[0:02] Call this meeting of the county council to order. Roll call, please.

[0:05] » Alderman Goldberger >> here.

[0:07] » Strader >> here.

[0:08] » Stman >> here. Maki

[0:09] » here. >> Ter here. Tony

[0:11] » here. >> Meer here. Niles

[0:12] » here. >> Thank you. At this time, we'll entertain

[0:16] public participation. Anyone would like to address the council may do so. We ask

[0:20] that you please come to the podium, state your name and address and reason

[0:24] for appearing. Anyone?

[0:29] Ladies first. [clears throat]

[0:38] » Ellen Walber, 606 Windsor Terrace. Um, I just wanted to make a comment on the um

[0:44] resolutions regarding data centers. Um, first of all, I think it's definitely

[0:49] the right thing to do to be putting these um regulations in place prior to

[0:56] um anything coming forward in the future. Uh, but as I looked at the um

[1:02] language, I thought one um thing that could be potentially changed under it's

[1:10] 1.0, I know it's on page seven. Um, point C, all buildings shall be located

[1:16] a minimum of 250 ft from residentially zoned property. 250 ft to me is awfully

[1:24] small for putting up a big data center next to somebody's house. So, I would

[1:28] like to see you consider having that be uh a longer distance. And then um if you

[1:37] should start considering a a proposal from a data data center that there be a

[1:42] lot of transparency right from the get-go so that citizens do have the

[1:46] opportunity to voice their opinion because we've certainly seen what's been

[1:50] happening in a lot of the other communities um where this has been

[1:54] happening. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

[1:58] Anyone else?

[2:07] » Good evening. Good evening everybody. I'm Jason Marin and 4750 Pop Road in

[2:11] Jefferson, Wisconsin. Uh I'm up here today and I was thankfully here earlier

[2:16] to hear some of the ordinance proposal for the street closure. I there's a

[2:20] couple of points that were in there that I thought were um at least good for

[2:24] conversation and thankfully uh Alderman Overberger was able to address two of

[2:28] them. So the back side of this document we can just ignore uh the front side of

[2:32] it when I looked through the definition of the applicants and the way the

[2:36] ordinance was at least drafted into the initial part of it. It made it sound

[2:40] like the person that was signing that document would hold a lot of the

[2:43] liability for the for the event itself. And I think that dropped off enough

[2:48] documents in the last couple of years here. I look at that and think if I were

[2:52] to have to sign my name on a document and then I personally be held liable for

[2:55] any potential whatever that could happen in an event. I don't carry that kind of

[2:59] liability insurance. I know the organizations do for the events and so

[3:02] that's what I kind of put on the front side of this document. I do apologize. I

[3:06] don't have enough for everybody that's up here. There's definitely enough for

[3:08] each of the other persons. So just the one side like I said the back side

[3:13] already had those ideas kind of out earlier but if there's a chance that

[3:17] that language could be traum somewhat changed not that it has removed the

[3:22] liability but just make sure that liability falls squarely on the um on

[3:27] the organization that's holding it and I know we talked about the liability

[3:29] insurance as well previously and presumably each of the organizations

[3:33] have that liability insurance and so I just hope that that would get thrown in

[3:37] consideration if that ordinance were to move forward.

[3:40] So that's it. >> Thank you. Thank you, Jason.

[3:46] [clears throat] Anyone else?

[3:52] » Is there anyone else? >> Okay.

[3:58] » Hello everybody. Um Julia Chi, [clears throat and cough]

[4:00] » excuse me. Is that is that light on there? Can you please press the button?

[4:07] » There you go. couldn't you? Um Julia Shady, 214 East Greenwood Street in

[4:13] Jefferson. And um I just wanted to um the ordinance for the street closure.

[4:21] Just wanted to bring up a couple a couple thoughts. I think most of them

[4:25] were already um addressed, but the definition of the city property also

[4:31] includes parks and streets, not just the um the main streets, which I could see

[4:37] them posing a problem for the Kikan picnic, the car shows that we do down

[4:42] there, the meat pipes event that's host hosted at Rotary Park. Um I could see

[4:48] because we closed that road down right back here that that would be applied as

[4:52] well. So if that's not part of it, the language needs to get changed on that

[4:56] too. That make sense?

[5:03] Oh, you guys can't answer me. So hopefully that makes sense. But the

[5:05] language should be clearly in there that when the Rotary Park is closing that

[5:10] street right in front of Rotary Park because that's where they put the

[5:13] vendors and the car shows and um you know so music in the park get the way

[5:18] it's written now music in the um park could get um affected people could be

[5:23] affected and those other events that we don't want to have penalized for it. So

[5:28] I just wanted to make sure the verbiage got was put in there to protect those

[5:31] events as well. >> Thank you.

[5:36] Anyone else?

[5:40] Is there anyone else that would like to address the council?

[5:45] Um, hearing no. And I have uh something I'd like to share. But first, I'm

[5:49] because of uh recent uh questions about the intersection of South Main Street

[5:55] and Highway N. I'm going to ask Director of Public Works Todd Clark to address

[6:00] that and give an update on it so that we can get um accurate information.

[6:06] » Thanks, Mayor. Uh so, for those of you that don't don't know, the reason those

[6:10] lights are out is uh a subcontractor that was directionally boring bored

[6:14] through some of one of the conduits for the cable there. Uh caused major

[6:19] electrical damage in the control box. Um we're lucky we got it going the way it

[6:24] is with a four-way stop. uh was submitted to insurance and just last

[6:29] week we got approval from the insurance to move ahead to order the new

[6:34] equipment. Uh the equipment will be new and updated equipment.

[6:39] Uh it will be the camera system. So now we will be able to move that stop bar

[6:43] back further. It will be able to identify cars, motorcycles, whatever

[6:48] without having to pull so far forward. So kind of a I guess happy accident that

[6:53] uh this is going to be uh improve that intersection uh quite a bit and and

[6:59] update the equipment at the same time.

[7:04] » When you talk about church, you're talking about our insurance policy,

[7:07] right? >> Correct. That we made a claim against

[7:10] the

[7:17] » Okay. And um at such point when the the lights are fixed and brought back to

[7:23] full working order again, uh the city would have the option of that at that

[7:28] time. If they wanted to just make a flash red, they could do that. Or if

[7:33] they wanted them to go through the full cycle like they have for many years cuz

[7:38] some people have expressed a preference for keeping it the way it is. There's

[7:42] probably some good reasons for for doing that. There's probably some good reasons

[7:46] for uh maintaining a fully controlled intersection, especially if it's

[7:50] upgraded with uh modern technology. >> Correct. Because there's pros and cons.

[7:57] People feel they like the four-way stop better. Uh there's also concerns when

[8:03] traffic is heavier volumes. It creates no breaks in the traffic for say

[8:07] Plymouth Street. Uh trying to turn turn left out of there becomes impossible in

[8:12] the afternoon. So, there's pros and cons, but uh you know,

[8:16] Nestle is going to be having their drop lot uh back where the Wisconsin Drain

[8:21] Tile Company used to be. So, there's going to be a lot more truck traffic,

[8:24] semi traffic coming off of Plymouth. Um, so right now, uh, my feeling is I don't

[8:31] know if we can keep the four-way stop, but like I said, it's going to be a much

[8:35] improved traffic system that's going to be at that intersection and make make it

[8:40] a a better intersection for being able to control it. We can obviously have a

[8:45] little more flexibility on the timing and everything with new equipment as

[8:48] well. >> Thank you for that information, Todd. I

[8:53] have one other communication I'd like to share uh with the council and the public

[8:57] here tonight. Hello, Mayor Mayor. My name is

[9:02] My name is Phil Ellis, outreach coordinator for Lifeline Pilots.

[9:06] Recognizing the desire of city mayors and managers to serve their community. I

[9:11] wanted to tell you about our nocost air travel. This service is for

[9:15] non-emergency patients who require care at specialty hospitals like the Mayo

[9:20] Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, MD Anderson, University of Michigan Medical Center,

[9:27] Cincinnati Children's Hospital, etc. We cover 10 states in the Great

[9:32] Lakes/Midwest area and partner with similar

[9:35] organizations across the US, enabling us to fly from anywhere in Wisconsin to

[9:42] destinations across the continental US is in reach. We are a volunteer-based

[9:48] organization. Pilots who cover all travel costs for patients as a

[9:52] humanitarian gesture. Our pilots will pick up patients in their local

[9:57] community, fly them to their medical destination, and bring them home, all

[10:01] free of charge. These volunteer pilots build the mission of lifeline pilots

[10:06] every day, helping those in need reach their destination for special care and

[10:12] eliminating the burden of commercial air travel. I [clears throat] hope you can

[10:16] share this service with your community officials and residents when patients

[10:20] face these lifethreatening situations knowing that their air travel burden

[10:25] will be eliminated thanks to the coordination of local city officials.

[10:30] Everyone wins. I would like to connect with you by virtual meeting and a time

[10:34] to discuss this. [clears throat] So that's lifeline. If anyone has any

[10:39] information, uh, you can come to city hall and get specific [clears throat]

[10:44] information if you know of someone that's in this situation and needs

[10:48] non-emergency transportation

[10:51] uh, to remote locations. That's all we have for communications

[10:56] [clears throat] tonight. We'll move on to uh proposed ordinance number 1-26,

[11:02] an ordinance to repeal or replace section 240-8 of the municipal code of

[11:08] Jefferson concerning the temporary [clears throat]

[11:11] closure of public rightways in the city. Alderman trader, please.

[11:16] » Mr. Mr. Mayor, whereas the city of Jefferson has adopted the an ordinance,

[11:19] namely 240-8 regulating the temporary closure of

[11:24] public rights away within the city. And whereas the city has recently

[11:28] experienced an increase in applications to close public rights away, telling the

[11:33] city to clarify the procedure for processing these applications. Due to

[11:38] its length and in lie of reading the entire ordinance, a copy is available

[11:43] for inspection in city hall during regular business hours. This is a first

[11:48] reading. >> Thank you. And there was a uhformational

[11:53] discussion uh on this at the committee the whole tonight. uh the comments that

[11:58] were offered there [clears throat] will be taken into consideration

[12:02] uh by city attorney Rogers and staff uh and we'll uh come back and bring this

[12:08] back for a second reading at a future meeting. Next ordinance-2-20

[12:15] an ordinance to repeal and replace sections of subsection 300 of the

[12:19] municipal code of the city of Jefferson regarding signs to please.

[12:24] » Thank you honorable mayor. Whereas the city [snorts] of Jefferson, Wisconsin,

[12:28] the city has previously enacted signed usage regulations as part of its zoning

[12:32] code. And whereas the common council, the city hereby finds that is in the

[12:36] best interest of the city to clarify certain portions of its sign usage

[12:41] regulations. Due to its length in lie of reading the complete text of this

[12:45] ordinance, a complete copy is on file at the city of the office clerk and is

[12:49] available for public inspection. >> Thank you. Tim, can you please offer

[12:55] some uh additional comments [clears throat]

[12:58] with regard to this if you would just kind of summarize the intent of this

[13:02] because it was brought forward at the request of local business and uh we

[13:07] believe that it's appropriate to revisit our [clears throat] our policy at this

[13:11] point. >> I can indeed do that. Um uh I would say

[13:16] this matter comes to you uh on recommendation of the plan commission.

[13:21] they have been um [cough] uh looking at this matter and uh the

[13:26] mayor is correct. Uh there was actually more than one. We've had a a couple of

[13:31] these instances which um this ordinance hopefully will

[13:36] help the city address. Um [clears throat]

[13:39] this is a amendment to the city's zoning ordinance.

[13:44] uh [cough] the city's uh sign permit regulations inside that zoning

[13:51] ordinance. [clears throat] So that does require a public hearing.

[13:55] Uh that is anticipated to occur at uh the second meeting of the commission in

[14:00] January. That would be [clears throat] uh the fourth Tuesday. I don't know what

[14:05] date that is off hand, but [clears throat] it's the fourth Tuesday

[14:08] in January. Uh the change that uh is being recommended that uh has been uh

[14:16] addressed in uh this amended ordinance uh deals with pylon signs. Uh pylon sign

[14:25] is a sign that is on some kind of pole elevated off the ground usually 8 10 12

[14:32] ft. Uh those are no longer permitted in the city. Um we have lots of them. So

[14:39] they're like legal but nonconforming signs. Uh in lie of that, the city

[14:45] permits monument signs and you're starting to see [clears throat] quite a

[14:49] few of those. But we also have quite a few of these legal nonconforming pylon

[14:54] signs. And um in in several cases uh the owners of those signs wanted to change

[15:04] out uh the manual reader reader board component of those signs changeable copy

[15:10] with electronic reader boards and uh our code would not allow for that because of

[15:16] the uh non-conforming status. So [clears throat] what this proposed

[15:21] amendment does allow is that uh for owners of legal but non-conforming signs

[15:30] that want to make such a change, changing out the reader board component

[15:36] from manual to record. As long as [clears throat] the size of the sign

[15:39] face isn't changed, uh that would be something that could be permitted. uh

[15:44] the plan commission would be the one typically reviewing that application and

[15:48] granting that request if this amendment is made.

[15:52] » Okay. >> Thank you, gentlemen. Really, this is an

[15:55] updating of the ordinance to uh respond to current [cough and clears throat]

[16:00] technology or that be

[16:03] » video based signs. >> Okay. And that will come back for a

[16:08] second reading in a future meeting as well. Ordinance number 3-26, an

[16:13] ordinance amending the city's zoning code in order to regulate construction

[16:18] and operation of data centers. Paul Wenberger, please.

[16:22] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the common council, citizens of Jefferson,

[16:26] whereas it has come to the attention of the city's common council that data

[16:29] centers have become frequently more common in the state of Wisconsin.

[16:32] [snorts] And whereas there is no mention or reg or regulation of data centers in

[16:36] the city's zoning code and whereas the city's common council have come to the

[16:40] conclusion that it is in the best interest of the city that the city's

[16:43] zoning code be amended so the city will be prepared should there be a proposal

[16:47] to construct the data center inside the city's legal boundaries due to the due

[16:52] to its length [clears throat] in l of reading the complete text resources or

[16:55] resolution. A complete copy is on file to the office of the city clerk and is

[16:59] available for public inspection. This is the first reading of this proposed

[17:03] ordinance. >> Thank you. And Jim, could you please

[17:07] once again provide a brief uh explanation of the reason for this uh

[17:13] issue? [clears throat] >> Sure. Uh this matter also is coming

[17:16] before you tonight on the recommendation of the plan commission. Uh again, it's

[17:21] an amendment of the city zoning ordinance that requires a public hearing

[17:24] held at the plan commission level. That public hearing is also set for that

[17:30] fourth Tuesday in uh January. After that public hearing and plan [clears throat]

[17:36] commission action, uh it will come back uh as a second reading. Um here's the

[17:42] the quick skinny on this. Uh per my friend Ellen's comments, um the city

[17:48] does not have specific means to regulate data centers. Um this is a practical

[17:58] first step to allow the city to regulate them should at some time in the future

[18:03] there be some uh proposal or application to develop one within the within the

[18:08] city. There there is [snorts] no such application now. Um [clears throat]

[18:14] the key I would say is that if the city got an application tomorrow, the city

[18:20] would try to enforce that under its existing zoning ordinance which doesn't

[18:25] recognize data centers. So we would try to regulate under some industrial or

[18:32] manufacturing zoning district. What the change, the proposed change essentially

[18:39] does, it requires data centers to locate in the city's

[18:45] heavy industrial district. Now, we provide for that zoning district, but

[18:50] there are no properties currently zoned heavy industrial in the city of

[18:55] Jefferson. Now, if you're thinking, why does the city why doesn't the city just

[19:01] prohibit them altogether? You can't do that legally. you have to provide for

[19:06] them [clears throat] uh for a place to go. We're choosing to

[19:09] do it in the heavy industrial district which the city can regulate to the

[19:14] greatest extent that it can. And again, we have that district, but we don't have

[19:19] a single property in the city that is zon heavy industrial. So, uh, an

[19:24] application, uh, or a developer that wants to do one would have to come in,

[19:29] ask for a reszone on the property to that heavy industrial district. And the

[19:36] city has really no legal obligation to grant that zoning should it choose not

[19:42] to to do so. >> If I could add, Mr. Pay, um, with this

[19:48] zoning change, a public hearing would be required. Yeah, absolutely.

[19:53] » Yes. >> Thank you, Ch. Next up, uh, resolution

[20:00] number 83. Tonight's consent agenda following the computer, please.

[20:04] » Thank you, honorable mayor. Be it resolved by the common council of the

[20:07] city of city of Jefferson, Wisconsin. The consent agenda for January 6, 2025

[20:13] is hereby adopted. [clears throat] vouchers payable for the December

[20:16] payables in the amount of $727,21746.

[20:23] January payables in the amount of $248,85845.

[20:30] Payroll summary for December 26, 2025 for the amount of $233,654.98.

[20:40] Council minutes from December 16th and December 22nd, 2025 of the common

[20:45] council and licenses approved for the reg by the regulatory committee today

[20:51] with no operator's license. We had a class A beer beer and liquor license for

[20:56] wine and roses [clears throat] um and with for the new owner Bethany

[21:02] Stallman. temporary class B Optimus Club of Jefferson for a trivia contest on

[21:08] January 31st at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds and the taxi cab license for

[21:14] Brown Cab, Inc. for one-year license for two vehicles. I would so move. Is there

[21:20] a second? >> Second.

[21:22] » Second by Alderwoman Byer. Any discussion, questions or comments?

[21:30] This was all approved at the regulatory committee.

[21:32] » But was subc struck in the consent agenda?

[21:38] » Yes sir. Was deleted and referred uh by the

[21:45] finance committee to [laughter] discussion for funding.

[21:49] » I correct. >> Yes, that is correct.

[21:55] » Any other questions or comments? Hearing none. All in favor of tonight's consent

[22:01] agenda as presented, please signify by saying I as your name is called. No, if

[22:06] you're opposed. >> Alderman.

[22:08] » Hi. >> Stone.

[22:09] » Hi. >> Mi.

[22:10] » Hi. >> Teter.

[22:11] » Hi. >> Tony.

[22:12] » Hi. >> Meer.

[22:13] » I. >> Niles.

[22:14] » Iber. >> Abstain as to council minutes for

[22:17] December 16th. I as to the remainder. >> Thank you.

[22:22] Resolution number 84, a resolution authorizing the purchase of parks,

[22:26] machinery, and equipment. All the roll now.

[22:30] » Thank you, Mayor Aerman, citizens of Jefferson, council members. City of

[22:33] Jefferson resolution number 84 authorizing to purchase parks,

[22:37] machinery, and equipment. Whereas the city of Jefferson has budgeted $50,000

[22:42] in the 2026 capital improvement plan for parks machinery. And whereas the city

[22:47] has generated $9,825 in proceeds from the fall auction sale

[22:53] of equipment to be applied towards his purchase. And whereas the parks and

[22:57] recreation department with the assistance of the city's chief mechanic

[23:00] and fleet manager has solicited three competitive bids for a Bobcat L28

[23:06] articulating loader with attachments. And whereas Bobcat of Madison has

[23:10] submitted the lowest responsible bid. Now therefore, be it resolved by the

[23:14] common council in the city of Jefferson that city staff is hereby authorized to

[23:19] execute the purchase of one Bobcat L28 articulating loader, two attachments,

[23:25] and >> [cough and clears throat]

[23:26] » warranties not to exceed a total cost of $59,825.

[23:31] I so moved. >> It's been moved. Is there a second?

[23:34] » Second. Second by Alman Schrader. Uh we have Chless tonight.

[23:42] Anything else you'd like to share about this piece of code?

[23:44] » Um it pretty much spells it all in the resolution. This is a budgeted item in

[23:49] the 2026 capital improvement plan. Um the you do have in within your packet

[23:55] the three competitive bids that were given and so we will be under that

[24:00] 59,825 for the purchase of that. Um the two

[24:03] implements I can tell you one includes a brush and one will also probably include

[24:07] a snowblower attachment. Um the city parks department is responsible for

[24:13] removing snow in any city rightway area. That includes out here for city hall.

[24:17] that includes any of the bridges within town, the sidewalks that exist. And then

[24:22] obviously we have places like the VFW, the senior center, um, and we also have

[24:27] the conservancy path and we also have the path blue park that also has to be

[24:32] removed. So by having that articulating Bobcat with those functions on it, it

[24:36] allows us to be more efficient with the snow removal in those areas. In

[24:40] addition, we also use that articulating Bobcat for things like um tree removals

[24:44] when we take down trees and we have to load them in the back of the

[24:47] » [clears throat] >> that equipment is also purpose for that

[24:50] as well. So, it's a very important piece of mach machinery for us um in our

[24:54] future work. >> Are there any questions or comments from

[24:59] the council? >> What were we using before?

[25:02] » Well, so we do have a L28 articulating Bobcat now that's been in that's been

[25:07] commissioned for probably [snorts] three or four years already and because of its

[25:11] use >> eventually it's one of those things

[25:14] where we have to start looking at cycling them out. Um, so having two of

[25:17] them available makes our work a lot better.

[25:21] » Any other questions or comments? >> Thank you, Chad.

[25:26] » Hearing none. All in favor of resolution number 84, please signify by saying I as

[25:31] your name is called. No further opposed. >> Stman,

[25:33] » I ter I

[25:37] » Niles Ider. >> Hi.

[25:40] » It's unanimous. Thank you. Resolution number 85, a resolution approving cost

[25:45] reimbursement for additional installation depth of sewer main for the

[25:49] Jefferson Hills condominiums project. [laughter] A woman buyer, please.

[25:54] » Honorable mayor, council members, and citizens, whereas the city of Jefferson

[25:58] intends to extend sewer at the later at a later date yet to be determined to un

[26:05] undeveloped area east of Jefferson Hills condominium project. And whereas this

[26:10] requires the sewer main to be installed at the depth and cost greater than the

[26:16] required for the Jefferson Hills condo project and where thou fair thou fit

[26:22] there be it resolved by the common council of the city of Jefferson

[26:25] Wisconsin that earn re approves the reimbursement to the Jefferson Hills

[26:31] Condominiums LLC in the amount of $49,000 for additional costs including

[26:38] bench engineering. ing and installation and be it resolved that by the common

[26:43] council of city of Jefferson that the city administrator is here and

[26:47] authorized and directed to execute any contract or document associated with the

[26:53] above action on behalf of the city of Jefferson following its review by the

[26:58] city attorney. I would so move. >> It's been moved. Is there a second?

[27:02] » Second. Second by alderman. Um Todd, would you please

[27:07] a brief explanation of this and just describe uh where this is located and

[27:13] why it's necessary to uh provide additional depth.

[27:18] » Sure. So, this uh project is out by uh the hotel on the north side of town on

[27:23] the north uh north main business highway 26 and Junction Road. Uh the sewer right

[27:29] now uh you may have seen some of the construction uh right along the turn

[27:34] lane onto Junction Road. That is where the manhole is that they tied into. They

[27:39] are extending sewer uh to the east end into their project. Uh this is the

[27:45] project as you can see right on the screen right now. Uh they also have a

[27:50] roadway that is proposed to be built and just kind of deadended or hammerheaded

[27:55] uh to the east. Uh like the ordinance or the resolution said, they don't need to

[28:02] put it in this deep to serve their project, but we would like to make the

[28:05] area to the east uh developable with uh by putting the sewer in at additional

[28:13] depth. So the area in orange is by putting this in

[28:18] about 6 ft deeper uh the engineering the additional depth on the manholes uh

[28:24] it'll allow us to serve this entire property all the way over to the

[28:27] railroad tracks. Some of it's not even in the city yet it would have to be

[28:31] annexed in. Uh and all these utilities that they put in will be dedicated back

[28:35] to the city at some time become part of the city property.

[28:39] » Thank you Jim. Right. Um, the only thing I'd add to uh

[28:46] Todd's comments is the alternative is to extend service eastward on Junction

[28:53] Road. Lot more expensive than oversizing, putting a little deeper uh

[28:59] to get gravity flow on that big orange piece. Um, and as Todd mentioned, uh,

[29:07] without mentioning any names, uh, there is a single family development proposed

[29:13] on, uh, the piece of ground immediately to the east of, uh, the Jefferson Hills

[29:20] uh, condominium uh, complex. And then there's one more piece that is not

[29:25] within our corporate [clears throat] that takes us over to the railroad

[29:29] tracks. Once you get on the other side of the railroad tracks, then I think

[29:33] service is coming from the south, either up along Dwey or some other route. But

[29:40] um our goal is to get to the railroad tracks for future planning as cheaply as

[29:45] we can. So I I think it makes a lot of sense. The one thing I would say to you,

[29:51] Chris, um, [clears throat] is that if the council approves the resolution, I

[29:56] think you and I would need to develop uh, a simple agreement with the

[30:02] developer out there that basically says, look, you oversize the sewer, you put it

[30:09] deeper, we'll we'll we'll pay for it at that $49,000.

[30:14] » Be a problem. [clears throat]

[30:16] » Thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Todd, Tim, or Chris?

[30:25] None. Okay. Call the role on resolution number 85. All in favor, please signify

[30:32] by saying I. As your name is called, if you're opposed,

[30:35] » I >> I

[30:41] unanimous. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

[30:45] » I so move. It's been a move. Is there a second

[30:50] on our voice? All in favor of a journal, please signify by saying I. I. You.

[30:55] Thank you. We are journ. Have a good night.

City of Jefferson, Wisconsin, Common Council, January 6th, 2026

Transcript