[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.