All right, we're officially ready to go right now, so at this time we'll call to order the
regular meeting of common council. This is November 4th, 2025. Carry roll, please.
All other person, carpenter?
Here.
Esercan?
Here.
Gantz?
Here.
Hansen?
Here.
Panigar?
Here.
Ledvina?
Here.
Nelson?
Here.
Pirok?
Here.
And Mayor Boyd?
I am here, thank you.
Item two, pledge of allegiance to the flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which
to stand, one nation under God, indivisible,
delivered in us as trial.
Item three, approval of the minutes
of the October 21st, 2025 Common Council meeting.
Take a motion to approve.
Second.
Motion by Alderperson Carpenter.
Seconded by Alderperson Ledman.
Discussion or comments?
We have none.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries, thank you.
Item four, public comment upon matters not on the agenda.
Comments made during the public comment period shall pertain only to matters under the jurisdiction of the Common Council, anyone in person or virtually.
Have any public comment upon matters not on the agenda now is the time to speak.
Just say your name if you're in virtual land, if you're in person just raise your hand.
Second time, any public comment upon matters not on the agenda.
For the third and final time, any public comment upon matters not on the agenda now is your time.
All right, seems we're all good.
Item five, recommendation from the Board of Park Commissioners
to accept a donation of $1,680 from Deep Air Baseball
to repair the Ganderood Field Outfield Fence.
Moved to approve.
Second.
Motion by Alderperson Hansen.
Second by Alderperson Nelson.
Discussion or comments?
An obvious thank you to the Deep Air Baseball Club.
Alderperson carpenter. Yes, where is the other half the city's coming from?
Kim I
Would have to check with Marty on that so unless Pam knows I mean it doesn't say on a signed reserve
So I'm just wondering if this is a budgeted item or not or where the money's coming from. That's all I just like to know
Yeah, I was gonna say I think when I talked to Marty about this to be brought up about a week ago
I thought he said that was something already had budgeted for
some some some account they had because it was unassigned reserves we would know
by now right they would have to go through a separate process for unassigned
reserves it's possible that he had a budget it is part of this budget waiting
for the donation we did that in the next year's budget for the ice arena I'm just
not entirely sure yeah and I was just curious because usually absolutely yeah
staff report and yes thank you I'm really pretty sure yeah thank you for
the you're welcome any other discussion or comments all right looks
Looks like we're done with that.
That said, all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries, thank you.
Item six, recommendation from the Board of Public Works
on approval of conventional water rate application
for expense depreciation.
This is previously held over
from the Common Council meeting of October 21st, 2025.
We're gonna go to Kim first on this one.
We were just waiting for you.
Yeah, thanks everybody for that.
Well, I'll take this one for the record.
that's fine. So I'm going to kick us off and then I'm going to hand it over to Pam. This is a
summarized presentation because this is a topic that's been discussed at Board of Public Works.
We also discussed it at Council last week, but I thought I'd start by diving into some of the
how we got here before Pam kicks us off with the proposed solutions and we asked for your
direction on how to move forward. Pam or Scott, if you go to the next slide.
So just really a general friendly reminder, and I know you all know this sitting up here.
You know the water utility is an enterprise fund and essentially that means it's almost like its own
standalone business and the revenues coming in are expected to cover the expenses as well as the
capital costs. The other interesting thing about the water utility and water rates is that the
city does not set them. We can pursue rate case reviews but ultimately the PSC sets our water
rates and they set that using their methodology which is set up to ensure both protecting
the customers as well as protecting the financial sustainability of the utility itself and trying
to be consistent across the state to ensure that everyone is dealing with the same thing.
So those are two unique things about the water fund in particular.
So I know that I've received some questions like, well, I don't understand why we're
doing this rate case.
Like what happened?
How did we get here?
I'll give you a very quick overview and we're going to go back all the way to 2011 where
the city had gone through a rate review and there was a 12% rate increase.
And from 2011 all the way till 2017, essentially all was good.
The revenues we were receiving were recovering our expenses and they were covering our capital.
And as a reminder, we strive to repair or maintain about 1% of our water mains every
year.
Depeer is an established and older community and we have to keep up with that stuff to
make sure people have good water.
Now starting in 2017, the revenues were covering our expenses, but we didn't have enough money
to cover that 1% capital costs.
Costs of construction go up.
And from 2017 to 2020, we were able to use surpluses from other funds.
We had surplus in the general fund, we had surplus in the sewer fund, and we essentially
actually plugged the gap on an annual basis.
We didn't formalize it at the time, we just plugged the gap.
So organizational-wide, the budget was great,
but honestly a bit unsustainable from the water fund
considering it's a separate business entity.
So in order to course correct and get us back on track
to where we needed to go, in 2021 we pursued
a conventional rate case and that was a 19% increase.
And then we changed the cash funding strategy.
Up until that point we wanted to do everything
with cash. We didn't want to issue debt. We didn't want interest payments, etc. We're doing everything
with cash. We started issuing debt for these projects, and that lines up with the PSC methodology
for rate cases. I wish I could give you all the details on that. It is very complicated,
but we know that issuing debt puts us in a more sustainable situation with PSC rate review,
at least at that time. There's some interesting new options on the table. That's why we're
talking to you today. So, 2021, we started that in 2024. We went for another conventional
rate case increase. There's two different ways you can approach these rate increases
with the PSC. You can do the conventional. You can do simplify. We didn't qualify for
a simplified at that time. Simplified is shorter and quicker. Conventional is longer
and more complicated. So, in 2024, we also formalized that gap funding that we were
using early on with that 5.2 million long-term advance. And that essentially formalized
the money that the water utility owed to the general fund as well to the sewer
fund. So the reason we're talking about this again is because this is a
continual step up the ladder to get our water utility to a place of fiscal
sustainability and to do that we need to explore another rate case review. Now
we have a couple options on the table in how we do that but there is we do
have to pursue another rate case review. So with that I'm going to kick
it over to Pam who will review those options with you.
Thank you.
Pam?
So as was discussed at the Board of Public Works, and I believe last week at Council,
so I apologize for not being here last Council meeting as well.
The two options are debt financing and cash funding.
So debt financing is what we've already started to do here in 2025.
We borrowed a million dollars to cover the water mains that we are putting in.
So essentially, as Kim highlighted, we don't have the cash to currently fund those
capital projects we're doing. Our water utility is doing well. We have a lot of assets. It's
just to stay on top of things we need to keep replacing those assets. And so we need to
somehow find a way to fund those assets. So debt financing we can continue to do. A pro
is that it would be a lower rate to the consumer right now. The con is that you're
going to have issuance costs and you're going to end up paying interest expenses
on all of that debt. So at the end of the day your rate payer is going to end
up paying more. Just like your home, if you have cash to fund something, great, you can
go cash fund it, but if you don't, you have to go borrow for your mortgage, get a mortgage
for your house or for your car, you're going to have to pay all those interest costs and
it adds up. So roughly your million dollar borrowing is going to end up costing you
a million and a half by the time we've paid it all off. So we would have to
continue to do debt financing every single year, borrowing a million dollars to cover
that capital. Now we do anticipate doing more than a million dollars of capital, so we anticipate
the rate being able to cover a little bit of it. We're still looking at doing 1.2 to
1.5 million dollars of capital, but it's not going to cover the full thing, so we'd have
to continue to keep borrowing. Another con is that intergenerational equity burdening.
So users in those later years are now going to have to pay that interest. They're
going to pay that extra amount that you have burdened them with by taking out
this huge loan every single year to cover it.
And then that will cause the increased debt, could also be a negative towards the city.
As we continue to borrow, we do have a debt threshold that we have to maintain and stay
within with all of our other projects as well.
The other option that we have is cash funding.
And one of those new things that the PSC has for cash funding is expense depreciation,
which is we can fund it through the rate right now that will allow us to fund an additional million of capital through the rate increase
so that we don't have to go out and do the million dollars of borrowing every single year.
Now, this has only been done so far by four municipalities. We would be the fifth, but it tends to be, it would be my preferred option in this case.
So a pro would be it's a lower rate over time.
So in 20 years, you've continued to borrow a million
every single year for 20 years,
you're gonna have all this outstanding debt,
you're going to have all these interest payments
that you're now paying because you did the debt financing.
If you do cash funding,
you're not gonna have any of this debt.
You're gonna have paid a higher rate upfront,
but at the end of the day in 20 years,
you're gonna have a lower rate
than if you went and debt financed now.
Another pro then is the opposite of your cons from the debt is the intergenerational equity.
Users in the early years pay their fair share of costs rather than burdening them later on.
The water utility would be debt-free, which I think is a positive.
If we could be debt-free from the whole city, I would like that.
That's just not the way levy limits let us do our purchasing of our capital items.
The con is that we're going to have that higher rate year one.
So if we were to approve this now, it would take effect hopefully January of 2027 and that rate increase will be larger than if we did the debt funding to begin with.
So in summary, that's your pros and cons. Any quick questions on that?
All the person.
I'm not going to say it exactly right. So you're going to have to dig for what I'm trying to say.
I know that we get state funding based on our debt ratio or there's funding that comes
based on debt ratio that the city carries, right?
We have the ability to borrow based on what our equalized value is, but being the water
utility that is going to be separate than the rest of it.
So that was my question.
So that would affect that, but because it's entirely separate, that would not.
So do you think I probably should?
Okay.
Okay, okay before we continue here, so we're doing this all legal
So we can continue the discussion and banter back and forth. I'm going to you did everything fine. That's no problem
I'm gonna make a motion to approve make sure got the right one here
The
Cash funded, I'm sorry approve the hybrid model that will be presented tonight
It was doing this to get this going here
Okay, motion by me, second by Alderperson Gantt
to approve what we're seeing right now
and we'll talk about the hybrid method.
It can change as we move forward here,
but we have to have a motion and second on the floor.
Okay, go ahead.
Sorry.
No, no problem.
Okay, so then we took those two models
that we had presented previously,
the debt financing and the cash funding
and we created this hybrid model that was requested.
So the hybrid model is going to be,
well, let's kick the can down the road a little bit.
Let's not do this large rate increase right away.
Let's borrow for another two years.
So borrow in 26, 27, 28, and then do our big cash funding
for 29.
Now what that would result in is we're
going to have additional debt.
We'll have four years worth of that million dollars of debt
that we're going to have to pay off.
But it does decrease that rate up front.
So it won't be a 19%.
Currently, this is showing an estimate by 2029 of only a 16% increase, but that is still
doing the 5% now, because we need, I'll make that clear, we need to do a rate increase
either way.
We need to either do the 5% or we need to push forward with the cash funding, which these
rates are just estimates, right, PSC has to set those rates.
They approve the rates.
Once we decide we want to do the rate case, we can give input and guidance on why
we think maybe we don't like what rate they're going to come back with, but ultimately
they make those decisions.
decisions. They make those decisions for how much it is for a residential or the different
sizes of the pipes that's all on them. We don't get to make those decisions.
So the hybrid would allow us to, it would have a smaller impact today, but by the end
of the model that we have by 2041, you start to see that it now exceeds where we would
have been if we just did the cash funding today. So my recommendation would be to
to start the cash funding today to start it for the 2027.
It would be still a million dollars of borrowing in 2026
for this next year,
because we won't have it started yet,
but beginning with 27 to just rip off that bandaid,
go for the larger increase now,
because down the road by 2041 and beyond,
you're going to see those savings for your taxpayer.
This is the detail that kind of makes up
that those rates.
So we went back through,
we added in this additional scenario here.
We have the cash funded, the hybrid and the debt.
We have the first row of each is an F or an S.
That's either a full rate case, a conventional rate case,
or a simplified rate case.
Again, with the simplified...
That's something we can go in. We plug in our financials that we had from the year before from our audit and they tell us, yes, you qualify for a 2% or 3% or whatever the rate may be that year.
Again, PSC sets those rates. The full conventional rate case requires us to go hire a consultant, then we have to go through a rate case and we have to pay the PSC to be able to go back and forth and have those meetings with them.
And these are, again, what we are estimating that we would need to be sustainable with a
lot of factors remaining the same across the board.
One of the things I'll point out is next, we had the question of, well, Central Brown
County water, that's who we purchase our water from.
We anticipate that the debt from Central Brown County water will be paid off by 2036.
So if that debt is paid off, the anticipation would be that our rates for the water
we're purchasing will decrease?
Yes, they may, right?
Like anything, you would hope that they decreased.
There could be additional borrowing.
There could be a lot of additional factors
that could impact that.
So when we built those other three scenarios,
we did not take that into account.
We didn't take it into account for any of them.
Essentially, if we do see a rate decrease by 2036,
we're just going to be able to soften the blow.
We're not going to have to go and do
additional conventional rate cases.
Or maybe we don't even need a simplified rate case
just because our cash flow is sufficient for our needs of our capital.
What we're going to do, no matter which scenario you go with,
every year we're going to take a look at this.
I think what we've learned from the past is that if you don't stay on top of it
and you don't do these incremental little increases,
you're going to run into a situation like this
where you're going to need these more larger, drastic increases.
I don't think anybody wants to see those.
It's much easier to see a little 2% or 3% increase every year
every other year than trying to see a 19% increase on any bill.
I can go through and read the whole slide if you'd like, but I'd prefer not to bore you
guys.
Do you have any additional?
Can you just clarify on the slide with the hybrid option on there?
It said increases in 26 and then, so it's a 5.3 in 26 and then it's a 5.3, is it,
so it's...
It would be 5.35 is our estimate for if we just did the conventional rate case
right now without the cash funding. So we would get that for 26. It doesn't take as
long as the full cash funding, the expense depreciation. So we would potentially be able
to see that impact within 26. It wouldn't have to wait till 27. But then we're still
proposing to do the cash funding, just we would wait until 2029 to propose that.
Okay. So it's just one increase in 26 and then potentially nothing until 29.
And nothing until 29. That's the way we built the scenario at least.
Okay, but it becomes part of the baseline then moving forward. Yeah, you're right
So essentially it's a 16.1% increase on top of the five point yeah
Because originally I thought it meant that I thought that was a misprint in it said 26 and 27
I thought you were doing like a you know two-year increase, but it's just that one in 26 and then it would be another in
Yeah, yeah, that's kind of what we built in here with the hybrid is that we do the full rate case here in 27
And then another full in 29. Okay. Yep. Thanks. Thank you
I'll do person carpenter have the previous screen back please and then I'm going to want this screen. Yep
So 2026 you're taking a five point three five percent
When we're talking about going to cash fund expense
We're having our discussions the whole theory of that was that's probably not going to happen till 2027 in reality
Yeah, it's going to take almost a year to do that. So that 18.75 is actually
Might as I say at 2027 possible late 2026 number just probably 27. Yes. Yeah
So we'd still probably, we'd have to borrow still a million.
So you're adding 21, it'll be a 21% instead of 18.75% if you put it in reality, if you
want to go with the hybrid and stretch it out to 2029, you're adding another 3% on this.
Then you flip over to the next page because then you go to your financing.
So when you do the simplify, if you go on the top one, it's simplified all the
way through except the very first time.
You go to your hybrid, you got one extra,
so what you're paying a consultant again,
because we're gonna pay a consultant this time.
You go to debt financing, there's one, two, three,
four, five, plus the one we're doing right now,
a paying a consultant every time to do something,
you know what I mean?
So I guess I'm more in favor of ripping the band aid
off right now, even though it might hurt,
Instead of passing debt down to other people, as I get older, maybe it's beneficial to me
because I might not last this time.
But as other people, you're passing out.
You're kicking the can down the road.
So I know we're on discussion right now with the high stride.
And I'm just expressing how I feel I would go with the cash flow.
Well, and I think it's important that you mention that because right now I'm assuming
you're saying that you're not for debt financing scenario at all.
I'm not for debt financing.
I work for the industry all my life.
If I know how we got here, we battled off of when we went with clear water known as clear
water now when it was Green Bay with our sewers and we held our rates off because they were
hitting us so hard for capital improvements.
They went nuts and they had double digit increases on sewer rates.
So we absorbed it in our water rates and now the can comes back around.
Everything you kick around comes around.
Yeah, on the same page as you as well, debt financing scenario is something I think
should not be on the table, nor should we consider any more.
But then it comes down to the other two.
This is just me and obviously all the person, Carpenter speaking, and we just differ on
which scenario to pursue.
Personally myself, based on the environment we're in right now, national filters down
to what we have right now with inflation and whatever is going on, timing is not
the best of it to do it, but I'm sure it wasn't the best of it to do it either
back in 2021, and we proceeded and went ahead and did it.
So I'd be more inclined to go to a hybrid model just because of the current conditions,
but I'm also open to discussion as well, too.
Yeah.
I'll do it personally.
Carpenter, you can finish, please.
But that's the reason I'm stating this is in effect until late 2026.
So you're adding a lesser time of effect.
You know what I mean?
It is not going to happen right tomorrow.
That's a really good point.
You know what I mean?
This is, she's saying 2027.
I'm giving late 2026, as what the rate case is going to take.
So we're already moving on a year.
I'm not doing nothing.
Our rate's just going to stay where it is.
It's not going to go up for a whole another year,
so that 5% isn't there right at this beginning.
It's just food for thought.
It's a very good point.
Alderperson Conniger.
Can you talk a little bit about your feelings of risk
in either case for cash or hybrid?
just in general. I mean, I know we don't have crystal balls, but one is is waiting
to get the loan a little bit later, right? And one would be taking advantage of that
right away that locks you into a rate. But then if you refinance, there's
costs to that. So there's so many variables that when you need to borrow,
you just should borrow that doesn't I don't think it's worth playing the
game of I'm gonna wait another year. We'll borrow double. I mean right now
As it is for our other capital, we are borrowing every single year, so we're already going
through some of those debt issuance costs.
It's not a lot extra work then just to add an additional borrowing onto that.
There are other debt models that we, I mean, there are different ways of borrowing too.
We don't have to just do general obligation debt, right?
We can do water revenue bonds, you know, there are different clean water loans and
stuff that we can look at too.
So, I'm not, this is using, I don't recall exactly what rate we used, but we used a conservative
rate for every single year of borrowing when we were calculating it out, and it was the
same across the whole model, so.
One additional layer of risk that has nothing to do with the debt, you know, on the hybrid
you are relying, and you were hoping that a future council in 2029 still wants to
do cash versus something else.
That's because I think as staff we all see very clearly that the best business decision
is the expense depreciation model for the city and even long term for the water payer.
The hybrid model gives a little breathing room and is absolutely possible, but you
do have that risk that you're relying on a future council to stick with that expense
depreciation versus changing their mind and wanting to say debt funding.
What if we go the cash option sooner than it is up here in the hybrid model?
Is that possible that is that so that's the first option? Well, yeah
I mean he's saying I think it's kind of a hybrid of the 2029 hybrid scenario where we get there sooner than later
Where the 1610 isn't in 29?
You covered up in different you kind of covered up in different pies
So you get to that finish in a different path. So a little bit what Dan's saying, you know where we get, you know
Do you know what I'm kind of saying? I think you can say I hate to do this
Your chart you're saying look the blue line here is if we're cash funding all of it right red is if we do this hybrid
If you move it up earlier, and we start the hybrid before 29 you start in 28
Let's just get a move your line down a little bit more right it brings you closer to where I mean
It's I mean we're gonna try to try to find some common ground here
That might be the solution that could potentially work because it's a little bit of both that it is a lot of work
Yeah, that's stacking two conventional
I love the creative. I thought I would try. I had Dan on this one. He was there.
Well, I was thinking there, but I'm still, I'm on what I'm on right now.
We're all per discussion. I'm per discussion on anything.
Thank you. Other comments? Other person Hanson.
Yeah, Pam, the general fund is owed $2 million
right now by the water fund. If we were to theoretically forgive
that debt, I know the water funds supposed to pay like
300,000 every year to the general funds for like the next seven, eight years.
And if they didn't do that, it wouldn't go into unassigned reserve every year.
I'm wondering if unassigned reserve would be able to absorb that hit.
So you're saying you want to take your property tax, pay your money, and offset the water
utility fund with the unassigned reserves from the property tax and go against your
water utility.
Can you do it technically?
likely, but I do want to make it very clearly. There are two separate groups, not every taxpayer.
Every taxpayer probably has a water bill, but not every water bill owner or person owns
that property. You have multi-family homes where you have one taxpayer. Sometimes you
have schools and nonprofits and some businesses that are tax exempt that have water bills
but they don't have tax bills. You're taking money that somebody else has paid
in and using it for something that offsets, I guess, different people.
You can do it.
That would be a request to transfer funds to cancel the loan, I guess, you're not transferring
the funds.
There are other options you can request.
I don't know legally what we can do after we've already approved this resolution to
do this long-term advanced payable, but we could look at forgiving the interest.
right now are paying interest for the water utilities paying interest back to the general
fund for the amount that it owed.
Why?
Because if we had it on our books, the general fund would earn that interest, not just offsetting
the debt that the water fund had.
But there are certainly options like that.
It would not be my recommendation.
A separate matter, I had a constituent email me wondering if we could do a graduated increase
were if you use higher levels of water, the rate goes up.
Right now it's the inverse, first 50,000 gallons, it's $8.18 per gallon, next 450,760 per thousand
gallons, over 500,000 gallons, 675 per gallon.
So the more water you use, the rate goes down.
This constituent felt that it should be reversed so that the highest water users pay gradually
higher rates. Is that something that can be looked at by the PSC? That is something
the council can decide to do, yes. So last January, before we did the last rate
increase, we did bring that to council. Do we want to keep the declining
rate, which is what we have right now? So the higher volume you end up using,
the rate starts to go down. I think part of the reason that we have that
is a lot of those are commercial and industrial businesses that we have
here in town and we're trying not to negatively affect them for being here and charging them
more. You can do inclining, declining, or you can keep a flat rate. And that is, yes,
definitely something that council could decide as part of this rate case, whether we cash fund
or just do the conventional and do the 5.35. We could change the way we're doing those rates,
but I think that's a separate discussion for this. And we don't get to pick again
And those rates and at what point it's changing, that's going to be the PSC that's going to
set those.
Pam, would it be fair to say that regardless of the option you choose, it doesn't really
make a difference on your long term.
You're still solving the problem in the same way.
It's kind of how-
It's who's paying it.
Right.
We still need that full pie.
It's how we divvy that up.
That's a separate discussion.
We'll have nothing to do with this.
I mean, it's good he brought it up, though.
It's all part of the water, yes.
I'll just say, I think the hybrid, I like the idea of the hybrid, but I think it's
just almost too similar to the debt financing.
I almost wish there was a larger increase that first year.
Would that, wouldn't that offset a potential larger increase back in like 29 then?
If we do a conventional rate case right now, our consultant is estimating that we
will only get a 5.5.
Gotcha.
Because again, we don't get to choose.
Yeah, I keep forgetting about that.
There's not that hybrid on the cash funding.
I guess, I mean, we could look at potentially cash funding
instead of a million of capital cash funding,
only half a million that first year or something.
Yeah, I just really liked the idea of kind of paying it off,
not indebting the future.
So I don't know, I think kind of ripping off a band-aid
is kind of where I'm going towards.
So I think that's, yeah.
Thank you.
Oh, the person answered, were you done?
Did you have something else?
Well, I was just going to bring up two.
When we went back to the context with the history going back to 2011,
my understanding too was, I think the person Carpenter mentioned this,
the
The Green Bay Metropolitan sewer district, we're doing the sewer rate increases over the
next decade. So the council in 2011 basically decided we're going to freeze the water rates
until those increases are done. Is that correct? That's my understanding. I would defer to Scott
here. Yes. Okay. So I just think that's an important piece of context, too, because
council in 2011 didn't want both of them to go up at the same time.
All their carpenters?
I'll pay you back on that I've been on since 2016 and that was the discussion
since I've been on in 2016 because the sewer rates were going up and that was
the discussion as whole off if we could on the water rate yeah you know I mean
so where that 2017 comes in that was being discussed in 2016 all the
motion. By the time we hit 2017 I mean looking back at the financial statements
We were roughly losing a million dollars a year so it was pretty dramatic when we started to lose that all the other
Operating expenses caught up to the operating revenues
And we didn't have the cash funding there to cover the capital
I just didn't want to put the blame on totally on the
2011 or whoever was there because this was discussion in 2016 also
I'll just let you know that that on the rate not being increased
And again, so people understand that are listening or whatever
However, this will be applying for a rate case, and as Dan stated before, it wouldn't
be until possibly late 2026.
So there's no immediacy to any of this, but I want to make sure people understand that.
This is to approve a rate application that...
We just want to be very clear on what it could potentially be.
It could be a large 19 percent, and once we decide to proceed that way, we don't...
PSC sets that rate, so we don't have a lot of leeway to say, wait, wait, that's
too much we'd have to completely scrap it and so we don't want to spend all that
time going through our testimony and creating all the documentation we need
to to go through this full-rate case. And you're saying that as well. So timeline-wise
you would be applying what say there's some kind of resolution we approved
today. When do you apply for the rate? I believe our consultant is ready to go
with that the initial part right away and she is estimating that it will
take us a year to get through the whole thing. I just want to make sure
understand, I know all of us do, but I hear it out there as well. It's not going to happen.
Yes, with the expense depreciation, with the cash funding.
Okay. Like all the person Carpenter said, it's not going to happen right away.
A conventional rate case, the last one we did in 24 took about four months.
I mean, we're seeking direction on essentially what type of rate case we apply for today, knowing we have to do that.
The debt financing option is likely a shorter review.
So if we submitted both, you know, it's a shorter review than expense depreciation.
So if we did the hybrid model and submitted it soon, that is a shorter review.
Those rate increases would kick in a little sooner, but they'd be lower.
If council went expense depreciation to start, longer review, higher rate increase that would start a little later.
Good summary, yes.
All the person carpenter.
I'd like to amend the motion that's on the table if if I do this properly to go to the original one
Cash cash funding expense depreciation. Yes instead of the what is put him up again? He wants the
He wants the first option correct. Yes. Yeah. Yes. I want to cash cash. Just we say that stop appreciation
I want to amend the motion. All right
We have a motion to amend the original motion which would have been mine and somebody else's can for the hybrid
Who else is my all the person Gantz? So we have a motion to amend the original motion
All the person carpenter would like to just go with the cash fund at expense depreciation. We need a second for that
I'll suck it
Motion by Alderperson carpenter was very quick here seconded by
All the person conager for the amendment so now that we have amendment on the floor
We have a motion the second discussion on the amendment all the person Hanson
Yeah, I respect those who want to just rip the bandaid off right now.
Personally, I am with the mayor.
I think the hybrid approach, given the inflationary pressures people are feeling now, I think
by the end of 26, there could still be, you know, high levels of inflation that make the
cost of living difficult.
So I'm still in favor of the hybrid, but I appreciate those who feel differently.
Very good.
Thank you.
Other discussion or comments on the amendment that we have on the floor right now?
All the person, I would just say it definitely seems like nobody's for debt financing anymore,
which is great.
Correct.
Yeah.
That is a good thing.
And I was, I mean, I was, I came in from public works and fan of the cash funding option.
And I think I still like, I like that option for our residents.
Very good.
Thank you.
other questions comments. All right now for the motion that we have to amend all
those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Motion carries I can tell by the voice
here that motion carries with myself, Alderperson, Hansen voting nay. I'm nay.
Oh and we have another one too. Alderperson Gantz is also a nay so she'd be
hybrid. So that makes it 6 to 3. Alright, so now we're discussing, do we have to discuss
more on this or are we done with it?
So we're done. We're done. We're done. We're done.
Alright. We have to vote on it. We just voted to amend it. So now we're voted on. Voting
to approve. Okay. Now we have to vote to approve. That's my thought. But now there
can be additional discussion on what we have right now is the new motion and second
on the floor, correct? That's what I was getting at. Wow. All right. You need a vacation.
You got it. I do. I should go away for a while. Why did I come back?
Yeah, savings time. Everything needs to be found.
Additional discussions or comments.
Now we have it right here.
It gave me a whole thing. All right, very good. And again, for the
record as we move forward here, I don't have a lot of angst either way. It's fine
if this is what happens. This is something that I feel would be a better option,
But it doesn't mean it's a bad option.
And we've talked about this as well, too.
And all the personnel, all the personnel, everyone's set it.
We have to get away from borrowing to do this.
So how we get there, that's fine, but this is something I'm not going to have a lot
of heartburn over.
Do you have something else to add to it at all?
No, I mean, I agree.
Either way, you guys go, not that financing makes me happy.
I don't like having debt for anything if we don't have to, right?
But I don't want to charge people more than we need to as well.
which is why we do the whole PSC and they set the rate.
So we'll do this conventional rate case
with the expense depreciation,
whichever year you guys choose to do it in
and we'll let them set the rate
and then we'll analyze it every single year.
Do we need to do a simplified again in 29?
Maybe we don't, maybe we're finding
that we're not spending the full million
and we're gonna,
I mean, that's one thing
with this expense depreciation cash funding.
That million is set aside for maintenance
and I have to track to make sure
we are spending it on just the mains. It can't be used to offset other operating
expenses and then if we don't spend it in that first year it carries over to the
next year. We have a million plus that if we spend over it well then we get a
million the next year so it's it's something that will be very diligent in
watching and I think just not leaving it for 10 years and making sure we're
adjusting rates as needed we'll stay on top of this so. Very good thank you
other questions or comments all right now again we have on the floor the motion
that we had Scott I guess one question for the council is um as part of the rate
case there was a little bit of discussion we got things over person
handsome brought up the declining rate structure as you use more you your it
declines the rates or stays the same or increases right now the previous you
rate case we had it as you see it is now the rates decline as you use more
more water because that'd be one of the things that has to be analyzed during
the rate process. I don't believe it's something we'll have to decide today but
I think it's something that you guys should keep considering and think
about and we can try to bring back some more details to of customers that
that would affect if we flip it and what our usage is currently but yes
the rate structure will be something that we'll discuss as part of this
rate case with either rate case. Good. Very good. Thank you. All the person
carpenter. Yes, if you bring that information back and Dan couldn't, I mean as large
your customers come in bring more employees and people to the community.
Sometimes you want to draw those people and having higher rates on the other
end. So the pros and cons got to be brought with everything that comes
about a business coming into town and everything else. I mean when you make
your decisions. Hopefully, the decisions are wise decisions.
Very good. Thank you. Other questions or comments?
All the person hands. I just want to thank staff too for bringing the hybrid option
forward. I know that's something we were kind of exploring at the last
meeting, but really didn't have anything too firm to look at. So this was really
helpful. Thank you. Other questions, comments?
All right. That said, all those in favor say aye.
Opposed nay nay motion carries with elder person Hanson and myself voting nay
thank you much did you do I have you correct all the person cans yeah okay
all right let's move on to item 7 recommendation from plan commission to
approve a four lot extraterritorial certified survey map at 2400 French
Orange Road and Lawrence, parcel L4543 and L2078.
I'll make a motion to approve.
Second.
Motion by me, seconded by Alderperson Hansen.
Discussion or comments?
Looks like we're all good.
That said, all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries, thank you.
Item eight, recommendation from the
Business Improvement District Board
to approve the D-Peer Business Improvement District
for a 2026 operating plan.
I'll move to approve.
Well second.
Motion by Alderperson Nelson, seconded
by Alderperson Gantz, discussion comments.
Any big changes, Dan, with this plan versus previous years?
I mean, I read through the whole thing,
it seemed pretty straightforward as far as
funding mechanisms, et cetera.
The funding mechanisms are roughly the same.
How it's being allocated is slightly different.
The bid board is taking more of a hands-on role
versus with their consultant, which is definitely to peer.
And so they have allocated things just slightly differently
from an overall standpoint of having a reserve fund
in-house and how city staff are reimbursed
or how the city departments are reimbursed
for our city staff time.
A couple of changes there, but overall,
the biggest changes are actually gonna be coming
during their next round for 2027,
which is their goal settings and a bunch of other
mechanisms that they're gonna use for their new metric.
So at this time, the overall funding mechanism
hasn't changed how it's being allocated
He has slightly been tweaked.
Thank you very much.
Questions, comments?
All right, seems you're all good.
That said, all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
Thank you.
Item nine, Resolution 25, 119.
Granting a planning option to purchase
to Ellinger Properties LLC, West Business Park,
part of parcel WDL 492B5.
I'll make a motion to approve.
I'll second.
Motion by me seconded by elder person Ludwina discussion or comments
We got in this particular parcel
All right seems are all good on this one that said roll call vote. Please all the person carpenter. Hi, Esir Khan
Hi, yes. Hi Hanson. Hi, honey girl. Hi, Ludwina. Hi Nelson. Hi, he rock. Hi, Mayor Boyd. Hi
Motion carries. Thank you. Ellen your people are here. So we apologize, but it's good news
You're welcome. Thanks for sticking around we're my next item 10 resolution 25 120
approving utility facilities easement agreement to central brown county water
authority parcel number WD 1 0 5 0 0 Lawrence Drive move to approve second
motion by Alderperson Nelson second by Alderperson carpenter discussion or
comments. Alderperson Carpenter. Those we've discussed in water bills before in
Central Brown County Water Authority. Is this money financed? These are things
that are already in their finances. Intercapable Improvement Fund. Intercapable
Improvement Fund. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions or comments? All right.
Row call vote, please.
Older person, Esercan.
Aye.
Gantz.
Aye.
Hansen.
Aye.
Conegar.
Ludvina.
Aye.
Nelson.
Aye.
Hirok.
Aye.
Mayor Boyd.
Aye.
Carpenter.
Aye.
Motion carries.
Thank you.
Item 11, Resolution 25-121, authorizing Myron Construction,
two-word contracts related to the construction of a public parking ramp on parcel ED 875,
230 North Wisconsin, deep here, Wisconsin, in an amount totalling 6 million,
$35,488 moved to approve I'll second motion by Alderperson Hansen second
about a person Nelson discussion comments Alderperson Hansen yeah so Dan we
have Myron as the construction manager and I see some of these contracts would
go to Myron if they are the lowest bidder that makes sense to me but just
I'm just wondering if you can comment on if that is common for the construction manager
to also bid on the projects.
Yeah, when we put out the RFP we did not put the limitation on self-performing inside of
this one intentionally because of the technical expertise that was being brought by various
agencies.
We only had two construction managers at risk even apply for this one.
And so throughout the process staff as well as Myron went through and verified
to every lowest bidder, and they were the lowest bidder on a few of those items that
you do see there.
But, some communities elect to eliminate self-performance, and some choose not to, and we chose not
to put a cap on it to limit ourselves from an overall standpoint.
And we're comfortable with the outreach that they did in terms of trying to solicit
other bids.
Yeah, they have a wider network than we do.
We have an artificial bidding process because we don't build parking ramps and structures very often, so that's the reason why having them manage the process allowed them to go out to a wider network than what we typically would for our typical construction projects.
Thank you. Other questions or comments?
Get that parking ramp going, people. That said, roll call, vote please.
Altarperson Gantz.
Hi.
Hanson.
Hi.
Cundegger.
Hi.
Ludvina.
Hi.
Nelson.
Hi.
Pirok.
Hi.
Mayor Boyd.
Hi.
Carpenter.
Hi.
Osterkahn.
Hi.
Motion carries.
Thank you.
Was this up before?
No, it wasn't.
I forgot I had it.
Okay.
Well, just so people can see this, we'll just pause for a second here, but this is what
the parking ramp looks like.
We should put City Hall right on top of that.
Yeah.
I told you this building's going.
Good idea.
So everyone realized at home the bidding that we just approved has all components of this,
from concrete to the panel and on the side to electrical.
This is the second round.
We did one a few months ago.
That was for the first stage so that we can get the precast panels underway with the selected contractor.
And that one wells.
And so working through that process, this is the second one.
And there will be a third bid that will come out for a couple things that didn't or weren't achieved during that second round either through
For I guess you say lack of qualified bidders
So so we'll have we'll be going out for the parking access and control management as well as the cocky
And I believe for the last the last bid so we'll see one more coming through here
But both of those were included as allowances inside the next item that we'll be discussing here tonight
So very good. Thank you. I wish we'd have more discussion, but we simply can't but take a look at it in my
do some ooze and Oz, but thank you.
I cannot the next item I guess.
Yeah, keep it up then.
Item 12, there we go.
Item 12, Resolution 25-122,
authorizing an amendment to the contract
for construction manager at risk
with Myran construction,
regarding the guaranteed maximum price
in connection with the public parking ramp
at parcel ED 875
230, North Wisconsin,
DPR, Wisconsin.
I will second.
Second motion by all the person leavened seconded by me discussion comments all the person else
I have a question. Maybe I'm not don't quite understand this fully, but so why for this one do we have to?
amend it with a
Guaranteed maximum price is that I mean that's not like a standard for all of our contracts, right?
Is this this is part of the construction manager at risk and this is one of the components of that and it's so
So you're paying the construction manager instead of an architect to do this process,
you're paying the construction manager as part of that one, they're insuring through
their process that there's a guaranteed maximum price.
It's not to say that there can never be a change order.
If we decide as a personal staff or as a city council to make a change, we're going
to have to do that responsibility.
But if there's something that is set forth via the qualified bidders, that's the
process that Myren will be holding their responsible parties to.
So it's just a set of cap on kind of our expect based off potential expected based on the responses and the allowances that are included inside
They're in the packet here and on the chart. Do we do this on all like large item?
Dispenses or no, this is I believe the city's first it first go around with a construction manager at risk
And it's because we haven't built a parking ramp ever. Yeah
New process. Well, it's the city's first go around. It's not uncommon for other
municipalities to use this approach and or guarantee maximum price for
institutional civic projects. Okay, sure. Thank you. Other questions or comments?
All right, we need a roll call vote please. Alderperson Hansen?
Aye. Conniger?
Aye. Ledvina?
Aye. Nelson?
Aye.
Pirok?
Aye.
Mayor Boyd?
Aye.
Carpenter?
Aye.
Esercan?
Aye.
Hansen?
Aye.
Motion carries. Thank you. Up next, future agenda items. Does anyone have anything?
Alderperson Hansen.
I just have one for the Board of Public Works. I know the school district, sorry Scott.
Almost. Almost.
The school district's been doing the traffic study, I think on Chicago Street and Merrill Street,
and that kind of coincides with our Merrill Street reconstruction next year.
So I'm just wondering if we can get an update at the Board of where their traffic study is at,
and if it's finished kind of what their conclusions were all right that will go to public works
other questions I'm sorry other future agenda items all right up next I will make a motion
to adjourn second motion by me second about the person Nelson all those in favor say aye
All right.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
Thank you.
We're up to three here and thanks everybody.