[0:04] Right. Uh, call the order the village
[0:06] board meeting uh for the village of
[0:08] Lisbon on Wednesday, August 12th, 2026,
[0:13] 6:31. Uh, roll call please.
[0:16] >> President Gerky
[0:17] >> here.
[0:18] >> Trusty Monin
[0:19] >> here.
[0:20] >> Trusty Bomb
[0:20] >> here.
[0:21] >> Trustee Quinn
[0:22] >> here.
[0:23] >> Trustee Field
[0:24] >> here. Administrator Green
[0:25] >> here.
[0:26] >> And clerk Capasel.
[0:28] We'll stand for the pledge of allegiance
[0:29] and a moment of silence.
[0:33] Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the
[0:36] United States of America and to the
[0:38] republic for which it stands. One nation
[0:41] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:44] justice for all.
[0:56] » All right. Uh item three are citizen
[0:59] comments. Um are there any citizens here
[1:02] that wish to speak?
[1:05] Anyone on Zoom?
[1:06] >> No one present on Zoom.
[1:08] >> All right. Um then we'll move on to the
[1:12] uh item four which is the consent
[1:14] agenda. Uh these items can be approved
[1:17] in one motion unless the trustee
[1:19] requests that they be consider any of
[1:21] them separately.
[1:23] All right. So, is there a motion on them
[1:25] all or do we wish to pull something off?
[1:28] >> Make a motion to approve the or approve
[1:31] the consent agenda.
[1:33] >> Is there a second?
[1:34] >> I second.
[1:37] >> Any discussion?
[1:41] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
[1:43] >> I. I.
[1:44] >> Say nay. Motion carries 5.
[1:54] Uh item five uh A is to authorize the
[1:58] payment of the one quick bills uh dated
[2:01] July 23rd amount of $2,13466.
[2:09] » Moved as presented.
[2:10] >> Is there a second?
[2:12] >> A second.
[2:13] >> Any discussion?
[2:15] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
[2:17] >> I.
[2:18] >> Oppos say nay. Motion carries 40. Uh
[2:22] item 5B is authorized payment of the
[2:26] remaining bills dated July 23rd uh in
[2:29] the amount of $39,319.554
[2:35] and on August 6th for $170,32544.
[2:42] Uh top five expenditures from July 23rd
[2:44] are US Bank credit card for $151,79427,
[2:50] Walker County Treasure in the amount of
[2:52] $89,573.15,
[2:54] Funk Engineering for $15,8485,
[2:59] uh Village of Sussex for $14,171.58
[3:03] and of Weiss Law Office for $6,716.96.
[3:09] Top five expenditures for August 13th
[3:11] are $36,193.15
[3:15] per building inspection, $20,3671
[3:19] to Kungpull engineering, $17,500 for
[3:22] Carrick Holmes, $8,8646
[3:25] to both infrastructure and $8,17244
[3:30] to Guthther and Fry.
[3:36] All right. Is there a motion?
[3:38] >> Make a motion to approve the remaining
[3:40] bills.
[3:41] >> Is there a second?
[3:43] >> Second.
[3:44] >> Any discussion?
[3:47] It's hearing none. All those in favor
[3:49] say I.
[3:49] >> I.
[3:50] >> Post say nay.
[3:51] >> Motion carries 5.
[3:54] Uh item six is announcements and
[3:57] correspondence. Um the public works and
[4:00] utility committee
[4:02] um
[4:04] will meet on Wednesday, August 19th at
[4:07] 5:00 here at the village hall. Um the
[4:10] public hearing and plan commission
[4:12] meeting on Wednesday, August 26 at 6:30
[4:15] at the Richard Young Fire Station.
[4:17] Uh that public hearing, Lisa, is that
[4:21] what type of public hearing?
[4:21] >> Not commission public hearing.
[4:23] >> Okay.
[4:23] >> Not a joint public hearing.
[4:26] Um and then uh Labor Day uh September
[4:30] 7th, we are uh closed. All village
[4:33] departments are closed for the holiday.
[4:35] Uh parks committee next meets uh on
[4:38] Wednesday uh September 9th at 5.
[4:41] >> We were going to NYX that meeting.
[4:44] >> Okay.
[4:44] >> Because I'm out of town and a couple of
[4:46] the other members weren't going to be
[4:47] there. So we're going to cancel that
[4:50] one.
[4:50] >> Okay. All right. Um,
[4:54] so then, uh, the next village board
[4:56] meeting is, uh, Wednesday, September 9th
[4:59] at 6:30 here at the village hall.
[5:03] Any other announcements or
[5:04] correspondents that need to be noted?
[5:08] Now, we'll move on to Dan, your
[5:09] administrator's report.
[5:12] Um, so Tamarak Road is uh completed and
[5:17] obviously I haven't driven down that
[5:18] road, but Matt, you have. I don't know.
[5:20] Looks nice.
[5:21] >> Shouldering and all that is complete or
[5:23] to
[5:24] >> Yeah, I mean it's there's I mean the
[5:26] shouldering it's going to settle some
[5:27] and it's I I don't like the way it
[5:30] turned out with with uh I mean people
[5:31] cutting the grass is is is it stinks but
[5:34] yeah
[5:34] >> and the they kind of butchered the uh
[5:37] >> strip
[5:37] >> the line the striping it I mean but
[5:40] hopefully it fades well.
[5:41] >> Yeah. And when they when they do road
[5:44] projects like that obviously the the
[5:46] road comes up a good three or four
[5:48] inches sometimes.
[5:51] overlay. But
[5:52] >> isn't there the there a yellow line just
[5:54] around the corner though?
[5:55] >> Yeah.
[5:56] >> I was surprised at that. But I guess
[5:57] they need it for a curve.
[5:58] >> It was there before. Um but yeah, it was
[6:02] there before, but they but they they put
[6:04] it in and then didn't put it in right.
[6:05] So they scratched it out and still
[6:08] doesn't Yeah.
[6:10] >> Did they remove the portage, John?
[6:12] >> Finally.
[6:14] Um just an update to the board and that
[6:17] you you all have heard but Natasha our
[6:19] treasurer she was gone from Lisbon. Um
[6:23] so she served the village for over seven
[6:25] years. So thank her for um her time
[6:29] spent here in Lisbon. Uh currently we're advertising the position. Um we
[6:34] have four applicants so far. We have it
[6:37] posted for another 10 days. Um at this
[6:40] point I'm serving as the active
[6:42] treasurer uh but trying not to become
[6:44] signers on anything has to be conflict
[6:47] for anything. So uh using Elisa when I
[6:50] need to have a signer to authorize
[6:52] things. So uh hopefully I don't um you
[6:55] know do anything terrible but I we'll get through it. So um if you have
[7:00] any questions feel free to contact me.
[7:02] So um and then we're working on I'm
[7:06] working on the prelim preliminary
[7:07] budget. Um, we're getting net new
[7:10] construction estimates in. We're getting
[7:11] WA County Sheriff budgets estimates in.
[7:14] Um, trying to get a number from the fire
[7:16] department. I think we're close. Um, so,
[7:20] uh, budget's coming along pretty well. I
[7:23] did share the list of board priorities
[7:24] from the last meeting with architecture.
[7:26] We had a a phone call or a Zoom call and
[7:29] so they're working on that engineering
[7:31] design. Um, the next step in that
[7:33] process. Um, and just one more final
[7:38] reminder that this is the last week that
[7:40] you'll have packets printed and next
[7:43] month there will be none. So, bring your
[7:46] laptops.
[7:47] >> There will be none. So, bring bring your
[7:49] laptops.
[7:52] » So, I have to print it from home
[7:55] >> or bring your laptops. I think everyone
[7:56] was assigned a village laptop. So, I
[8:00] think the point of us doing that was to
[8:01] say paper so we didn't have to print and
[8:03] then people can pull it up on here and
[8:06] look through it. So,
[8:09] that ends my report.
[8:12] >> All right. Uh, Adam or does anyone have
[8:14] any questions for Dan on that report?
[8:16] >> Uh, the resurface
[8:19] 164 is next year for us.
[8:22] >> Oh, yes.
[8:26] And they did you go to that that
[8:28] meeting?
[8:28] >> I did not. I just read the minutes but
[8:31] >> okay
[8:32] >> if you have any questions but this is
[8:33] more for everyone in that land. Uh if
[8:36] you have any questions it's a state
[8:38] project not a village of Lisbon or
[8:40] Walkshshire County project
[8:43] >> and that's for the south side is the
[8:45] north side going to be done the
[8:46] following year.
[8:47] >> Silver Spring to County Q is 2027.
[8:51] >> Okay good.
[8:57] » All right. Uh item uh 8A is discussion
[9:01] necessary action regarding the land and
[9:03] stone water uh expansion project.
[9:06] Um
[9:08] Dan, you want to wait set the table for Ben here?
[9:11] >> Yeah.
[9:12] >> Uh so I provided a very a summary report
[9:17] of uh what we talked about at the public
[9:19] works committee. Um essentially we had
[9:22] two options that we were um pursuing.
[9:26] One was with the village of Sussex and
[9:28] one was with the city of Pewwaukee for
[9:30] retail water. Uh for the areas uh south
[9:34] on Townline Road and south of K um east
[9:38] of Corey Corners.
[9:40] Uh we met with both communities and uh
[9:44] both had pluses and negatives to um to
[9:49] providing us water. We after going
[9:51] through um each each point of data which
[9:56] uh Ben was able to provide in his
[9:59] presentation um the public works
[10:01] committee gave a recommendation to
[10:03] pursue Sussex as the water supplier for
[10:06] this project. Uh and so that is what
[10:08] we're trying to get we're looking for
[10:10] the board to also
[10:12] agree to. And then with that, um, we're
[10:16] looking to approve an amendment to
[10:18] Strand's contract to start looking at,
[10:21] um,
[10:22] engine or engineering and, uh, actually
[10:25] bidding out the project. So, uh, you
[10:28] have Ben's report here. If he if anyone
[10:31] has any specific questions, uh, Ben's
[10:33] here to answer them. I wasn't going to
[10:34] have Ben go through the whole report
[10:36] that he did at public works. Um and
[10:39] Mark, if you have anything to add to
[10:41] that as well,
[10:43] >> right? Um yeah, thanks to Ben. He's uh
[10:47] here in person tonight from Strand
[10:49] Associates. Uh Mr. Ben Wood. Uh some of
[10:52] the first off, we'd like to thank the
[10:55] both communities for helping us with
[10:57] this as far as uh cooperation and and
[10:59] providing us with options to choose
[11:01] from. Uh both were good options. uh one
[11:05] was just a a better option for long-term
[11:08] service and uh not having to essentially
[11:11] split split service uh between north and
[11:15] south of K. Um
[11:19] it it is a very um I guess tentative
[11:23] plan. We're we're working through it. Um
[11:25] Ben, you have any major highlights you
[11:27] want to share with our audience today?
[11:31] Um, just real quick, I think you nailed
[11:33] the big one, which is like Pewwaukee is
[11:35] not a bad option, but just the way
[11:38] looking at all the factors, it looks
[11:39] like Sussex is a better option and
[11:41] probably quicker to implement since um
[11:45] Sussex is already serving portions of
[11:48] Village of Lisbon's
[11:50] property there. So, there's already
[11:52] model template, things of that nature.
[11:55] Um
[11:57] the thing to kind of get noodled out is
[12:03] there's still a plan to have an
[12:04] emergency interconnect with the city of
[12:07] Kiwaki and that'll require some state
[12:10] agency review. Um but um meetings were
[12:14] held with with both entities and Sussex
[12:17] is very willing to take this on.
[12:22] All right.
[12:25] Um, was there any further developments
[12:27] with the church property as far as uh
[12:30] using
[12:32] their property for an easement or
[12:34] connecting to the back of those highway
[12:36] or wire road properties?
[12:38] >> I will say we did add into our updated
[12:41] cost assuming that we will loop through
[12:43] the church property. That was one of the
[12:45] feedbacks we received in meeting with
[12:47] the municipalities was to try to limit
[12:50] the dead ends. And uh just for
[12:52] everyone's reference, it would be the
[12:55] page that's titled updated uh
[12:57] contemplated water mains and critical
[12:59] areas. And if you direct your attention
[13:01] to redeemer church, there's an orange
[13:05] loop that would go through the south
[13:06] side of their property. Obviously, this
[13:08] is tenative. We have a lot of
[13:10] permissions, easements,
[13:12] >> as well as uh final designs, but
[13:15] tenatively it would it would be a good
[13:17] option to service those four highlighted
[13:20] properties. but not ideal because it's
[13:22] coming from the backyard, but uh it
[13:25] would it would still give us access to
[13:26] those properties.
[13:29] >> If for some reason down the road if we
[13:31] ever get a sewer water utility, would we
[13:34] get our customers back?
[13:36] >> Um I believe the draft agreement that
[13:40] Sussex has presented is modeled off of
[13:42] your existing agreement and Dan, I
[13:45] believe that's a provision in there.
[13:47] >> Um yeah, I just reviewed it. Uh there is
[13:49] a provision in there that we would
[13:51] there's not a dollar amount specified
[13:53] but we'll walk through some of those
[13:56] >> giving them away. I don't know if
[13:57] forever going to do it but if we did
[13:58] just so we have the option.
[14:00] >> Yeah.
[14:03] » And that is one of the considerations
[14:05] why we'll own the infrastruct
[14:07] infrastructure as well not just give
[14:09] them the infrastructure.
[14:10] >> Yeah.
[14:12] Perfect.
[14:17] Um
[14:19] obviously high cost project but um I
[14:22] mean and Nate's here from Lann and
[14:25] Stone. Um I think it's appropriate to I
[14:28] mean bring him in on this as well. I
[14:30] mean you was you did he partake in the
[14:32] conversation at the utility committee
[14:34] meeting?
[14:34] >> Um yeah I mean for the for the essence
[14:37] of Mr. Wood spoke on behalf of the
[14:41] agreement or cooperation between LSP and
[14:45] Strand as well as the village. So, um I
[14:49] mean do you guys have anything you want
[14:50] to expand on that as far as
[14:54] >> No, I think we had a good discussion
[14:56] last month.
[14:58] Yeah, sorry. No, I think we had a good
[15:00] discussion um last meeting and Ben
[15:03] covered it really really well and I
[15:04] think we're all in agreement about how
[15:06] the cost would be used and everything.
[15:08] so far.
[15:10] >> Yes.
[15:10] >> So all the costs involved in this is is
[15:13] going to be covered by you guys in your
[15:14] budget
[15:15] >> as designed right now. Yes.
[15:17] >> You change do you think it's going to
[15:18] change?
[15:21] >> Well, fair question. So we've gone
[15:23] through a 30% design so we can kind of
[15:26] get a higher confidence level in the
[15:28] cost just to kind of set the table to
[15:31] make sure that yes, it's within the
[15:33] realm of possibility. Let's continue to
[15:35] move ahead. So, part of what's uh part
[15:38] of the ask tonight is for an amendment
[15:41] for us to get all the way to final
[15:43] design, prepare those bidding documents,
[15:46] and then we'll have that um
[15:49] the layout nailed down even tighter with
[15:52] updated costs, and we're looking at a
[15:55] 2027 construction for all of this. So,
[15:59] from here, um several things will happen
[16:02] on a parallel track. Strand will start
[16:05] final design. Um the village will
[16:08] probably presumably have some updated
[16:11] negotiations with land and stone
[16:12] products. Um the village will have some
[16:15] updated discussions with Sussex and
[16:17] probably hash out that finalizing that
[16:20] agreement and we'll submit some agency
[16:23] permit applications and and uh I know
[16:27] Land and Stone and Village also intend
[16:28] to do some public notices also of
[16:33] pending action tonight. Um and that'll
[16:36] all kind of be going ahead for the rest
[16:40] of this year into early next year. So
[16:42] it's not just the construction that's uh covered by by by the quarry
[16:48] which we really appreciate. I mean the residents do too but all strands
[16:52] cloths and everything are all covered
[16:54] under
[16:56] >> the quarry fund.
[16:57] >> Pardon me.
[16:57] >> It's in the it's coming from the Corey
[16:59] fund which is the the deal that we have
[17:01] with the course. Just want to make sure
[17:03] that one.
[17:04] >> And then to Ben's point, uh Lannon Stone
[17:06] did also reach out to um public
[17:11] call that
[17:13] uh public relations um uh consultant.
[17:17] And so I had a nice conversation with
[17:18] him and we're going to work on once we
[17:21] move on from this space getting the the
[17:24] residents in this area notified holding
[17:26] some public input meetings and and going
[17:28] through that step so that we can kind of
[17:30] hash that piece of it out before
[17:32] hopefully before the end for the end of
[17:34] the year ideally.
[17:37] >> Does that $15,000 private property work
[17:40] that coverage so the homeowners don't
[17:41] pay anything?
[17:45] » Nice. Well,
[17:46] >> that's the intent.
[17:48] >> Yeah.
[17:50] >> And what is the total amount that's
[17:51] going to be in the fund at the end of
[17:53] the day that that the agreement was
[17:54] written for years ago?
[17:57] >> What do you mean? Uh
[17:58] >> how much is in there right now? Or
[17:59] >> No, no. How much is going to be in there
[18:00] at the at total commitment was it was I
[18:03] would say north of 107.
[18:06] >> Yeah, I think it was closer to 15,
[18:08] wasn't it? Something like that. Yeah, it
[18:10] was 13 to 15 depending on sales and
[18:13] inflation over the the period there's an
[18:15] inflation escalator in there. Um,
[18:19] >> okay. So, I mean with the 20%
[18:21] contingency
[18:22] and with the contingency and then the uh
[18:26] 20% contingency on top of that, I mean,
[18:28] we're we still have a couple million
[18:29] dollar cushion. Well, yeah, but I I
[18:32] mean, keep in mind, too, that they were
[18:33] probably anticipating when that
[18:35] agreement was done to have municipal
[18:38] water for more than just this area. I
[18:41] >> certainly the hope.
[18:42] >> Yeah. Right.
[18:42] >> So, they didn't they didn't know at the
[18:44] time what the cost would be.
[18:45] >> I mean, if this is the area we need to
[18:47] get done, I mean, to Linda's point, I
[18:48] mean, we we we have the funds to cover
[18:52] this that that we're not paying for. I
[18:56] mean again the money hasn't been
[18:57] received yet but it's going to be
[18:59] received over the period of time.
[19:04] » Uh Ben under the uh Strand Associates
[19:07] agreement can you highlight what the
[19:10] change was for compensation?
[19:12] >> Yeah sure. Um, so we were under contract
[19:15] for 188. This adds 225,000
[19:20] to take us from 30% design to final
[19:23] design uh for a total of 413.
[19:27] And did want to point out there's some
[19:30] uh several items listed as like items
[19:32] not included. Um that's primarily
[19:35] because we think they're not required
[19:37] other than the public involvement stuff
[19:40] which um
[19:45] we have in our base 188 some of that
[19:48] already but um
[19:52] particularly easement
[19:54] descriptions are not included yet. I
[19:56] think once we get a little farther in
[19:58] design, we'll understand kind of what
[20:01] the property acquisition element of this
[20:03] looks like. If I'm assuming that some
[20:07] property owners will be cooperative,
[20:10] others might not. You know, we'll kind
[20:11] of see what easement acquisition is
[20:14] going to look like and we might be back
[20:16] for an ask related to assisting with
[20:19] that.
[20:20] >> Um, as we talk about public information,
[20:23] I I noticed that the public information
[20:24] meetings were excluded. Is that is that
[20:27] strand services? Is that the
[20:30] >> second?
[20:33] >> I'll take the first crack at this. So,
[20:35] in the agreement that you have in your
[20:37] packet, um
[20:42] it's items not included is number eight
[20:46] and nine. That's on that last page.
[20:49] I went back in preparing for this
[20:51] meeting read reread the base scope of
[20:54] services again um and I know you don't
[20:57] have this in your packet but we already
[20:59] have included
[21:01] um under program management up to 300
[21:04] hours for lots of random potential
[21:07] things like extra agency communication
[21:10] funding coordination and one of those
[21:13] items is public outreach and what's
[21:15] already included is communicated with
[21:17] communicate with the public about the
[21:19] project via owner approved means
[21:21] including mailers, public information
[21:23] meetings, information updates, and
[21:25] owner's website public hearings. Um, so
[21:29] basically what I want to suggest is what
[21:33] you have in your packet is that we
[21:36] delete items 8 and nine because there's
[21:39] an element of that already included.
[21:42] Um the way that works, how we described
[21:45] it in the original
[21:47] um agreement is we're just billing
[21:50] hourly as needed up to certain hours. So
[21:54] to the extent that Landon Stone Products
[21:56] is using
[21:58] uh a public relations
[22:00] consultant and they're paying for that,
[22:03] we'll help feed them information, maybe
[22:05] review materials, whatever. But I think
[22:07] it all fits well within our kind of base
[22:10] scope.
[22:15] Um is there there's no contingency on
[22:17] strand services as far as
[22:19] >> correct. Okay.
[22:20] >> Are we bill hourly in expense not to
[22:22] exceed up to that total
[22:25] >> thresholds? Um if for some reason I said
[22:28] the only foreseeable
[22:30] additional scope might be the easements
[22:32] once we get into that pin that down. But
[22:36] uh that's how that looks. Um there's
[22:39] contingency in the budget but there's
[22:41] not contingency in our agreement.
[22:47] » What happens then?
[22:49] >> Uh if we get close to our threshold, we
[22:51] wouldn't we wouldn't build beyond that
[22:53] without coming back and uh asking for
[22:56] another
[22:57] >> asking the village.
[22:58] >> Yeah.
[23:00] for our
[23:02] if we get close to our total of 413,000
[23:06] then we would come back and ask for
[23:08] amendment if that was warranted.
[23:10] >> You wouldn't go back to Strand. But you wouldn't go back to
[23:14] >> I'm with Strand,
[23:15] >> right? I I'm just saying I got mixed up
[23:17] the quarry. You wouldn't go back to the
[23:18] quarry. You would ask the village to pay
[23:20] the difference
[23:21] >> because we we hold the funds. So that's
[23:24] why they have to come to us.
[23:25] >> I know we hold the funds, but what
[23:26] happened to the funds? Like he was
[23:27] saying gets down and you have to ask for
[23:29] more.
[23:30] >> Well, they're coming to us tonight, not
[23:32] coming to land and stone. We're we're
[23:34] >> Okay.
[23:35] >> From their fund,
[23:36] >> right? Right.
[23:36] >> Cory's fun.
[23:38] >> Our Corey fund.
[23:39] >> Yes. LSP's
[23:41] work. Yes. And tipping. Yes.
[23:43] >> Tax contributes to that fund.
[23:45] >> Yes. So he's saying if the if their
[23:47] contract goes over the 417,000,
[23:50] he's going to come back to us and then
[23:52] we'll issue funds from the Corey fund if
[23:54] we approve any amendments
[23:55] >> from the fund. Okay.
[23:56] >> Yeah.
[23:56] >> But with that being said, I mean the way
[23:57] that the way that I hear, you know,
[23:59] billing at an hourly rate and then will
[24:01] not exceed having a cap on it. The only
[24:04] way that we would go above the fourth 13
[24:07] is if the the scope changed or if the
[24:09] number of hourly I mean so if it happens
[24:12] to take you longer to design what you
[24:14] have planned here
[24:16] >> then you eat that effectively.
[24:19] >> Okay. Right.
[24:19] >> Yep.
[24:23] » Um I mean so I mean this these are just
[24:26] the numbers we have here. I mean, these
[24:27] are big numbers, but I I I mean, staff
[24:30] and the committee has has looked in that
[24:32] and you're comfortable with what's
[24:34] behind it.
[24:34] >> Yeah, there was um Strand and with LSP's
[24:38] input, too. We we had a very long
[24:40] meeting about it. Um it was it was very
[24:43] informative. We went this packet that
[24:45] you have uh with the PowerPoint. We went
[24:48] through it, asked a lot of questions on
[24:49] it. Um, you know, we found we found some
[24:53] things that we changed a little bit and
[24:55] I mean it's it's working. I mean, it's
[24:58] >> And you guys pass it unanimously.
[25:00] >> We did. Yep.
[25:02] >> Just one other thing to add if I can
[25:05] uh just kind of reiterate some of Landon
[25:08] Stone Products sentiment is uh if we
[25:12] start on final design now, we feel like
[25:14] it took longer to get to a decision
[25:16] point between suppliers than we
[25:18] anticipated. some of that communication
[25:20] got drug out. Um but public works
[25:23] committee made that unanimous decision
[25:25] and we feel if we start design now then
[25:28] we can still advertise for bidding to
[25:30] get this done in the 2027 construction
[25:32] year. And part of the sentiment is the
[25:35] longer we wait to do this the
[25:38] >> buying power of that bond gets eroded.
[25:42] You know what I mean? So it's kind of in
[25:45] essence the board could think about it
[25:47] as a you know well we're doing this
[25:51] right since we're doing this then then
[25:55] uh
[25:57] taking action tonight keeps everything
[25:58] on schedule.
[26:01] >> Are there going to be any issue like
[26:02] water pressure issues going from a well
[26:04] to city water?
[26:06] >> Um great question. Um there's actually
[26:08] going to be really strong pressure down
[26:10] here.
[26:11] >> Yeah.
[26:12] >> Kind of in the 80s.
[26:14] >> So um most people that are on a well
[26:18] have their well pressure set in the
[26:20] mid50s.
[26:22] >> Um so it's changed. Uh building code
[26:26] says if it's greater than 80 PSI then
[26:28] there has to be a pressure reducing
[26:30] valve on that line. And once there's
[26:33] that pressure reducing valve on that
[26:34] line, if folks want to set it to be, you
[26:37] know, 58 PSI, just like it was before,
[26:40] they'll have that option.
[26:42] >> Is this not going to cause any issues
[26:43] with houses that have been on 50 and
[26:45] then all of a sudden they get shot to is
[26:47] it going to shock anything or
[26:48] >> um That's a good question. All I can
[26:50] tell you is we went through this in
[26:52] Lannon and we converted about 200
[26:54] properties over to municipal system and
[26:58] municipal pressure and we actually
[26:59] didn't do any PRVs. So, they really did
[27:02] go from the full like 50 to 80. And I
[27:07] have not heard any reports in the way
[27:09] that people talk. I'm sure I would have.
[27:12] I haven't heard any reports of internal
[27:14] plumbing. But yeah, there's
[27:16] >> certainly some to talk about in the
[27:18] public hearings that people think a
[27:20] >> pipe behind a wall is going to burst and
[27:22] all kinds of things. But
[27:24] >> yeah, we we talked
[27:25] >> we did talk at the public works last
[27:27] month about that and and covered it at
[27:29] length about
[27:31] >> that's going to be part of our public
[27:32] information campaign as well. So people
[27:34] are aware that there is a pressure
[27:36] increase and you know what we recommend
[27:40] or maybe don't need to recommend at this
[27:42] point.
[27:44] >> That's good.
[27:48] » I don't have any other questions or
[27:50] anything. I mean, anyone else have any
[27:52] discussion here?
[27:53] >> No, I I just um if I could just add and
[27:57] I'll say it again. I think it's I know
[27:59] it's very very expensive and I know it's
[28:02] been voted not to do the sewer for the
[28:04] homeowners with it because they don't
[28:05] want it, but I think in the long run it
[28:07] might be a mistake because it's not
[28:08] going to get cheaper. I think it's the
[28:11] time to do it, but they don't want it
[28:14] and that's fine.
[28:16] And I hope it doesn't come back to hurt
[28:18] him someday or someone will move over
[28:20] there.
[28:23] » You ready for a motion?
[28:26] >> Yep. Uh
[28:28] >> it's a recommended motion on the bottom
[28:29] of my
[28:31] >> I'll make a motion to proceed with the
[28:33] village's preferred supplier based on
[28:34] the recommendation from the public works
[28:37] committee and proceed with the schedule
[28:40] presented and approve amendment number
[28:42] one to the technical services contract
[28:45] by strand striking eight and nine as all
[28:50] else presented.
[28:52] >> Is there a second to that motion?
[28:53] >> I second. All
[28:56] right. Is there any additional
[28:57] discussion?
[29:00] >> Thank you.
[29:00] >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
[29:02] >> I. Say n.
[29:04] >> Thank you very much for coming. Please.
[29:05] >> Yeah. Works. Thank you.
[29:07] >> 5. Appreciate it.
[29:10] See you tomorrow.
[29:13] >> Bye.
[29:20] » Great. Uh item 8B is discussion and
[29:23] necessary action regarding the
[29:24] replacement of the uh WAM mowers with
[29:30] zeroturn mowers.
[29:33] Um
[29:35] >> Dan or Marrick who wants to take this?
[29:38] >> Yeah. Uh so this is
[29:41] by way of uh public works. Um it does
[29:44] have to deal with parks, but uh just by
[29:46] way of department, we're looking at um
[29:51] replacing our wide area mowers or also
[29:54] referred to in your packet as whams. Um
[29:57] and we're looking to play replace those
[29:58] with commercial zeroturn mowers. So just
[30:01] for visual, the ones you sit on and
[30:04] drive from a seat. Um
[30:07] so Mike was really really very helpful
[30:09] with this. uh there was a lot of uh
[30:12] testing that went into play. Um and he
[30:16] outline outlined in your packet the
[30:18] current equipment that they have as well
[30:20] as some of the challenges with our
[30:22] current operations. Uh just some of the
[30:25] things that we ran into. Um we currently
[30:28] only have one of the full-time parks
[30:30] employees that has a CDL uh limitation
[30:34] on his on his license. So that limits
[30:36] staff efficiency.
[30:38] Uh I guess the concern from the parks is
[30:42] that it limits productivity during the
[30:43] busiest part of the season. Um when we have the additional labor
[30:47] because we do hire seasonals. Um but the
[30:51] essentially the labor can't transport
[30:53] the mowers. So we're looking for a
[30:55] smaller, more versatile and better
[30:58] utilized mower. Um the wide area mowers
[31:02] are a lot slower than what zero turns
[31:05] can do.
[31:07] Now, they do have a greater width in
[31:10] cutting. Um, but it they're a lot
[31:14] slower. The maneuverability is a lot
[31:15] lower, and uh through the uh T& they
[31:20] determined that uh we can actually be
[31:22] more efficient if we're using the um
[31:25] zero turns.
[31:27] One of the other things that Mike looked
[31:28] at was the um the cost of equipment.
[31:31] Obviously, in the last five years, we've
[31:33] s seen prices all over the board with uh
[31:36] pricing and everything is becoming more
[31:38] and more expensive. Um, just an example,
[31:42] the
[31:43] >> the 2020 wide area mower that we
[31:45] purchased was 67 grand. Uh, that was a
[31:48] 2020. If you look at the Ferris model
[31:51] that we tied, it's got a 72 inch uh
[31:54] mower deck on it and it's at 17,000. Um,
[31:58] so lower prices, quicker cutting, uh,
[32:02] better utilization by staff, and, uh,
[32:04] actually parts was a consideration, too.
[32:07] That might cost in there. Uh, it's
[32:09] actually easier to find the parts and
[32:10] they're less expensive, and the, um, the
[32:14] repairs take less technical expertise to
[32:16] complete. Um,
[32:20] the proposed equipment's on page two of
[32:22] your packet. Uh they were looking to do
[32:25] three of the Ferris 72-inch mowers. Um
[32:29] also too, one thing that we also thought
[32:31] of was the insurance cost and uh so
[32:34] we'll not that it's make a substantial
[32:37] difference to our insurer, but uh they
[32:40] would definitely will probably feel
[32:41] better about the fact that we're getting
[32:42] something more compatible with our
[32:44] seasonal help. So um they're just
[32:48] they're better on hills, they're more
[32:49] versatile on hills
[32:52] and Also
[32:54] too, uh they Mike talked about training.
[32:58] Uh he's going to train all the seasonal
[32:59] employees on how to to uh utilize them
[33:02] in a safe manner. Um so just uh if you
[33:06] look at page, let's back up page four.
[33:10] Uh the cost of three commercial Ferris
[33:12] zero turns with 72inch decks is 52
[33:14] grand. Um the sale of the current John
[33:17] Deere and Toro units would somewhere
[33:20] yield between 35 and 50 on return value
[33:24] and uh there obviously will will be some
[33:27] minimal cost uh to transition that we
[33:30] don't have a figure for at this time. Uh
[33:32] but we looked at uh the financials
[33:36] there. So, based off of all the
[33:38] different avenues they've considered,
[33:40] the recommendation from Mike and his
[33:42] crew would be to uh transition to the
[33:45] Ferris
[33:46] uh mowers.
[33:49] Uh it should be noted that the public
[33:51] works committee heard this and they
[33:55] voted unanimously to pass.
[33:57] Um
[33:59] that's what I got. Any specific
[34:01] questions, Linda?
[34:05] dollars and cents. You can't afford not
[34:06] to do it.
[34:07] >> Yeah, it was uh we were really actually
[34:08] surprised when the Ferris numbers came
[34:11] back for I mean they're they're tough
[34:13] machines. They're not uh your home uh
[34:16] >> they were commercial grade.
[34:17] >> They are commercial. A lot of uh lawn
[34:20] cutting services use them actually.
[34:22] >> Oh yeah. One of them's been doing for 10
[34:24] years.
[34:24] >> Yeah. So uh they're generally red and
[34:27] blackish.
[34:29] So
[34:29] >> you buy we buy all three at once?
[34:31] >> We would. And what is their lifespan?
[34:35] >> I wish I could tell you that, but uh
[34:38] >> like that maybe.
[34:39] >> It really depends on how often they're
[34:40] used. I mean, they were going to do
[34:43] maintenance on. So, um being a new unit,
[34:47] it would have a warranty on it.
[34:51] >> You guys have obviously thought this
[34:52] through, but so um why three and not
[34:56] two? How how many get used at any given
[34:58] time?
[35:00] Yeah, there was uh I think that's kind
[35:02] of a multiaceted thing. They don't think
[35:05] all three would be used at one time, but
[35:08] in the event that one of them went down,
[35:11] they they would have the option to jump
[35:14] on the other one and service the other
[35:16] one, but they could use them at three
[35:18] times. It really the problem we have is
[35:20] we can't always count on our seasonal
[35:21] staff for the DPW. So that that's where
[35:25] it's kind of the the third one is the
[35:27] relief mower or
[35:30] less utilized one.
[35:31] >> So two of them would often get used the
[35:33] same
[35:35] three. I mean have all your seat belts
[35:36] work same day and LCD is the part you
[35:39] have to probably want to use all three
[35:42] but I think it would make sense that you
[35:44] alternate some of those two so that you
[35:48] down and replace.
[35:51] Yeah, definitely.
[35:53] >> Um, and then the highway department,
[35:55] they considered keeping one by them so
[35:56] that one of their guys can
[36:00] feel better.
[36:01] >> I was going to ask about storage. I
[36:03] mean, this does this will take up more
[36:04] space, but we we have
[36:06] >> I think actually I think so these are
[36:08] actually going to take up less space and
[36:10] then the transportation of them, we're
[36:12] not going to have to have as big of
[36:13] trailer.
[36:15] >> So I all around it it makes better
[36:18] sense. It's uh it's not as it's probably
[36:22] half as long as the the whaml mowers and the width on the whamlowers is what
[36:26] really gets you.
[36:28] >> So you can you can imagine those have
[36:30] wings that fold down and
[36:31] >> Yep.
[36:32] >> You have to have a different type of
[36:33] trailer. They're a lot heavier of a
[36:35] unit.
[36:35] >> Well, you need a CPL to be able to
[36:37] transport two of them.
[36:39] >> I think it's a wise choice.
[36:41] >> Yeah. No, I I was uh kudos to Mike. I
[36:43] think he did a great job with or Nick
[36:46] and Mike.
[36:48] makes put the report together.
[36:51] >> So, and I was on site for the testing
[36:53] for two of the three. We did Skagg and
[36:55] we did uh Baris Bears has front
[36:59] suspension that makes it a much smoother
[37:01] ride, which was really nice. And then
[37:03] you could just tell the Cotton was a lot
[37:05] cleaner than than Skags. And Skags are
[37:07] good motors, too. But, um, we everyone
[37:10] agreed that this was the one to go with,
[37:13] and I believe the prices were spot on.
[37:16] bar and slightly cheaper.
[37:21] » Okay.
[37:22] >> And we're comfortable with the changes
[37:24] from with with the mini excavator with
[37:27] to the storm water and so that all works
[37:29] out.
[37:29] >> Yeah. It really depends on what we sell
[37:31] the other piece of equipment for, but
[37:33] the thought was, yeah, we supplement. I
[37:35] mean, we talked about potentially paying
[37:36] for the mini all out of storm water, but
[37:38] given that we did the borrow, this would
[37:41] just open up uh being able to take a
[37:44] small section water if it made a
[37:46] difference.
[37:48] So, that 12 311 is effectively a plug
[37:52] number that will go up or down based on
[37:55] the sale of the equipment if it's more
[37:58] or less than 40,000.
[37:59] Yep.
[38:06] » All right. Are we ready for a motion?
[38:10] >> Sure. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve
[38:13] the purchase of three commercial Ferris
[38:16] zeroturn mowers with 72in decks at
[38:19] estimated cost not to exceed $52,311.
[38:23] Sec.
[38:26] Right. Is there any additional
[38:28] discussion?
[38:31] It's hearing none. All those in favor
[38:33] say I. I.
[38:34] >> Oppos say nay. And motion carries.
[38:38] >> Um item C is discussion and necessary
[38:41] action to set the 2027 budget workshop
[38:45] dates.
[38:48] Yeah, I know we had talked about this a
[38:49] little bit at the last meeting, but I I
[38:51] didn't see anything listed in the
[38:52] packets or otherwise. Where are we at on
[38:55] this? Um, I just kind of kept it open to
[38:58] for everyone to look at their calendars.
[38:59] I didn't want to put a date out there
[39:01] and then have
[39:03] be unable. So, typically we do this in
[39:06] September, usually in midepptember.
[39:09] Um, we do have a village board meeting
[39:11] on the 9th, but I know I believe Paula
[39:13] you weren't going to be able to make
[39:14] that one.
[39:15] >> Yep. No. Um,
[39:18] so if you know we're looking at sometime
[39:22] maybe September 17th
[39:25] >> might be a good day at Thursday.
[39:28] Um,
[39:29] >> what time are we looking for?
[39:31] >> It's like available 5 to midnight thing
[39:34] or 5 to 10 5
[39:37] >> 5 to 7 to 7.
[39:38] >> I'd rather do one extra one and not do
[39:40] the marathon session. I'm just gonna say
[39:42] that right now. we we can do too. But
[39:45] >> well, I think I think it's necessary to
[39:47] do more than one because you you you
[39:49] have I mean you have a meeting and then
[39:50] there's questions that come up and I
[39:53] mean I I think even to get it done in
[39:55] two is probably well it's not realistic
[39:58] but I mean but I think maybe some of
[39:59] those going to be
[40:00] >> a short one after the October meeting or we can tie those into something else
[40:05] as well.
[40:06] >> Are they expecting state numbers to come
[40:08] in on time?
[40:10] >> We have preliminary like
[40:15] all that. We always at the same time. So
[40:18] the 17th will probably not have those
[40:20] numbers. Probably looking at October.
[40:26] So I mean we can push it toward to
[40:28] October.
[40:30] Um,
[40:32] but I mean if we're just going we could
[40:34] potentially go over expenditures
[40:36] in you know September and then go over
[40:40] revenue.
[40:44] » There's kind of a relationship there
[40:45] though too. I mean
[40:46] >> yeah.
[40:47] >> Well, yeah, I suppose.
[40:52] » So September 17th is the date that you'd
[40:55] like to do it or do you want to
[40:56] >> I'm just throwing a date out there. I
[41:00] the 16th and the 23rd. Obviously, we
[41:02] public works. We have uh plan
[41:04] commission.
[41:06] Um we could do Wednesday the 30th.
[41:11] You go to Wednesday.
[41:13] >> I am gone to South Carolina and DC from
[41:16] the 10th. I'll be here for the 9th. I
[41:19] did that on purpose. I leave on the 10th
[41:21] and coming back on the 23rd.
[41:24] >> So, the 30th they weren't meeting
[41:27] it. There it is.
[41:33] September 30th, correct?
[41:37] >> Are we putting that one on the calendar?
[41:39] >> So, you said you're back on the 23rd.
[41:41] So, like if we wanted to look at the
[41:42] 24th, that's probably too too tight with
[41:44] getting back then.
[41:45] >> Well, that's okay. I have I have two
[41:47] doctor's appointments on the on that
[41:49] day. And long as I'm busy, I'm busy.
[41:51] That's okay.
[41:53] >> Oh, okay.
[41:56] So you guys can definitely
[41:58] >> Oh, you got to be here.
[42:02] » All right. So, I guess we'll go with
[42:03] December 30th at then.
[42:04] >> What time? 6:30.
[42:07] >> Should we do six?
[42:08] >> I didn't go earlier.
[42:09] >> Yeah, I'm not here all late.
[42:10] >> But would you like six?
[42:12] >> I was just thinking of what you said,
[42:14] you know, as far as I want to have not a
[42:16] real long meeting. Have two shorter
[42:18] ones, but one long is okay.
[42:21] >> Six is fine with me. I'm just going to
[42:23] have to plan because I just need to have
[42:25] coverage for my
[42:26] >> your mother.
[42:27] >> Yeah.
[42:27] Okay.
[42:28] >> So, okay. So, September 30th at 6
[42:31] o'clock. Is that the consensus? And then
[42:33] >> we'll also I mean we'll certainly have a
[42:37] budget workshop on October 14th as well,
[42:40] but hopefully that will be, you know,
[42:42] much more brief.
[42:45] >> Is the department head one going to be
[42:47] the 30th or is that the October one?
[42:50] >> Uh, we can get the department one head
[42:55] until the October 14th.
[43:00] » What other day do you say, Matt? The
[43:02] 14th.
[43:02] >> I think we just have, you know, some
[43:04] tie-ups and some other discussion, you
[43:05] know, at a budget workshop after the
[43:07] village board meeting.
[43:08] >> Oh, so
[43:09] >> Oh, on the 14th.
[43:10] >> Yes. Yes. I mean, hopefully
[43:12] um I mean, we'll try to load up the
[43:15] September meeting if if there's anything
[43:16] that's out there and we can try to keep
[43:18] the October Village board meeting more
[43:20] brief if possible. And
[43:22] >> then we'll have the second part of that.
[43:24] Then I that makes sense, right?
[43:26] >> Mhm.
[43:28] At what time for that? We'll just leave
[43:30] it open for now until we know.
[43:32] >> Or do we want to start maybe a half hour
[43:33] early
[43:34] >> then?
[43:35] >> On the 14th.
[43:36] >> for the village board meeting. You said
[43:38] >> start it at 6 instead. That'll give us
[43:39] buy us a little more time if we have a
[43:41] lot going on.
[43:41] >> I think so too.
[43:43] >> Yeah. I mean the sooner we can start
[43:44] that the better. Otherwise we could be
[43:46] here at depending on
[43:48] >> I can start at five if you want to.
[43:50] Okay. that far out.
[43:52] >> I'm okay with that, too. Oh,
[43:54] >> that
[43:55] >> um six o'clock sounds good to me. I I I
[43:57] know that
[43:58] >> five.
[44:00] >> Okay. Any another nomination here?
[44:04] >> So, we're going to say six then. Yes.
[44:05] >> Yeah. Six on both.
[44:07] >> Six.
[44:07] >> The 30th and the 14th.
[44:10] >> Okay. But
[44:12] is a village board meeting. So, it'll be
[44:13] right after.
[44:14] >> We're just moving up the village board
[44:15] meeting by half an hour. We'll try and
[44:17] keep that agenda like so we
[44:19] >> Okay.
[44:19] >> get through it. Okay. Okay.
[44:24] >> I don't think we need formal action
[44:25] here, Dan.
[44:25] >> No, I'm sending uh uh calendar advice.
[44:30] >> Okay. Thank you.
[44:33] That's the biggest job we have to do is
[44:35] that that's a big job.
[44:40] » The budget you're doing that before I
[44:42] put my calendar in.
[44:43] >> Yeah.
[44:47] » All right. Are we I think we're good
[44:48] then on this item. So we can move on to
[44:51] >> uh item D which is discussion on the
[44:55] maintenance and service of grinder
[44:57] pumps.
[44:58] >> Right. I circulated paperwork that I
[45:00] have written out. I just asked you to
[45:03] look at this with an open mind as if you
[45:05] were in the district and what you would
[45:07] want um because there's 452
[45:11] homes current residents on sewer. I
[45:14] believe there's about 32 grinder pumps
[45:17] and since the beginning when they
[45:19] started this in 1989 thereabouts I went
[45:22] to all those meetings never once did
[45:25] they bring up grinder pumps I was
[45:26] shocked when I was uh on the old board
[45:29] and I go what is a grinder pump and then
[45:31] I realized I know what it is obviously
[45:33] now I've been told all these years but
[45:36] the whole all the 452 homes have been
[45:39] paying for these and they are installed
[45:43] in the person's home, not on out in the
[45:46] yard. It's in the home. And when there's
[45:49] an issue, a big alarm goes off. And so
[45:51] these people, they call like debell
[45:53] right away. They don't care if it's six
[45:54] o'clock in the morning, have an
[45:56] emergency call or 5:00 at night, they
[45:59] call whatever. And then they go out
[46:01] there and they fix it. Then then we have
[46:02] normally paid for the bills. Um, we've
[46:05] also um um if it's a seller's fault
[46:09] because there is something that was put
[46:11] down the toilet and it's only one time
[46:14] that I can remember that we as a
[46:17] district had a problem in Wooded Hills.
[46:19] It was a $25,000 charge and the
[46:21] homeowners insurance paid for it, which
[46:23] they were very lucky. Um, we just had
[46:26] one the other couple months ago and I
[46:29] wasn't at that board meeting. The four
[46:31] three members voted to replace it. uh to
[46:35] re replace it because it was a little
[46:37] older. But it's still in my personal
[46:41] opinion, we shouldn't have paid uh paid
[46:42] it because there's no limitation on the
[46:45] age of the pump. It's just this was
[46:48] wrecked by the child by the homeowner's
[46:51] grandson put it something down. So we
[46:53] paid $4,200 to replace that pump and
[46:57] they paid a,000. These are gotten more
[47:00] expensive and more expensive. Um, and I
[47:04] checked with local communities when I
[47:05] presented a a um um um talk back at the
[47:12] old district. I had checked and I found
[47:15] my own notes. I checked with Waterford.
[47:18] I checked with Summit. I checked with H
[47:21] Heartland. I checked with Wales. Um, no
[47:24] one All homeowners pay their own grinder
[47:26] pump fees. There was one that has four
[47:29] grinder pump has one grinder pump for
[47:32] four homes and we as a district decided
[47:34] we didn't want to do that. We've never
[47:36] done that. They have the each their own
[47:37] grinder pump. But again, the homeowner
[47:40] pays for the grinder pumps because I
[47:43] I've been told by one of the gentlemen
[47:45] that they consider it private property
[47:47] just like a well pump is, a septic pump
[47:49] is, and so forth. We don't have anybody
[47:52] coming out and paying our well pump
[47:54] costs or anything. And um we have um the
[47:58] first we have discussed this subject at
[48:00] this level before. The public works
[48:01] committee has reviewed the topic of
[48:03] grinder pumps twice. The first time they
[48:06] gave a recommendation to put the
[48:07] responsibility on the homeowner and and
[48:10] just I just
[48:11] >> when was when was that?
[48:12] >> Um I don't have the dates.
[48:14] >> Okay.
[48:14] >> I got this from Dan. I don't have the
[48:16] dates. I know in the old district
[48:21] that we had we had a threeperson
[48:23] committee. two of us uh wanted the
[48:26] homeowner to pay their own and one of us
[48:30] didn't and we had a whole bunch of
[48:32] people here from Wooded Hills and I
[48:35] won't go into detail how they know to
[48:36] come here but we had a whole bunch of
[48:38] people kind of vote um he was very
[48:40] serious he said no we shouldn't have to
[48:42] pay for those he was overwhelmed by the
[48:45] people he voted and changed his vote
[48:47] that night we could have gotten this
[48:49] taken care of very nicely that night
[48:50] years ago and he changed his vote unfort
[48:53] Unfortunately, he told me he was
[48:55] overwhelmed.
[48:56] >> This This is This is on the the uh the
[49:00] sewer board.
[49:03] >> The village the town board or the
[49:05] >> No, no, the village. I'm all talking
[49:07] about the sewer board, not the village.
[49:08] >> You said they made a recommendation
[49:09] though to the v or to the I'm not sure
[49:11] if it's the village board or to board.
[49:13] >> To the public works committee. I don't
[49:15] know. It was a couple months ago maybe.
[49:17] And during that conversation, um, the
[49:20] board had mentioned that they had
[49:23] already made a recommendation and the
[49:25] board didn't take a either they didn't
[49:26] take action on it or they didn't vote on
[49:28] it or
[49:28] >> I'm just looking to see how far back
[49:30] that that previous one was just for
[49:32] reference. I know it was before
[49:34] >> Rob and I were here. Was it was it
[49:36] >> been before you were here? And then also
[49:39] um when I asked at the at the utility
[49:42] board meetings, nope, you have to go to
[49:44] the village board again. we have to
[49:46] start there and so it's kind of a back
[49:48] and forth thing and you know it's kind
[49:51] of frustrating.
[49:52] >> Well there that committee had stated
[49:54] that they had already made a
[49:56] recommendation so they weren't going to
[49:58] make another recommendation.
[49:59] >> They made a recommendation to the
[50:01] village board as far as
[50:03] >> what they wanted.
[50:04] >> I'm confused really confused is who
[50:06] actually made what board actually makes
[50:08] this decision.
[50:10] Is it the village board or is the
[50:12] utility?
[50:15] » I I mean I could answer that in my
[50:17] opinion, but I that's surface
[50:18] >> up. The village board uh has say a say
[50:22] in amending the sewer code, which is
[50:25] that code provision that I sent over to
[50:27] you. So it would be a village board that
[50:29] would make that decision to modify that
[50:31] section code. Um it could be a
[50:34] recommendation from the public works
[50:36] committee to bring to the village board,
[50:37] but again they um
[50:41] >> they didn't really do any any action the
[50:43] second time because they had stated they
[50:45] had already taken this item up.
[50:47] >> Exactly.
[50:47] >> In previous years.
[50:48] >> Exactly. And
[50:49] >> I'm a little bit lost. So, so yeah, the first time around the sanitary
[50:55] district board voted 2 to one to to
[50:59] recommend this change to the village
[51:02] board or town board at the time, but
[51:04] then someone flipped. So, it was
[51:05] actually a recommend It was a
[51:07] recommendation that it not so positive
[51:09] recommendation never made it to the
[51:10] village board then.
[51:11] >> No, it didn't because it didn't come out
[51:13] of the lo of the of the old district
[51:16] board, the old board. It didn't come out
[51:18] of there because Mark flipped flipped
[51:21] and so it just sat there and this was
[51:24] Oh, I don't I I wish I had a date on my
[51:26] notes. I don't have a date on this when
[51:28] I when I made this presentation.
[51:32] >> So, I guess I guess I'm and I don't have
[51:34] an I mean, you guys are more educated on
[51:36] this than I am, but I'm just trying to
[51:37] make sure I understand everything,
[51:38] right? So the so this the the second to
[51:42] last paragraph the end of the second
[51:45] line where it says the first time they
[51:46] gave a recommendation to put the
[51:47] responsibility on the homeowner.
[51:49] >> But if I'm following you though that that that never was the final
[51:53] recommendation of the
[51:55] >> it was they they've told me now that am
[51:58] I correct Mark maybe I'm wrong. When I
[52:00] bring it up at the utility level they
[52:02] say you got to bring you got to bring it
[52:03] back to the village board. And so you
[52:06] know so it's kind of confusing. I am
[52:08] confused because it's gone back and
[52:10] forth.
[52:11] >> Well, you've done a good job of
[52:12] confusing me as well. So, I I don't I
[52:14] I'm I'm not following. I I don't know.
[52:16] >> So, was there a positive The discussion
[52:19] that we had at public works, Mark, even
[52:21] correct me if I'm wrong, was that they
[52:23] didn't want to take action on it because
[52:24] they had already made I don't know if
[52:27] they made a motion or a recommendation
[52:29] to the village board. I don't know what
[52:30] happened at the village board level. I
[52:32] didn't look through the minutes to
[52:33] determine what happened and I don't know
[52:34] when that was. I would assume it was
[52:37] when both um
[52:40] I think the trustees named Jane and
[52:44] >> Joe thank you were on the committee so
[52:48] long
[52:49] >> this happened I want to say winter or
[52:52] something like that that this happened
[52:55] um because I was told and Mark and I
[52:57] talked about this wait until we redo the
[53:01] code you know so I've been kind of
[53:03] putting it off thinking I need to do
[53:05] that. So, it would maybe save money to
[53:07] redo this. I'm not sure. I know. I know.
[53:11] Couple years ago we voted to any new
[53:15] resident that comes on pays for their
[53:17] own costs.
[53:20] So, that's but we haven't really had
[53:22] many new residents, you know. But I also
[53:25] want to point out um we since 23 we have
[53:29] paid $64,899.28.
[53:34] In addition to that,
[53:37] um, we have the de we have to have our
[53:40] nick and anybody on board. We have to
[53:42] pay them to go out and get the pump and
[53:44] replace the pump and so forth. So,
[53:46] there's a lot of other expenses involved
[53:48] in this. And if the homeowner does it,
[53:50] they're in charge of it. They can get
[53:52] things done probably a lot cheaper than
[53:54] what we do, you know, and they can have
[53:56] some and they can take care of it. They
[53:59] can take care because they really don't
[54:01] take care of it. It's not for them to do
[54:03] anything with it. It becomes private
[54:05] property just like you guys look over,
[54:08] you know, our things at home. We take
[54:11] care of things. And I just think I just
[54:14] think it's an expense that's been on for
[54:16] 37 years. And I think 37 years is a long
[54:21] time. The only thing that I would
[54:23] recommend is if there was any any
[54:26] homeowner
[54:28] that has been on this from day one, if
[54:31] they've never replaced their grinder
[54:33] pump, we should replace it
[54:36] because, you know, if that was fair, if
[54:39] everyone decided to do that, but
[54:41] otherwise, I would cut it off
[54:42] immediately because why why just stretch
[54:45] it out myself? And so then I'm asking
[54:48] that we um that uh that the next village
[54:52] board meeting that we bring up the code
[54:53] of ordinances for the sewer sewer
[54:56] service area be revised to reflect the
[54:58] grinder pump's costs are totally paid by
[55:00] each homeowner for their respective
[55:02] grinder pump. And I have to tell you,
[55:04] we'll have people here from Wooded
[55:05] Hills. We will. But there again,
[55:08] everybody else in the district does not
[55:10] know what's going on. If they knew what
[55:13] was going on, they'd be here as well. So
[55:15] I'm not overwhelmed when people are in
[55:17] the off a audience because we have to do
[55:20] what's best for the majority of the
[55:21] people, not the minority of the people.
[55:24] This whole sewer
[55:27] issue was pushed through.
[55:31] Let's just not say it was right how they
[55:33] pushed it through. They forced it down.
[55:36] And there was no total vote. It was a
[55:38] three-man committee. Threeman committee
[55:41] that pushed this on. One put an
[55:43] ingground hole in, cut into a septic
[55:45] system, had no room for anything else.
[55:48] The other one bought a bought a hole and
[55:49] they didn't check out their septic
[55:51] system, failed. So, two of the three
[55:54] members had failing systems. That's why
[55:55] this was pushed through.
[55:58] And it makes me very uncomfortable as a village board member today and all
[56:03] the work that have been on the board
[56:04] that someone can be so crooked to do
[56:06] that because I will vote for something
[56:08] that if it's right for the village, then
[56:11] we do it. I don't care if it cost us
[56:12] money. It has to. We have to like for
[56:14] the parks and everything else. You have
[56:16] to do what's best for the area. But what
[56:19] happened years ago was wrong, people.
[56:21] Well, it was wrong
[56:23] >> in regards to the grinder pumps.
[56:25] >> Regard to the whole sewer and the
[56:27] grinder pumps was a private issue. It
[56:29] was never brought up at any of these
[56:31] public meetings. I have to tell you,
[56:33] Matt, it was never brought up. And even
[56:36] you know
[56:38] and because I think they sold that on
[56:40] the fact that you know they would make
[56:44] not because these people lived in Wooden
[56:46] Hills all three of them
[56:48] >> so we wouldn't have angry neighbors.
[56:50] >> Your requested motion is you you have it
[56:52] here. I mean, this you'd like to do at
[56:54] the next meeting, but then you you said
[56:55] you'd like to change it a little bit so
[56:57] that
[56:57] >> Well, I would I would be in favor of
[56:59] changing it for an original homeowner
[57:02] who's not ever had a grinder pump and
[57:06] not ever had a grinder pump replaced.
[57:08] We're not talking many people.
[57:10] >> Well, out of the 432 or 452, how many
[57:12] would that be?
[57:13] >> No, no, no. 452. Only 32 have grinder
[57:16] pumps.
[57:16] >> Oh, so out of the 32, how many would
[57:19] >> We only have a couple. I was told at one
[57:21] time it was when I did this it was only
[57:23] a couple people.
[57:24] >> Why to replace them if they're not
[57:26] busting?
[57:27] >> Exactly. But if they come and they have
[57:29] an issue, then I think myself I think
[57:33] the the sewer fund should pay for it if
[57:35] they're the original homeowner and has
[57:38] never had it done. That's the only thing
[57:40] I'm saying to be fair to everybody
[57:42] because I Where's my list?
[57:45] >> Well, because because other people have
[57:46] benefited from it. So
[57:47] >> Oh my gosh. So then why should you
[57:50] >> 32 homeowners have benefited from it and
[57:52] there's sometimes it's been a couple
[57:54] times,
[57:56] >> right? So not not there's 32 grinder
[57:58] pumps but not all of them have had been
[58:00] replaced. So there's been 20ome that
[58:03] have that have had them replaced is what
[58:04] you're
[58:05] >> most the majority of them have have had
[58:07] it replaced.
[58:08] >> So I'm just using them. So okay.
[58:09] >> Yeah, that majority of them had it
[58:11] replaced. I was just trying to do what's
[58:14] right for those homeowners that have
[58:16] never had the sewer fund. I say sewer
[58:20] fund because I was told the name of
[58:21] that, not the utility. It's the sewer
[58:24] fund. You know who I'm talking about. Um
[58:26] anyway, so that's um the sewer fund
[58:29] should pay for those original homeowner
[58:31] who has never had the grinder pump
[58:32] replaced. And that's only a couple
[58:35] people though. I have to I have to
[58:37] confess it's not a lot.
[58:39] >> Would there be any legal issue around
[58:40] that? Yeah.
[58:41] >> So it
[58:44] >> um
[58:44] >> otherwise everybody gets to it. We turn
[58:46] off everybody.
[58:47] >> I think that would be a cleaner way to
[58:48] do it. It just cut everybody than
[58:50] >> I was just trying to be fair. That's
[58:51] fine.
[58:53] >> So uh at the time municipal law
[58:55] litigation attorney Macy opined on this
[58:58] in a letter dated May 8th, 2024.
[59:02] Um, Dan, I'll ask you I'll ask that you
[59:05] send this to the board for their
[59:06] consideration, but uh, Attorney Macy did
[59:10] note the following uh, in regards to
[59:12] grinder pumps and costs. Um, you
[59:15] reference a policy that was written in
[59:17] 1992. However, the attached documents
[59:19] only include a 1989 letter from the
[59:21] district chairman setting forth the
[59:22] financing plan for the district's
[59:23] distributions of sewer costs. Assuming
[59:26] you are referencing this letter, there
[59:27] is nothing that specifically references
[59:29] grinder pumps installation or
[59:30] maintenance costs. Therefore, it is
[59:31] unclear who would be responsible for
[59:34] grinder pump replacement and
[59:35] maintenance. The July 2020 sanitary
[59:38] district ordinance you s you provide is
[59:40] unsigned.
[59:42] Assuming there is a signed version and
[59:44] this ordinance was put into effect, the
[59:46] language states clearly that the
[59:48] district is only responsible for
[59:50] maintenance and replacement of grinder
[59:52] pumps installed by the district prior to
[59:54] July 1st, 2020. Mhm.
[59:56] >> Property owners are responsible for
[59:58] costs of all grinder pumps installed
[1:00:00] post July 1st, 2020.
[1:00:02] >> Right.
[1:00:03] >> That be most of I mean that might be all
[1:00:04] of them.
[1:00:05] >> I also note that language in section
[1:00:07] 1805 sub4 of the village draft sewer
[1:00:10] code clearly states that the cost of
[1:00:12] installation and maintenance of the
[1:00:13] grinder pumps is a responsibility of the
[1:00:15] property owner.
[1:00:17] My recommendation would be to include
[1:00:19] language in the new sewer code including
[1:00:22] reference to the list of grandfather
[1:00:24] properties potentially including the
[1:00:27] language from the code and list as
[1:00:30] exhibits. For example, you could create
[1:00:32] section 1805 sub4 subd, which would
[1:00:35] state something such as, "All grinder
[1:00:38] pumps installed by the town of Lisbon
[1:00:40] sanitary district number one prior to
[1:00:42] July 1st, 2020 shall be maintained,
[1:00:45] repaired, and replaced by the village of
[1:00:47] Lisbon, pursuant to town of Lisbon,
[1:00:49] sanitary district number one, sewer
[1:00:50] service code section 1.14,
[1:00:54] C. Exhibit A. The only parcels eligible
[1:00:56] for maintenance, repair, or replacement
[1:00:58] of a grinder pump by the Village of
[1:01:00] Lisbon are listed in exhibit B. No
[1:01:02] additional parcels shall be added to
[1:01:04] that list.
[1:01:06] So that was in 2024. And I think what
[1:01:09] Linda's referencing is that that was not
[1:01:12] legally adopted by the board because the
[1:01:15] board has yet to
[1:01:17] um has yet to attach a new sewer service
[1:01:21] code.
[1:01:22] >> Right. And that's I talked to Kathy a
[1:01:24] couple times before Dan got it. I said,
[1:01:25] 'When are you going to do this? And she
[1:01:27] because of everything else being
[1:01:29] becoming v the village. I understand.
[1:01:31] She said she didn't have time to do
[1:01:33] this.
[1:01:35] >> Did the board vote? So three of the
[1:01:37] three of you were here. Did you vote on
[1:01:39] this at that time?
[1:01:39] >> No, no, no, no. I'm the only one.
[1:01:41] >> No, no. But did this come to the to the town board in in in uh July or in
[1:01:47] 2024?
[1:01:49] It did uh for discussion, but it did not
[1:01:52] um
[1:01:54] >> it did not become approved because
[1:01:56] therefore the referenced exhibits and
[1:02:00] code had not yet been codified or
[1:02:02] created under the new
[1:02:03] >> right
[1:02:04] >> sewer ordinance. Um Dan, I guess
[1:02:06] administratively, can you speak to the
[1:02:08] difference that the committee has held
[1:02:10] off on?
[1:02:12] Well, the reason that we're taking off
[1:02:14] on doing work on the sewer code itself
[1:02:17] is because we're going through a sewer
[1:02:19] service area amendment right now. So, we
[1:02:21] potentially could have new policies in
[1:02:23] place that are going to are going to be
[1:02:25] related to um connection fees and
[1:02:29] whatever else that goes along with sewer
[1:02:31] service expansion because of the fact
[1:02:34] that we time anticipated that Highway K
[1:02:37] was priority for getting sewer gravity
[1:02:40] sore for this pool. Mhm.
[1:02:42] >> So that's why we held off thinking that
[1:02:44] would be an a 12 to 18 month process and
[1:02:46] that we would probably already be
[1:02:48] opening up the code for amendment. But
[1:02:51] that process is a little slower than
[1:02:54] anticipated um
[1:02:55] >> years slower and it's costing actually
[1:02:58] it's costing the sewer fund money by
[1:03:00] pushing it off and that's why I'm trying
[1:03:02] to say can't we just pass you know a
[1:03:05] change to the ordinance at this point
[1:03:07] and do it. So, was the board were the
[1:03:09] three of you in favor of making that
[1:03:12] change when the code was rewritten or
[1:03:15] >> It wasn't rewritten.
[1:03:16] >> No, when it was going to be down the
[1:03:18] line. Was was that was do you guys rec
[1:03:21] was I mean again if it was just
[1:03:22] discussion item there was no formal
[1:03:24] action but was the three or five board
[1:03:27] members in favor of that or not?
[1:03:31] I guess it doesn't matter too much, but
[1:03:32] >> I believe they were. And I also I also
[1:03:35] was was asked why let's wait until it's
[1:03:39] codified or whatever because it's going
[1:03:41] to save money. However, can't we now it
[1:03:45] been so long? It's how long has Kathy
[1:03:47] been gone? You know, how long has Dan
[1:03:50] been here? It's just an ongoing thing. I
[1:03:52] just say, let's just get going on this.
[1:03:54] Make the change and let's get going and
[1:03:56] let's just make whatever has to be done.
[1:03:58] I'm just kind of frustrated with it.
[1:04:00] Truthfully, I feel like I'm the only one
[1:04:02] sitting out here watching out for the
[1:04:04] sewer fund. Truthfully,
[1:04:06] >> would we have to do a public meeting
[1:04:08] about it? Because it would
[1:04:10] >> No, it's not an amendment to the zoning
[1:04:11] code, so you don't need to do a public
[1:04:13] hearing.
[1:04:14] >> But would it be wise to do something
[1:04:16] instead of just
[1:04:18] >> if you just cut everyone off from
[1:04:20] grinder pump repair? Uh, you might get
[1:04:23] quite a bit of
[1:04:24] >> You might get wooded hills here. They
[1:04:25] will be you're going to get I mean
[1:04:27] that's fine just as long as they know
[1:04:28] without doing it.
[1:04:29] >> You're going to get people after the
[1:04:30] fact thinking that the board did
[1:04:33] something that
[1:04:34] >> I think they should be maybe set letter
[1:04:37] sent to them that this is what we did or
[1:04:39] whatever just to notify them because
[1:04:41] they need to know in case something goes
[1:04:43] with theirs that they don't call
[1:04:44] delellic if it goes off at 6:00 in the
[1:04:47] morning if it was theirs. They might
[1:04:49] wait till 8:00 in the morning to call a
[1:04:51] plumber and say, "Hey, I've got an
[1:04:53] issue." Rather than whatever. That's
[1:04:56] all.
[1:04:58] That's This is all
[1:05:00] my experience and I'm relaying that like
[1:05:02] Mark says, I'm an odd duck out here
[1:05:04] because I know what happened in the very
[1:05:06] beginning.
[1:05:07] >> I said you're an odd duck.
[1:05:08] >> You did what?
[1:05:11] >> You did. I don't know. Quite a while
[1:05:13] ago.
[1:05:15] >> I think we're all odd ducks. I mean,
[1:05:16] everyone's got their odd duck. I admit
[1:05:18] I'm an odd duck, but I I do and as you
[1:05:21] guys know, I do watch the money.
[1:05:23] >> I'm I'm very not for what's best for the
[1:05:26] village. I'm really do that's one of my
[1:05:28] big things. And this is we have to be
[1:05:30] honest to we have to be fair to the 452
[1:05:34] current users. That's all.
[1:05:37] >> We paid enough after 37 years. I guess
[1:05:38] if we're if we're going to talk about
[1:05:40] fair, we we the last line that I said
[1:05:44] about this, the July 1st, 2020 date was
[1:05:47] a was a um it wasn't just a board
[1:05:51] decision. It was it it was a very
[1:05:53] in-depth it included public input. It
[1:05:56] included council review. It included
[1:05:59] recommendations from the sitting board
[1:06:01] members. So, um I I guess there there's
[1:06:05] really nothing that has changed since
[1:06:07] the board. Um and I'll just say they
[1:06:11] opined that we never formally motioned
[1:06:13] or approved an ordinance change. So,
[1:06:15] I'll just say it was opined and that was the I guess agreement that we
[1:06:20] came to a consensus. Now, that was a
[1:06:22] different board, but I don't think
[1:06:24] there's anything overwhelmingly changing
[1:06:26] since then. Um there's there's a lot of
[1:06:31] lack of documentation from the inception
[1:06:33] of the system to really explain
[1:06:36] >> what happened and why it happened. And
[1:06:39] I think it was a very responsible
[1:06:41] decision that the board came to
[1:06:44] and just for a lack of better terms, the
[1:06:46] code wasn't ready to be rewritten. So
[1:06:48] the board didn't the board didn't take
[1:06:50] action on it. and we we knew we were
[1:06:52] taking a new board into consideration
[1:06:55] and and that was the choice of that
[1:06:57] current board to leave it open. So, uh
[1:07:02] >> yes, we we we know that it cost money,
[1:07:04] but it also
[1:07:07] saved the then sanitary lots of money in
[1:07:12] the front end because of how they
[1:07:14] designed the system.
[1:07:17] Are you talking about the original
[1:07:19] engineers?
[1:07:21] >> Yeah, I mean
[1:07:22] >> Oh, no, you're wrong.
[1:07:23] >> The the uh
[1:07:24] >> there were a lot of mistakes that they
[1:07:26] made.
[1:07:28] >> I guess what I'm Let me clarify make
[1:07:30] more sense. There was design standards
[1:07:32] that were used that we can't prove why
[1:07:34] they were or weren't used, but
[1:07:37] >> it has been the recommendation of our
[1:07:38] engineers today that these design
[1:07:41] standards would have never
[1:07:42] >> been utilized. And to whose fault that
[1:07:44] was? Was it the sanitary? Was it the
[1:07:46] village or
[1:07:47] >> it's the engineers that we hired to do
[1:07:49] the proper work?
[1:07:50] >> Right. But they they were something we
[1:07:53] inherited.
[1:07:54] >> Exactly. And that's why we need to move
[1:07:56] on. I don't I myself I don't want to go
[1:07:59] through we've been through this process
[1:08:01] before. We have paid the attorney. We
[1:08:03] have paid this and we have paid that. To
[1:08:06] me, I just want it on the books. If
[1:08:08] either yes, we do it or no, we don't. I would like it. I would like it on the
[1:08:12] books. We do it because it's been
[1:08:14] stretched out so far. This has been from
[1:08:17] 1920. Okay. The 2020 1920 2020 is maybe
[1:08:21] when this whole thing started and we've
[1:08:24] been waiting six years so far. Six years
[1:08:27] so far. And I don't want another two and
[1:08:30] three and four years and going through
[1:08:31] the same thing.
[1:08:34] I I'm not for that. I'm tired. I'm tired
[1:08:37] of pain.
[1:08:40] I don't want to talk about personal. I'm
[1:08:42] talking about the sewer fund residents.
[1:08:45] I don't want to see them pay any more
[1:08:47] than they have to. To me, you know, just
[1:08:50] very unfair. I would like to see this
[1:08:52] ended myself.
[1:08:54] >> Are you are you in uh disagreement with
[1:08:56] the what the attorney recommended that
[1:08:58] the board adopt? Mhm. Because I don't at
[1:09:02] the time there was a lot of question
[1:09:04] about we talked about oh what is he you
[1:09:06] know we didn't kind of think about that
[1:09:09] you know what his we were kind of
[1:09:11] surprised at what he said.
[1:09:13] >> Can you explain what the attorney
[1:09:14] recommended? Hi.
[1:09:16] >> All grinder pumps installed by the Town
[1:09:18] of Lisbon Sanitary District number one
[1:09:20] prior to July 1st, 2020 shall be
[1:09:22] maintained, repaired, and replaced by
[1:09:24] the Village of Lisbon pursuant to the
[1:09:26] Town of Lisbon Sanitary District number
[1:09:28] one, sewer service code section 1.14.
[1:09:31] C. Exhibit A. The only parcels eligible
[1:09:34] for maintenance, repair, or replacement
[1:09:36] of a grinder pump by the Village of
[1:09:38] Lisbon are listed in exhibit B. No
[1:09:41] additional parcel shall be added.
[1:09:43] >> So essentially, what's already
[1:09:46] Except that the exhibit is not in the
[1:09:48] code.
[1:09:48] >> Neither exhibit are in the code. How
[1:09:50] many houses are he is he talking about
[1:09:52] in the exhibit?
[1:09:54] >> Uh there's like
[1:09:56] >> grandfathered 32 comes to mind.
[1:09:59] >> That would be grandfathered.
[1:10:00] >> 32
[1:10:02] that we would that we would have to
[1:10:04] maintain.
[1:10:05] >> But now don't forget this
[1:10:08] >> 30 some to start with.
[1:10:09] >> Yeah. Don't forget
[1:10:10] >> we haven't had any new grinder pumps
[1:10:12] added.
[1:10:13] >> No. No. That's what I said. Um, don't
[1:10:15] forget now these homes have changed
[1:10:18] hands over the years. Changed hands over
[1:10:21] the years. So there's I don't feel an
[1:10:24] allegiance to those myself that the
[1:10:27] people that actually paid their money to
[1:10:29] go in and have the sewer installed.
[1:10:33] Those homeowners are gone. Rick and I
[1:10:36] have been in our house 51 years, so
[1:10:38] we're a little older, but most houses
[1:10:40] have changed hands all this time. I just
[1:10:43] would like to I would just like I'd like
[1:10:45] to get this taken care of. I'm asking
[1:10:47] for your help to do that.
[1:10:48] >> I don't think it should be forever.
[1:10:51] >> What's forever?
[1:10:52] >> The grandfathered ones get replaced
[1:10:54] until the house part down.
[1:10:56] >> No, I Are we reading this?
[1:10:58] >> Yeah. I think uh
[1:11:00] >> it sounds weird.
[1:11:01] >> Yeah.
[1:11:02] >> At most I could see you get one last
[1:11:04] replacement, check you off the list, you
[1:11:05] got replaced and you're done. No, I I
[1:11:08] myself think, well, why wouldn't in 2020
[1:11:11] that should have been happen because we
[1:11:12] and it was at a standstill on
[1:11:14] everything. So, it's costing the
[1:11:16] district more money and more money every
[1:11:18] time someone gets a grinder pump repair
[1:11:20] that we shouldn't have had replaced. And
[1:11:22] I guarantee you our costs are going to
[1:11:25] go up this fall. I know they're going to
[1:11:27] go up to pay for all those grinder
[1:11:28] pumps.
[1:11:29] >> What's the significance of 2020? Why is
[1:11:32] there Why is that the cut off? That was
[1:11:34] when we That was when we were at town
[1:11:36] and first did the we did a public
[1:11:39] meeting and and that was the date that
[1:11:41] we decided. Yep.
[1:11:43] >> Was the
[1:11:43] >> It was picked out by who? I have no I
[1:11:46] didn't pick it out.
[1:11:47] >> It was by the town board.
[1:11:48] >> Yeah.
[1:11:48] >> So, I guess I want to make sure I
[1:11:50] understand. So, is are we talking about
[1:11:52] if you have a new grinder pump system
[1:11:56] installed or are we talking about if you
[1:11:58] actually have the actual pump is
[1:12:00] replaced then it's then it's considered
[1:12:02] new. But
[1:12:03] >> everything
[1:12:04] >> I think no there's a distinction in
[1:12:06] there and I think that's where I said
[1:12:07] something and then you correct and you
[1:12:09] corrected me. I'm not
[1:12:10] >> I I'm I'm absolutely with you Matt. The way we remove that is we we got into
[1:12:15] a long debate about what is transfer of
[1:12:18] ownership. You know what happens if
[1:12:19] somebody has say just for term a husband
[1:12:24] wife want to transfer their property
[1:12:26] from their name to a trust.
[1:12:29] >> Is that a transfer of ownership? Mhm.
[1:12:31] >> Our attorney at the time advised that
[1:12:33] you do not want to get into
[1:12:36] >> those because that will create
[1:12:37] individual cases of review,
[1:12:39] >> right?
[1:12:39] >> So, you know, if if you had one and you
[1:12:43] changed from being just a singular
[1:12:45] person to a trust,
[1:12:47] >> is that transfer of ownership because
[1:12:49] you now entrusted it to somebody?
[1:12:52] He said he said at the time it was not
[1:12:54] worth the legal review fees or court
[1:12:57] battles to do that. So that's why that's
[1:12:59] why we picked just a singular date. And
[1:13:02] even if you've had four grinder pumps
[1:13:05] replaced prior to
[1:13:07] the July 1st, 2020,
[1:13:10] um you you only get one more because it
[1:13:13] would be after that date.
[1:13:16] >> So
[1:13:17] >> one more after the date.
[1:13:18] >> Yeah. So say say you had four installed
[1:13:21] prior to July 1st, 2020.
[1:13:24] >> We we had been paying for those.
[1:13:25] >> This is coming back to me now. And now
[1:13:28] you want your fifth grinder pump.
[1:13:30] >> Okay,
[1:13:31] >> post July 1st, 2020.
[1:13:33] >> That would be your last one forever.
[1:13:35] Doesn't matter about transfer of
[1:13:36] ownership. Doesn't matter if your house
[1:13:38] burns down. Doesn't matter if somebody
[1:13:39] steals your grinder from
[1:13:41] >> right
[1:13:45] » the cost of everything. You never know.
[1:13:46] >> Yeah. But I guess what I'm saying is
[1:13:48] that's why we didn't want to get he
[1:13:50] recommended to keep it clean and clear
[1:13:51] so that we did not get any into any
[1:13:53] lurggious battles of of that kind.
[1:13:57] >> If you make a date, it doesn't matter
[1:13:58] what the scenario is.
[1:14:00] >> You you have a date.
[1:14:01] >> Oh, that makes what I was talking about.
[1:14:03] >> And
[1:14:04] >> so basically, we would we would
[1:14:05] potentially have to replace every pump.
[1:14:09] >> Yeah.
[1:14:09] >> No, no, because there is there has been
[1:14:11] several replaced post 2020 that would
[1:14:14] never get replaced again.
[1:14:14] >> Okay. So, how many are we talking about?
[1:14:17] I
[1:14:17] >> I don't have an updated list. My last
[1:14:18] list is from 2021.
[1:14:20] >> There was 32 gr 32 grinder pumps.
[1:14:22] >> No, that that that 32 that 32 is not
[1:14:26] >> a qualifying list. That is an incumbent
[1:14:28] list of all grinder pumps. That is not an eligible list.
[1:14:32] >> Okay. I'm just I'm just looking for what
[1:14:33] the total liability.
[1:14:36] >> He's saying who would be who could be
[1:14:38] >> the liability.
[1:14:40] I think that's complicated myself.
[1:14:42] >> Then come up with come up with a better
[1:14:44] scenario. But that but that was I guess
[1:14:47] you're just saying shut the faucet off
[1:14:48] on these people.
[1:14:49] >> It's been it's been six years since this
[1:14:51] has been going on as you know. We just
[1:14:52] read to me I just cut it off. I would
[1:14:55] just cut it off.
[1:14:56] >> You would just cut it off or you would
[1:14:58] say that someone who hasn't gotten one
[1:15:00] in the past gets still gets one.
[1:15:01] >> Well that's what I said but
[1:15:02] >> No. And which Okay. Well I mean yeah. So
[1:15:04] there I guess there's a minor difference
[1:15:06] but
[1:15:06] >> Okay. I'm okay with if someone has never
[1:15:09] had the grinder pump
[1:15:12] replaced. Do we say from the original
[1:15:14] owner?
[1:15:16] >> No. So that that is that is not going to
[1:15:18] work. We've already explored that
[1:15:19] because we do not have we do not have
[1:15:22] quality records to prove or disprove.
[1:15:25] >> Therefore, the attorney recommended we
[1:15:26] do not get into that battle because
[1:15:28] >> one our records are horrible
[1:15:30] >> and two now we're battling ownership
[1:15:33] again.
[1:15:33] >> I know.
[1:15:34] >> So he that's why the date came and and
[1:15:36] that was that was the
[1:15:37] >> Yeah, I remember that.
[1:15:40] But we've done 10 of them in the last
[1:15:42] six years.
[1:15:43] >> Yeah, there two of them I know of this
[1:15:45] year that we've done that we just did
[1:15:47] one again.
[1:15:48] >> Yeah. So once I update
[1:15:50] >> $5,000 we just did another one.
[1:15:53] >> So if this went to the utility committee
[1:15:56] meeting next time for an actual
[1:15:59] recommendation and not that it has to,
[1:16:00] but if if it did,
[1:16:02] >> they said they they've said
[1:16:04] >> it was you said they made a
[1:16:05] recommendation. Was the recommendation
[1:16:07] to make this change or was the
[1:16:09] recommendation to not make the change? I
[1:16:11] mean, you can recommend it either way.
[1:16:13] >> The recommendation was that
[1:16:15] >> which that went to the board and the
[1:16:17] board chose not to
[1:16:19] >> place it in code.
[1:16:20] >> This because because of
[1:16:21] >> No, the previous board.
[1:16:23] >> Yeah.
[1:16:23] >> Not not this current sitting
[1:16:24] >> because of because of the principle of
[1:16:26] it or because of the logistics of the
[1:16:31] >> logistics. Okay. The principle they were
[1:16:33] not opposed to. No,
[1:16:34] >> but but they were also at the end of
[1:16:36] their terms and didn't want they wanted
[1:16:38] it to be up to the next board.
[1:16:40] >> Yeah.
[1:16:41] >> And here we are.
[1:16:44] >> Well, if we're if we agree with it in
[1:16:45] principle, this is the reason people
[1:16:47] think government's dopey because we're
[1:16:49] just going to like not do it because
[1:16:51] it's not convenient for a code thing.
[1:16:53] We're doing it because it's right or
[1:16:54] it's wrong. We're doing it or we're not
[1:16:56] doing it because it's right.
[1:16:57] >> What's what's the requirement of what has to happen in the code? I mean,
[1:17:00] is is it is it that much of a burden? I
[1:17:03] mean honestly we have if every grinder
[1:17:05] pump ad installed after 2020 you install
[1:17:09] it once and you never install it again.
[1:17:10] I mean you could consider just
[1:17:12] installing all the grinder pumps and
[1:17:14] then be done with it but otherwise no
[1:17:17] the code you would have to modify or
[1:17:20] remove that section of code and then
[1:17:22] just remove liability. So you
[1:17:26] >> and we just added to it when it when
[1:17:28] everything is changed.
[1:17:29] >> So you modify section 32.05 5 U par D
[1:17:34] par five that's where it references the
[1:17:36] July 1st 2020 deadline and then say all
[1:17:39] grinder pumps be prepared and maintained
[1:17:43] by owners
[1:17:44] >> and that just requires a vote of the
[1:17:47] board.
[1:17:48] >> Yep.
[1:17:48] >> Yes.
[1:17:49] >> I guess we got to figure out if we want
[1:17:50] to do the everybody gets one free
[1:17:54] >> that July 1st 2020 date in there makes
[1:17:56] sense.
[1:17:56] >> No, not to me. I'm sorry. Well, no. You
[1:17:58] know how again how do you
[1:18:00] >> I would just I myself I wouldn't even
[1:18:03] give it a date. Like if you put okay
[1:18:05] let's give them a little time January
[1:18:07] 1st. Well what happens to those there's
[1:18:09] people on January 2nd they're going to
[1:18:10] complain that they're not that theirs
[1:18:12] isn't replaced. We're always going to
[1:18:14] have a problem with the date.
[1:18:15] >> So it's it's either July 1st 2020 or
[1:18:17] it's no nothing. No one gets one
[1:18:20] >> with the the reason why we didn't post
[1:18:23] like set a date to be eclipsed in the
[1:18:25] future is because of the fact that there
[1:18:29] would be people qualifying that would
[1:18:31] run
[1:18:33] >> anything and everything down their
[1:18:34] grinder boat.
[1:18:35] >> Yes. And break it
[1:18:36] >> intentionally sabotage it. And now we
[1:18:38] are on the burden to prove or disprove
[1:18:41] >> Yeah.
[1:18:42] >> their negligence or a mechanical
[1:18:44] failure.
[1:18:45] >> Yes.
[1:18:45] >> Yeah. I remember this discussion though.
[1:18:47] >> Yeah.
[1:18:48] So,
[1:18:48] >> so it's an issue.
[1:18:50] >> We we we I mean this is this has been
[1:18:53] exhausted.
[1:18:54] >> I'm tired of this.
[1:18:55] >> Well, right. But it it I mean the
[1:18:57] current code Dan, can you just you want
[1:19:00] to read it?
[1:19:01] >> Yeah. This is a village for all grinder
[1:19:03] pumps installed by the former sanitary
[1:19:05] district on or before July 1st, 2020
[1:19:07] shall maintain, repair, and if
[1:19:10] necessary, replace the grinder pump
[1:19:12] subject to the following conditions.
[1:19:13] Property owner shall consent to entry
[1:19:15] upon property serviced by the grinder
[1:19:17] pump of employees. Contractors employed
[1:19:20] by the village for the purpose of
[1:19:22] maintaining, repairing and or replacing
[1:19:24] the grinder pump. The property owner
[1:19:27] annually consents to the inspection of
[1:19:29] the grinder pump and the property owner
[1:19:32] complies with all rules, regulations,
[1:19:34] policies adopted by the village for the
[1:19:36] operation and use of the gr.
[1:19:38] >> We're inspecting these every year. So
[1:19:42] that was a practice we discontinued
[1:19:44] because the inspections were not the
[1:19:47] inspections were not worth the juice and
[1:19:49] squeeze kind of principle. We we were
[1:19:51] paying for inspections to be done on
[1:19:53] pumps that hadn't failed or weren't
[1:19:54] going to fail and we didn't know when
[1:19:55] they were going to fail. So we forewent
[1:19:57] >> all inspections and is determined it was
[1:20:00] just fiscally responsible to wait till
[1:20:02] it happened.
[1:20:03] >> For years we paid I think it was $350
[1:20:05] per grinder pump.
[1:20:08] Okay.
[1:20:08] >> So, this is not this is not
[1:20:10] >> I think this code section does not
[1:20:13] necessarily reflect what maybe the the
[1:20:16] board's intention is because the the way
[1:20:19] it's read if I'm looking at this from a
[1:20:21] resident is that you're going to
[1:20:22] maintain, replace, repair my grinder
[1:20:25] pump because it was installed for 2020
[1:20:28] uh in perpetuity.
[1:20:30] >> Well, then do we have to qualify it one
[1:20:32] time only?
[1:20:33] >> I would one qualifying event and you're
[1:20:35] done. This is the existing code or this
[1:20:38] is the proposed.
[1:20:39] >> This is the exist.
[1:20:41] >> We can't be stuck on this for ever.
[1:20:45] >> We got to put something on.
[1:20:46] >> Yes.
[1:20:47] >> How did how did that date come in if
[1:20:48] nothing was passed in 2024?
[1:20:50] >> I think I don't know who did that.
[1:20:52] >> There was there was the date of 2020 was
[1:20:54] approved
[1:20:55] >> around that time.
[1:20:57] >> But we never we never did an exhibit
[1:20:59] list or so. there is no exhibits
[1:21:02] referenced in the code
[1:21:03] >> and that's too much bookkeeping and it
[1:21:04] >> but I mean even if an exhibit list was
[1:21:06] placed in the code it's still based on
[1:21:10] this language makes it seem like it's in
[1:21:12] perpetuity.
[1:21:13] Well, then we have to add language that
[1:21:15] it's one qualifying event or however
[1:21:17] youally state that.
[1:21:18] >> We either got to figure out if we're
[1:21:20] cutting it off now or we're giving
[1:21:21] everybody one.
[1:21:25] So, those are the two choices we got.
[1:21:27] >> And then sunset it eventually too. You
[1:21:29] leave it open forever. Like
[1:21:31] >> why can I ask why you would why why
[1:21:33] would you have the residents pay one
[1:21:37] more grinder pump repair, one more
[1:21:40] replacement, one more whatever? Is it a
[1:21:43] replacement? Is it a repair? Is it this
[1:21:45] or is it that? You you know, there's a
[1:21:47] lot of questions.
[1:21:48] >> I'm just saying those are the two main
[1:21:49] ideas that make sense to me.
[1:21:50] >> I know
[1:21:51] >> that make any sense. There's other ones
[1:21:53] that I don't think would work.
[1:21:55] >> I think those are the two viable options
[1:21:56] we have.
[1:21:57] >> I personally think this has gone on far
[1:22:00] enough long enough. I myself
[1:22:04] would vote for it. We have to cut it
[1:22:06] off.
[1:22:08] >> Right. So that's where Linda is. Mark,
[1:22:09] you're on the committee as well. What would what's your thought?
[1:22:13] >> Um I I mean I I'm still with where the
[1:22:15] attorneys at in 2024. Um I don't think
[1:22:19] it's that far off from our current code,
[1:22:21] but there they're just the way it's
[1:22:23] currently written. I think there's uh
[1:22:25] loopholes that could be exercised and I mean that that's why we forwent
[1:22:30] these inspections because they were just
[1:22:31] costing money and
[1:22:34] um
[1:22:35] yeah,
[1:22:37] there's a lot of history. there's a lot
[1:22:39] of lack of documentation of the history
[1:22:41] that we had to make up for and that's
[1:22:43] kind of where the current code was. Um
[1:22:45] I'm not opposed to
[1:22:48] um reworking the code, but I'm I am also
[1:22:52] not I guess I'm not in favor of just
[1:22:55] completely cutting it off. I think there
[1:22:57] has to be a criteria to it and and it's
[1:23:00] got to be a simp simple criteria
[1:23:03] kind of much in line with what we
[1:23:05] already currently have. So if we go with
[1:23:06] that date though, then we would be we
[1:23:09] would there would be 10 homeowners that
[1:23:11] would be cut off and never get another
[1:23:13] one moving forward.
[1:23:14] >> 10?
[1:23:15] >> Yes. If there's if there's 32 total and
[1:23:18] 10 have been replaced in the last uh six
[1:23:21] years, then we would be on we would
[1:23:23] still say we would replace 22 more that
[1:23:26] have not been replaced in the last six
[1:23:28] years. Is that is that what I'm hearing?
[1:23:32] >> That's how I understood that.
[1:23:33] >> That's the way that's the way it's
[1:23:34] written right now.
[1:23:37] Right, Dan?
[1:23:38] >> No, that's the way it's written in the
[1:23:40] >> Well, I mean, yeah,
[1:23:41] >> there's 12 that have been replaced.
[1:23:45] >> 12.
[1:23:46] been replaced since 2020? July 1st,
[1:23:48] 2020.
[1:23:48] >> Yeah.
[1:23:52] » So, and how how many how many outlying
[1:23:55] grinder pumps were installed by the
[1:23:57] sanitary district on or before July 1st,
[1:23:59] 2020
[1:24:01] >> that are currently out there?
[1:24:02] >> Is that 20?
[1:24:03] >> 20. I gave you that big whole sheet. I
[1:24:05] gave you all that work
[1:24:06] >> that have been I thought that was a 12.
[1:24:08] No, that haven't. Oh, haven't
[1:24:22] » Oh, there's 20
[1:24:27] 21 or 22. I got to count which ones
[1:24:29] because this is only updated to the be
[1:24:32] January this year. I don't remember if
[1:24:33] we did two or three this year,
[1:24:35] >> but but anything after 2020, July 1st,
[1:24:37] 2020 doesn't count because they were on
[1:24:39] their own.
[1:24:40] So any pump that's six years,
[1:24:42] >> right? But I'm saying that I've counted
[1:24:44] 23, but I I think we've replaced two of
[1:24:48] these that still show a date of 14. So I
[1:24:51] think we're around 2020 that are were
[1:24:54] installed before July 2020. So the fact
[1:24:59] that we've done that numbers don't add
[1:25:00] up to me that sounds like we have
[1:25:02] replaced one of these grinder pumps
[1:25:04] twice in the last six years.
[1:25:07] We the only one I can think of is
[1:25:09] recently somebody had a grinder pump
[1:25:11] that was
[1:25:13] I think there's two and one of them were
[1:25:17] trying to get money back from uh the
[1:25:19] energies because it was an issue that
[1:25:21] they had a boring and then that clogged
[1:25:23] up. So, that one I'm not going to count.
[1:25:24] We get the money back from We Energies
[1:25:26] or Michael did. Uh, but there was one
[1:25:29] that just recently that was installed a
[1:25:32] year ago that we just had to
[1:25:36] >> Can you state for the record to not all
[1:25:38] of the 32 are in people's homes? Can you
[1:25:41] state how many are outside of the homes?
[1:25:44] >> No, I have
[1:25:45] >> I believe they're I don't know. You mean like that that
[1:25:50] are in like the road
[1:25:51] >> that are in the private the private uh
[1:25:54] >> I believe they're in the home.
[1:25:55] >> Not not all of them
[1:25:57] >> because we have some just in like by
[1:25:59] bramble that we were talking about that
[1:26:01] there was pumpkin.
[1:26:03] >> Yes.
[1:26:04] >> Yeah. I don't know how many
[1:26:06] >> it's say that in Bramble you just heard
[1:26:08] what
[1:26:08] >> so when we discussed Golf Hills Drive
[1:26:12] remember we had somebody that wanted to
[1:26:13] hook up. Yeah. There are some
[1:26:16] individual force manes that have a
[1:26:18] grinder pump that are outside of the
[1:26:20] home, but they're still with they're
[1:26:22] still in their lateral. So, they're
[1:26:23] still
[1:26:24] >> on the property of the home.
[1:26:25] >> The property. Okay.
[1:26:27] >> Do we have do we have installation dates
[1:26:29] of all these other pumps?
[1:26:32] >> We have placed in service dates.
[1:26:35] >> Not going way back though, do you? Well,
[1:26:37] wait a minute. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. we
[1:26:40] have we have isolation.
[1:26:45] » So I I think the board can reach a
[1:26:47] consensus and we take formal action on
[1:26:49] it at the next meeting that we either
[1:26:52] leave it so that the sanitary district
[1:26:54] or so that the san district is paying
[1:26:57] for all of them moving forward like they
[1:26:59] are now effectively that they're paying
[1:27:01] for none and homeowners are are
[1:27:03] responsible for everything or we have it
[1:27:07] as a date. I mean, those are the three
[1:27:09] options that we that we have.
[1:27:11] >> Yeah. Let me uh
[1:27:12] >> the other option. Can we us offer a
[1:27:13] payout to get them off of it and say
[1:27:15] we're closing this and give them a
[1:27:16] thousand bucks? Call it a day.
[1:27:20] >> That's a lot better than our last
[1:27:21] >> I think Linda's gonna be on that one.
[1:27:22] >> Uh I think so.
[1:27:24] >> Yeah.
[1:27:25] >> So, here the these were um so back in
[1:27:27] 2024, we did come up with um a few
[1:27:29] options. Option one, the property owner
[1:27:32] is responsible for all maintenance and
[1:27:34] replacement of the grinder pumps and
[1:27:36] sewer laterals to the property line.
[1:27:39] This was the proposed new code approved
[1:27:40] by the committee. Two, the village is
[1:27:44] responsible for those original sewer
[1:27:46] grinder pump connections done before
[1:27:48] 2020 for replacement of grinder pumps
[1:27:51] and property owners are responsible for
[1:27:53] bianual maintenance and repairs. Option
[1:27:56] three, the village is responsible for
[1:27:57] those original sewer connections done
[1:28:00] before 2020 for maintenance and
[1:28:02] replacements through 2030.
[1:28:05] Or four, the village is responsible for
[1:28:07] maintenance and replacement for those
[1:28:08] original sewer connections done before
[1:28:10] 2020. This was in the sanitary district
[1:28:13] code.
[1:28:16] >> I'm not sure if I understood all of
[1:28:17] that. Did everybody else or just me?
[1:28:20] >> No, I I think we went through it pretty
[1:28:22] quickly. I'm not I I
[1:28:24] >> We had talked about a sunset date.
[1:28:26] >> So the the sunset date was 2030.
[1:28:28] >> Yeah.
[1:28:28] >> Well, I know you had talked about that
[1:28:30] and I said that's ridiculous myself.
[1:28:32] It's too far out. I I said it at the
[1:28:34] time
[1:28:35] >> that far now, but
[1:28:36] >> Well, I know it doesn't sound that far
[1:28:37] now, but but why? We have paid 37 years.
[1:28:42] Why?
[1:28:43] >> I I I
[1:28:45] one position or the other. I I
[1:28:47] >> you have a sunset thing that far out
[1:28:49] people will forget to clog their pumps
[1:28:51] up on purpose to get a new one.
[1:28:55] >> I think there's a I mean there is a
[1:28:56] sensitivity to the cost of these grinder
[1:28:59] pumps and the fact that somebody that
[1:29:00] never has had to maintain them before or
[1:29:02] somebody that owns their house outright
[1:29:04] that might
[1:29:06] think that $6,500 is a huge expense that
[1:29:09] they've never had to pay for.
[1:29:11] >> Exactly. Like a like a septic system to
[1:29:13] everybody else here. Right. like a well
[1:29:15] pump. We all know it costs money. That's the cost of owning a home. They
[1:29:20] know it when they're ahead of time.
[1:29:22] >> I mean, we one thing we also are
[1:29:24] forgetting historically is when we were
[1:29:26] a sanitary, all district members paid in
[1:29:30] a fee that
[1:29:32] >> $48
[1:29:33] >> that some never even got back.
[1:29:35] >> Right. But $48. But that has stopped
[1:29:38] when we became a village.
[1:29:40] >> Well, bec it stopped when we became a
[1:29:42] utility. Oh, well,
[1:29:43] >> there was a tax there's a $48 storm
[1:29:46] water fee on a tax bill.
[1:29:48] >> But there's there was there was a tax
[1:29:50] levy though that that has gone away.
[1:29:51] >> Yes.
[1:29:52] >> Sewer levy.
[1:29:52] >> Sewer.
[1:29:54] >> Sorry. A sewer levy. There was a tax on
[1:29:56] that.
[1:29:57] >> It's illegal. We can't do it because
[1:29:58] we're a village.
[1:30:01] >> I I don't you know I I'm not an
[1:30:03] attorney. I have no idea.
[1:30:05] >> But that kind of surprised me.
[1:30:08] >> Because it's our utility now. We make
[1:30:10] our we make our revenue based on our
[1:30:12] needs. All
[1:30:13] >> right. So, where do we where do we want
[1:30:15] to go? I mean, what what's I mean, we
[1:30:17] Linda's made her position clear. Is
[1:30:20] everyone we haven't I mean, we're not
[1:30:22] taking formal action, but we can kind of
[1:30:24] reach a consensus and take formal action
[1:30:26] later. So, are we are we there or do we
[1:30:28] want to do something more in line with
[1:30:30] what was written up before or
[1:30:34] nothing? I mean, that's I don't know who
[1:30:36] wants to start.
[1:30:37] >> I think we should do something. I don't
[1:30:39] think we should kick the can down the
[1:30:40] road anymore. Whatever it is, something
[1:30:42] should got to get done.
[1:30:42] >> What do you think that something should
[1:30:43] be?
[1:30:45] >> I was in the bathroom as most of the
[1:30:46] discussion.
[1:30:48] I mean, I
[1:30:52] I'm not exactly sure. I mean, I I think
[1:30:55] the date, the 2020 date makes sense
[1:30:58] because again, I don't know how you
[1:31:01] spring it on people and just like all of
[1:31:02] a sudden cut them off from it. I think
[1:31:04] you'd have a lot of really angry people
[1:31:09] So, I guess that's where I would I would
[1:31:10] fall on it.
[1:31:11] >> But are we cutting off the 2020 date too
[1:31:13] for them? Is that We're still cutting
[1:31:15] off a date.
[1:31:16] >> Yeah. Well, I mean, then maybe change
[1:31:18] the date. I don't make it so yet there's
[1:31:20] very few left in there. I don't know.
[1:31:21] >> I don't know.
[1:31:22] >> Well, it sounds like the code has to be
[1:31:24] amended no matter what. Either to
[1:31:28] >> fix the issue of the in perpetuity. So
[1:31:31] why don't we, you know, staff can
[1:31:33] present some options based on the
[1:31:35] discussions that we've had here and then
[1:31:37] kind of present that to the board. Well,
[1:31:39] I think we can kind of reach a Rob,
[1:31:41] where are you at?
[1:31:42] >> Is there a way that you can just do the
[1:31:44] if nobody ever if they never got
[1:31:46] replaced, they get one was talking about
[1:31:48] >> No, Mark said that we can't because we
[1:31:49] don't have good records. We don't know
[1:31:51] that. That's what the attorney said.
[1:31:52] That's so it's got to be there's got to
[1:31:53] be a date. So you you did have that's my
[1:31:57] that's what I heard
[1:31:59] some people if they needed the original
[1:32:02] some of them not not
[1:32:04] do that we don't have
[1:32:05] >> all installed they sent all them that
[1:32:07] was it
[1:32:08] >> so you see but you so you did have in
[1:32:10] your head that
[1:32:11] >> we would do it for some people if they
[1:32:13] the original people the only ones are
[1:32:15] the ones I haven't updated yet from this
[1:32:17] year
[1:32:17] >> I'm thinking that way would be fair and
[1:32:19] easiest to
[1:32:20] >> all right we shouldn't be talking over
[1:32:21] each other but is that is that news to
[1:32:23] you Mark that we do have dates on all
[1:32:24] 32?
[1:32:25] >> No, we we have dates of install, but we
[1:32:28] don't know if they're original dates of
[1:32:29] install. Like I think what Linda is
[1:32:32] saying is if they've never had one,
[1:32:34] correct me if I'm wrong, if they've
[1:32:35] never had one and the original owner,
[1:32:37] they get one.
[1:32:37] >> Yeah.
[1:32:38] >> But if we have dates of install for all
[1:32:40] 32 and and then and then some of those
[1:32:41] dates were
[1:32:42] >> But now, but yeah, the
[1:32:43] >> original,
[1:32:44] >> but we don't have property record. We'd
[1:32:47] have to go through every property record
[1:32:48] and determine if they are.
[1:32:49] >> We don't have records like that. Only
[1:32:50] thing we have is the the chart I gave
[1:32:52] Dan.
[1:32:53] >> You're talking about original
[1:32:55] to the home.
[1:32:56] >> That's what she's that that was what
[1:32:58] >> I mean they're all all the dates are
[1:33:01] 2012 or later.
[1:33:02] >> The grinder pumps don't last that long.
[1:33:04] So they
[1:33:05] >> So there's no So they've all been So
[1:33:07] that's that point's irrelevant then.
[1:33:09] >> Yeah.
[1:33:09] >> So then every single one of them have
[1:33:11] been replaced at least once.
[1:33:12] >> You were making it sound like Linda that
[1:33:13] there's been there's some 37y old pumps
[1:33:15] here.
[1:33:15] >> Well, that's what we had talked about
[1:33:17] originally. There was only a couple
[1:33:19] original that has never been done.
[1:33:21] That's what I was told.
[1:33:23] >> We The originality was the homeowner,
[1:33:25] not the pump.
[1:33:26] >> Oh,
[1:33:27] >> which is a difference. The They could
[1:33:28] have had six or seven pumps, but as long
[1:33:29] as they were original owners,
[1:33:31] >> they were
[1:33:32] >> unless we have a brand like brand new
[1:33:34] homes that were built 2012 or later, the
[1:33:36] sewer district in that area, but I don't
[1:33:37] think there are any new.
[1:33:38] >> I don't think there are any.
[1:33:40] >> They have to worry about that part.
[1:33:41] Yeah.
[1:33:41] >> All right. So, I'm I'm fine with either
[1:33:43] one of these options. I mean, where Mark, where are you? you are as
[1:33:47] well or do you have a preference between
[1:33:48] Linda's or
[1:33:50] >> now that everybody's has been replaced
[1:33:51] six to 12 times I'd say we just cut it
[1:33:53] off
[1:33:57] » just vote as if you were you were only
[1:34:00] thing I ask is vote what's if you were
[1:34:04] in the and paying these fees and you
[1:34:06] were paying for it so look at it that
[1:34:09] instead of just on paper oh I don't know
[1:34:11] I'll just vote this way look at it as if
[1:34:13] you were paying those fees and how
[1:34:15] unfair it cut her off right now.
[1:34:18] >> That's all I ask. That's all I ask.
[1:34:20] >> But Linda, I I have also heard about the designing of the system and that the
[1:34:25] system was designed
[1:34:26] >> awful was designed awfully, but it was
[1:34:29] designed cheaper. It could have been
[1:34:31] designed more expensive for everybody
[1:34:33] and there wouldn't have been grinder
[1:34:34] pumps.
[1:34:35] >> Yeah. So, but because some of these
[1:34:38] houses because it was designed cheaper,
[1:34:40] these houses had the grinder pumps that
[1:34:42] saved everyone money originally and and
[1:34:44] now there are grinder pumps and some
[1:34:46] that that are fall on the burden of
[1:34:48] these uh 32 properties whereas the
[1:34:52] remaining 420 benefit from the from the
[1:34:57] cheaper system original construction
[1:34:59] costs. I've heard that as well. So
[1:35:02] >> that's and maybe we'll hear that again
[1:35:04] when we when we
[1:35:06] >> Well, they didn't go as deep as maybe
[1:35:07] they should have,
[1:35:09] >> right? Because if we would have gone
[1:35:10] deeper, then we wouldn't have needed
[1:35:11] these grinder pumps, right?
[1:35:12] >> Yeah.
[1:35:12] >> So that's
[1:35:13] >> Yeah.
[1:35:13] >> I mean,
[1:35:14] >> if they've been paying the sewer fees
[1:35:15] all these years, hasn't that cost equal
[1:35:17] itself out by now?
[1:35:18] >> Yeah.
[1:35:21] >> The cost, but the co I mean, everyone
[1:35:23] saved on this system because it was more
[1:35:25] cheaply designed. I think if you were
[1:35:28] going to fix the problem, you would re
[1:35:30] redo the whole entire system
[1:35:32] >> and then Well, I'm serious. And so
[1:35:35] that's
[1:35:36] >> I'm moving.
[1:35:37] >> There's option three.
[1:35:38] >> I'm moving.
[1:35:40] >> Seriously, I'm moving.
[1:35:42] >> Mark, where are you at?
[1:35:43] >> Um I there is going to be a handful of
[1:35:48] people, as Linda stated, that are going
[1:35:50] to bring in this 1992
[1:35:53] um agreement. And it does read, "The
[1:35:56] sanitary district shall assume
[1:35:58] responsibility for maintenance of the
[1:35:59] grinder pumps provided the sanitary
[1:36:00] sewer lateral and grinder pump has been
[1:36:02] installed in accordance with the
[1:36:04] maintenance policy."
[1:36:05] >> Isn't that null and void since we don't
[1:36:06] have a sanitary district anymore?
[1:36:09] >> Well, we assume their policy,
[1:36:11] >> right? Thank you, Rob.
[1:36:12] >> I don't know. That's
[1:36:13] >> we have
[1:36:14] >> I don't know. I I don't know
[1:36:16] >> district anymore. Never thought of that.
[1:36:19] >> I don't know if that's how that works or
[1:36:21] not. Just
[1:36:21] >> But that doesn't mean that it can't
[1:36:23] change. How many times Does a
[1:36:25] municipality change things because it
[1:36:27] doesn't, you know, it's just too
[1:36:29] expensive. It doesn't work.
[1:36:30] >> I mean, I would I would definitely
[1:36:32] >> Did they sign a contract, Mark?
[1:36:34] >> I Yeah, good luck. This was all we could
[1:36:36] find back then. They they brought in a
[1:36:39] um document that was unverified,
[1:36:41] >> right?
[1:36:41] >> We don't know based off records if it
[1:36:43] was ever approved. And
[1:36:45] >> Yep.
[1:36:45] >> So, we're gambling then. No, I don't
[1:36:48] think I guess if you make a date certain
[1:36:52] in the future and you don't put any
[1:36:55] situations attached to it like whether
[1:36:57] it was an original homeowner, if they've
[1:36:58] had it replaced, if it's been prior to
[1:37:00] or after 2020, I think you can get by
[1:37:03] with it and then you just have to put in
[1:37:05] there a negligence clause
[1:37:06] >> in the future though. You're saying not
[1:37:07] in the future. Not you don't like this
[1:37:09] July 1st, 2020 date. Do you want it to
[1:37:11] be in the future? I would say keep the
[1:37:13] July 1st, 2020 date and also sunset it.
[1:37:18] >> Okay.
[1:37:18] >> But do it for like next week. Don't put
[1:37:21] it way out. Do it soon.
[1:37:24] >> Well, that's okay. Oh, I mean
[1:37:26] >> No, I mean I I I think you have there
[1:37:29] are people that do remember this
[1:37:30] agreement. There's people that bought
[1:37:32] their homes under this premise.
[1:37:35] >> There is you're there's gonna be a lot
[1:37:37] of people in here talking about this.
[1:37:39] And
[1:37:40] >> I I I do think it's responsible to at
[1:37:42] least I mean they were given notice.
[1:37:45] >> Um but if if we're going to completely
[1:37:47] cut it off, I think we we give them a
[1:37:49] date.
[1:37:50] >> So let's do let's let's do that. Let's I
[1:37:51] mean I I I would be based on what I'm
[1:37:53] hearing everyone else and a compromise
[1:37:55] to me makes sense is sticking with the
[1:37:58] July 1st, 2020 date. So that's 20 to
[1:38:00] 22ish that we'd still be on the hook
[1:38:02] for. But if they don't get them replaced
[1:38:04] by the 2030 date that was in the
[1:38:07] previous proposal, then we're not paying
[1:38:09] them for them after that. So if they if
[1:38:11] they make it that long, then we're
[1:38:13] >> it can't be just a major
[1:38:15] >> saying 2030 in four years.
[1:38:18] >> 2030,
[1:38:18] >> which is what the proposal was from the board or the attorney when you
[1:38:23] looked at this a couple years ago.
[1:38:24] >> We could potentially be replacing them
[1:38:27] one a year until for four years
[1:38:29] >> is what we're saying. Or you can be
[1:38:30] placing, you know, six, you know, five
[1:38:32] or six a year for the next four years.
[1:38:34] >> Or you make it or you make it a shorter
[1:38:36] date. I mean, that's up to the board.
[1:38:40] >> I mean, you're
[1:38:41] >> That was Dan's idea.
[1:38:42] >> Well, no, but it came from It came from
[1:38:44] the attorney or something else.
[1:38:46] >> It came from It came from the attorney
[1:38:48] or Kathy or the senary district.
[1:38:51] >> It's been brought up before. It's not
[1:38:53] something that came pulled out of thin
[1:38:55] air.
[1:38:56] 30 is way out
[1:38:57] >> back in 2018 and 2019 about this and we
[1:39:00] talked about a subset law. So
[1:39:04] >> and then can can we put a stipulation in
[1:39:06] like one in that if we do 2030 you're
[1:39:08] entitled to one
[1:39:10] >> I think because the install date would
[1:39:12] be after the cutoff.
[1:39:13] >> It's not how it's written but you should
[1:39:14] clean it up so it is written.
[1:39:16] >> Well I would I would
[1:39:17] >> Okay. So I think you've got you've got a
[1:39:19] consensus for you understand where we're
[1:39:20] at and where the majority of the board's
[1:39:22] at. kind of a compromise that gets that
[1:39:24] gets almost all the way that you're
[1:39:25] there. It's not gonna it's going to make
[1:39:27] people here um be have a little of a
[1:39:32] compromise. You're still welcome to make
[1:39:34] the um motion at the next meeting,
[1:39:37] Linda, to to
[1:39:38] >> Oh, I see. I got very far with that one.
[1:39:41] I'm not going to get very far with that
[1:39:43] one. I think part of the problem is, as
[1:39:46] Mark's pointing out, if we try to cut it
[1:39:49] directly off, we're opening ourselves up
[1:39:51] to litigation.
[1:39:52] >> I I I just ask, if we don't extend it
[1:39:55] out to 2030,
[1:39:56] >> what what what date makes sense to you?
[1:40:02] » 28
[1:40:03] compromise
[1:40:04] >> the end of or beginning of January 1st
[1:40:06] or January 31st?
[1:40:07] >> 28.
[1:40:08] >> So we got So next year is our last year.
[1:40:10] >> That's it.
[1:40:11] >> So write write the proposal up. how we
[1:40:14] said with with those previous dates
[1:40:15] right January 1st to 28 if the board
[1:40:17] wants to amend it to a different date to 29 30 whatever at the next meeting we
[1:40:23] can certainly do that but it's something
[1:40:24] on paper for us to to discuss
[1:40:26] >> so if just a point of clarification if
[1:40:29] they've had one replaced post July 1st
[1:40:32] 2020
[1:40:33] >> if they had it post
[1:40:36] are they done done
[1:40:36] >> they're done done
[1:40:38] >> they're done
[1:40:40] do
[1:40:43] Natasha, does she know all of this
[1:40:46] >> or do you know all
[1:40:47] >> what
[1:40:47] >> the date? Have we replaced
[1:40:49] >> had all the dates?
[1:40:50] >> Have we replaced any of those?
[1:40:53] >> Okay,
[1:40:54] >> we replaced about you know 11 people.
[1:40:57] >> 12 to 13.
[1:40:59] >> We're going to be on the hook for 20 to
[1:41:01] 22 of them. Possibly 132,000 to 150,000
[1:41:04] depending how much they are and how far
[1:41:06] we go.
[1:41:07] >> And we'll be paying $350 on on a
[1:41:09] threemonth fee. now
[1:41:11] >> for for our user fees to pay all these
[1:41:15] costs with everything else that we have
[1:41:17] to pay. No, I'm just saying our our we
[1:41:20] you know our we're going to be paying
[1:41:22] more money. That's all on on for our
[1:41:24] monthly our three-month fee that we pay
[1:41:27] for for our user fees. We pay user fees
[1:41:29] every three months.
[1:41:31] >> Why makes that go up?
[1:41:33] >> That goes up every time our cost go up.
[1:41:35] It's $180 now.
[1:41:37] >> That That's the sewer fee.
[1:41:38] >> That's the sewer fee. We pay every three
[1:41:40] months.
[1:41:41] >> That's not for grinder pumps. That's not entirely for grinders.
[1:41:44] >> Everybody Everybody pays $180 for their
[1:41:47] sewer every three months.
[1:41:48] >> And you're saying that's the money
[1:41:49] that's used to pay for the grinder pump.
[1:41:51] >> That No, that's Well, that's everybody's
[1:41:53] money. It's everybody's money that we
[1:41:55] have got the million and two actually
[1:41:57] that and we'll go over that the next
[1:41:59] one. If you want to go if it's getting
[1:42:00] too late, we'll wait till next meeting.
[1:42:02] But I'm just saying that whatever money
[1:42:05] we have on hand in the sewer fund pays
[1:42:07] for the grinder pumps. the $180 is the
[1:42:10] fee that we have to pay into Sussex and
[1:42:12] so forth and pay for our regular
[1:42:15] expenses we have to pay.
[1:42:17] >> Okay.
[1:42:18] >> And once they they go up, we had to
[1:42:20] raise it this last year and it's going
[1:42:21] to be raised again this year. There's no
[1:42:23] doubt about it. It will be raised.
[1:42:25] >> So, well, with what we're doing right
[1:42:27] now, does that have any effect on the
[1:42:28] fees?
[1:42:29] >> Well, you better believe it. What?
[1:42:30] >> Well, no, but but if if we did nothing,
[1:42:32] the fees would be higher, right? Right?
[1:42:34] If we did nothing, the fees would be
[1:42:35] higher because we But if we take this
[1:42:38] action at the next meeting, we are
[1:42:39] reducing future costs.
[1:42:41] >> So we're so we're going to have less
[1:42:42] you're going to have less
[1:42:43] >> in the future if if you do it and say,
[1:42:45] "Hey, we're not going to pay for these
[1:42:46] grinder pumps anymore." Yes.
[1:42:48] >> Right. So So this is this is if we take
[1:42:49] this action, it is a net positive to
[1:42:52] Yes. It's a net positive.
[1:42:53] >> And we're only we're only replacing them
[1:42:55] if they're legitimately broken. We're
[1:42:57] not replacing them.
[1:42:58] >> Well, it's if a kid stuffs a bunch of
[1:43:00] toys down there, a homeowner says they
[1:43:02] want a new one. So there is a there is a variable that reduces the cost to that
[1:43:07] in the sense that we're not we we used
[1:43:10] to just direct replace everything. We
[1:43:11] we've undertaken a policy where when we
[1:43:14] pull the unit we may install a
[1:43:16] refurbished unit
[1:43:18] >> which so we're not entirely replacing
[1:43:20] the $6,000 pump anymore. We might be
[1:43:22] replacing it with a pump on hand.
[1:43:24] >> Yeah, that's fine.
[1:43:24] >> Does the code have to stipulate that? So
[1:43:26] the homeowner would be like it's not a
[1:43:28] new one. I'm just saying
[1:43:30] >> it doesn't say it doesn't say
[1:43:31] >> choice.
[1:43:32] >> It just says replace. Okay.
[1:43:35] >> But we're not necessarily going to be on
[1:43:36] the hook for all 22 of these by 28
[1:43:39] because they have to be actually broken.
[1:43:41] >> You guys said however many are prepared
[1:43:44] replaced.
[1:43:44] >> But they actually have to legitimately
[1:43:46] break.
[1:43:47] >> 22 legitimately. If
[1:43:48] >> 12 of them have broke in the last six
[1:43:50] years, you would think that we're not
[1:43:51] going to have 22 break in the next
[1:43:54] >> Our estimate is we replace two to three
[1:43:55] every year. Yeah.
[1:43:58] >> And we have two available to replace.
[1:44:01] >> So if we set this
[1:44:03] >> ability to determine whether or not it's
[1:44:04] negligence based on the now that we get
[1:44:07] them repaired.
[1:44:07] >> If we got a Lego set in there that's
[1:44:09] going to be negligence.
[1:44:10] >> That is done much better now than it was
[1:44:13] done in the beginning. Let me tell you
[1:44:15] much better. We paid for things that
[1:44:17] shouldn't have been just take the pumps
[1:44:19] and scrap them down.
[1:44:20] >> Deb used to just take them out and put a
[1:44:22] new one in.
[1:44:24] Are we ready to move on to sew to item
[1:44:26] E?
[1:44:27] >> So I feel better about that here.
[1:44:30] >> Clarify staff will present options for
[1:44:33] adoption on this Dan.
[1:44:36] >> Yeah, I will draft the code and run it
[1:44:38] to the attorney. Do you want options or
[1:44:40] do you want the option of what we
[1:44:42] discussed with a 20 January 1st 20
[1:44:45] sunset and um making sure the January
[1:44:49] for the the June 2020 date is not in
[1:44:54] >> July July I think by July 1st of Yes.
[1:44:57] Right.
[1:44:58] >> Yeah. That would be the cut off and then
[1:44:59] negligence isn't covered.
[1:45:02] >> Is there any So that I think that's what
[1:45:03] we want. But is there is there anything
[1:45:04] else you want the attorney or Dan to
[1:45:06] research as an alternative to possibly
[1:45:08] discuss?
[1:45:09] >> Can you present uh attorney Larson with
[1:45:11] attorney Macy's findings from
[1:45:14] >> Yeah. Can you forward me that
[1:45:17] I mean the given?
[1:45:25] » This is truly how the sausage gets fed.
[1:45:26] Huh?
[1:45:31] » So to speak. I'm sorry to keep you so
[1:45:33] long. I'm sorry.
[1:45:34] >> I think it's
[1:45:35] >> I've been stressing over this for so
[1:45:37] long.
[1:45:37] >> Well, we're going to do something about
[1:45:39] it
[1:45:39] >> and Mark knows it.
[1:45:42] >> All right. So, yeah,
[1:45:44] >> so item E is discussion uh regarding the
[1:45:47] village responsibility for various sewer
[1:45:49] utility costs.
[1:45:50] >> I think we should wait for Rob to come
[1:45:52] back. You want me to wait for Rob or I
[1:45:53] can start talking? Um,
[1:45:56] >> I it has just been discovered by me that
[1:45:59] I had no idea that the the um sewer fund
[1:46:05] is paying for the fire station costs for
[1:46:07] their sewer repairs everything and that
[1:46:11] is totally unfair why the sewer fund is
[1:46:15] paying for the fire station. Those
[1:46:17] should come out of either the villages
[1:46:19] money or the fire station fund, not the
[1:46:24] you know and I request this has been
[1:46:27] going this has been going on as far as
[1:46:28] we know since we became a village
[1:46:32] and whoever did that is we have no idea
[1:46:34] who it is that said hey the sewer
[1:46:36] district is going to be paying for the
[1:46:37] fire station. You know,
[1:46:40] >> it was 65 35, but the 35 was the the
[1:46:45] town and now it's the San District.
[1:46:47] >> Yeah, it's or not district, but that's
[1:46:49] the the
[1:46:50] >> it's a sewer fund. Say the sewer fund.
[1:46:52] So, we know the sewer fund is paying
[1:46:53] that and that's really not appropriate.
[1:46:57] I think we should be reimbursed for
[1:46:59] every cost we paid to reimburse the
[1:47:01] sewer fund. It's not fair. We have paid
[1:47:03] that. So, I looked into this and I think
[1:47:07] it started because the 2025 budget had
[1:47:09] no sewer costs associated with the fire
[1:47:13] station, probably because it was made
[1:47:16] for the contract. Um, so I think it
[1:47:18] started back in October of 2020.
[1:47:22] Um, so I did just some research on how
[1:47:25] much money is paid this year because
[1:47:27] it's really hard to recover costs from
[1:47:29] last year given that the books have been
[1:47:30] closed and the audit's been completed.
[1:47:33] Um, so the cost of the Richmond split
[1:47:37] with the 35 uh65
[1:47:40] uh has been 1,339.35.
[1:47:44] And then the Richmond
[1:47:46] fire station flows, which is a monthly
[1:47:49] charge uh in our commercial bill. I
[1:47:51] looked back at every one from January to
[1:47:53] this month and it's $33.70.
[1:47:56] So, a total you're looking at paying out
[1:47:58] of the villages share would be $1,6435.
[1:48:04] I've already put in a budget item for
[1:48:06] next year. Um, if we want to continue if
[1:48:10] we want to have the village pay for the
[1:48:11] fire station costs associated with their
[1:48:14] usage and with their share of the force
[1:48:17] man uh at a $3,000
[1:48:21] budget line item. How about for the new
[1:48:24] pumps that we just had taken out and put
[1:48:25] it out? That's more than $1,000. So, I'm
[1:48:28] a little confused, Dan.
[1:48:29] >> Because I did the because every I went
[1:48:31] through the budget code of what we take
[1:48:32] those pumps out of and it's because of
[1:48:34] the 3565.
[1:48:36] >> I know that. Yeah,
[1:48:36] >> that's what I got when I add it up in
[1:48:39] our accounting software. So, there that
[1:48:42] might be a little higher. Maybe one of
[1:48:44] those uh
[1:48:45] >> there's been a lot of pumps taken out
[1:48:46] over the last couple years and that they
[1:48:49] had to take them out. They had to take
[1:48:50] them out and take them up north, you
[1:48:51] know, to the
[1:48:52] >> Those are grinder pumps.
[1:48:53] >> Yeah. Yeah. But they had to take
[1:48:55] something out.
[1:48:56] >> It was Grab Amazon. We did We did one
[1:48:58] this year and I That wasn't Yes.
[1:49:00] included cost. We didn't have to pay for
[1:49:02] the full pump. We had to
[1:49:03] >> pay. I I I if I was a vetting woman, I
[1:49:06] would say that was more than that. I'll
[1:49:08] double check the costs and and check,
[1:49:10] but remember that
[1:49:11] >> you know divide 30 that number by 35%
[1:49:14] you're looking at somewhere around five
[1:49:15] grand or total costs
[1:49:17] >> related to
[1:49:18] >> I just don't think the sewer sewer fund
[1:49:20] should pay for it at all. There's no
[1:49:22] reason for for it to be paid for. Was a
[1:49:25] formal policy made by the board in 2024
[1:49:30] to to make this change or did it was it
[1:49:32] a staff? I think it was I think it was
[1:49:35] probably a bookkeep
[1:49:37] that happened
[1:49:38] >> and I didn't know this until I talked to
[1:49:40] I'm you know until I questioned
[1:49:42] something and that's when he said well
[1:49:44] you know that you know the sewer fund
[1:49:45] paid I said what the sewer fund pays for
[1:49:48] this
[1:49:49] >> so where we're where if we wanted to
[1:49:53] address this one way or the other we
[1:49:56] could have it at the next meeting agenda
[1:49:58] or does it need to be I mean or
[1:50:00] >> I can just come up with like a budget
[1:50:02] amendment
[1:50:04] And then if we had a simple policy that
[1:50:06] would say that all fire station expenses
[1:50:08] regarding force main and flows would be
[1:50:11] paid out of the fire department
[1:50:14] >> or so in the fact that we approved this
[1:50:17] board and the previous boards have
[1:50:18] approved the fire department budget that
[1:50:20] didn't include the sewer costs I guess
[1:50:23] indirectly or directly that that it was
[1:50:26] considered but
[1:50:29] >> so so
[1:50:30] >> so we could just do a budget budget
[1:50:32] amendment and put in their costs this
[1:50:35] year at the next meeting. So, you do a
[1:50:38] budget amendment to add, you know,
[1:50:40] $3,000 the expenditure costs in the
[1:50:43] sewer fund for the fire department. And
[1:50:45] there is a budget item for it. It just
[1:50:47] wasn't budgeted for in 2025. And then
[1:50:50] when I did the budget 26, so it was
[1:50:52] nothing that I didn't think to add it.
[1:50:56] So,
[1:50:57] >> why can't we go back? Why can't we go
[1:51:00] back a year before? I just because
[1:51:02] everything's closed, but why can't we go
[1:51:03] back and look at the figures?
[1:51:06] >> I mean, the budget the audit is
[1:51:08] completed. So, I mean, you're going back
[1:51:10] and taking money from one area that's
[1:51:12] been been audited. I mean, the board can
[1:51:14] consider it if they want to. I I can
[1:51:17] hold those numbers.
[1:51:18] >> I mean, my preference would be just to
[1:51:19] deal with this in 2027
[1:51:22] moving forward. I mean, I think if we if
[1:51:25] we go back and do it for 26, that's one
[1:51:27] thing. I don't want to go back any I
[1:51:28] mean
[1:51:30] I'm sympathetic to what you're saying
[1:51:32] but I I I I don't think that that
[1:51:35] >> we're talking about $5,000.
[1:51:36] >> Yeah.
[1:51:37] >> Or we're talking about 35% of 5,000.
[1:51:40] >> No.
[1:51:41] >> Wow.
[1:51:41] >> So 35% is 5,000 $1,643.
[1:51:45] I don't know what the total of last
[1:51:46] year.
[1:51:48] >> Gosh.
[1:51:49] >> Are you talking about the the village
[1:51:50] paying the
[1:51:51] >> the village should be paying it? the the the um um
[1:51:56] >> are you talking about the village paying
[1:51:58] the sewer fund back for the
[1:52:00] >> Yes, we should.
[1:52:03] >> So, for 26. So, well, we'll we'll I
[1:52:05] think we're all Are we all in agreement
[1:52:06] that we will change the way we're
[1:52:08] budgeting in for 27 moving moving
[1:52:10] forward? Definitely.
[1:52:11] >> Okay. So, we're all on the same page
[1:52:12] there. When you develop the budget,
[1:52:14] you're going to you're going to have
[1:52:15] Okay, good. So, the question is, do we
[1:52:17] want to make a change for 26? That's really the only question that or or 20, you know, and we want to go
[1:52:23] back for 25. I I'd say leave 25 alone.
[1:52:26] Okay. Do we want to what do we want to
[1:52:28] do for 26? Where where are you at, Mark,
[1:52:30] on that?
[1:52:31] >> I mean, we we the books are open, so why
[1:52:33] not just correct it?
[1:52:35] >> We can just correct it.
[1:52:39] You don't need to do a budget
[1:52:43] how clean the books otherwise
[1:52:46] >> because if if we did three $3,000
[1:52:49] allocation for expenses in the fire
[1:52:51] department then we're also would have to
[1:52:53] take a $3,000 additional transfer from
[1:52:56] the
[1:52:57] >> general fund.
[1:52:59] >> Right.
[1:52:59] >> Yeah. I mean we don't have to. I'm just
[1:53:00] saying if you want it really clean you
[1:53:02] can do it that way. Otherwise there's
[1:53:03] zero money budget for it. So, just know
[1:53:05] that you're going to be over budgeted by
[1:53:06] three grand in sewers.
[1:53:08] >> How are the auditors going to want to
[1:53:10] see it?
[1:53:10] >> They'll be fine anywhere.
[1:53:14] >> What's easier for staff?
[1:53:15] >> Just let me make the change.
[1:53:18] I'll just update you that it's been done
[1:53:20] the night before meeting. I I I don't
[1:53:22] want to go through the hassle of or just
[1:53:24] it just doesn't seem as clean to do the
[1:53:26] budget amendment. So I think if if if we
[1:53:28] have this discussion here and we have a
[1:53:30] consensus that that that's what we're
[1:53:33] going to do is is have the village pay
[1:53:36] for it in 26.
[1:53:38] >> I don't think
[1:53:39] >> this year. This year.
[1:53:40] >> Okay.
[1:53:41] >> That we don't think we need any formal
[1:53:42] action since formal action wasn't taken
[1:53:44] otherwise.
[1:53:45] >> Yeah. I mean I can I'll just send an you
[1:53:47] know a general email to the board and
[1:53:48] blind copy everyone. If I do I'll go
[1:53:50] back and look at the budget code to make
[1:53:52] sure that number is right. If it's
[1:53:54] incorrect for whatever reason and it's
[1:53:56] higher than that, I'll just let you the
[1:53:57] board know. But
[1:53:57] >> because there's been a lot of costs, you
[1:53:59] know, in my mind, maybe I'm wrong.
[1:54:01] >> Some of those are directly build at
[1:54:02] Richmond too at not 35. I know.
[1:54:06] >> I have a feeling that if we build every
[1:54:08] cost to the sewer fund, it would be way
[1:54:11] more than what we do.
[1:54:14] >> If we had to if we actually accounted
[1:54:16] for every single minute of staff time
[1:54:18] devoted Oh, yeah. to
[1:54:20] >> Yeah, I know. So,
[1:54:21] >> I know. I I no I think what fun is
[1:54:24] >> you know the 26 is fine you don't go
[1:54:26] back that's im you know
[1:54:30] >> long as we correct it now
[1:54:33] I appreciate it
[1:54:35] >> all right so you have this agendaized as
[1:54:38] various sewer utility costs are is that
[1:54:40] >> Nope that's not okay then the next
[1:54:42] paragraph I don't know if you all are
[1:54:44] aware the sewer district came over here
[1:54:46] with a200,000
[1:54:49] so far we paid off about $800 $100,000
[1:54:52] for the upgrade for the Sussex plant.
[1:54:54] And this is the first time in 30 years
[1:54:56] we've ever had to do that. There's
[1:54:58] another $24,000 that's due. Um this is
[1:55:02] actually going to bankrupt us, the sewer
[1:55:04] fund, because if we that money was set
[1:55:06] aside per the state, we have to keep so
[1:55:08] much money on hand for repairs. We have
[1:55:10] to do that. If we break up a road and
[1:55:12] have to go into the road, we're looking
[1:55:14] a couple hundred thousand dollar just by
[1:55:16] breaking up the road, having somebody
[1:55:18] there doing whatever they need to do and
[1:55:20] checking the problem. We're going to
[1:55:22] have to start borrowing money because we
[1:55:25] paid off this this this um this upgrade
[1:55:29] thing that's going to benefit everybody
[1:55:31] that's coming on because here we're
[1:55:33] talking about K. We're talking about
[1:55:34] this is going to benefit the the people.
[1:55:37] And I also talked to Dan about this and
[1:55:39] he said, "Well, we don't do it now, but
[1:55:42] we'll do it when it happens and then
[1:55:43] we'll reimburse the the the the fund."
[1:55:46] But at that time, why would you
[1:55:48] reimburse?
[1:55:50] I think it should be done. We should
[1:55:52] have help now what benefits the people
[1:55:54] online so we're not have to borrow money
[1:55:56] to do some repairs that's going to be
[1:55:58] necessary down the road being an older
[1:56:00] system. I'm shocked that we don't have
[1:56:02] issues because of how bad the system was
[1:56:04] installed originally
[1:56:06] and and I just think something needs to
[1:56:08] be done. I know when this started the
[1:56:10] town of Lisbon took over the loan. They
[1:56:13] took out the loan for everything to buy
[1:56:16] into the plant to buy and we had to pay
[1:56:19] him back. It took us everyone could go
[1:56:21] on a payment plan for 10 years and
[1:56:23] that's what we did. So every nobody had
[1:56:25] that kind of money to do it. And so I'm
[1:56:27] just asking why does a a sewer fund have
[1:56:30] to pay it all? You know, why can't why
[1:56:34] can't the village step forward say,
[1:56:36] "Hey, okay, we we are going to be
[1:56:39] expanding our district and this is going
[1:56:41] to be a fun and and I just I want some
[1:56:44] fair play. Why do the 452 pe uh
[1:56:47] homeowners have to be paying this
[1:56:49] $824,000
[1:56:52] alone?"
[1:56:54] >> You're asking me?
[1:56:54] >> Yeah. Um because it's a sewer cost,
[1:56:58] >> okay?
[1:56:59] >> And it's not a cost of people that are
[1:57:01] not on sewer currently. And if you took
[1:57:04] the board took action on this before I
[1:57:05] was here and you had
[1:57:07] >> you had Ellers come in and give you an
[1:57:09] option. You could borrow or you could
[1:57:11] take it from the reserves. Decided to
[1:57:13] take it from the reserves.
[1:57:14] >> Well, yeah, because
[1:57:15] >> you'd be paying back the money anyways
[1:57:16] after you borrowed for it
[1:57:18] >> over sewer rates over a long period of
[1:57:20] time, which is exactly what we're doing
[1:57:22] now. You're paying it back over a long
[1:57:24] period of time. from sewer rates. And as
[1:57:25] soon as Yes. you get sewer expand your
[1:57:28] sewer service area, get more sewer
[1:57:30] customers online,
[1:57:32] >> Mhm.
[1:57:32] >> they pay a connection fee. Part of that
[1:57:34] connection fee is to replenish the costs
[1:57:36] of future expenses for sewer, just as
[1:57:40] you did back when you bought into the
[1:57:42] sewer district.
[1:57:43] >> We were the only ones in it in the town
[1:57:45] here. And so it wasn't the whole area.
[1:57:48] It was we had to pay our fair share. Not
[1:57:50] a dollar came out of the citizens
[1:57:52] pockets. we paid for it over whatever
[1:57:55] and the town made sure that they took
[1:57:57] out a loan for it. I'm just saying when
[1:58:00] I talked to you originally, Dan, you had
[1:58:02] said that we could get reimbursed as new
[1:58:04] people come online and now you're not saying that anymore.
[1:58:09] >> I just said that you would new users are
[1:58:12] going to pay fees to get online which is
[1:58:15] going to co help supplement cost for
[1:58:17] future use and
[1:58:19] >> right
[1:58:20] >> for the capacity that they're using.
[1:58:22] Okay. Is the
[1:58:23] >> which is essentially the same thing.
[1:58:24] >> Is is is the sewer fund ever going to be
[1:58:27] reimbursed
[1:58:29] ever from future users for that $825,000
[1:58:32] that we forced to pay?
[1:58:34] >> It will be made up over fees and you're
[1:58:36] going to charge fees to new users as
[1:58:38] well as that. So when that happens in
[1:58:41] years down the road,
[1:58:43] >> it's going to benefit new people, not
[1:58:45] the people online. That's what I have a
[1:58:47] problem with. And because you you bought
[1:58:49] in an facilities upgrade, you had money
[1:58:52] in reserves to pay for it. When we spend
[1:58:54] money in general, the general fund, we
[1:58:57] buy a piece of equipment.
[1:58:59] >> We don't go, we don't then replenish
[1:59:02] that exactly for the same amount that we
[1:59:05] had. We want to make sure that we have
[1:59:06] enough money in there that's legally
[1:59:08] required. If we have more, great. We're
[1:59:10] not trying to recover $800,000
[1:59:13] from sewer.
[1:59:14] >> Exactly. I know that. So, so no, we're
[1:59:17] not going to make sure that we have we
[1:59:19] replace that whole entire amount. We're
[1:59:21] going to make sure that we have enough
[1:59:22] that's required and over time that that
[1:59:24] amount will build up.
[1:59:25] >> I understand that. But
[1:59:26] >> fees go up. Yeah. I mean, I understand
[1:59:28] that and that's why our fees are going
[1:59:30] up. Everybody's taxes are going up.
[1:59:31] That's that's indisputable. But I'm just
[1:59:34] saying that when we have time comes that
[1:59:36] we have to borrow money to fix the
[1:59:38] repair,
[1:59:40] >> then we'll have to borrow it.
[1:59:41] >> We will have to borrow it. And I'm just
[1:59:44] saying,
[1:59:46] you know, that even I have even written
[1:59:47] on here the 825,000 if even if we're
[1:59:50] split somehow to help the district out
[1:59:53] instead of bankrupting them and to
[1:59:55] borrow money down the road. And that's
[1:59:57] just what I'm saying.
[1:59:58] >> Well, and we can certainly look at if if
[2:00:01] that situation comes up, we did the same
[2:00:03] thing with the TID. We borrowed money
[2:00:04] from ourselves to pay back for the TID.
[2:00:06] We could look at that as an option to
[2:00:07] save money for the utility of in case
[2:00:09] you know interest rates are incredibly
[2:00:11] high that you don't want to borrow the
[2:00:13] money through ellers or through
[2:00:16] >> state bank or something like that.
[2:00:17] That's completely up to the board how
[2:00:18] they want to fund that practice.
[2:00:19] >> So the new people in a year or two or
[2:00:21] three are going to benefit from all the
[2:00:23] upgrades that the current people are
[2:00:25] using.
[2:00:26] >> They're going to pay an impact fee.
[2:00:28] They're going to pay a $5,000 $10,000
[2:00:30] connection fee
[2:00:31] >> that's going to uh you know reimburse
[2:00:34] for push. But that's what I heard said.
[2:00:35] Yeah.
[2:00:36] >> All the sewer users are coming out of
[2:00:37] the same pot, right? Even new ones that
[2:00:39] are
[2:00:40] >> same. No. I mean, so there's
[2:00:42] >> there's like
[2:00:44] >> it's not a new
[2:00:46] sharing the same utility.
[2:00:47] >> And I I will point out say there is a
[2:00:49] catastrophic failure in the old system
[2:00:52] under current day.
[2:00:53] >> Yeah.
[2:00:54] >> That fund if it is depleted, who's going
[2:00:56] to be paying for it?
[2:00:58] >> We 452 homes.
[2:01:01] >> Everyone is going to pay for it.
[2:01:02] >> Oh, let me get this straight now. Say
[2:01:04] that again.
[2:01:05] >> If the if there is a catastrophic
[2:01:07] failure that exceeds the current fund
[2:01:09] balance of the sewer fund, who has to
[2:01:13] pay for that?
[2:01:15] >> I thought, and maybe I'm wrong and and
[2:01:18] thank you. Um I thought the sewer fund
[2:01:20] had to pay for that. The foreign 52
[2:01:22] homes. So you're saying the whole
[2:01:24] village pays for it.
[2:01:26] >> Who is going to pay for it?
[2:01:27] >> That's what I'm saying. Well, the sewer
[2:01:30] fund take out the loan.
[2:01:31] >> If the sewer fund is depleted, who's
[2:01:32] going to pay for it?
[2:01:33] >> Exactly.
[2:01:34] >> So, there's only two options.
[2:01:36] >> Yeah.
[2:01:36] >> It's either user fees or everyone.
[2:01:38] >> Yeah.
[2:01:41] >> But
[2:01:43] >> if you take out a loan,
[2:01:46] it's going to be paid back by the users
[2:01:48] of the sewer.
[2:01:49] >> Yeah.
[2:01:50] >> Right.
[2:01:51] >> That's what it should be. So therefore,
[2:01:54] why should the users of the sewer not
[2:01:55] pay for the why should the users of the
[2:01:58] eight users of the sewer not pay for the
[2:02:00] 800? Answer that question.
[2:02:02] >> Because
[2:02:04] it's for the benefit of the future users
[2:02:06] for the the village here on K over here.
[2:02:10] They're going to benefit from the new
[2:02:12] upgrades.
[2:02:13] >> But it's also to preserve the prior
[2:02:15] infrastructure that was put in place.
[2:02:17] >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I understand. And they
[2:02:19] have to we
[2:02:20] >> we have way more old users than we do
[2:02:22] future users.
[2:02:23] >> Yeah.
[2:02:24] >> And
[2:02:24] >> probably you're right
[2:02:26] >> because it's never going to happen
[2:02:27] again. What was happened to these people
[2:02:29] over here? It's never going to happen.
[2:02:32] >> I mean I I can I can totally sympathize
[2:02:34] if there's some new injustice that's
[2:02:37] going on, but we don't we don't have any
[2:02:39] new users.
[2:02:41] >> I mean they're they're so minimal.
[2:02:42] >> Okay. I personally and that's why I I
[2:02:44] just think because the town stepped up
[2:02:47] to help that the villagers stepped up to
[2:02:49] help rather than depleting this fund so
[2:02:52] much. That's all.
[2:02:54] >> But in one in one thing you're saying
[2:02:57] it's our money. Let's use it only for
[2:02:59] us.
[2:02:59] >> But then you're also saying if we don't
[2:03:01] have the money, everyone needs to help
[2:03:03] us.
[2:03:04] >> Well, you said that and I I you said the
[2:03:06] village is going to, you know, if we
[2:03:07] have a problem.
[2:03:08] >> He he did not say that. He was he was he
[2:03:10] was trying to get
[2:03:10] >> It was a hypothetical. Yeah, I
[2:03:12] understand that. But that's what I stood
[2:03:14] understood. So, and I understand and I
[2:03:16] don't want to go back and forth on this.
[2:03:17] It's just
[2:03:18] >> But we have to we have to we have to put
[2:03:20] this to bed.
[2:03:20] >> Okay.
[2:03:21] >> There is no more sanitary district.
[2:03:24] There is no more us of the or it is the
[2:03:27] we of the future.
[2:03:27] >> I know that.
[2:03:28] >> But you keep going back to it though.
[2:03:30] >> It's the sewer fund.
[2:03:32] >> It's a sewer fund.
[2:03:34] >> And one day that's gonna be gone.
[2:03:37] It will be gone because the the million2
[2:03:39] that that the sewer district borrow over
[2:03:42] to the sewer fund is being depleted. The
[2:03:45] million two that Rick and I have
[2:03:48] hundreds of dollars in this thing. Other
[2:03:50] people have hundreds of dollars in this
[2:03:52] thing that we're depleting for the
[2:03:55] upgrade. And and that we're paying for
[2:03:57] that directly. We are paying for that.
[2:04:00] Nobody else is
[2:04:01] >> because you're the only ones using it.
[2:04:03] But down the road, and I know that's
[2:04:05] your point of I know nobody wants to pay
[2:04:07] for for something they don't get. I
[2:04:09] understand that. But K over here is
[2:04:12] going to be sewarded over here, you
[2:04:14] know.
[2:04:15] >> Yeah. So then they would get lumped into
[2:04:16] this 452 and then it's going to be 500
[2:04:19] people or 600 or 1000.
[2:04:20] >> How are they going to pay? How are they
[2:04:22] going to help us replete our
[2:04:25] >> not as much about how much goes in
[2:04:27] there? But if your pipe fails, the guy
[2:04:29] on K is going to be helping pay for your
[2:04:31] pipe up there. And vice versa, if his
[2:04:33] pipe fails, you're going to help pay for
[2:04:35] his.
[2:04:35] >> But Linda, it's no different.
[2:04:36] >> Everybody in the sewers all together,
[2:04:37] >> it's no different than the what we talk
[2:04:39] about with failed septic systems or
[2:04:41] failed wells or something like that. And
[2:04:44] from a personal standpoint, if I save up
[2:04:45] a bunch of money and I've got $50,000 in
[2:04:48] bank account and yes, I did it and then
[2:04:50] my well goes goes out, then there goes
[2:04:53] half of that. It's depleted. I don't ask
[2:04:55] how he was going to replace it. It's
[2:04:57] going to be the user, which is me, to
[2:04:59] replace the money that I've saved.
[2:05:01] >> See, and then when this was set up years
[2:05:03] ago, there was a district one and a
[2:05:05] district two. I don't know if you know
[2:05:07] that. Senator Distant number one is us
[2:05:09] on on sewer now. Sister District two
[2:05:13] that's really bad sewer systems, septic
[2:05:16] systems, is the one over off of um is it
[2:05:20] Richmond Road that they're coming in
[2:05:22] with new with new wells that the pore is
[2:05:24] paying for. We know that those subject
[2:05:26] systems are bad over there. We were told
[2:05:28] that they were they were sanitary
[2:05:31] district number two. And if each of the
[2:05:33] district had an issue, the issue we
[2:05:37] would pay for our own, they pay for
[2:05:39] their own. That's how it was presented.
[2:05:41] So that's why I guess I just kind of,
[2:05:44] you know, thinking, well, they're going
[2:05:45] to benefit from our upgrades that we're
[2:05:48] paying for and we are paying for it on
[2:05:50] our backs. We are paying for it. Why
[2:05:53] doesn't why can't we be reimbursed
[2:05:55] somewhat for that?
[2:05:56] >> It make more sense. The more users you
[2:05:58] have on a system type like this, you
[2:06:00] want
[2:06:02] >> I guess let's relate it to a school
[2:06:03] district. Okay? I don't I know we're not
[2:06:05] a school district, but a school district
[2:06:08] imposes a referendum today.
[2:06:12] >> Next year, 10 new families come into the
[2:06:15] school district.
[2:06:18] How do they pay for how do they pay for
[2:06:20] their impact
[2:06:21] >> on the system
[2:06:23] >> through impact fees and user fees?
[2:06:26] >> There's no impact fees in schools.
[2:06:28] >> No, no, no. I'm just saying if we're
[2:06:30] equating it to to to
[2:06:33] a sewer
[2:06:34] >> and saying they there's an impact fee in
[2:06:36] the sewer that
[2:06:38] >> So, can we have an impact fee then that
[2:06:41] will be attached? We make sure.
[2:06:42] >> Yeah. I mean, that's all part of the
[2:06:43] discussion with the sewer service is
[2:06:45] we're we're going to revitalize the
[2:06:47] code, which is why we kind of held it
[2:06:50] off because we have to add
[2:06:51] >> I don't think any amount could be in
[2:06:53] there though. There should be the amount
[2:06:54] at the time because it might be too low.
[2:06:57] Are you going to put a dollar amount for
[2:06:58] impact fee?
[2:06:59] >> There will be a dollar amount. It'll be
[2:07:00] based on, you know, future expended
[2:07:04] costs and, you know, whatever else that both kind of works with us on. But,
[2:07:08] I mean, there's an impact fee and a
[2:07:09] sewer connection fee now. I mean,
[2:07:12] >> so it'll be large. It'll be larger most
[2:07:14] likely,
[2:07:14] >> most likely when we move forward. So,
[2:07:16] >> yeah.
[2:07:17] >> And then that will be in a pot of money
[2:07:20] that will sit there and they might
[2:07:22] complain for the fact that they have to
[2:07:24] pay $25,000 and the original people only
[2:07:27] had to pay $15,000
[2:07:30] >> or whatever it is. And I and I
[2:07:32] understand you your your viewpoints and
[2:07:34] I know I'm an odd
[2:07:36] >> I I don't I I'm I guess here's my ask. I
[2:07:39] don't understand your viewpoint.
[2:07:41] >> Okay.
[2:07:41] >> What is the ask of the board today for this?
[2:07:45] >> I guess I'm for one thing. The important
[2:07:47] thing was that the fire station pay
[2:07:49] their their costs and then I wanted to
[2:07:52] talk about this $825,000
[2:07:55] that so we'll be left with $375,000.
[2:07:58] one issue that money is gone. Now we
[2:08:01] have to take
[2:08:02] >> what is what is the solution that you
[2:08:03] want the board to
[2:08:04] >> village to come in to help since they took out a loan in the beginning.
[2:08:08] >> Help with what though?
[2:08:09] >> If if we have any issue that we're we're
[2:08:12] bankrupt because we paid off the 825,000
[2:08:15] and people on K over here is going to
[2:08:17] benefit from the 825,000 improvement
[2:08:19] because there's always continuous
[2:08:21] expenses that we have paid over the
[2:08:23] years. Yes. to Sussex, but nothing like
[2:08:26] this $825,000.
[2:08:29] So, this is a 30-year project that
[2:08:31] they're doing that they have to upgrade.
[2:08:33] >> But we don't So, we don't have any users
[2:08:35] on Highway K.
[2:08:36] >> We will.
[2:08:37] >> We We do not know that.
[2:08:38] >> I know.
[2:08:39] >> We have not approved that.
[2:08:40] >> Okay.
[2:08:41] >> And we do we do not know that.
[2:08:42] >> Okay. And you know, this is another
[2:08:44] thing. Who pays for a fund pays for
[2:08:46] that? So, we all pay for those fund
[2:08:48] costs over there, don't we?
[2:08:51] I mean we haven't really even got to
[2:08:53] that point.
[2:08:53] >> You told me you told me that the whole village pays for it Dan
[2:08:57] including the sewer district. We pay
[2:08:59] >> we pay we pay for the study that we're
[2:09:02] talking about for sewer. There is a
[2:09:05] separate cost.
[2:09:06] >> So we are paying for it too. The the
[2:09:08] sewer fund is is getting we're paying
[2:09:10] for our taxes the taxes what we're
[2:09:13] paying on our taxes.
[2:09:15] >> It's money that was set aside a long
[2:09:17] time ago and sitting in a fun bonded. I
[2:09:19] know I know that you said but it's still the towns or the villages
[2:09:24] money that we have paid into. So in
[2:09:26] essence
[2:09:26] >> so you're yes everybody is paying.
[2:09:30] >> So in essence we have paid our own fair
[2:09:32] share continue to pay fair and yet we
[2:09:34] pay for it in this fund over here for
[2:09:36] their sewer.
[2:09:36] >> You're paying your tax bill. Yes
[2:09:38] >> I know I know that's another thing we're
[2:09:40] paying for. So if if the ask is that if
[2:09:44] there's a large expenditure and the
[2:09:47] village has to asssure that the senate
[2:09:51] >> their users does not go bankrupt. I I I
[2:09:54] think we've heard that that that the
[2:09:56] village will will make sure that that does not happen
[2:09:59] >> that we're helped by the village.
[2:10:01] >> I I I mean and and what what that means is is it will have to be
[2:10:05] debated at and figured out but yes we're
[2:10:07] not going to let it
[2:10:08] >> go bankrupt. Oh, you know, I I know
[2:10:11] because not being in in in the on the
[2:10:13] utility, you don't understand what's all
[2:10:15] going on. So, I just felt it was the
[2:10:17] time that we need to bring this all out,
[2:10:19] put it to bed, and let's just get it
[2:10:21] squared away so you guys can realize in
[2:10:24] five years if sewer's going on over
[2:10:26] there. Wait a minute now. How about
[2:10:28] reimbursing, you know, impact fee for
[2:10:30] what we had to pay for the $825,000?
[2:10:34] That's all.
[2:10:35] >> So, I think so. Again, we we're going to
[2:10:37] have a one uh issue on the next agenda
[2:10:39] for formal action. The uh the um fire
[2:10:43] department, we're taking care of that as
[2:10:45] was agreed to tonight, which was doesn't
[2:10:47] need formal action. And this last one we
[2:10:49] we've discussed and I think we have an
[2:10:53] understanding, right?
[2:10:55] >> So, I think to to your point, Mark, I
[2:10:57] mean I mean and Linda, does does this
[2:11:00] clear things?
[2:11:01] >> It's fine. Well, does it does it address
[2:11:05] these concerns moving forward? Because I
[2:11:07] think the board wants to to make sure
[2:11:09] that we're adequately listening and
[2:11:11] addressing it instead of just we don't
[2:11:13] want to feel like you're getting pushed away and then it still fers and
[2:11:17] we and you feel as though we need to
[2:11:19] come back here in a month or two. Are we
[2:11:22] >> have we did we resolved the the main
[2:11:24] issues that you had?
[2:11:25] >> I I think so. I think so. And I'll try
[2:11:28] to do better, but this is the sore spot.
[2:11:30] No, I I think I think having some stuff
[2:11:32] written out tonight and having it on the
[2:11:34] agenda was I think we we got there and
[2:11:36] this this was this was helpful.
[2:11:38] >> We're going to have to tackle any
[2:11:39] problem that comes our way.
[2:11:42] >> Right. So, the last item tonight is uh
[2:11:45] discussion and necessary action
[2:11:46] regarding the replacement plan for
[2:11:48] engine 30.
[2:11:51] uh bringing this back. I had to send you
[2:11:54] guys all the list of pairs that you had
[2:11:57] requested from the fire department going
[2:12:00] back to 4.
[2:12:03] Um
[2:12:04] >> so when I sent out packets on Friday, I
[2:12:07] sent a follow-up email with a 54 page
[2:12:10] PDF attachment. I did not print it
[2:12:12] because it was 54 pages
[2:12:14] >> and I I didn't really want it printed
[2:12:16] and she asked me because of the fact
[2:12:18] that they're just a bunch of repair
[2:12:19] bills. you guys want to look at them,
[2:12:22] they're there. Um the I had I did have a
[2:12:25] discussion with um Mr. Oman regarding
[2:12:28] this too and he had talked back about
[2:12:30] contract negotiations though it wasn't
[2:12:32] written that they did talk about a time
[2:12:35] frame of around 12 years replacement for
[2:12:37] that fire engine. So um I'm not asking
[2:12:40] that we make formal action to replace
[2:12:44] the fire truck. I'm just asking that we
[2:12:46] discuss authorizing, getting the
[2:12:50] coordinating, getting a group together
[2:12:52] to even discuss
[2:12:54] potential replacement because once you
[2:12:57] put that order in for a firet truck,
[2:12:59] which we're still probably going to be
[2:13:00] six, eight months, eight months away
[2:13:02] after we spec out what we want, it's
[2:13:05] going to be a two to three year way
[2:13:06] after that.
[2:13:07] >> Will you put that in the budget then for
[2:13:09] that?
[2:13:09] >> Yeah, we already got
[2:13:11] >> money. There's money in there already.
[2:13:12] We're doing 200 and some thousand in.
[2:13:14] And I had in my notes that we were at uh
[2:13:17] in talking to to Joe as well as the fire
[2:13:20] chief in previous meetings, we were at 12 to 15 years on the fire engine
[2:13:26] replacement and and our second fund
[2:13:28] calculation has it at 13 years. I went
[2:13:30] back and looked at that
[2:13:31] >> and 13 years would be right on par if we
[2:13:34] started discussions now because they're literally three years out for
[2:13:38] some. summer, too. But I mean, we're
[2:13:39] going to be talking about it for six to
[2:13:41] eight months. That's kind of how what
[2:13:43] happened with the tender as well.
[2:13:45] >> I I I wasn't comfortable off, you know,
[2:13:47] uh moving forward with with the purchase
[2:13:50] at this point or authorizing that, but
[2:13:52] if if we wanted to take action to form
[2:13:54] the committee or form a group to to look
[2:13:57] at it, um I would have more comfort with
[2:13:59] that. Um, and I think Rob made some good
[2:14:03] points at the last meeting that can be
[2:14:05] pushed off a little bit longer with with
[2:14:07] some repairs. Um, I guess I wanted to
[2:14:10] kind of and then the whole how that
[2:14:13] engine is used over there and that that
[2:14:15] engine is going into Piwaukee. You guys,
[2:14:18] that engine's going into Piwaukee a lot
[2:14:20] and it's serving as an ambulance. I
[2:14:22] don't I'm not comfortable with the way
[2:14:23] that we're doing this this at all. So,
[2:14:25] this this has to be part of a bigger
[2:14:27] discussion. Me, too. before we move
[2:14:28] forward with
[2:14:29] >> Thank you for bringing that up.
[2:14:31] >> I'm not saying that we don't don't that
[2:14:33] we don't you know have to get this this engine and replace it in 3 years
[2:14:39] but I'm saying it needs we need a larger
[2:14:40] discussion.
[2:14:41] >> Exactly. or I don't want to cheap out on
[2:14:43] it, but I also want to just buy one just
[2:14:45] for the sake of buying one because
[2:14:47] >> sure
[2:14:50] that doesn't mean that we have to pull a
[2:14:51] trigger, but
[2:14:52] >> should at least consider it given what
[2:14:54] the time frame is that we have budgeted
[2:14:56] and what was discussed
[2:14:58] >> not written any contract but discussed
[2:14:59] during
[2:15:02] right now.
[2:15:03] >> What is the fire apparatus team? Well,
[2:15:06] at the time we did the tender, it was
[2:15:09] the deputy chief from Pewwaukee, the
[2:15:11] fire chief from Pewwaukee, um, Mark
[2:15:14] Poppy, and Doug Braum, and then myself.
[2:15:20] » Is that changed now? He's on the fire
[2:15:22] advisory,
[2:15:24] uh, Mr. Braum.
[2:15:26] >> Um, no, no, no, no. Well, no. Doug, Doug
[2:15:29] is on the, uh, commission.
[2:15:33] >> Commission advisory.
[2:15:34] >> Yeah. So, and Rob has come uh uh to the
[2:15:38] what do you call the the joint
[2:15:41] >> which has been which has been um the
[2:15:44] administrator, the chief elected
[2:15:46] official and one other person from the
[2:15:48] city, the village and the village.
[2:15:51] Um,
[2:15:53] >> as far as specking out a truck, I mean,
[2:15:54] obviously we want to take input from
[2:15:57] what the back fighter department has to
[2:15:59] say, but I think we were using having
[2:16:01] Doug be there as kind of the village
[2:16:03] representative, understanding what the
[2:16:05] villages needs were or apparatus, and
[2:16:08] then I was in there just to make sure
[2:16:09] they weren't spending money like this.
[2:16:12] >> Well, I mean,
[2:16:14] I I love Doug, but I mean, I might feel
[2:16:17] a little more comfortable with Rob being
[2:16:19] I mean,
[2:16:21] Uh, can can we have both?
[2:16:24] >> I don't know anything about specking out
[2:16:25] a fire truck,
[2:16:26] >> but I think when they're talking about
[2:16:28] items, maybe you'd be better at at at
[2:16:31] kind of hearing what is more of a
[2:16:33] >> We have no recourse against Mr. Brown.
[2:16:35] >> Yeah,
[2:16:37] >> I think that's what he's trying to say.
[2:16:38] >> Yeah,
[2:16:38] >> he he he he really loves the fire
[2:16:40] department and he loves to have stuff
[2:16:42] for him. Yeah.
[2:16:43] >> While I was on it, I don't know the
[2:16:44] insides if this pump's going to be
[2:16:46] better than that pump, right? You know,
[2:16:48] this or that.
[2:16:50] Although if I mean obvious something
[2:16:52] obvious like
[2:16:54] you know why do we need 10 light bars on
[2:16:56] instead of two but
[2:16:59] >> we'll do well
[2:17:01] >> right so let's let's move forward with
[2:17:02] this and then we'll we'll we'll kind of
[2:17:04] maybe circle back
[2:17:04] >> say we don't have to have the committee
[2:17:06] decided
[2:17:07] >> right so maybe we'll circle back on that team at the next meeting
[2:17:11] >> y
[2:17:11] >> all right so do we want to do want a
[2:17:13] motion then
[2:17:14] >> uh yeah please
[2:17:17] >> uh so is there a motion to authorize the
[2:17:19] village administ to begin coordinating
[2:17:21] with the fire apparatus team to begin uh
[2:17:24] fire truck configuration.
[2:17:25] >> So moved.
[2:17:26] >> Seconded.
[2:17:27] >> Any discussion?
[2:17:30] >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
[2:17:32] >> Say nay.
[2:17:33] >> Motion carries. Um is there a motion to
[2:17:36] adjurnn?
[2:17:37] >> I make a motion.
[2:17:38] >> Second. All those in favor say I. I.
[2:17:41] >> Say nay. Motion carries. We're journed
[2:17:44] at 8:49.
[2:17:47] It's a sore spot with with us original.
[2:17:51] >> Oh, that's