[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

2026 08 12 VB Video

Transcript