Right. Uh, call the order the village
board meeting uh for the village of
Lisbon on Wednesday, August 12th, 2026,
6:31. Uh, roll call please.
>> President Gerky
>> here.
>> Trusty Monin
>> here.
>> Trusty Bomb
>> here.
>> Trustee Quinn
>> here.
>> Trustee Field
>> here. Administrator Green
>> here.
>> And clerk Capasel.
We'll stand for the pledge of allegiance
and a moment of silence.
Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» All right. Uh item three are citizen
comments. Um are there any citizens here
that wish to speak?
Anyone on Zoom?
>> No one present on Zoom.
>> All right. Um then we'll move on to the
uh item four which is the consent
agenda. Uh these items can be approved
in one motion unless the trustee
requests that they be consider any of
them separately.
All right. So, is there a motion on them
all or do we wish to pull something off?
>> Make a motion to approve the or approve
the consent agenda.
>> Is there a second?
>> I second.
>> Any discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. I.
>> Say nay. Motion carries 5.
Uh item five uh A is to authorize the
payment of the one quick bills uh dated
July 23rd amount of $2,13466.
» Moved as presented.
>> Is there a second?
>> A second.
>> Any discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Oppos say nay. Motion carries 40. Uh
item 5B is authorized payment of the
remaining bills dated July 23rd uh in
the amount of $39,319.554
and on August 6th for $170,32544.
Uh top five expenditures from July 23rd
are US Bank credit card for $151,79427,
Walker County Treasure in the amount of
$89,573.15,
Funk Engineering for $15,8485,
uh Village of Sussex for $14,171.58
and of Weiss Law Office for $6,716.96.
Top five expenditures for August 13th
are $36,193.15
per building inspection, $20,3671
to Kungpull engineering, $17,500 for
Carrick Holmes, $8,8646
to both infrastructure and $8,17244
to Guthther and Fry.
All right. Is there a motion?
>> Make a motion to approve the remaining
bills.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Any discussion?
It's hearing none. All those in favor
say I.
>> I.
>> Post say nay.
>> Motion carries 5.
Uh item six is announcements and
correspondence. Um the public works and
utility committee
um
will meet on Wednesday, August 19th at
5:00 here at the village hall. Um the
public hearing and plan commission
meeting on Wednesday, August 26 at 6:30
at the Richard Young Fire Station.
Uh that public hearing, Lisa, is that
what type of public hearing?
>> Not commission public hearing.
>> Okay.
>> Not a joint public hearing.
Um and then uh Labor Day uh September
7th, we are uh closed. All village
departments are closed for the holiday.
Uh parks committee next meets uh on
Wednesday uh September 9th at 5.
>> We were going to NYX that meeting.
>> Okay.
>> Because I'm out of town and a couple of
the other members weren't going to be
there. So we're going to cancel that
one.
>> Okay. All right. Um,
so then, uh, the next village board
meeting is, uh, Wednesday, September 9th
at 6:30 here at the village hall.
Any other announcements or
correspondents that need to be noted?
Now, we'll move on to Dan, your
administrator's report.
Um, so Tamarak Road is uh completed and
obviously I haven't driven down that
road, but Matt, you have. I don't know.
Looks nice.
>> Shouldering and all that is complete or
to
>> Yeah, I mean it's there's I mean the
shouldering it's going to settle some
and it's I I don't like the way it
turned out with with uh I mean people
cutting the grass is is is it stinks but
yeah
>> and the they kind of butchered the uh
>> strip
>> the line the striping it I mean but
hopefully it fades well.
>> Yeah. And when they when they do road
projects like that obviously the the
road comes up a good three or four
inches sometimes.
overlay. But
>> isn't there the there a yellow line just
around the corner though?
>> Yeah.
>> I was surprised at that. But I guess
they need it for a curve.
>> It was there before. Um but yeah, it was
there before, but they but they they put
it in and then didn't put it in right.
So they scratched it out and still
doesn't Yeah.
>> Did they remove the portage, John?
>> Finally.
Um just an update to the board and that
you you all have heard but Natasha our
treasurer she was gone from Lisbon. Um
so she served the village for over seven
years. So thank her for um her time
spent here in Lisbon. Uh currently we're advertising the position. Um we
have four applicants so far. We have it
posted for another 10 days. Um at this
point I'm serving as the active
treasurer uh but trying not to become
signers on anything has to be conflict
for anything. So uh using Elisa when I
need to have a signer to authorize
things. So uh hopefully I don't um you
know do anything terrible but I we'll get through it. So um if you have
any questions feel free to contact me.
So um and then we're working on I'm
working on the prelim preliminary
budget. Um, we're getting net new
construction estimates in. We're getting
WA County Sheriff budgets estimates in.
Um, trying to get a number from the fire
department. I think we're close. Um, so,
uh, budget's coming along pretty well. I
did share the list of board priorities
from the last meeting with architecture.
We had a a phone call or a Zoom call and
so they're working on that engineering
design. Um, the next step in that
process. Um, and just one more final
reminder that this is the last week that
you'll have packets printed and next
month there will be none. So, bring your
laptops.
>> There will be none. So, bring bring your
laptops.
» So, I have to print it from home
>> or bring your laptops. I think everyone
was assigned a village laptop. So, I
think the point of us doing that was to
say paper so we didn't have to print and
then people can pull it up on here and
look through it. So,
that ends my report.
>> All right. Uh, Adam or does anyone have
any questions for Dan on that report?
>> Uh, the resurface
164 is next year for us.
>> Oh, yes.
And they did you go to that that
meeting?
>> I did not. I just read the minutes but
>> okay
>> if you have any questions but this is
more for everyone in that land. Uh if
you have any questions it's a state
project not a village of Lisbon or
Walkshshire County project
>> and that's for the south side is the
north side going to be done the
following year.
>> Silver Spring to County Q is 2027.
>> Okay good.
» All right. Uh item uh 8A is discussion
necessary action regarding the land and
stone water uh expansion project.
Um
Dan, you want to wait set the table for Ben here?
>> Yeah.
>> Uh so I provided a very a summary report
of uh what we talked about at the public
works committee. Um essentially we had
two options that we were um pursuing.
One was with the village of Sussex and
one was with the city of Pewwaukee for
retail water. Uh for the areas uh south
on Townline Road and south of K um east
of Corey Corners.
Uh we met with both communities and uh
both had pluses and negatives to um to
providing us water. We after going
through um each each point of data which
uh Ben was able to provide in his
presentation um the public works
committee gave a recommendation to
pursue Sussex as the water supplier for
this project. Uh and so that is what
we're trying to get we're looking for
the board to also
agree to. And then with that, um, we're
looking to approve an amendment to
Strand's contract to start looking at,
um,
engine or engineering and, uh, actually
bidding out the project. So, uh, you
have Ben's report here. If he if anyone
has any specific questions, uh, Ben's
here to answer them. I wasn't going to
have Ben go through the whole report
that he did at public works. Um and
Mark, if you have anything to add to
that as well,
>> right? Um yeah, thanks to Ben. He's uh
here in person tonight from Strand
Associates. Uh Mr. Ben Wood. Uh some of
the first off, we'd like to thank the
both communities for helping us with
this as far as uh cooperation and and
providing us with options to choose
from. Uh both were good options. uh one
was just a a better option for long-term
service and uh not having to essentially
split split service uh between north and
south of K. Um
it it is a very um I guess tentative
plan. We're we're working through it. Um
Ben, you have any major highlights you
want to share with our audience today?
Um, just real quick, I think you nailed
the big one, which is like Pewwaukee is
not a bad option, but just the way
looking at all the factors, it looks
like Sussex is a better option and
probably quicker to implement since um
Sussex is already serving portions of
Village of Lisbon's
property there. So, there's already
model template, things of that nature.
Um
the thing to kind of get noodled out is
there's still a plan to have an
emergency interconnect with the city of
Kiwaki and that'll require some state
agency review. Um but um meetings were
held with with both entities and Sussex
is very willing to take this on.
All right.
Um, was there any further developments
with the church property as far as uh
using
their property for an easement or
connecting to the back of those highway
or wire road properties?
>> I will say we did add into our updated
cost assuming that we will loop through
the church property. That was one of the
feedbacks we received in meeting with
the municipalities was to try to limit
the dead ends. And uh just for
everyone's reference, it would be the
page that's titled updated uh
contemplated water mains and critical
areas. And if you direct your attention
to redeemer church, there's an orange
loop that would go through the south
side of their property. Obviously, this
is tenative. We have a lot of
permissions, easements,
>> as well as uh final designs, but
tenatively it would it would be a good
option to service those four highlighted
properties. but not ideal because it's
coming from the backyard, but uh it
would it would still give us access to
those properties.
>> If for some reason down the road if we
ever get a sewer water utility, would we
get our customers back?
>> Um I believe the draft agreement that
Sussex has presented is modeled off of
your existing agreement and Dan, I
believe that's a provision in there.
>> Um yeah, I just reviewed it. Uh there is
a provision in there that we would
there's not a dollar amount specified
but we'll walk through some of those
>> giving them away. I don't know if
forever going to do it but if we did
just so we have the option.
>> Yeah.
» And that is one of the considerations
why we'll own the infrastruct
infrastructure as well not just give
them the infrastructure.
>> Yeah.
Perfect.
Um
obviously high cost project but um I
mean and Nate's here from Lann and
Stone. Um I think it's appropriate to I
mean bring him in on this as well. I
mean you was you did he partake in the
conversation at the utility committee
meeting?
>> Um yeah I mean for the for the essence
of Mr. Wood spoke on behalf of the
agreement or cooperation between LSP and
Strand as well as the village. So, um I
mean do you guys have anything you want
to expand on that as far as
>> No, I think we had a good discussion
last month.
Yeah, sorry. No, I think we had a good
discussion um last meeting and Ben
covered it really really well and I
think we're all in agreement about how
the cost would be used and everything.
so far.
>> Yes.
>> So all the costs involved in this is is
going to be covered by you guys in your
budget
>> as designed right now. Yes.
>> You change do you think it's going to
change?
>> Well, fair question. So we've gone
through a 30% design so we can kind of
get a higher confidence level in the
cost just to kind of set the table to
make sure that yes, it's within the
realm of possibility. Let's continue to
move ahead. So, part of what's uh part
of the ask tonight is for an amendment
for us to get all the way to final
design, prepare those bidding documents,
and then we'll have that um
the layout nailed down even tighter with
updated costs, and we're looking at a
2027 construction for all of this. So,
from here, um several things will happen
on a parallel track. Strand will start
final design. Um the village will
probably presumably have some updated
negotiations with land and stone
products. Um the village will have some
updated discussions with Sussex and
probably hash out that finalizing that
agreement and we'll submit some agency
permit applications and and uh I know
Land and Stone and Village also intend
to do some public notices also of
pending action tonight. Um and that'll
all kind of be going ahead for the rest
of this year into early next year. So
it's not just the construction that's uh covered by by by the quarry
which we really appreciate. I mean the residents do too but all strands
cloths and everything are all covered
under
>> the quarry fund.
>> Pardon me.
>> It's in the it's coming from the Corey
fund which is the the deal that we have
with the course. Just want to make sure
that one.
>> And then to Ben's point, uh Lannon Stone
did also reach out to um public
call that
uh public relations um uh consultant.
And so I had a nice conversation with
him and we're going to work on once we
move on from this space getting the the
residents in this area notified holding
some public input meetings and and going
through that step so that we can kind of
hash that piece of it out before
hopefully before the end for the end of
the year ideally.
>> Does that $15,000 private property work
that coverage so the homeowners don't
pay anything?
» Nice. Well,
>> that's the intent.
>> Yeah.
>> And what is the total amount that's
going to be in the fund at the end of
the day that that the agreement was
written for years ago?
>> What do you mean? Uh
>> how much is in there right now? Or
>> No, no. How much is going to be in there
at the at total commitment was it was I
would say north of 107.
>> Yeah, I think it was closer to 15,
wasn't it? Something like that. Yeah, it
was 13 to 15 depending on sales and
inflation over the the period there's an
inflation escalator in there. Um,
>> okay. So, I mean with the 20%
contingency
and with the contingency and then the uh
20% contingency on top of that, I mean,
we're we still have a couple million
dollar cushion. Well, yeah, but I I
mean, keep in mind, too, that they were
probably anticipating when that
agreement was done to have municipal
water for more than just this area. I
>> certainly the hope.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> So, they didn't they didn't know at the
time what the cost would be.
>> I mean, if this is the area we need to
get done, I mean, to Linda's point, I
mean, we we we have the funds to cover
this that that we're not paying for. I
mean again the money hasn't been
received yet but it's going to be
received over the period of time.
» Uh Ben under the uh Strand Associates
agreement can you highlight what the
change was for compensation?
>> Yeah sure. Um, so we were under contract
for 188. This adds 225,000
to take us from 30% design to final
design uh for a total of 413.
And did want to point out there's some
uh several items listed as like items
not included. Um that's primarily
because we think they're not required
other than the public involvement stuff
which um
we have in our base 188 some of that
already but um
particularly easement
descriptions are not included yet. I
think once we get a little farther in
design, we'll understand kind of what
the property acquisition element of this
looks like. If I'm assuming that some
property owners will be cooperative,
others might not. You know, we'll kind
of see what easement acquisition is
going to look like and we might be back
for an ask related to assisting with
that.
>> Um, as we talk about public information,
I I noticed that the public information
meetings were excluded. Is that is that
strand services? Is that the
>> second?
>> I'll take the first crack at this. So,
in the agreement that you have in your
packet, um
it's items not included is number eight
and nine. That's on that last page.
I went back in preparing for this
meeting read reread the base scope of
services again um and I know you don't
have this in your packet but we already
have included
um under program management up to 300
hours for lots of random potential
things like extra agency communication
funding coordination and one of those
items is public outreach and what's
already included is communicated with
communicate with the public about the
project via owner approved means
including mailers, public information
meetings, information updates, and
owner's website public hearings. Um, so
basically what I want to suggest is what
you have in your packet is that we
delete items 8 and nine because there's
an element of that already included.
Um the way that works, how we described
it in the original
um agreement is we're just billing
hourly as needed up to certain hours. So
to the extent that Landon Stone Products
is using
uh a public relations
consultant and they're paying for that,
we'll help feed them information, maybe
review materials, whatever. But I think
it all fits well within our kind of base
scope.
Um is there there's no contingency on
strand services as far as
>> correct. Okay.
>> Are we bill hourly in expense not to
exceed up to that total
>> thresholds? Um if for some reason I said
the only foreseeable
additional scope might be the easements
once we get into that pin that down. But
uh that's how that looks. Um there's
contingency in the budget but there's
not contingency in our agreement.
» What happens then?
>> Uh if we get close to our threshold, we
wouldn't we wouldn't build beyond that
without coming back and uh asking for
another
>> asking the village.
>> Yeah.
for our
if we get close to our total of 413,000
then we would come back and ask for
amendment if that was warranted.
>> You wouldn't go back to Strand. But you wouldn't go back to
>> I'm with Strand,
>> right? I I'm just saying I got mixed up
the quarry. You wouldn't go back to the
quarry. You would ask the village to pay
the difference
>> because we we hold the funds. So that's
why they have to come to us.
>> I know we hold the funds, but what
happened to the funds? Like he was
saying gets down and you have to ask for
more.
>> Well, they're coming to us tonight, not
coming to land and stone. We're we're
>> Okay.
>> From their fund,
>> right? Right.
>> Cory's fun.
>> Our Corey fund.
>> Yes. LSP's
work. Yes. And tipping. Yes.
>> Tax contributes to that fund.
>> Yes. So he's saying if the if their
contract goes over the 417,000,
he's going to come back to us and then
we'll issue funds from the Corey fund if
we approve any amendments
>> from the fund. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> But with that being said, I mean the way
that the way that I hear, you know,
billing at an hourly rate and then will
not exceed having a cap on it. The only
way that we would go above the fourth 13
is if the the scope changed or if the
number of hourly I mean so if it happens
to take you longer to design what you
have planned here
>> then you eat that effectively.
>> Okay. Right.
>> Yep.
» Um I mean so I mean this these are just
the numbers we have here. I mean, these
are big numbers, but I I I mean, staff
and the committee has has looked in that
and you're comfortable with what's
behind it.
>> Yeah, there was um Strand and with LSP's
input, too. We we had a very long
meeting about it. Um it was it was very
informative. We went this packet that
you have uh with the PowerPoint. We went
through it, asked a lot of questions on
it. Um, you know, we found we found some
things that we changed a little bit and
I mean it's it's working. I mean, it's
>> And you guys pass it unanimously.
>> We did. Yep.
>> Just one other thing to add if I can
uh just kind of reiterate some of Landon
Stone Products sentiment is uh if we
start on final design now, we feel like
it took longer to get to a decision
point between suppliers than we
anticipated. some of that communication
got drug out. Um but public works
committee made that unanimous decision
and we feel if we start design now then
we can still advertise for bidding to
get this done in the 2027 construction
year. And part of the sentiment is the
longer we wait to do this the
>> buying power of that bond gets eroded.
You know what I mean? So it's kind of in
essence the board could think about it
as a you know well we're doing this
right since we're doing this then then
uh
taking action tonight keeps everything
on schedule.
>> Are there going to be any issue like
water pressure issues going from a well
to city water?
>> Um great question. Um there's actually
going to be really strong pressure down
here.
>> Yeah.
>> Kind of in the 80s.
>> So um most people that are on a well
have their well pressure set in the
mid50s.
>> Um so it's changed. Uh building code
says if it's greater than 80 PSI then
there has to be a pressure reducing
valve on that line. And once there's
that pressure reducing valve on that
line, if folks want to set it to be, you
know, 58 PSI, just like it was before,
they'll have that option.
>> Is this not going to cause any issues
with houses that have been on 50 and
then all of a sudden they get shot to is
it going to shock anything or
>> um That's a good question. All I can
tell you is we went through this in
Lannon and we converted about 200
properties over to municipal system and
municipal pressure and we actually
didn't do any PRVs. So, they really did
go from the full like 50 to 80. And I
have not heard any reports in the way
that people talk. I'm sure I would have.
I haven't heard any reports of internal
plumbing. But yeah, there's
>> certainly some to talk about in the
public hearings that people think a
>> pipe behind a wall is going to burst and
all kinds of things. But
>> yeah, we we talked
>> we did talk at the public works last
month about that and and covered it at
length about
>> that's going to be part of our public
information campaign as well. So people
are aware that there is a pressure
increase and you know what we recommend
or maybe don't need to recommend at this
point.
>> That's good.
» I don't have any other questions or
anything. I mean, anyone else have any
discussion here?
>> No, I I just um if I could just add and
I'll say it again. I think it's I know
it's very very expensive and I know it's
been voted not to do the sewer for the
homeowners with it because they don't
want it, but I think in the long run it
might be a mistake because it's not
going to get cheaper. I think it's the
time to do it, but they don't want it
and that's fine.
And I hope it doesn't come back to hurt
him someday or someone will move over
there.
» You ready for a motion?
>> Yep. Uh
>> it's a recommended motion on the bottom
of my
>> I'll make a motion to proceed with the
village's preferred supplier based on
the recommendation from the public works
committee and proceed with the schedule
presented and approve amendment number
one to the technical services contract
by strand striking eight and nine as all
else presented.
>> Is there a second to that motion?
>> I second. All
right. Is there any additional
discussion?
>> Thank you.
>> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Say n.
>> Thank you very much for coming. Please.
>> Yeah. Works. Thank you.
>> 5. Appreciate it.
See you tomorrow.
>> Bye.
» Great. Uh item 8B is discussion and
necessary action regarding the
replacement of the uh WAM mowers with
zeroturn mowers.
Um
>> Dan or Marrick who wants to take this?
>> Yeah. Uh so this is
by way of uh public works. Um it does
have to deal with parks, but uh just by
way of department, we're looking at um
replacing our wide area mowers or also
referred to in your packet as whams. Um
and we're looking to play replace those
with commercial zeroturn mowers. So just
for visual, the ones you sit on and
drive from a seat. Um
so Mike was really really very helpful
with this. uh there was a lot of uh
testing that went into play. Um and he
outline outlined in your packet the
current equipment that they have as well
as some of the challenges with our
current operations. Uh just some of the
things that we ran into. Um we currently
only have one of the full-time parks
employees that has a CDL uh limitation
on his on his license. So that limits
staff efficiency.
Uh I guess the concern from the parks is
that it limits productivity during the
busiest part of the season. Um when we have the additional labor
because we do hire seasonals. Um but the
essentially the labor can't transport
the mowers. So we're looking for a
smaller, more versatile and better
utilized mower. Um the wide area mowers
are a lot slower than what zero turns
can do.
Now, they do have a greater width in
cutting. Um, but it they're a lot
slower. The maneuverability is a lot
lower, and uh through the uh T& they
determined that uh we can actually be
more efficient if we're using the um
zero turns.
One of the other things that Mike looked
at was the um the cost of equipment.
Obviously, in the last five years, we've
s seen prices all over the board with uh
pricing and everything is becoming more
and more expensive. Um, just an example,
the
>> the 2020 wide area mower that we
purchased was 67 grand. Uh, that was a
2020. If you look at the Ferris model
that we tied, it's got a 72 inch uh
mower deck on it and it's at 17,000. Um,
so lower prices, quicker cutting, uh,
better utilization by staff, and, uh,
actually parts was a consideration, too.
That might cost in there. Uh, it's
actually easier to find the parts and
they're less expensive, and the, um, the
repairs take less technical expertise to
complete. Um,
the proposed equipment's on page two of
your packet. Uh they were looking to do
three of the Ferris 72-inch mowers. Um
also too, one thing that we also thought
of was the insurance cost and uh so
we'll not that it's make a substantial
difference to our insurer, but uh they
would definitely will probably feel
better about the fact that we're getting
something more compatible with our
seasonal help. So um they're just
they're better on hills, they're more
versatile on hills
and Also
too, uh they Mike talked about training.
Uh he's going to train all the seasonal
employees on how to to uh utilize them
in a safe manner. Um so just uh if you
look at page, let's back up page four.
Uh the cost of three commercial Ferris
zero turns with 72inch decks is 52
grand. Um the sale of the current John
Deere and Toro units would somewhere
yield between 35 and 50 on return value
and uh there obviously will will be some
minimal cost uh to transition that we
don't have a figure for at this time. Uh
but we looked at uh the financials
there. So, based off of all the
different avenues they've considered,
the recommendation from Mike and his
crew would be to uh transition to the
Ferris
uh mowers.
Uh it should be noted that the public
works committee heard this and they
voted unanimously to pass.
Um
that's what I got. Any specific
questions, Linda?
dollars and cents. You can't afford not
to do it.
>> Yeah, it was uh we were really actually
surprised when the Ferris numbers came
back for I mean they're they're tough
machines. They're not uh your home uh
>> they were commercial grade.
>> They are commercial. A lot of uh lawn
cutting services use them actually.
>> Oh yeah. One of them's been doing for 10
years.
>> Yeah. So uh they're generally red and
blackish.
So
>> you buy we buy all three at once?
>> We would. And what is their lifespan?
>> I wish I could tell you that, but uh
>> like that maybe.
>> It really depends on how often they're
used. I mean, they were going to do
maintenance on. So, um being a new unit,
it would have a warranty on it.
>> You guys have obviously thought this
through, but so um why three and not
two? How how many get used at any given
time?
Yeah, there was uh I think that's kind
of a multiaceted thing. They don't think
all three would be used at one time, but
in the event that one of them went down,
they they would have the option to jump
on the other one and service the other
one, but they could use them at three
times. It really the problem we have is
we can't always count on our seasonal
staff for the DPW. So that that's where
it's kind of the the third one is the
relief mower or
less utilized one.
>> So two of them would often get used the
same
three. I mean have all your seat belts
work same day and LCD is the part you
have to probably want to use all three
but I think it would make sense that you
alternate some of those two so that you
down and replace.
Yeah, definitely.
>> Um, and then the highway department,
they considered keeping one by them so
that one of their guys can
feel better.
>> I was going to ask about storage. I
mean, this does this will take up more
space, but we we have
>> I think actually I think so these are
actually going to take up less space and
then the transportation of them, we're
not going to have to have as big of
trailer.
>> So I all around it it makes better
sense. It's uh it's not as it's probably
half as long as the the whaml mowers and the width on the whamlowers is what
really gets you.
>> So you can you can imagine those have
wings that fold down and
>> Yep.
>> You have to have a different type of
trailer. They're a lot heavier of a
unit.
>> Well, you need a CPL to be able to
transport two of them.
>> I think it's a wise choice.
>> Yeah. No, I I was uh kudos to Mike. I
think he did a great job with or Nick
and Mike.
makes put the report together.
>> So, and I was on site for the testing
for two of the three. We did Skagg and
we did uh Baris Bears has front
suspension that makes it a much smoother
ride, which was really nice. And then
you could just tell the Cotton was a lot
cleaner than than Skags. And Skags are
good motors, too. But, um, we everyone
agreed that this was the one to go with,
and I believe the prices were spot on.
bar and slightly cheaper.
» Okay.
>> And we're comfortable with the changes
from with with the mini excavator with
to the storm water and so that all works
out.
>> Yeah. It really depends on what we sell
the other piece of equipment for, but
the thought was, yeah, we supplement. I
mean, we talked about potentially paying
for the mini all out of storm water, but
given that we did the borrow, this would
just open up uh being able to take a
small section water if it made a
difference.
So, that 12 311 is effectively a plug
number that will go up or down based on
the sale of the equipment if it's more
or less than 40,000.
Yep.
» All right. Are we ready for a motion?
>> Sure. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve
the purchase of three commercial Ferris
zeroturn mowers with 72in decks at
estimated cost not to exceed $52,311.
Sec.
Right. Is there any additional
discussion?
It's hearing none. All those in favor
say I. I.
>> Oppos say nay. And motion carries.
>> Um item C is discussion and necessary
action to set the 2027 budget workshop
dates.
Yeah, I know we had talked about this a
little bit at the last meeting, but I I
didn't see anything listed in the
packets or otherwise. Where are we at on
this? Um, I just kind of kept it open to
for everyone to look at their calendars.
I didn't want to put a date out there
and then have
be unable. So, typically we do this in
September, usually in midepptember.
Um, we do have a village board meeting
on the 9th, but I know I believe Paula
you weren't going to be able to make
that one.
>> Yep. No. Um,
so if you know we're looking at sometime
maybe September 17th
>> might be a good day at Thursday.
Um,
>> what time are we looking for?
>> It's like available 5 to midnight thing
or 5 to 10 5
>> 5 to 7 to 7.
>> I'd rather do one extra one and not do
the marathon session. I'm just gonna say
that right now. we we can do too. But
>> well, I think I think it's necessary to
do more than one because you you you
have I mean you have a meeting and then
there's questions that come up and I
mean I I think even to get it done in
two is probably well it's not realistic
but I mean but I think maybe some of
those going to be
>> a short one after the October meeting or we can tie those into something else
as well.
>> Are they expecting state numbers to come
in on time?
>> We have preliminary like
all that. We always at the same time. So
the 17th will probably not have those
numbers. Probably looking at October.
So I mean we can push it toward to
October.
Um,
but I mean if we're just going we could
potentially go over expenditures
in you know September and then go over
revenue.
» There's kind of a relationship there
though too. I mean
>> yeah.
>> Well, yeah, I suppose.
» So September 17th is the date that you'd
like to do it or do you want to
>> I'm just throwing a date out there. I
the 16th and the 23rd. Obviously, we
public works. We have uh plan
commission.
Um we could do Wednesday the 30th.
You go to Wednesday.
>> I am gone to South Carolina and DC from
the 10th. I'll be here for the 9th. I
did that on purpose. I leave on the 10th
and coming back on the 23rd.
>> So, the 30th they weren't meeting
it. There it is.
September 30th, correct?
>> Are we putting that one on the calendar?
>> So, you said you're back on the 23rd.
So, like if we wanted to look at the
24th, that's probably too too tight with
getting back then.
>> Well, that's okay. I have I have two
doctor's appointments on the on that
day. And long as I'm busy, I'm busy.
That's okay.
>> Oh, okay.
So you guys can definitely
>> Oh, you got to be here.
» All right. So, I guess we'll go with
December 30th at then.
>> What time? 6:30.
>> Should we do six?
>> I didn't go earlier.
>> Yeah, I'm not here all late.
>> But would you like six?
>> I was just thinking of what you said,
you know, as far as I want to have not a
real long meeting. Have two shorter
ones, but one long is okay.
>> Six is fine with me. I'm just going to
have to plan because I just need to have
coverage for my
>> your mother.
>> Yeah.
Okay.
>> So, okay. So, September 30th at 6
o'clock. Is that the consensus? And then
>> we'll also I mean we'll certainly have a
budget workshop on October 14th as well,
but hopefully that will be, you know,
much more brief.
>> Is the department head one going to be
the 30th or is that the October one?
>> Uh, we can get the department one head
until the October 14th.
» What other day do you say, Matt? The
14th.
>> I think we just have, you know, some
tie-ups and some other discussion, you
know, at a budget workshop after the
village board meeting.
>> Oh, so
>> Oh, on the 14th.
>> Yes. Yes. I mean, hopefully
um I mean, we'll try to load up the
September meeting if if there's anything
that's out there and we can try to keep
the October Village board meeting more
brief if possible. And
>> then we'll have the second part of that.
Then I that makes sense, right?
>> Mhm.
At what time for that? We'll just leave
it open for now until we know.
>> Or do we want to start maybe a half hour
early
>> then?
>> On the 14th.
>> for the village board meeting. You said
>> start it at 6 instead. That'll give us
buy us a little more time if we have a
lot going on.
>> I think so too.
>> Yeah. I mean the sooner we can start
that the better. Otherwise we could be
here at depending on
>> I can start at five if you want to.
Okay. that far out.
>> I'm okay with that, too. Oh,
>> that
>> um six o'clock sounds good to me. I I I
know that
>> five.
>> Okay. Any another nomination here?
>> So, we're going to say six then. Yes.
>> Yeah. Six on both.
>> Six.
>> The 30th and the 14th.
>> Okay. But
is a village board meeting. So, it'll be
right after.
>> We're just moving up the village board
meeting by half an hour. We'll try and
keep that agenda like so we
>> Okay.
>> get through it. Okay. Okay.
>> I don't think we need formal action
here, Dan.
>> No, I'm sending uh uh calendar advice.
>> Okay. Thank you.
That's the biggest job we have to do is
that that's a big job.
» The budget you're doing that before I
put my calendar in.
>> Yeah.
» All right. Are we I think we're good
then on this item. So we can move on to
>> uh item D which is discussion on the
maintenance and service of grinder
pumps.
>> Right. I circulated paperwork that I
have written out. I just asked you to
look at this with an open mind as if you
were in the district and what you would
want um because there's 452
homes current residents on sewer. I
believe there's about 32 grinder pumps
and since the beginning when they
started this in 1989 thereabouts I went
to all those meetings never once did
they bring up grinder pumps I was
shocked when I was uh on the old board
and I go what is a grinder pump and then
I realized I know what it is obviously
now I've been told all these years but
the whole all the 452 homes have been
paying for these and they are installed
in the person's home, not on out in the
yard. It's in the home. And when there's
an issue, a big alarm goes off. And so
these people, they call like debell
right away. They don't care if it's six
o'clock in the morning, have an
emergency call or 5:00 at night, they
call whatever. And then they go out
there and they fix it. Then then we have
normally paid for the bills. Um, we've
also um um if it's a seller's fault
because there is something that was put
down the toilet and it's only one time
that I can remember that we as a
district had a problem in Wooded Hills.
It was a $25,000 charge and the
homeowners insurance paid for it, which
they were very lucky. Um, we just had
one the other couple months ago and I
wasn't at that board meeting. The four
three members voted to replace it. uh to
re replace it because it was a little
older. But it's still in my personal
opinion, we shouldn't have paid uh paid
it because there's no limitation on the
age of the pump. It's just this was
wrecked by the child by the homeowner's
grandson put it something down. So we
paid $4,200 to replace that pump and
they paid a,000. These are gotten more
expensive and more expensive. Um, and I
checked with local communities when I
presented a a um um um talk back at the
old district. I had checked and I found
my own notes. I checked with Waterford.
I checked with Summit. I checked with H
Heartland. I checked with Wales. Um, no
one All homeowners pay their own grinder
pump fees. There was one that has four
grinder pump has one grinder pump for
four homes and we as a district decided
we didn't want to do that. We've never
done that. They have the each their own
grinder pump. But again, the homeowner
pays for the grinder pumps because I
I've been told by one of the gentlemen
that they consider it private property
just like a well pump is, a septic pump
is, and so forth. We don't have anybody
coming out and paying our well pump
costs or anything. And um we have um the
first we have discussed this subject at
this level before. The public works
committee has reviewed the topic of
grinder pumps twice. The first time they
gave a recommendation to put the
responsibility on the homeowner and and
just I just
>> when was when was that?
>> Um I don't have the dates.
>> Okay.
>> I got this from Dan. I don't have the
dates. I know in the old district
that we had we had a threeperson
committee. two of us uh wanted the
homeowner to pay their own and one of us
didn't and we had a whole bunch of
people here from Wooded Hills and I
won't go into detail how they know to
come here but we had a whole bunch of
people kind of vote um he was very
serious he said no we shouldn't have to
pay for those he was overwhelmed by the
people he voted and changed his vote
that night we could have gotten this
taken care of very nicely that night
years ago and he changed his vote unfort
Unfortunately, he told me he was
overwhelmed.
>> This This is This is on the the uh the
sewer board.
>> The village the town board or the
>> No, no, the village. I'm all talking
about the sewer board, not the village.
>> You said they made a recommendation
though to the v or to the I'm not sure
if it's the village board or to board.
>> To the public works committee. I don't
know. It was a couple months ago maybe.
And during that conversation, um, the
board had mentioned that they had
already made a recommendation and the
board didn't take a either they didn't
take action on it or they didn't vote on
it or
>> I'm just looking to see how far back
that that previous one was just for
reference. I know it was before
>> Rob and I were here. Was it was it
>> been before you were here? And then also
um when I asked at the at the utility
board meetings, nope, you have to go to
the village board again. we have to
start there and so it's kind of a back
and forth thing and you know it's kind
of frustrating.
>> Well there that committee had stated
that they had already made a
recommendation so they weren't going to
make another recommendation.
>> They made a recommendation to the
village board as far as
>> what they wanted.
>> I'm confused really confused is who
actually made what board actually makes
this decision.
Is it the village board or is the
utility?
» I I mean I could answer that in my
opinion, but I that's surface
>> up. The village board uh has say a say
in amending the sewer code, which is
that code provision that I sent over to
you. So it would be a village board that
would make that decision to modify that
section code. Um it could be a
recommendation from the public works
committee to bring to the village board,
but again they um
>> they didn't really do any any action the
second time because they had stated they
had already taken this item up.
>> Exactly.
>> In previous years.
>> Exactly. And
>> I'm a little bit lost. So, so yeah, the first time around the sanitary
district board voted 2 to one to to
recommend this change to the village
board or town board at the time, but
then someone flipped. So, it was
actually a recommend It was a
recommendation that it not so positive
recommendation never made it to the
village board then.
>> No, it didn't because it didn't come out
of the lo of the of the old district
board, the old board. It didn't come out
of there because Mark flipped flipped
and so it just sat there and this was
Oh, I don't I I wish I had a date on my
notes. I don't have a date on this when
I when I made this presentation.
>> So, I guess I guess I'm and I don't have
an I mean, you guys are more educated on
this than I am, but I'm just trying to
make sure I understand everything,
right? So the so this the the second to
last paragraph the end of the second
line where it says the first time they
gave a recommendation to put the
responsibility on the homeowner.
>> But if I'm following you though that that that never was the final
recommendation of the
>> it was they they've told me now that am
I correct Mark maybe I'm wrong. When I
bring it up at the utility level they
say you got to bring you got to bring it
back to the village board. And so you
know so it's kind of confusing. I am
confused because it's gone back and
forth.
>> Well, you've done a good job of
confusing me as well. So, I I don't I
I'm I'm not following. I I don't know.
>> So, was there a positive The discussion
that we had at public works, Mark, even
correct me if I'm wrong, was that they
didn't want to take action on it because
they had already made I don't know if
they made a motion or a recommendation
to the village board. I don't know what
happened at the village board level. I
didn't look through the minutes to
determine what happened and I don't know
when that was. I would assume it was
when both um
I think the trustees named Jane and
>> Joe thank you were on the committee so
long
>> this happened I want to say winter or
something like that that this happened
um because I was told and Mark and I
talked about this wait until we redo the
code you know so I've been kind of
putting it off thinking I need to do
that. So, it would maybe save money to
redo this. I'm not sure. I know. I know.
Couple years ago we voted to any new
resident that comes on pays for their
own costs.
So, that's but we haven't really had
many new residents, you know. But I also
want to point out um we since 23 we have
paid $64,899.28.
In addition to that,
um, we have the de we have to have our
nick and anybody on board. We have to
pay them to go out and get the pump and
replace the pump and so forth. So,
there's a lot of other expenses involved
in this. And if the homeowner does it,
they're in charge of it. They can get
things done probably a lot cheaper than
what we do, you know, and they can have
some and they can take care of it. They
can take care because they really don't
take care of it. It's not for them to do
anything with it. It becomes private
property just like you guys look over,
you know, our things at home. We take
care of things. And I just think I just
think it's an expense that's been on for
37 years. And I think 37 years is a long
time. The only thing that I would
recommend is if there was any any
homeowner
that has been on this from day one, if
they've never replaced their grinder
pump, we should replace it
because, you know, if that was fair, if
everyone decided to do that, but
otherwise, I would cut it off
immediately because why why just stretch
it out myself? And so then I'm asking
that we um that uh that the next village
board meeting that we bring up the code
of ordinances for the sewer sewer
service area be revised to reflect the
grinder pump's costs are totally paid by
each homeowner for their respective
grinder pump. And I have to tell you,
we'll have people here from Wooded
Hills. We will. But there again,
everybody else in the district does not
know what's going on. If they knew what
was going on, they'd be here as well. So
I'm not overwhelmed when people are in
the off a audience because we have to do
what's best for the majority of the
people, not the minority of the people.
This whole sewer
issue was pushed through.
Let's just not say it was right how they
pushed it through. They forced it down.
And there was no total vote. It was a
three-man committee. Threeman committee
that pushed this on. One put an
ingground hole in, cut into a septic
system, had no room for anything else.
The other one bought a bought a hole and
they didn't check out their septic
system, failed. So, two of the three
members had failing systems. That's why
this was pushed through.
And it makes me very uncomfortable as a village board member today and all
the work that have been on the board
that someone can be so crooked to do
that because I will vote for something
that if it's right for the village, then
we do it. I don't care if it cost us
money. It has to. We have to like for
the parks and everything else. You have
to do what's best for the area. But what
happened years ago was wrong, people.
Well, it was wrong
>> in regards to the grinder pumps.
>> Regard to the whole sewer and the
grinder pumps was a private issue. It
was never brought up at any of these
public meetings. I have to tell you,
Matt, it was never brought up. And even
you know
and because I think they sold that on
the fact that you know they would make
not because these people lived in Wooden
Hills all three of them
>> so we wouldn't have angry neighbors.
>> Your requested motion is you you have it
here. I mean, this you'd like to do at
the next meeting, but then you you said
you'd like to change it a little bit so
that
>> Well, I would I would be in favor of
changing it for an original homeowner
who's not ever had a grinder pump and
not ever had a grinder pump replaced.
We're not talking many people.
>> Well, out of the 432 or 452, how many
would that be?
>> No, no, no. 452. Only 32 have grinder
pumps.
>> Oh, so out of the 32, how many would
>> We only have a couple. I was told at one
time it was when I did this it was only
a couple people.
>> Why to replace them if they're not
busting?
>> Exactly. But if they come and they have
an issue, then I think myself I think
the the sewer fund should pay for it if
they're the original homeowner and has
never had it done. That's the only thing
I'm saying to be fair to everybody
because I Where's my list?
>> Well, because because other people have
benefited from it. So
>> Oh my gosh. So then why should you
>> 32 homeowners have benefited from it and
there's sometimes it's been a couple
times,
>> right? So not not there's 32 grinder
pumps but not all of them have had been
replaced. So there's been 20ome that
have that have had them replaced is what
you're
>> most the majority of them have have had
it replaced.
>> So I'm just using them. So okay.
>> Yeah, that majority of them had it
replaced. I was just trying to do what's
right for those homeowners that have
never had the sewer fund. I say sewer
fund because I was told the name of
that, not the utility. It's the sewer
fund. You know who I'm talking about. Um
anyway, so that's um the sewer fund
should pay for those original homeowner
who has never had the grinder pump
replaced. And that's only a couple
people though. I have to I have to
confess it's not a lot.
>> Would there be any legal issue around
that? Yeah.
>> So it
>> um
>> otherwise everybody gets to it. We turn
off everybody.
>> I think that would be a cleaner way to
do it. It just cut everybody than
>> I was just trying to be fair. That's
fine.
>> So uh at the time municipal law
litigation attorney Macy opined on this
in a letter dated May 8th, 2024.
Um, Dan, I'll ask you I'll ask that you
send this to the board for their
consideration, but uh, Attorney Macy did
note the following uh, in regards to
grinder pumps and costs. Um, you
reference a policy that was written in
1992. However, the attached documents
only include a 1989 letter from the
district chairman setting forth the
financing plan for the district's
distributions of sewer costs. Assuming
you are referencing this letter, there
is nothing that specifically references
grinder pumps installation or
maintenance costs. Therefore, it is
unclear who would be responsible for
grinder pump replacement and
maintenance. The July 2020 sanitary
district ordinance you s you provide is
unsigned.
Assuming there is a signed version and
this ordinance was put into effect, the
language states clearly that the
district is only responsible for
maintenance and replacement of grinder
pumps installed by the district prior to
July 1st, 2020. Mhm.
>> Property owners are responsible for
costs of all grinder pumps installed
post July 1st, 2020.
>> Right.
>> That be most of I mean that might be all
of them.
>> I also note that language in section
1805 sub4 of the village draft sewer
code clearly states that the cost of
installation and maintenance of the
grinder pumps is a responsibility of the
property owner.
My recommendation would be to include
language in the new sewer code including
reference to the list of grandfather
properties potentially including the
language from the code and list as
exhibits. For example, you could create
section 1805 sub4 subd, which would
state something such as, "All grinder
pumps installed by the town of Lisbon
sanitary district number one prior to
July 1st, 2020 shall be maintained,
repaired, and replaced by the village of
Lisbon, pursuant to town of Lisbon,
sanitary district number one, sewer
service code section 1.14,
C. Exhibit A. The only parcels eligible
for maintenance, repair, or replacement
of a grinder pump by the Village of
Lisbon are listed in exhibit B. No
additional parcels shall be added to
that list.
So that was in 2024. And I think what
Linda's referencing is that that was not
legally adopted by the board because the
board has yet to
um has yet to attach a new sewer service
code.
>> Right. And that's I talked to Kathy a
couple times before Dan got it. I said,
'When are you going to do this? And she
because of everything else being
becoming v the village. I understand.
She said she didn't have time to do
this.
>> Did the board vote? So three of the
three of you were here. Did you vote on
this at that time?
>> No, no, no, no. I'm the only one.
>> No, no. But did this come to the to the town board in in in uh July or in
2024?
It did uh for discussion, but it did not
um
>> it did not become approved because
therefore the referenced exhibits and
code had not yet been codified or
created under the new
>> right
>> sewer ordinance. Um Dan, I guess
administratively, can you speak to the
difference that the committee has held
off on?
Well, the reason that we're taking off
on doing work on the sewer code itself
is because we're going through a sewer
service area amendment right now. So, we
potentially could have new policies in
place that are going to are going to be
related to um connection fees and
whatever else that goes along with sewer
service expansion because of the fact
that we time anticipated that Highway K
was priority for getting sewer gravity
sore for this pool. Mhm.
>> So that's why we held off thinking that
would be an a 12 to 18 month process and
that we would probably already be
opening up the code for amendment. But
that process is a little slower than
anticipated um
>> years slower and it's costing actually
it's costing the sewer fund money by
pushing it off and that's why I'm trying
to say can't we just pass you know a
change to the ordinance at this point
and do it. So, was the board were the
three of you in favor of making that
change when the code was rewritten or
>> It wasn't rewritten.
>> No, when it was going to be down the
line. Was was that was do you guys rec
was I mean again if it was just
discussion item there was no formal
action but was the three or five board
members in favor of that or not?
I guess it doesn't matter too much, but
>> I believe they were. And I also I also
was was asked why let's wait until it's
codified or whatever because it's going
to save money. However, can't we now it
been so long? It's how long has Kathy
been gone? You know, how long has Dan
been here? It's just an ongoing thing. I
just say, let's just get going on this.
Make the change and let's get going and
let's just make whatever has to be done.
I'm just kind of frustrated with it.
Truthfully, I feel like I'm the only one
sitting out here watching out for the
sewer fund. Truthfully,
>> would we have to do a public meeting
about it? Because it would
>> No, it's not an amendment to the zoning
code, so you don't need to do a public
hearing.
>> But would it be wise to do something
instead of just
>> if you just cut everyone off from
grinder pump repair? Uh, you might get
quite a bit of
>> You might get wooded hills here. They
will be you're going to get I mean
that's fine just as long as they know
without doing it.
>> You're going to get people after the
fact thinking that the board did
something that
>> I think they should be maybe set letter
sent to them that this is what we did or
whatever just to notify them because
they need to know in case something goes
with theirs that they don't call
delellic if it goes off at 6:00 in the
morning if it was theirs. They might
wait till 8:00 in the morning to call a
plumber and say, "Hey, I've got an
issue." Rather than whatever. That's
all.
That's This is all
my experience and I'm relaying that like
Mark says, I'm an odd duck out here
because I know what happened in the very
beginning.
>> I said you're an odd duck.
>> You did what?
>> You did. I don't know. Quite a while
ago.
>> I think we're all odd ducks. I mean,
everyone's got their odd duck. I admit
I'm an odd duck, but I I do and as you
guys know, I do watch the money.
>> I'm I'm very not for what's best for the
village. I'm really do that's one of my
big things. And this is we have to be
honest to we have to be fair to the 452
current users. That's all.
>> We paid enough after 37 years. I guess
if we're if we're going to talk about
fair, we we the last line that I said
about this, the July 1st, 2020 date was
a was a um it wasn't just a board
decision. It was it it was a very
in-depth it included public input. It
included council review. It included
recommendations from the sitting board
members. So, um I I guess there there's
really nothing that has changed since
the board. Um and I'll just say they
opined that we never formally motioned
or approved an ordinance change. So,
I'll just say it was opined and that was the I guess agreement that we
came to a consensus. Now, that was a
different board, but I don't think
there's anything overwhelmingly changing
since then. Um there's there's a lot of
lack of documentation from the inception
of the system to really explain
>> what happened and why it happened. And
I think it was a very responsible
decision that the board came to
and just for a lack of better terms, the
code wasn't ready to be rewritten. So
the board didn't the board didn't take
action on it. and we we knew we were
taking a new board into consideration
and and that was the choice of that
current board to leave it open. So, uh
>> yes, we we we know that it cost money,
but it also
saved the then sanitary lots of money in
the front end because of how they
designed the system.
Are you talking about the original
engineers?
>> Yeah, I mean
>> Oh, no, you're wrong.
>> The the uh
>> there were a lot of mistakes that they
made.
>> I guess what I'm Let me clarify make
more sense. There was design standards
that were used that we can't prove why
they were or weren't used, but
>> it has been the recommendation of our
engineers today that these design
standards would have never
>> been utilized. And to whose fault that
was? Was it the sanitary? Was it the
village or
>> it's the engineers that we hired to do
the proper work?
>> Right. But they they were something we
inherited.
>> Exactly. And that's why we need to move
on. I don't I myself I don't want to go
through we've been through this process
before. We have paid the attorney. We
have paid this and we have paid that. To
me, I just want it on the books. If
either yes, we do it or no, we don't. I would like it. I would like it on the
books. We do it because it's been
stretched out so far. This has been from
1920. Okay. The 2020 1920 2020 is maybe
when this whole thing started and we've
been waiting six years so far. Six years
so far. And I don't want another two and
three and four years and going through
the same thing.
I I'm not for that. I'm tired. I'm tired
of pain.
I don't want to talk about personal. I'm
talking about the sewer fund residents.
I don't want to see them pay any more
than they have to. To me, you know, just
very unfair. I would like to see this
ended myself.
>> Are you are you in uh disagreement with
the what the attorney recommended that
the board adopt? Mhm. Because I don't at
the time there was a lot of question
about we talked about oh what is he you
know we didn't kind of think about that
you know what his we were kind of
surprised at what he said.
>> Can you explain what the attorney
recommended? Hi.
>> All grinder pumps installed by the Town
of Lisbon Sanitary District number one
prior to July 1st, 2020 shall be
maintained, repaired, and replaced by
the Village of Lisbon pursuant to the
Town of Lisbon Sanitary District number
one, sewer service code section 1.14.
C. Exhibit A. The only parcels eligible
for maintenance, repair, or replacement
of a grinder pump by the Village of
Lisbon are listed in exhibit B. No
additional parcel shall be added.
>> So essentially, what's already
Except that the exhibit is not in the
code.
>> Neither exhibit are in the code. How
many houses are he is he talking about
in the exhibit?
>> Uh there's like
>> grandfathered 32 comes to mind.
>> That would be grandfathered.
>> 32
that we would that we would have to
maintain.
>> But now don't forget this
>> 30 some to start with.
>> Yeah. Don't forget
>> we haven't had any new grinder pumps
added.
>> No. No. That's what I said. Um, don't
forget now these homes have changed
hands over the years. Changed hands over
the years. So there's I don't feel an
allegiance to those myself that the
people that actually paid their money to
go in and have the sewer installed.
Those homeowners are gone. Rick and I
have been in our house 51 years, so
we're a little older, but most houses
have changed hands all this time. I just
would like to I would just like I'd like
to get this taken care of. I'm asking
for your help to do that.
>> I don't think it should be forever.
>> What's forever?
>> The grandfathered ones get replaced
until the house part down.
>> No, I Are we reading this?
>> Yeah. I think uh
>> it sounds weird.
>> Yeah.
>> At most I could see you get one last
replacement, check you off the list, you
got replaced and you're done. No, I I
myself think, well, why wouldn't in 2020
that should have been happen because we
and it was at a standstill on
everything. So, it's costing the
district more money and more money every
time someone gets a grinder pump repair
that we shouldn't have had replaced. And
I guarantee you our costs are going to
go up this fall. I know they're going to
go up to pay for all those grinder
pumps.
>> What's the significance of 2020? Why is
there Why is that the cut off? That was
when we That was when we were at town
and first did the we did a public
meeting and and that was the date that
we decided. Yep.
>> Was the
>> It was picked out by who? I have no I
didn't pick it out.
>> It was by the town board.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I guess I want to make sure I
understand. So, is are we talking about
if you have a new grinder pump system
installed or are we talking about if you
actually have the actual pump is
replaced then it's then it's considered
new. But
>> everything
>> I think no there's a distinction in
there and I think that's where I said
something and then you correct and you
corrected me. I'm not
>> I I'm I'm absolutely with you Matt. The way we remove that is we we got into
a long debate about what is transfer of
ownership. You know what happens if
somebody has say just for term a husband
wife want to transfer their property
from their name to a trust.
>> Is that a transfer of ownership? Mhm.
>> Our attorney at the time advised that
you do not want to get into
>> those because that will create
individual cases of review,
>> right?
>> So, you know, if if you had one and you
changed from being just a singular
person to a trust,
>> is that transfer of ownership because
you now entrusted it to somebody?
He said he said at the time it was not
worth the legal review fees or court
battles to do that. So that's why that's
why we picked just a singular date. And
even if you've had four grinder pumps
replaced prior to
the July 1st, 2020,
um you you only get one more because it
would be after that date.
>> So
>> one more after the date.
>> Yeah. So say say you had four installed
prior to July 1st, 2020.
>> We we had been paying for those.
>> This is coming back to me now. And now
you want your fifth grinder pump.
>> Okay,
>> post July 1st, 2020.
>> That would be your last one forever.
Doesn't matter about transfer of
ownership. Doesn't matter if your house
burns down. Doesn't matter if somebody
steals your grinder from
>> right
» the cost of everything. You never know.
>> Yeah. But I guess what I'm saying is
that's why we didn't want to get he
recommended to keep it clean and clear
so that we did not get any into any
lurggious battles of of that kind.
>> If you make a date, it doesn't matter
what the scenario is.
>> You you have a date.
>> Oh, that makes what I was talking about.
>> And
>> so basically, we would we would
potentially have to replace every pump.
>> Yeah.
>> No, no, because there is there has been
several replaced post 2020 that would
never get replaced again.
>> Okay. So, how many are we talking about?
I
>> I don't have an updated list. My last
list is from 2021.
>> There was 32 gr 32 grinder pumps.
>> No, that that that 32 that 32 is not
>> a qualifying list. That is an incumbent
list of all grinder pumps. That is not an eligible list.
>> Okay. I'm just I'm just looking for what
the total liability.
>> He's saying who would be who could be
>> the liability.
I think that's complicated myself.
>> Then come up with come up with a better
scenario. But that but that was I guess
you're just saying shut the faucet off
on these people.
>> It's been it's been six years since this
has been going on as you know. We just
read to me I just cut it off. I would
just cut it off.
>> You would just cut it off or you would
say that someone who hasn't gotten one
in the past gets still gets one.
>> Well that's what I said but
>> No. And which Okay. Well I mean yeah. So
there I guess there's a minor difference
but
>> Okay. I'm okay with if someone has never
had the grinder pump
replaced. Do we say from the original
owner?
>> No. So that that is that is not going to
work. We've already explored that
because we do not have we do not have
quality records to prove or disprove.
>> Therefore, the attorney recommended we
do not get into that battle because
>> one our records are horrible
>> and two now we're battling ownership
again.
>> I know.
>> So he that's why the date came and and
that was that was the
>> Yeah, I remember that.
But we've done 10 of them in the last
six years.
>> Yeah, there two of them I know of this
year that we've done that we just did
one again.
>> Yeah. So once I update
>> $5,000 we just did another one.
>> So if this went to the utility committee
meeting next time for an actual
recommendation and not that it has to,
but if if it did,
>> they said they they've said
>> it was you said they made a
recommendation. Was the recommendation
to make this change or was the
recommendation to not make the change? I
mean, you can recommend it either way.
>> The recommendation was that
>> which that went to the board and the
board chose not to
>> place it in code.
>> This because because of
>> No, the previous board.
>> Yeah.
>> Not not this current sitting
>> because of because of the principle of
it or because of the logistics of the
>> logistics. Okay. The principle they were
not opposed to. No,
>> but but they were also at the end of
their terms and didn't want they wanted
it to be up to the next board.
>> Yeah.
>> And here we are.
>> Well, if we're if we agree with it in
principle, this is the reason people
think government's dopey because we're
just going to like not do it because
it's not convenient for a code thing.
We're doing it because it's right or
it's wrong. We're doing it or we're not
doing it because it's right.
>> What's what's the requirement of what has to happen in the code? I mean,
is is it is it that much of a burden? I
mean honestly we have if every grinder
pump ad installed after 2020 you install
it once and you never install it again.
I mean you could consider just
installing all the grinder pumps and
then be done with it but otherwise no
the code you would have to modify or
remove that section of code and then
just remove liability. So you
>> and we just added to it when it when
everything is changed.
>> So you modify section 32.05 5 U par D
par five that's where it references the
July 1st 2020 deadline and then say all
grinder pumps be prepared and maintained
by owners
>> and that just requires a vote of the
board.
>> Yep.
>> Yes.
>> I guess we got to figure out if we want
to do the everybody gets one free
>> that July 1st 2020 date in there makes
sense.
>> No, not to me. I'm sorry. Well, no. You
know how again how do you
>> I would just I myself I wouldn't even
give it a date. Like if you put okay
let's give them a little time January
1st. Well what happens to those there's
people on January 2nd they're going to
complain that they're not that theirs
isn't replaced. We're always going to
have a problem with the date.
>> So it's it's either July 1st 2020 or
it's no nothing. No one gets one
>> with the the reason why we didn't post
like set a date to be eclipsed in the
future is because of the fact that there
would be people qualifying that would
run
>> anything and everything down their
grinder boat.
>> Yes. And break it
>> intentionally sabotage it. And now we
are on the burden to prove or disprove
>> Yeah.
>> their negligence or a mechanical
failure.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. I remember this discussion though.
>> Yeah.
So,
>> so it's an issue.
>> We we we I mean this is this has been
exhausted.
>> I'm tired of this.
>> Well, right. But it it I mean the
current code Dan, can you just you want
to read it?
>> Yeah. This is a village for all grinder
pumps installed by the former sanitary
district on or before July 1st, 2020
shall maintain, repair, and if
necessary, replace the grinder pump
subject to the following conditions.
Property owner shall consent to entry
upon property serviced by the grinder
pump of employees. Contractors employed
by the village for the purpose of
maintaining, repairing and or replacing
the grinder pump. The property owner
annually consents to the inspection of
the grinder pump and the property owner
complies with all rules, regulations,
policies adopted by the village for the
operation and use of the gr.
>> We're inspecting these every year. So
that was a practice we discontinued
because the inspections were not the
inspections were not worth the juice and
squeeze kind of principle. We we were
paying for inspections to be done on
pumps that hadn't failed or weren't
going to fail and we didn't know when
they were going to fail. So we forewent
>> all inspections and is determined it was
just fiscally responsible to wait till
it happened.
>> For years we paid I think it was $350
per grinder pump.
Okay.
>> So, this is not this is not
>> I think this code section does not
necessarily reflect what maybe the the
board's intention is because the the way
it's read if I'm looking at this from a
resident is that you're going to
maintain, replace, repair my grinder
pump because it was installed for 2020
uh in perpetuity.
>> Well, then do we have to qualify it one
time only?
>> I would one qualifying event and you're
done. This is the existing code or this
is the proposed.
>> This is the exist.
>> We can't be stuck on this for ever.
>> We got to put something on.
>> Yes.
>> How did how did that date come in if
nothing was passed in 2024?
>> I think I don't know who did that.
>> There was there was the date of 2020 was
approved
>> around that time.
>> But we never we never did an exhibit
list or so. there is no exhibits
referenced in the code
>> and that's too much bookkeeping and it
>> but I mean even if an exhibit list was
placed in the code it's still based on
this language makes it seem like it's in
perpetuity.
Well, then we have to add language that
it's one qualifying event or however
youally state that.
>> We either got to figure out if we're
cutting it off now or we're giving
everybody one.
So, those are the two choices we got.
>> And then sunset it eventually too. You
leave it open forever. Like
>> why can I ask why you would why why
would you have the residents pay one
more grinder pump repair, one more
replacement, one more whatever? Is it a
replacement? Is it a repair? Is it this
or is it that? You you know, there's a
lot of questions.
>> I'm just saying those are the two main
ideas that make sense to me.
>> I know
>> that make any sense. There's other ones
that I don't think would work.
>> I think those are the two viable options
we have.
>> I personally think this has gone on far
enough long enough. I myself
would vote for it. We have to cut it
off.
>> Right. So that's where Linda is. Mark,
you're on the committee as well. What would what's your thought?
>> Um I I mean I I'm still with where the
attorneys at in 2024. Um I don't think
it's that far off from our current code,
but there they're just the way it's
currently written. I think there's uh
loopholes that could be exercised and I mean that that's why we forwent
these inspections because they were just
costing money and
um
yeah,
there's a lot of history. there's a lot
of lack of documentation of the history
that we had to make up for and that's
kind of where the current code was. Um
I'm not opposed to
um reworking the code, but I'm I am also
not I guess I'm not in favor of just
completely cutting it off. I think there
has to be a criteria to it and and it's
got to be a simp simple criteria
kind of much in line with what we
already currently have. So if we go with
that date though, then we would be we
would there would be 10 homeowners that
would be cut off and never get another
one moving forward.
>> 10?
>> Yes. If there's if there's 32 total and
10 have been replaced in the last uh six
years, then we would be on we would
still say we would replace 22 more that
have not been replaced in the last six
years. Is that is that what I'm hearing?
>> That's how I understood that.
>> That's the way that's the way it's
written right now.
Right, Dan?
>> No, that's the way it's written in the
>> Well, I mean, yeah,
>> there's 12 that have been replaced.
>> 12.
been replaced since 2020? July 1st,
2020.
>> Yeah.
» So, and how how many how many outlying
grinder pumps were installed by the
sanitary district on or before July 1st,
2020
>> that are currently out there?
>> Is that 20?
>> 20. I gave you that big whole sheet. I
gave you all that work
>> that have been I thought that was a 12.
No, that haven't. Oh, haven't
» Oh, there's 20
21 or 22. I got to count which ones
because this is only updated to the be
January this year. I don't remember if
we did two or three this year,
>> but but anything after 2020, July 1st,
2020 doesn't count because they were on
their own.
So any pump that's six years,
>> right? But I'm saying that I've counted
23, but I I think we've replaced two of
these that still show a date of 14. So I
think we're around 2020 that are were
installed before July 2020. So the fact
that we've done that numbers don't add
up to me that sounds like we have
replaced one of these grinder pumps
twice in the last six years.
We the only one I can think of is
recently somebody had a grinder pump
that was
I think there's two and one of them were
trying to get money back from uh the
energies because it was an issue that
they had a boring and then that clogged
up. So, that one I'm not going to count.
We get the money back from We Energies
or Michael did. Uh, but there was one
that just recently that was installed a
year ago that we just had to
>> Can you state for the record to not all
of the 32 are in people's homes? Can you
state how many are outside of the homes?
>> No, I have
>> I believe they're I don't know. You mean like that that
are in like the road
>> that are in the private the private uh
>> I believe they're in the home.
>> Not not all of them
>> because we have some just in like by
bramble that we were talking about that
there was pumpkin.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. I don't know how many
>> it's say that in Bramble you just heard
what
>> so when we discussed Golf Hills Drive
remember we had somebody that wanted to
hook up. Yeah. There are some
individual force manes that have a
grinder pump that are outside of the
home, but they're still with they're
still in their lateral. So, they're
still
>> on the property of the home.
>> The property. Okay.
>> Do we have do we have installation dates
of all these other pumps?
>> We have placed in service dates.
>> Not going way back though, do you? Well,
wait a minute. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. we
have we have isolation.
» So I I think the board can reach a
consensus and we take formal action on
it at the next meeting that we either
leave it so that the sanitary district
or so that the san district is paying
for all of them moving forward like they
are now effectively that they're paying
for none and homeowners are are
responsible for everything or we have it
as a date. I mean, those are the three
options that we that we have.
>> Yeah. Let me uh
>> the other option. Can we us offer a
payout to get them off of it and say
we're closing this and give them a
thousand bucks? Call it a day.
>> That's a lot better than our last
>> I think Linda's gonna be on that one.
>> Uh I think so.
>> Yeah.
>> So, here the these were um so back in
2024, we did come up with um a few
options. Option one, the property owner
is responsible for all maintenance and
replacement of the grinder pumps and
sewer laterals to the property line.
This was the proposed new code approved
by the committee. Two, the village is
responsible for those original sewer
grinder pump connections done before
2020 for replacement of grinder pumps
and property owners are responsible for
bianual maintenance and repairs. Option
three, the village is responsible for
those original sewer connections done
before 2020 for maintenance and
replacements through 2030.
Or four, the village is responsible for
maintenance and replacement for those
original sewer connections done before
2020. This was in the sanitary district
code.
>> I'm not sure if I understood all of
that. Did everybody else or just me?
>> No, I I think we went through it pretty
quickly. I'm not I I
>> We had talked about a sunset date.
>> So the the sunset date was 2030.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I know you had talked about that
and I said that's ridiculous myself.
It's too far out. I I said it at the
time
>> that far now, but
>> Well, I know it doesn't sound that far
now, but but why? We have paid 37 years.
Why?
>> I I I
one position or the other. I I
>> you have a sunset thing that far out
people will forget to clog their pumps
up on purpose to get a new one.
>> I think there's a I mean there is a
sensitivity to the cost of these grinder
pumps and the fact that somebody that
never has had to maintain them before or
somebody that owns their house outright
that might
think that $6,500 is a huge expense that
they've never had to pay for.
>> Exactly. Like a like a septic system to
everybody else here. Right. like a well
pump. We all know it costs money. That's the cost of owning a home. They
know it when they're ahead of time.
>> I mean, we one thing we also are
forgetting historically is when we were
a sanitary, all district members paid in
a fee that
>> $48
>> that some never even got back.
>> Right. But $48. But that has stopped
when we became a village.
>> Well, bec it stopped when we became a
utility. Oh, well,
>> there was a tax there's a $48 storm
water fee on a tax bill.
>> But there's there was there was a tax
levy though that that has gone away.
>> Yes.
>> Sewer levy.
>> Sewer.
>> Sorry. A sewer levy. There was a tax on
that.
>> It's illegal. We can't do it because
we're a village.
>> I I don't you know I I'm not an
attorney. I have no idea.
>> But that kind of surprised me.
>> Because it's our utility now. We make
our we make our revenue based on our
needs. All
>> right. So, where do we where do we want
to go? I mean, what what's I mean, we
Linda's made her position clear. Is
everyone we haven't I mean, we're not
taking formal action, but we can kind of
reach a consensus and take formal action
later. So, are we are we there or do we
want to do something more in line with
what was written up before or
nothing? I mean, that's I don't know who
wants to start.
>> I think we should do something. I don't
think we should kick the can down the
road anymore. Whatever it is, something
should got to get done.
>> What do you think that something should
be?
>> I was in the bathroom as most of the
discussion.
I mean, I
I'm not exactly sure. I mean, I I think
the date, the 2020 date makes sense
because again, I don't know how you
spring it on people and just like all of
a sudden cut them off from it. I think
you'd have a lot of really angry people
So, I guess that's where I would I would
fall on it.
>> But are we cutting off the 2020 date too
for them? Is that We're still cutting
off a date.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, then maybe change
the date. I don't make it so yet there's
very few left in there. I don't know.
>> I don't know.
>> Well, it sounds like the code has to be
amended no matter what. Either to
>> fix the issue of the in perpetuity. So
why don't we, you know, staff can
present some options based on the
discussions that we've had here and then
kind of present that to the board. Well,
I think we can kind of reach a Rob,
where are you at?
>> Is there a way that you can just do the
if nobody ever if they never got
replaced, they get one was talking about
>> No, Mark said that we can't because we
don't have good records. We don't know
that. That's what the attorney said.
That's so it's got to be there's got to
be a date. So you you did have that's my
that's what I heard
some people if they needed the original
some of them not not
do that we don't have
>> all installed they sent all them that
was it
>> so you see but you so you did have in
your head that
>> we would do it for some people if they
the original people the only ones are
the ones I haven't updated yet from this
year
>> I'm thinking that way would be fair and
easiest to
>> all right we shouldn't be talking over
each other but is that is that news to
you Mark that we do have dates on all
32?
>> No, we we have dates of install, but we
don't know if they're original dates of
install. Like I think what Linda is
saying is if they've never had one,
correct me if I'm wrong, if they've
never had one and the original owner,
they get one.
>> Yeah.
>> But if we have dates of install for all
32 and and then and then some of those
dates were
>> But now, but yeah, the
>> original,
>> but we don't have property record. We'd
have to go through every property record
and determine if they are.
>> We don't have records like that. Only
thing we have is the the chart I gave
Dan.
>> You're talking about original
to the home.
>> That's what she's that that was what
>> I mean they're all all the dates are
2012 or later.
>> The grinder pumps don't last that long.
So they
>> So there's no So they've all been So
that's that point's irrelevant then.
>> Yeah.
>> So then every single one of them have
been replaced at least once.
>> You were making it sound like Linda that
there's been there's some 37y old pumps
here.
>> Well, that's what we had talked about
originally. There was only a couple
original that has never been done.
That's what I was told.
>> We The originality was the homeowner,
not the pump.
>> Oh,
>> which is a difference. The They could
have had six or seven pumps, but as long
as they were original owners,
>> they were
>> unless we have a brand like brand new
homes that were built 2012 or later, the
sewer district in that area, but I don't
think there are any new.
>> I don't think there are any.
>> They have to worry about that part.
Yeah.
>> All right. So, I'm I'm fine with either
one of these options. I mean, where Mark, where are you? you are as
well or do you have a preference between
Linda's or
>> now that everybody's has been replaced
six to 12 times I'd say we just cut it
off
» just vote as if you were you were only
thing I ask is vote what's if you were
in the and paying these fees and you
were paying for it so look at it that
instead of just on paper oh I don't know
I'll just vote this way look at it as if
you were paying those fees and how
unfair it cut her off right now.
>> That's all I ask. That's all I ask.
>> But Linda, I I have also heard about the designing of the system and that the
system was designed
>> awful was designed awfully, but it was
designed cheaper. It could have been
designed more expensive for everybody
and there wouldn't have been grinder
pumps.
>> Yeah. So, but because some of these
houses because it was designed cheaper,
these houses had the grinder pumps that
saved everyone money originally and and
now there are grinder pumps and some
that that are fall on the burden of
these uh 32 properties whereas the
remaining 420 benefit from the from the
cheaper system original construction
costs. I've heard that as well. So
>> that's and maybe we'll hear that again
when we when we
>> Well, they didn't go as deep as maybe
they should have,
>> right? Because if we would have gone
deeper, then we wouldn't have needed
these grinder pumps, right?
>> Yeah.
>> So that's
>> Yeah.
>> I mean,
>> if they've been paying the sewer fees
all these years, hasn't that cost equal
itself out by now?
>> Yeah.
>> The cost, but the co I mean, everyone
saved on this system because it was more
cheaply designed. I think if you were
going to fix the problem, you would re
redo the whole entire system
>> and then Well, I'm serious. And so
that's
>> I'm moving.
>> There's option three.
>> I'm moving.
>> Seriously, I'm moving.
>> Mark, where are you at?
>> Um I there is going to be a handful of
people, as Linda stated, that are going
to bring in this 1992
um agreement. And it does read, "The
sanitary district shall assume
responsibility for maintenance of the
grinder pumps provided the sanitary
sewer lateral and grinder pump has been
installed in accordance with the
maintenance policy."
>> Isn't that null and void since we don't
have a sanitary district anymore?
>> Well, we assume their policy,
>> right? Thank you, Rob.
>> I don't know. That's
>> we have
>> I don't know. I I don't know
>> district anymore. Never thought of that.
>> I don't know if that's how that works or
not. Just
>> But that doesn't mean that it can't
change. How many times Does a
municipality change things because it
doesn't, you know, it's just too
expensive. It doesn't work.
>> I mean, I would I would definitely
>> Did they sign a contract, Mark?
>> I Yeah, good luck. This was all we could
find back then. They they brought in a
um document that was unverified,
>> right?
>> We don't know based off records if it
was ever approved. And
>> Yep.
>> So, we're gambling then. No, I don't
think I guess if you make a date certain
in the future and you don't put any
situations attached to it like whether
it was an original homeowner, if they've
had it replaced, if it's been prior to
or after 2020, I think you can get by
with it and then you just have to put in
there a negligence clause
>> in the future though. You're saying not
in the future. Not you don't like this
July 1st, 2020 date. Do you want it to
be in the future? I would say keep the
July 1st, 2020 date and also sunset it.
>> Okay.
>> But do it for like next week. Don't put
it way out. Do it soon.
>> Well, that's okay. Oh, I mean
>> No, I mean I I I think you have there
are people that do remember this
agreement. There's people that bought
their homes under this premise.
>> There is you're there's gonna be a lot
of people in here talking about this.
And
>> I I I do think it's responsible to at
least I mean they were given notice.
>> Um but if if we're going to completely
cut it off, I think we we give them a
date.
>> So let's do let's let's do that. Let's I
mean I I I would be based on what I'm
hearing everyone else and a compromise
to me makes sense is sticking with the
July 1st, 2020 date. So that's 20 to
22ish that we'd still be on the hook
for. But if they don't get them replaced
by the 2030 date that was in the
previous proposal, then we're not paying
them for them after that. So if they if
they make it that long, then we're
>> it can't be just a major
>> saying 2030 in four years.
>> 2030,
>> which is what the proposal was from the board or the attorney when you
looked at this a couple years ago.
>> We could potentially be replacing them
one a year until for four years
>> is what we're saying. Or you can be
placing, you know, six, you know, five
or six a year for the next four years.
>> Or you make it or you make it a shorter
date. I mean, that's up to the board.
>> I mean, you're
>> That was Dan's idea.
>> Well, no, but it came from It came from
the attorney or something else.
>> It came from It came from the attorney
or Kathy or the senary district.
>> It's been brought up before. It's not
something that came pulled out of thin
air.
30 is way out
>> back in 2018 and 2019 about this and we
talked about a subset law. So
>> and then can can we put a stipulation in
like one in that if we do 2030 you're
entitled to one
>> I think because the install date would
be after the cutoff.
>> It's not how it's written but you should
clean it up so it is written.
>> Well I would I would
>> Okay. So I think you've got you've got a
consensus for you understand where we're
at and where the majority of the board's
at. kind of a compromise that gets that
gets almost all the way that you're
there. It's not gonna it's going to make
people here um be have a little of a
compromise. You're still welcome to make
the um motion at the next meeting,
Linda, to to
>> Oh, I see. I got very far with that one.
I'm not going to get very far with that
one. I think part of the problem is, as
Mark's pointing out, if we try to cut it
directly off, we're opening ourselves up
to litigation.
>> I I I just ask, if we don't extend it
out to 2030,
>> what what what date makes sense to you?
» 28
compromise
>> the end of or beginning of January 1st
or January 31st?
>> 28.
>> So we got So next year is our last year.
>> That's it.
>> So write write the proposal up. how we
said with with those previous dates
right January 1st to 28 if the board
wants to amend it to a different date to 29 30 whatever at the next meeting we
can certainly do that but it's something
on paper for us to to discuss
>> so if just a point of clarification if
they've had one replaced post July 1st
2020
>> if they had it post
are they done done
>> they're done done
>> they're done
do
Natasha, does she know all of this
>> or do you know all
>> what
>> the date? Have we replaced
>> had all the dates?
>> Have we replaced any of those?
>> Okay,
>> we replaced about you know 11 people.
>> 12 to 13.
>> We're going to be on the hook for 20 to
22 of them. Possibly 132,000 to 150,000
depending how much they are and how far
we go.
>> And we'll be paying $350 on on a
threemonth fee. now
>> for for our user fees to pay all these
costs with everything else that we have
to pay. No, I'm just saying our our we
you know our we're going to be paying
more money. That's all on on for our
monthly our three-month fee that we pay
for for our user fees. We pay user fees
every three months.
>> Why makes that go up?
>> That goes up every time our cost go up.
It's $180 now.
>> That That's the sewer fee.
>> That's the sewer fee. We pay every three
months.
>> That's not for grinder pumps. That's not entirely for grinders.
>> Everybody Everybody pays $180 for their
sewer every three months.
>> And you're saying that's the money
that's used to pay for the grinder pump.
>> That No, that's Well, that's everybody's
money. It's everybody's money that we
have got the million and two actually
that and we'll go over that the next
one. If you want to go if it's getting
too late, we'll wait till next meeting.
But I'm just saying that whatever money
we have on hand in the sewer fund pays
for the grinder pumps. the $180 is the
fee that we have to pay into Sussex and
so forth and pay for our regular
expenses we have to pay.
>> Okay.
>> And once they they go up, we had to
raise it this last year and it's going
to be raised again this year. There's no
doubt about it. It will be raised.
>> So, well, with what we're doing right
now, does that have any effect on the
fees?
>> Well, you better believe it. What?
>> Well, no, but but if if we did nothing,
the fees would be higher, right? Right?
If we did nothing, the fees would be
higher because we But if we take this
action at the next meeting, we are
reducing future costs.
>> So we're so we're going to have less
you're going to have less
>> in the future if if you do it and say,
"Hey, we're not going to pay for these
grinder pumps anymore." Yes.
>> Right. So So this is this is if we take
this action, it is a net positive to
Yes. It's a net positive.
>> And we're only we're only replacing them
if they're legitimately broken. We're
not replacing them.
>> Well, it's if a kid stuffs a bunch of
toys down there, a homeowner says they
want a new one. So there is a there is a variable that reduces the cost to that
in the sense that we're not we we used
to just direct replace everything. We
we've undertaken a policy where when we
pull the unit we may install a
refurbished unit
>> which so we're not entirely replacing
the $6,000 pump anymore. We might be
replacing it with a pump on hand.
>> Yeah, that's fine.
>> Does the code have to stipulate that? So
the homeowner would be like it's not a
new one. I'm just saying
>> it doesn't say it doesn't say
>> choice.
>> It just says replace. Okay.
>> But we're not necessarily going to be on
the hook for all 22 of these by 28
because they have to be actually broken.
>> You guys said however many are prepared
replaced.
>> But they actually have to legitimately
break.
>> 22 legitimately. If
>> 12 of them have broke in the last six
years, you would think that we're not
going to have 22 break in the next
>> Our estimate is we replace two to three
every year. Yeah.
>> And we have two available to replace.
>> So if we set this
>> ability to determine whether or not it's
negligence based on the now that we get
them repaired.
>> If we got a Lego set in there that's
going to be negligence.
>> That is done much better now than it was
done in the beginning. Let me tell you
much better. We paid for things that
shouldn't have been just take the pumps
and scrap them down.
>> Deb used to just take them out and put a
new one in.
Are we ready to move on to sew to item
E?
>> So I feel better about that here.
>> Clarify staff will present options for
adoption on this Dan.
>> Yeah, I will draft the code and run it
to the attorney. Do you want options or
do you want the option of what we
discussed with a 20 January 1st 20
sunset and um making sure the January
for the the June 2020 date is not in
>> July July I think by July 1st of Yes.
Right.
>> Yeah. That would be the cut off and then
negligence isn't covered.
>> Is there any So that I think that's what
we want. But is there is there anything
else you want the attorney or Dan to
research as an alternative to possibly
discuss?
>> Can you present uh attorney Larson with
attorney Macy's findings from
>> Yeah. Can you forward me that
I mean the given?
» This is truly how the sausage gets fed.
Huh?
» So to speak. I'm sorry to keep you so
long. I'm sorry.
>> I think it's
>> I've been stressing over this for so
long.
>> Well, we're going to do something about
it
>> and Mark knows it.
>> All right. So, yeah,
>> so item E is discussion uh regarding the
village responsibility for various sewer
utility costs.
>> I think we should wait for Rob to come
back. You want me to wait for Rob or I
can start talking? Um,
>> I it has just been discovered by me that
I had no idea that the the um sewer fund
is paying for the fire station costs for
their sewer repairs everything and that
is totally unfair why the sewer fund is
paying for the fire station. Those
should come out of either the villages
money or the fire station fund, not the
you know and I request this has been
going this has been going on as far as
we know since we became a village
and whoever did that is we have no idea
who it is that said hey the sewer
district is going to be paying for the
fire station. You know,
>> it was 65 35, but the 35 was the the
town and now it's the San District.
>> Yeah, it's or not district, but that's
the the
>> it's a sewer fund. Say the sewer fund.
So, we know the sewer fund is paying
that and that's really not appropriate.
I think we should be reimbursed for
every cost we paid to reimburse the
sewer fund. It's not fair. We have paid
that. So, I looked into this and I think
it started because the 2025 budget had
no sewer costs associated with the fire
station, probably because it was made
for the contract. Um, so I think it
started back in October of 2020.
Um, so I did just some research on how
much money is paid this year because
it's really hard to recover costs from
last year given that the books have been
closed and the audit's been completed.
Um, so the cost of the Richmond split
with the 35 uh65
uh has been 1,339.35.
And then the Richmond
fire station flows, which is a monthly
charge uh in our commercial bill. I
looked back at every one from January to
this month and it's $33.70.
So, a total you're looking at paying out
of the villages share would be $1,6435.
I've already put in a budget item for
next year. Um, if we want to continue if
we want to have the village pay for the
fire station costs associated with their
usage and with their share of the force
man uh at a $3,000
budget line item. How about for the new
pumps that we just had taken out and put
it out? That's more than $1,000. So, I'm
a little confused, Dan.
>> Because I did the because every I went
through the budget code of what we take
those pumps out of and it's because of
the 3565.
>> I know that. Yeah,
>> that's what I got when I add it up in
our accounting software. So, there that
might be a little higher. Maybe one of
those uh
>> there's been a lot of pumps taken out
over the last couple years and that they
had to take them out. They had to take
them out and take them up north, you
know, to the
>> Those are grinder pumps.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But they had to take
something out.
>> It was Grab Amazon. We did We did one
this year and I That wasn't Yes.
included cost. We didn't have to pay for
the full pump. We had to
>> pay. I I I if I was a vetting woman, I
would say that was more than that. I'll
double check the costs and and check,
but remember that
>> you know divide 30 that number by 35%
you're looking at somewhere around five
grand or total costs
>> related to
>> I just don't think the sewer sewer fund
should pay for it at all. There's no
reason for for it to be paid for. Was a
formal policy made by the board in 2024
to to make this change or did it was it
a staff? I think it was I think it was
probably a bookkeep
that happened
>> and I didn't know this until I talked to
I'm you know until I questioned
something and that's when he said well
you know that you know the sewer fund
paid I said what the sewer fund pays for
this
>> so where we're where if we wanted to
address this one way or the other we
could have it at the next meeting agenda
or does it need to be I mean or
>> I can just come up with like a budget
amendment
And then if we had a simple policy that
would say that all fire station expenses
regarding force main and flows would be
paid out of the fire department
>> or so in the fact that we approved this
board and the previous boards have
approved the fire department budget that
didn't include the sewer costs I guess
indirectly or directly that that it was
considered but
>> so so
>> so we could just do a budget budget
amendment and put in their costs this
year at the next meeting. So, you do a
budget amendment to add, you know,
$3,000 the expenditure costs in the
sewer fund for the fire department. And
there is a budget item for it. It just
wasn't budgeted for in 2025. And then
when I did the budget 26, so it was
nothing that I didn't think to add it.
So,
>> why can't we go back? Why can't we go
back a year before? I just because
everything's closed, but why can't we go
back and look at the figures?
>> I mean, the budget the audit is
completed. So, I mean, you're going back
and taking money from one area that's
been been audited. I mean, the board can
consider it if they want to. I I can
hold those numbers.
>> I mean, my preference would be just to
deal with this in 2027
moving forward. I mean, I think if we if
we go back and do it for 26, that's one
thing. I don't want to go back any I
mean
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying
but I I I I don't think that that
>> we're talking about $5,000.
>> Yeah.
>> Or we're talking about 35% of 5,000.
>> No.
>> Wow.
>> So 35% is 5,000 $1,643.
I don't know what the total of last
year.
>> Gosh.
>> Are you talking about the the village
paying the
>> the village should be paying it? the the the um um
>> are you talking about the village paying
the sewer fund back for the
>> Yes, we should.
>> So, for 26. So, well, we'll we'll I
think we're all Are we all in agreement
that we will change the way we're
budgeting in for 27 moving moving
forward? Definitely.
>> Okay. So, we're all on the same page
there. When you develop the budget,
you're going to you're going to have
Okay, good. So, the question is, do we
want to make a change for 26? That's really the only question that or or 20, you know, and we want to go
back for 25. I I'd say leave 25 alone.
Okay. Do we want to what do we want to
do for 26? Where where are you at, Mark,
on that?
>> I mean, we we the books are open, so why
not just correct it?
>> We can just correct it.
You don't need to do a budget
how clean the books otherwise
>> because if if we did three $3,000
allocation for expenses in the fire
department then we're also would have to
take a $3,000 additional transfer from
the
>> general fund.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. I mean we don't have to. I'm just
saying if you want it really clean you
can do it that way. Otherwise there's
zero money budget for it. So, just know
that you're going to be over budgeted by
three grand in sewers.
>> How are the auditors going to want to
see it?
>> They'll be fine anywhere.
>> What's easier for staff?
>> Just let me make the change.
I'll just update you that it's been done
the night before meeting. I I I don't
want to go through the hassle of or just
it just doesn't seem as clean to do the
budget amendment. So I think if if if we
have this discussion here and we have a
consensus that that that's what we're
going to do is is have the village pay
for it in 26.
>> I don't think
>> this year. This year.
>> Okay.
>> That we don't think we need any formal
action since formal action wasn't taken
otherwise.
>> Yeah. I mean I can I'll just send an you
know a general email to the board and
blind copy everyone. If I do I'll go
back and look at the budget code to make
sure that number is right. If it's
incorrect for whatever reason and it's
higher than that, I'll just let you the
board know. But
>> because there's been a lot of costs, you
know, in my mind, maybe I'm wrong.
>> Some of those are directly build at
Richmond too at not 35. I know.
>> I have a feeling that if we build every
cost to the sewer fund, it would be way
more than what we do.
>> If we had to if we actually accounted
for every single minute of staff time
devoted Oh, yeah. to
>> Yeah, I know. So,
>> I know. I I no I think what fun is
>> you know the 26 is fine you don't go
back that's im you know
>> long as we correct it now
I appreciate it
>> all right so you have this agendaized as
various sewer utility costs are is that
>> Nope that's not okay then the next
paragraph I don't know if you all are
aware the sewer district came over here
with a200,000
so far we paid off about $800 $100,000
for the upgrade for the Sussex plant.
And this is the first time in 30 years
we've ever had to do that. There's
another $24,000 that's due. Um this is
actually going to bankrupt us, the sewer
fund, because if we that money was set
aside per the state, we have to keep so
much money on hand for repairs. We have
to do that. If we break up a road and
have to go into the road, we're looking
a couple hundred thousand dollar just by
breaking up the road, having somebody
there doing whatever they need to do and
checking the problem. We're going to
have to start borrowing money because we
paid off this this this um this upgrade
thing that's going to benefit everybody
that's coming on because here we're
talking about K. We're talking about
this is going to benefit the the people.
And I also talked to Dan about this and
he said, "Well, we don't do it now, but
we'll do it when it happens and then
we'll reimburse the the the the fund."
But at that time, why would you
reimburse?
I think it should be done. We should
have help now what benefits the people
online so we're not have to borrow money
to do some repairs that's going to be
necessary down the road being an older
system. I'm shocked that we don't have
issues because of how bad the system was
installed originally
and and I just think something needs to
be done. I know when this started the
town of Lisbon took over the loan. They
took out the loan for everything to buy
into the plant to buy and we had to pay
him back. It took us everyone could go
on a payment plan for 10 years and
that's what we did. So every nobody had
that kind of money to do it. And so I'm
just asking why does a a sewer fund have
to pay it all? You know, why can't why
can't the village step forward say,
"Hey, okay, we we are going to be
expanding our district and this is going
to be a fun and and I just I want some
fair play. Why do the 452 pe uh
homeowners have to be paying this
$824,000
alone?"
>> You're asking me?
>> Yeah. Um because it's a sewer cost,
>> okay?
>> And it's not a cost of people that are
not on sewer currently. And if you took
the board took action on this before I
was here and you had
>> you had Ellers come in and give you an
option. You could borrow or you could
take it from the reserves. Decided to
take it from the reserves.
>> Well, yeah, because
>> you'd be paying back the money anyways
after you borrowed for it
>> over sewer rates over a long period of
time, which is exactly what we're doing
now. You're paying it back over a long
period of time. from sewer rates. And as
soon as Yes. you get sewer expand your
sewer service area, get more sewer
customers online,
>> Mhm.
>> they pay a connection fee. Part of that
connection fee is to replenish the costs
of future expenses for sewer, just as
you did back when you bought into the
sewer district.
>> We were the only ones in it in the town
here. And so it wasn't the whole area.
It was we had to pay our fair share. Not
a dollar came out of the citizens
pockets. we paid for it over whatever
and the town made sure that they took
out a loan for it. I'm just saying when
I talked to you originally, Dan, you had
said that we could get reimbursed as new
people come online and now you're not saying that anymore.
>> I just said that you would new users are
going to pay fees to get online which is
going to co help supplement cost for
future use and
>> right
>> for the capacity that they're using.
Okay. Is the
>> which is essentially the same thing.
>> Is is is the sewer fund ever going to be
reimbursed
ever from future users for that $825,000
that we forced to pay?
>> It will be made up over fees and you're
going to charge fees to new users as
well as that. So when that happens in
years down the road,
>> it's going to benefit new people, not
the people online. That's what I have a
problem with. And because you you bought
in an facilities upgrade, you had money
in reserves to pay for it. When we spend
money in general, the general fund, we
buy a piece of equipment.
>> We don't go, we don't then replenish
that exactly for the same amount that we
had. We want to make sure that we have
enough money in there that's legally
required. If we have more, great. We're
not trying to recover $800,000
from sewer.
>> Exactly. I know that. So, so no, we're
not going to make sure that we have we
replace that whole entire amount. We're
going to make sure that we have enough
that's required and over time that that
amount will build up.
>> I understand that. But
>> fees go up. Yeah. I mean, I understand
that and that's why our fees are going
up. Everybody's taxes are going up.
That's that's indisputable. But I'm just
saying that when we have time comes that
we have to borrow money to fix the
repair,
>> then we'll have to borrow it.
>> We will have to borrow it. And I'm just
saying,
you know, that even I have even written
on here the 825,000 if even if we're
split somehow to help the district out
instead of bankrupting them and to
borrow money down the road. And that's
just what I'm saying.
>> Well, and we can certainly look at if if
that situation comes up, we did the same
thing with the TID. We borrowed money
from ourselves to pay back for the TID.
We could look at that as an option to
save money for the utility of in case
you know interest rates are incredibly
high that you don't want to borrow the
money through ellers or through
>> state bank or something like that.
That's completely up to the board how
they want to fund that practice.
>> So the new people in a year or two or
three are going to benefit from all the
upgrades that the current people are
using.
>> They're going to pay an impact fee.
They're going to pay a $5,000 $10,000
connection fee
>> that's going to uh you know reimburse
for push. But that's what I heard said.
Yeah.
>> All the sewer users are coming out of
the same pot, right? Even new ones that
are
>> same. No. I mean, so there's
>> there's like
>> it's not a new
sharing the same utility.
>> And I I will point out say there is a
catastrophic failure in the old system
under current day.
>> Yeah.
>> That fund if it is depleted, who's going
to be paying for it?
>> We 452 homes.
>> Everyone is going to pay for it.
>> Oh, let me get this straight now. Say
that again.
>> If the if there is a catastrophic
failure that exceeds the current fund
balance of the sewer fund, who has to
pay for that?
>> I thought, and maybe I'm wrong and and
thank you. Um I thought the sewer fund
had to pay for that. The foreign 52
homes. So you're saying the whole
village pays for it.
>> Who is going to pay for it?
>> That's what I'm saying. Well, the sewer
fund take out the loan.
>> If the sewer fund is depleted, who's
going to pay for it?
>> Exactly.
>> So, there's only two options.
>> Yeah.
>> It's either user fees or everyone.
>> Yeah.
>> But
>> if you take out a loan,
it's going to be paid back by the users
of the sewer.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> That's what it should be. So therefore,
why should the users of the sewer not
pay for the why should the users of the
eight users of the sewer not pay for the
800? Answer that question.
>> Because
it's for the benefit of the future users
for the the village here on K over here.
They're going to benefit from the new
upgrades.
>> But it's also to preserve the prior
infrastructure that was put in place.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I understand. And they
have to we
>> we have way more old users than we do
future users.
>> Yeah.
>> And
>> probably you're right
>> because it's never going to happen
again. What was happened to these people
over here? It's never going to happen.
>> I mean I I can I can totally sympathize
if there's some new injustice that's
going on, but we don't we don't have any
new users.
>> I mean they're they're so minimal.
>> Okay. I personally and that's why I I
just think because the town stepped up
to help that the villagers stepped up to
help rather than depleting this fund so
much. That's all.
>> But in one in one thing you're saying
it's our money. Let's use it only for
us.
>> But then you're also saying if we don't
have the money, everyone needs to help
us.
>> Well, you said that and I I you said the
village is going to, you know, if we
have a problem.
>> He he did not say that. He was he was he
was trying to get
>> It was a hypothetical. Yeah, I
understand that. But that's what I stood
understood. So, and I understand and I
don't want to go back and forth on this.
It's just
>> But we have to we have to we have to put
this to bed.
>> Okay.
>> There is no more sanitary district.
There is no more us of the or it is the
we of the future.
>> I know that.
>> But you keep going back to it though.
>> It's the sewer fund.
>> It's a sewer fund.
>> And one day that's gonna be gone.
It will be gone because the the million2
that that the sewer district borrow over
to the sewer fund is being depleted. The
million two that Rick and I have
hundreds of dollars in this thing. Other
people have hundreds of dollars in this
thing that we're depleting for the
upgrade. And and that we're paying for
that directly. We are paying for that.
Nobody else is
>> because you're the only ones using it.
But down the road, and I know that's
your point of I know nobody wants to pay
for for something they don't get. I
understand that. But K over here is
going to be sewarded over here, you
know.
>> Yeah. So then they would get lumped into
this 452 and then it's going to be 500
people or 600 or 1000.
>> How are they going to pay? How are they
going to help us replete our
>> not as much about how much goes in
there? But if your pipe fails, the guy
on K is going to be helping pay for your
pipe up there. And vice versa, if his
pipe fails, you're going to help pay for
his.
>> But Linda, it's no different.
>> Everybody in the sewers all together,
>> it's no different than the what we talk
about with failed septic systems or
failed wells or something like that. And
from a personal standpoint, if I save up
a bunch of money and I've got $50,000 in
bank account and yes, I did it and then
my well goes goes out, then there goes
half of that. It's depleted. I don't ask
how he was going to replace it. It's
going to be the user, which is me, to
replace the money that I've saved.
>> See, and then when this was set up years
ago, there was a district one and a
district two. I don't know if you know
that. Senator Distant number one is us
on on sewer now. Sister District two
that's really bad sewer systems, septic
systems, is the one over off of um is it
Richmond Road that they're coming in
with new with new wells that the pore is
paying for. We know that those subject
systems are bad over there. We were told
that they were they were sanitary
district number two. And if each of the
district had an issue, the issue we
would pay for our own, they pay for
their own. That's how it was presented.
So that's why I guess I just kind of,
you know, thinking, well, they're going
to benefit from our upgrades that we're
paying for and we are paying for it on
our backs. We are paying for it. Why
doesn't why can't we be reimbursed
somewhat for that?
>> It make more sense. The more users you
have on a system type like this, you
want
>> I guess let's relate it to a school
district. Okay? I don't I know we're not
a school district, but a school district
imposes a referendum today.
>> Next year, 10 new families come into the
school district.
How do they pay for how do they pay for
their impact
>> on the system
>> through impact fees and user fees?
>> There's no impact fees in schools.
>> No, no, no. I'm just saying if we're
equating it to to to
a sewer
>> and saying they there's an impact fee in
the sewer that
>> So, can we have an impact fee then that
will be attached? We make sure.
>> Yeah. I mean, that's all part of the
discussion with the sewer service is
we're we're going to revitalize the
code, which is why we kind of held it
off because we have to add
>> I don't think any amount could be in
there though. There should be the amount
at the time because it might be too low.
Are you going to put a dollar amount for
impact fee?
>> There will be a dollar amount. It'll be
based on, you know, future expended
costs and, you know, whatever else that both kind of works with us on. But,
I mean, there's an impact fee and a
sewer connection fee now. I mean,
>> so it'll be large. It'll be larger most
likely,
>> most likely when we move forward. So,
>> yeah.
>> And then that will be in a pot of money
that will sit there and they might
complain for the fact that they have to
pay $25,000 and the original people only
had to pay $15,000
>> or whatever it is. And I and I
understand you your your viewpoints and
I know I'm an odd
>> I I don't I I'm I guess here's my ask. I
don't understand your viewpoint.
>> Okay.
>> What is the ask of the board today for this?
>> I guess I'm for one thing. The important
thing was that the fire station pay
their their costs and then I wanted to
talk about this $825,000
that so we'll be left with $375,000.
one issue that money is gone. Now we
have to take
>> what is what is the solution that you
want the board to
>> village to come in to help since they took out a loan in the beginning.
>> Help with what though?
>> If if we have any issue that we're we're
bankrupt because we paid off the 825,000
and people on K over here is going to
benefit from the 825,000 improvement
because there's always continuous
expenses that we have paid over the
years. Yes. to Sussex, but nothing like
this $825,000.
So, this is a 30-year project that
they're doing that they have to upgrade.
>> But we don't So, we don't have any users
on Highway K.
>> We will.
>> We We do not know that.
>> I know.
>> We have not approved that.
>> Okay.
>> And we do we do not know that.
>> Okay. And you know, this is another
thing. Who pays for a fund pays for
that? So, we all pay for those fund
costs over there, don't we?
I mean we haven't really even got to
that point.
>> You told me you told me that the whole village pays for it Dan
including the sewer district. We pay
>> we pay we pay for the study that we're
talking about for sewer. There is a
separate cost.
>> So we are paying for it too. The the
sewer fund is is getting we're paying
for our taxes the taxes what we're
paying on our taxes.
>> It's money that was set aside a long
time ago and sitting in a fun bonded. I
know I know that you said but it's still the towns or the villages
money that we have paid into. So in
essence
>> so you're yes everybody is paying.
>> So in essence we have paid our own fair
share continue to pay fair and yet we
pay for it in this fund over here for
their sewer.
>> You're paying your tax bill. Yes
>> I know I know that's another thing we're
paying for. So if if the ask is that if
there's a large expenditure and the
village has to asssure that the senate
>> their users does not go bankrupt. I I I
think we've heard that that that the
village will will make sure that that does not happen
>> that we're helped by the village.
>> I I I mean and and what what that means is is it will have to be
debated at and figured out but yes we're
not going to let it
>> go bankrupt. Oh, you know, I I know
because not being in in in the on the
utility, you don't understand what's all
going on. So, I just felt it was the
time that we need to bring this all out,
put it to bed, and let's just get it
squared away so you guys can realize in
five years if sewer's going on over
there. Wait a minute now. How about
reimbursing, you know, impact fee for
what we had to pay for the $825,000?
That's all.
>> So, I think so. Again, we we're going to
have a one uh issue on the next agenda
for formal action. The uh the um fire
department, we're taking care of that as
was agreed to tonight, which was doesn't
need formal action. And this last one we
we've discussed and I think we have an
understanding, right?
>> So, I think to to your point, Mark, I
mean I mean and Linda, does does this
clear things?
>> It's fine. Well, does it does it address
these concerns moving forward? Because I
think the board wants to to make sure
that we're adequately listening and
addressing it instead of just we don't
want to feel like you're getting pushed away and then it still fers and
we and you feel as though we need to
come back here in a month or two. Are we
>> have we did we resolved the the main
issues that you had?
>> I I think so. I think so. And I'll try
to do better, but this is the sore spot.
No, I I think I think having some stuff
written out tonight and having it on the
agenda was I think we we got there and
this this was this was helpful.
>> We're going to have to tackle any
problem that comes our way.
>> Right. So, the last item tonight is uh
discussion and necessary action
regarding the replacement plan for
engine 30.
uh bringing this back. I had to send you
guys all the list of pairs that you had
requested from the fire department going
back to 4.
Um
>> so when I sent out packets on Friday, I
sent a follow-up email with a 54 page
PDF attachment. I did not print it
because it was 54 pages
>> and I I didn't really want it printed
and she asked me because of the fact
that they're just a bunch of repair
bills. you guys want to look at them,
they're there. Um the I had I did have a
discussion with um Mr. Oman regarding
this too and he had talked back about
contract negotiations though it wasn't
written that they did talk about a time
frame of around 12 years replacement for
that fire engine. So um I'm not asking
that we make formal action to replace
the fire truck. I'm just asking that we
discuss authorizing, getting the
coordinating, getting a group together
to even discuss
potential replacement because once you
put that order in for a firet truck,
which we're still probably going to be
six, eight months, eight months away
after we spec out what we want, it's
going to be a two to three year way
after that.
>> Will you put that in the budget then for
that?
>> Yeah, we already got
>> money. There's money in there already.
We're doing 200 and some thousand in.
And I had in my notes that we were at uh
in talking to to Joe as well as the fire
chief in previous meetings, we were at 12 to 15 years on the fire engine
replacement and and our second fund
calculation has it at 13 years. I went
back and looked at that
>> and 13 years would be right on par if we
started discussions now because they're literally three years out for
some. summer, too. But I mean, we're
going to be talking about it for six to
eight months. That's kind of how what
happened with the tender as well.
>> I I I wasn't comfortable off, you know,
uh moving forward with with the purchase
at this point or authorizing that, but
if if we wanted to take action to form
the committee or form a group to to look
at it, um I would have more comfort with
that. Um, and I think Rob made some good
points at the last meeting that can be
pushed off a little bit longer with with
some repairs. Um, I guess I wanted to
kind of and then the whole how that
engine is used over there and that that
engine is going into Piwaukee. You guys,
that engine's going into Piwaukee a lot
and it's serving as an ambulance. I
don't I'm not comfortable with the way
that we're doing this this at all. So,
this this has to be part of a bigger
discussion. Me, too. before we move
forward with
>> Thank you for bringing that up.
>> I'm not saying that we don't don't that
we don't you know have to get this this engine and replace it in 3 years
but I'm saying it needs we need a larger
discussion.
>> Exactly. or I don't want to cheap out on
it, but I also want to just buy one just
for the sake of buying one because
>> sure
that doesn't mean that we have to pull a
trigger, but
>> should at least consider it given what
the time frame is that we have budgeted
and what was discussed
>> not written any contract but discussed
during
right now.
>> What is the fire apparatus team? Well,
at the time we did the tender, it was
the deputy chief from Pewwaukee, the
fire chief from Pewwaukee, um, Mark
Poppy, and Doug Braum, and then myself.
» Is that changed now? He's on the fire
advisory,
uh, Mr. Braum.
>> Um, no, no, no, no. Well, no. Doug, Doug
is on the, uh, commission.
>> Commission advisory.
>> Yeah. So, and Rob has come uh uh to the
what do you call the the joint
>> which has been which has been um the
administrator, the chief elected
official and one other person from the
city, the village and the village.
Um,
>> as far as specking out a truck, I mean,
obviously we want to take input from
what the back fighter department has to
say, but I think we were using having
Doug be there as kind of the village
representative, understanding what the
villages needs were or apparatus, and
then I was in there just to make sure
they weren't spending money like this.
>> Well, I mean,
I I love Doug, but I mean, I might feel
a little more comfortable with Rob being
I mean,
Uh, can can we have both?
>> I don't know anything about specking out
a fire truck,
>> but I think when they're talking about
items, maybe you'd be better at at at
kind of hearing what is more of a
>> We have no recourse against Mr. Brown.
>> Yeah,
>> I think that's what he's trying to say.
>> Yeah,
>> he he he he really loves the fire
department and he loves to have stuff
for him. Yeah.
>> While I was on it, I don't know the
insides if this pump's going to be
better than that pump, right? You know,
this or that.
Although if I mean obvious something
obvious like
you know why do we need 10 light bars on
instead of two but
>> we'll do well
>> right so let's let's move forward with
this and then we'll we'll we'll kind of
maybe circle back
>> say we don't have to have the committee
decided
>> right so maybe we'll circle back on that team at the next meeting
>> y
>> all right so do we want to do want a
motion then
>> uh yeah please
>> uh so is there a motion to authorize the
village administ to begin coordinating
with the fire apparatus team to begin uh
fire truck configuration.
>> So moved.
>> Seconded.
>> Any discussion?
>> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> Say nay.
>> Motion carries. Um is there a motion to
adjurnn?
>> I make a motion.
>> Second. All those in favor say I. I.
>> Say nay. Motion carries. We're journed
at 8:49.
It's a sore spot with with us original.
>> Oh, that's