[0:00] All right, we've got six o'clock PM. It's Thursday, August 20th, 2026. I'm

[0:05] here to call to order this meeting of the utility commission for this evening.

[0:09] Could we have a roll call, please? >> Tom

[0:14] » here. >> Curtis

[0:15] » here. >> Hammer is absent. Fininkler

[0:18] » here. >> Anner

[0:20] » here. >> Sanderson

[0:21] » here. Fry >> here.

[0:24] » All right. This meeting this meeting has been noticed in accordance with state

[0:28] statutes and local ordinances. The next item is to approve the agenda for the

[0:32] evening. >> Move to approve.

[0:34] » I will second. >> We have a motion, a second to approve

[0:36] the agenda. Any discussion on the motion? If none, all in favor, please

[0:40] say I. >> I.

[0:41] » Any opposed? The agenda is approved. On to public comment. Do we have anyone

[0:45] present this evening for public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to the

[0:50] consent agenda. We have three items which is the approval of the July 16th

[0:55] minutes. Uh approve utility department's cash dispersements report and accounts

[1:00] payable report and the outage report. Are there any questions on the consent

[1:05] agenda items? If not, I'll take a motion to approve.

[1:09] » Move to approve. >> Second.

[1:13] » We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. Any discussion on

[1:17] the motion? If not, we'll need a roll call for that

[1:21] then. >> Curtis,

[1:24] » I. >> Thinkler,

[1:26] » I. >> Anler,

[1:29] » I. >> Sanderson,

[1:31] » I. >> Fry.

[1:32] » Hi, >> Tom.

[1:34] » I. >> All right, we'll move on to new

[1:37] business. Item number four, uh, is the 2025 utility audit presentation by Baker

[1:43] Tilly. Uh, for our annual, um, financial review. We have director uh Dan Lehei

[1:49] with us this evening. >> Hi.

[1:54] » Thanks for having me here today.

[1:59] » There you go. You're good. >> Am I good?

[2:03] » All right. Well, thanks for having me. I'll just

[2:06] give a quick introduction of myself. I've been involved with the utilities

[2:09] audit for quite a while, but I haven't presented in in a couple years. But my

[2:13] name is uh Dan Lee. I'm a director with Baker Tilly. been with Baker Tilly out

[2:17] of our Madison, Wisconsin office for 15 years now. Uh like I said, I've been

[2:21] involved with the Columbus Utilities Audit in some form or fashion since I

[2:25] first started with the firm. Uh this year took on more of a supervisory role,

[2:30] director role, uh overseeing the work of our staff. So here tonight to talk about

[2:34] the results of the 2025 audit. So we have a couple graphs and charts to kind

[2:38] of go through here real quick uh to summarize the results of the year. But

[2:43] uh before I get into that, I just want to talk a little bit about our work and

[2:46] our deliverables that we've issued uh and finalized as part of the audit

[2:50] process. So in addition to these graphs, we've also issued um the financial

[2:54] statements themselves uh which includes our auditor's opinion. Uh I'm pleased to

[2:59] report that the utilities received an unmodified or clean audit opinion this

[3:04] year. Uh which is the highest form of assurance that can be received. So what

[3:08] that tells you is that the financial statements that are presented to the

[3:12] outside world are presented fairly and accurately uh based off of the

[3:16] accounting rules uh in the United States.

[3:20] We also issued a document uh called it's called the reporting and insights from

[3:24] the 2025 audit. Uh it includes a couple different deliverables. Uh the first

[3:29] being our required communications under auditing standards. I call this sort of

[3:34] a no news is good news type document. uh we have standard communications that we

[3:39] must issue every year and if there were any sort of problems to report that's

[3:43] where you'd find that items reported there but kind of have the standard

[3:47] communications no difficulties with management the audit went uh as planned

[3:51] and and as scheduled we also have a section of that report on

[3:56] internal controls uh so as part of the audit process we do assess the internal

[4:01] controls of the utility uh we don't issue an opinion on those controls but

[4:05] we do uh report any items uh to you folks here that were are worthy of your

[4:09] attention. We did have one reportable item uh it's it was called the material

[4:13] weakness over financial reporting and essentially what that means is uh the

[4:18] utility has outsourced the responsibility of preparing the

[4:21] financial statements to the auditors. Uh and I'd say 95% of your peer

[4:25] organizations or other electric and water utilities around you have the same

[4:30] issue. It's really a matter of staffing and you know the cost benefit of hiring

[4:34] additional staff to prepare an annual report that's done once a year versus

[4:39] outsourcing it to the auditors. So same finding as in previous years. Uh but

[4:44] nothing unusual and like I said majority of utilities your size have that same

[4:48] same recommendation. So with that I'll get into the graphs here. Uh the first

[4:52] graph here just summarizes the electric utilities results. Uh so we have a a

[4:57] trend analysis on the bottom that shows revenues as compared to operating

[5:01] expenses. The top uh lighter blue line represents operating revenues. So you

[5:07] can see uh operating revenues did increase this year. Uh that was due to a

[5:11] a full the implementation of a full rate increase uh that was effective in

[5:16] February 2024. So essentially we had a a full year impact of that of that rate

[5:21] increase. Uh you can also see that the uh at the

[5:25] top there we've summarized the uh utility's rate of return. What that

[5:30] represents is the net operating results uh of the utility uh based off of the

[5:35] rate of return that's authorized by the public service commission of Wisconsin.

[5:40] The public service commission governs your rates. So they they use this number

[5:44] to to design your rates and charges for services. So, the utility did fall a

[5:49] little bit short of its authorized rate of return this year. Uh, it's authorized

[5:52] for a 6.5% rate. It came in at 1.3. So, it was an improvement uh from the prior

[5:59] year, but this could indicate that it could potentially be time to take a look

[6:03] at your electric rates and consider a rate increase uh in the near future. I

[6:07] know the utility has some uh larger capital projects planned in the near

[6:12] future. So that's another good time to kind of assess those rates and see where

[6:16] they stand. Um so that would kind of coincide uh well with that.

[6:22] Moving on to the next slide for the water results. Uh similar sort of graph

[6:26] trend analysis here. You can see uh revenues u exceeded expenses in the

[6:31] current year. Um revenues did increase due to another rate uh rate change that

[6:36] was effective in August 2025. Um so our rate of return fell a little bit short

[6:41] on the water side as well. But hopefully next year um with that the impact of

[6:46] that full year uh of that rate increase that was effective towards the batter

[6:50] later half of the year uh we can get that a little bit closer to your uh

[6:54] authorized rate of return. Again I do know the water utility has some capital

[6:59] projects coming up too. So just something to something to monitor and

[7:03] keep an eye on in the future. Moving on to the next uh graph here. The

[7:08] water and electric utilities present a combined financial statement. So here

[7:12] are some of the combined metrics that uh we take a look at. The first one being

[7:17] the unrestricted cash on hand. Uh you can see the utility has about $1.1

[7:22] million of unrestricted reserves. Uh that represents about one a little over

[7:27] one month's worth of operations. Um the government uh government government

[7:32] finance officers association has a minimum recommendation of about 3 months

[7:37] there. So uh we'll want to kind of continue to see that unrestricted

[7:41] reserve uh fund to continue to build. It's sort of dip dip down in 2023 and

[7:46] you can see that it's sort of bouncing up and starting to uh kind of build up

[7:50] again. Uh the next uh ratio to cover is oop

[7:55] sorry can you go up back up one more? We have the debt coverage calculation. Um

[8:00] what this represents is the utilities ability to make uh payments on your

[8:04] revenue bonds and also cover uh your operating expenses. Uh so you're

[8:09] required to have a coverage factor of 1.25 and you can see that the utilities

[8:15] uh healthfully exceeded that. So that's a good metric to see and what we like to

[8:18] see uh from that perspective. The last metric on this slide before we move to

[8:23] sewer results uh is the debt to equity or the investment in capital ratio. What

[8:29] this measures is how much of the utilities infrastructure is financed by

[8:33] debt versus how much is financed through customer rates. Uh so the blue graph

[8:38] represents how much is f funded by rates. Uh you can see it's about 89%. Uh

[8:44] we generally uh sort of expect to see kind of a 50/50 split there. 50% debt,

[8:50] 50% equity depends a little bit about on the community and the the nature of the

[8:55] system. Uh so what this indicates is that the utilities have capability for

[8:59] borrowing uh in the future for any sort of significant capital projects uh that

[9:04] could come up. Uh moving on to the next slide to talk about the sewer results.

[9:11] So there's a little bit more on this graph uh or on this page, but similarly

[9:15] we're presenting sort of a five-year trend analysis. Uh you can see this year

[9:20] expenses did increase uh a little bit up to 2.3 million and did exceed uh

[9:26] operating revenue uh numbers. What was driving that was there was a

[9:30] large maintenance expense this year for some slip lining. Um you know, it's a

[9:34] it's a non-recurring expense that you don't expect to have year-over-year. Um

[9:38] » slip lining. >> Yeah. for like Yep. Yep. Um so I I think

[9:43] that makes up the majority of that increase. Fortunately, revenues did also

[9:47] increase though. Uh that was due to the u impacts of a rate increase that was

[9:52] effective in April of 2025. Uh I know the utility also did increase rates in

[9:57] June of this year. So hopefully sort of the combination of those two uh rate

[10:02] increases uh coupled with you know a reduction in expenses from that one off

[10:06] in 2025 will sort of uh flip that number a little bit so that the revenues uh

[10:11] will exceed expenses in future years. Uh continuing on talking about the

[10:17] unrestricted reserve figures, uh you can see that the sewer utility had about uh

[10:22] a little less than 700,000 in reserves that represent uh little less than four

[10:27] months of operating uh statistic or operating expenses. Um so it's again

[10:32] it's above that 3month minimum threshold that uh you you'd want to be at. Um it

[10:37] has it has dipped down because there has been larger capital projects that that

[10:42] maintenance expense. So something to keep an eye on and something to monitor

[10:46] potentially uh for a future uh sewer rate increase.

[10:51] Then moving on to the debt coverage calculation. Uh you're required to meet

[10:56] a coverage factor of 1.25. Uh the utility did fall a little bit short the

[11:01] last two years. So again, hopefully a combination of the uh two rate increases

[11:05] that were just just implemented will help uh mitigate that in the future. If

[11:09] not, uh might want to look into potentially uh future rate increases for

[11:14] the sewer. I also know there's some capital projects planned there. So, uh

[11:18] something to keep an eye on and something to consider.

[11:22] Then lastly, the same ratio of the debt to equity or the investment in capital.

[11:26] Again, this shows that uh the utility has some uh borrowing capabilities. 59

[11:32] of the 59% of the assets are being funded by rates. Uh so it's closer to

[11:37] that 50/50 ratio that we usually see with capital intensive utilities. Um but

[11:42] again it's a positive number to report and uh you're on the right side of it.

[11:46] You'd want to generally have more uh equity than debt as it relates to that

[11:50] figure. Any questions on the results of the

[11:54] audit or the financial numbers?

[11:59] » You asking about the entire audit presentation

[12:02] » presentation or the audit itself.

[12:09] Page 13. >> Can you turn your mic on, Jack?

[12:13] » Thank you. >> Page 13 of the

[12:18] utility audit liabilities, deferred inflows.

[12:27] Top of the page,

[12:32] liabilities due to municipality

[12:37] $682,00025 and now $459,000

[12:42] this year. What does due to municipality mean?

[12:46] » So that would be like inner fund balances and I think it's note three

[12:50] within that document spells out what all that's what makes that figure up. What

[12:55] what utility was that for? Or was that for

[12:58] » electric? >> Water and electric.

[12:59] » Water and electric. >> No. Three. No. Three. Okay.

[13:02] » Um I do know there was an item that was shown as an advance uh from the

[13:07] municipality this year for some some debt proceeds on a borrowing that didn't

[13:12] quite close uh yet at the end of 2025. All right.

[13:19] » Receivable payable. That would be it. >> Yep. So that has some detail as to what

[13:24] makes up that balance.

[13:29] But I mean it's generally you know operating costs. Um you said was it for

[13:35] water and light or water? >> No it talks about the sewer but this is

[13:39] the water and light.

[13:43] » Yeah. And I think a lot of that is also the uh pilot payment as well. The

[13:47] approval of the payment in L tax. Well >> I understand pilot.

[13:50] » Yeah. >> But pilot payment's not $65,000 a month.

[13:56] That's what got my attention. This is a big number. Far above payment of Luan

[14:02] taxes. >> Yeah.

[14:04] » The tax obligation of the utility is not $65,000 a month.

[14:08] » Right. Right. >> So

[14:10] I mean what what's the obligation >> here? Can I actually

[14:21] So, yeah, looks like there are some insurance uh charges, um some shared

[14:26] wages, um costs for capital additions. Could be

[14:30] a timing issue, too, of when funds were paid over to the municipality, but you

[14:34] know, if you need me to get more detail, I can dig into this and and get back to

[14:38] you.

[14:41] » All right. Well, your number's in there, huh?

[14:45] » Yeah.

[14:54] » In light of a later discussion tonight um related to the sur utility,

[15:01] how how does the audit look at our billing

[15:06] and verify that billing is being done correctly?

[15:11] Um so what we typically do uh when there's new rates implemented is we'll

[15:16] take a sample of customer bills and recalculate um the actual charges based

[15:23] off of the new newly approved rates and then we also independently look at

[15:28] revenues as a whole. Uh we take a look at the prior year audited revenues

[15:33] factor in any changes in consumption uh you know any increases in sales to your

[15:38] customers. factor in that overall increase in rates and we kind of develop

[15:43] an independent expectation of what we think the revenue totals will be and we

[15:47] compare that to the actual actual figures themselves.

[15:51] » Are you aware that the utility was incorrectly charging one of our large

[15:55] customers going back to January 1 of 2023?

[16:00] » Was is that a wholesale customer? >> The village of Fall River.

[16:04] » Okay. Yeah, management did bring that to our attention uh this year and we did

[16:08] acrewue the revenue related to that and the related receivable.

[16:12] » Um so yeah, we were aware of that. >> Did you look at that what that impact

[16:18] had on the the sewer operating? Obviously we've been running at a

[16:23] deficit the last two years. Was there any analysis if that would have been

[16:27] built correctly that we would have been closer to break even point?

[16:33] Yeah, I mean it certainly would have helped uh you know narrow that that loss

[16:38] or reduce that loss. Uh but the revenues for the entire back billing are

[16:43] reflected in the current year's results. So that revenue total of $2 million

[16:49] there does include that total back billing. Um the it was a big number or

[16:55] you know over two years but the split you you know the difference of what was

[16:59] related to 2024 versus 2025 it was a it was a number that was small enough where

[17:05] we were able to just record it all in the current year rather than restating

[17:09] prior period results.

[17:14] » Thank you. >> Any other questions?

[17:20] » One more followup. One more followup. Is there a professional recommendation

[17:26] on how to resolve the difference between Fall River and what we'd like to do?

[17:32] They owe us some back money, right? And is there a

[17:41] approved procedure resolution that you know of?

[17:44] » Yeah, it's probably more >> I think the last hire they're they're

[17:46] talking about hiring an attorney, right? We're going to discuss that.

[17:52] » I don't say those words specifically. Neither did we. So,

[17:58] » I think it'd probably be a question for an attorney as to how far of a, you

[18:02] know, period you can go back to bill based off of the Wisconsin statutes.

[18:06] It's not really something that's covered by the audit. It'd be a question for an

[18:10] attorney, not not to say that you need an attorney to resolve it, but hey,

[18:13] what's what's what are we allowed to actually back bill?

[18:16] » It's not in your toolbox.

[18:21] It's more of a laws and regulations thing, you know, like what in and what

[18:24] your attorney would be comfortable, you know, defending essentially.

[18:28] » So, just to be clear, our deficit

[18:33] includes the money that we're owed, >> right? Yeah. Those revenues are recorded

[18:37] in the in 2025,

[18:42] » I guess. How does that work if we don't have it? We well you also have a

[18:45] receivable an accounts receivable balance for it. And actually you'll

[18:49] notice this year there's a a long-term portion of that because last we talked

[18:53] with the management team it was uh determined it was going to be paid back

[18:57] over a couple year period. So it's acred in your revenues but you don't have the

[19:02] cash in the door. So it has a we have an accounts receivable balance recorded for

[19:06] that. >> Yeah.

[19:09] » Thanks for clarifying. >> Yeah. Thanks. Any other questions for

[19:12] Dan while he's up? I see none. Thanks for the presentation.

[19:16] » Thanks. Yeah, just one more thing. I do want to thank uh Ry's team for all their

[19:19] help during the audit. They were uh very very efficient and helpful with us. Gave

[19:23] us all the answers we needed um and and were very knowledgeable what was going

[19:27] on. So, appreciate your time uh team's time, Randy, and thanks for your help,

[19:31] too. >> Thank you. Thanks.

[19:40] All right, that was just a presentation, so there's no action required. We'll

[19:43] move on to new business item number five then, which is consider and take action

[19:47] on the funding of the storm water utility.

[19:57] » I I'll just give a little bit of a background on this. The this same

[20:03] presentation was provided to the city council um ear couple months ago. This

[20:08] was referred by the council to the utility commission um with the I think

[20:15] most are aware that the storm water utility has been created. The challenge

[20:19] is is is we have not identified how to fund the storm water utility and that'll

[20:25] be the basis of Jason's discussion and presentation this evening.

[20:32] All right. Thank you, Matt. Uh, yeah, I'm just here tonight to kind of go over

[20:35] this presentation. You can see we presented in May to the council. It's

[20:38] not the exact same presentation because Sam's not here and Sam did a amazing job

[20:42] when we were at council, but uh I'm pinching for tonight because she's out

[20:46] watching paving um on School Street. So, uh the agenda tonight on the

[20:52] presentation uh up there is uh we want to talk a little bit about stormwater

[20:56] management in general. Uh why it's important. We want to review the city's

[20:59] current storm water uh system. What do we have? What are the challenges? Uh

[21:04] we're going to talk about some options. Um what's the status of the stormwater

[21:09] utility? Um obviously it's been quite a few years since the last time that we've

[21:14] considered this and talk about some implementation options. And obviously at

[21:20] the end there's some answers and hopefully I got those for or questions.

[21:23] I hopefully I got some answers for you. Um and we'll go from there.

[21:29] So moving on just a little bit about why storm water matters. Uh I think these

[21:33] are all pretty intuitive but uh just kind of talking a little bit about uh

[21:37] how it protects the public safety by reducing flooding. Uh as we manage storm

[21:42] water as our storm sewers have capacity uh they're not clogged uh you know

[21:47] sediment-free waterways. Uh there's just a lot of things that will help reduce

[21:51] flooding. As we know flooding is uh more reoccurring now than it has been in the

[21:56] past. uh we see more intense rainfalls uh when we do get those generally which

[22:01] uh result more in runoff and so um you know the propensity for more flooding uh

[22:06] has been growing. Um you know storm water if we manage it correctly presu uh

[22:11] prevents uh pollution in our waterways. Uh you know it could be fertilizer

[22:16] runoff. It could be uh sand and gravel. Uh it could be chemicals that people put

[22:21] on lawns. uh just kind of ao host a variety of things that storm water

[22:26] management can help with our waterways uh to keep them clean and healthy. Uh

[22:30] and then uh compliance with federal regulations. Uh you know we do have uh

[22:34] requirements at the municipal level of things that we have to do and follow uh

[22:39] on the state and federal regulations. Uh, one of the things that we do not

[22:43] have in Columbus is what they call an MS4 permit, which is a permit that EPA

[22:49] and uh, the state of Wisconsin does regulate for larger communities,

[22:53] generally 10,000 people and above. Uh, they are over time working towards

[22:57] smaller communities like ours. There are communities throughout the state that do

[23:01] have these MS4 permit requirements. If you are an MS4 permitted community, you

[23:06] will be required. Unfortunately, a lot of that's unfunded mandates, but

[23:10] required to do a lot of storm water management. Uh that was probably not

[23:14] occurring today in Columbus. So, those are on the horizon. Uh no promise to

[23:19] when those will be here, but uh it's just something to be aware of. Uh

[23:22] preserve infrastructure. Uh there's a lot of other utilities in the city that

[23:27] are affected by storm water. It's not just storm water. So you think about

[23:29] when we get a heavy rain uh you know we get storm water that affects our sewer

[23:34] utility. We get more water at the plant to treat. Um you know we also have uh

[23:39] erosion things that occur uh you know in waterways that can expose other

[23:44] utilities as well that are in near those uh infrastructure components. And so uh

[23:49] you know managing storm water is important to to other things not just

[23:52] storm water. And then uh reducing the long-term costs. If we start thinking

[23:56] about, you know, those things of, you know, what flood damage costs and we

[24:02] start thinking about, you know, what it costs to treat infiltration at the

[24:05] wastewater treatment plant, you know, when we get significant rain events, our

[24:08] our flows at our plant will almost double. Uh, so we're treating twice as

[24:12] much waste water during those rain events. Uh, and that's just INI, they

[24:16] call it inflow info infiltration into the uh, sanitary system. So you start

[24:20] looking at what that cost to treat all of that. You start compounding

[24:25] uh those costs um long term for storm water.

[24:30] Uh so uh the next slide uh talks a little bit about our existing

[24:34] infrastructure. So just a little bit about Columbus. Uh I listed here that we

[24:39] have miles of pipes. Um so to put that in perspective, we have 27 miles of

[24:43] roadways in the city. Um, not every road has a storm sewer or a storm manhole

[24:50] underneath it, but we also have storm pipes that aren't in roads. We have them

[24:54] uh that are out in easement areas. We have storm water retention ponds, things

[24:58] like that. Uh, we have we have channels and creeks. Um, so we have a lot of uh

[25:04] roadways when you think about uh throughout the city um that don't have

[25:08] curbon gutter on and the water runs into some type of a a ditch that's channeled

[25:13] away from yards into you know eventually discharges into a waterway. So it's not

[25:19] just maintaining the pipes and inlets, it's maintaining those other uh

[25:22] conveyance methods um throughout the city.

[25:26] We've identified 16 storm water basins uh in our comprehensive stormwater study

[25:32] around the city. Uh in those basins, those are the ones that the city

[25:35] maintains. There's obviously private basins out there that treat storm water,

[25:39] but there's 16 of them. Four are dry, 12 are wet, which means 12 of them are

[25:42] permanent pools or ponds uh that are meant for both volume and rate control

[25:48] and for water quality. So, total dissolved solids reduction or suspended

[25:54] solids reduction in those 12. Uh, I put in here hundreds of inlets. I couldn't

[25:58] even begin to guess how many here. Uh, but we have a lot of them and I don't

[26:02] even think we have them all accounted for in our maps and systems. Uh, so

[26:05] there's a lot of infrastructure that's that's out there. Uh, and then uh

[26:09] multiple waterways. When we start thinking about uh the crawfish river,

[26:13] it's not just the crawfish river. We have second ward creek, Robins Creek. Um

[26:17] we have the discharge or drainage way north um that drains into the crawfish

[26:22] and we also have the the unnamed tributary to the second war creek. So

[26:26] there's five total uh major waterways that drain the city. Uh so again those

[26:31] all have uh culverts that water flows through. They all have flooding

[26:35] potential throughout the city. So again, uh when you just start thinking about

[26:39] the inf infrastructure in the city, there really is a lot there to uh to

[26:44] manage and and maintain. Uh as far as the maintenance

[26:48] responsibilities, we we kind of threw this in here. A little bit of that is

[26:52] just sediment control. Uh when we start talking about routine cleaning

[26:56] inspection, that that involves things like street sweeping, right? So it's not

[27:00] just cleaning out inlets. not just making sure that you know the discharge

[27:04] end walls are are free and and have capacity to flow freely. Uh but it's

[27:09] also uh prevention, it's also you know sweeping streets, it's keeping things

[27:13] clean and so there's um a lot of maintenance responsibilities to keep the

[27:17] system functioning that uh is up above there.

[27:22] So talk a little bit about next uh projects. Uh so you know the question is

[27:27] you know and this kind of started with the original discussion with stormwater

[27:30] utility back in the day uh was you know kind of what are the projects how many

[27:34] are there uh we have kind of a comprehensive plan that we developed and

[27:38] we'll talk about that here in a little bit uh but you know we named a lot of

[27:41] projects here and you can kind of see the numbers highlighted here um just to

[27:45] show you how many projects there are. There's more than that but uh we started

[27:49] since 2021 working off a priority list of projects. Um, so the city has been

[27:54] actively working on this. It's not like we're just sitting around doing nothing.

[27:57] Uh, the cities have been targeting these. And so you can kind of go down

[28:00] through here and see uh quite a few projects that have been completed uh

[28:04] over the years. Um, and that that total since 2021 has totaled about 1 1.378

[28:11] million. And so you can see that there's been some active um prioritization in

[28:17] these needs and uh projects have been successfully completed which is great to

[28:21] see the city uh moving forward and and making sure that they're maintaining

[28:25] this system. So the next slide we're going to talk a

[28:30] little bit about uh the current challenges. So um you know this is

[28:33] obviously the probably the biggest question I get when we talk about storm

[28:36] water is okay if we have this need why don't we go get grants? Um, and so

[28:42] grants are in high demand. Uh, timing doesn't always work. Some grants are uh

[28:46] every other year type grants. So you can apply one year, but you can't get it the

[28:50] next year. Uh, they're highly dependent on funding, the state budgets, what kind

[28:55] of money get put into those grants. And they're highly competitive. I mean, uh,

[28:59] you can probably imagine that every community in Columbus is got a demand or

[29:03] a need for storm water. Uh, so, you know, highly underfunded, highly

[29:07] competitive type things. So it is a funding source but you know again uh we

[29:11] do our best to identify those and apply to those but aren't always successful

[29:14] getting grant money. Um so how how is it funded? So current currently or in you

[29:20] know the past uh the storm water projects have been funded through

[29:24] capital borrowing and obviously capital borrowing has uh you know a direct

[29:29] effect on what you're able to borrow and it has to compete with all the other

[29:33] things that you borrow for uh throughout the city. could be buildings and

[29:36] equipment and whatever else. And so it it has a it has a place and has been uh

[29:42] used in that um capacity to to generate the funds to do the work.

[29:47] So that's the funding piece. Uh so prioritization, well, how does the city

[29:52] decide what to improve? And so the way that it's kind of historically worked is

[29:57] uh it's it's reactive. we have a collapsed pipe or we have uh an issue

[30:02] with flooding in a particular area or we have a damaged box culvert or whatever

[30:07] that might be and so those are the things that that have come to light

[30:11] right so Jason help us you know what are your recommendations how do we get this

[30:14] how critical is it uh so we make those identifications and we react to that um

[30:20] but I think what what you know the recommendation obviously with any good

[30:25] um you know infrastructure program is to be proactive and and not reactive. So,

[30:29] we want to be identifying those culverts that have the bottom rusted out of them

[30:34] before they're collapsing and we want to replace those before they cause more

[30:37] damage type thing. And so, as we're moving towards

[30:42] developing this comprehensive plan that we did and then moving forward, we're

[30:46] you see this list and there's a priority list that we've been working off of for

[30:49] a few years now that we're trying to get ahead of that. We know these projects

[30:53] have a need. We're trying to identify them and then provide that attention to

[30:58] those projects that we need and not be that reactive type that we've been in

[31:01] the past. And a lot of that comes with maintenance.

[31:05] Um there's a lot that kind of goes into maintenance. Uh it's employee wages,

[31:08] it's infrastructure, it's it's it's crew time, it's time spent, it's resources

[31:13] available. That resources could be equipment. Uh could could be a lot of

[31:17] things. And um you know, we talk about maintenance and capitalization of

[31:21] projects and roads. And what we always say there is, you know, you can spend a

[31:24] dime to maintain a road and make it last 10 years longer, but if you allow it to

[31:28] go to failure, it's going to cost you a dollar, right? And so it's a 10 times

[31:32] factor usually in roads. And, you know, storm water is going to be the same type

[31:35] of thing. If we can maintain these pipes and infrastructure, uh, and do some, you

[31:40] know, needed maintenance on those things, you know, the infrastructure

[31:43] will last longer and you can push those larger costs out. So maintenance is

[31:47] important to the storm water system as well as it is to the roadways.

[31:52] So the next slide we'll talk a little bit about solutions. Um you know a

[31:57] little bit about you know h how do we deal with this? And so there's obviously

[32:00] I always say there's the do nothing option. So the city continues to treat

[32:04] storm water management like it has in the past. Uh you know the funding comes

[32:08] through the general fund through capital borrowing. Um projects are completed on

[32:12] what funds are available or the city is willing to approve in that cycle. And

[32:17] it's reactive versus proactive right. So, it's really, you know, help help us

[32:21] find a project when we have a list of a hundred uh that we can put in next year

[32:25] capital plan. We're going to hope we pick the right one and if something else

[32:29] happens, we're just going to have to react to it and there's going to be a

[32:31] demand on the system. Um the other way that we've talked about, and this has

[32:36] been talked about for several years now, is to create a separate fee or funding

[32:40] source through the stormwater utility. Um that is obviously something that is

[32:46] done uh to many places around the state now. Uh continues to grow on communities

[32:51] adding storm water utilities. Uh it's funded by residents uh as a utility much

[32:56] like water, sewer, electric. Uh also uh we're able to complete more projects uh

[33:02] because we have a sustainable funding source. Um we can still borrow uh and

[33:07] supplement that but we also have its own source. that we have that commitment to

[33:11] projects annually. Uh that feels like that becomes much more proactive than

[33:16] reactive because we have a dedicated funding source. Uh we can identify the

[33:20] projects in the list. We can continue to complete those projects knowing that we

[33:23] have funds to do that on a regular basis. Uh and we're able to keep on top

[33:27] of maintenance. Um those things that you know right now uh the general fund has a

[33:32] very small storm water uh cost in there for maintenance. And um you know, I'm

[33:37] sure Randy can attest, you know, I don't know what the number is in the budget,

[33:40] but generally it's not very big and it doesn't go very far. Um so again, I

[33:46] think there's some benefits to the fee that can help versus the current option.

[33:51] So on the next slide here, um we just want to talk about the utility. Uh so u

[33:57] the city has adopted a storm water utility. Uh that was done in 2021. Uh I

[34:02] don't know that everybody truly understands the city has a stormwater

[34:05] utility. The difference is it's not funded. Uh in in uh 2021 there was a

[34:10] referendum that failed to implement a user or a charge fee to raise those

[34:14] funds. Um so what's changed since 21? So why are we back here talking about it?

[34:20] Um it was determined that um at the time of the referendum that it was believed

[34:26] that that was a requirement uh because the funds that were expended when the

[34:32] regulations on utilities went into place that that was the amount that I believe

[34:36] it was 2013 we had to go back find out how much the city had spent on uh

[34:41] utility storm related expenses and then that was what the levy would have to be

[34:45] reduced by. Uh the city at that time had believed that it was the total cost

[34:50] capital and general fund costs towards the utility spend. Uh in reality it was

[34:55] only the the general fund cost and not the capital cost which lowered that

[34:59] number significantly. So it had a much less impact on the levy than the city

[35:04] had thought. Um and so uh going to referendum obviously was the decision at

[35:09] the time. But you know it was decided that you know uh the impact was

[35:14] relatively small to the overall levy to make this decision to adopt the user fee

[35:18] going forward. And so uh that has changed. Uh so we knew have new kind of

[35:22] a new um I guess approach to uh what that really meant and where the city

[35:28] currently sits. Uh the other thing that's changed is in 2022

[35:33] as a result of the failed referendum, a lot of the general feedback from the

[35:37] public was uh the fee is okay, but we have to understand how you're going to

[35:41] spend it, right? There's this unknown of, you know, the city just or the

[35:44] utility just collecting this fee and not knowing what it's going to be used for.

[35:49] And you know, I think the the city at the time and the council had looked at

[35:54] this and said, uh, we recognize that we know there's projects out there, but

[35:58] let's do a comprehensive study and identify what they really are and, you

[36:02] know, put some validity behind the ask. And so in 2022, uh, I had worked with

[36:08] the city on developing a comprehensive plan which kind of looks at all facets

[36:11] of storm water management across the entire city, not just certain areas. Um

[36:16] the council in 2023 had asked for a priority list of those top projects um

[36:21] that we created uh in that comprehensive plan. And what we did when we created

[36:27] that uh is we we gave every project that we identified a priority score based on

[36:32] impact uh there was there were several categories. there was impact um cost,

[36:37] you know, water quality, all kinds of things. And that's what generated the

[36:41] projects that prioritized on the list were the ones that scored the highest uh

[36:45] for need. So that was the 2023 memo. And uh so then since we've been working on

[36:51] that, so going back to what was completed, so from 2023 to 2025, uh the

[36:56] city has continued to complete a number of storm water projects uh moving

[37:00] forward off of that list. So, we're still working off that list uh to

[37:03] complete those projects. So, that's kind of the progression of of the ordinance

[37:08] adoption, the referendum, and then kind of the progress that we've made since

[37:12] that. So, the next couple slides again are

[37:17] just quick examples of um just projects that have been completed. Uh there was a

[37:22] very large diameter, I don't remember the size of it, 60-in uh pipe that was

[37:26] replaced under Fuller Street uh in the tributary to the Second Ward creek that

[37:31] goes through Washington Park. Uh that was a significant project cost. I

[37:34] believe it was um over $500,000 worth of uh repair. This pipe had to be replaced

[37:40] because this was one where it was a large diameter corrugated metal pipe

[37:44] where the bottom had rusted out of completely. So, it had no support

[37:46] underneath the pipe. The water was just basically running across bare ground. Um

[37:51] so that was kind of a a example of a project where you know we need

[37:56] significant funds to make those improvements.

[38:00] Um the next slide uh shows a project where um we just completed. So those of

[38:07] you who are familiar with Fireman's Park uh know that there is a culvert that no

[38:13] longer exists that is a small dam cvert that was removed throughout the park. Uh

[38:18] and hopefully people see that as an enhancement to the park as much as it is

[38:21] an improvement to storm water quality. And so that project was completed as

[38:25] well. Um again, you know, you know, several hundred,000 project there that

[38:30] was completed, but again, we're making progress towards uh improving that. And

[38:35] I understand that I've heard reports that that has helped with some of the

[38:40] flooding or at least uh the impacts of some of the heavy rains. Uh so we're

[38:44] happy that that that project's completed.

[38:48] Uh so kind of moving on here, stormwater utility. So what is it? Uh again, we

[38:52] talked about that it's going to be the mechanism that allows us to operate. Uh

[38:56] it's going to be a dedicated uh funding source. So once these uh funds are

[39:01] collected, they're managed and financed and controlled through that specifically

[39:05] used for storm water projects. Uh much like sewer and water utilities. Uh what

[39:09] are the benefits with the fees? We talked a lot about that. Um how is it

[39:14] funded? Again, I think there are two components of this. There's a base fee

[39:18] that would be part of that that's uh kind of charged uh and then there's a

[39:23] fee based on an equivalent runoff unit. So, the base fee is essentially an

[39:27] administrative fee to execute um you know the utility um needs and

[39:32] then the the ERU will generate the fees for the uh for the actual storm owner

[39:37] piece itself. >> Er, what's that?

[39:42] » Equivalent runoff unit. >> Okay.

[39:45] So, as we look at funding scenarios, we we've revisited this and said, "Okay, um

[39:50] the way that I think the utility had previously uh looked at and the city had

[39:55] asked me to kind of develop a plan was to pick a pick a dollar amount and say

[39:59] we're going to raise x amount of dollars without knowing what the need was. Now

[40:04] that we have the need, uh I think the we've gone back and looked at this a

[40:08] little bit differently and said, "Okay, what knowing the need, what is it that

[40:12] we need to do to meet some of the needs that we have listed in the report to

[40:15] have a meaningful impact?" So we looked at some funding scenarios. So the first

[40:19] one here is just a maintenance focused funding scenario. So rotational ditch

[40:23] cleaning maintenance, storm water inlet cleaning maintenance. Again, you see a

[40:26] lot of maintenance heavy stuff here. Uh a medium-sized project every few years.

[40:30] So we're going to take one of these big projects you just saw off the list.

[40:33] we're going to get it completed every every couple years. Um we're also going

[40:37] to you know do projects that the city has been completing um you know and and

[40:42] continue to work on those but you know some of those may remain deferred uh if

[40:46] we're going to do this every few years. So the ERU and we'll talk about

[40:50] equivalent running unit equivalent runoff unit here in a minute for

[40:53] definition but you know that would be between 90 and $120 annually. So

[40:57] essentially $10 or less a month for uh the average residential property.

[41:04] Uh funding scenario number two, we looked at what we call what we uh it's

[41:07] called a balance program. So we're going to do the annual maintenance as we

[41:10] talked about. Uh but now we're going to look to fund one capital project every

[41:14] other year. So we're going to kind of ramp that up a little bit. Uh but again

[41:18] that you know that takes more expense and so therefore you know you see your

[41:22] erus here uh bumping up a little bit. So now it's going to start at the $10 and

[41:26] it's going to work its way up a little higher. Um you we're kind of

[41:29] recommending this as kind of the heavy medium if you will. Um you know it's not

[41:34] that much more expensive than the maintenance but it gives us this ability

[41:37] to raise funds uh to create um you know more of these major projects. These are

[41:43] the bigger ones that are going to have more meaningful impact. Uh so that's

[41:46] just the funding scenario number two. And then on three

[41:50] uh I think we looked at what we'd call the aggressive capital program. So,

[41:54] we're going to pick off one of these large projects every year. We're going

[41:56] to continue to do full annual maintenance. Um, you building out

[41:59] projects, addressing them systematically. Uh, this is going to be

[42:03] your fastest impact, but you start seeing the dollars getting up into, you

[42:07] know, 150 to 175 annually. Uh all of these values are not out of line with

[42:12] some of the competitor or u comparable organizations that we see uh from

[42:17] municipalities around the area, but um it it is something that we're just going

[42:22] to have to take a look at from Columbus's standpoint to make sure that

[42:25] what is right or what fits for you guys um is what you need.

[42:30] Uh the next slide uh we look at here was just the eru. So Jack uh equivalent

[42:36] runoff unit is a average horizontal impervious surface area for single

[42:40] family residential lot within the city of Columbus. So how we calculate that is

[42:44] we take samples throughout different zoning districts and densities for uh

[42:49] single family uh residential. We figure out how much impervious area they have

[42:53] square footage wise. We average that out across all of them. And we take the

[42:57] average and we say that's it. That's going to be what we're going to base our

[43:00] fee off of. So, everybody across the city pays one eru if you have a

[43:04] residential unit, single family home. Uh, we determined that in 2021 to be

[43:09] 3600 square ft of impervious on a lot. So, you might have slightly less or

[43:14] slightly more, but you'll still base pay off of that 3600 as an average. Um, so

[43:20] again, somebody with a slightly larger lot may have the $150 a year because

[43:25] they have one ERU. somebody with a slightly bigger lot or smaller lot will

[43:29] still pay the same amount. Uh and that that type of equivalent runoff uh

[43:35] calculation is also supported legally within the state. So it's been

[43:38] challenged and the way that's calculated is is really kind of supported by uh

[43:43] kind of the history of of the challenge. So uh for two units mult multi or if you

[43:49] start getting into multif family uh the erus are calculated off of a number of

[43:54] times factor. So if it's twice the 3600 or 7200, you'll be at two erus, two unit

[44:00] residentials, each pay6. So total 1.2. So again, just some very standard uh

[44:06] calculations that have been used and and again tried and true throughout the

[44:10] stormwater uh units is how you apply to multifamily and and uh two single family

[44:16] residentials. Uh so once we calculate it, um then what

[44:20] do we do with it? So we got to talk about how we bill it. Uh there's a

[44:24] couple options here. Um I there's pros and cons to both. Uh it can be done

[44:28] monthly like your typical bill. Uh right now I get in my community I get a sewer,

[44:34] water and storm water utility bill every month and there's a utility charge for

[44:37] storm water on that. That's pretty typical. There are some communities here

[44:41] that do it on a annual tax basis. So it's a special charge on a tax bill to

[44:46] collect it. Um and then there's obviously some that do quarterlys. Uh

[44:51] there's some examples up there. Sarah Fitchburg does quarterly, Middleton does

[44:54] quarterly. Uh again, some prairie is an example of somebody who does it monthly.

[44:58] So again, just it it can all be done that way. I think the difference is if

[45:02] it's done on a tax bill, it goes to the property owner. If it's done on a

[45:05] utility bill, it goes to the user. So if there's a renter or somebody in a home

[45:10] uh that the utility bill is under, that the, you know, storm water utility bill

[45:13] would go to them. So again, there's some nuances to the different options in here

[45:18] of how we want that uh sent out. But again, I I think there's examples of how

[45:23] communities do that regardless of which way you guys would decide to go if you

[45:27] implement a storm water utility fee. Um, next slide.

[45:36] » I think my presenter there is skipping over a couple. He's trying to speed me

[45:39] up. Um,

[45:42] » it's working, isn't it? >> Well, I was I was on track until we got

[45:47] lost here. Um so implementation so establish new

[45:52] project priorities we talked about that uh the rate study credit policy

[45:56] development so if we choose to move this forward uh we'd have to implement the

[46:00] actually the rate study piece of it so there's a lot of properties out there

[46:03] that are commercial where we'd have to calculate how many erus they have and

[46:06] we'd have to put that into a uh a rate for them. Uh there's a credit policy.

[46:11] We've talked about this in the past. What happens if somebody mitigates their

[46:14] own storm water on site through their own means or methods? Maybe a property

[46:18] or a community puts in some kind of uh storm water implementation measures on

[46:22] their own. What kind of credit do we give back to them? We develop that

[46:25] because that's not in place currently. Certainly public public engagement uh

[46:30] will be part of that. There will be an ordinance update. There's some things on

[46:33] the original ordinance that were adopted that would need to be adjusted uh today

[46:37] because things have changed since 2021 when the ordinance was adopted. Like any

[46:41] ordinance, there's things that uh we know now that we didn't know then. uh

[46:46] council review and adoption and a utility launch. So, there's a bunch of

[46:49] pieces that would have to kind of fall into place here. So, um those are kind

[46:54] of the the pieces of where Columbus is at and kind of what it would take to

[46:57] kind of uh implement this. So, so what would we expect? Um we'd have a better

[47:03] idea of projects, which we have now. Uh we'd know what funding we would have

[47:08] available. We could project that and and plan better as to what we could get

[47:11] accomplished. uh that would show your proactive uh continuous improvements. Uh

[47:16] you would have a funding balance. So reoccurring money coming into the system

[47:20] as we would spend it out. Uh and you know your CIP would get a little bit of

[47:25] relief from that. So at the city level there would be uh less impact to the

[47:29] general borrowing uh for storm water u because it you know obviously is funded

[47:34] through this. So I think that's it. Is that the last one?

[47:40] Oh, there's a summary there, but I think we're ready for questions if

[47:45] anybody's got any for me. >> Oh, sure.

[47:51] » Page six, we bought projects

[47:56] and the numbers on the projects I indicate are they're priority projects,

[48:00] right? Like number 19, number 69, 25. >> So, it kind of looks like we're funding

[48:06] projects of low priority. Am I reading that right?

[48:09] » No. you're reading that wrong. Uh the trick to that is that we numbered every

[48:15] project we identified on just a number. We gave it a number one through I think

[48:21] 97 is the the total project. We think we had 97 priority.

[48:25] » It's not a priority. We went back and assigned priority to them after we

[48:28] numbered them and then those were the projects that rose.

[48:31] » Let's cut to the next question that is is there a list in here? I didn't see

[48:35] it. >> Not in the presentation. No, but the

[48:37] comprehensive storm management plan has the entire list and there's the priority

[48:41] list from 2023 that's available. >> All right, two more questions. Um 2008

[48:51] we had like 14 inches of rain caused a big problem and we we fixed some things.

[48:57] You were here and um trying to figure out

[49:02] where are we? If we got 14 inches of rain again over a two-day period, you

[49:07] know, just um how big of a headache are we a step up or two from where we were?

[49:11] I know we fixed some lift station issues and got rid of some lift stations that

[49:16] flooded out and did some other improvements.

[49:19] » Are we are we better prepared today than 2008? What would happen?

[49:26] » That's a trick question. >> I'd like to say, Jack, if we do get a

[49:29] big rainstorm, I'm going to blame you. >> What? So, if we do get a flooding

[49:34] rainstorm, I'm going to blame you for that question.

[49:38] » It's a trick question. And why I say that is because um every situation is

[49:42] different. So, um I was very familiar with 2008 cuz I had a flooded basement

[49:46] just like everybody else and I was sandbagging.

[49:49] Um what happened in 2008 is we had a very wet winter or a very snow covered

[49:54] winter between 2007 2008. Fall of 20ou 2007 was also there was a lot of rain in

[50:00] late summer fall of 2007. So we're very saturated, very high groundwater. Uh we

[50:06] went into a very heavy snow year. It melted in spring. We had actually a lot

[50:09] of uh in March of that year we had a lot of damage uh and high flooding because

[50:15] of all the ice jams. Everything broke up really quick. We had a lot of water. So

[50:18] again, I I this is burned in my brain so I know the answers to this. And so what

[50:22] happened is when we got to May, when that storm hit, it came over about a

[50:27] 3-day period and there was there was 14 in of rain, but it was already so

[50:31] saturated that it had kind of a compound effect.

[50:34] » Soaked in. >> So So it's hard to say like if we got 14

[50:37] in of rain today and it had been dry out for 30 days, there's a complete

[50:41] different result. Now what I can say is that have we made improvements

[50:45] throughout the system? Absolutely. Would that help? 100%. But again, to the

[50:50] degree of what that would help would really depend on all those situations

[50:54] that kind of build up around that storm event.

[50:57] » Too many variables. >> There's a lot of variables. So, last

[51:00] question. >> Um, do the comprehensive approach.

[51:07] How about if we did that for a couple years and then sunseted it? It might be

[51:13] the idea is it might be easier to sell if we sold a two or threeyear

[51:20] improvement storm water improvement program. We knew exactly what projects

[51:24] we wanted to do. We got a good idea how much it's going to cost. And when we get

[51:28] the work done, it's going to sunset.

[51:32] » Maybe you don't have to have an answer to this one here, but uh

[51:35] » that's your prerogative. That might be an easier cell because

[51:39] » it definitely would take two years. >> Continuous storm water

[51:44] » funding. >> There's way too many projects to get it

[51:47] done in a couple of years. >> All right. Three, four years.

[51:50] » Well, and and I just add that >> it's just an idea. I don't know if it's

[51:53] a good idea or not. >> Right. And but I also think communities

[51:55] that have created a storm water utility, I haven't seen any that have then all of

[52:00] a sudden disbanded their storm water utility.

[52:05] many have increased the amount that they're charging because

[52:10] what we've seen is costs increase. And when you develop this

[52:14] infrastructure, you have to have a way to maintain it.

[52:18] And so when you've created the maintenance through the storm water

[52:22] utility and now you say you're going to take the storm water utility away, now

[52:27] you've still got to maintain that infrastructure and now you're putting

[52:30] that on your general fund that is already stressed.

[52:35] And and so I understand, I agree, it would be a much more sellable

[52:40] proposition to say we're going to whether it's a fiveyear or 10-year, but

[52:45] I also think that puts you in a really tough spot at the end of that time

[52:49] period of how how you continue because it's not just

[52:56] it's not just the infrastructure and building new infrastructure.

[53:00] We are currently struggling to maintain and upkeep the infrastructure that we

[53:06] have.

[53:12] » Never mind. >> I think a good example too is we bought

[53:15] a street sweeper a couple years ago that wasn't bought through a storm water

[53:18] utility. It was bought by the DPW through the city general fund. But

[53:22] there's always going to be needs for those maintenance things even after you

[53:25] check the projects off. I think one >> a lot of communities to add to that will

[53:30] run their leaf collection program through the storm water utility and if

[53:34] we wanted to potentially upgrade to a leaf vacuum or a different

[53:39] way of collecting leaves that I know has been bantered around and talked about

[53:44] that could be a potential project of the stormwater utility or a partial funded

[53:48] project of the stormwater utility. >> Yeah.

[53:51] » I'm not out of line there am I Jason? Like that I'm guessing most communities

[53:55] are doing that. Yeah, leaves in the street are not generally good for storm

[53:59] water. Um,

[54:02] » I'm assuming the comprehensive plan is probably available on the website.

[54:05] » It is on the website. >> I think getting a look at that entire

[54:08] list and I'm assuming there's estimated costs that go with all the projects that

[54:12] would probably help Jack too if you saw the whole list.

[54:15] » Sorry. >> I think it's 400 pages long. So,

[54:19] » oh, quick read. >> It'll it'll it'll keep Jack busy.

[54:22] » That's why it was included in your packet. And and just to add to that, and

[54:27] Jason can clarify, I think a lot of those projects are things that I've

[54:31] heard people talking about in terms of dredging some of the creeks and and

[54:35] cleaning up. Those are projects in that listing, right?

[54:39] » Yeah. Cal capacities in there. Other things we put in there are uh just I

[54:43] mean, I'll give an example. I looked it up today, so I knew this answer tonight,

[54:47] but I thought this is a great example that it might come up is we do these uh

[54:51] re street reconstruction projects generally annually based on the city

[54:55] capital plans. Everybody wants their streets repaired. Well, I just look the

[54:59] the school street project. Everybody's familiar with the seven blocks we're

[55:02] reconstructing. There's $325,000 worth of storm sewer improvements on that job.

[55:06] So again, just an example of a cost that's being borrowed for that's not

[55:10] being funded out of a utility that could partially or fully be funded out of a

[55:14] utility. So again, those annual projects are occurring. So when you think about

[55:19] projects and we think about culverts and and creeks and dredging and, you know,

[55:23] big large diameter culverts and stuff like that, that doesn't preclude these

[55:27] street reconstruction projects from having significant storm costs, too. And

[55:30] obviously, we're doing those to repair our roads, but we're upgrading the storm

[55:34] sewers and replacing those in those projects as well. So again, just another

[55:37] example of a reoccurring need that we have now. Um, and that's list that'll be

[55:43] listed in comprehensive plan as a as a line item, but it just says annual

[55:46] stormwater reconstruction projects. So, but yeah, those are all incorporated

[55:51] into that report. My question would be or comment. Um,

[55:58] I don't know if we're going about it a little bit backwards.

[56:03] Um I know in that year um my backyard was

[56:09] water almost up to the house which is quite deep and I think the deer were in

[56:15] our backyard to give them relief from the deer pen that was flooded. But I

[56:22] know when now with the two parts of the park being opened up, I know now the

[56:30] bottleneck moved downstream like Joe could probably attest now. I think he

[56:36] gets more flooding at his place. Should we start at the end and work our

[56:43] way to the beginning? You know what I mean?

[56:46] » Yeah. Well, if you that that's perfect setup, Brooke. So, for example, if you

[56:50] look at that 2023 memo of priority projects, two of the priority projects

[56:53] are just that. We knew that, right? Like, if we do these projects, we're

[56:56] going to we're going to have to be very cognizant of the downstream flooding in

[56:59] Second Work Creek. One of the priority projects is increasing the culvert

[57:03] capacity under James Street. That is a bottleneck. Uh is and it it's a big

[57:09] culvert, but when we get those significant waters, that has no chance

[57:12] of carrying that water under the street. So, that backs it up before it actually

[57:16] breaches the street. I think it was just a few years ago. We had a very quick

[57:20] flash flood one night and there was water over top of James Street. I drove

[57:23] through there. I turn around, I come back and I couldn't get back. There was

[57:25] like a foot and a half of water like in 10 minutes that came over that street.

[57:29] So again, just an example of that's downstream. That's a priority project.

[57:33] That's actually number one. That's priority. I think number one on my

[57:35] entire list. Uh and then we had a project where we had looked at dredging

[57:39] that whole section from the mill pond all the way up through uh Quantis Park

[57:43] as a priority project. So, the idea was to open that up, make more capacity in

[57:48] there, uh, from a flood standpoint, but also conveyance standpoint, right? We

[57:51] need to be able to get that water down to the dam and and we've done a good job

[57:55] of monitoring the dam and knowing if rain is coming, we can draw that down.

[57:58] We can get the water in the mill pond lower to take that capacity. The problem

[58:01] is we can't get it through the system unless we make these improvements. So,

[58:04] yes, absolutely right. Those are on the priority list. So,

[58:07] » that James Street choke point though is a state responsibility, isn't it?

[58:13] Highway 16, Highway 16. >> Uh, yes. And what we would do is we'd

[58:16] work with the state to try and figure out how much we could get them to fund.

[58:20] That would be 100% correct. So, I don't know that's a boring 100% of our cost,

[58:24] but you know, uh, there is a project there that's a priority project that

[58:28] needs to be addressed. My other question would be on the Fuller

[58:33] Street. Now, I can't remember how far that went

[58:39] in, but eventually we're probably going to have

[58:43] to replace all the way past Senate. Correct.

[58:47] » You're just throwing darts at me tonight, aren't you? Um

[58:50] » I'm sorry. >> That is also on the priority project

[58:52] list. Yeah. So, we did replace it through Washington Park up to 73 and

[58:58] stopped. But two of the issues there is it's going to be very expensive to cross

[59:01] the state highway and once we get into the gas station property we're going to

[59:05] probably end up with contamination and mitigation and things over there too. Is

[59:09] that covered in great shape from where we connected down to where it discharges

[59:12] in Kuanas? No. >> It's on our priority list for sure.

[59:17] » You know I only ask because familiar you know growing up in that area.

[59:24] Um what are you had an implementation slide what would your timeline for that

[59:30] implementation be if we decided on something?

[59:34] Yeah, I mean obviously there's some pieces to that, right? So, um, so if

[59:39] there's a recommendation from here to council, council has to take action on

[59:42] it. I don't know how long that will take. You know, I don't know if that's a

[59:45] a cow or a public hearing or some other things they want to do there. That's

[59:48] really their prerogative. Uh, but assuming that everything can move

[59:51] forward, the actual rate structure we have from 2021, we built that the first

[59:57] time. So, for me to go in and change the erus and run some new numbers, we'd have

[1:00:01] to verify the the 3600 for erus, which I don't imagine's changed. Well, there's

[1:00:06] some businesses that have been built and changed. So, we'll have to update that.

[1:00:09] That's not going to take too long. Uh, but it's then just figuring out how to

[1:00:13] incorporate it into the billing process. However, the again, the community wants

[1:00:16] to do that. The ordinance update is going to take a little time. Uh, I don't

[1:00:20] know if it's realistic to assume it'll take a few months or more to get it

[1:00:24] through the process and get some changes made, assuming that it's got some

[1:00:27] priority in those other utilities or other

[1:00:32] communities. Sorry. You said that some of them do it monthly, quarterly, yearly

[1:00:37] on the tax bill. Um, Middleton does it quarterly. City of S Prairie does it

[1:00:41] monthly. How do they get it to their customer? Is it a separate bill? Is it

[1:00:45] on their utility bill with their other utilities? How are they getting

[1:00:49] » most people that are not putting on tax bill will build bill through the

[1:00:52] utility? >> Yeah.

[1:00:54] » Places I've lived >> other places I've lived, it's come on

[1:00:58] the monthly utility bill. >> Yeah,

[1:01:03] » I have a few questions. Uh, as far as the erus, I mean, you're talking mostly

[1:01:08] here about residential, but is there something in the ordinance already that

[1:01:12] addresses other zoning like commercial, industrial, things like that already, or

[1:01:17] does that need to be created? >> No. ERUS are for those non-residential

[1:01:21] properties are based off of uh the 3600 ft. So, again, we're the same principle.

[1:01:26] So, if we have somebody who's got 7,200, it's two eru. So, it's commercial. It's

[1:01:30] just based off of. So what we have to do is go in and actually calculate project

[1:01:34] or parcel by parcel on the commercials what their total impervious is and then

[1:01:38] we just divide that into the 3600 to give us an eru number. So it could be

[1:01:42] 2.4 erus or it could be 4.6. Um so we again we have that calculated for most

[1:01:48] of the commercial properties in the city right now. So it's just applying what

[1:01:52] the eru size is and just updating that in the rate study.

[1:01:55] » Imperous factor. >> Impervious factor. Yep.

[1:01:58] » Like roof versus lawn. >> Yep. Gravel. gravel, roofs, concrete,

[1:02:04] you know, those are the type of things that factor into it.

[1:02:08] » Um, the other two questions I have is, uh, what mechanism has changed that

[1:02:12] would allow this to happen now without a referendum or was it just knowledge at

[1:02:17] the time that the city >> Yeah, maybe Matt can speak more to that.

[1:02:21] I I might have botched that a little bit earlier, but no. Um,

[1:02:25] so when this was being discussed for the first time when I was here, I asked

[1:02:31] Ellers how all these communities are enacting storm water utilities without

[1:02:36] going to referendum. And what they shared was you have to

[1:02:42] take a negative levy le levy adjustment in the year you enact your storm water

[1:02:46] utility for whatever you spent from an operating standpoint in your operating

[1:02:52] budget in 2012 or 2013 whenever the law changed about having to go to

[1:02:57] referendum. Um and so I think that the difference is in 2020 2021 when that was

[1:03:05] discussed the the understanding was you had to take the negative levy adjustment

[1:03:10] for both your operating and capital and the correct information is you only have

[1:03:15] to take for what you spent in operating and so I think with capital it would

[1:03:21] have been in excess of $200,000 as a negative levy adjustment which we can't

[1:03:26] afford to do the operating expense is is roughly $14,000 and some change. That's

[1:03:33] a negative levy adjustment that I think we're willing to take as a one-time hit

[1:03:37] to be able to create this funding source for storm water.

[1:03:41] » And that doesn't limit your future ability for the amount that you're

[1:03:45] correct >> going to raise. Okay.

[1:03:46] » Yeah. >> Yep.

[1:03:47] » Um >> it's a one-time negative levy

[1:03:50] adjustment. >> All right. Um, the other question I

[1:03:53] guess is how did the council respond to this presentation when you got it in

[1:03:57] May? >> Oh gosh, that was back in May.

[1:04:01] » I mean, we're probably just making a recommendation to the council at this

[1:04:04] point. I'm I'm assuming, >> right?

[1:04:06] » I mean, Matt, you're going to have to help me here because my memory back to

[1:04:09] May is not well, but I don't remember it being contentious at all. It was more

[1:04:13] like we we want to send this to the utility commission. want to send it to

[1:04:18] utility commission for their input because obviously there are things that

[1:04:22] could impact the utility operation, right? The billing structure could

[1:04:26] potentially be an impact utility, but there's also um you know depending on

[1:04:32] where this goes, there's some advantages to creating it as well, right? Um so I I

[1:04:38] think there are some impacts here to the utility clearly that the council wanted

[1:04:41] input from the utility commission. As I've talked to council members, nobody

[1:04:47] wants to add another fee, but I I think the council is very in tune with some of

[1:04:53] our levy limit issues and concerns both at the operating budget level as well as

[1:05:00] borrowing. And the biggest thing that I'm talking to people that have

[1:05:04] questions about budget and what what challenges we're facing is the street

[1:05:09] project that used to cost 34 of a million now costs $3 million, right? And

[1:05:15] so people may not like this answer, but if we can take the 320,000

[1:05:22] out of the general fund borrowing and assign it to a storm water utility with

[1:05:26] a separate funding source, we can do more streets.

[1:05:31] And I think the number one thing the council heard last year during the

[1:05:35] budget is, "Please fix my street." And so we aggressively put a 10-year street

[1:05:41] plan together that is very different than past street plans. And Jason can

[1:05:45] talk about this. Our street program used to be we would do a major project and

[1:05:50] then we'd do like a mill and overlay or something smaller. And then we'd do a

[1:05:53] major project and then we'd do a smaller maintenance mill and overlay. We've now

[1:05:59] got 10 years stacked of we're going to do a major street project 10 years in a

[1:06:03] row. and and that we've got to stretch dollars as far as

[1:06:09] we can to be able to do that and be able to deliver the residents expectations of

[1:06:14] having their streets repaired. >> Yeah. And I think also to add to that,

[1:06:19] um, the council is is trying to stop kicking cans down the road, um, and

[1:06:26] trying to take care of needs. And the fact that storm water has been such a

[1:06:31] problem for so long and we just haven't been able to make a lot of progress up

[1:06:37] until like recently to show our commitment to it from a city perspective

[1:06:43] before we felt comfortable with being able to put in a utility. It's like

[1:06:48] we're showing we have a plan now and Jason um talked about that a little bit

[1:06:53] and we're doing some of these projects ourselves like see we find it important

[1:06:57] but we want to continue but we can't do it continue doing it that way long term

[1:07:04] » and and to answer one of Jack's earlier points I don't know that any community

[1:07:09] can handle a 14inch rainfall no matter how much storm water infrastructure you

[1:07:15] plan and manage for Um, I would say Middleton, where I worked, has done a

[1:07:20] great job of of implementing storm water infrastructure, and we got a 14-inch

[1:07:25] rainfall over a 12-h hour period of time, and it it was a war zone.

[1:07:31] » So, my thought is, how does this affect the utilities? I mean, it almost seems

[1:07:40] like it it's more of a DPW issue than

[1:07:45] um water um electric sewer type. >> Originally, when when this commission

[1:07:51] was created, there there was the intent of having a storm water utility under

[1:07:55] it, which has been created, but there's no funding for it. So,

[1:07:58] » your your ordinance clear currently states that you manage the storm water

[1:08:03] utility that is an unfunded utility. So the funding is just coming from

[1:08:07] somewhere else.

[1:08:11] » Yep. >> So

[1:08:17] » the the streets issue is not going to go away. When I ran for city council in

[1:08:21] 2013, that was a hot button item and it's 2026.

[1:08:26] » Um so I'm all for it. My main concern is that

[1:08:31] I I'd be happy to make a recommendation to the council, but when the word gets

[1:08:35] out that there's going to be a fee, um I remember doing that once when I was

[1:08:40] mayor and there were people from all over the state emailing me, how dare you

[1:08:43] do this. So, there's got to be some bravery on the council when it gets that

[1:08:47] far. That's the only reason I'm asking what the mechanism is at this point. So,

[1:08:52] » well, and I think we've already been seeing that, you know, but I think a lot

[1:08:56] of the problem is is it's misinformation or lack of information that's being

[1:09:02] shared with the community. And that's something else we've also been trying to

[1:09:08] um increase within council and with, you know, awareness to the community, kind

[1:09:13] of like what we're doing with the public safety building and stuff like that. But

[1:09:16] the problem is is getting people to show up. you know, you can build it, but it

[1:09:21] depends if they come or not. So, the opportunities to learn and understand

[1:09:28] um don't outweigh people just wanting to complain.

[1:09:34] » I think the projects in Fireman's Park are a great example, though. I mean, I

[1:09:38] think you guys were out there potholeing 10 or 12 years ago because we knew there

[1:09:42] was an issue and it takes a long time to get those done. But I think anybody that

[1:09:46] goes to the parks or to the school sees that project and the people that live in

[1:09:50] that area know that the flooding has been mitigated somewhat um that maybe

[1:09:55] they'd be on more on board now as well. But you know that project all got paid

[1:09:59] from somewhere and you had to take something else out of the budget or the

[1:10:03] borrowing to do that. >> And that project was a lot more visual

[1:10:07] and in your face. It's the projects that >> the storm water that gets put underneath

[1:10:13] every street that you're >> pretty things that you know that it's

[1:10:16] hard to see benefits from. The other thing is is like everybody that's had

[1:10:21] flooding problems >> wants it to be fixed, but everybody that

[1:10:27] doesn't have flooding problems don't want to pay for the people that have

[1:10:30] flooding problems to have it fixed. So, um you have that and I think you're

[1:10:35] going to have that no matter what. >> Yeah. was my question about the er. I

[1:10:40] mean, obviously, if you live on a hill, flooding is not an issue. If you live at

[1:10:43] the bottom of the hill, it's more of an issue, but you're both paying the same

[1:10:47] amount if you have the same size home because eventually you're going to have

[1:10:50] to drive down the hill to go to the grocery store. You know, the

[1:10:53] infrastructure is affected. All that stuff is affected.

[1:10:56] » Exactly. My house is is pretty high up. My sump pump has never ran once since

[1:11:01] I've lived here. Um, and just like a block down the road, if it's just spring

[1:11:09] and there isn't even rain and I'm walking around, I hear people some pumps

[1:11:13] running nonstop and spitting water out. So, um, I think I think just people have

[1:11:20] to be better better neighbors and, you know, and be concerned about everybody.

[1:11:26] » I ran into this problem a lot when I was working. I founded a lot of storm sewer

[1:11:32] projects. We squeezed it down to a real easy

[1:11:36] concept. We all live in this drainage basin

[1:11:40] together. >> And so when they complain about, I live

[1:11:44] in the hill, oh, I don't have to pay. You tell them, no, you're part of the

[1:11:47] drainage basin, too. >> You the water's running off of your roof

[1:11:51] just as much as running off everybody else's roof.

[1:11:53] » Yeah, Sandy, >> everything goes downhill.

[1:11:58] First of all, I I fully support funding a a storm water utility. One of the

[1:12:02] things that you said tonight that I hadn't considered was that utility bills

[1:12:06] would go to the renter versus if it was on the tax bill, it would go to the

[1:12:12] owner. And I think that having it go to the owner seems more appropriate because

[1:12:17] they have more control over what the what the impervious surface is on that

[1:12:22] property. But it kind of goes against what is

[1:12:26] intuitive to have it be a utility on a utility bill.

[1:12:29] » Yeah. Certainly that's a drawback of the utility bills, right? Because utility

[1:12:32] bills can vary. I mean, some landlords pay them and work it into the rent.

[1:12:35] Others are go directly to the renter and stuff. And so that's that's always the

[1:12:39] decision of well then how do you how do you decide

[1:12:43] how to get that to the right person, which is the owner? And a lot of cases,

[1:12:47] you're you're right. I mean, we have a lot of owners that don't even live in

[1:12:50] the city. Um, but yet it's their property that's contributing. So, is

[1:12:55] there is there a way to to to mitigate that? I don't I don't know. I guess that

[1:12:59] would be something we'd have to look into. And I don't know if you have any

[1:13:02] thoughts on that, Matt, but I mean I mean I have my unsolicited two cents

[1:13:07] on it. Um, I would say even if the owner is out of the city, they're not the one

[1:13:13] utilizing the infrastructure within the city and the renter is. The other thing

[1:13:17] is is I selfishly as a council member do not want to raise the taxes again

[1:13:24] because we get beat up nonstop for that and we have the public safety building

[1:13:29] come up that is inevitably going to raise the taxes. So I selfishly want it

[1:13:35] on the utility because it's easier to explain as a utility than people getting

[1:13:41] a one-time lump sum once a year. I can see that. Um, but it's the owner's

[1:13:47] equity that's being protected by the storm water utility.

[1:13:54] Yes and no. Because like for me, the storm water utility isn't raising my

[1:13:59] equity at all. But if I was renting to somebody and I didn't live in the city,

[1:14:04] I would say, well, they're using the infrastructure, they're using the parks,

[1:14:07] they're using the roads, and the storm water utility protects all of that, and

[1:14:12] they're using it, not me. I see what you're saying. I don't agree,

[1:14:17] but I see what you're saying. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I feel like it could

[1:14:20] go either way. I mean, you can put an argument on either side. I just think

[1:14:25] that it would be

[1:14:28] easily consumable on a utility bill versus taxes.

[1:14:35] » Point made. I think that regardless implementation on a utility bill will

[1:14:40] cause questions and frustrations because they've had an electric rate increase, a

[1:14:45] water rate increase. We're talking about a sewer rate increase, and now you're

[1:14:48] going to add the weight, sorry, storm sewer utility fee on there. Um, and then

[1:14:55] you have a small group of people that are fielding those questions as well and

[1:14:58] are going to get beat up constantly. I'm not disagreeing with the storm water

[1:15:02] utility because I do agree that managing the storm water is a huge huge need in

[1:15:07] this city but try not to discount that the people that are going to be

[1:15:11] implementing it are also going to get beat up pretty badly once they implement

[1:15:15] it and that will be a challenge on how they're going to implement it. That's

[1:15:18] not going to be easy either. >> And I totally understand that. I also

[1:15:23] think that our utilities are very reasonably priced still even after rate

[1:15:28] increases that we might want to do some education on that too. I think no matter

[1:15:33] which way you implement it, you're going to have to do education on it. But um

[1:15:39] you know just >> just considering that

[1:15:42] » I just add like I think part of our strategy with the utility rates have

[1:15:46] been we want to do small incremental frequent increases as opposed to large

[1:15:51] step increases that you're seeing in the news in other utility operations

[1:15:57] throughout the state where they haven't raised and now they're making big jumps.

[1:16:00] And um I think the reality is is is the cost for everyone is increasing and

[1:16:07] nobody wants to see increases. But I I I'm not aware of any community out there

[1:16:12] that's magically not increasing their costs of operating whether it's their

[1:16:16] utilities that you know or other facets of the city.

[1:16:21] » Is there a way to split it like 50% on the tax bill, 50% on a monthly basis?

[1:16:28] that way. They're kind of both. It covers both. It hits the homeowner.

[1:16:35] Well, if you are a homeowner, it hits you get it 100% no matter what. But if

[1:16:40] you're renting, you only pay for your portion and it as a property owner,

[1:16:47] you're only paying for your portion. And my second comment would be everybody

[1:16:53] that's running for election right now, you hear them, they're trying to limit

[1:16:58] these how much we can raise our rates. What is going to happen then? You know

[1:17:06] what I mean? You want my response to that question?

[1:17:11] They're great electable issues that people always talk about and the

[1:17:14] implementation of them is not realistic. >> Right.

[1:17:17] » I understand that. I would it be like an oversight

[1:17:23] nightmare of the storm water utility to bill it 50/50 and take more staff

[1:17:28] resources than just to have it on one or the other?

[1:17:31] » It's an interesting concept that I don't think that I've contemplated and I think

[1:17:35] there's some legal questions and some un unanswered questions that I think we

[1:17:40] would need to get answers on. I actually had the same thought for this reason is

[1:17:45] that if you split the cost, the cost that's on your utility bill is minimal

[1:17:50] and also on your tax bill. When you look at how much you pay for garbage and

[1:17:53] recycling, that's not my taxes going up. There's a fixed cost that goes with that

[1:17:57] and that can vary based upon contracts. >> But if you had that small charge,

[1:18:01] » I really like that you just said that because I've not heard it from anybody

[1:18:04] else. They view it as their taxes going up, not the cost of

[1:18:07] » You can't include that as your total taxes when you file. I'm just saying.

[1:18:11] Yep, I know. But I recognize that. But anyway, I think if you saw a storm water

[1:18:16] bill for $60 a year next to garbage and recycling for $200 and some dollars, I

[1:18:22] think I don't think you'd get a whole lot of people angry about that. So, if

[1:18:27] we could do a hybrid, but that would be up to the council ultimately.

[1:18:31] That's my assumption. Well, I mean, I think the council would want

[1:18:33] recommendation though from from you all and and they would

[1:18:39] then agree or disagree or you know >> um but we could always I mean you could

[1:18:46] always and I don't know Matt how you feel about this. I mean if everybody

[1:18:51] feels strongly about you could give an option like we would prefer to do it

[1:18:56] 50/50. Let's say everybody's okay with that, but if that's not legally possible

[1:19:02] or not just doesn't make sense, you know, fiscally, then we would prefer XYZ

[1:19:08] and then like give at least a second option. I don't know.

[1:19:11] » Sure. >> I mean, my assumption is the the garbage

[1:19:15] and recycling fee that comes in on the tax bill, that's in a segregated

[1:19:19] account. It's not mixed in with the general fund. It's it can't go anywhere

[1:19:22] else. So, it would have to go to the to the new utility. It's its own special

[1:19:26] revenue fund is how the garbage recycling is set up.

[1:19:29] » Okay. >> Uh what specifically are you looking

[1:19:34] from us tonight? Like a yes or a no overall or like which version of this to

[1:19:39] give a recommendation? Um I think I think what council would be

[1:19:44] looking for is you know Jason had a low a medium and a high example a

[1:19:50] recommendation there and then if there is a recommendation on the billing

[1:19:54] structure as Molly talked about I think those are are two um valuable things for

[1:19:59] the council to consider. Do you know what mechanism would be involved if we

[1:20:04] do move forward with this to adjust those rates after it's created? After

[1:20:09] the fund is created,

[1:20:13] » this has been bantered by the council and these discussions too and um

[1:20:20] I don't know that there's been any concrete discussion on on how that is

[1:20:25] dealt with. I I think what you're referencing is um some kind of built-in

[1:20:31] escalator or some kind of builtin um control mechanism that doesn't allow

[1:20:36] the rate to to increase significantly or >> not really uh just I think since it's

[1:20:42] new yeah >> is that if you implement kind of at the

[1:20:45] base level which is way more than we have right now it's a separate funding

[1:20:50] source and then you incrementally bring it up a little bit the first couple

[1:20:54] years to take the sting out of it. >> Yeah.

[1:20:56] » I'd rather do that personally. >> Yeah.

[1:20:59] » Than say, let's go for the gusto and do the the gold package. That's just me.

[1:21:04] » Yeah. I >> Others may feel differently.

[1:21:07] » And my my whole thing on this is the the past approach was let's let's create

[1:21:13] this to have it, but we don't know what it's going to do, right? And I I think

[1:21:19] to for me to be able to sell this to the public is here's the projects it's going

[1:21:23] to accomplish. here's the schedule that we're going to accomplish them and that

[1:21:27] the rate makes sense based on what we want to accomplish for the utility.

[1:21:32] » Yeah, I think the council had more concerns with the rate changing

[1:21:37] frequently than a rate that has been confirmed is the rate we need to pick

[1:21:43] the projects to be charged from the beginning. So, um I think that there is

[1:21:48] definitely a desire to have that number figured out and solid from the

[1:21:53] beginning.

[1:21:56] Lori, >> how I mean I I guess I struggle with

[1:21:59] that because like we talked about a road this year costs this much, a road next

[1:22:02] year cost this much. Storm water is going to be the same. In your ordinance,

[1:22:06] can you write in there every 3 years you're increasing it this percentage due

[1:22:11] to inflation or what have you, but have it

[1:22:16] set ahead of time and that you're not doing it every year per inflation, but

[1:22:20] every couple of years for inflation. I you can set it, but it'd be unrealistic

[1:22:26] to think that you're going to be able to keep it at the same level.

[1:22:29] » Oh, for sure. I meant just it not increasing for like three or four years

[1:22:33] in a row, ramping up. We wouldn't want that. But we council does want in the

[1:22:38] ordinance that clarified like how do you how do you justify an increase because

[1:22:43] of inflation in the future and stuff like that?

[1:22:46] » And who would be responsible for the rate increases? Is it this commission or

[1:22:50] is it the city council because we have to adjust the utility rates here?

[1:22:55] » Well, I think it would be utilities making a recommendation to council

[1:23:01] » just like it is now. >> Okay.

[1:23:07] » Um my opinion on the matter is the funding scenario too. Um I think that

[1:23:12] you might as well start out right in the middle. Get the money going. Get it

[1:23:16] taken care of. Um, I'm split on whether it should go on a utility bill or a tax

[1:23:21] bill. I really am. I don't know. I mean, I understand the implic implementation

[1:23:26] imple, you know what I'm trying to say, implications of both. I was like, you

[1:23:30] know what I'm trying to say, of both. So, I I don't know how I feel one way or

[1:23:33] another on that. So, I'm not going to provide that. But I do think that this

[1:23:36] is absolutely necessary within the city just like roads and everything else. So,

[1:23:41] I'm recommending funding scenario two.

[1:23:46] I'm also good with funding scenario too, but you all know my opinion on where it

[1:23:51] comes from.

[1:23:57] » Getting the opinions down here on which version?

[1:24:01] » Two is fine. I I still think we should do a 5050.

[1:24:07] » I think that >> is the preference if that's um frowned

[1:24:10] upon. >> I don't Why would it be frowned upon?

[1:24:14] We haven't talked to lawyers or the impact on city staff. I mean, if it's

[1:24:19] going to cost us >> x amount of dollars to even implement a

[1:24:23] 50/50, the juice might not be worth the squeeze, you know?

[1:24:27] » I mean, wouldn't it all go to the same fund anyways? I mean, so it's just a

[1:24:32] matter of how it's collected. >> I mean, maybe, but support and questions

[1:24:39] are going to come to more city staff than just one area.

[1:24:43] I would opt for simplicity, accountability,

[1:24:49] transparency. If you start splitting it up, we're

[1:24:53] getting 25% from there and 10% from there. And then then it gets confusing

[1:24:58] like, well, whose obligation is it? Now, $10 a month for storm sewer

[1:25:04] function, it's people can swallow that on their utility

[1:25:08] bill. Okay, we got we had this utility bill

[1:25:11] for six years now. We're finally going to run around, put some money in there

[1:25:15] so we can do some more things and fix the streets in two. And um

[1:25:22] yeah, they're going to cry. I mean, I don't blame them. I don't like my tax

[1:25:24] bill and but uh I don't know how you can get

[1:25:29] around it. How about if we don't build a brand new public safety building? Let's

[1:25:33] take that one off. You know how much time I put into uh

[1:25:39] selling the historic preservation district? Now they're going to like get

[1:25:43] rid of city hall. You know how much time I put in trying to

[1:25:47] » That's a topic. >> Well, I'm trying to get

[1:25:50] » it creates a whole lot of room if you >> We can go round and round and round

[1:25:54] another day on that, but not today. >> Sandy, do you have a preference?

[1:25:58] » I also would prefer scenario two. Um, and I

[1:26:04] I understand the simplicity of putting it on the utility bill. I also

[1:26:08] understand the simplicity of putting on the tax bill. There's um, but I I get

[1:26:14] the 50/50, too. I I do think that if we do the 5050, people will see it as

[1:26:20] double dipping. And I wonder

[1:26:24] » I understand what you're saying and that was kind of a thought,

[1:26:29] but if it's explained properly, you know,

[1:26:35] it would be to a user fee and basically an owner portion, I guess, more or less.

[1:26:45] » Okay, >> that's the way I I would look at it.

[1:26:47] » And that makes perfect sense. >> Yeah.

[1:26:53] I I like scenario number two as well. And I'm still leaning on the hybrid. And

[1:26:58] here's another reason. If you put it on the tax bill, it has to get paid. If you

[1:27:04] don't pay for your trash and recycling and you just short your tax bill by

[1:27:08] $272, you haven't paid your taxes. So, it's always collectible. Utility bills

[1:27:14] are different. Um, if you decide you don't want to pay

[1:27:19] that $10 and you short your bill every month $10, who's not getting the $10?

[1:27:24] You're paying one bill. So, I think having the hybrid, if it's a

[1:27:28] possibility, I think it looks better. Like, if if the

[1:27:33] the property owner is getting the tax bill and the renters's not, then they

[1:27:36] have to pay their portion and it makes those both of those numbers a little bit

[1:27:40] smaller. But, I'm not going to get hung up on that. I just think that might be a

[1:27:44] good way to approach it and let council kind of talk to staff and find out what

[1:27:49] is possible and what's not possible. And if it's a logistical nightmare to do it,

[1:27:53] then let the council decide.

[1:27:58] So is the recommendation then if it's a logistical because it seems like the

[1:28:01] majority want the 50/50 split or not a preference, but if it's a logistical

[1:28:06] nightmare, you don't want to give a second preference. You just you want to

[1:28:11] leave it up to council. >> The council Yeah. I mean, ultimately you

[1:28:14] guys decide that stuff. I mean, there's so many other things to consider. I

[1:28:17] mean, this is a benefit to the utilities, but it's also a benefit to

[1:28:21] the city by freeing up more general funds.

[1:28:25] » Yeah. I guess I would like everybody to agree that they would leave it then for

[1:28:28] council to decide versus a recommendation because I think that's

[1:28:32] risky um in doing that because you may not like what council chooses.

[1:28:37] » Oh, if we make a recommendation, you don't have to follow it. I mean, that's

[1:28:40] what a recommendation is, right? Yeah. >> Right. But right, I'm I guess I would

[1:28:46] just be hoping as council to have if the recommendation is 5050 and it turns out

[1:28:52] to be a logistical nightmare, I would worry that council may send it back to

[1:28:58] utility asking what is a better what's the second option. I'm not saying it

[1:29:03] will happen, but it could happen because the new structure that we have is that

[1:29:09] if something can be handled in a committee or commission, we would like

[1:29:12] that to happen and then a recommendation to council because the committee and the

[1:29:17] commission is the quote unquote experts of the area. So, I'm just

[1:29:24] » sure.

[1:29:29] » Well, shoot. I'll go ahead and make a motion funding

[1:29:34] recommend

[1:29:38] » and then that's it. >> You don't want to

[1:29:42] » Well, and then Well, I would then like to see a recommendation to council that

[1:29:46] they pick the way that they fund it then if you're not going to offer a

[1:29:49] recommendation on how it's funded because otherwise council will be like,

[1:29:54] "Okay, well, how are we supposed to fund it?" And again, I worry it's going to

[1:29:58] get kicked back. >> I'll move funding scenario number two,

[1:30:04] putting$120 to $150 per EU on the utility.

[1:30:13] » Second. >> All right, we've got a motion, a second

[1:30:17] to make a recommendation to city council for scenario number two with no

[1:30:23] recommendation as far as the billing. He said on the utility bill.

[1:30:27] » Utility bill. >> Oh, utility bill. Sorry, I didn't hear

[1:30:29] that. With the recommendation that it's on the utility bill.

[1:30:34] » Do we have a roll call on this one? >> Is there any other discussion on the

[1:30:37] motion? >> No.

[1:30:40] » What uh I guess Matt, what

[1:30:46] what's easiest to collect? Is it easier to collect taxes or is it easy to

[1:30:50] collect billing?

[1:30:54] my opinion is billing. It's uh straightforward. We have a system down

[1:30:58] for it and and we have steps to take when it's not being paid or collected.

[1:31:04] So, fair enough. >> Any other discussion? If none, let's

[1:31:10] take a roll call then. >> Andler.

[1:31:14] I Sanderson. >> Hi.

[1:31:18] » F. I >> Tol.

[1:31:20] » Hi, >> Curtis. I

[1:31:23] » I >> unanimous got through that.

[1:31:27] » Amen.

[1:31:31] » They weren't intended to be >> appcate all.

[1:31:37] » Thank you, Jason. >> Take care, Jason. Good to see you.

[1:31:39] » Bye.

[1:31:46] All right, we're going to move on to item number six then next, which is

[1:31:50] consider and take action on the substation 2 water street transformer

[1:31:53] purchase. There is information in our packets about that with the bits that

[1:31:58] were received. So,

[1:32:02] substation 2 upgrade. This project was approved by the council in 2024

[1:32:08] and it is I believe and it is starting to come together. Uh materials are being

[1:32:14] procured. You'll see in the packet that uh we had

[1:32:19] put out to bid for transformers. Transformers are extremely expensive

[1:32:23] now, especially the size we need for substations.

[1:32:27] Um, we received five bids, I believe, and

[1:32:34] the consulting engineer that we use a great deal, Forester, has recommended

[1:32:40] that of the two lowest bids, we actually go award the contract to the second

[1:32:46] lowest bidder because we find we feel that the greater value is with that

[1:32:52] product that they supply. Um,

[1:32:56] » sure. >> I got to ask a question on were these

[1:33:01] solicited as quotes or through a formal bidding process?

[1:33:06] » Through the formal bidding process. >> So my understanding is when you do a

[1:33:12] formal bidding process in the state of Wisconsin, you're required to take the

[1:33:15] low bid unless you've prevetted your vendors.

[1:33:20] » Unless what? >> If it's an RFB, yes, you have to take

[1:33:23] the lowest bid. If it's an RF >> Q

[1:33:26] » Q, then you can take the person that's most qualified and doesn't necessarily

[1:33:32] have to be the lowest bid. So if it was an RFB, you have to take lowest.

[1:33:36] » Well, I'll have to find out then. It was my understanding. I mean, I don't think

[1:33:43] » and and and I'm going to clarify this as there may be different rules for

[1:33:47] utilities than for the city. I I I will state that, but it as the city, we're

[1:33:52] not allowed to um not take the low bid on a bidded project.

[1:34:01] Okay. I wasn't prepared for that question, I'm afraid. Um

[1:34:06] I have at other times, well, many many times in my career in utilities, we do

[1:34:12] not necessarily always take the lowest bidder because it is not the greatest

[1:34:15] value. Um, many projects can be very under bid.

[1:34:20] So, I'll have to get that answer. Um,

[1:34:25] » can I say something real quick? >> Yes.

[1:34:27] » I'm sorry. You made Jason stay, but we've had Rukard and Milky

[1:34:32] » review bids for us in the past for other projects

[1:34:35] » and then they do this similar thing that Forester did for us here. Has Rrooker

[1:34:40] and Milky ever suggested that we don't take the lowest bidder for any sort of

[1:34:46] cause? I don't trying to be as general to not like you know you know what I'm

[1:34:51] trying to ask. >> Yeah.

[1:34:53] » Have we done this before in a different situation with utilities? The way that

[1:34:58] I've always approached it in my 20s some years with municipalities is it has to

[1:35:02] be the lowest respons lowest responsible bidder and responsible bidder is clearly

[1:35:07] defined as somebody who meets all the qualifications. So if they meet all the

[1:35:10] qualifications then you have to basically take the low bid. If it's

[1:35:14] nonresponsible means maybe you've had experience with

[1:35:18] them where they've defaulted on something in the past where they had a

[1:35:20] contract with you or done something. There are grounds or exceptions to that

[1:35:25] in in my understanding that can be made, but that's only if you have again those

[1:35:31] pre-qualifications identified up front for the biders when they submit. So

[1:35:34] again, there there is some I think ways that we've done it. Um but again, I know

[1:35:41] there's some risk in it and there's always some debate of whether you can

[1:35:45] accept something that's not low and on based on what grounds. So, I've ran

[1:35:49] across it a few times, but I can't say that I've ever made a recommendation

[1:35:53] that isn't lowest. >> Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the

[1:35:57] spot on your topic. >> One way to avoid this in the future is

[1:36:01] if you have a particular brand that you want used, call that out in your RFB

[1:36:08] because then you can just get bids from people that use a certain brand.

[1:36:14] Well, just for a little further explanation, it it was more of we had to

[1:36:19] make a decision for the products that were submitted

[1:36:23] um on what is going to provide the city in a greater capacity if we

[1:36:31] grow. If we felt that

[1:36:36] um our load requirements would stay the same for the next 20 years as they are

[1:36:40] in 2026, then we would be very comfortable going with the lowest bid.

[1:36:45] The second lowest bidder though is offering a product that allows for

[1:36:50] greater capacity growth. And so Dalton and I made the decision

[1:36:57] that we feel Columbus is on the brink of growing and this is going to serve us

[1:37:04] better long after my career is over.

[1:37:08] So that was the background of it. I'm thinking now that

[1:37:13] I should pull this and uh if it doesn't come back to commission it's because

[1:37:18] this was indeed a bid. So >> well and if I can add something as far

[1:37:22] as the lowest responsible bidder goes uh the reason that we're going with Walka

[1:37:27] as well is different capabilities of the transformer as opposed uh to the

[1:37:32] Virginia. Now while they do have and make kind of what we're looking for it's

[1:37:39] better supported through Waka. What we're going to is right now in our

[1:37:44] substation we have voltage regulators. Essentially, it's a unit after the

[1:37:49] transformer regulates the voltage tap changes um as needs arise for lower

[1:37:55] higher voltages. What we're going to now with this larger transformer is what's

[1:38:00] called an LTC, a load tap changer, which is in my opinion and forers as well

[1:38:05] better supported through WacaWaw as far as service, sales, dependability, things

[1:38:11] of that nature. So, I get the lowest responsible bidder

[1:38:16] thing, but I don't think this is a fight that Virginia would be willing to get

[1:38:21] into. I mean, these transformers are bought and sold all over the United

[1:38:26] States all the time. I don't think that one transformer here is much to pay

[1:38:32] attention to. I don't know my opinion on that.

[1:38:34] » It's law though, unfortunately. >> Responsible bidder. Like, how do you

[1:38:39] define that? Is there labor involved in this project?

[1:38:42] » Yes, >> by the vendor.

[1:38:45] » Um, labor by the vendor? No. Now, they will have somebody on site to review

[1:38:52] » and like ensure it's being installed, but the labor itself is not by the

[1:38:56] vendor. No. >> So, if it's a materials purchase, you

[1:38:58] are not required to go low bit. If labor is involved, you and the labor exceeds

[1:39:05] now $50,000 because of the change in state law that went from 25 to 50. If

[1:39:11] labor exceeds 50, then you're required to go low bit.

[1:39:16] » I'm a little surprised that Forester didn't catch this.

[1:39:19] » Yes, sir. So am I. >> Well, my other question is, are all of

[1:39:23] these transformers apples to apples? Are they all within the specs of the bid

[1:39:27] that you put out? You said that the walk shaw one will be able to allow the city

[1:39:32] to grow, but what were the specs of the bid that was put out?

[1:39:36] » That's the sticking point. If you guys weren't specific to that in the bid, you

[1:39:40] can't choose it later. >> What do you mean?

[1:39:44] » We're hiring we're hiring a forester to figure all that out for us. We can get

[1:39:50] really deep into the weeds on an electrical transformer. This can get

[1:39:54] complicated. Do you want to debate that? Now, I've whenever I've gone out in the

[1:39:59] field and audit projects, the most problematic ones were always at the

[1:40:04] lowest bid. You know, we got a professional telling

[1:40:08] us, you know, buy the walkie shaw one. It's a better deal.

[1:40:12] » I'm good with that. It's getting late. >> We're not arguing that, Jack. We're

[1:40:17] stating state law. >> Well, they're going to figure that out.

[1:40:20] » We have to comply with >> I know. Yeah, but Ry's going to go check

[1:40:24] that out and figure it out. And if they require us to take a low bid, you know,

[1:40:28] well, I guess our hands are tied. But, >> you know, we don't have to figure that

[1:40:33] out. Revise your >> So, the these are all comparables. These

[1:40:37] are apples to apples across the board. All the specifications are the same

[1:40:41] throughout. This is the way the bid came in. And with Matt saying it's the

[1:40:46] material and this is strictly a material purchase. Does that apply?

[1:40:54] I feel like what we should be doing is moving this recommendation forward from

[1:41:00] Forester and if Forester did something inappropriate, they're going to notify

[1:41:03] staff and then we have to figure it out from there. We're not doing anything

[1:41:06] wrong by taking this recommendation from Forester.

[1:41:09] » Is Forester liable if if it breaks um >> they went through the bidding

[1:41:14] procurement process. >> They should know the bidding process.

[1:41:17] » How >> I mean if they're accountable, sure,

[1:41:20] that's a valid thing. But my experience is it's not the vendor that's

[1:41:24] accountable. It's the it's the city or the state that's accountable.

[1:41:29] » I don't know directly that answer. How would we hold them accountable?

[1:41:32] » That's why I'm saying they can't be accountable. It's it's were the

[1:41:35] accountable one. >> But if it's purely material, maybe it's

[1:41:38] not an argument that is even there. I'm I'm going to throw out a recommendation

[1:41:44] that maybe helps this move along is make make your motion to approve Waka Shaw

[1:41:51] pending city attorney review. >> Perfect.

[1:42:01] » May I can't make the motion. >> I can't make a motion.

[1:42:05] » That's probably illegal. >> I'll move to approve MC Sales Walka. um

[1:42:12] after verification with city attorney that we can choose them versus the

[1:42:18] lowest bid. >> I'll still second.

[1:42:22] » All right. There's a motion and a second to approve MC sales of Wakaaw the amount

[1:42:28] of 1.868,226

[1:42:32] for the purchase of a transformer with approval of the city attorney.

[1:42:40] Any discussion on the motion?

[1:42:45] We'll need a roll call on that, but we are missing one member right now.

[1:42:50] » You take the vote and if they're back, does that work?

[1:42:54] » Yep. >> Fry

[1:42:56] » I. >> Tom,

[1:42:57] » I >> Curtis

[1:42:59] » I >> Fininkler

[1:43:00] » I >> Handler I

[1:43:03] » Sanderson will say

[1:43:13] Yes or no? >> We're waiting on you for your vote.

[1:43:16] » We took a vote. >> What do we have another?

[1:43:18] » We took a vote to to award it to Walka with the approval of the city attorney.

[1:43:23] Basic contingent. >> I'll vote for Walkaw.

[1:43:25] » Okay. >> Got a yes.

[1:43:27] » Y Sanderson. >> I I guess I

[1:43:33] » motion's approved.

[1:43:44] All right, let's move on to number seven. Consider and take action on

[1:43:47] electric lead lineman proposed updated wage scale. So, as everyone knows, we

[1:43:52] have hired Mr. Highley here as our assistant director. This has left a

[1:43:56] vacancy for our uh department lead, electric department lead. Um, and we are

[1:44:03] about to post this position, but the market out there right now in our

[1:44:10] area for the lead in some cities, they call it Foreman still, is considerably

[1:44:17] higher. They've had some cola adjustments since Columbus had set their

[1:44:21] wage scale. So in order to stay competitive uh in this very competitive

[1:44:27] market which I've discussed with the commission before um I am proposing or

[1:44:32] asking your permission to uh increase our wage range now from initially it was

[1:44:38] 58.95 I believe was a ceiling and now we are

[1:44:42] requesting that the ceiling be 6095. Uh that does not mean we that's what we

[1:44:46] would start the new lead at but that would be their salary range that they

[1:44:51] could expect.

[1:44:54] Yes. Yes.

[1:45:00] » I make a motion to accept the wage range for the electric lead lineman proposed

[1:45:06] updated wage scale. >> I will second.

[1:45:10] » All right. We got a motion, a second to approve the uh wage range adjustment

[1:45:16] um as given by Randy. Any discussion on the motion?

[1:45:21] If none let's take a roll call on this please.

[1:45:23] » Tom >> I

[1:45:24] » Curtis >> I

[1:45:26] » Finler >> I

[1:45:27] » Handler >> I

[1:45:29] » Sanderson >> I

[1:45:30] » Fry >> I

[1:45:32] » could I just ask one question about the position description. We don't mention

[1:45:36] anywhere at all the the assistant utility director as being part of the

[1:45:41] hierarchy and the and seeing that was that's a newly created position and you

[1:45:46] might want them to be >> yes

[1:45:49] » somewhere in that hierarchy >> they answer to this yes that's a very

[1:45:52] good point >> so just an idea

[1:45:55] » we'll we'll make that change

[1:46:00] » I'm going to take the screen Yep.

[1:46:07] » All right. On to the fun one. Consider, discuss, and take possible

[1:46:12] action on email sent from Fall River Village President on July 30th, 2026

[1:46:17] regarding the outstanding Arers O2 Columbus utilities.

[1:46:22] We've had this conversation a couple meetings ago.

[1:46:27] Yes, we have. I'm sorry. And let me open up

[1:46:31] just some data that I want to share with commission. I wanted to bring this to

[1:46:34] commission because the president of Fall River did reach out specifically to the

[1:46:42] commissioners and he did mention my name. Um so I want to make some u

[1:46:48] clarifications here. Uh this was the last email sent by the president of Fall

[1:46:55] River. um the areas I've highlighted um he has completely misrepresented the

[1:47:01] actual circumstances and I want to go through those four and just explain to

[1:47:06] um the commission why this is not realistic what he has been saying um

[1:47:15] so this is a timeline of when this whole thing started when I started here at

[1:47:20] Columbus one of the first tasks we took on was doing a rate case for sanitary

[1:47:26] sewer uh because of we found some problems with our financial situation in

[1:47:32] sanitary and so we did a rate case and during that rate case we discovered that

[1:47:37] Fall River had not been built properly for the last four years. Um we then on

[1:47:43] March 1st of this year u myself Matt Jason uh our business manager Michelle

[1:47:51] and Mayor Hammer all met with Mr. Slottton and his staff and uh presented

[1:47:58] to them our rate case and then during that conversation we explained to him

[1:48:03] that there was an error in um the billing. Um we apologized for the

[1:48:10] air but we explained how this was an error service was provided

[1:48:15] um and you understand the story that um we felt not felt it was necessary that

[1:48:20] we collect this outstanding balance. Uh at that time Mr. Slottton did not

[1:48:25] respond. He said he wanted some time and then they did s send a response on May

[1:48:29] 2nd. Um in his letter um he said that the city has indicated a

[1:48:36] village has been under charged approximately 117,000.5

[1:48:41] um dating back to 2022 and then he states that the village does not believe

[1:48:45] a back payment is justified. They went on with another reason um

[1:48:50] saying that uh in the sewer utility invested funds that they're they believe

[1:48:57] we could have been collecting interest off of this. It is my from my office our

[1:49:02] position is this has nothing to do with our billing process. Uh if they wanted

[1:49:06] to dispute that they can uh approach Matt the city or that but that has

[1:49:12] nothing to do with me. I'm I'm It's my job uh as director to collect revenue

[1:49:17] and to uh cover our costs. So I did not um I do not recognize this. Um if I'm

[1:49:25] instructed to recognize this uh to factor this into what they owe us, I

[1:49:30] will do so. But this is something I cannot consider. I do not consider this

[1:49:34] for other customers we have and other businesses.

[1:49:38] Um but what I want to point out here is Mr. Slottton is just dead wrong when he

[1:49:42] said that he has not had a chance to talk about this. He's had eight months.

[1:49:47] Um there have been many exchanges. Um

[1:49:52] prior to this first invoice we sent Fall River uh in the beginning of June, Mr.

[1:49:58] Slottton contacted our administrator, Mr. And admmonson, sorry, Matt. Um, and

[1:50:05] he stated to Matt, um, I'm speaking on Matt's behalf, but he stated to Matt

[1:50:09] that they do not intend to pay this. Um, he never reached out to me. Um, but then

[1:50:16] we send the invoice. It was pretty clear in that invoice there. I'm sorry that,

[1:50:21] um, they have this particular bill as

[1:50:25] instructed by the commission has been spread out in 60 payments. There's no

[1:50:29] interest attached to this. We could have attached interest. Uh the numbers there

[1:50:34] when we were pulling them were uh if they were to pay this in lump sum the

[1:50:38] interest which we have every right to claim would have been 5500 to 6,000. If

[1:50:44] we spread this payment over 60 years and collected interest that would be 17,000.

[1:50:48] I think that we are being gracious in this matter. But we are not asking for

[1:50:53] interest. We're just asking for the payments. And we have given them you

[1:50:57] know the 60-month spread as I was instructed and I'm glad to do it.

[1:51:01] But then Mr. Slottton sends this email saying that um they do not intend to pay

[1:51:07] it. They do not think this is justified. Um I sent a response.

[1:51:14] I laid it out very clearly what the balance was. I uh explained that um you

[1:51:20] know made it gave a further explanation that you have 60 months. There is no

[1:51:25] interest here. Um I'm more than willing to talk about this and uh contrary to

[1:51:30] Mr. Slottton's claim. I did not threaten legal action. I just laid out what the

[1:51:34] procedures were if invoices are not paid. This is the same uh boilerplate

[1:51:40] procedure we use for everybody that we apply a very minimal 1% per month

[1:51:46] penalty. In their case, it would be I think $19 a month. Um and if that

[1:51:53] doesn't happen, then I'm going to go to a collection agency. If that doesn't uh

[1:51:57] produce the balance then we will pursue legal proceedings. This is nothing new

[1:52:02] in the industry. So I I don't know

[1:52:09] I cannot speak for Mr. Slottton. I know if I behave this way I would be

[1:52:12] embarrassed at my professional immaturity

[1:52:16] um using this aggressive language and uh calling me out in front of the

[1:52:20] commission. But I just wanted to explain to commission and if you have any more

[1:52:24] instructions for me, I'm going to follow them. But I am fully prepared to just

[1:52:30] continue sending them the invoices and you know if I'm more than willing to

[1:52:34] talk to Mr. Slaugh, but I don't know what more there is to talk about. Um, we

[1:52:38] believe the debt well, we know the debt is owed and I just don't think any court

[1:52:42] in Wisconsin would every court in Wisconsin would recognize our claim as

[1:52:47] legitimate. So, there's plenty of hypotheticals you could put out there.

[1:52:51] If we had overbuild them, would we be entitled to pay that back to them? You

[1:52:57] know, um how do they treat their clients when there's billing errors? You know,

[1:53:01] do they forgive that so quickly or so? >> The when I saw the email um

[1:53:09] sent out to the commissioners, I was very disappointed. And I would also

[1:53:15] remind commissioners that it's not advisable for any of us to meet

[1:53:18] independently to have casual conversation in this sort of situation.

[1:53:24] So for him to put that invitation out there was alarming to say the least.

[1:53:30] » Yes, sir. >> Here. What? That's a monthly bill. What

[1:53:33] is this one up here? >> That is a monthly invoice. Yes, monthly

[1:53:36] bill. >> So, okay. It talked about several years

[1:53:40] here. What is this then? So we have spread out their bill the balance being

[1:53:44] 16,000 some hundred and we've spread that out

[1:53:49] in 60-month payments. >> So

[1:53:52] » 60 payments >> yes

[1:53:54] » would get them caught up. >> Yes.

[1:53:56] » So what and what's their typical monthly bill to us?

[1:54:01] » I don't have that number off the top of my head. It's more than that but

[1:54:05] » Well, yeah. I'm I'm trying to put it in perspective.

[1:54:08] » Yes. >> So they're paying maybe $30,000 a month.

[1:54:10] Oh, no. >> Sir,

[1:54:12] » no, not 40. Yes. Uh, less than that, but >> I don't have that number.

[1:54:18] » Bill, monthly bills 15 to $20,000 a month, and they're griping about this a

[1:54:23] rear, which is generously spread over five years.

[1:54:26] » Yes, sir. >> Trying to get it.

[1:54:31] » I 100% have your back, Randy. And I think we should just keep invoicing them

[1:54:36] and take the the steps that we take with anybody else that doesn't pay their

[1:54:43] bill. It's I mean, in my opinion, that's the most

[1:54:48] equitable way to handle this situation. You know, we're not going to give

[1:54:52] preferential treatment like you know, it is what it is. Like it's an

[1:54:57] unfortunate situation, but it is what it is. You know,

[1:55:01] » my question is what is my answer? >> I unfortunately work with two members of

[1:55:09] the Fall River Village. I was approached by one of them about

[1:55:15] this and I forwarded you the email that you already had received. Um, am I

[1:55:21] supposed to no comment? My advice would be is to

[1:55:27] direct them to direct their questions to the utility director, Andy Myum.

[1:55:32] » I think he's asking how he's supposed to speak right now.

[1:55:36] » No. >> No. Okay.

[1:55:39] » Okay. I heard I was wondering if you needed to abstain or not.

[1:55:44] » I'm not really worried about that, but I know

[1:55:48] » I'm gonna get feedback at work.

[1:55:54] they're welcome to contact me. >> Yeah. And I think, you know, I did share

[1:55:59] the email with them that I I said that we should invite him to come and

[1:56:06] meet with us in person. Obviously, if we extend that and he doesn't come, that's

[1:56:13] on him. >> I mean, we don't even have to extend it.

[1:56:16] We have a public comment section on every agenda,

[1:56:19] » right? >> He could just come.

[1:56:24] And we did address the interest on the amount that we're holding from them. And

[1:56:28] we >> decided as a group that that's not part

[1:56:32] of the repayment because that's interest that was owed to us.

[1:56:34] » That's correct. >> How about if we all go over to a Fall

[1:56:36] River board meeting and we each like >> give them five minutes of our mind under

[1:56:43] public comments. How about how about we do that?

[1:56:46] » Zeny. >> Um first of all, Randy, I I don't have

[1:56:49] any problem at all with how you handled this. Um I I do think though that fall

[1:56:55] we we need to be good neighbors as far as working with Fall River. So if they

[1:57:00] want to come back with a counter other than what they've already suggested, you

[1:57:05] know, as maybe it was extending it to I don't know whatever it might be.

[1:57:11] If if meeting with them again preserves a relationship, maybe we don't change,

[1:57:17] maybe we do. Um I think it would be worth a discussion if you think it would

[1:57:22] be productive. >> Yeah, I absolutely want to get along

[1:57:25] with them. Um there's no productive reason not to. Um they did actually they

[1:57:31] have not offered any counter. They just said they don't want to pay it.

[1:57:35] » Mhm. >> So but

[1:57:39] I think my hands are tied now on I mean all I can do is maybe I can offer him

[1:57:45] you know the 60 months and the no interest. Mhm.

[1:57:48] » So, but >> which I'm comfortable with.

[1:57:51] » Yeah. But I'm going to refrain from making

[1:57:57] comments that I would like to make and wish that we had a close session to

[1:58:00] discuss options at this point. Uh maybe next month. Uh we could consider that

[1:58:07] based upon what activity might happen between now and then.

[1:58:14] » Okay. I I think we need to be able to have a

[1:58:17] comfortable conversation about what options are and doing it in public. I

[1:58:21] think we've already had this conversation once and we haven't gained

[1:58:25] an inch of ground. >> Um is that something that even can be

[1:58:29] taken to close session?

[1:58:36] » I can confer with city attorney. I I I'm confident that it's a negotiation and

[1:58:42] negotiations can be in close session, but we'll make sure that we have

[1:58:45] conversation and have the discussion um framed correctly.

[1:58:50] » Is it a negotiation when they're just refusing and they're not asking for

[1:58:53] something different? That's what I would want to know from from the attorney is

[1:58:59] are we even negotiating?

[1:59:05] » And I'll have that conversation with Paul.

[1:59:10] What do you need from us tonight, Randy? >> Um,

[1:59:15] well, I if there was a change in direction, that's what I needed to know.

[1:59:19] If the commission sought that, I'd take another

[1:59:24] another step here, another direction. But

[1:59:27] » I think you're handling the situation the best you can based upon the

[1:59:32] communications I've seen from you. >> All right. Thank you.

[1:59:37] Well, then I'll move forward uh in the same direction. Then

[1:59:40] » I would please ask that staff considers having, you know, this on next month's

[1:59:46] agenda with a possible close session if that's feasible so we can discuss

[1:59:51] further so we can get some updates on what's happened between now and then.

[1:59:56] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[2:00:05] Jason. >> Good night, Jason.

[2:00:06] » Good night. >> Take care.

[2:00:10] » All right, let's move on to something a little bit more fun.

[2:00:13] » My favorite part, >> director's report outline.

[2:00:19] So, we have been very busy in the latter part of July and uh August. I'll try and

[2:00:25] zip through this quickly. Um the last part of it though is actually not

[2:00:31] you'll see it is a little depressing. Uh one of our sister communities has gone

[2:00:37] through a very devastating storm that we responded to. But uh in the water

[2:00:42] department we've been doing plant water meter replacements and plant repairs. Um

[2:00:48] in both uh plants, this is an influent effluent water meter that we've replaced

[2:00:52] in both. Uh this went from disc meters to the new updated disc meters. Um this

[2:00:57] leads to more accurate readings on our water production

[2:01:01] and the crew was busy with this. Some other activities we've been doing

[2:01:06] in water is um we are we have purchased and I brought this up at previous uh

[2:01:13] commission meetings a new correlator. This helps us pinpoint a water main

[2:01:18] break uh underground which can just save valuable amount of time and effort. Um

[2:01:24] often times we end up trying to guess where the water is come where the break

[2:01:29] is and so we'll do an exploratory trench and hope we're close. Sun Prairie had a

[2:01:35] significant water break and they requested our uh help. Um so our crew

[2:01:40] went out there with our correlator and um what ended up happening was uh they

[2:01:46] were searching Sun Prairie for five hours. Our crew showed up and in about

[2:01:50] 58 seconds he says they pinpointed the leak. Um it was 22 feet away from where

[2:01:56] they were digging. So where that measuring wheel is is where the actual

[2:01:59] leak ended up being. >> Um but we are glad to help Sun Prairie.

[2:02:02] They too are part of our co-op. Um, and this is just um an example though of uh

[2:02:09] good investments we're making, I feel, and uh trying to save time with our

[2:02:14] staff. Um, the water department also has been

[2:02:17] cleaning out and exercising distribution valves on our main lines. Uh, here Craig

[2:02:22] is doing just that. Um, this valve vault has some standing water in it and

[2:02:27] debris. So, we suck that out, clean up the valves, grease them, make sure

[2:02:30] everything's operational. Um and then finally they've been uh

[2:02:35] cleaning aation stones at the water plants. This is just one of the many

[2:02:38] filter systems we have for water production. Uh this allows for better

[2:02:42] flow of air into the stone which helps in our iron removal process.

[2:02:47] It's not such a pleasant picture there, but you see what we're cleaning out

[2:02:50] there. Um unfortunately I I miss getting some

[2:02:55] pictures of wastewater. I'm going to owe them a really big presentation one of

[2:03:00] these days. Um, they sort of just been in the background doing their jobs, uh,

[2:03:05] cleaning lines and doing maintenance. Um, but I will

[2:03:11] pay them just dues and all the efforts they make in electric. Uh, we've been

[2:03:16] doing a good deal of new construction. This is out at Cardinal Heights where

[2:03:19] we're energizing some new homes um, and running the services up to the

[2:03:24] meter sockets. Uh and here um the crew is doing some

[2:03:29] exploratory pits to find where our what do you call that?

[2:03:33] » Feeders. >> Our feeders are um this is an

[2:03:36] anticipation of some new work we're going to be doing at this substation as

[2:03:39] well. And the transmission company ATC is going to be doing a good deal of work

[2:03:43] in this same substation. We'll be sharing it with them. So we needed to

[2:03:46] find out just where our grounds are. And that's what was happening here.

[2:03:53] » Yes. uh in public works. They've been very

[2:03:57] busy the last four weeks. Uh we had a sinkhole form on Dick Street. Um

[2:04:05] because there was a storm sewer lined right up there. Uh we had a pretty good

[2:04:10] idea where it was and we were right. Uh there was a gap in that storm pipe. You

[2:04:14] can see just the top of it there. And uh so material bedding road material was

[2:04:19] going into the pipe and washing out. Once we identified it, we're able to

[2:04:23] successfully plug it and back fill it. Um, this is not paved yet. We're going

[2:04:28] to pave this very soon as we when we have little projects like this, it's

[2:04:33] hard to get a contractor to come out individually. It's hard for our we don't

[2:04:36] have all the equipment for patching something like that correctly. So, we

[2:04:40] try to fold it into an existing project and that's what we're doing here. So,

[2:04:43] this will get repaved soon. But the crew uh we back fill it with stone and it's

[2:04:48] actually doing us a service right now by leaving it in stone and traffic going

[2:04:52] over it. Just making sure that there's no gaps or no more uh settlement.

[2:05:00] Uh the DPW crew also was still doing some corrections or remediation from the

[2:05:05] last big storm we had. Um they were fixing and uprighting the scoreboard at

[2:05:10] the football field. this had become twisted in the wind and so they were

[2:05:14] able to straighten that up. They're also doing work at the community center. Um

[2:05:20] we tore down some old cabinets and we're doing repainting. We're doing this right

[2:05:23] now. Um and we're uh replaced a slide and got a jungle gym system up and

[2:05:31] running again. It took a while to get the right parts. We got the slide a

[2:05:34] while ago, but we didn't have the right brackets. Um we do have more mulch now.

[2:05:39] It just arrived today. Uh we'll be completing this tomorrow.

[2:05:45] And then we're really excited about this new attachment we got. You're going to

[2:05:48] see this a lot now in the next four or five weeks. Uh knocking down the brush

[2:05:52] and all the cicks and streams. Um we really did not have the right equipment

[2:05:57] to do this other than doing it by hand, which we just didn't have the labor for.

[2:06:01] So this was something we were waiting for all summer. It has arrived and

[2:06:04] you're going to see a lot of this going on now. This will really mulches up the

[2:06:08] weeds into little bits. Um, so it won't clog our drainage systems here. And

[2:06:14] we're excited to use this. >> Can we get a video in the future?

[2:06:18] » Sure. Absolutely. >> Might bump my back truck wanting to use

[2:06:23] that up. >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:06:26] » Fun. >> Uh, finally, DPW also did some community

[2:06:30] projects. Uh, we were at the library and we read to a group of children and we

[2:06:35] brought the goat and that was a big hit. Um, there are great a lot of kids were

[2:06:42] there. We read three books about road construction and they all themed with

[2:06:46] animals doing the construction. And >> that's great unless you're the group

[2:06:50] following it. Yes. You didn't bring a goat or truck.

[2:06:56] » Yeah, we had staff I had staff queued up in in different various pieces of

[2:07:00] equipment and uh then I would radio them to come forward and there the piece of

[2:07:04] equipment to show the kids what all we use to keep the city going.

[2:07:09] So, and he was very happy. He got lots of treats to be there.

[2:07:14] projects.

[2:07:20] We have the School Street project. We are now completely done with utilities

[2:07:24] um up to from Letington to Main Street. Um we're now working north of that from

[2:07:31] Maine to what is it? Hamilton >> Hibbert.

[2:07:34] » Hibert, sorry. Um however, the good news there is we started paving today. um in

[2:07:41] my line of work, this is always a good time when um all the efforts are coming

[2:07:46] to a conclusion and you can start paving.

[2:07:49] And so you'll see here, this is just some sidewalk work that also got done.

[2:07:54] Uh the pavers are on site. These trucks are delivering a hot mix asphalt

[2:07:57] material around 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Um and then they place it in the hopper

[2:08:04] of the the paver. I don't know how these people do this

[2:08:08] job in the summer, but they do. Um, but this is today they're putting down what

[2:08:14] we call binder. This is normally the aggregate or the as asphalt mix that has

[2:08:20] larger stone in it and it's meant to be the base. And then tomorrow they're

[2:08:24] going to be putting on two coats of surface. This is uh has finer aggregates

[2:08:29] and more of the um petroleum based adhesive that you call asphalt. And the

[2:08:35] primary purpose for that is to keep water from getting into the base. So

[2:08:40] when that's doing its job, everything else should hold up fine.

[2:08:44] But uh that's what's happening right now. This is the hot roller. Normally we

[2:08:47] call it the hot roller because you get about 90% of your compaction with the

[2:08:50] hot roller. And then the cold roller comes in when the temperature is down to

[2:08:55] about 150 degrees or so to get out all the lines and creases you see there.

[2:09:00] So, some other work we've had going on is uh

[2:09:04] we did remediation on the pavilion roof. There was storm damage there that was

[2:09:09] waiting to be fixed. The crew was out there. Um I will admit, I don't want to

[2:09:14] look at Matt's face right now. It didn't go entirely well. There were some

[2:09:17] hiccups. Um there was a conflict with a renting venue, but unfortunately for

[2:09:23] Brooke, it didn't cancel the venue. Um but it is done now. It does look good.

[2:09:29] Uh we're going to we're addressing some issues with the contractor. Um and we're

[2:09:35] going to have an inspection performed on the roof to make sure everything was

[2:09:38] well. >> Previous

[2:09:41] it >> important to note this was all

[2:09:44] » this was a claim as a result of storm damage from the April um not quite

[2:09:49] tornado. So this was all done um as work under our insurance provider. Uh they

[2:09:54] reshingled the roof and um repaired the chimney that had been damaged in the

[2:09:59] storm.

[2:10:02] » Didn't quite >> No, they did not. They No, they did not.

[2:10:09] Uh this is the pickle ball courts going in. Um they're making great progress

[2:10:13] here. This should be done in a few weeks.

[2:10:16] » Check that. >> Okay.

[2:10:18] I was told today the asphalt needs to cure cure period before um the color

[2:10:24] surface coat and lines get put on. So, they want to make sure that the proper

[2:10:28] cure time occurs on the asphalt. So, um you'll see fencing going up next week.

[2:10:34] Uh I know they're going to do some work tomorrow on um finalizing restoration

[2:10:40] and the ponds. Um but yeah, it's progressing and um getting exciting.

[2:10:48] Okay. I actually just assumed that they were going to be done soon from that. Um

[2:10:53] » wishful thinking. >> Yes. Well, the asphalt was in for in my

[2:10:56] line of work. That's the end of the project.

[2:10:59] » Now you got to pay the bills. Um last topic. So on the 27th of July, a sister

[2:11:07] community of ours um experienced a devastating tornado.

[2:11:12] Um, as I've explained to the commission and you all know very well, our system

[2:11:17] exists only when we were able to rely on aid from our other communities. Uh, we

[2:11:22] do not have the resources to respond to emergencies like a wei energies and

[2:11:26] that. So, it's important when one of our other cities needs help that they get a

[2:11:33] big response and they did here. Um, I got the call on the 27th

[2:11:38] of just how bad it was and then the news article started coming up. Um on that

[2:11:43] day the director in Juno um Nick Gman uh and I drove up there ahead of our crews

[2:11:52] uh we were on the phone with the director of Waterlue as we are

[2:11:55] assembling our crews. Dalton got busy contacting the other linemen um and they

[2:12:01] all convened. It was um Columbus, Juno, um Lake Mills, and Wapon. And I believe

[2:12:09] there was another one there that joined us all in uh Juno. And we headed up from

[2:12:14] there. But Nick and I drove up ahead of them to just start uh assessing the

[2:12:20] situation and giving them directions of where to go. When we got there, it was

[2:12:24] I'm going to go through some photos. Uh it was I had never seen anything like

[2:12:28] it. Um their engineers were having a hard time

[2:12:33] cope hard time coping with how we do where do we even begin? A lot of roads

[2:12:37] were just in inaccessible. Um trees houses completely obliterated and in the

[2:12:44] roads. But um we got there and we start seeing finding scenes like this. Um,

[2:12:55] but then as we're looking at all these, you know,

[2:12:59] you know, truck, some trucks were sitting in a house. Uh, some homes were,

[2:13:04] like I said, completely devastated. There was people walking just in shock

[2:13:08] in their yard because they no longer had a place to live.

[2:13:12] Um the first task we had to do was start

[2:13:16] trying to get access to some of these down lines because this was very

[2:13:21] dangerous. There were a lot of people just roaming. A lot of gawkers were

[2:13:24] creating problems too. So we needed to get access to a lot of these lines and

[2:13:28] kill them and open. Um

[2:13:34] yeah, and it's just this next one just gives you a greater idea of and the

[2:13:39] background there is what we call the island or they call the island and that

[2:13:43] was hit even harder. Their water production facilities were leveled. They

[2:13:48] had no way of producing fresh water at the time. Um they were able to back feed

[2:13:53] into a neighbor's water system and deliver that into their circuit too. Um

[2:13:58] but getting it to these houses was just impossible there. You know, we were

[2:14:02] smelling um gas in the area. This was another big concern because we're

[2:14:07] dealing with electricity and I was very nervous for Dalton and his crew. Dalton

[2:14:13] got his harness back on and he was up in the bucket for days. But you can just

[2:14:17] see some of these pictures here. Um one of our linemen, Jeff, uh he's been

[2:14:24] he's responded to a lot of hurricanes in Florida, a lot of tornadoes. He said

[2:14:28] this was the worst he'd ever seen it. Um,

[2:14:31] » if you know the area, Dodie Island is one of the more affluent areas in the

[2:14:37] greater Appleton area as well. That's not a

[2:14:41] there's some really historic and old homes on that island.

[2:14:45] » Dodie Island then is in the background there. This house in the front is

[2:14:50] completely slid off as foundation. You can see

[2:14:54] um >> but yes, I'm sorry. Imagine being in

[2:14:57] that basement. >> Oh,

[2:15:00] » is there any post post um support for the folks that respond to this as far as

[2:15:05] PTSD or >> um I mean the Red Cross was on site then

[2:15:10] and they provide services like that. Is that what you mean? Just

[2:15:14] » Well, the people that are responding, not so much the home for us. Yes.

[2:15:19] » Oh. Um

[2:15:21] » what was the width of the tornado? Mile and a half. My only wide correct.

[2:15:27] » Yeah. >> Oh my god.

[2:15:29] » I don't know, Sandy. Um >> I would hope if if anybody needs it that

[2:15:35] we can find a way to get them. >> Yeah.

[2:15:37] » For them.

[2:15:40] » That is a very good point. Um >> employee assistant programs would be

[2:15:44] available. >> Okay.

[2:15:46] » I'm actually a little embarrassed now. I hadn't thought about that. I just I'm so

[2:15:49] used to grunting at these guys and you know um and getting the right response

[2:15:55] » and that gets work for you sometimes. >> Yeah. That you're very right. They

[2:15:59] witnessed a lot of a lot of this. I mean you see Dalton and Jake there. Um

[2:16:07] and this is one of the first areas we tackled when we got on site and it was

[2:16:11] just trying to get these power lines off the homes

[2:16:14] that and then we were just trying to secure the area. We had people walking

[2:16:19] in underneath the lines and I don't know and then you had some

[2:16:23] others like I said uh that were just in shock. They wouldn't understand you when

[2:16:27] you were talking to them because they just couldn't believe what had happened.

[2:16:31] Um but day too

[2:16:34] » yeah I started I always do I get a little

[2:16:38] emotional about now you know these next pictures because it was awesome just

[2:16:42] seeing the effort out there. Um, how many crews, Dalton, do you think showed

[2:16:47] up? How many municipalities? >> There was 25 overall.

[2:16:50] » Yes. >> Um,

[2:16:54] yes. Three of our four went up there, the linemen, and then we sent the fourth

[2:16:58] up. Um, you know, we replaced someone else just to give them some rest. Dton

[2:17:03] went up on the weekends as well. Um, you know, they stayed in a hotel nearby

[2:17:11] and, um, they just got to work. We started at the very base trying to get

[2:17:15] some of the most dangerous poles off the homes, trying to get accessibility in

[2:17:20] the roads. Another piece of equipment we sent up was our shop or our vac truck.

[2:17:25] This is extremely useful at this time because, you know, we can't call

[2:17:28] Digger's hotline now and wait 3 days for them to come out and identify. We need

[2:17:32] to start working. So, it was imperative we and another municipality sent their

[2:17:37] vac truck and our two operators uh in the sanitary department worked non-stop

[2:17:43] for two days, two or three days. >> How

[2:17:47] » Yeah. What does the back do? C >> can you expand on how like you can't

[2:17:53] wait for digger's hotline? So, what you use the vac truck in case the vac truck

[2:17:58] can't electrocute itself. Is that the point? So the vac truck can excavate

[2:18:03] without rupturing existing utilities underground.

[2:18:06] » Okay, perfect. >> Thanks.

[2:18:08] » Yep. It helps us also, we call it potholeing where we're identifying if we

[2:18:13] think I mean you get an idea here in the industry long enough there's typical

[2:18:19] areas where you're running your sanitary, your sewer, your gas lines,

[2:18:24] your communications if they're underground. Um so we then start

[2:18:27] potholeing and looking for them. So, if we know what that's there, the gas

[2:18:31] line's the one we're looking for the most, um, then we can safely dig in

[2:18:35] another area nearby. But, it's just absolutely essential. So,

[2:18:40] this big hero is Jeff. Uh, he's a mascot kind of now with us, but he's been in

[2:18:45] the industry a long time and, um, he absolutely is passionate about

[2:18:49] responding to these and he spent a good deal of time up there with Dalton, too.

[2:18:56] And the rest of the pictures are just all the crews. You look at all those

[2:19:00] bucket trucks. They just go all to the very end of the picture there. Probably

[2:19:03] 15 of them. And they're all working in conjunction with each other.

[2:19:07] » Wow.

[2:19:11] » And I know that you guys aren't looking for fanfare, but I think that getting

[2:19:17] them on social media a little bit around the initial

[2:19:21] when it happened so that people understand that our guys were there

[2:19:26] helping out. I saw a lot of questions pop up and again I know the last thing

[2:19:30] you guys want to stand on fair and the last thing you guys are doing is taking

[2:19:32] pictures. You're doing these just to get the point across but I think that our

[2:19:36] community needs to understand how much we help others when needed.

[2:19:41] » I agree. Um we can still do that. I refrain from doing that right away

[2:19:48] because this you know this is still raw and the for the people of Manasha.

[2:19:52] So, and yeah, at the time, you know, I'm the

[2:19:56] one taking a lot of these pictures, not this one or not the ones from the bucket

[2:20:00] all the time, but all the way up to 41. >> Yeah.

[2:20:05] » So, let's run through the rest of these. >> But I can say and these guys were

[2:20:13] working well into the night every night for about three weeks.

[2:20:18] » Three weeks. >> Yes, sir. Now, Manasha has they are

[2:20:22] fully restored. Not all services are restored because there are no homes in

[2:20:26] some of these places, but all the primary and secondary has been restored.

[2:20:31] Um, I just think it's a great testament to our community, our electric co-op

[2:20:37] community. So, that concludes my report. >> Thank you to your team for that

[2:20:43] response. >> Well, they did most of the work. I I

[2:20:47] worked the phone, >> so Yeah.

[2:20:51] » So, >> before we do, uh, Sandy pointed out that

[2:20:54] we may need to change our meeting date for next month.

[2:20:57] » Yes, she's very correct. Um, there is a WPPI meeting that, um, three or four of

[2:21:03] us now will be attending. I can send out an email to everyone for suggestions.

[2:21:09] Um, maybe I'll have some target dates on there.

[2:21:11] » Okay. >> A lot of times in the past, they've just

[2:21:13] pushed to the fourth. >> Okay.

[2:21:17] » I'll propose that. And if that's successful, we'll schedule that then.

[2:21:21] » Sounds good. >> Okay.

[2:21:23] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Commission.

[2:21:25] » Jack made a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second?

[2:21:29] » Second.

[2:21:32] » Motion and a second to adjurnn. All in favor, please say I. I.

[2:21:36] » Any opposed? We are 8:21.

Columbus, WI Utility Commission meeting from 8-20-2026

Transcript