[16:48] Appreciate it. Thank you.

[16:49] Thank you for the comments.

[16:50] Anyone else who would like to address counsel tonight on the item on the agenda?

[16:55] All right. Can you come up and give us your name and address please?

[16:59] Brian, hello, 307, Mulberry Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[17:05] When I was a kid, we knew that the Stasi were the bad guys.

[17:10] And we knew that because they maintained persistent mass surveillance.

[17:15] And, like she said, it doesn't matter whether it's flock or motorola or axon or whatever

[17:19] the others are, persistent mass surveillance is bad because it's persistent mass surveillance.

[17:26] And it's sad to hear people use the same arguments that were used in 1930s, Germany,

[17:31] 1950s, 60s, 70s, East Germany, today for the same cause, for the same effect.

[17:38] It's to protect our community, it's to save our kids, it's to catch the bad guys.

[17:43] Well, there are things that we don't do that could be used for good things because we recognize

[17:51] that they are a larger ill, and I say persistent mass surveillance is one of these things,

[17:57] and I would urge the council not to renew the flock contract.

[18:01] Thank you.

[18:02] All right.

[18:02] Thank you.

[18:04] Anyone else who wants to address council?

[18:07] All right.

[18:16] Hello.

[18:17] I didn't even know.

[18:18] Can we get your name in address, please?

[18:20] My name is Kelly Lappen.

[18:22] Okay.

[18:24] 609 Vine Street.

[18:27] Okay.

[18:29] Actually, I didn't even realize this was part of the agenda,

[18:33] but I'm here to agree with the other two people

[18:37] that you see story after story of how these cameras are

[18:43] uneffective, and you see that people say they've been pulled over like six, seven times

[18:52] because of these cameras. So I'm just here to say that please, no flock cameras. Don't

[19:01] steal our information. Thank you.

[19:03] Okay. Thank you.

[19:07] Anyone else who wants to do this council?

[19:11] All right. Seeing none, we will

[19:12] move on. Item 9 mayors business, a couple things on the list tonight. First off,

[19:19] Sock County will host a public open house concerning the Great Sock State Trail

[19:22] tomorrow night, Wednesday, September 23rd, and that's at the Carnegie

[19:25] Shoddy Memorial Library. The open house runs from 5.30 to 7.30 and there is a

[19:30] presentation at 6.30 p.m. tomorrow night. Second, I would like to congratulate

[19:35] Sergeant Matthew Gilbert on his 25th anniversary with the bearable PD. It does

[19:40] not look like Matt is here tonight, but we would like to congratulate him and thank him for his

[19:44] good work on behalf of all of us. Third, National and Wisconsin's Stormwater Awareness Week is this

[19:54] week, started yesterday, runs through Friday, and one of the ways that residents in our fair city can

[20:00] protect our water resources is by participating in our new adopt a drain program, and the website

[20:08] to do that is listed on the agenda and then finally I would like to offer

[20:13] congratulations to the employees of the Water Resource Recovery Facility.

[20:17] They were recently nominated by Sock County Public Health for a Health

[20:21] Excellence Award and we have a proclamation to do that. So where at the staff

[20:28] of the Water Resource Recovery Facility were recently nominated by Public

[20:31] Health Sock County for the Public Health Excellence Award, recognizing their

[20:35] outstanding commitment to excellence, public health, environmental safety, and the vital work that they

[20:39] perform daily for our community. And whereas since the inception of the Wisconsin Wastewater Monitoring

[20:45] Program in September 2020, WRR staff, WRR staff, have submitted over 550 samples making

[20:53] bearable one of the state's most reliable sites for data submission and sample shipment.

[20:57] And whereas the tracking of public health data, including genetic sequencing to track COVID-19,

[21:02] and monitoring for measles, seasonal few RSV and neurovirus,

[21:07] directly ensures the safety of bear-boo residents while contributing to large-scale public health science to protect the health of all Wisconsinites.

[21:13] And whereas the Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene specifically commended the WRF team for being amazing to work with very diligent and great at communicating,

[21:23] and whereas the city wishes to recognize the forward-thinking, reliable, and deeply dedicated crew of Mark Geisler, Brad Weirich,

[21:30] Jeremy Paskey, Trent Thompson, and Aaron Markworth.

[21:34] Now be it therefore resolved that on behalf of this people of City of Bearaboo, I hereby

[21:38] congratulate and commend members of the Water Resource Recovery Facility on their nomination

[21:43] for a public health excellence award.

[21:46] And I believe we've gotten at least most of the crew here if you'd like to come up.

[21:49] We'll do that.

[21:51] Congratulations on the floor.

[22:02] Thank you all for your good work.

[22:04] Thanks for

[22:08] your work.

[22:10] expert for John and Sally is going to have to give it a round of applause.

[22:17] Thank you.

[22:21] Thank you.

[22:22] Of course.

[22:22] Very good.

[22:26] Thank you, John.

[22:29] Thank you.

[22:29] All

[22:40] right.

[22:40] And with that, we will go to consent.

[22:43] One item tonight.

[22:44] Approved the accounts available to be paid in the amount of $581,240 and 14 cents.

[22:54] Motion to approve, answered.

[22:56] Second.

[22:57] All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda.

[23:02] Would you please call the roll.

[23:04] Hazard.

[23:04] Aye.

[23:05] Kent.

[23:05] Aye.

[23:06] Lumbard.

[23:07] Aye.

[23:07] Ellington.

[23:08] Aye.

[23:08] Swollen.

[23:09] Aye.

[23:09] Schindler.

[23:10] Aye.

[23:10] Topham.

[23:11] Aye.

[23:11] Olson.

[23:12] Aye.

[23:13] Consent carries unanimously.

[23:14] Thank you.

[23:15] No ordinances on second reading tonight.

[23:17] So we go to item 12 new business.

[23:20] Item 12.1.

[23:21] consider approving the on-call policy for sewer and water utilities crews. Mark, you're back up at

[23:27] the spotlight again.

[23:36] Good evening.

[23:39] The resolution that I have included in your packet talks about

[23:43] the need for an on-call policy for our water and sewer utilities.

[23:50] Currently, our after-hours

[23:52] emergency call in work is somewhat coordinated, but I guess mostly on a voluntary basis, there is no policy in place, by implementing the proposed policies for each utility will help us improve response times and allow accountability at the same time.

[24:24] Yeah, and while allowing us to type in for the employee, really all I've got it unless

[24:32] anyone has any questions.

[24:34] Any questions from our motion

[24:45] to approve hazard?

[24:46] Okay.

[24:47] Thank you.

[24:48] Second.

[24:49] All right.

[24:50] We have a motion and a second to approve the on-call policy for the sewer and water utilities.

[24:55] Any further discussion on the motion?

[24:57] This was unanimous at finance.

[24:59] Thank you.

[25:00] All

[25:02] right, hearing no other discussion, please call the rule.

[25:05] Kent?

[25:06] Lambert?

[25:07] Aye.

[25:08] Ellington?

[25:08] Aye.

[25:09] Swollen?

[25:09] Aye.

[25:10] Dindler?

[25:10] Aye.

[25:11] Topham?

[25:11] Aye.

[25:12] Olson?

[25:12] Aye.

[25:13] Asard?

[25:13] Aye.

[25:14] Emotion carries unanimously.

[25:16] Thank you.

[25:17] 12.2.

[25:18] Thank you, Mark.

[25:19] Consider approving the allocation of a city economic development funds to pay MSA professional services

[25:25] for administration of community development block grants loan program.

[25:30] John, I'll turn it over to you.

[25:31] Thank you mayor. Good evening council. CDA had previously been responsible for overseeing a community development block grant, home loan program fund.

[25:43] Due to some changes within the state guidelines that focused on a regional approach, CDA determined that their staff resources would not be available to

[25:56] over really effectively managed the program in part because of their work with the renovation for

[26:01] Quartz and Square and constructing them forward in place.

[26:04] So at the time CD contracted with MSA professional services to assist with managing this grant.

[26:11] At the time it was anticipated those funds could be used to pay for MSA services, but CDA later learned that the expense was not eligible under the program.

[26:21] The invoice that was submitted by MSA was for $3,500.

[26:26] CDA is requesting a budget transfer from the City Economic Development Fund to be the revenue source for payment of the invoice, and that's the resolution that's in front of you tonight is to request approval of that transfer of City Economic Development Funds to cover that contract with MSA.

[26:46] Any questions for John?

[26:47] Yeah, I have a question, what were the funds in the city budget line intended to be used for?

[26:56] In the economic development fund?

[26:57] Yes.

[26:58] The one where?

[27:00] I think, Lord

[27:03] and Julie can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think, I think that's

[27:06] a part of money that we carry from year to year that we occasionally dip into when there's

[27:12] specific economic development activities we want to fund so it doesn't get allocated to

[27:16] a particular budget line each year is sort of a segregated fund, correct, nothing to that effect.

[27:23] So what you're saying, the funds are there, or hitting, right?

[27:29] Yes, you're correct, the funds are there, I believe, I think probably roughly about $179,000 in that account.

[27:39] Loved to approve.

[27:45] Second by hazard.

[27:47] All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the transfer of funds from the City Economic Development Fund,

[27:52] for payment of MSA's administration of the CD-BG program.

[27:58] Is there a reason that probably the dumb question, CD-A just doesn't include it in their budget by it?

[28:07] I believe that was because they had the segment with the funds were set up and the segregated funds.

[28:12] They didn't have, they weren't able to take it from any their existing accounts if I'm correct.

[28:18] Right. I think I think they had it how did it that the proceeds of the CBGP program would be able to pay for its administration.

[28:25] And so that's how they were planning to pay for it. And then they got word from, I believe the fact, it's that said,

[28:31] oh, that's not an eligible expense for the program. You have to find a different revenue source to pay that bill.

[28:37] So they came to us.

[28:42] Oh, that's good, right?

[28:42] I just decided by sidebar to all this starting in 2027 the CDA will not be involved in economic development at all it'll be just doing the housing.

[28:54] That's going to be transferred to another area within the city.

[29:04] Any further discussion?

[29:09] All right, hearing none, please call the roll.

[29:11] Lombard?

[29:12] No.

[29:13] Ellington.

[29:14] Swullen?

[29:15] Schindler.

[29:16] High.

[29:17] Half American?

[29:18] Alston.

[29:19] Action.

[29:21] I motion carries 7 to 1.

[29:23] Thank you.

[29:25] 12.3, consider proving the updated versions of section 1 and section 2 of the City of

[29:29] Boi.

[29:29] City of Barribos employee, personnel policy, and procedure handbook.

[29:33] Thank you John.

[29:35] Thank you mayor.

[29:36] In front of the council tonight, essentially if the city is working on updating the

[29:42] the current employee personnel policy procedure handbook and so as we're working through this,

[29:48] the first two sections section one and two were brought to finance personnel committee

[29:53] on September 8th this year.

[29:56] of part of that process, the city has been working with me.

[30:00] With department heads and employees to review, gather input, get recommendations on improvements to each section of the handbook. It's absolutely what you will see is that we will be bringing each section back to the council in kind of a staged process of either a couple sections of a time or one section at a time. Under this one that we're bringing to you tonight, the report proposed changes under section one are very limited.

[30:29] It is more just basically kind of making some edits, revising some of the language.

[30:36] Revisioning the section to the primary one involves expanding the residency requirement for emergency personnel employees from 15 to 25 miles from the city.

[30:48] The other changes basically including an annual review requirement for all city positions on an annual basis.

[30:56] There are no financial impact effects on the city annual budget for both of those sections.

[31:05] And if the Council were to recommend approval on that, this would go in effect on October 1st of this year.

[31:13] And we would make the notifications to city staff and update the handbook in the electronic format.

[31:21] Questions for John?

[31:22] I just would ask him to give me the numbers again, it was from 15 to 25 miles.

[31:32] Yes, the residency requirement states 15 miles of employees that are hired need to live within 15 miles or 30 minutes of their workplace.

[31:44] And so the comments and feedback from if city employees was to make that change from 15 to 25 miles.

[31:52] That's emergency.

[31:56] Yeah, emergency person that we're not regular.

[32:00] Thank you.

[32:01] You're welcome.

[32:02] Any other questions?

[32:03] I'll

[32:10] entertain the motion.

[32:11] If there's no further questions.

[32:14] So move.

[32:17] Sign the second.

[32:19] All right.

[32:20] We have a motion and a second to approve the updates to sections one and two of the employee personnel policy and proceed your handbook.

[32:26] Any further discussion on the motion?

[32:30] All right.

[32:31] Hearing none, please call the roll.

[32:40] 35,000.

[32:41] Thank you.

[32:44] 12,4.

[32:46] We're regarding the 2027 fire EMS proposed budget.

[32:51] I will take that one.

[32:53] As everyone's well aware, we had discussion last meeting about the fire EMS proposed budget,

[32:59] according to the by-laws of the district's

[33:02] We need to submit written feedback to that budget by tomorrow.

[33:07] So, coming out of the meeting two weeks ago, I did my best to summarize what I thought was the sentiment of the council at the end of that discussion.

[33:16] Administrator Young reviewed that memo. Council President Kent reviewed that.

[33:21] They both felt that that sufficiently captured as close to the consensus as we could get from this group at that meeting.

[33:29] and so this is sort of officially taking that step to submit this as our official feedback

[33:38] on behalf of the city as the district goes into the next stage of their budget.

[33:43] I mean,

[33:49] folks have any questions or I have a couple.

[33:54] Sure. This one is pretty much procedural.

[33:58] The first one, as I read the resolution and the background of the resolution, it's somewhat

[34:04] Not ambiguous as to who gets the mammal besides the chief does it go to the quote commission or to every member of the commission when you say it's going to the commission does that you're handing a copy to every one of the commissioners or I will I will send a copy to the chief and I would expect that he would probably send that or distribute that to the rest of the commission.

[34:27] And I will also send it to the other two members of the city.

[34:31] I'm going to assume that Brett, Steve's not here, but I will assume that they will have it as a consequence of being on council.

[34:41] I did get a comment.

[34:43] Steve did provide me some comments since he's not able to be here.

[34:46] And he said that he was fully support the memo written for the Fire AMS budget.

[34:51] As a commission member, I'll support the city's position on this.

[34:55] So, he's for what it's worth.

[34:58] Did you have to, oh I'm sorry, I was just going to say all the IGA says about the latter

[35:05] is any input from the members on the budget must be provided in writing to the commission

[35:09] on or before the 4th Wednesday and September there isn't really any other direction about

[35:13] who it goes to in there.

[35:14] Okay, yeah.

[35:15] It was ambiguous.

[35:16] I was curious.

[35:17] It's a minor point.

[35:19] Right?

[35:20] not that brought wouldn't be willing to share with everybody, but well, you never know.

[35:30] I have a question about why after three years we do this?

[35:36] Why not after the first year and the second year?

[35:40] I guess my, I'll just say personally, my feeling was the last couple years it

[35:45] hadn't seemed as contentious as it did this year. This year it seemed like there was

[35:49] was a lot more discussion and debate about what our position should be, and so I didn't

[35:58] want to act unilaterally and just say, here was my impression without getting an official

[36:03] approval of council, so it seemed a more straightforward response last year and the year before when

[36:12] we did this.

[36:13] Yes.

[36:14] Okay.

[36:15] Well, it sure has been a lot easier on them and us if we had heard this from the first

[36:24] year or even in the second year.

[36:26] I mean, we went through the same process and we sent them, we did see, sent feedback.

[36:30] Okay.

[36:31] It was just the memo that I wrote after the meeting last year I didn't think was as controversial

[36:37] because there was more of a more firm consensus from council.

[36:55] I guess my question really is, so this is the proposed budget, we send this letter, right?

[37:05] And then the process is, there's rebuttal, there's a change that we ask for, or what's the next step?

[37:15] Because we don't have another meeting, this is the last meeting of the month.

[37:17] right and then are we just going to at the first meeting in October get a new budget or we have the

[37:27] same budget or I guess I'm trying to try and to help shepherd this along and have an

[37:33] understanding of the next step after sending our strongly written letter.

[37:41] So the next commission

[37:43] meeting is the 30th week from Wednesday, week from tomorrow. I haven't seen the agenda

[37:49] for that meeting yet, so I don't know if there will be a discussion on the budget I would

[37:52] imagine that there probably would be. The district is not required to submit the final budget,

[37:58] I believe, until the end of October. Is that correct, Nick? According to the by-laws?

[38:03] The commission's adopted its budget honor before November 1st, right? So I can't speak for the

[38:10] commission. I'm guessing there will be discussion next week at the commission meeting and then at their October meeting

[38:17] revised or final budget will be presented and voted on by the commission. Because per the by-law

[38:22] one of the options

[38:24] that was that that's afforded each municipality is by the end of September and if we if we indicated

[38:32] that we would be exiting the district that's the deadline correct correct so

[38:37] So by taking this form of action, that kind of is an option that's going to be off the table correct.

[38:51] For 20, I mean, there's a 15-month lead time after that set.

[38:58] So that would be for end of 2027, would be when that would be effective.

[39:03] if we voted to do that prior to me under this month.

[39:09] And obviously, there's four other municipalities

[39:11] that are involved in this.

[39:15] And I'm assuming they're gonna be writing similar letters

[39:19] and doing no their position.

[39:26] I do not know the position.

[39:28] I know Mr. Arms spoke at our previous council meeting

[39:32] so one can infer what the village's position is,

[39:36] but I have not been privy to any of the other municipalities

[39:41] have discussed or may see.

[39:43] It's kind of a big piece of the puzzle.

[39:45] It's understanding how the other municipalities feel

[39:51] and where their collective mindset is moving forward.

[39:59] I'm assuming that they probably sent similar letters or similar feedback of their stance

[40:06] on funding in this budget.

[40:10] So I guess that's just one thing I need to know, so depending on other information,

[40:19] is there a possibility that we would have to have another meeting, a special meeting to discuss

[40:27] justice or no?

[40:30] I mean, there's always possibility of calling a special meeting. I don't anticipate

[40:34] one. When we had a discussion two weeks ago, it did not seem like the withdrawal option

[40:42] was a particularly attractive one to the council. It seemed like—

[40:46] No, no, they're a pretty attractive one. But it seemed like the least attractive of the

[40:51] options available that trying to either revise the bylaws or moving to dissolve both seemed

[40:57] like more productive than unilaterally stepping away was that was my sense from council two weeks ago.

[41:06] Yeah, I just understand what you said in September. We have to do that.

[41:11] My meeting is not totally in September. It's nothing we can do.

[41:16] Right. I mean, that would be in revising the bylaws. That would be probably something that could

[41:21] be revised because I don't know what the rationale is for the 15-month runway. I mean, you could,

[41:25] that you could change some of those deadlines

[41:27] so that the timing comes out.

[41:30] You know, you would have a, let's say,

[41:32] December 31st deadline to be effective

[41:34] the following year or something like that

[41:35] because it is sort of the timing does seem awkward to me.

[41:40] It's definitely, it's definitely part,

[41:41] I think part of that change, you know,

[41:43] well, the bylaws portion.

[41:46] Yeah, right.

[41:51] Council still has the 30th deadline for just stepping away.

[41:58] There is no deadline if you vote

[42:00] to dissolve the dis. Right. Right. So, and you'd have to vote when you want to dissolve by and

[42:06] three other, three other, my right, three other municipalities would have to come along with that.

[42:12] But there's, you could do that anytime you want. Right. Right. Is that a by municipality voter

[42:18] by commission headcount vote? Is it by the municipality? It's interesting. The district doesn't have a vote

[42:28] And obviously, you don't think anybody wants to dissolve the district.

[42:31] That's the least attractive option, but

[42:37] we don't have money.

[42:39] So you do what you do.

[42:44] And that I think is the bottom line is we don't have the money and I think we have to really

[42:52] look at that.

[42:57] And the solution doesn't seem real practical, it does give us some opportunities for change.

[43:08] And going back to at least the partial volunteer service and making some other changes.

[43:18] So it's something that we don't want to take off the table.

[43:23] Thank you.

[43:27] I was just going to say, I appreciate, I don't think there's a perfect solution here.

[43:34] So, if you're looking for one or have one, please speak up.

[43:37] I appreciate that at least this tries to compromise.

[43:41] It's not an all or none. We're saying, hey, we will.

[43:43] It's a sizable budget increase.

[43:45] That we're saying we would accept.

[43:49] This memo was saying that, but I like the idea that we're trying to compromise.

[43:52] So trying to come up with some middle ground, we're not just hard and fast, yes, no.

[43:57] And I don't know where the commission will go with this, but we'll see.

[44:01] If you guys approved it, send it to the commission.

[44:06] And I may or may not be wrong because of the amount of the increase.

[44:10] Is the 2% above, is that still in play because of this proposed budget?

[44:15] I'm told by a lawyer that we're not eligible for the 2% plus CPI increase anymore.

[44:23] Okay. Because of the way the budget has been proposed, is that fair?

[44:27] Or I don't honestly understand.

[44:30] I defer to her expertise on that if you want a more complete explanation, I'll let her explain.

[44:37] I just.

[44:44] In order to take the adjustment on the tax levy for the joint fire UMS district, the district would have to submit

[44:51] a budget to the municipality's increase in their assessments by only CPI plus 2%.

[45:00] Since this budget does not is well above that, we get no adjustment. Not even the part we could have had.

[45:12] Wasn't one of the primary reasons to form the district was to get that 2% that I missed something here. So we would have to, this is a question. We have to vote for basically a flat budget. CPI plus 2%. On the assessment.

[45:31] and the municipal assessment portion.

[45:33] So that's like a 5% or 4%, probably about that.

[45:39] 5% right now, 5%, 5.4% or something.

[45:43] Oh, that's kind of a game changer.

[45:46] Okay.

[45:47] I mean, the CPI plus 2% exemption

[45:53] allows you to levy above, right, but still levy limit.

[45:58] If we're looking at an increase,

[46:02] anything in the order of magnitude that we're talking about here we're going to have to increase

[46:06] above the levee limit anyway through short term borrowing. So it functionally as it applies

[46:11] to the tax fair, I don't think it's that much of a difference in terms of what impact they're

[46:16] going to see. But internally it's the whole one of the principal reasons to form a district was to

[46:24] to get the 2%?

[46:26] You can save money.

[46:28] OK.

[46:28] Thank you, John.

[46:29] Well, I mean, what you're getting

[46:31] is the ability to assess above the levy limit.

[46:34] The state isn't giving you 2% plus CPI.

[46:37] All the state is doing this.

[46:39] They're letting you tax your budget.

[46:40] All the state is saying is we're allowing you

[46:42] to raise your taxes above the levy limit.

[46:46] I understand.

[46:48] And should a budget of this size get adopted,

[46:52] we're going to have to do that anyway.

[46:53] So it's not really in this budget year, it's not really a cost to us or an impact to us.

[47:01] I don't feel.

[47:04] So if you're good at making adjustment, you'd want to make the adjustment in one year.

[47:08] You know, you'd want to make a big adjustment in one year when you can't get it versus making

[47:12] small adjustments five years in a row because then you'll lose it for five years.

[47:18] You know, if you want to do an adjustment to the budget, you'd want to do it in one year.

[47:21] So once you lose it, don't you lose it?

[47:24] you'll lose it. If you don't qualify this year, but isn't the AOS plan a five-year plan

[47:33] or longer? Right, so let's just, I'll try to paraphrase, tell me if I'm wrong. Let's

[47:43] say hypothetically, and I'm just going to use round numbers, let's say your municipal

[47:49] contribution is $500 or $100, let's say. Next you could increase it by $5 because you're

[47:58] going to go up 5%. Next year after that you can increase it by $5.37 or whatever 5% of

[48:06] $1.5 is. CPI plus 2%. If in year 1 you increase the budget by $15, well now we're over

[48:17] that 2% plus CPI, so we can't use the 2% plus CPI.

[48:21] If the next year we increase it another $15, we can't use the 2% and CPI.

[48:26] So if you're stepping it shortly like that, but it's still above the 2% plus CPI, you

[48:30] never get that opportunity back.

[48:32] If we take one big jump and say we're going to increase it from $100 to $150, no CPI plus

[48:40] 2% this year, but then in the subsequent year if you only raise it $5, well now we're

[48:45] still under the 5% to 2% plus CPI so we can use that mechanism again.

[48:50] As I read the Eller's report, it said that if you go above the CPI plus two, all municipalities had to agree.

[49:01] That wasn't a majority vote, it was all.

[49:04] I don't think so.

[49:05] They all have to pass the resolution.

[49:07] Yeah.

[49:08] They don't all have to take it, but they don't have to pass the resolution.

[49:11] either

[49:23] questions or discussion.

[49:31] Does this letter set us on a course that we can't really move back from?

[49:42] I don't think this letter commits us to anything.

[49:44] It's just providing guidance and then it's up to the district commission to take that into account.

[49:53] So, our four members of the commission will vote as the council advises, is that what

[50:09] I understood from last month's I can't I can't guarantee that they're not they're not they're not can you read what you read last month

[50:24] I didn't bring my bylaws so I think I think they serve it they serve a pleasure of the municipality that appointed them and but that's different than saying that they're going to

[50:35] follow the position that the council dictates.

[50:39] I agree with the mayor. I happen to think that that guides my decision making but the mayor's right.

[50:45] There's you can interpret that there's people that interpret that both ways.

[50:48] Right. So I look at it and say, well, unless you guys come up with something that is

[50:52] egregious or illegal, I'm going to be inclined to take your direction and vote consistent with

[50:58] what you tell me to vote. But I've also read where you could interpret that by law both ways

[51:03] in fairness. So thank you.

[51:12] Any other discussion?

[51:21] I will make a motion to approve

[51:23] 12.4. I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the proposed memo concerning

[51:30] including the 2027 Fire EMS budget.

[51:32] Any further discussion on the motion?

[51:38] Right, hearing none, please call the roll.

[51:40] Swollen.

[51:41] Aye.

[51:41] Schindler.

[51:42] Aye.

[51:42] Topham.

[51:43] Olson.

[51:44] Aye.

[51:45] Hazard.

[51:45] Aye.

[51:46] Kent.

[51:46] Aye.

[51:47] Lombard.

[51:48] Aye.

[51:48] Ellington.

[51:49] Aye.

[51:50] Motion carries unanimously.

[51:52] Thank you.

[51:53] 12.5.

[51:54] Consider vacating the stud and alley right of way west of Washington

[51:57] Avenue between 11th and 12th streets and approved a public hearing

[52:00] date of November 10th, 2026.

[52:04] Mr. Pinion, you have the floor.

[52:06] Thank you.

[52:07] Jonathan, could you switch that to the floor?

[52:08] Sure.

[52:09] Please give us a map.

[52:17] So, Plan Commission considered this at their last meeting

[52:21] and recommended that this stub end mostly

[52:25] unimproved alley be vacated.

[52:27] So the map on the screen shows you where this little piece is.

[52:31] The original block included an alley that went from East End

[52:35] West End, the entire width of the block. In 1978, that

[52:41] Westerly 77% was vacated by the City Council. So what's left is a very short piece of

[52:49] alley right of way that serves two private properties. It was the plan

[52:57] commission's consideration that, you know, should the entire community be paying

[53:02] for essentially a private driveway shared by two properties.

[53:06] So the plan commission did positively recommend that the city pursue vacating that alley right

[53:11] away.

[53:12] So the process for that is statutory.

[53:14] It does allow the city to commence the project on their own or it can be commenced by a way

[53:19] of a petition from the adjoining property owners.

[53:22] They did speak with both property owners on site and they really didn't have any objection

[53:28] to this approach.

[53:29] So before you this evening is the statutorily required resolution to be passed by the council if you choose to support this and

[53:39] The notice of public hearing is included the public hearing cannot be any less than 40 days from the date of adoption of this resolution

[53:46] So we would have a meeting the first meeting in November would be the one when we would actually take the official action or consider the

[53:54] the official action to vacate this property.

[53:56] So this doesn't complete the process tonight,

[53:58] it's just a step in the right direction

[54:00] toward that end and game, if you will.

[54:05] Questions for Tom?

[54:07] Good, Andrew.

[54:08] But you are saying that you had no disagreement

[54:11] from the property owners at all.

[54:14] Correct, correct.

[54:15] One was a private property owner on the south side,

[54:18] and it's green briars,

[54:22] retirement facility there on the north side.

[54:24] So, they have no issue with it whatsoever and thought it was a very fair, fair thing for the city to do it.

[54:31] What's proposed is that normally when you vacate the alley, half of it goes to the joining property owners.

[54:37] In this case, it would go to half of them, but my recommendation is that it be vacated in favor of a joint driveway easement.

[54:45] So, they still have the rights that they enjoy on that same piece of property.

[54:50] It's just that they're responsible for the maintenance and upkeep.

[55:07] We have a motion and a second to move forward with the vacation of the alley west of Washington

[55:15] between 11th and 12th and set the public hearing date for November 10th.

[55:19] Any further discussion?

[55:23] All right.

[55:23] Hearing none, please call the roll.

[55:24] Shindler.

[55:25] All right.

[55:26] Top of them.

[55:26] All right.

[55:27] All right.

[55:28] I can.

[55:29] I.

[55:30] Lumberj.

[55:30] I.

[55:31] Linton.

[55:31] I.

[55:31] Spallan.

[55:32] I.

[55:33] Motion carries unanimously.

[55:34] Thank you.

[55:35] I.

[55:35] In 13 we have no new business ordinances tonight.

[55:38] That takes us to 14 committee of the whole.

[55:40] We have two items to discuss in committee of the whole tonight.

[55:43] I will entertain a motion to move into committee of the whole to discuss the flat camera update

[55:47] and the city budget.

[55:48] So, second.

[55:50] All right.

[55:51] We have a motion and a second to move into committee of the whole.

[55:53] Would you please call the roll.

[55:55] Tap them.

[55:56] Aye.

[55:57] Olson.

[55:58] Aye.

[55:58] Hazard.

[55:58] Aye.

[55:59] Kent.

[56:00] Lombard.

[56:01] Aye.

[56:01] Ellington.

[56:01] Aye.

[56:02] Swellen.

[56:02] Aye.

[56:03] Schindler.

[56:03] Aye.

[56:04] All right.

[56:05] We are in committee the whole.

[56:06] We will start with the chief.

[56:07] He requested to give us an update on the flock camera system.

[56:11] So I will turn it over to chief carloan.

[56:12] Thank you, Mayor.

[56:13] Thank you, council.

[56:14] So I'm really reporting back on a pilot program that we started last year with the LPR reader in the flock camera system.

[56:22] I will tell you that it was a donations that did this pilot program and as I stand here today as the chief I'm neutral I do understand the public mistrust that's been put out there recently or throughout the year and I do understand the concerns about that so I respect whatever decision

[56:42] you guys make going forward, I know tonight is just discussion, but whether that is to pause the program,

[56:47] discontinue it or to continue forward with another year of the program.

[56:51] Either way, I support it, I'm just really here to present the facts.

[56:55] I do believe in this technology, I do believe it, it does promote public safety and I can talk

[57:00] to those numbers, and I'll give you some of that prior to any discussion around it.

[57:05] So reporting back over the past year, we've had 121 cases, and I will only highlight

[57:12] the double digit numbers here, out of those 121 cases, as far as the, how the flock either

[57:17] aided in solving that case, or led an investigative lead which ultimately ended up in solving that case.

[57:24] So 13 cases were related to battery offenses with a suspect's vehicle involved that were resolved

[57:31] in the use of that technology. 27 cases, out of those 100 in some cases, were related to

[57:38] welfare check call which could be a suicide or missing type of investigation.

[57:45] Ten of them were crash hit and run incidents, 16 of them were theft offenses,

[57:51] seven of them were felony thefts, and some of the other lower level ones,

[58:00] we had three sexual assault offenses that were aided in that,

[58:05] and then one of the bigger cases was the cash robbery that the flock

[58:10] camera was instrumental in solving that case. As far as crime reduction, it's

[58:17] very hard to measure that. I can tell you this time last year we were at 8,844

[58:22] calls for service. This year we're at around 6,780 that does go away up and in

[58:30] and ebbs and flows, but whether that's related

[58:33] to the cameras being present and having some impact

[58:36] on way people behave that is very subjective.

[58:40] So I'll just look at the numbers overall.

[58:44] As far as total searches, 682 times this was used

[58:49] as a way to try to identify an offender,

[58:51] but those 121 cases would have some direct impact

[58:54] with the flock being involved.

[58:56] I can address how it's being audited now.

[59:00] Block has put some safety features in place.

[59:03] But like I said, I do understand the public mistrust around this.

[59:07] We recently had SOC City that came out of the program.

[59:12] If the program in November does, I know that the landscape of law enforcement could be changing in November.

[59:20] If for some reason the Sheriff's Department drops out of this program going forward,

[59:26] it could have a significant impact on how effective it is because it is a network of cameras within Sauc County.

[59:32] So going to a different vendor would change the platform as people

[59:38] choose to move away from the program, it could change the platform.

[59:42] And with this being private donations, if it is never going to be part of the budget,

[59:47] it is very difficult to solicit or to request those funds every year to keep this pilot program going.

[59:56] So I really do look for some direction, or as the...

[1:00:00] All we want to go move forward with this. Regardless, we'll keep the community safe. Do I think this is a valuable tool? I do. And I do support it. And I've been around this tool for a long, long time where I came from and now here, but ultimately the community does have a voice in you guys are the final judgment makers on that. So that's kind of where I'll leave it at and open it up to discussion.

[1:00:28] Any questions for the chief?

[1:00:29] I do. More comments, I guess. I respect the comments that were made by the public comments section.

[1:00:41] I think that perception is king.

[1:00:46] Listening to the community members, listening to the news,

[1:00:49] listening to a bunch of things. I think that the flock company didn't put themselves in a very

[1:00:55] position. I think that all around the country these are going away.

[1:01:01] I do think it's probably

[1:01:02] a valuable tool. I really do. And I'm all about rights, but I mean, there's more than

[1:01:11] just your cell phone in your hand right now. We're being broadcasted out. The speeches

[1:01:17] are broadcasted out, you drive around all day with your license plates out there.

[1:01:27] There's other privacy things and it's very difficult to maintain and I think that giving

[1:01:33] that up with this system really does touch a nerve with a lot of the constituents in

[1:01:38] the community.

[1:01:40] So at that point, I think that even though it may just be a perception, there's numbers

[1:01:45] the back it up, you have numbers that back it up the other way, I think it is a valuable tool.

[1:01:50] But I also think that the will of the people and the perception of the loss of privacy,

[1:01:59] I don't think we should move forward.

[1:02:01] I don't think I could support actually trying to find money for it.

[1:02:06] I think that we could spend that money in other ways that would be each out to the community and

[1:02:12] and find other ways to help public safety.

[1:02:17] That's my opinion, I'll leave it at that.

[1:02:19] And I respect that.

[1:02:20] Like I said, I introduced this as a pilot program.

[1:02:23] I do believe in the safety factors around it, but I do understand the mistrust.

[1:02:27] So, I'm really, we're looking, that's why I'm looking forward to feedback on this.

[1:02:31] And I completely understand if it's not going to become a budget item.

[1:02:34] And that's what we needed to know.

[1:02:38] Andrew, go ahead.

[1:02:40] I agree with Jason more than that I agree with the Constitution and when Roberta

[1:02:48] Philan she talked about this she referred to the Constitution more than once.

[1:02:55] We lose our Constitution a bit by bit by bit and pretty soon we have something else and

[1:03:03] So I cannot support this and I did support it the first time, but I haven't, I didn't really think in terms of a constitution, which I should have.

[1:03:16] Thank you.

[1:03:17] I just would like to add that I will tell you the Barabood Police Department put strict policies in play and the tool has menus with integrity.

[1:03:27] And so, everything that we've done had a case attached to it resulted in a positive outcome with either identifying a suspect and it was all that was supported by the district attorney.

[1:03:40] So, this is a legitimate tool that we were using under Siege's requirements, which is the criminal justice information system compliance.

[1:03:50] So, I just want to assure the council as well as the citizens that sit here today that the Bearbue Police Department used this with integrity and there was no misuse by this department during this pilot program.

[1:04:03] And I totally believe you Chief, it's just that when

[1:04:13] we surveil everyone in order to

[1:04:20] find one person or two people, it is an infraction on their liberties.

[1:04:33] Thank you.

[1:04:34] And just to clarify for folks that this is not an action item tonight, so we're just having a discussion and getting an update.

[1:04:43] I believe at some future meeting we will have an opportunity to vote on whether to extend or in the program.

[1:04:50] So I think if the consensus is here that the next meeting could have a resolution just to whatever the outcome you choose.

[1:04:58] Yeah, I'd like to, as usual, throw in a couple of comments.

[1:05:03] If I walk into Monards, they have a camera right at the door.

[1:05:08] They record me going in.

[1:05:10] If I walk into Home Depot, they record me.

[1:05:13] I wonder, I think they got you at, uh, festival yesterday.

[1:05:16] I'm sure they did.

[1:05:17] And there's nothing I can do to stop that.

[1:05:20] Does that private entities?

[1:05:23] This is.

[1:05:24] Yeah.

[1:05:24] And some private entities are putting these cameras up on their parking lots, just to know.

[1:05:30] Absolutely.

[1:05:30] And the thing I learned, I was shocked by when I walked around getting signatures last

[1:05:36] January or whenever the heck it was in the snow.

[1:05:41] The number of ring cameras on doorbells.

[1:05:45] I don't disagree with you.

[1:05:47] I really don't disagree with you, but I think we all need to preserve our Constitution

[1:05:55] to the best of our ability.

[1:05:58] And I understand that this was done with integrity, and your names were erased after a certain

[1:06:10] amount of time, I believe, and it is simply constitution comes first.

[1:06:19] Thank you.

[1:06:20] I do want to clarify that a license plate that is identified has to have a secondary

[1:06:25] search.

[1:06:26] So those plates that are captured by a flock, you don't know the identity until law enforcement

[1:06:31] does an NCIC search to identify who that plate belongs to.

[1:06:35] So the data was just an investigative lead.

[1:06:38] So they just don't want misinformation as to how we were cultivating these leads.

[1:06:43] It was a starting point with other investigative tools applied.

[1:06:47] And I'll just emphasize with Greg's cheer comment, Ken, that all of those folks you cited are either private homeowners or private businesses who have discretion on what they want to do on their property.

[1:06:58] And to Andrew's point, whether we want to extend what level of surveillance on private property is a discussion that we need to have.

[1:07:07] because I can choose whether or not to go into minars.

[1:07:10] I can't necessarily choose whether to be in public or not.

[1:07:13] I don't think so.

[1:07:15] If I need to buy a gallon of paint, I got to go into a store somewhere.

[1:07:19] And most likely, they all have a camera.

[1:07:23] Absolutely, but that doesn't extend it to government.

[1:07:29] David, go ahead.

[1:07:31] So I oppose this program going into it,

[1:07:34] knowing pretty well that it was going to be an effective public safety

[1:07:38] tool. And I think that number is that chief share that pans that out. But I really haven't

[1:07:45] heard anything that's going to change my mind because when I weigh privacy versus safety,

[1:07:51] you know, can you make the point nine times out of 10? We choose safety. This is one time

[1:07:56] where we could actually stand up and actually advocate for privacy. So I would recommend

[1:08:01] any of this program.

[1:08:04] Good, right? Thank you, Mayor.

[1:08:06] Another item to consider here is the fact that we're thinking of just how bearable uses this data when this data is available around the country, okay?

[1:08:17] And even though our police department may be very diligent in using it respectively, there are other communities who may be sampling and taking our data that aren't so

[1:08:30] There are reports and news right now of other law enforcement districts that flock put into things saying you have to type in a reason for why you want the search and people are just letting their fingers over the keyboard and putting in miscellaneous letters as the reason and it accepts it.

[1:08:47] There's talk that the flock is going to be selling data, supposedly not identify individually,

[1:08:57] but to insurance companies and other groups that want to have metrics about how many cars

[1:09:03] or from where they come from, or anything go through particular areas for marketing reasons.

[1:09:08] There's also rumors, I don't know if it's fact that it captures more than just the license plate.

[1:09:13] They actually have pictures of the drivers behind a dash.

[1:09:17] They have pictures of the actually identifies bumper stickers on the vehicles and flags them as well.

[1:09:24] That is part of the search feature identifying marks on the vehicle.

[1:09:29] So if somebody had a particular sticker and was involved in a hit and run,

[1:09:33] we were allowed to search that vehicle.

[1:09:35] But as far as people being captured behind the wheel,

[1:09:38] if the angle is right when that snapshot is shot,

[1:09:41] Yeah, you do, but sometimes it's a blur. So I don't disagree with you. I'm just telling you what I've seen from that type of data. Yeah, what I saw that I didn't read the article, but I

[1:09:52] overview of it. There's an article in the wired magazine about some, let's just say hackers who stole a flock camera and then actually hacked into it and downloaded all the data and figured out everything it's capturing.

[1:10:06] That's where they found out a lot more things than was being said publicly.

[1:10:10] Yeah, that's sort of what I would get to adding on the safety of the data that is much

[1:10:17] as flocked, you know, probably tries to protect their data, having private or personal data

[1:10:26] stored like that anywhere puts everybody at risk because no information system is that

[1:10:34] safe.

[1:10:35] And I just want to tell you what data is stored is the vehicle, like the plate itself only in the vehicle color and that there is no names associated with those plates because they don't have access to run that through NCIC they can only capture that image, you know what I mean that other data would have to be filtered filtered.

[1:10:58] You'd have to run that plate to identify the owner.

[1:11:01] So, what they're capturing, yes, they have control over that.

[1:11:05] There is a certain amount of data they can go out below, and I'm saying is that doesn't have a name attached.

[1:11:10] You may have an agency and an officer attached who ran it, but it should not have the owner's information attached.

[1:11:18] Because they don't technically have the capability unless they're circumventing that, and I have not had any reports of that.

[1:11:24] that.

[1:11:29] Anybody else want to weigh in at this point?

[1:11:35] Okay. All right. Well, thank you, Chief.

[1:11:38] All right. Thanks. We will turn things over to the finance team here for an update on the

[1:11:44] 2027 budget.

[1:11:50] So we've been working on coming up with a sort of first cut at the budget after

[1:11:57] meeting with department heads. I don't know if, Laura, you're Julie, you want to be on the hot seat.

[1:12:05] But this is, like I say, an early iteration of the budget to kind of give counsel

[1:12:10] an idea of where we stand at this point. There's still some fine tuning and some choices to be made.

[1:12:16] But it gives you at

[1:12:22] least a sense of where we are at this point.

[1:12:33] So, department heads submitted their requests, they were asked to keep their budgets as tight as possible.

[1:12:41] Relatively speaking, they did a really, a very, a really good job.

[1:12:46] There is a, there is a cost of living increase in there for employees and benefits, that's where the really where our increases are.

[1:12:56] There's a list of items there that are included in this budget.

[1:12:59] it? I don't know if you want me to go through them or I don't. Do folks need

[1:13:08] lower to go through the list of impacts on the budget? Are you able to put

[1:13:13] through that in your own or do you have specific questions on anything that

[1:13:16] you see? Having gotten this to just a few

[1:13:20] hours ago, I only have a couple questions. If I read this correct, the debt limit or

[1:13:27] that debt service goes down by 8.4% okay yes so we currently had levied for debt for interest

[1:13:42] payments on the construction of the fire station and we didn't build the fire station we don't

[1:13:49] have a construction alone so we still have 261,000 left into the service to be applied some towards the

[1:13:57] that. So, we can either apply it towards 2027 payments or we could hold it if we thought

[1:14:07] we, you know, we were going to go ahead with that project or we could use it to offset

[1:14:11] whatever borrowing we have for fire EMS.

[1:14:14] I was just baffled because the last session we should, we okayed the borrowing of another

[1:14:19] 4.9 million and now your debt service went down and I was like, I'm just a little farm boy

[1:14:25] from Green County. I was trying to figure out how that could happen.

[1:14:28] Right. So Harry was not really aware that we had not spent all of the proceeds that we had

[1:14:34] the year before. Okay. And they're also, they're also sometimes dead issues that come off the

[1:14:41] ledger as well. So yes, we're adding something in but there could potentially be other things

[1:14:47] that we're not. Have we paid off any Dutch lately? I think we paid them off fairly regularly.

[1:14:51] I mean, we try to stagger them so that the debt service is fairly level.

[1:14:57] Yeah, and actually he actually increased the payment on 2020.

[1:15:00] 7, 4, this debt we just had, because we were out of balance. So he was trying to get us back into balance with that. The first payment. I mean, I.

[1:15:11] There's a comment inside of there that either we're not giving others the information. Well, we're not getting what we're paying for.

[1:15:20] Do you understand what I'm saying?

[1:15:22] Like he wasn't aware that we didn't pay that down.

[1:15:26] And then there was also the way he portrayed it,

[1:15:30] like we were ahead somehow,

[1:15:33] and we were like $8 million ahead or something like that.

[1:15:37] And it was really because of the loan.

[1:15:39] It wasn't like we were really ahead.

[1:15:42] And I just think there may have been some miscommunication

[1:15:47] communication with with with with with Ellers when they were developing that report or that audit or whatever, but I will say this just by what I saw in that report and the comments that I'm kind of picking up on, I don't know that we're getting what we're paying for with Ellers. I I I I struggle with with with some of their reporting.

[1:16:05] So he did have the 400,000 that we borrowed on the levy worksheet on that you know on the worksheet that he had for you

[1:16:14] He just didn't realize that it wasn't all spent and he knew it wasn't gonna be put back on he asked about the fire station

[1:16:20] So he knew that we

[1:16:23] Love it for it, and he knew it wasn't gonna be on this you know

[1:16:27] It was it was kind of I don't remember the comment. It was kind it was we were like eight million dollars

[1:16:34] in the good, and the majority of that was because of a loan that was.

[1:16:41] I mean, I think, I mean, what I remember, and I don't know if this is what you're referencing,

[1:16:45] is there was some confusion about the payment, the lease payment for this building,

[1:16:49] that there was $510,000, that there was that too.

[1:16:54] Right, but that that was, but that that, it looked like a loan here that we were taking out new borrowing,

[1:16:59] But that was basically our least payment that we paid at the CDA for this building that was part of the original plan for paying this building off.

[1:17:06] It wasn't a dark of night.

[1:17:09] No, I don't think that there's anybody twisting their mustache.

[1:17:15] What I'm saying is, the quality of work, I just feel like it's not.

[1:17:24] That's my opinion. I'm going to leave that in my opinion.

[1:17:27] That's an hours issue. Right. I mean, that may be a discussion for another day that maybe you're not quite what we're on right now.

[1:17:34] Good, Andrea.

[1:17:35] Does Ellers get paid for making this $4.9 million loan for us?

[1:17:46] They do. There's a fee structure for the issuance of debt and one of the parts is, is errors, yeah.

[1:17:54] Yeah, right.

[1:17:55] And I think that was in his presentation, I think there was a line item that said what their fees were.

[1:17:58] Yes, I was pretty sure of that.

[1:18:01] They provide us other financial guidance that they do not charge for, though.

[1:18:08] I'm just saying if we didn't really need the loan, it would have, then we wouldn't have been paying them for it, so thank you.

[1:18:19] Yeah, I apologize, you're going to make it sound incredibly simple and my question is going to look incredibly stupid, but under the fund balance management.

[1:18:28] I'm trying to line that up with the columns, Lori.

[1:18:31] So what do you think will end the year at in fund balance in 2026, 2026?

[1:18:39] So we are estimating that there will be a surplus in the budget of about 200,000 at this point.

[1:18:46] Projected numbers are a little iffy.

[1:18:50] Well, I'm trying to get my mind around it, and I'm not, this isn't, we're going to lock you in and tire in further if you're wrong.

[1:18:57] Okay, because a big part of this budget, and I'm not necessarily know to this, I'm not saying that I'm trying to understand it, is we're going to take a sizeable amount for fun balance.

[1:19:07] to square the budget and then we have a policy that says fund balance shouldn't

[1:19:13] exceed, I think it's 25% or something like that.

[1:19:16] And in your opinion, policy says it should be, it's a little contradictory because one

[1:19:20] sentence says fund balance should be between 15% and 20%, and then the next sentence

[1:19:25] says anything over 25% needs to be spent.

[1:19:28] Okay, but getting it down to between 15 and 20 is certainly within policy.

[1:19:33] Okay, far be it for us to have a policy, so where is the fund balance and what will it be if we take this money up?

[1:19:46] So, fund balance at the end of this year, at the end of this year, then is anticipated to be at 26%.

[1:19:52] And if we were to apply, this was the mayor's recommendation, to go ahead and

[1:19:59] And apply substantial amount of fund balance to balance this budget, we'd still be at 21.

[1:20:04] Okay, and what's that number?

[1:20:06] Just how many million dollars?

[1:20:08] You can round it and protect yourself.

[1:20:10] Well, 3.7?

[1:20:12] Okay, so if we do this, we'd be at about 3.7 million in the reserve fund balance.

[1:20:19] Okay, and I'm not trying to just try to understand the chart here,

[1:20:26] and

[1:20:27] This does include an HR director.

[1:20:31] Yeah, I'll just go through.

[1:20:33] Okay, so this budget includes a wage study.

[1:20:36] It includes adding an HR director

[1:20:38] and includes adding a city planner

[1:20:41] in place of the economic development director.

[1:20:46] It does include well capital items, I guess.

[1:20:50] It includes cost of living increases,

[1:20:54] increase in health insurance.

[1:20:55] It does not include an increase for fire EMS, because we're not allowed to make that

[1:21:00] adjustment.

[1:21:02] We'd be borrowing for anything over what last year's assessment was.

[1:21:17] Does include extending and engineering tech through next year's construction season.

[1:21:23] It includes combining a part-time public works employee and two-season employees to make

[1:21:30] time parks technician.

[1:21:35] It includes creating a part-time recreation assistant position, using

[1:21:43] program previous program wages, basically just having one person. It includes funding

[1:21:52] for library staff. It's now our position for custodian they currently already have that's

[1:21:59] funded by the library trust fund. It includes a currently current position for six hours for a

[1:22:07] library assistant one and it includes adding a front desk person for 20 hours to eliminate the

[1:22:16] salary staff from having to work the desk.

[1:22:23] Those are pretty much the changes.

[1:22:30] But we are still

[1:22:33] We're still short, we're out of violence by 189,000, so we would still need to make cuts because now we're at a point where expenditure restraints, we would not be eligible for expenditure restraint if we didn't make 189,000 in cuts.

[1:22:50] So we've got 10,000 on the taxi for capital.

[1:22:55] Yeah, we did so we were contributing for the purchase of the vehicles and then we discontinued that a few years ago when we weren't sure if we were going to have it, we had just bought three new ones and we weren't sure if we were going to continue the service.

[1:23:08] So now we want to just start that contribution again.

[1:23:14] I have like 40 of them parked up at old residence

[1:23:16] for you in your home right now that I've been used here.

[1:23:18] I mean, we have a surplus of vehicles.

[1:23:21] Do they have to speak on the taxi?

[1:23:23] I don't know.

[1:23:24] Aren't those vehicles owned by the state?

[1:23:27] I'm asking.

[1:23:28] I believe they supply them.

[1:23:29] We don't.

[1:23:30] No, I believe.

[1:23:31] So we paid 20%.

[1:23:32] Oh, OK.

[1:23:33] And there's not 40 there.

[1:23:35] I mean, it's not even.

[1:23:36] Well, we have extra vehicles.

[1:23:37] We have a couple extras.

[1:23:38] Because we did downsize the fleet.

[1:23:41] OK.

[1:23:41] And we can't use those in lieu of the town,

[1:23:43] or they don't really have a life in them there?

[1:23:46] I don't know.

[1:23:48] The

[1:23:51] way we're doing the taxes for us,

[1:23:54] and that's how we utilize more bands

[1:23:58] and we really need it.

[1:24:00] So when we change the structure of how we're

[1:24:03] running the business of it,

[1:24:06] we're like, okay, we shouldn't have to use as many taxis now

[1:24:08] because we're taking hours away from service.

[1:24:13] So when we did that, some of the older ones now could set and we're, so we're trying to get more hours out of all of the vehicles we have, but we haven't gotten any for like three years.

[1:24:26] So I'm thinking like by 28, we're going to have to get one or two more because these old old ones are going to have to come off of the fleets.

[1:24:34] I get it, but I think you're right for that.

[1:24:37] So I think what you're getting at is that's potentially a place where we take that 10,000

[1:24:43] and apply it somewhere else and then if and when we get to a point where we need a new.

[1:24:48] If you can borrow for it or do find another way to come up the money, but we have to pay 20%

[1:24:53] and they're not in our, they're not our vehicles, the stake in as well as.

[1:24:57] Okay, and I just hit that, my constituent's hotspots, the pool is in here.

[1:25:03] look at it, John. Great year. It's closed, made. Any major capital items for next year in the pool?

[1:25:13] Does that see any in the bucket?

[1:25:15] We don't answer.

[1:25:41] Nice job.

[1:25:49] Did you go back to it? Yeah, there was one thing I don't understand here.

[1:25:53] I thought the shortfall or the deficit of 189,000 was covered by the fund balance, but

[1:26:00] Explain that's note of expenditure restraint.

[1:26:03] Am I misunderstanding that?

[1:26:08] Yeah, correct.

[1:26:08] So we were actually short more than the 497 that's applied, but

[1:26:14] expenditure restraint is not allowing the general fund to grow by more than CPI plus 60% of net new construction.

[1:26:26] So it makes expenditure restraint is not going to allow us to increase the general fund budget.

[1:26:31] by any more of the amount we have in it right now.

[1:26:35] We can't add it into the general form.

[1:26:37] So that's a state statute that's restraining us.

[1:26:40] Yeah, we lose 275, 6,000 in revenue if we don't maintain

[1:26:45] an expenditure restraint, if we don't

[1:26:47] we strain our expenditures.

[1:26:48] So half a million dollars fell out of this guy

[1:26:51] and we wanted to increase our budget.

[1:26:53] That'd be fine, we'd lose 260,000 but we'd end up

[1:26:56] in the positive, but if we go just over

[1:27:00] then we lose that to. Right. So we're at the point where we can't apply any more fund

[1:27:04] balance because then we would be out of expenditure restraint. Then that answers my other question.

[1:27:10] Could we dip into fund balance to cover the shortfall with the fire remest district? And you're saying no

[1:27:15] we can't do that.

[1:27:19] We're going to have to borrow and pass it on to the result.

[1:27:25] Well I suppose you could

[1:27:27] been transferred to pay that debt.

[1:27:33] And then you don't want to continue doing that every year, of course.

[1:27:37] Sure, you know, typically, you don't want to borrow to do it every year.

[1:27:41] Yeah, you take from a front balance for a one time thing or something and

[1:27:45] not make it a regular policy, you spending that money down just to balance the budget.

[1:27:54] You've got a $30,000 or $28,000, $1,000 increase in building inspections.

[1:28:02] That's because our contractor, MSA, has gone up that much, or have gone up that much.

[1:28:09] Tom, speak to that.

[1:28:13] My understanding is we basically lose money on building inspections, like we charge

[1:28:17] a resident to come in for building inspection and then MSA does it and we pay MSA more than

[1:28:23] what we've collected.

[1:28:24] Is there any way to close?

[1:28:25] I'm just looking for some.

[1:28:27] So it would be proposing an action that can take to increase the fee, change the fee schedule,

[1:28:33] which, yes, is it $24,000 improvement, right?

[1:28:38] Tom thought we'd have to increase building permit fees by 30% in order to cover inspection fees.

[1:28:45] Something to maybe think about.

[1:28:46] I would say yes, yep.

[1:28:54] And while we're picking on Tom, engineering's up quite a bit.

[1:29:01] 43,000. So Dennis is going to stay on and train our new engineering technician William

[1:29:10] Harrison through the next construction season. He's part time and has been helping us

[1:29:15] out for the last several years and it would be a good transition to provide that oversight.

[1:29:25] So it's up this year but then it

[1:29:31] would be done. You know, then it would be done.

[1:29:32] So, we only have one engineering tech position currently from a management and this is Canada

[1:29:43] Mayor.

[1:29:45] What's best for you to move forward?

[1:29:48] Do you want direction?

[1:29:48] I mean, my opinion, this is just one first, is that we're going to have to close at $189,000

[1:29:54] yet.

[1:29:55] Is it best rather than us sitting here in micromanage you or to say, look, can you come back

[1:30:00] I talked to us with some proposals to close at $189,000. Right, and I talked to Lori earlier today about some options. You know, where we could get that at least into a far more manageable figure. But it was kind of late to try to get those to ripple through the spreadsheet. So, yeah, I mean, I think we'd be happy to, you know, come back with some options or at least something that gets it closer to balanced and get your reaction to that next time. But we did want to at least give you.

[1:30:29] kind of the state. This is the preview. This is, you know, everything requested.

[1:30:37] Any other feedback or comments? So I have to digest in a short time.

[1:30:45] Well, it's a lot, and I guess this was on a short period of time to review it.

[1:30:51] I'm sure if I have any more questions, I'll email.

[1:31:06] All right, I'll entertain a motion to rise and report from committee of the whole second

[1:31:13] by hazard.

[1:31:14] All right, we have a motion and a second to rise and report from committee of the whole and return to regular session.

[1:31:21] Please call the roll.

[1:31:22] All right.

[1:31:27] All right.

[1:31:29] All right.

[1:31:30] All right.

[1:31:31] All right.

[1:31:32] All right.

[1:31:33] We are back in open.

[1:31:34] Or back in regular session.

[1:31:36] Takes a tie.

[1:31:36] In 15.

[1:31:37] John.

[1:31:37] Do you have any comments for tonight?

[1:31:39] No additional comments.

[1:31:40] Any.

[1:31:41] All the persons with announcements.

[1:31:44] All right.

[1:31:45] Reports, petitions and correspondence were included in your packet,

[1:31:48] which takes us to item 17.

[1:31:52] Council can consider moving into closed session

[1:31:54] pursuant to Wisconsin stats 19.85 sub one sub E

[1:31:58] to deliberate or negotiate the purchase of public properties

[1:32:00] and investment of public funds

[1:32:02] or conducting other specified public business

[1:32:04] when competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session

[1:32:07] specifically for three items tonight

[1:32:10] and in reference to our guests from the county,

[1:32:13] I'm gonna recommend we take them in this order.

[1:32:15] Discussion regarding future ownership

[1:32:17] and potential redevelopment of the former UW-Platteville-Birdwood-Sought County campus.

[1:32:22] Negotiations with the Wisconsin-Plovelies, professional police

[1:32:28] association concerning terms and conditions of success or collective bargaining agreement

[1:32:33] and discussion required regarding proposed acquisition of the Ringling Hospital property.

[1:32:41] And I would also, for the first part of the closed session, for the first item,

[1:32:48] Requested city staff be allowed to stay and are three guests from Saat County, at least for the beginning of that discussion.

[1:32:55] Council is amenable to that.

[1:32:58] You need a motion.

[1:32:59] Do you need a motion?

[1:33:00] So moved.

[1:33:01] Second by hand.

[1:33:03] Okay.

[1:33:04] We have a motion and a second to go into closed session.

[1:33:06] Would you please call the roll?

[1:33:08] Hazard.

[1:33:08] All right.

[1:33:09] Kent.

[1:33:10] Lambert.

[1:33:11] All right.

[1:33:13] All right. All right. All right. All right. As soon as we get the AB shut down in the doors closed. We'll be in close session.

[2:33:25] And honestly, we will be back in open session as soon as we've got our video feed back on.

[2:33:35] Okay, we are back in open session and on the item 19, 19.1 consideration and possible action to authorize city officials to submit a written request to sought county, pursuant to Wisconsin stat 75.17 requesting transfer, the former former Ringling Hospital property located at 1208 Oak Street moved

[2:34:00] by hazard, second,

[2:34:02] The

[2:34:05] motion and a second to authorize city officials to submit a written request to request the property of the former Ringling Hospital at 1208 Oak Street.

[2:34:16] Any further discussion on the motion? I don't know if Nick wants to add anything before we vote.

[2:34:21] Oh, I did have some information about the liability issues if you want to get it down.

[2:34:26] Yeah, I'd like to hear about it.

[2:34:28] especially the hazard is waste stuff.

[2:34:32] Sure, I can try to give a quick overview since we're kind of on time constraints.

[2:34:38] First of all, for like premises liability negligence issues, we'd have a lot of governmental

[2:34:45] immunity.

[2:34:46] So if somebody goes in there and gets injured, it's very likely governmental immunity would

[2:34:50] apply.

[2:34:51] Also, we don't know what duty to trust passers, typically, so it's hard for somebody to

[2:34:56] go in their trespass and then sue us and say, hey, like you guys were negligent, you didn't

[2:35:00] secure the property. And let's say we do make decisions about securing the property

[2:35:04] and somebody still gets injured. That's a discretionary decision and we'd have governmental immunity.

[2:35:10] For if it's, so the main exclusion to governmental immunity is if there's a ministerial duty, that's

[2:35:17] basically a situation where there isn't really a choice left to the government of what needs

[2:35:21] to be done.

[2:35:24] So I can give you a couple hypotheticals. Let's say we take ownership, but we know the

[2:35:27] building's vacant and dangerous. We have to decide to put up a fence board, the windows,

[2:35:31] higher security, or start demolition. These are all judgment calls, and there's no single

[2:35:36] legally mandated answer. That's the kind of situation where we'd have governmental immunity.

[2:35:43] If somebody got injured as a result of one of our decisions related to those

[2:35:47] topics, we probably have a meeting.

[2:35:51] Now change the fact, let's say there's like a

[2:35:54] large hole in the floor, we know people are getting into the building, and we

[2:35:58] have a city policy directive that specifically says that hole has to be

[2:36:01] secured. And employee knows about it, but simply we just don't do anything about it.

[2:36:06] Now let's say then somebody gets injured in that hole. Then that's a situation

[2:36:10] where we'd likely have a legal duty because we already have a policy saying we

[2:36:13] We need to deal with it.

[2:36:14] We already know about the situation and we're ignoring it.

[2:36:18] So in that kind of situation, governmental immunity probably wouldn't apply, but in a lot of

[2:36:23] situations it would.

[2:36:24] I mean, it's not absolute.

[2:36:25] I had more information prepared, but I know we're kind of on time constraints.

[2:36:30] The other major live response

[2:37:52] would be part of still exists.

[2:37:55] Right.

[2:37:56] That's a good point.

[2:38:13] So it sounds like it would be a super concerning property, and I mean there definitely are some concerns, but it's not as bad as you would think.

[2:38:23] He's really been

[2:38:26] re-ordered up and re-ordered up and re-ordered up.

[2:38:30] Now extension landers to get up in the third story in a bunch of women.

[2:38:34] Now, has anybody gotten injured there?

[2:38:36] Any bad things happened within the last 10 years or anything?

[2:38:38] I haven't heard.

[2:38:39] I haven't heard.

[2:38:40] Tell you to find bad things.

[2:38:41] But nothing good, the city is aware of.

[2:38:43] Okay.

[2:38:43] They've got all sorts of bad things that can pull out the result of an injury.

[2:38:48] It has a Chris.

[2:38:49] It has a Chris.

[2:38:50] It has

[2:38:53] a Chris.

[2:39:01] We have a motion in a second.

[2:39:05] All right. Hearing no further discussion. Please call the rule. Kent. Hi, Lambert. Hi, Ellington. Hi, swollen.

[2:39:13] I'm in there. I'm staying.

[2:39:15] Top of them. Absolutely. I.

[2:39:19] Is that an absolutely or an absolutely not? Absolutely. I.

[2:39:23] Okay.

[2:39:24] Sorry.

[2:39:25] Double.

[2:39:26] Also.

[2:39:27] Hi.

[2:39:29] motion carries 7-0 with one abstention correct all right motion carries that takes a

[2:39:36] slightly 20 with no further items on our agenda I'll entertain a motion to a

[2:39:39] adjourn hello all in favor of a adjourn is there a second or a second is there a

[2:39:43] second sure yeah yeah in seconds it

[2:39:58] Hi, we are adjourned ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your work tonight. We're gonna

[2:40:04] do this project

Common Council Meeting

Transcript