[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.