[0:00] It's 7 o'clock. I'm going to call to order our regularly scheduled billage board meeting. I'll ask for roll call, please. Trustee Yolman. Here. Trustee Ileon. Here, from Trustee Freeman. Here. Trustee Miller. Here. Trustee Barry. Here. Trustee McDonough. Here. President Simtich. Here. Excellent. With that, we'll move on to item two, which is persons' desiring to be heard. Any individual can address the billage board on any topic on or off the agenda per three minutes total throughout the agenda.

[0:30] with the exception of anything that is public hearing, we don't have any public hearings tonight.

[0:36] So is there anybody in the room who would like to speak?

[0:41] Yes, you need to come up to the microphone and just give your name and address please.

[0:49] Hello, I'm Cindy and me.

[0:52] My husband's home is me and I live at 8327 North Regent Road.

[0:57] Our house backs up to Indian Creek Park.

[1:01] On August 10th, 2025, floodwater from the Indian Creek Park built up in the ditch east of the tennis courts and came in through our back door.

[1:11] It flooded our downstairs to the depth of two and a half feet, destroying almost half of the house's living space.

[1:18] Demolition and remediation and reconstruction took almost a year.

[1:22] On April 14th, 2026, the same day our contractors completed most of the rebuild, we watched the park

[1:31] water build up again and come within 15 feet of our back door. You can only imagine our state of mind

[1:38] when we started to duct tape our back door to try to seal it. The reconstruction on the downstairs

[1:45] of our house is not completely finalized. It's taken months to strategize research design and order

[1:51] are almost water-type door. We also purchased a hurricane floodgate that we will be installing

[1:58] over our door every time as storms or we leave town. Our contractor is essentially designing

[2:06] a submarine door for our house. We have made significant investments of time, money, effort

[2:13] and problem solving to make the house live a goal going forward. Our goal is to be able to continue

[2:19] to live in the house that we love so much. However, the house is now a ticking time bomb.

[2:26] Increasingly extreme rainfall is creating an inadequate and untenable drainage situation in the

[2:32] park and is profoundly impacting our property. We are here tonight to respectfully ask the board

[2:41] to please keep the flood mitigation projects specifically the Indian Creek Area Projects

[2:47] on top priority. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone online that would like to speak?

[2:56] I don't see any. Oh, there's a cap.

[3:05] Air McDonald, we've unmuted you or allowed you to speak if you can please unmute my phone.

[3:12] Hello, and I'm going to apologize in advance because I'm home single parenting right now. And so you may hear a little toddler running around.

[3:23] but first and foremost we need your address please. Oh, sorry. 6, 9, 2, 4 North

[3:30] Yates Road. My name is Erin McDonald. Most of you on the board can probably

[3:35] assume why I'm talking here today. Here to speak on behalf of the pedestrian

[3:41] pathway in Yates Road that was discussed last week. I'm not going to reiterate

[3:45] anything that I sent in the email to not waste anyone's time. Though I did

[3:49] I just want to follow back up with everyone

[3:52] because I greatly appreciate the responses

[3:55] from the board members and the conversations

[3:57] I've had with a couple of you.

[3:59] With that being said, I did watch on August 18th

[4:02] and discussions around the sidewalks

[4:04] and read through the responses of the emails

[4:06] from the board members.

[4:08] And it did seem like there's some confusion

[4:10] among the board itself around like East First West

[4:13] and what was actually decided on the 18th.

[4:17] A couple of board members stated that the funding was no longer approved for a company

[4:23] to do analysis on both sides, and the confusion came in, like some said, it was approved

[4:28] for West, and some said it was East, so I just was curious if there could be some clarification

[4:32] there.

[4:33] Second, after listening to the August 18th meeting, I noticed that there was two main

[4:38] factors cited in denying the funding for analysis.

[4:40] One was stormwater runoff and the other was that it would be a waste of money to analyze

[4:47] the west side because it was quote detrimental.

[4:50] My thought on those factors would actually need to be determined by an engineering analysis

[4:55] which for my understanding hasn't been done and won't be done at least on one side of

[5:00] the road.

[5:01] I would like to ask what the board member meant by saying a sidewalk was detrimental on the

[5:05] last and why we wouldn't at least have the information to determine which side of the

[5:10] road the sidewalk could be on. On the stormwater runoff, I also would like to understand

[5:16] like whether drainage improvements to Yates Road are already guaranteed as part of this

[5:19] reconstruction project, separate from whether it's decided about a sidewalk. If drainage

[5:25] is already going to be addressed and stormwater runoff wouldn't be a legitimate reason to skip

[5:29] the analysis on the sidewalk. And if drainage improvements are not already guaranteed, then

[5:35] that it would be even a stronger argument to do the sidewalk analysis on both sides since

[5:39] the reconstruction is the time to address both drainage and walkability.

[5:44] You know, fax point is a wonderful community.

[5:46] I know it has a more rural vibe and that's why my husband and I love it here, but at the

[5:50] end of the day, we live in Milwaukee County and Yates Road is a major vein of fax point.

[5:55] In residence, safety shouldn't come second to a rural feeling or from the lack of doing the

[6:00] the due diligence of understanding store of modern drainage and how it can be engineered to

[6:04] incorporate sidewalks, especially when there's over 2,000 vehicles a day on that road. So my

[6:10] ask for the board is first to align and clearly communicate what decision was actually made on August

[6:14] 18. Second is fund the full analysis. Both sides of the eight roads decision can be based on data,

[6:21] not assumption. And third, sending out a letter and email to all residents explaining the design

[6:26] and construction process for this project and make it clear which meanings can we can attend.

[6:30] to have our voices heard about the sidewalk.

[6:33] I believe residents voices really need to be heard

[6:35] on this topic.

[6:36] Thank you.

[6:38] Thank you.

[6:40] Hey, is there someone in the room

[6:41] that would like to speak?

[6:45] Is there anyone online that would like to speak next?

[6:50] Okay, ma'am, would you like to speak?

[6:54] Okay.

[7:00] Name an address.

[7:01] My name is Kathleen McCarty.

[7:02] This is Stephanie in 26 North Crossway.

[7:07] And I have some thoughts on the funding of the replacement of the flashpoint pool.

[7:13] I support the construction of a new flashpoint pool.

[7:16] They have some questions and comments for the Village Board about the report in today's

[7:21] agenda concerning the construction and funding of operations in the pool.

[7:26] I thank the committee that's been working on the pool replacement.

[7:30] However, I realize that the fundraising has not come close to covering the cost of

[7:35] the pool. In the attached community center, however, it looks like some of the options listed

[7:42] in the report might reopen the door to constructing an operating pool.

[7:48] Number one, construction of a new village hall projected to cost 20 million could be cut

[7:55] back to five million for improvements only.

[8:00] Number two, construction of a community center

[8:02] attached to the pool could be dropped.

[8:05] Blacks Point as a small community center on Vaughninkert in Whitefish Bay has turned the

[8:10] Blacks Bay Theater into a large center for the very thing is that have been mentioned

[8:16] or the center at the Blacks Point such as weddings and entertainment parties and so on.

[8:21] Do we need another community center?

[8:25] Number three, the cost of operating a pool could be offset by reinstating classes.

[8:31] 17, water bill 8, diving the 7, the JCC, Nikolay, and Wifeish Bay have expressed some

[8:39] interest in sharing out bridging costs,

[8:43] and number 4, the cost of operations could

[8:46] be offset by more non-resident memberships. Returning to engagement rule open in the

[8:54] mornings, afternoons, and evenings for all ages could increase non-residents or participation.

[9:02] The renderings of the new pool look like they could accommodate classes, left swimming,

[9:09] young children, etc. All at the same time. A related question. How was the Mack one from the new

[9:18] their pool. Let's do that open in 2027 and a related comment. I support a

[9:25] referendum fouling a campaign to educate tax point residents about the possible

[9:31] capital projects and the village is considering. Thank you. Thank you. Is there

[9:38] someone online that would like to speak? I see a hand. Is that the same? Is there

[9:42] anybody else online that would like to speak?

[9:47] Is there anyone else in the room that

[9:48] that would like to speak now.

[9:53] Okay, hearing and seeing none,

[9:54] we will move on to the committee reports.

[9:56] We do not have a committee report this evening.

[9:59] We do not have a public hearing.

[10:01] We will move on to number five, the consent agenda.

[10:05] Is there any trustee that would like to remove?

[10:07] Well, there's only the bills.

[10:09] Well, there's, that's not true.

[10:10] When it's in bills.

[10:10] Would somebody like to remove anything

[10:12] can the consent agenda?

[10:14] Hearing none, I'll move that we accept

[10:16] the consent agenda as presented.

[10:19] Thank you.

[10:20] I'll ask for a roll call, please.

[10:22] Trustee Yuleman.

[10:23] Trustee Yulean.

[10:25] Trustee Friedman.

[10:26] Trustee Miller.

[10:27] Aye.

[10:27] Trustee Barry.

[10:28] Aye.

[10:29] Trustee Macdonough.

[10:30] Aye.

[10:30] President Simgich.

[10:31] Aye.

[10:32] That motion carries.

[10:33] And with that, we will move on to new business.

[10:37] A is the referral of the outdoor recreational use request for pickleball play and construction of courts on existing tennis courts, tennis and basketball courts.

[10:46] located the Portico's 500 West Bradley Road under Section 745-10 of the Fox Point

[10:53] Municipal Code. The details are on page 26 to 30 and I'll remind all of us that

[11:00] this is a referral to the Plan Commission.

[11:04] Is there a motion to refer?

[11:08] We move that we refer the outdoor recreational use request for pickable

[11:13] play and construction of courts and existing tennis and basketball courts.

[11:17] located at the port at close 500 West Bradley Road under section 7405-10 on the

[11:24] Fox Point in this whole code. Okay, we have motion in a second. Is there any

[11:29] discussion?

[11:32] Okay, I'll ask for a roll call please.

[11:33] Trustee Yolman. Aye.

[11:34] Trustee Yilian. Aye.

[11:35] Trustee Friedman. Aye.

[11:36] Trustee Miller. Aye.

[11:37] Trustee Barry. Aye.

[11:38] Trustee McDowell. Aye.

[11:40] President Sinjich. Aye.

[11:41] That motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to B. The consideration of an

[11:47] ordinance to amend chapter 870 of the village of Fox Point

[11:50] Missile Code, regulating and operating all terrain vehicles,

[11:54] utility terrain vehicles, snowmobile and off highway motorcycles,

[11:56] upon municipal streets and highways.

[11:58] And I believe that that's chief treaty.

[12:01] Is that chief treaty?

[12:04] Who is that being?

[12:05] Who is presenting this?

[12:07] Chief treaty will be okay.

[12:10] Don't be shy.

[12:13] Let me know what the back of it.

[12:14] kind of covered it all. This is actually a supplement. I wanted everybody back in July,

[12:20] be back to see me again. We took a long talk and we didn't have to do this right away, though, I guess.

[12:25] This is really a supplement to the e-bike issue that was presented in July.

[12:31] We addressed the e-bikes to continue concerns from the community about e-bike operation

[12:38] and reckless

[12:41] operation, I guess, because we've got quite a few residents who enjoy the

[12:44] and recreator on the community on e-bikes lawfully

[12:48] and without disregard to the other residents,

[12:52] but we have a small group of people

[12:54] who are trying to address the e-bike issue

[12:56] with mostly juveniles.

[12:57] The challenge we have is the products

[13:00] that are being purchased are being sold as e-bikes

[13:04] and really they're off highway motorcycles

[13:05] or electric motorcycles.

[13:07] And our only enforcement option right now

[13:09] is to issue citations under the DNR code

[13:12] to the circuit court downtown and the district attorney's office is really

[13:17] not looking to deal with traffic violations for two vows and a lot of more

[13:22] seconds. So with help of these let's just turn it we drafted up a

[13:28] ordinance that is mimicked the right word I guess Eric that it follows the

[13:35] the state code as it's outlined in chapter 23 giving us the same authorities

[13:39] that we would have a circuit corp and we have to be useful for it.

[13:46] Okay. Do you have anything that you'd like to add to that?

[13:50] The only thing I'd add is that we are not opening our streets to use our vehicles.

[13:57] We're doing the opposite. We're saying that they're not open to these vehicles.

[14:06] Okay. And obviously, you know, in rural areas, these are normal things that you might see out and about.

[14:12] but not so much with us, but we are seeing more things that are not typical.

[14:18] We are. And this was really designed to address the off-highway motorcycle component.

[14:24] However, regionally, we are seeing VTBs, VTBs, and other things appearing on religious streets.

[14:30] So we looked at this as the opportunity to get ahead of it rather than come in and feel like we're

[14:37] being responsive to the problem and collect it to the issue. So we're addressing

[14:42] motorcycle, we've always taken care of all of it. Given that we don't have trails in the area,

[14:48] I'll see any parts of the municipal area or neighboring communities standing to include the

[14:54] so we are limming the recreational opportunities for our residents.

[15:01] Okay. Does anyone in, oh, I'll go to the audience first if that's okay. Thank you. Does anyone

[15:08] the audience have anything that they'd like to address about this item? Okay, now I'm going

[15:12] to trustee questions and comments. Thank you. Yes, so I just wanted to be clear, for

[15:17] example, last time we were talking about carts, go carts, and we said they're not allowed.

[15:22] Right. My understanding for these motorcycles was that you have to have a license if it goes

[15:27] above a certain speed, but you're saying they're not going to be allowed at all, either.

[15:31] So there is one category of off-highway motorcycle, it's called a dual sport.

[15:38] If you spent any time in rural areas or whatever, or out of the dirt tracks, they were called

[15:44] motocross that were freebago.

[15:49] So these dual sport motocross bikes meet the DOT requirements and all of the regulations

[15:56] license as motor vehicles, those are exempted from the ordinance because they are authorized

[16:02] under state statute. So if you have a properly registered licensed motor vehicle, you can operate it

[16:08] at the moment. But if you are operating dirt bike, mini bike, electric motor cross,

[16:14] and durable motor cross, trail sport bike, anything like that that's intended for trail riding,

[16:19] obstacle riding, competition riding, those are not street necks. So that's going to be an educational

[16:24] campaign. Yep and that's more spending most of our time right now is we've got a lot of education

[16:30] going on to parents who thought because I didn't know. You had the children came home and said

[16:36] so what I want this is what my friends have and we're trying to kind of cut that off the pass.

[16:42] So the tool you actually have a license plate on that vehicle? Is that correct? Right,

[16:48] license plate headlights, tail lights, mirrors, DOT required reflectors, reddened the red in the back

[16:54] in the front or vice versa. So other than use, there's not a difference

[17:01] functionally then with the Harley or something like that. I mean they operate the same

[17:07] other way other than an expanded territory. Is that correct? Right. So if you were to get a

[17:14] if you looked at a street legal motor cross flight versus an off highway motor cross flight,

[17:19] you would see some slight differences.

[17:22] You'd be able to see the travel space

[17:24] between the back wheel and the tires designed

[17:26] for these large jumps and to take the,

[17:28] for instance, they would still have the same

[17:30] knobby tires and things like that.

[17:32] They would just have headlights, tail lights,

[17:34] blinkers, license plate mirrors.

[17:36] They'd meet all the DOT safety requirements.

[17:39] Okay.

[17:39] It's a small category of people.

[17:41] I think that most of the people in this area

[17:43] would probably be buying a traditional motorcycle

[17:45] a little bit. If they were truly into off-roading, they'd be taking in some place in a more

[17:51] rural area, they would have a dedicated and more cross-like.

[17:57] Okay. Yes. So this has no crossover with the e-bike rules. This is a separate thing.

[18:04] It's a separate thing because people are buying products that are advertised as e-lifes

[18:09] that are truly off highway motorcycles. Okay. So if you have pedals on an e-bike, what about

[18:17] e-scooters, which category they fall into. They fall into this category.

[18:20] Did you not? They fell under scooters and bicycles.

[18:23] Thanks.

[18:26] It's one of those things where the legislators are definitely not moving into the

[18:29] pace. We're trying to move that and we're trying to keep up with the pace of technology and

[18:35] marketways.

[18:36] Seems like they've like in the last year they've just exploded.

[18:40] Yep.

[18:40] Was alien.

[18:42] My other question was that we mentioned roadways, but again I go back to more paths.

[18:47] They're not included in this ordinance.

[18:50] I don't have the ordinance or from you.

[18:51] I thought we covered the roadways.

[18:57] Street Highway, alley, roadway, public park, public right-of-way.

[19:01] So would our paths be a public right-of-way?

[19:02] Is that what we're saying?

[19:04] So highway, if I may, highway is one of the terms that is used.

[19:11] And that is to find a stable ought to be any right-of-way.

[19:16] It's a highway, a sidewalk, because I did not know.

[19:21] Wow.

[19:22] Okay.

[19:23] I don't know.

[19:23] It's a highway.

[19:25] So we can drive off.

[19:28] But I also learned.

[19:29] You can drive on the roadway.

[19:30] I also learned that we can't call certain things sidewalks,

[19:34] because that implies ownership.

[19:36] We prefer public paths.

[19:38] So I think it's a brave new world of vocabulary.

[19:42] There's a definition for a multi-use path.

[19:45] way by way they all get their own. Yeah. And yes, Mr. Alman.

[19:52] To show my age, we used to have license plates for bicycles. We don't have those in

[19:56] virtually. You voted them out. Not me. We still offer them to the village. We've taken away the

[20:04] requirements. We've been offered the service, the residents to assist them, but we've now identified

[20:10] there are numerous apps, databases, and things like that, where people can register their bicycles

[20:16] if they're missing or lost, they can be covered up a lot faster than through local places.

[20:22] Do you offer vanity plates?

[20:24] Sure do.

[20:25] A next number of the sequels.

[20:30] Okay. Any other questions?

[20:33] Yes.

[20:34] I just asked a question about the wording, the actual wording, where, for example, on 590s-2C,

[20:41] In A and B, you specify, we're talking about H to B, U, T, V, you know, etc., etc.

[20:46] And C, it just says, no person may use any village street or highway

[20:49] for travel between private property trails, etc.

[20:51] I mean, I know you what you're talking about is if you're on one of these vehicles.

[20:56] But I don't know if that's worth specifying.

[20:59] That's just making some of what you can walk in the village.

[21:02] And the same thing flies under 5.90.

[21:04] 3. The lawful crossing of a street or highway went expressly authorized

[21:08] I was an accomplice in management.

[21:10] It just doesn't mention the vehicles.

[21:13] That's a Mr. Larson question.

[21:15] Yeah.

[21:20] I mean, it's a good point.

[21:21] I think we could say and see no person made.

[21:29] The problem is we have such a laundry list here.

[21:31] Right.

[21:32] But maybe just use such vehicles on any.

[21:36] You live street.

[21:38] Are the above mentioned vehicles or something?

[21:44] It's the same language that in 93.

[21:48] And then the last question is, do we really want these things to be usable on private property?

[21:52] We don't have huge lots, all like people have 10 acre lots here, so that's just something

[21:56] to think about whether or not they want these vehicles to be used on private property.

[22:03] Yeah, we were our primary concern, obviously, was the roadways and we were not going to

[22:06] get as a private property rights, but I can understand your concern, I hope because my neighbor

[22:11] or client meet drivers will be in ATV year-round that book.

[22:16] That must be fun.

[22:19] Saturday is nice.

[22:22] I think you're right, we don't have big properties.

[22:24] I think it's a can of worms to try to regulate that

[22:26] on private property, but not the expert on this.

[22:35] Mr. Larson, do you have any thoughts?

[22:39] I think if we were gonna try to regulate this on private

[22:42] property, we'd have to take another swing in it.

[22:45] That's telling people that we're just trying to control

[22:48] are a right of ways at this time trying to control what they do on the, probably a different

[22:58] ordinance on a different set of grades.

[23:01] So this just says that this ordinance does not apply to private properties and if we wanted

[23:05] to do that we would come back with something a different ordinance that would replace this

[23:10] but it would sit with it.

[23:12] Yes.

[23:13] Can I ask a question?

[23:14] Yeah.

[23:16] Where is the second place where we should thank this change?

[23:20] It's just 5.93.

[23:21] Again, it just says the lawful crossing of a street.

[23:24] This order is shown off.

[23:25] Provided the lawful crossing the street.

[23:29] It doesn't mention again.

[23:31] It's by the above.

[23:32] You know, you mentioned.

[23:34] Okay.

[23:37] Okay.

[23:43] So we've got two adjustments.

[23:49] One in 5.90-2.

[23:51] One in 5.90-3.

[23:55] I'm guessing we're all clear on what those are, is that correct?

[24:00] Okay, so I would feel, are there other comments or questions at this time?

[24:07] Yes.

[24:08] The only thing I think the wear-ass is don't really matter, right?

[24:11] But it's kind of garbled on the wear-ass as well.

[24:14] I don't know if it's worth changing, but for example, what's in the first wear-ass?

[24:18] It's also in the second wear-ass kind of defeats.

[24:21] and also the first, whereas only says ATV, whereas in the second, whereas we're talking about ATV, UTV, so on, and off highway.

[24:30] So, well, the first one does mention ATVs, UTVs, snowmobiles, off highway motorcycles, the second one mentions ATVs, UTVs, snowmobiles, or off highway.

[24:40] We don't have time out the second sentence where it says the village has determined that there are no designated ETV routes.

[24:45] There would only mention ATV, whereas the next one, it goes on to say the exact same thing.

[24:49] The village finds that there's no designated ATV, UTV, snowmobile or op highway.

[24:54] Okay.

[24:54] The hills are connected. It just repeats, that's all.

[24:56] And the first one for some reason is only ATVs in the second one is ATVs and everything else.

[25:04] But again, I don't think the whereas is matter, right? It's the ordinance.

[25:09] Well, they set the tone. Yes, Mr. President.

[25:11] As long as you're drafting, you should put a definition of pride, use it one time.

[25:18] I could.

[25:20] So as to the preamble, yes, we could modify the preamble.

[25:27] It's not necessary to do that.

[25:30] And we could add a definition.

[25:37] We do have a definition section 590-1.

[25:40] I

[25:46] guess it depends on how I think with the change my own recommendation is to make the change that Trustee Elian pointed out in 590-2 and 590-3, which would add clarify that those subsections referring to the same vehicles, you above note its vehicles.

[26:10] Okay.

[26:10] But then I think unless you have concerns, I think it's legally good to go.

[26:20] Okay. I understand your points and I understand your advice.

[26:26] Does anybody else have anything this time?

[26:30] Okay. So I will move that we adopt the ordinance.

[26:38] This amending chapter 870 of the Village Fox Point Municipal Code, regulating the operation

[26:45] of 18 altering vehicles, utility terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and off highway motorcycles

[26:50] upon municipal streets and highways, as described in pages 31 to 35, with the two amendments

[27:00] that we discussed that clarify the vehicle titles.

[27:09] Okay. Any further discussion? I'll ask for a vote. Call please.

[27:15] Ms. Yollman.

[27:16] Cecilia.

[27:17] Hi.

[27:17] Cassie Friedman.

[27:18] Hi.

[27:18] Cassie Miller.

[27:19] Hi.

[27:19] Cassie Berry.

[27:20] Hi.

[27:20] Cassie McDonough.

[27:21] Hi.

[27:22] President Stitch.

[27:23] Hi.

[27:23] That motion carries.

[27:26] Okay.

[27:26] Now we're going to move into capital improvement plan.

[27:31] You're sitting back there.

[27:32] like, there's not going to go on. Who's going to do this?

[27:36] I'm going to start out. I've got a-

[27:39] Well, Scott, don't get too comfy back there.

[27:41] We will have public work director come up and talk about some of the projects

[27:46] that after I go through a presentation to introduce some of the key information

[27:52] here.

[28:01] One is to talk a little bit provided overview here. I'm going to talk about the purpose of

[28:08] capo planning why we do this and kind of what the goals are and I think especially what staff

[28:13] is looking for from the village board as we go through this. There's two capital improvements plans,

[28:23] five-year plans that I'll be walking through a baseline and an alternate, and I'll explain

[28:29] what the differences of those are, and then I've done some analysis of the impact of the

[28:35] five-year plans, both baseline and the alternate on village debt that's outstanding and then

[28:41] finally some conclusions and recommendations.

[28:47] The reason that we do this, and the reason we do it in advance of the adoption of an annual budget, is really trying to take a high level of view of the long-term capital needs.

[29:00] and well you can ask questions about specific projects or specific lines that's absolutely

[29:09] fine. Really what I don't want to get lost in that conversation though is sort of what

[29:18] the overall picture looks like and what the overall capital needs looked like in terms

[29:26] to financing, whether to provide some comparison of the overall long-term needs with the availability

[29:33] of funds, and to give you some information and look for some feedback on what the village

[29:40] can't afford, how much we want to go forward with, and also looks at coordination of projects,

[29:48] and this is where Mr. Brandweiner gets particularly involved. If we're redoing the road,

[29:55] We should take a look at the water mains, the sewer mains, and the infrastructure.

[30:00] Underneath the road and analyze to look at how old it is, how likely it is it's going to need to be replaced before the useful life of the actual pavement is is over with so that we're not building a road and then a few years later coming up and coming out tearing it up to replace the water and underneath. So those that topic coordination is helpful. And then also communication with residents. This is an opportunity for residents to kind of express what their priorities are and what they are.

[30:29] the AC is the village needs and also for the board and staff to communicate with the

[30:36] village residents on what, you know, our perception of those needs.

[30:41] Staff tends to think a lot more about infrastructure that's under the ground than residents do,

[30:47] you know, as a, when I look outside my window at home, not necessarily wondering how old

[30:54] is a sanitary sewer. How old is the water main? What are those things going to need to be replaced?

[31:00] That's kind of stuff that keeps Mr. Brandmeyer awake at night and keeps him stopping in my office

[31:06] frequently to talk about those kinds of issues. So staff thinks about those and it's opportunity for

[31:11] communication both ways.

[31:14] So let me talk a little bit about the baseline projection here and as we put

[31:20] this together and I'm going to say that the bulk of the conversation and the bulk of

[31:25] the time that we spent in analyzing this was in public works.

[31:28] Does it mean that the police projects are important or the administration projects

[31:35] for things like loading machines or items like that, but the bulk of the dollars are in DPW.

[31:43] And as I put in one of my updates recently, you know, it's a five-point congratulations

[31:51] on turning 100.

[31:54] The downside of that is there's also a lot of very old infrastructure.

[32:00] And we have some infrastructure, water mains, sewer mains, they can last 100 years.

[32:07] And we, where I can talk a little bit more about a whole, some of the infrastructures out

[32:12] there, but we definitely have infrastructure that's that's at or or beyond its useful

[32:17] life.

[32:18] You're going to see some fairly big numbers in this baseline and the next baseline, the

[32:23] next alternative CIP, but that reflects the aging infrastructure.

[32:29] So this is going to be the main difference between the baseline and the alternate.

[32:34] And if the baseline includes $25.2 million for facilities, and that includes $20 million

[32:40] for a village hall slash DPW facility, and $4 million for a village contribution to

[32:45] a new pool.

[32:46] Those are decisions that the board has yet to make.

[32:49] I'm not assuming anything with those decisions, but wanted to show that information for illustration.

[32:56] It is a very conceptual estimate, it could be somewhat higher than that.

[33:08] I doubt that it would be any lower than that.

[33:11] The $4 million dollar bill's contribution for the pool is based on the current resolution

[33:15] that is the existing policy of the board.

[33:19] It will also see $23.1 million for road reconstruction and repaving.

[33:25] That in some cases does include replacement of other infrastructure under the roads.

[33:33] So that isn't only repaving but it involves reconstruction of the entire road bed in some

[33:39] cases.

[33:39] There's also $9.9 million for sanitary sewer work, $7.1 million for storm water management

[33:49] projects.

[33:50] And both of those, as we've heard, as long as in my, what's five months, six months

[33:57] now with the village, I think at every meeting, there's bad residents who've come up and expressed

[34:01] concern over those items and this capital improvement plans reflect that.

[34:08] One thing I did not get into to a great extent in this presentation and analysis is a funding source for the project.

[34:19] There's some projects that are going to be funded out of the tax levy, some from the water utility, some from sewer utility, some from stormwater utility.

[34:27] So that's another step down the road to kind of break out the projects to determine which

[34:33] one of those funding sources is appropriate for which projects.

[34:39] But the bottom line is ultimately those costs are going to be paid for by the latest residents,

[34:44] whether they pay for that under annual property tax bill or their quarterly utility bill,

[34:49] those project costs are by large going to be paid for by the latest residents.

[34:55] So this is more detail on the information that I just presented, I'm not going to go through line by line on this.

[35:04] You have a printout that shows this, but it brings it out by year.

[35:10] I will make a couple of just explanatory comments.

[35:14] Any time you put together a five-year program, and I've been doing this for almost 40 years now,

[35:23] you'll find that you have much better information

[35:26] in the early years than in the later years.

[35:29] And some departments, some types of expenditures

[35:32] have better data in out years than others.

[35:37] So in some cases, looking out at like 2031

[35:42] on this spreadsheet, I did just plug in some numbers.

[35:46] For example, under equipment shows $750,000.

[35:50] the actual equipment that it was identified in what I had in my discussions with departments

[35:57] was smaller than that, but I know that we're going to spend a good $750,000 each year on equipment.

[36:05] Those needs are going to be there so we should plan for it. So that's an example of how I've done that

[36:10] and how I've adjusted it.

[36:15] So I'll move on to the alternate.

[36:17] So this is basically the same plan, but removes the real-chall expenditure and the pool.

[36:26] So in looking at real-chall, this is going to be an important decision for the board to

[36:32] make not tonight, but over the next few months and continuing decision-making over the next

[36:41] couple of years, but looking at the study that was done in 2019 from variato sin, and just

[36:49] my own observations of the facility. I think for anybody who's been in the meetings and we did

[36:56] the air conditioning is complete and that should be good for a while, but I think it's an example of some

[37:01] of the the failing components of this building. I don't think it's reasonable to not include anything.

[37:11] There is going to have to be work on the bill at all, whether it's a demolition and

[37:16] reconstruction or whether it is a renovation and expansion.

[37:23] So again, just using a plug number that is very preliminary, I included $5 million for

[37:32] improvements.

[37:33] So remove the $20 million and put $5 million in.

[37:36] And then also, I remove the funding for the pool and it does not include any funding for any improvements to the vacated space where the pool used to be. All of the other numbers remain the same.

[37:49] So that leaves us with a total of $61 million in projects spread over those five years.

[37:59] And you can see that the facility's number dropped down to $9.9 million and that's the

[38:07] bulk of the change is in that facility's line.

[38:16] So one of the next important questions is how affordable is all this?

[38:23] How much can the village take on both in terms of financing and also in terms of delivering

[38:31] delivery projects. There's a lot of different ways to look at debt, but I think one of

[38:38] those that is fairly straightforward and most helpful is looking at debt as a percentage

[38:49] of our statutory debt limit. So for those who might be listening online or in the audience,

[38:55] The state of Wisconsin sets a statutory limit on the amount of debt, general obligation

[39:02] debt that municipalities are allowed to limit at 5% of equalized value.

[39:09] So basically, look at the value of all the properties within the village and we're limited

[39:14] to only borrowing up to 5% of that total value.

[39:19] As of December 31, 2025, we had $25.3 million in outstanding debt and that puts that

[39:29] at about 30% of the statutory debt limit.

[39:37] And I'm going to, I developed a model that could look at how some of the decisions that

[39:44] the board makes about long-term capital projects, capital planning would affect that overall

[39:49] debt limit.

[39:50] I have a caveat, and here in the models that I used, I assume that all debt would be

[39:57] general obligation debt, and the statutory debt limit would apply.

[40:01] That doesn't have to be the case.

[40:04] The village could issue what's referred to as revenue debt, which does not apply, whether

[40:12] that would not apply towards the statutory debt limit.

[40:18] And I think for the purposes of the discussion, it's not necessarily important to make that

[40:24] distinction because we're looking at basically the level of that, the amount of that and

[40:30] the affordability of it.

[40:31] So but I just also wanted to say that there are some things that the village can and we'll

[40:38] probably want to consider in the future as we take on some of these projects to balance

[40:42] out the way we do that.

[40:45] The model also assumes that every year we finance 10% of the project costs with cash.

[40:54] And that's basically if you look at especially our utilities with what our cash flow is.

[41:01] That's about what the cash flow that we're able to generate to partly cash finance those projects.

[41:08] I would say that as we look at long-term financial planning, we probably would want to increase

[41:16] that.

[41:16] That's something that would be better if it was 25% would be a really good target in long run.

[41:24] But the only way to achieve that is to slow down the replacement of infrastructure, which

[41:31] I think could cause issues or increase in the utility bills.

[41:37] and what people are paying on the utility bills in order to bring in that cash.

[41:41] But that's, I think, again, a part of another longer discussion, and I'll get to that in

[41:48] my conclusions and recommendations.

[41:51] So as we look at what these two alternatives do, I just put together a simple diagram here,

[41:59] And there's no law or rule or limit on how much or principle on how much of the debt limit is acceptable.

[42:14] But obviously the closer you get to that debt limit, it means the less flexibility you have to respond to unforeseen circumstances or to major problems.

[42:26] And so you want to, I think, I think a lower percentage of debt limit utilizes better.

[42:35] I'm just putting it for illustration in kind of a general rule of thumb here, a stoplight

[42:42] where less than 40% of the statutory debt limit is a green light, I think we're doing

[42:48] well, we're at 30% right now so we're doing very well, we're in that green light area.

[42:54] I think when you start getting around 50% it starts getting more into the yellow light

[43:01] where some caution is necessary.

[43:04] Some communities I know of have, because they're facing infrastructure needs like we are,

[43:10] have recently changed their debt policy to 50% of the statutory limit when it used to be

[43:15] lower than that.

[43:16] So you are seeing more movement in that direction.

[43:19] And I think when you start getting about 60%,

[43:23] it's some warning lights are going off

[43:27] that's a relatively high level of debt

[43:29] for a community to take on.

[43:33] So here's just a simple chart that shows

[43:38] with the baseline in blue

[43:40] and the alternative without Village Hall

[43:43] or the pool in orange.

[43:45] And the numbers are a little bit hard

[43:47] to read on the screen, but at the baseline scenario, we do, in 2030, get over 80% of the

[43:57] statutory debt limit and it declines slowly after that. And under the alternate scenario,

[44:06] we get roughly 65% of the statutory debt limit and it declines slowly after that. So,

[44:15] So, um, and honestly those are significant jumps up from the 30% that we're at right

[44:21] now.

[44:22] So, um, I think the capital planning process and taking a look at both what we need

[44:32] to do and what we can and should do for capital projects as well as how we're going to pay

[44:38] for it.

[44:38] It's going to be an important discussion for the board for this budget and for future

[44:44] your budgets. So, some conclusions and recommendations. I think I've already kind of stated this

[44:52] first one. There's really some important policy and financial issues to talk about in upcoming meetings.

[45:00] Five-point is not alone by any stretch. I think I've maybe mentioned before. I live in Womitosa

[45:08] on the public deck commission for Womitosa. It's going, they're going through the same issues

[45:13] with older infrastructure and increasing debt and working through that. The challenge is,

[45:21] the thing that they have that we don't want to at Fox Point is they have more opportunities for

[45:28] or development and growth, other equalized values.

[45:31] So that makes our challenge a little bit harder.

[45:34] And we're not going to be able to resolve all the issues

[45:36] tonight, that's not the intent,

[45:38] but the intent is to start the discussion

[45:40] and the conversation.

[45:46] So we've got the second conclusion that I have

[45:50] is that we are in the process of bringing on

[45:54] a consultant to do some additional analysis

[45:57] a stormwater infrastructure analysis and really do a review to determine what improvements

[46:06] do we need in our stormwater system to help prevent the types of flooding that we've

[46:11] had in recent years and with some of the heavy storms that have hit us and some of the unusual

[46:22] whether that seems to be recurring

[46:26] and not only in Fox Point, but other areas.

[46:28] So that's, we're in the process right now,

[46:31] actually, of reviewing proposals.

[46:34] And I think in October, we'll be back

[46:36] with a recommendation to the Board for a consultant

[46:38] to do that.

[46:39] And I think that's really important to get that data,

[46:43] that information so that we can use those condition

[46:46] assessments and help prioritize

[46:47] as scheduled projects and then matched up with the financing plan.

[46:55] Third, and I think this was previously stated,

[46:59] the village facilities are really kind of a linchpin

[47:03] when it comes to balancing long-term capital needs and long-term financing.

[47:09] There's a real challenge and I think there's going to be some difficult decisions

[47:14] for the board to make on how to move forward to that.

[47:17] There's, you know, clearly some needs that have to be met and how we approach that and how we meet those needs is going to be critical.

[47:27] And I've not a decision for tonight, but in the future, the Public Works Director and I have been gathering information on the completion of a facility's master plan,

[47:38] which I think would be very helpful to some of these long-term decisions.

[47:44] Knowing whether it's a reconstruction, whether it's a renovation and expansion of this building,

[47:52] even looking at something like the police building, which is relatively new,

[47:56] but starting to plan out into the future, how should we be handling that building?

[48:03] is we long term want to continue to maintain and operate out of that building or is there a better or more cost effective approach to combining it with a new facility if there is any facility here or we're adding on to this facility.

[48:20] Those are the types of decisions that I think having that type of long term information helps to make sure that the limited dollars that the village has.

[48:31] for capital improvements are used really efficiently.

[48:35] So that will be something, again, that will be in a future meeting.

[48:42] But I think as we were working on, as I was working on this presentation and the analysis,

[48:50] one thing that we don't have, and to be fair, most communities don't have this is a five-year

[48:59] financial plan for each one of our utility funds and I'm going to take a closer look at what

[49:07] it would take to get that done and how that would work but I think I'll use one of my experiences

[49:16] in a previous position. I had to live through a 60 percent increase in water bills because there

[49:26] It wasn't a five-year financial plan, and there were obligations that were taken on long-term obligations without corresponding incremental increases in water bills so that when those long-term obligations came due, they were able to pay for it.

[49:43] And I don't ever want to go through that again.

[49:45] I don't want any of any of you as elected officials

[49:48] or any of our residents to have to go through that.

[49:50] And the way to prevent that is to have these five year plans

[49:53] that can kind of project out and look at those things.

[49:58] And then the fifth one, as you look at these dollars,

[50:07] there will be an impact on both property tax bills

[50:10] and quarterly utility bills, you know, as the aging infrastructure is replaced, that's

[50:18] going to, people are going to notice it, and we need to make sure that we're communicating

[50:23] that and getting that information out. I think this is, this conversation tonight is maybe

[50:28] a first step in that, but it can't be the last step in, and that's really a staff responsibility

[50:33] to try to, you know, inform and educate the residents on what needs to be done, why

[50:42] a cost would it cost, and how it affects their property tax bills in the short term

[50:47] at the long term.

[50:50] So that kind of ends my part of the discussion.

[50:55] I don't know if you want to pause and there are any questions or discussion, and Mr. Brand

[50:59] I might as well go through some more detail,

[51:03] particularly the road program.

[51:08] Great.

[51:09] I would like to, if we can understand a little more,

[51:12] or I would like to understand a little more about

[51:14] how we got here, is it seems like things aren't falling

[51:19] from the sky, but it seems like things are crumbly,

[51:22] but we've known that for so long.

[51:24] Why do we, is it not typical to budget

[51:28] to have to replace things?

[51:30] We seem to have never done that for any of our stuff.

[51:34] Well, and some of it is, there are some decisions where I think if you look back 20 years

[51:40] ago and boy, they have done that differently, things would be a little bit better than there

[51:44] right now.

[51:46] But I think what happens here, it happens to a lot of communities, is a lot of the infrastructure,

[51:53] a lot of the growth takes place in a relatively short period of time.

[51:57] So, and I haven't read my Fox Point History book yet, I got to get to that, that's on my reading list.

[52:04] But, you know, if I were to go back, I would see that a lot of the water mains, sewer mains,

[52:10] roads and infrastructure were put in and maybe a 20-year time through when Fox Point really developed it and grew out.

[52:21] And now it's all over a relatively short period of time, it needs to be replaced.

[52:27] So, it's not that unusual that you can see communities that maybe haven't had to spend as much or put into their capital improvements program as much for long periods of time until all of a sudden things start appearing that need to be dealt with.

[52:50] You know, just as an example of the last week or so, we've had three water mains breaks.

[52:56] Now, that doesn't mean that those water mains have to be replaced all of them tomorrow

[53:01] or even next year.

[53:03] But that's an indication that when you start seeing these failures, that it is aging.

[53:09] So, you know, we could go back and look at, you know, in 1998, did the village not fund

[53:17] the road program and maybe that would have made things better if they had. I'm sure there

[53:25] are things like that, but the primary driver is the fact that this infrastructure is all

[53:33] constructed in a relatively short period of time, and now it's reaching the end of its

[53:38] useful life.

[53:38] I'll add another flavor to that because I was kind of where you are a little bit, and

[53:45] probably five or six years ago,

[53:47] I spoke with Mr. Brandmeyer about it and Mr. Bacher.

[53:51] And I said, well, if we have this problem

[53:53] and we have this debt capacity,

[53:55] why are we not doubling our roads

[53:58] or whatever, right?

[53:59] Because we can afford it, right?

[54:01] And the answer that came back to me was like,

[54:03] oh, yeah, that was a kind of a light bulb thing.

[54:05] Because what happens is with all these projects,

[54:08] you need staff to push it through and supervise it

[54:11] and do all the bid documents and do all of that stuff.

[54:14] and we don't have the flexibility in our levy cap limit to put the staff in.

[54:20] So we're in some ways, you know, cash short and debt ability heavy.

[54:27] Because, you know, we're going to have to figure out how to work some of the staffing through.

[54:33] And at some point, you know, I was having a conversation with Mr. Friedman last week about debt.

[54:39] And we may have to decide at some point with our operations which this is not.

[54:44] that we may have to figure out okay are we gonna be able to stick with our

[54:49] levy cap limit or not but that's a different different thing but it relates to

[54:53] this because that's how you pay for the people that can actually see the

[54:57] project through so if we had two to three more people in the DPW upstairs with

[55:03] Scott working on these things that's a different situation too so it all kind of

[55:09] messes together, but so far we've chosen to be a little bit and I would say you know I've been sitting

[55:17] around 16 years and we do plan it you know in five-year increments and we push things out as we

[55:23] need to push something else in so there's a plan but it's not as aggressive as we might want

[55:31] which need I don't know fill in the blank so Miss Alia. When was the police station built?

[55:44] I asked a similar short end question of Scott after the April meeting that you had a longer

[55:50] term discussion about and I've got the same short end answer about planning.

[55:56] I know I appreciate the graph on the debt limit and how the slope down is long and slow.

[56:05] and I have to make the comment that it doesn't take into account the next unknown that may surprise us that may keep that line going in a different direction.

[56:18] So I just as a general comment I think prudence is all for.

[56:26] Well, the one thing I noticed on here is with, you know, the more expensive scenario even

[56:33] over time, we still don't get down to 60 percent.

[56:37] So it's high, it's high, it's salient.

[56:43] Can you explain what assumptions are used when you made this graph?

[56:48] We don't have any information about the debt service levy, trying to understand how we even

[56:52] and only get up to 83% of the,

[56:55] I mean, our limit is 83.8.

[57:02] And we're borrowing, if we're just borrowing

[57:04] the DPW contracts, and including using 10%,

[57:08] you're borrowing another 70 million.

[57:10] Unless, and so I would like to know

[57:11] how you got this graph to.

[57:13] Sure, sure.

[57:15] And I'd be happy to sit down and walk through

[57:19] outside of the meeting in more detail, the spreadsheet.

[57:21] It's a little sloppy, but not really suitable for presentation, but basically what I did

[57:28] for the model.

[57:29] I started with the capital improvements plan and looked at the total amount that we'd

[57:35] have to borrow each year, assuming 10% cash financing.

[57:39] Then I took the schedule of our existing debt, which was laid out in detail.

[57:44] That's unknown.

[57:46] And I started with, I think it's $25 million in outstanding, and then each year over the

[57:51] next 10 years, that gets paid down.

[57:53] So if you look at the spreadsheet, I've got a column that shows that going from $25 million

[57:57] to $0 over the next 10 years.

[58:02] Then I took the amount of that that we would be issuing for the projects that were listed,

[58:09] each year of the capital improvements program, and I added those, the total amount of debt

[58:18] issued each year, and then assume that we'd have basically a level principal payment.

[58:26] Now, when we issue debt, especially notes that bonds these days, but when we issue debt,

[58:32] it's not always exactly level principal, which is for the purpose of this model, I assume

[58:37] level principal payment over that period, so that's added on top of 10 years, the

[58:43] for 10 years. Now, that's also you could make an argument that especially for a

[58:50] one-time facility cost, you'd probably do that over 20 years, and that would be

[58:55] another option, although would make this and these curves look worse, but if you

[59:02] wanted to spread that tax-letting impact over longer period of time, you could use

[59:07] 20-year financing for some of the infrastructure projects as well but that's going to make

[59:11] these curves look worse than they are and then finally I used a assumption of a 4% annual

[59:19] growth in equalized value so 4% which is yeah well and that doesn't change if it's 4% or

[59:30] 2% doesn't change the...

[59:32] Talking about the assessed value.

[59:34] No, equalized value.

[59:35] Oh, OK.

[59:36] So yeah, right.

[59:37] Yeah.

[59:37] So over the next 10 years, and I chose 4% even though

[59:45] that might be, can I argue that's a little optimistic?

[59:49] I did it also want to present the worst case scenario here.

[59:53] If there is 2% or 1%

[1:00:00] Growth and equalized value, again, these cars are going to be worse than what they look like here. I think that's, I mean, that

[1:00:10] might understand how you didn't reach the limit, because that's a pretty aggressive assumption.

[1:00:17] It could be. If I, if I, if I got how you didn't go over the limit, if we don't get 4% growth and equalized value, and what matters is our assessed value, right? That's, it's not, is it based, is the limit based on equalized value? Space and equalized value.

[1:00:33] Could we mention what doubling this does to somebody's tax dose for a thousand, a thousand

[1:00:42] assess value?

[1:00:45] I don't.

[1:00:46] I did not run numbers on that yet.

[1:00:49] And in part, because another, it really, to answer that question with any degree of accuracy,

[1:00:59] see, I really have to develop another model that then splits out the funding source.

[1:01:05] So that's a little bit more complicated, I don't have that at this meeting.

[1:01:10] Okay.

[1:01:11] And then the equalized value is calculated by the state every year.

[1:01:15] Yes.

[1:01:17] Yes, Ms. Gray.

[1:01:19] More quick question, hopefully.

[1:01:21] We were talking about utility costs and how, is it true that we haven't raised our rates

[1:01:27] on the villagers in a long time, or did they raise a small amount of year?

[1:01:33] There have been increases, I would say small adjustments, and Mr. Brandmeier probably has

[1:01:42] more of the history on this than I do.

[1:01:44] I think it's been, small increases and not every utility every year, but I think last year

[1:01:51] there was a pretty significant increase.

[1:01:53] Water last year, which I could water previous to that, so there have been, there have been increases.

[1:02:00] Is that on a schedule or anything or is that just random or ad hoc?

[1:02:04] And that's where I think a five year plan would really be helpful to look at to, and there's two,

[1:02:14] the water utility is governed by the PSC, so there's, that's a little bit more complicated process,

[1:02:22] and there's two different types of rate increases.

[1:02:25] There's what's called a base rate increase,

[1:02:28] which can allow for, I believe it's,

[1:02:31] 3% increase without having to go through a PSC review process.

[1:02:37] Anything above that level has to go through what's called a rate case,

[1:02:42] which is about a six month to a year long process

[1:02:47] of answering lots of questions from the PSE and planning when that would take place,

[1:02:58] I think with the capital numbers we're looking at, probably going to have to be a rate case

[1:03:04] submitted at some point, kind of planning when that is and how that fits into other base

[1:03:11] rate increases is important to have that five year plan.

[1:03:16] I would also add we've not done them regularly and there have been the conversations of the difference between a step up every year or two and then a jump of every five years or whatever.

[1:03:32] So we've had the conversation in the past but we have not regularly looked at scheduling and increases.

[1:03:38] is, so Mr. McDonough.

[1:03:41] Perhaps as a follow-up, it's not, if you can guess to me at it, but of the 25 cents

[1:03:46] of every real estate tax dollar collected, what does that represent as a percentage of

[1:03:53] the revenue collected in the village?

[1:03:57] That goes back to that, what would this mean?

[1:04:01] Just wild, we guess.

[1:04:03] Do you mean, just to make sure to say the question of the, like, have a property tax bill how

[1:04:07] much closer to the debt letting? Or is that—you say you couldn't do the schedule now, or you'd

[1:04:13] have to sit down and do the schedules, but just very rough justice, because the village

[1:04:19] only gets a certain small percentage of the real estate taxes coming back to it. Oh, I see

[1:04:25] percentage of revenue that the village gets.

[1:04:29] Well, actually, the part I mean kind of misspoke, but the part that makes this complicated

[1:04:37] to answer the question about the property tax bill is that as I haven't gone through

[1:04:44] the process, so in the plan, $9.9 million is for sanitary sewer projects.

[1:04:51] And that likely, unless the board decides to do something differently, likely none of that would be on property tax bill.

[1:05:00] That would entirely be on the utility bill.

[1:05:03] So I haven't gone through for the total amount of debt that would be issued and to define how much would be would actually affect the property tax limit versus the sewer bill, storm sewer bill, water bill.

[1:05:18] That's the piece that I have to do to do that, and once I get to that, then I can answer that question.

[1:05:27] So, but if I'm going to take a real, just ask a real guesstimate at it.

[1:05:40] You know, I would say that you're looking at the debt service portion of our levy probably doubling over the next five or six years.

[1:05:51] And that's, if I remember right, not a quarter to a third of the property tax bills.

[1:05:59] So, you know, people would probably be looking at, you know, maybe a 25% increase.

[1:06:06] That would take place over, you know, between now and 2030-2023.

[1:06:12] That makes sense.

[1:06:13] Can I clarify something or ask something?

[1:06:16] So we have the property tax levy and then we have the debt levy.

[1:06:25] But when we increase our levy as the debt levy, we don't share that with the schools or with anybody else.

[1:06:32] We get 100% of that. So if you're talking about, oh, we only get 25%.

[1:06:36] No, it's not. I'm talking about where the revenue comes to pay back.

[1:06:39] Excuse me.

[1:06:40] Yes.

[1:06:41] Okay. So then I misunderstood. I thought you were saying we only get 25%.

[1:06:43] Excuse me. We're not talking across.

[1:06:46] So yeah, you can say for property tax, we get about 25%.

[1:06:49] But for the death, let me, we get 100 percent of that, yeah.

[1:06:54] Okay, yes.

[1:06:56] I had a question on this table, and you mentioned when under road reconstruction and repaving,

[1:07:02] you know, for example, I'll take the 2027 number, which is approximately 8 million,

[1:07:06] and you mentioned that includes a lot of other things.

[1:07:09] And we have a line for design, for storm, for sewer, and for water.

[1:07:13] When I look at the other tables that Mr. Brandweier is going to speak about

[1:07:17] The number for road reconstruction and repaving is $5.6 million, and here it's $7.9 million.

[1:07:23] That's a huge difference. I'm trying to understand what that is, and also what miscellaneous projects,

[1:07:28] $1 million in miscellaneous projects.

[1:07:32] Well, this might be a good transition to Mr. Bramber to talk about the roads,

[1:07:37] and those projects, and I'll look up the detail of the miscellaneous projects,

[1:07:45] and answer that question later.

[1:07:50] So, what you're seeing there in terms

[1:07:53] of load reconstruction design work.

[1:07:56] I think the discrepancy arises with how we've laid out

[1:08:02] the CIP for the next five years with respect

[1:08:05] to the various projects that we have

[1:08:08] when we're going to be doing some work.

[1:08:10] And I'd have to double check the notes that I have.

[1:08:13] of what we did with each of these dollars that you see in the table in the

[1:08:19] Fox Point Paving Program.

[1:08:23] That's representative of cost to cost that we've

[1:08:27] received on bids and so we look at the per foot cost and then take that for each

[1:08:35] of the roads, multiply that. So for instance, we use a Bradley road where we were

[1:08:40] saying about each $900 per foot. And then out of that, we assume we look at how much was spent

[1:08:48] for road, how much was spent for water, how much was spent for storm, come up with a percentage,

[1:08:53] and then when we calculate the overall cost, then we're able to break that down. So if you go back to

[1:09:01] that slide, all right, let's take me just a second back up.

[1:09:10] I think the difference lies in the fact

[1:09:12] that the 5.6 million might be representative of the road in storm and the additional 2 million

[1:09:21] might be representative of the water. But there is a headline double check. Okay, the reason I ask

[1:09:27] is because there's a line for water. 620,000. Yeah, and that's not a line for design. Correct.

[1:09:33] That's 620,000 dollars is not representative of what the cost of the water may be on Santa Monica.

[1:09:38] And I think that's where it's just a function of how this chart was presented relative to this.

[1:09:48] And I'd have to double check our respective notice.

[1:09:52] I can't answer that question right now.

[1:09:55] But I'm here to tell you that I'm going to answer Trustee Barry's kind of, why are we here?

[1:10:02] We're here because I'm going to be brutally honest.

[1:10:06] pass boards, and this predates me, take the can down the road.

[1:10:13] That's just the reality.

[1:10:15] And so you get into this situation.

[1:10:16] And the reason why I like presenting the board members with these sheets,

[1:10:21] and the Fox Point P even program, is I remind them that in the late 90s

[1:10:27] and the early 2000s, they did anywhere from 2 to 5 to 6 miles of road a year

[1:10:34] for about five years.

[1:10:38] And then in poll five, the year before I arrived, they didn't

[1:10:41] pave any roads. Oh, six, the year I arrived, they paved 950 feet. Oh, 7,200 feet. And you can see how

[1:10:51] between 05 and 2011, we didn't do a whole lot of road people. And in those years, in

[1:11:05] And on the 6th we did some water main work, 07, no water main work, 08, you had water

[1:11:14] main, 09 you had water main, 010 you had water main, but by and large we did not tackle

[1:11:21] any of the storm sewer related work. It wasn't until we got to 2012 and started tackling

[1:11:28] storm sewer along with water and the road itself. And your costs become more expensive because

[1:11:37] the storm sewer perspective, the rural cross section would be still have to address where's the

[1:11:43] water going after 70 years. Your ditches get sediment that build up in it can sew the floor as to

[1:11:49] be reached out. So whether we're putting in green infrastructure or just ditching nose and replace

[1:11:55] and color pipes across the road, you would have that cost that you have to incur because it hasn't

[1:12:00] done in 78 years.

[1:12:04] So as you move forward and you can see how I've laid this off from 1988,

[1:12:11] the earliest year that I have data for when we started paving through what our plan is in 2036

[1:12:18] and we put cost estimates and that's exactly what they are just estimates based off food,

[1:12:23] got into prior pits for 27 through 36.

[1:12:28] And of course these are always subject to change

[1:12:30] because next year we weren't planning on doing Santa Monica,

[1:12:33] but it came to this board earlier this year

[1:12:35] because we had four or five water main breaks

[1:12:38] on a road in under six months.

[1:12:40] Three water main breaks that Mr. Correct will refer to earlier.

[1:12:46] One was on Willow, west of Santa Monica, west of Regent.

[1:12:51] And then the other two were close to each other when it was on links north of Portage and the other was on Portage west of links.

[1:13:00] And those two happened within four or five days of each other.

[1:13:05] So we're constantly battling aging infrastructure and tackling all these infrastructure programs.

[1:13:13] isn't a lot of work it absolutely is. So you've got the road reconstruction projects

[1:13:18] and then as Mr. Crackle pointed out, you have the sanitary and storm sort of projects.

[1:13:26] I came to this board in April and before I sent out an RFP to the consultants that he referred to,

[1:13:33] I wanted to get a sense of where the board was at in terms of wanting to do a comprehensive stormwater evaluation.

[1:13:39] And if they'd be interested in increasing our cost for rehabilitation of the sanitary

[1:13:46] source and rehabilitation of the storm source and there was a, there was stomach for it.

[1:13:53] And so I pretty much double to triple what we've been spending and that's why you see

[1:13:58] higher costs in the storm and the sanitary realm because I'm looking at spending over a million

[1:14:04] dollars a year, just rehabilitating sanitary sewers. And similarly, when we do this comprehensive

[1:14:10] stormwater analysis, we're probably going to point out ways in which we can address the

[1:14:17] areas of concern that I've noted for the flooding intersections flooded roads. Any creek,

[1:14:23] as you heard from one of the property owners, adjacent to Indian Creek, is something that we're

[1:14:27] tackling as well because you've got the 100-year floodplain that the DNR and their infinite

[1:14:32] and it wisdom is designed to be under your floodplain,

[1:14:35] which we've disagreed with wholeheartedly.

[1:14:40] But it's gonna cost us money

[1:14:41] because they will only accept certain models

[1:14:45] done a particular way.

[1:14:47] It's all statutorily and code driven.

[1:14:51] And we're working through that

[1:14:52] with our consultant engineer right now,

[1:14:53] but some of that might mean we have to,

[1:14:57] for instance, add in a basin.

[1:15:00] That's going to cost money to add in a basin to store more stormwater. You know, how do you do that? Where do you do it? Do you change out the culverts underneath Port Washington road and switch that to a bridge? That's something that I've identified before. That's an additional cost.

[1:15:31] And this is just to give you a sense of where we're at from a road reconstruction perspective.

[1:15:37] It really lays out basically when the road was done, how many feet each year and what our plan is with the understanding that, like I said, Santa Monica was not on was not on the schedule for 27.

[1:15:51] and I think it was for 2030, and we're constantly moving these roads around, depending on

[1:15:57] what happens during the course of the year. How many water main breaks?

[1:16:03] You know, it's a sanitary going bad, all sorts of issues arise. That's why when you look at this,

[1:16:08] it's really just a plan, and we've got to be flexible with that plan. Similarly, when Mr. Crackle mentioned

[1:16:15] and the equipment, I think, this board with the recommendations that we've come forth with,

[1:16:22] but we bought three cab and chassis this year, and we're going to purchase the rest of the

[1:16:27] vehicles next year. That has worked out favorably for us because of new emissions standards that are

[1:16:33] coming on the horizon, so you might have more recommendations like that coming forth in 2007.

[1:16:39] So that's my 30,000-foot view of the capital or the structure or the village.

[1:16:49] Similar question to why are we here?

[1:16:51] I'll just remind board members who haven't been on the board.

[1:16:57] Bariantos did two reports for this facility, one in 2009, the other in 2019, which is in

[1:17:03] in 2026, wondering if the facility is going to be redone.

[1:17:08] You look at $5 million for expansion, or $20 million for new facility.

[1:17:14] It was pointed out 17 years ago that a new facility would be needed.

[1:17:19] That's somewhat similar to what happened with the PD.

[1:17:21] So when that was constructed in 2006, the debate over a new facility for PD,

[1:17:28] the, which also how is the fire department,

[1:17:30] prior to consolidation, excuse me,

[1:17:34] I think took about 10 years,

[1:17:36] chief reading might be able to speak more clearly on that,

[1:17:39] but I believe it was about a 10-year period of time

[1:17:42] where they talked about it.

[1:17:46] Yes.

[1:17:47] I just want to follow up to answer the question

[1:17:49] on the miscellaneous projects.

[1:17:52] About $900,000 of that is, of that $1,050 is

[1:17:57] for design of a new village hall.

[1:18:01] So that scenario includes a new village hall,

[1:18:07] and if we do move forward with that,

[1:18:10] that would take place in 2027.

[1:18:14] How much did you say for design?

[1:18:15] About 900,000 is what I include as an estimate.

[1:18:19] Mr. Olman.

[1:18:20] Just for Billy Chaw, is it with DPW bill?

[1:18:25] I'm including DPW.

[1:18:27] Any questions?

[1:18:32] Yes.

[1:18:33] It's just a comment.

[1:18:34] Is it safe to assume that perhaps the reason there was nothing really done between 05 and 011 is because of the debt assumed to build a police department?

[1:18:40] And there was a belief that debt levels should be reduced before embarking on a bunch of new projects.

[1:18:48] I can't speak to that.

[1:18:49] I don't understand.

[1:18:51] I don't really know the rationale behind that.

[1:18:53] I will say that our driver at the time said that we would be able to borrow more money than we were

[1:18:59] I think the the village was

[1:19:03] Get a verse at that time

[1:19:06] And there wasn't too much was stomach for it because he kept reminding me since it's got this is where we're at

[1:19:12] This is where we could be we can be borrowing a lot more to take care of these infrastructures. What was that John?

[1:19:18] John George

[1:19:22] Any other questions of staff

[1:19:26] Does this information for us, or do you need any input or what do you?

[1:19:32] This is for thought heading into our budget discussions.

[1:19:35] This is information at this point.

[1:19:38] I wanted to get this information out.

[1:19:42] Again, in the past, the board has not taken action on the capital improvements plan.

[1:19:48] It's just been kind of to set the stage for some of the discussions that will be taking place in October on both the operating and the capital budget.

[1:19:56] I have to say we do this meeting every year and it's always depressing, but it doesn't make less

[1:20:01] real. As always, I think always in September. So anyway, okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[1:20:19] you.

[1:20:22] And now we're going to move on to D7D, which is the consideration possible action on the police

[1:20:27] department's mobile video body-worn camera system for Poles Law.

[1:20:41] Well, I feel sitting behind me to

[1:20:42] want to give them their agenda and order at home.

[1:20:46] Quick history, 21 years ago, we started putting BHS cassettes in our squad cars with

[1:20:52] dash looking cameras and mobile microphones.

[1:20:55] So we evolved into a digital platform, and in 2021, we added body cameras because that

[1:21:03] was the new technology.

[1:21:04] That was the direction that was growing in its people and the standard for law enforcement.

[1:21:08] So, we're working on the assumption that this body does not want to go backwards, and

[1:21:15] that that's a technology we want to continue to have.

[1:21:18] We signed a five-year agreement in 2021 after reviewing different vendors, different options,

[1:21:26] cloud-based storage, and subscription services versus on-premise data storage, IT costs, and

[1:21:33] things like that.

[1:21:34] and we identified the axon as the vendor for the product.

[1:21:40] That contract is coming due in February of 2027, so this is actually an issue that part of the

[1:21:50] capital plan you just discussed. The only reason it's coming before the body tonight is that they

[1:21:56] are willing to give us $11,000 off the price point if we sign during quarter three of this year.

[1:22:03] So it's simply coming forward today rather than in two months to try and save somebody.

[1:22:11] If the board wants to postpone to count a bunch of discussion and make a decision,

[1:22:20] that's up to this body to the side.

[1:22:23] The reason we're coming early is they're offering a resinder contract early,

[1:22:28] early get $1,000, $10,000, $9,000 something off the price.

[1:22:35] We initially proposed a five-year agreement because that's what we had with them past.

[1:22:39] They came forward with slightly better price even though it's $700 higher to sign with

[1:22:46] them on a 10-year agreement.

[1:22:48] We saw that there's a somewhat loss of flexibility but it is locking in a price that we think

[1:22:55] is only going to go off. It was a awesome technology as for pound

[1:23:02] and dirty. Does this include the

[1:23:06] physical? This includes all the physical hardware so they will replace everything. We'll use

[1:23:11] January as our start point even though it's February 1. So January we will get all new car cameras,

[1:23:17] all of the mobile modems that transmit all of the data to the cloud, all of the body cameras,

[1:23:24] all the charging docks, everything installed, and then it comes with a warranty throughout

[1:23:28] that entire tenure contract with the in-vehicle equipment replaced every five years, and

[1:23:35] the mobile cameras replaced every two and a half.

[1:23:39] Okay.

[1:23:39] And includes, I'm sorry, all of the software storage and everything on the back.

[1:23:44] Okay.

[1:23:45] Miss Alien.

[1:23:45] What is the price of the current contract?

[1:23:48] I mean, you're going to ask that.

[1:23:49] But it's slightly less, we thought of us within this goal of the inflationary rate.

[1:23:56] It was,

[1:23:58] I think we're going from kind of the double check.

[1:24:02] I'm not going to give you a number if you don't be misleading, and I don't want to be.

[1:24:05] And then when you calculate that savings, you're assuming that if we signed for five years,

[1:24:10] the following five years would be a 5% increase per year.

[1:24:14] Is that how you believe?

[1:24:14] Well, we're kind of assuming that we have no idea what we're going to be in five years.

[1:24:20] just looking at the cost of a standard hard drive we've been using for evidence storage.

[1:24:26] We were buying them a year and a half ago at $79.00 and they're $2.29.

[1:24:30] So we only are assuming that as more and more people are consuming more and more data the cost for the service is really not about the hardware.

[1:24:38] It's the storage of the evidence because we've got a story for seven years, sometimes long rates cases.

[1:24:44] So we're paying for perpetual storage.

[1:24:46] And what we're paying is in line with another Mr. Palley's are paying it is I just saw

[1:24:53] To notice this contract now granted they're buying far more services than we would even think about asking

[1:25:00] They were doing 120 months. They are doing 96 months and they're at

[1:25:06] $14 million

[1:25:08] Bring it down if it's not apples to apple but we break all the services it would say like I did contact the

[1:25:17] company today to verify that this pricing was in line with the state of Wisconsin, they

[1:25:23] have a state bid for pricing, so I want to make sure that we were getting state bid

[1:25:28] rather than something that gives us a small agency that they priced us differently.

[1:25:34] So they are pricing it in accordance with the national contract.

[1:25:37] The reason I asked is that I did was looking for information.

[1:25:40] I thought we were from what I read in this report.

[1:25:42] I thought we were paying the entire amount up front, which were not, because that didn't

[1:25:46] make much sense to me.

[1:25:47] And I was trying to figure out, well, is that what everybody does?

[1:25:50] And in one report that I found, it really broke down a lot of the pricing, and it said,

[1:25:54] for police departments of under 25 officers, the average was a five-year contract, was 135,000,

[1:26:01] and for us, it's significantly higher than that.

[1:26:03] So I wondered if that...

[1:26:05] And I've seen some of the similar data, and they were...

[1:26:08] They also did reference some companies that are no longer in existence, so I'm not sure...

[1:26:12] But this was strictly for acts on cops.

[1:26:13] Oh, it tracks.

[1:26:15] So that's all, that's the only reason I was.

[1:26:17] Mr. Pat.

[1:26:19] Trustee Ealy, I brought something up that,

[1:26:21] I think it's important I just want to clarify.

[1:26:27] The, because of the levy limits

[1:26:30] and because it was talked about previously,

[1:26:33] the debt service levy is not subject to levy limits.

[1:26:37] What a lot of municipalities in Wisconsin have been doing

[1:26:41] As I enter into these leases and they borrow for the full amount of the lease and they pay the full amount upfront, which is not a prohibited practice, but it probably isn't the best practice.

[1:26:54] But what we're recommending and the State Department of Revenue did about a year ago,

[1:27:04] indicate to municipalities that they would allow us to budget the lease payments in the

[1:27:12] debt service loving so that we could enter into a lease where we make annual payments

[1:27:16] so that because you would normally expect. But because that under General Exempted Accounting

[1:27:22] Principles is a long-term obligation that they would allow municipalities to pay for that

[1:27:29] out of their debt service levy so that we have very limited room or capacity within our operating

[1:27:36] levy. So it allows us to budget to budget forward plan for that way. My concern was that if

[1:27:41] you're borrowing $400,000 all at once you have financing fees, you have interest costs that

[1:27:47] significantly add to the cost of the contract, whereas this doing as a lease, it would not be that

[1:27:53] That's significant in any question.

[1:27:55] That was my answer.

[1:27:56] Okay.

[1:27:57] Are there other?

[1:27:57] Yes.

[1:27:58] Mr. McDonough.

[1:28:00] It seems to me that the discount or wherever it is is.

[1:28:05] It's nice, but it's extremely nominal to stay very up and silent,

[1:28:09] versus in a couple of months.

[1:28:10] Yep.

[1:28:11] And there's no, I don't have any reasons to believe,

[1:28:14] but I don't know, that it would not be there.

[1:28:16] Should we ask for it in two months after budgeting is done.

[1:28:19] The other thing is just general comment, technology leases for 10 years, I have enough experience,

[1:28:28] sounds not

[1:28:33] logical, because technology is changing so fast.

[1:28:39] So when we're thinking about a 10-year deal, I would think carefully, don't disagree and

[1:28:48] And I think the only reason we would even consider it is because of the equipment replacement

[1:28:54] that they were.

[1:28:55] I mean, we will have full access to the software side, which as they evolve, and we'll

[1:29:00] have the equipment upgrades every two and a half years for the body cameras, that be

[1:29:05] five years for the cars.

[1:29:06] But I don't disagree.

[1:29:07] That's why the manners that I went back and forth on, the flexibility of the five year,

[1:29:11] which is how we got here today, versus the 10 year.

[1:29:14] And again, they're more than willing to work with us to stay the contractor.

[1:29:24] So we wanted to bring it to the bodies and ages so that the members can look at it and

[1:29:28] decide because we've been $12,000 or $11,000 is not.

[1:29:34] Not nothing.

[1:29:36] Not nothing.

[1:29:37] It's not nothing.

[1:29:38] It's not nothing.

[1:29:38] If they're going to do it, you can at least have the option rather than make it decision-free.

[1:29:45] Okay.

[1:29:46] Okay. Any other questions?

[1:29:50] All right. I guess I will move that we authorize the Village Manager to sign the axon quote,

[1:29:59] or Q19

[1:30:00] One, three, one, four, four, debt, four, six, two, six, two, JT, and the amount of $407,710.7, prior to September 30, 2026, for the delivery of product beginning, two, zero, two, zero, one, 2027.

[1:30:21] Any discussion?

[1:30:25] Okay. I'll ask for a roll call, please. Trustee Alhman? All right. Trustee Alia? Trustee Friedman? Trustee Miller? Trustee Berry? Trustee MacDonald? No.

[1:30:36] and that motion carries.

[1:30:41] Okay. And I believe that we are on to consideration and possible action regarding the purchase of police patrol vehicle that

[1:30:53] you didn't go anywhere.

[1:30:55] Absolutely.

[1:30:56] I want to express my appreciation to the members who diligently read their packets prior to coming to meeting and be attention.

[1:31:05] and at no time, I don't think we can refine it.

[1:31:10] We could go for $436,000.

[1:31:12] But...

[1:31:12] Strike lots, Juan.

[1:31:13] Strike lots, Juan.

[1:31:14] But I couldn't find one.

[1:31:16] So you guys sort of got an amended agenda

[1:31:18] where the $4 million sign indicating

[1:31:20] that we were buying a space level vehicle

[1:31:23] with vinyl floors, cloth seats,

[1:31:25] and the absence of a spotlight

[1:31:27] and door handles removed in the vaccine.

[1:31:29] This is the third year we've had to come and talk

[1:31:31] at this time of the year.

[1:31:33] It's getting better the last few years with that allocation limits where we were limited to one vehicle for the agency that we needed to.

[1:31:44] They have removed the allocation limit this year, so my guess is that the consumer market is softening for the manufacturers.

[1:31:51] But the purchase allocation window last year we had one week that they also be active or that you've got your order spec now.

[1:32:00] you've got your week to get it in otherwise it'll be the late of the

[1:32:03] final year. They have ordered the order window for this year. They have not

[1:32:10] given us a closing date so that's because these will work before you and I

[1:32:13] just to pursue the purchase while the manufacturer's window to order is open.

[1:32:20] So you can confirm that at the price is 56,265 dollars? Right. Okay. Thank you. I know

[1:32:28] Greg wanted the Rolls Royce gold plate inversion but that's a sad day at Fox Point when we can't

[1:32:35] afford that. Okay, are there questions regarding this? You wife? I didn't have a question

[1:32:42] by that. Well, we don't want to ride around the block.

[1:32:50] Either way. Okay, any other questions, any comments?

[1:32:55] Okay, I will move that we authorize a village manager to submit a purchase order to

[1:33:02] Napleson, Shermore-Lay of Columbus in the amount of $56,260, oh sorry, $56,265 for police

[1:33:10] plea based upon the quote provided, and to be ordered for delivery in 2027 as a capital

[1:33:17] expense.

[1:33:17] Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

[1:33:20] Olden. Any discussion?

[1:33:23] I'll ask for a roll call, please.

[1:33:25] Trustee Olden.

[1:33:26] Trustee Elianne.

[1:33:27] Trustee Friedman.

[1:33:28] Trustee Miller.

[1:33:29] Trustee Barry.

[1:33:30] Hi.

[1:33:30] Trustee McDonough.

[1:33:31] Hi.

[1:33:32] President Stinch.

[1:33:33] Hi.

[1:33:33] And that motion carries.

[1:33:35] And that gets us to F, which is a report

[1:33:37] and possible action on the Fox Point rule

[1:33:40] as outlined in the age of 61 to 80 in our packets.

[1:33:43] And

[1:33:48] I do have another PowerPoint that I can walk through here, sorry, it's put in

[1:33:57] presentation mode, and there's a lot of things that in June, the Village Board asked

[1:34:04] me to take a look at and report back to you here at the spot.

[1:34:10] First, it's kind of an introduction and timeline of events related to the pool that wanted

[1:34:15] to go through. I did complete an analysis of revenues and expenses, looked at some questions

[1:34:23] and issues that came up regarding construction project estimates for a new pool,

[1:34:29] investigated potential partnerships with other communities and other organizations,

[1:34:35] did some research on trends in local government pools in Wisconsin. I explored some potential

[1:34:43] grant funding opportunities at referendum options, and then at the end, I do have some alternatives.

[1:34:49] It's not a universal alternatives or a myriad of other options, but some alternatives for your

[1:34:55] consideration. So, timeline that I thought some important, this isn't fully inclusive, but

[1:35:06] It's an important event.

[1:35:08] The Fox Point pool opened in 1968,

[1:35:12] and I think the village has done a lot looking

[1:35:16] at options related to the pool over time.

[1:35:19] There was a study in 2007 by Barrientos

[1:35:22] that looked at pool needs going forward in 2017.

[1:35:30] UWM did a study at future alternatives for the pool.

[1:35:34] There was a consultant study that was completed in 2019 and in 2020 there was a pool citizen advisory committee that was created and looked at options related to the pool.

[1:35:50] In 2023, the pool was closed due to a variety of factors, including some mechanical issues

[1:36:01] that took place there, and municipal pool citizens committee was created to get explore

[1:36:08] looking at going forward. Later on in 2023, the village board adopted a resolution setting

[1:36:15] a 50% match and stating that if that match was achieved, that from the Friends of the

[1:36:22] 520 pool, that the village would fund the other 50%.

[1:36:27] And then in 2024, the Village Board approved a concept plan that is available on the website.

[1:36:38] This is a spreadsheet that includes the revenues and expenses related to the pool from 2014

[1:36:45] through 2022. There is no 2020 column. The pool is closed during 2020 related to the pandemic

[1:36:56] that we all experienced. And I'm going to switch to the next slide to kind of talk about some

[1:37:04] of the trends here on revenues. You can see that there was a study decline in revenue. The bulk

[1:37:13] of that came from, well, I should say the bulk, but one of the areas that reduced that,

[1:37:18] so the greatest reduction was revenues from camps and classes that was partly based on my

[1:37:28] conversations with staff, partly due to reduction in enrollment, but also due to the difficulties

[1:37:36] and finding instructors and lifeguards for those classes.

[1:37:44] You will see some reduction in memberships

[1:37:47] and the orange part of the column if you compare 2014 to 2022.

[1:37:54] The points of sale actually looked like it had a small increase over the years

[1:37:59] and then just small miscellaneous revenues.

[1:38:03] On

[1:38:06] the expense side, here this breaks out the general operating expenses aren't blue.

[1:38:13] Capital expenses aren't orange and then debt service related to pool related projects

[1:38:18] is in gray.

[1:38:21] And again, I think one of the highlights here is that you can see that the general operating

[1:38:26] expenses were relatively flat, there was some fluctuation but did not, you know, between

[1:38:32] roughly 175 and $200,000 per year.

[1:38:37] There were a couple of larger capital projects in 2015

[1:38:42] and 2019 that bumped that total number up to that.

[1:38:49] So looking at the net losses from the pool,

[1:38:54] and again, just as some background, the pool was set up as a separate fund

[1:38:59] within the village budget, and then any gap between revenues and expenses was made up through

[1:39:07] transfer from the general fund. So in other words, the property tax levy then supported

[1:39:13] the pool and made up any of those losses that took place.

[1:39:18] And I looked at this three different ways. There were some questions that came up about,

[1:39:23] you know, how much of this was related to repairs and maintenance and how much was related

[1:39:28] to operations and then overall so that the blue bar there shows the overall losses which

[1:39:34] you know ranged you know fairly significantly from year to year and even when you take

[1:39:42] out debt service and then debt service and capital expenses you can see there are still

[1:39:48] some pretty significant losses especially in the later years.

[1:39:55] This slide goes through membership data, and I think that you can see some decline over

[1:40:06] the period of time that's represented here, especially if you compare 2014, the first

[1:40:13] year to 2018, where there were over 350 memberships in 2014, down to just a little over

[1:40:24] 300 in 2022. There was a bump between 2019 and 2021, basically, I think after things reopened,

[1:40:37] after the COVID pandemic, you did see more people returning to the pool, all of that decline

[1:40:45] started up again in 2022. And I think the majority of the decline or the worst part of the decline

[1:40:53] was in the non-resident memberships where you can see that that orange part of this bar graph

[1:41:00] were non-resident memberships were declining.

[1:41:06] So some of the takeaways from this overall revenues

[1:41:11] declined by 34% from 2014 to 22 and again that was mostly due to reduction in revenue from

[1:41:19] KFC classes and non-resident memberships, pool expenses remained relatively flat,

[1:41:25] only going up 5% during that period of time, total net overall losses during that 8-year

[1:41:34] period were $842,000, the net operating losses for that period were $568,000.

[1:41:42] Overall, membership went down 15% from 2014 to 2022.

[1:41:49] Again, I'm just comparing the beginning and the end.

[1:41:51] There were fluctuations within that time period.

[1:41:54] And that was driven mostly by a 50% decrease

[1:41:59] in non-resident membership.

[1:42:01] Actually did see a 90% increase in resident membership

[1:42:05] during that time period.

[1:42:09] So the next section of the presentation

[1:42:11] looks at the construction estimates.

[1:42:13] And the construction estimates that have been included that were reviewed by the board back in 2024 and are available on the website or the original column, which shows a total estimated cost of $7,090,000 with a range that the consultant provided of minus 5%, which takes us down about $6.7 million and potentially up to 10% which is about $7.8 million.

[1:42:43] One of the questions that came up was adjusting these numbers to reflect demolition had already

[1:42:51] taken place and then to adjust the numbers to only reflect the pool component.

[1:42:59] So if you look at the far right column where it says pool only, in addition to removing

[1:43:05] the demolition and erosion control, which is already completed in that column, I removed

[1:43:11] the playground, $225,000. I left the site as it is, and the site expenses are

[1:43:23] things like stormwater runoff, utilities that might have to be upgraded or

[1:43:30] replaced or improved. And those are largely driven by the pool itself. So the

[1:43:38] of those at $1 million.

[1:43:42] Then the pool itself obviously would state the same.

[1:43:46] The building package, I made just a proportional reduction

[1:43:50] in that number.

[1:43:52] The building itself, the design that was approved by the board

[1:43:57] included not only the locker rooms, toilet facilities,

[1:44:02] concession stands, and those items

[1:44:04] that are directly related to the pool,

[1:44:07] but also included some community space.

[1:44:11] And I will say this is my estimate,

[1:44:15] which is trying to look at.

[1:44:19] I did not have details of what that $2.1 million

[1:44:23] consisted of.

[1:44:25] So assuming that we wouldn't see a large reduction

[1:44:28] in the amount of plumbing or electrical work

[1:44:32] or toilet facilities,

[1:44:35] that, you know, by and large, it would just be reduction in the footprint in the community

[1:44:41] room that was put out was mostly empty space without a lot of additional construction costs.

[1:44:50] So I did not take half of it out, but I believe it was 25% of that total building package cost.

[1:44:58] And then

[1:45:00] You're recalculated to soft costs, to reflect that that's sub-total. So that would bring the total cost of construction at about 6.1 million and applying that same range, that architecture applied of minus 5 to plus 10%. That would put the range at 5.8 to 6.7 million dollars for construction of the pool only.

[1:45:28] So some of the conclusions there, you know,

[1:45:33] The allocation of the cost to separate out the community center reduced the pool only portioned by a little over a million dollars.

[1:45:43] And I just wanted to note that those that I'm working off estimates that were prepared by park texture, the consultants that we used for this analysis about two and a half years ago.

[1:45:55] We did staff did have a conversation with park texture.

[1:46:00] At that time, a few months ago, they believe the numbers within that range are still workable.

[1:46:09] You know, though there has been a lot of construction inflation, they felt like looking at some examples of recent pull construction that those,

[1:46:17] it's still for decision-making purposes, it's still valid to use the numbers that they had prepared in 2024.

[1:46:29] Then look at trends in local government pools.

[1:46:34] There have been a fair number of pools that have been open over the past few years across

[1:46:41] the state.

[1:46:42] I've got those listed in the left hand column.

[1:46:46] And in Milwaukee in particular, there have been a significant number of county pools that

[1:46:53] have been closed in that same time period.

[1:47:00] Looking at these pools, and I did not investigate each individual pool in detail, but I did

[1:47:08] look at some information that was available for several of the pools, and I looked

[1:47:16] at some studies at Milwaukee County has done.

[1:47:20] And if you look back at the list, one of the things that I think you see in common is

[1:47:25] is not all, but many of these pools that were constructed are in more rural areas and are

[1:47:35] taking place in cities that are kind of the center of a rural area.

[1:47:40] Marshfield, I'll use that as an example, my wife's family is from that area.

[1:47:46] Marshfield is a town, a city about 20,000, and there are within a 30-minute radius from

[1:47:54] from Marshfield, probably it does in different communities,

[1:47:58] ranging from 1,000 people to 5,000 people.

[1:48:02] That all, and Marshfield is basically the hub of that area.

[1:48:07] I think Placville has a little bit of a similar situation.

[1:48:12] Clintonville is similar to that.

[1:48:15] Some of the others I'm not as familiar with geographically.

[1:48:18] But in those pools, what you're seeing is communities

[1:48:21] that closed pools that were somewhat similar to the pool that previously existed in Fox Point and reopen something larger and to draw more people regionally to draw more non-residents in.

[1:48:37] And that's also coincidentally the same strategy that Milwaukee County outlined.

[1:48:42] They did a strategic plan on their pool system, and they kind of took an intentional approach of closing some of the neighborhood park type pools like McCarty.

[1:48:55] What else is on that list?

[1:48:57] just the approach to Jackson Park, and instead they are planning to open, I think, to more

[1:49:08] regional aquatic centers, something like cool waters, or I believe there's one at Lincoln

[1:49:17] Park.

[1:49:18] This is another one that they opened up, so I think they're looking at moving in that direction.

[1:49:25] I explored potential partnerships, I started with the North Shore Village Managers, there's

[1:49:37] a group of us that meet on a monthly basis, actually all the Village Managers, from Shorewood

[1:49:44] up to Glendale, up to River Hills, Fox Point, we're in their brown deer, Bayside, I'm not sure

[1:49:55] of missing anyone. And I did bring up the multiple meetings. I asked the other village managers

[1:50:02] to indicate if they had any, would be willing at all to consider partnering with a village

[1:50:15] of thoughts point either on construction or operation of the pool.

[1:50:22] One community, one village manager

[1:50:25] from one community did believe that there was potential and talk to members of her village

[1:50:31] board.

[1:50:33] Ultimately, she came back and said that she did not believe that there was a potential

[1:50:38] partnership there, that there was that support from their village board to do that.

[1:50:44] I shall skip to the next slide.

[1:50:46] And the reasons that they gave were the peding needs for capital funding, they're looking

[1:50:55] at numbers similar to what we're looking at and did not believe that they could fit

[1:51:01] into their capital budgets, a pool as well as challenges on their operating budgets.

[1:51:08] They also did indicate, and I think this is consistent with what we saw, the decline in

[1:51:15] non-resident memberships that increasingly, you know, their residents were finding other

[1:51:22] solutions for pools, and particularly in the one community where the Village Manager

[1:51:29] talked to members of the Village Board, I think one of the trustees responded and just

[1:51:34] So that there really hadn't been any demand from residents to him to try to rebuild the

[1:51:44] pool or to have a pool that they had found another alternative is.

[1:51:49] I talked to Representative from the Jewish Community Center and there was some interest

[1:51:57] in potentially partnering together for operation of a pool.

[1:52:01] I have the same conversation with Nicolay,

[1:52:03] high school Rec Program Director,

[1:52:06] and he expressed the same interest.

[1:52:08] And I think that if the village does decide to move forward with a pool,

[1:52:12] there would be an opportunity to partner with one of those two organizations

[1:52:17] or another organization that could be beneficial to the village.

[1:52:21] That I think that one of the challenges the village had is that we didn't really have staff

[1:52:27] with the background and expertise in managing a pool or a recreational facility and partnering

[1:52:36] with one of these organizations on the operations could help maybe reduce some of those operating

[1:52:45] revenue gaps using their expertise, their ability to market to a broader audience and potentially

[1:52:53] to have better sources of staff to hire, to fill some of those slots that we struggled with.

[1:53:01] So I think there are some potential opportunities on the operations of the pool.

[1:53:09] Looked into potential grant funding, there are two primary grants that I think are most promising

[1:53:19] and if the village decides to move forward with a pool would be things that I think that we should pursue.

[1:53:27] One is the land and water conservation fund. That's federal money that goes through the state of Wisconsin.

[1:53:35] That provides up to 50% of funding for outdoor recreation projects.

[1:53:41] This is a competitive grant program and the most important criteria is the availability of recreational operations.

[1:53:49] in the area. And then the second is an outdoor recreation legacy partnership. This is a direct federal grant.

[1:53:59] It is also a competitive program that would provide up to $15 million for 50% local match for recreational facilities in urban areas.

[1:54:09] This is a grant program that the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County and other area communities.

[1:54:18] We typically likely be competing against that.

[1:54:21] Do we count as an urban area?

[1:54:23] We do.

[1:54:24] We do as part of Milwaukee County.

[1:54:30] So just some conclusions.

[1:54:33] I think it's likely that if we do go forward, we could identify partners for operations

[1:54:39] the pool that could help to make it more cost effective from an operating perspective.

[1:54:45] I do think it's unlikely that we're going to find municipal partners to fund the

[1:54:50] construction. There are grant programs that we could apply for and again I think if we go forward,

[1:54:57] I think we should apply for them. I do have to say I think it's a long shot to get those.

[1:55:08] And you know we'd be looking at for example the land and water conservation fund.

[1:55:15] We're not only competing against other pools, but all types of recreation project costs and we do live in an area here where there's a lot of other recreational options.

[1:55:30] So I think that would that would that would hurt our case, but not saying not saying there's not it.

[1:55:36] You know, I like to do movie quotes from bad 80s and 90s movies, but it's not one in a million, but I'm saying there's a chance.

[1:55:49] And sort of the same is true with the second, the outdoor recreation legacy partnership.

[1:55:56] And there it's especially looking at the access of the facility to impoverished areas.

[1:56:06] So, I think a lot there would depend upon if the pool is located in a place that's easier,

[1:56:14] that's easy for people from some of the poorer areas of Milwaukee County to be able to access

[1:56:21] the pool and utilize it. So, again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be, I think,

[1:56:28] I think difficult to get through that competitive process.

[1:56:35] So referendum options, you know, one of the, I guess, first points that I make is that

[1:56:45] it's important to remember, we're not required, unlike school districts, we're not required

[1:56:50] to hold a referendum to issue debt for a pool or this type of facility.

[1:56:54] so you're not required to do that. The board is authorized to make that decision moving forward.

[1:57:03] However, the village could hold a non-binding referendum, asking residents if the village should build a pool,

[1:57:11] or the village could hold a binding referendum to increase the level to pay the debt service related to a pool.

[1:57:17] So, a referendum is an option if that's the direction the board would want to move forward with it.

[1:57:25] And then finally, one of the other things to consider.

[1:57:29] And again, I think we could probably close the gap on operating expenses and revenue with a partnership.

[1:57:35] I don't know that we could close it entirely.

[1:57:39] So, another thing to consider is if we do build a pool,

[1:57:46] may wish the whole of the binding referendum to basically increase the property tax living to

[1:57:51] fund the difference between revenues and expenses, so that funding is available to do that.

[1:58:01] So finally, I can just talk a little bit about alternatives. And again, there are many iterations

[1:58:10] in between these alternatives, but wanted to lay some options out.

[1:58:16] Number one is always no change.

[1:58:19] The policy that exists today is that if the Friends and Fox Point pool come up with $4 million

[1:58:25] or 50% of the cost to construct a new pool, the village will move forward.

[1:58:31] And that's an option to leave that in place.

[1:58:32] I know that the fronts were here in June and they have not raised, I believe the number

[1:58:43] was about $150,000, $60,000, so they've run into some difficulty in doing that, but

[1:58:49] or could reiterate that that offer is out there to the residents as it is and keep that policy.

[1:58:58] If the board wants to change the policy, I'm trying to cover a spectrum of options here.

[1:59:05] Number one, you could just rescind the resolution and tell staff to include the new pool in

[1:59:10] the 2027 Capital Improvements budget or to include it in the 27-31-5-year plan at a point

[1:59:18] that you think would be best.

[1:59:23] second is kind of the opposite of that option you could rescind the resolution and just make the decision

[1:59:29] that the village is not going to pursue a construction of the pool at this time and leave it at that.

[1:59:37] A third option C would be to rescind the resolution and adopt a new resolution or more precisely direct staff to prepare a new

[1:59:47] resolution that would reduce the fundraising target to 50% of pool costs only and you

[1:59:53] may want to consider putting also putting in a deadline for the fundraising

[1:59:58] the efforts.

[1:59:59] It's Saturday.

[2:00:00] A time specific when they would have to achieve that fundraising amount. And then finally, you could

[2:00:07] rescind the resolution and then have staff put together a resolution to hold either a binding

[2:00:13] or a non-binding referendum on the construction of a new poll. So there's, you know, several different

[2:00:19] ways of approaching that and that are open for your consideration. So, I guess with that, any questions?

[2:00:27] Okay, so I'll also add in that we've had Steve and I have had contact from a member of the pool committee

[2:00:35] Who's very looking forward to getting together to get together until later that speak of the earliest, but

[2:00:41] Has pointed out after I asked some questions and has pointed out that

[2:00:47] They haven't been doing anything this summer the initial fundraising women that were involved gotten

[2:00:54] committed in their lives. They've looked at, they are starting to explore the

[2:01:01] possibility of hiring a fundraiser. It's not unusual that a large campaign would

[2:01:08] go through several iterations. The library certainly went through several iterations

[2:01:12] of fundraising until they finally got successful and hit there where they wanted

[2:01:17] to go. And they've been, they've also been building their board, including our trusty

[2:01:24] stilts, who's in the audience, but clearly passionate and a big champion of the project.

[2:01:30] So so there seems like coalescing around sort of a new breath of fresh air and activities.

[2:01:43] So I'm guessing we'll meet. We've just been working on our calendars, but I'm guessing

[2:01:49] and we'll get together with them in the next week to 10 days couple, but so can we go back

[2:01:57] to the slide with the breakout of the prices?

[2:02:01] Sure.

[2:02:03] I think you can.

[2:02:06] Sure why?

[2:02:07] Oh,

[2:02:09] no.

[2:02:10] Let me just wait.

[2:02:12] So, if anyone seems like it's locked up on me here, of course.

[2:02:17] Oh, there we go.

[2:02:17] I'm sorry.

[2:02:18] The options?

[2:02:19] Yeah, the pricing.

[2:02:20] The pricing.

[2:02:22] The numbers.

[2:02:22] I

[2:02:28] could ask for this in part because something that has been kind of bouncing around in my head

[2:02:38] who last little while is this community building and what it looks like,

[2:02:47] what it feels like, I know that in initial designs and concepts,

[2:02:54] We had something and somebody, and it was either Trustee Freeman, maybe Trustee Miller, I don't

[2:03:01] remember. But anyway, somebody said, I think that's too small. So we then made it bigger.

[2:03:08] And by, I don't know, 50% or whatever that happened to be. And that, to me, seemed a little Irish

[2:03:17] I think, and it made me, I've been thinking about the fact that, first of all, I think a community building is important.

[2:03:28] Second of all, we haven't really thought about that building as clearly it has to have locker rooms, showers,

[2:03:44] I don't think we know what that should be or what our community wants it to be and given the fact that it serves our community and the purposes, I think Mr. Miller, you talked about, you know, really having it available for people to use all around and it's really different than a pool building.

[2:04:08] And I think that my personal thought is maybe we've underestimated the cost of that,

[2:04:15] but I think that perhaps that's an inappropriate cost to put into a 50% fund raising goal,

[2:04:24] because I think that that could be looked at as a community cost.

[2:04:28] And removing that would then make the goal

[2:04:32] you know six to six and a half million dollars which is different than eight.

[2:04:39] So that's why I had to ask that some of this stuff be broken out and I appreciate the fact

[2:04:46] that it was. I think that a six to a six and a half million dollar goal is a different

[2:04:54] thing for all of us to get to and you know we've clearly heard

[2:05:02] that what are village scenarios like so does anybody have any thoughts or comments?

[2:05:07] Yes. I was reviewing stuff we've done previously related to this too and I

[2:05:16] was reminded that in 2019 we did a survey of the whole village and I think 84%

[2:05:25] of people who responded to the survey said they definitely wanted a pool. So

[2:05:29] it's quite high and I get very discouraged when I hear people trying to

[2:05:35] extrapolate some sort of support for the pool based on how much people have

[2:05:39] donated so far because I don't think you can really make that connection.

[2:05:43] We don't, it's not fair to pretend that how many people have donated so far

[2:05:48] has anything to do with how many people want to pool.

[2:05:51] Now of course that was just

[2:05:53] who people who want to pool didn't have any cost attached but even 58% of people

[2:05:58] said they were willing to have their property taxes raised to fund a pool. So

[2:06:02] still well above half the village wants a pool and is willing to pay more taxes. So I would just

[2:06:08] go back to that when we're thinking about this idea that we that maybe people don't want to pool.

[2:06:14] Like of course some people don't want to pool but the vast majority want to pool and are willing

[2:06:18] to put in money. Actually there was 58% of respondents which was I think less than 40% of our population.

[2:06:26] But still, it's a size of a number of note, but it's not the majority of residents.

[2:06:32] Well, I think it's a representative sample, so you can assume that it is the majority.

[2:06:39] Actually, that's not true.

[2:06:41] You can't assume that that's not true.

[2:06:42] Well, the study says that it's representative of the whole population.

[2:06:49] So, my view, I appreciate this.

[2:06:51] I think anything we can do to help is where I would like to head.

[2:06:54] So, in my view, it would be great if we could do something either put it up for a referendum,

[2:07:02] so that's voted on, and I would say binding referendum voted on, and then also that would include

[2:07:06] the portion where we educate public. Here's the actual cost to you because maybe some people do change

[2:07:11] their minds, or maybe we don't have a majority, and so then it would be just the ultimate decision.

[2:07:18] There would be no more debating among us, I think, if the people just vote on it, and they either

[2:07:23] funded or they don't. Failing that or possibly supplementing that, I think if we could get

[2:07:31] the fundraisers a more definitive concrete design, maybe actually go through paying for

[2:07:41] what would be a much further along design than what we have now, which is great. You know,

[2:07:47] this concept got us quite a ways, but I think if the people who might be sitting there

[2:07:52] waiting to donate the big bucks are seeing that we're still debating how many of this it has

[2:07:58] and what's that going to look like, a pre-added plan that was like here, we could go build this

[2:08:02] then we would be open to applying for grants which I think is probably not a big chance but we

[2:08:08] would also have something for the fundraisers to put in front saying look they're going to build this

[2:08:12] thing if we give them the money and so I think that could be a really powerful tool that we might be

[2:08:17] consider if that if the cost of producing a more definitive plan isn't insane. I would I mean given

[2:08:23] the fact that it defines labs and pool numbers and pools square footages and all of that I would

[2:08:29] say it's actually very defined for a campaign. So it's as defined as any campaign I've seen for

[2:08:38] $2,000,000,000 at this point. So I would argue that it is defined.

[2:08:45] Okay. I mean, it's very clear. And I think that pool designs are very clear. They were

[2:08:54] voted on and passed unanimously. I think that the pool group has done a beautiful job of

[2:09:00] representing the materials in a way that's compelling and interesting to people.

[2:09:06] I mean, I think they're beautifully put together. So I'm not sure that

[2:09:11] going back to that accomplishes much.

[2:09:14] Well, it might not, but it's obviously not good enough to get a grant.

[2:09:17] So it could be further.

[2:09:18] It could be something where we could apply for a grant,

[2:09:20] which I think would also be more proof that we're really, really going to do it.

[2:09:26] If we get the money.

[2:09:28] Well, I do think also that we do need a timeline.

[2:09:31] I mean, one of the things that we've heard is there's no timeline.

[2:09:36] And, you know, I think that, you know,

[2:09:41] And what I would be in favor of is lowering the cost to total cost to divide six and a half million dollars to be using that kind of cuts the difference, putting a timeline on and I really think we need a January timeline, not before anybody gets wild, not January of 2027, but choosing either.

[2:10:09] probably 29 January because there has to be enough time to actually go out and do it.

[2:10:15] And I think the reason there should be January, February timeline is because lots of

[2:10:20] people are very geared around year-end giving.

[2:10:22] And so to do, you know, something in September or October is ridiculous.

[2:10:29] I mean, it would be cutting off the potential to really bring in some significant money when

[2:10:33] you're pushing towards the final conclusion.

[2:10:35] and I don't think that that's smart or right or fair,

[2:10:38] but I would be in favor of that.

[2:10:41] Yes, Mr. Holman.

[2:10:42] I'm in favor of a referendum.

[2:10:44] Simple one.

[2:10:46] Just have it.

[2:10:47] Did you get a citizen?

[2:10:49] You and I got elected this last election

[2:10:51] with just 40% of the people voting.

[2:10:54] Yep.

[2:10:55] That's not the majority.

[2:10:57] Yep.

[2:10:58] I say we have a binding referendum.

[2:11:01] Then you know.

[2:11:03] Then no way on this side or no way on that side

[2:11:06] That is good to say that is the way it goes.

[2:11:09] And you have the two things that at this governor's welcome.

[2:11:12] I don't think we will be able to get in for an election.

[2:11:14] I remember it will lead.

[2:11:17] No, no, November.

[2:11:19] It is the election turn out when we prime into 80% to 80%怨.

[2:11:24] Then you will get a true representation.

[2:11:27] Mr. Friedman.

[2:11:29] So I would like a pool, I would like a dog park, I would like a whole bunch of

[2:11:35] recreation facilities here that would add to the amenities of the village but I can't get

[2:11:41] away from the graph that the village manager presented to us showing us that even if we don't do

[2:11:48] a pool and if we don't do a village hall we're still going to run up against the debt limit and it's

[2:12:05] about the fact that our DPW and police and fire are asking for more money, so is the library,

[2:12:12] and fire department. Fire department. And as much as I want, every single one of those amenities,

[2:12:20] how can we walk away from the graph that Mr. Crackle showed us to me?

[2:12:28] Yes. I have the same concern.

[2:12:32] I don't know that the information we got today was most uplifted, but it's

[2:12:37] Based on some reality, the other concern I've always had is we have very limited billage

[2:12:44] on property that is undeveloped and really the poolside probably is the only site we have

[2:12:51] that's not and I have difficulty committing millions of dollars to build a facility that's

[2:13:02] It's going to be there for 40 or 50 years and takes away any flexibility for other types

[2:13:10] of development, whether it's a better site for the Village Hall or a community center who

[2:13:17] knows about it.

[2:13:18] Maybe it does end up going full circle back to some type of residential development that increases

[2:13:22] their tax base.

[2:13:25] I think it's just being the only remaining undevelopable, undeveloped site that we all might

[2:13:33] really think putting any type of long-term facility that's not a profit center.

[2:13:40] It's not an asset. People say it's an asset to a village. It is not an asset.

[2:13:44] It's a detriment. It's a liability. I just can't see using that land that way.

[2:13:49] And, again, I reiterate what Rusty Friedman said.

[2:13:55] We have a lot of expensive real-life situations facing us over the next few years.

[2:14:02] We don't know what kind of cost, any type of flood mitigation efforts might be committing

[2:14:11] to a pool at this point.

[2:14:16] is inappropriate. You know, if the full committee wants to continue the effort for fundraising,

[2:14:25] if we lower the target dollar amount and take another couple of year to 2.5 years for that effort,

[2:14:33] maybe I almost feel like this first effort was sort of a false step. Maybe we both learn from the

[2:14:41] process and what needs to be done to be more effective at the fundraising, whether it's

[2:14:46] hiring professional fundraisers to assist or whatever may be. I just cannot for those

[2:14:55] reason really see going forward with the decision for referendum.

[2:15:00] At this point, I think there's just so much more that it has to be really considered. I could have a very long term in fact that. Yeah, I would just say I don't really understand this argument about developing a land. I don't know what we're going to develop. And this is exactly the type of thing that the land should be used for, something that is a community asset because it is an asset. If that, if that is what people want the land used for, it was used for a pool as a pool for 50 years.

[2:15:30] I don't, I certainly think that's a better use than using it to park trucks.

[2:15:35] I think it adds value to the community.

[2:15:40] I think it would have been helpful to have what we asked for in June,

[2:15:43] which we asked for analysis of potential pool operating costs and revenues,

[2:15:48] including the additional revenue streams that would be available

[2:15:50] from things like concessions to get an idea.

[2:15:54] We didn't, we specifically said we didn't want historical data.

[2:15:56] data. We were looking for forward-looking data for potential operating costs and revenues.

[2:16:03] So it's unfortunate we don't have that. I think it would be useful to know what these partnerships

[2:16:09] would consist of. I mean, what does Nikolay want? What does the JCC want in return for whatever

[2:16:17] they're going to offer? And what are they going to offer? Because I don't know why that wouldn't

[2:16:22] And also go a long way toward getting rid of any if there is a deficit.

[2:16:28] I think a new pool would draw a lot more people, I think one of the reasons a lot of people

[2:16:32] were leaving was because the facility was in disrepair, it would close at random times,

[2:16:38] and it just wasn't that nice facility.

[2:16:40] So we had a much nicer facility, I think we would get more people, especially with the closing,

[2:16:45] for example, of the JCC pool of in Mackline.

[2:16:50] It would be, you know, we can look at that graph, there's a lot of, you know, that we haven't made any decision about whether or not to do these things.

[2:17:00] So to me, when I see all of a sudden we're going to spend 13 million in one year on DPW projects, that's a massive increase from what we've done in the past.

[2:17:10] And you know, maybe we need to slow those things down if we're going to have significant other projects.

[2:17:18] I don't recall a year that I haven't been on the board that long, but spending $13 million on DPW projects.

[2:17:25] I haven't seen it to do that years in a row.

[2:17:30] Maybe those have to be split into two years, and that stretched out, and it's not a five-year plan, it's a ten-year plan.

[2:17:38] So, I think there's a lot of things to think about, but I do think that, again, if a referendum

[2:17:46] may be the way to go, I mean, if people don't want it, if they don't want their increase

[2:17:50] in their taxes, because even if you say the debt levy is going to double, the debt service

[2:17:55] levy, how much is that per 100,000 valuation?

[2:18:02] We're not talking about doubling people's taxes, that's not the equivalent.

[2:18:08] So again, we asked for those numbers, we didn't get those numbers, but that would have

[2:18:12] been helpful.

[2:18:13] We also asked for an estimate of the cost saving from having up the dry pickup.

[2:18:19] We didn't get those numbers.

[2:18:20] We also asked for an estimate of the cost of the larger community room, and I don't believe

[2:18:24] we got those numbers.

[2:18:25] So I'm not sure why we didn't get any of the things that we actually request.

[2:18:35] Yes, Mr. Oli?

[2:18:36] I just don't understand why some members on the board is afraid of a referendum.

[2:18:41] That's why I'm getting the opinion.

[2:18:43] You've shown the public right here and out.

[2:18:46] You definitely don't want to pull.

[2:18:48] Let the people fold.

[2:18:51] Go away with our residents.

[2:18:53] We represent the residents.

[2:18:54] Yes, we residents.

[2:18:55] Make sure we don't waste their money.

[2:18:57] But this is something for the residents.

[2:19:01] Have a referendum.

[2:19:03] You got your answer one way or another.

[2:19:05] Simple.

[2:19:06] I think some of the hesitation around a referendum

[2:19:08] is the fact that we've been making decisions for four years here

[2:19:12] with great difficulty.

[2:19:14] We've designed it.

[2:19:15] We found a site.

[2:19:17] We've costed it out.

[2:19:18] We've done those things.

[2:19:20] And still, here we are,

[2:19:22] looking at how complicated and how difficult it is

[2:19:25] and how polarizing it is. We made the decision, by the way, you and I voted for the decision

[2:19:32] to share the cost using the community model that we've already used. So we've already had

[2:19:37] three or four specific votes around this, which by the way have taken a lot of time and energy

[2:19:45] to get to. And we never took a get the residents to vote. I asked for reference from the beginning.

[2:19:52] it never happened. And when that, you always said that the one meeting you pull up,

[2:19:58] there would be law enforcement, say, an eight million, you have to come up with four million.

[2:20:03] Harley, any discussion? You had already your motion meetup.

[2:20:08] We only received it the day before the meeting. Yes.

[2:20:13] I would say that this is a bigger decision than rule or notable. As I mentioned before,

[2:20:20] or there are many things that this village needs to weigh

[2:20:24] that can be very costly.

[2:20:26] And to just take a snapshot of one part of it

[2:20:29] and say, we want to pull or not, yes or no,

[2:20:32] I think is not looking at the entire picture.

[2:20:36] That's my concern.

[2:20:37] And I think no matter how you try to educate,

[2:20:41] the general population has to what type of cost there may be,

[2:20:47] or how nice it might be or how many more people might use it.

[2:20:54] It's a very emotional reaction.

[2:20:56] I don't think we should be deciding this on emotion.

[2:20:58] We should be deciding this on what makes monetary sense.

[2:21:04] And as a fiduciary, as fiduciaries for this community,

[2:21:08] we need to be making decisions that are appropriate

[2:21:11] for a financial standpoint, not an emotional reaction.

[2:21:15] and that's why I feel my focusing just on a pool of no pool is truly emotional reaction.

[2:21:21] I'd love to be able to have a nice sports car or something else, but it doesn't make sense.

[2:21:28] And I think we need to look at all the factors that are potentially be impacting this community,

[2:21:34] financially, over the next several years, whether it's 13 million this year or six and a half

[2:21:40] million. They are still a cost that we're going to need to be taking on. As we

[2:21:44] increase our average tax bill for every resident in Hinder and its value, the

[2:21:51] homes go up over time. We're starting to price all the young families out of

[2:21:56] Fox Point. We just spent about 150 million dollars on school referendums

[2:22:00] years ago for kids go to school. Well if we're not feeding those schools because

[2:22:06] because young families can't afford to come in the box

[2:22:09] fine, we're defeating that purpose.

[2:22:11] It's just a much bigger picture than do we do a poor,

[2:22:14] don't we go to any other factors, et cetera?

[2:22:18] Mr. Oman.

[2:22:19] Like Rex explained, you educate the public

[2:22:22] what this is all about.

[2:22:24] Not just putting a referendum on there.

[2:22:26] We've got time to a spring election.

[2:22:29] You have everything down.

[2:22:31] The police station to go over 10 years before you

[2:22:33] approved the police station.

[2:22:37] I don't look at me. I wasn't part of that. So I wasn't here then. Yes.

[2:22:43] First of all, I don't think it's an emotional reaction at all. You can look at the expenses and say, OK, if we spread this out, we can afford to do this.

[2:22:54] Yes, it's a portion and a small portion of all the rest of these expenses, relatively speaking.

[2:23:01] So, you know, I object to this term that, you know, overall reacting with the motion,

[2:23:07] we're reacting to what people residents have said is important to them, as for facilities.

[2:23:15] We're not asked, why aren't we asking residents, do you want to spend 5 million versus 20 million

[2:23:20] on a building?

[2:23:21] We will be.

[2:23:22] Well, are we?

[2:23:23] Is that going to go to a referendum?

[2:23:25] We're going to be getting public input, as with everything.

[2:23:29] And then, as far as, you know, well, is it a value?

[2:23:35] That's for residents to determine as far as pricing out young families.

[2:23:39] I mean, I see in babies everywhere.

[2:23:42] I mean, I am seeing so many families with young kids.

[2:23:45] They're not being priced out as far as I can tell.

[2:23:47] I don't know where the money's coming from.

[2:23:49] But I see lots of young families.

[2:23:51] They did more than what I'm here.

[2:23:54] I might block along in this year we've had or two families, two small kids, one with

[2:24:01] a two.

[2:24:01] Well, that's fascinating, but I'm not sure that this is really relevant.

[2:24:04] Well, what you're saying about pricing people out there, I can't believe what they're paying

[2:24:09] for these houses, but they want to be at Vox Point, they're paying for them to get families.

[2:24:17] Is there anyone else other than the New Zealand that would like to speak?

[2:24:22] Okay.

[2:24:23] comment also that the school referenda were brought up. Well, again, you know, it seems

[2:24:31] to me the argument is we shouldn't allow referenda because if the school referenda, the school

[2:24:36] didn't have to say look, you know, your community is going to be spending this much on stormwater

[2:24:40] and your community is going to be spending this much on, no, they just, they asked, do you

[2:24:45] want funding for your schools? And it's not because people are stupid that they said, yes,

[2:24:50] we want more funding for our schools so your argument is just that

[2:24:55] referendum shouldn't be allowed but they are allowed and people are allowed to

[2:24:58] make the decision. Mr. Miller. That is not my argument. The referendum should

[2:25:02] not be allowed. My point is when take the example of the school referendum when

[2:25:08] that came forward and the big ticket it had for it, other people were not

[2:25:13] considering what other potential costs will my community have to cover over the

[2:25:19] several years, and having all that information, which you cannot educate them with, I don't

[2:25:24] believe thoroughly, prior to referendum, there are decisions on whether the referendum has

[2:25:30] stood to have been appropriate, the dollar amount, or maybe should have been cut back, maybe

[2:25:35] should not have been approved.

[2:25:36] There is a much bigger picture here than do we want in schools, we want just to pool, and

[2:25:42] this is where I think the poor responsibility is, because we are elected to do this to look

[2:25:46] at all the potential needs of this community. A lot of it was brought up tonight. We don't have

[2:25:52] exact numbers or timetables that we see that there's a lot coming down the shoot. And to say,

[2:25:57] let's spend $4 to $8 million on Google without really valuating all these other elements that are

[2:26:05] going to come, I think is just totally irresponsible.

[2:26:11] Well, I'll go out on a limb and I'll make a motion.

[2:26:16] I suppose nobody else has, and I would move that we direct staff to come back next meeting

[2:26:25] with a resolution that would take the existing resolution, adjust it for our cost of $6.6

[2:26:34] million to be split in two to reduce the fundraising goal of $3.2, $3.3 million and look

[2:26:44] at adding in a timeline of, I'll say, February of 2029.

[2:26:58] 29.

[2:27:01] So two and a half years.

[2:27:03] That gives, you know, four to six months

[2:27:05] you get organized in two years to hit it.

[2:27:11] And I'll point out that the Doctors Park project

[2:27:18] much more different goal, but in the last six months they've raised more than the

[2:27:23] pool's race so far. But I do think that there's new energy, there's new direction

[2:27:33] and I think that this is very, very common. It happened with the bridge, it

[2:27:36] happens with everything.

[2:27:40] You know, we've already paid for a number of the expenses,

[2:27:42] we paid for the design, we paid for the clearing of the site, we paid for a lot

[2:27:45] of these things, we're agreeing, we have already agreed by the way of nothing changes

[2:27:50] tonight, we've already agreed to pay $4 million for the construction of a pool.

[2:27:57] If the group brings forward $4 million, we have already agreed to somehow look at taking

[2:28:03] on the operational costs, so that is my motion and is there a second?

[2:28:11] I'll

[2:28:15] second that.

[2:28:17] Second.

[2:28:17] Mr. McDonough.

[2:28:20] Discussion on that?

[2:28:22] Yes, we will.

[2:28:23] I don't agree with the three million.

[2:28:26] I'd like to see your lord in that.

[2:28:29] Well, two million at the top.

[2:28:32] Okay.

[2:28:34] That's not the motion, but I appreciate comment.

[2:28:36] Thank you.

[2:28:37] Yes.

[2:28:37] I feel so much pressure right now, which you're asking me to do

[2:28:42] is vote on having a pool and saying no to the people whose basements are

[2:28:48] flooding in the creek and saying no to the DPW to be properly staff because the

[2:28:54] graph that we saw said we can't do all of that so I want a pool but I feel so

[2:29:03] conflicted because I'm gonna have to say no to other things and I feel like I'm in a

[2:29:09] no win position here.

[2:29:10] We are all in a no win position.

[2:29:12] Your options are to vote yes or vote no.

[2:29:16] And if it doesn't pass, then we may have another resolution.

[2:29:20] We may have another motion to not have a pool at all.

[2:29:23] And then we have our answer.

[2:29:24] We may have a motion to have a referendum.

[2:29:27] And then we may have our answer.

[2:29:29] So there we are.

[2:29:32] Anyone can make, you've already spoken yes.

[2:29:34] Yes, I was going to say another option is to amend this motion, so it could be amended

[2:29:41] to lower the amount of $2 million.

[2:29:42] It also could be amended to extend the date past January or February, 2021, which I would

[2:29:49] certainly feel that the date should be extended if we are going to do this.

[2:29:53] And I would also say that if we say yes to a pool, it doesn't mean we're saying no to Indian

[2:29:58] and Creek, we can say yes to Alice.

[2:30:00] So I have a question for you. What would you feel is a better date? And the reason I chose a January February is just to capture the year end. Would you say 2030 is a better date? 2030, 2031. If we're not doing anything that land anyway, let's give them more time. Well,

[2:30:23] okay. Any other discussion? Yes.

[2:30:28] I am in favor of giving whomever all the time they need.

[2:30:33] need but if we extend the time too much the costs are not going to be with the art today.

[2:30:41] So I guess rather than a fixed dollar amount, it would be perhaps a fixed percentage of

[2:30:51] what the actual costs are when the date comes in, when the date finally is hit.

[2:30:56] Could you remind us what it says in the resolution?

[2:31:00] It said they have to raise $4 million, but the problem is that they're not going to

[2:31:06] know when they use it, when the date is hit, how are they going to know it? They don't know

[2:31:10] what the cost is. Okay, so the car resolution says $4 million.

[2:31:19] Okay. Does it say or 50%?

[2:31:22] Not in the, not in the version I have. I don't have a size of version. I believe that it's $4 million

[2:31:27] and if that is more than 50%, the money would go into a fund.

[2:31:32] operations fund? I believe. Yes. Okay. So I have no problem with whatever date the consensus

[2:31:41] might be, but I don't want to end up in a position where we've lowered the number

[2:31:49] and our commitment, but the actual number goes up. And so our commitment is actually gone up

[2:31:56] beyond what we, what we might the authorize.

[2:31:58] I understand that completely.

[2:32:01] Mr. Berry, yes.

[2:32:02] You're going to be true that we,

[2:32:04] we don't have a final design.

[2:32:05] So we could take whatever money we get

[2:32:08] that we've set a limit on.

[2:32:10] And then we know the resolution says we will,

[2:32:14] it depends what it says, but we can change the design after that point still.

[2:32:17] We have voted on a design that can obviously,

[2:32:20] if everyone wants to throw everything into a sunder,

[2:32:23] we can throw that into a sunder too.

[2:32:24] So, but we have voted on a design and approved a conceptual design, which is fairly specific

[2:32:29] with a certain number of lap planes, separate pools for kiddies, etc., so somebody could

[2:32:36] say we don't want a kiddie pool, somebody could say we want four lanes instead of six

[2:32:40] or eight, I mean, whatever, but that's not where we are today.

[2:32:44] We haven't approved, voted on, unanimously agreed upon design.

[2:32:49] Okay.

[2:32:49] So, I just clarify, this motion is direction to staff and I just want to be clear in that direction.

[2:33:00] I understand the two points of the 3.3 million and the date which is currently February 29.

[2:33:16] Does this assume that it does not include the community building, in which case I think we should specify that information?

[2:33:27] Yes, it would assume that it does not include the non-pool portion of the community building.

[2:33:34] There is a pool portion of the community building, which it should be responsible for.

[2:33:40] But I feel it should not be responsible for the not-pool portion of the community building.

[2:33:45] Which Mr. Kreklo has ballparked.

[2:33:53] So, yes.

[2:33:54] I'm just going to make a comment to maybe help with the discussion here.

[2:34:00] But the board can keep in mind that what your motion is doing is asking staff to present

[2:34:08] prepare a resolution for consideration in October.

[2:34:11] So, if you're not certain, if members of the board are not certain about a date or some of the details of that, there would be an opportunity to discuss that and present amendments to the resolution at the October meeting.

[2:34:28] So, you're not making a decision on the resolution tonight, your motion would be to direct staff to bring a resolution together so you make a decision on that in October.

[2:34:40] would you like to make a friendly amendment to the date to be February of 2030. Yes. I would accept that. Would you accept that? Yes, I would. Okay.

[2:34:57] I have no, no, we're talking about absorbing the cost in the within our capital projects.

[2:35:09] So, and I want to make that very clear, I'm not talking about removing it, I'm talking

[2:35:13] about taking the cost out of the fundraising goal, not the structural function.

[2:35:21] Can I make a amendment for the price?

[2:35:25] You may.

[2:35:26] I mean, I'm not going to be accepting a friendly amendment to the price to $2 million, but you

[2:35:33] may try.

[2:35:36] And I'm the one who made the motion.

[2:35:39] I will need to make the motion to knock it down to, we're at 3.3, make it $2.3 million.

[2:35:46] Well, I don't accept that as a friendly amendment, so.

[2:35:48] Well, if it's seconded, it can be voted on us.

[2:35:54] Okay.

[2:35:54] Does somebody want to second that?

[2:35:56] No seconded.

[2:35:58] Okay.

[2:35:59] So now we have to vote on that.

[2:36:00] Is that correct?

[2:36:01] Well, you first can debate it, and then no one debate is over, then you vote on the amendment.

[2:36:07] Okay.

[2:36:08] Is there any debate?

[2:36:10] I mean, I would be very opposed to that.

[2:36:13] we've heard from people that we can't afford that.

[2:36:18] We're debating up here at the moment, so no.

[2:36:21] We've heard from basically everybody about this, so we know where people stand.

[2:36:27] Any other conversation? Okay, so last, we'll roll call on that amendment.

[2:36:33] on that one. Which you may have been yours.

[2:36:37] Excuse me, to include the amount of date as well.

[2:36:41] So this is only to change the main motion

[2:36:45] from 3.3 million to 2 million.

[2:36:47] Then there will be a second vote on the main.

[2:36:50] 2.2, is that what you said?

[2:36:52] 2.3. 2.3. You're at 3.3 right now, right?

[2:36:56] Yes.

[2:36:56] 2.3.

[2:36:57] Okay.

[2:36:59] I do have a question.

[2:37:00] Okay. So what happens if we get grants or we get all these other people come in? How does that change what to build these pays and what's the fundraisers have to pay?

[2:37:11] Well, the fundraising team would typically pursue grants from foundations and other groups that maybe they would have access to.

[2:37:20] And that would obviously count towards their pledges that would be applied to the situation.

[2:37:25] and if the village pursued a grant, like Mr. Cracklow had identified, then that would

[2:37:29] have applied to the village force.

[2:37:33] There's a very slim, like as in almost zero chance, that we would get the grants again

[2:37:38] and I find there for underserved communities, which we don't particularly identify as.

[2:37:45] So it's not to say it's impossible, but fundraising groups, teams, I mean, the bridge went after

[2:37:54] They're all sorts of grants from different people.

[2:37:56] They got recreation grants.

[2:37:57] They got all sorts of things.

[2:37:58] So that would get applied to their responsibilities.

[2:38:04] Okay, so we have a motion.

[2:38:06] We have an amendment and we have a second for that.

[2:38:10] And now.

[2:38:11] Through board three million.

[2:38:12] Yes.

[2:38:13] Any other debate on that?

[2:38:16] Okay, I'll ask for a roll call, please.

[2:38:18] Trustee Elman?

[2:38:19] All right.

[2:38:19] Trustee Elian?

[2:38:20] Yes.

[2:38:21] Trustee Friedman?

[2:38:22] I'm sorry to know.

[2:38:23] Trustee Miller?

[2:38:24] No.

[2:38:25] Trustee Berry?

[2:38:31] Okay,

[2:38:35] so now we have, we're back to the original motion which reduces the goal to $3.3 million and I've accepted the friendly amendment to the date of February 20, 30, 30, 30.

[2:38:54] Okay. Any other debate on that?

[2:38:59] Okay. I will ask for a vote called now, please.

[2:39:02] Trustee Omen.

[2:39:02] Aye.

[2:39:03] Trustee Elianne.

[2:39:04] Trustee Friedman.

[2:39:06] Aye.

[2:39:06] Trustee Miller.

[2:39:07] No.

[2:39:08] Trustee Berry.

[2:39:09] Aye.

[2:39:10] Trustee McDonough.

[2:39:13] Aye.

[2:39:15] President Sinchich.

[2:39:17] Aye.

[2:39:18] So, that motion carries and we have a new goal and a date and...

[2:39:25] What are your directions to staff to bring that back next month for consideration?

[2:39:32] Okay, thank you.

[2:39:36] All right, any future agenda items, the Village Board will act on any trustee request

[2:39:42] to place additional matters on the upcoming agenda.

[2:39:45] Anything?

[2:39:49] Okay.

[2:39:50] Announcements.

[2:39:51] I would like to say a huge thank you to Emily and the Centennial Committee.

[2:40:00] They did an amazing job of everything throughout the year.

[2:40:05] The book is fantastic.

[2:40:07] I don't know if we have copies out there for people.

[2:40:09] They've been picked them up.

[2:40:12] Oh, are they all gone?

[2:40:16] Okay, we'll put some more out if anybody needs one on their way out.

[2:40:19] we put some out but really Emily and the committee did a phenomenal job and I'm really pleased

[2:40:28] with how everything turned out so thank you. That's it for me. Trustee Elman. Trustee Elian. No adults.

[2:40:37] Trustee Friedman. Trustee Leonard. No announcements. Trustee Barry. No announcements. Trustee McPhannon. No announcements.

[2:40:49] Just one quick announcement, we are beginning the budget process for the 2027 budget.

[2:40:58] And we schedule budget workshop on Monday the 19th at 5 o'clock in this room and we will

[2:41:07] be having a public hearing on the budget and budget adoption on November 23rd at 7 o'clock

[2:41:15] in this room. Excuse me, the 19th of October. The budget workshop will be Monday, October 19th, okay.

[2:41:25] If I may, there was some discussion about November 5th, was that date gone? And now it's the 19th,

[2:41:32] or whatever? Yeah, we had sent out a poll and I believe the fifth was an option, but I think the majority

[2:41:43] came back on the 19th. Actually, I don't believe the 5th was an option because there is a publication

[2:41:54] requirement for the public hearing and I think if we've had it on the 5th, they will be separated

[2:42:01] out by next number of days. I just kind of lost because I was a communication for a short time

[2:42:08] Yeah, and I saw fifth to fifth and yeah, I apologize if we missed out now, but 19th, 19th.

[2:42:18] And you can participate by Zoom if that's okay.

[2:42:20] Yeah, we will have a Zoom option.

[2:42:23] Yeah.

[2:42:25] That was it.

[2:42:26] All right.

[2:42:28] Thank you.

[2:42:30] Oh, I'll move that we adjourn.

[2:42:32] Sorry.

[2:42:33] Second.

[2:42:35] Okay.

[2:42:35] I'll ask for roll call.

[2:42:36] Please.

[2:42:36] Trustee O'Lan.

[2:42:38] No.

[2:42:39] Aye.

[2:42:40] Trustee O'Connor.

[2:42:40] Aye.

[2:42:41] Trustee O'Connor.

[2:42:43] Aye.

[2:42:43] Trustee Beary.

[2:42:44] Aye.

[2:42:44] Trustee McConnor.

[2:42:46] Aye.

[2:42:46] Trustee Simpich.

[2:42:47] Aye.

[2:42:48] The motion carries.

[2:42:49] Thank you, award.

Village Board Meeting

Transcript