[0:02] All right. Good afternoon. I will call

[0:04] to order uh the village board meeting of

[0:07] August 10th.

[0:10] Let's see. We got Anna and Ter. Okay.

[0:12] Yeah, we're good to go. Uh Erin, can you

[0:14] please call the role, please?

[0:16] » Yes. Trusty Saunders

[0:17] » Here.

[0:18] » Trusty Saraban

[0:21] » Here.

[0:22] » Trustee Casper here. Trusty Venevon

[0:26] Hoben Deman and um Hower will be absent

[0:31] tonight and then tr uh President Buckley

[0:34] » Here. Thank you.

[0:37] » All right. Uh first order of business is

[0:39] the consent agenda. We've got three

[0:41] items on the agenda. The minutes of the

[0:43] regular meeting on July 20th, the check

[0:45] register from July of 2026, and the

[0:48] strategic plan quarterly report.

[0:51] Any questions or concerns?

[0:54] And hearing none, I'd entertain a

[0:56] motion. Jen will be looking at you a lot

[0:58] today.

[0:58] » Yeah, I I kind of had

[0:59] » I'm seconding because why not?

[1:01] » Well, I mean they I guess you can if you

[1:03] can chime in.

[1:03] » Um

[1:05] real quick uh thank you to uh Anna for

[1:08] the uh quarterly report. And with that

[1:10] said, I move the village board approve

[1:12] the consent agenda as presented.

[1:14] » Thank you. Do I hear a second from

[1:16] » Second?

[1:17] » Thank you, Anna. Excellent. Uh any

[1:20] further discussion? Hearing none, all

[1:22] those in favor say I. I

[1:23] » I

[1:24] » Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

[1:28] » Next under the report of the village M

[1:29] officers, Mr. Village attorney.

[1:31] » Nothing to report today, Mr. President.

[1:33] » Yes, village manager.

[1:34] » Sure. Um Lake Drive will be one way

[1:36] northbound only. So no southbound

[1:39] traffic um starting in a few days on

[1:41] Wednesday, August 12th for two weeks. Uh

[1:44] so we ask the public to utilize detours

[1:46] and allow for additional commuting time

[1:48] and appreciate everyone's patience. I

[1:51] have notified both the side and Fox

[1:54] Point who will also be sending out that

[1:56] information to their residents as well.

[2:00] » All right. Thank you. Um

[2:03] it should be noted that SEX is now has a

[2:07] a placard in their front door that says

[2:10] that they are closing on August 23rd and

[2:13] reopening hopefully September 23rd. Um,

[2:17] next I just have to call out the fact

[2:20] that tomorrow is a election primary and

[2:22] I hope that everybody in White Fishbay

[2:24] votes and good luck to our staff who are

[2:28] going to be here for the entire day and

[2:31] then some. And and finally, Sounds of

[2:34] Summer is on this Saturday and I hope to

[2:36] see everybody there. Uh thanks in

[2:38] advance to the Wishb Civic Foundation

[2:41] and um village resident Steve Begoon for

[2:44] playing on our stage next Saturday from

[2:48] 5 to 10. I think that's the answer.

[2:51] Any miscellaneous trustee reports? Uh

[2:54] one question. Uh,

[2:57] I know that it's a uh private business,

[3:02] but are we going to put the Sendex

[3:05] closing date on the weekly rec the

[3:08] weekly construction update?

[3:12] » So far, we haven't been communicating

[3:14] anything. Um, I'm not sure I'm opposed,

[3:16] but I can ask them. I know that they've

[3:18] been directly communicating with

[3:19] customers as well.

[3:20] » I understand. It's just if I

[3:24] I I wouldn't say yes for you know just

[3:28] any business in in the district but

[3:30] since this is uh something that we are

[3:33] sending weekly updates on I don't I I

[3:35] think it would be it wouldn't hurt us

[3:39] especially since traffic is going to

[3:40] already be a mess in that area during

[3:44] the closing um or doing especially the

[3:47] beginning of the closing. Um, I think it

[3:49] it if if people see that and maybe don't

[3:53] go that way on on purpose, that might be

[3:56] helpful.

[3:58] » Agreed.

[4:00] » Any other

[4:02] » Yep. Go ahead.

[4:03] » I was just going to say I was thinking

[4:04] the same thing. Agreed.

[4:06] » Well, then I just know.

[4:10] » All right. Any other trustee reports?

[4:14] Then hearing none, I will move on to

[4:16] petitions and communications. This is an

[4:18] opportunity for anyone in the audience

[4:19] to address the village board on any

[4:21] issue that is not on the current agenda.

[4:23] Is there anyone here for an item not on

[4:26] the current agenda?

[4:29] Once, twice. Okay, we'll close

[4:31] petitions, communications, and move on

[4:32] to general business. We've got sixish

[4:35] items on the agenda. The first is a

[4:38] discussion on the 2027 village budget

[4:41] projects, priorities, and visioning.

[4:44] Jamie, come on down.

[4:51] » All right. So, [clears throat] this is

[4:53] something that we added a couple years

[4:55] ago kind of just to get feedback from

[4:57] the board on any other items they might

[4:59] want us to research for the budget. uh

[5:01] we have done a lot of work in the last

[5:03] couple of years to kind of help give us

[5:06] guidelines or planning documents for

[5:08] what we want in the budget. So we've

[5:09] obviously adopted our strategic plan. We

[5:12] did our capital improvement plan last

[5:13] year and then also a finan financial

[5:15] management plan with Ellers which I

[5:17] think does guide a lot of this. So this

[5:19] is kind of looking for anything outside

[5:21] of that. Um I did add some other

[5:24] information this year kind of on the

[5:26] levy limit increases and the net new

[5:28] construction. Um we are anticipating

[5:31] that our 2027

[5:33] budget will have an allowable increase

[5:36] about the same as the 2026 budget which

[5:38] was about 60,000. So then that does get

[5:40] us into using the abated debt to pay for

[5:43] more kind of capital items. So that's

[5:45] all explained here. Um so kind of

[5:49] getting at just if there's any other

[5:51] priorities you want us to research. And

[5:53] then the other thing that we were

[5:54] looking for feedback on that did not

[5:57] make it into the memo unfortunately was

[5:59] on um last year the health department we

[6:02] kind of gave more money to above what

[6:05] their request was and if there's a

[6:06] desire to do that again um if that's

[6:09] something we should kind of be building

[6:10] into the budget or if we want to see how

[6:11] it shakes out or that. So that is what I

[6:15] have for you guys and obviously any

[6:17] questions on the memo I'm going to

[6:19] answer. Any trustee questions? Comments?

[6:23] » I I have a few I have a few things to

[6:25] mention. Um first of all, uh thank you

[6:30] uh for all of this and then all of

[6:32] what's to come. Uh secondly, my opinion

[6:35] would be we should wait till things

[6:36] shake out with the health department. Um

[6:39] I,

[6:41] you know, let's hope that they're not in

[6:42] the same situation they were uh a year

[6:45] ago, but um you know, I think that um

[6:49] either a you know, we should either we

[6:51] should wait and or um allow someone else

[6:55] in the Northshore to uh um to take a

[6:59] cake at the can. Uh I don't know if

[7:01] anyone else did uh last year, but um

[7:05] maybe this can be a a jumping off point

[7:07] for other people to try to budget a

[7:10] little extra money for the health

[7:11] department as we did last year. Um there

[7:13] are a couple of there are a couple of

[7:16] smaller things that I have interest in

[7:17] the uh uh interest in staff's uh

[7:22] research regarding the budget. They're

[7:24] small because Jamie, as you mentioned,

[7:27] um the roadmap that the board and the

[7:30] staff have laid out over the past few

[7:32] years uh has made this part of the

[7:36] budget process um

[7:39] uh

[7:41] almost a moot point, which is fantastic.

[7:45] Um that said, a couple things that I've

[7:47] thought about. Uh I'm interested in

[7:52] possible increase in training and travel

[7:56] and training um mostly for staff but

[7:59] also potentially for um village board

[8:02] members. And that doesn't necessarily

[8:04] have to mean travel. I mean there is a

[8:06] glut of uh

[8:10] thanks to in part to the the the

[8:14] pandemic now there is a glut of

[8:15] organizations that do online only

[8:19] training uh whether it's live or uh

[8:22] recorded and it's things that don't you

[8:25] know cost a lot you know depending on

[8:26] what the uh depending on what the

[8:28] subject matter is I think it there's

[8:30] probably there are probably things out

[8:32] there that would help um that that would

[8:35] help us that would help us all um just

[8:38] be you know learn more about our our

[8:41] jobs and get it from uh from experts

[8:44] outside of uh outside of the area. Uh

[8:47] you know I think that would start with

[8:48] obviously it would start with department

[8:50] heads uh you know to to see if they have

[8:53] any particular needs. But I know Nyama

[8:55] has done that uh off and on through the

[8:58] years with not only herself but sending

[9:01] uh sending her staff members to to

[9:04] training opportunities. Uh so I think

[9:06] that that is something that that we

[9:08] should be looking into. Um,

[9:13] I'm also interested with

[9:17] the the opening of

[9:21] the opening of Sendex

[9:24] uh next year. I'm very interested in

[9:29] looking into the potential for

[9:33] an a vast increase in or the development

[9:38] of a part-time marketing and

[9:41] communications person.

[9:43] I think that this while Sendex it while

[9:47] it's is just the one business that is

[9:50] opening on Silver Spring Drive, you

[9:52] know, in that we know of in 2027,

[9:55] it is

[9:57] going to be a huge deal in the

[10:00] Northshore and really at the east side

[10:02] in general. I think people are going to

[10:05] um I think people are going to flock to

[10:07] the store and I think we should work

[10:09] with bid. I think we should work with uh

[10:13] with the um

[10:16] uh who am I missing? Uh Civic

[10:18] Foundation. Uh because we're going to

[10:21] have an opportunity in 2027 to market

[10:24] and promote the crap out of White Fish

[10:26] Bay.

[10:27] » Um

[10:29] because and I think this could the

[10:31] opening of Synindex could kickstart

[10:34] other businesses to give a serious look

[10:38] into our village.

[10:40] And I think we should not be we should

[10:44] be very proactive

[10:46] with this and not just rest on our

[10:48] laurels and say, "Oh, well, Cynics

[10:51] opening will take care of itself." We

[10:52] have an opportunity um and I think an

[10:56] obligation

[10:58] to not just let the bid do it, to not

[11:00] just let this I think we should be

[11:04] we should be driving that that train. Uh

[11:07] and I think that

[11:09] I I would like to know

[11:12] some different options and I can

[11:13] certainly talk to you guys later about,

[11:15] you know, the things I have in mind, but

[11:16] the different options that might that

[11:19] that might entail and what the cost

[11:22] might be. I think that would uh I think

[11:25] 2027 is is an opportunity for us to

[11:29] really trumpet our village for a in a

[11:34] lot of different ways. Um and at

[11:39] uh one more thing I really this year I

[11:41] know we always hear from uh I know we

[11:44] always hear and you guys talk to um

[11:47] department heads but I'd be really

[11:49] interested this year in knowing if

[11:51] there's anything

[11:53] in particular that

[11:56] not a big ticket item but

[12:00] something that might be considered a

[12:02] smaller ticket item that they haven't

[12:05] really thought about asking for because

[12:08] they weren't sure if there's money or um

[12:11] you know I I'd be interested in almost a

[12:14] Barbie dreamhouse from a report from all

[12:18] the department heads uh just to just to

[12:21] know you know what they're thinking

[12:24] about as as they move their departments

[12:26] forward. So with that I will

[12:29] see you in my time.

[12:30] » Thank you. Uh Jay, just quick question

[12:33] about your marketing um person position

[12:36] type thing.

[12:38] Are I I think you're talking about the

[12:40] business district, but are you talking

[12:42] about other things of Bay or what?

[12:45] What's your thoughts? Okay. Yeah, I mean

[12:47] I

[12:48] the

[12:50] the b the the district is the jumping

[12:53] off point,

[12:56] but

[12:58] you know this I think there are a lot of

[13:01] things that people don't know about

[13:04] White Fish Bay that they could know or

[13:06] should know or you know are

[13:12] you know that we're not I mean I don't

[13:15] want us to be viewed as some sleepy

[13:16] little village because we're not. There

[13:18] are a lot of great things happening here

[13:20] and I think that uh we have an

[13:23] opportunity

[13:25] with some of the with not only what's

[13:28] happening on Silver Spring, but in other

[13:31] parts of our village, what we've already

[13:33] done at the parks, what we're continuing

[13:35] to do with the parks. Um the

[13:39] um

[13:41] uh I'm sorry I'm blanking on uh but I

[13:46] just I just think that there is an

[13:47] opportunity there for us to just just

[13:51] go.

[13:51] » Yeah. I I I guess I wanted to ask the

[13:53] question cuz um the the village um funds

[13:59] the bid to the tune of 60,000 a year if

[14:02] I think that's right. And so an a lion

[14:05] share of that fund goes to, you know,

[14:09] the the mailers they put out, the social

[14:11] media stuff they do. Um, and and so it's

[14:15] a conversation to say like, well, let's

[14:17] increase the bid funding, which by the

[14:19] way comes through the CDA and comes

[14:20] through the TIFF funds and whatnot. And

[14:22] that so that's an interesting

[14:23] conversation to have. That's why I

[14:25] asked, were you talking about other

[14:27] things?

[14:28] » Yes, I outside of business. I

[14:30] » I do think there are other things like I

[14:31] I can remember

[14:34] I don't remember how many years ago now.

[14:36] Um, we had a part-time communications

[14:38] position. There's a young lady, Jenny

[14:40] Hayden, um, that that did uh that did it

[14:46] was pretty it was pretty basic, but

[14:50] and and maybe that's the, you know,

[14:52] maybe that's the the gradea wagoo beef

[14:55] version of what I'm talking about. Um,

[14:58] but I like I said, I think there is I

[15:01] think this is an opportunity for us as a

[15:03] village in general to um attract people

[15:07] and there are going to there's going to

[15:08] be in uh there's going to be an increase

[15:10] of traffic on Silver Spring because of

[15:12] that. There are going to be changes that

[15:14] are going to be made up and down Port

[15:16] Washington uh and Glendale that you know

[15:20] are a quick jaunt up to Silver Spring

[15:24] and over is you know Whitefish Bay. And

[15:27] so I I think that this is an opportunity

[15:29] that we should grab.

[15:31] » Fair enough. Okay. Uh Anna or Tara, do

[15:36] you have anything to comment on about

[15:38] this

[15:40] budget visioning? Let's see. Let's go

[15:42] with You're both unmuted, so let's go

[15:44] with Anna first.

[15:47] [clears throat]

[15:48] » Are you asking about what Jay just said

[15:50] or

[15:51] » Anything you'd like to comment on? Um,

[15:54] you know, I think the CIP has a lot to

[15:57] it. So, I mean, it's all good stuff that

[15:59] needs work. Um, I always think

[16:02] pedestrian safety, something that's not

[16:04] on that list, I think, would be adding

[16:08] improvements down Hampton, more

[16:11] improvements down Hampton, not just

[16:13] where Santa Monica is. Um,

[16:16] yeah, and like I said, the CIP has a ton

[16:20] of things that

[16:22] make sense.

[16:23] » Just if I could build on on that on

[16:25] Hampton, but also particularly Santa

[16:27] Monica, one of the things that we will

[16:30] have in the next 12-ish months would be

[16:32] two new monument signs on Silver Spring.

[16:36] » Perhaps we could build funding into the

[16:38] budget for monument signs replacing the

[16:41] ones on Hampton and Santa Monica. that

[16:44] just popped into my head. Not to mention

[16:46] the signage that we have on Lake uh

[16:48] Henry Clay and anywhere else. It's

[16:52] probably it lake north and south. Um

[16:55] that being said, we have grant funding

[16:58] on the on the line for uh projects on

[17:01] lake that included monument sign. So

[17:04] perhaps that doesn't need to be in any

[17:06] budget line item and maybe we'll look

[17:08] out and get rap. And I do hear from

[17:11] residents that um the sidewalks when you

[17:15] enter into the road, it feels like

[17:17] you're walking farther into the road

[17:19] onto Hampton and then coming back onto

[17:22] the sidewalk. And I know people would

[17:24] love to have those uh refigured,

[17:28] » Right?

[17:28] » Or reconfigured, I mean.

[17:31] » All right,

[17:33] Tara, do you have anything to add?

[17:35] » Um a question for Jay. Jay, when you're

[17:39] talking about this new position, are you

[17:41] considering this to be an ongoing or a

[17:44] temporary, you know, for 2027 kind of

[17:48] position? What What is your thinking

[17:49] there? Is this going to be an ongoing

[17:51] expense?

[17:52] » My my thinking is it can be whatever it

[17:55] ends up being. Um my initial thought is

[18:00] uh yes, 2027 is going to be um you know,

[18:06] a a big year. So, you know, if we if we

[18:09] want to try to find, you know, someone

[18:11] to uh, you know, to help us in a in a in

[18:14] a part-time, you know, one-year only

[18:17] capacity, that's fine. Um, if we find

[18:19] out that it's something fantastic and

[18:24] we're going to continue to have growth

[18:26] in the district and in the village,

[18:27] then, you know, maybe it's something we,

[18:29] you know, look at again, uh, you know,

[18:31] this time next year. But initially my

[18:34] thoughts are 2027.

[18:37] » Okay. Okay. Um, and then I guess for me

[18:41] kind of along the lines of what Anna was

[18:43] saying potentially,

[18:45] I know that we have very many

[18:48] initiatives and I, you know, obviously

[18:50] I'm always got a lens when it comes to

[18:53] public works and what's all happening

[18:56] within public works and our parks and

[18:58] and so I'm a little hesitant to add

[19:02] anything additional to the plate for

[19:03] staff. I feel like our staff is pretty

[19:07] stretched right now and especially as

[19:09] we're going into, you know, really

[19:11] kicking off the lead pipe stuff. I I I'm

[19:16] just a little hesitant um to add

[19:18] anything

[19:21] real big. Um so my priority obviously

[19:24] always is getting things done, public

[19:27] works, making sure that we've got our

[19:29] services where they need to be, you

[19:31] know, for residents. That's always, you

[19:33] know, number one for me. And then

[19:35] obviously we've got so many things in

[19:36] the CIP to continue to work on. So that

[19:39] would be my my two cents about it.

[19:42] » All right. Thank you. Um indeed, we

[19:45] started to do these um pre-budget

[19:48] visioning

[19:50] comments about five, six years ago. Um

[19:53] and and it was the that the moment that

[19:55] trustees could um give some thought as

[19:59] to new projects that we'd like to have

[20:02] executed. Um I I think that that we have

[20:06] really changed our way of planning in

[20:08] that now we have a six-year CIP and

[20:11] we've put hundreds and thousands of manh

[20:14] hours into uh creating that and

[20:17] approving it and looking at it and

[20:19] analyzing it. And so these meetings um

[20:22] where trustees, you know, share other

[20:25] capital ideas um while we'll still

[20:28] continue to do them, the the uh the CIP

[20:31] is what really guides what we're doing

[20:33] here and um it lessens the importance of

[20:36] of this particular conversation. Uh

[20:38] anyways, that being said, a couple quick

[20:40] comments. I agree with Jay about the

[20:42] Northshore Health Department. Um, and I

[20:46] I guess I unfortunately would have to

[20:48] wait until we hear hear what their

[20:50] request is, unless they've already made

[20:51] their request because

[20:54] last year's budget conversation was they

[20:56] had asked for a relatively sizable

[20:59] percentage increase that other

[21:01] municipalities were unable unwilling to

[21:04] to do. And that's when Wayne Fishbay

[21:07] kind of stepped up. So I I guess my

[21:09] first comment is we we need to hear what

[21:11] are their needs or what are their I

[21:13] don't know wishes um before we can kind

[21:16] of respond to anything like that. Um

[21:19] next is can can we talk about your memo

[21:22] just a little bit in terms of um the

[21:27] beta debt calculations that you've come

[21:30] up with? Has has that changed from the

[21:33] AERS list that we've that we had? We had

[21:36] a conversation maybe, you know, two,

[21:38] three months ago about abated debt. And

[21:40] where I'm going with this, you don't

[21:42] really need to answer that question

[21:43] other than to say part of that long-term

[21:47] um financial management plan was the

[21:50] concept that we were going to run out of

[21:51] levy limits in 2028, I think, was the

[21:54] number. Have Have we bumped that number

[21:57] at all with any of this abated debt

[21:59] conversation?

[22:01] » That I don't have an answer on. I know

[22:04] that the 2026 budget we used less abated

[22:08] debt than Ellers was anticipating we

[22:10] were going to use but no we don't have

[22:13] like an updated I guess estimate

[22:16] » But more is helpful right my h having

[22:21] having more beta debt identified is a

[22:23] helpful position to be in

[22:25] » Yeah but so we have a lot of abated debt

[22:29] but we need to be able to identify

[22:32] things like in the general fund budget

[22:33] that we could borrow for. And that's

[22:35] where we can't make those match. Like

[22:38] we've identified, you know, 600,000

[22:41] of sources we could use. We have $3

[22:43] million of debt, but we don't want to

[22:45] use it if we couldn't borrow for it.

[22:47] » Sure. Sure.

[22:49] » Yeah. So

[22:51] that I think this budget's going to tell

[22:54] us a lot. Uh because when we went

[22:56] through the budget last time around,

[22:59] we realized somewhat late in the process

[23:01] that we were right up against levy

[23:02] limits. we were working on the financial

[23:04] management plan. All the information was

[23:06] coming at us really quickly. This budget

[23:08] we're entering with that mindset. And so

[23:10] where as we're doing our budget

[23:11] departmental reviews, we're going to be

[23:13] looking more for these opportunities,

[23:14] doing more of a fine tooth, like really

[23:18] looking and I I am very optimistic that

[23:21] that number for our beta debt capacity

[23:23] will get higher.

[23:24] » Okay.

[23:24] » Uh but I just I don't know what that

[23:26] will end up being. uh and Ellers was

[23:29] estimating, but they agree we need to

[23:32] actually be able to point and have a

[23:33] list of here's the things we could

[23:35] borrow for in a pinch if we needed to in

[23:37] the future. Um so all that to say is I

[23:40] am very hopeful we'll have a much more

[23:42] realistic picture at the conclusion of

[23:44] this budget.

[23:45] » Do we update AERS with that so that they

[23:49] can create the next rendition of our

[23:52] Yeah.

[23:53] » Well, so they actually just emailed what

[23:54] was the estimate to update it? $15,000,

[23:59] » I believe, which we thought was high. We

[24:00] were thinking every two to three years,

[24:02] maybe,

[24:03] » Right? I leave that up to you to figure

[24:04] out when you're going to update. I mean,

[24:06] and I I assume that some of the

[24:07] spreadsheets are perhaps ours. No,

[24:11] » Just the PDFs.

[24:12] » Well, the PDFs anyways.

[24:14] » Yeah,

[24:14] » They don't they don't give you a work

[24:15] product.

[24:18] » Not in a form that is helpful in Excel

[24:20] documents. But all that to say, I mean,

[24:22] they're they're going to be part of the

[24:23] conversation. They always answer the

[24:25] phone when we call. They're always

[24:26] willing to answer our questions and so

[24:28] as we're working through this, we'll

[24:29] make sure that they're on the same page

[24:30] so that we're not surprised in three

[24:32] years when we update that plan.

[24:35] » Works for me. I think

[24:39] I think that was it for me.

[24:42] Um, net new construction continues to

[24:45] disappoint and I I does does it

[24:49] disappoint you in the number? It just

[24:51] seems always so low. I guess I don't

[24:53] know enough about how it's calculated,

[24:56] but I think with being landlocked and

[24:58] it's not rebuilt, it's literally just

[25:00] new construction. Um, or is it

[25:03] » Yeah, we tell you

[25:04] » We continue to have this debate on

[25:06] » New construction or remodeling, you

[25:08] know, where you're

[25:11] » Yes, it has to be it can't be a remodel

[25:13] of your existing puncture. It has to be

[25:15] an addition. Tear down, rebuild is

[25:18] additional value. Um, so like the

[25:21] Hampton's, Margarit, all those would be

[25:24] like new value in this equation, but not

[25:27] all of those would have been the full

[25:28] year. Like Margaret, I think was just a

[25:30] partial trying to remember in 2031 when

[25:33] we closed one, there will be an influx

[25:36] as well with all of that increased that

[25:38] increment really. Come on. My

[25:41] » My initial estimates weren't as much as

[25:43] I was hoping, but that still is

[25:45] promising

[25:46] » As well. So that will happen. So that so

[25:49] in 20 2031

[25:52] our levy limit will will take a step up.

[25:55] » Yep.

[25:56] » Is you'll get to capture all that

[25:57] increment.

[25:58] » I Yeah. I I didn't I didn't know that.

[26:01] » So we just need to manage four years

[26:05] before we get to that that that 20 31

[26:08] right from 2028 in theory.

[26:10] » Yeah. But I don't think it'll solve all

[26:12] of

[26:12] » Well, it'll help. It will help.

[26:15] » Yeah.

[26:16] » Okay. Uh that's all I have. Any other

[26:19] trustee comments?

[26:22] Any members of the public wish to talk

[26:24] about budget priorities? No. Okay. In

[26:28] that case, I will move on to We don't

[26:32] There we You didn't need any motion on

[26:34] that. Nope. We'll move on to number two.

[26:36] Uh discussion action on the village

[26:37] board community event engagement program

[26:40] policy.

[26:41] Oh, Millia, you're still here.

[26:44] [laughter]

[26:44] » Two weeks.

[26:45] » Two more weeks. Okay.

[26:47] So this program is based off of one of

[26:49] the outcomes from the strategic plan as

[26:52] well as a continuation of the discussion

[26:54] from the May 18th village board meeting.

[26:56] Um so this is a community event

[26:58] engagement program. So it's kind of

[27:01] combining some of the events within the

[27:02] village um with allowing village board

[27:05] members to have informal discussions

[27:06] with residents where residents can talk

[27:08] about different things that they're

[27:10] seeing within the village and their

[27:11] concerns and just have more informal

[27:13] conversations. Um staff will evaluate

[27:16] which events can be a part of this

[27:18] program through the special event

[27:19] process. So as they're evaluating

[27:21] applications, they can then say, is this

[27:23] a good event to have village board

[27:25] members at? Those events will then be um

[27:28] a part of the weekly administrative

[27:30] update. And if two or more village board

[27:32] members um say that they can attend the

[27:34] event, then staff will coordinate with

[27:36] the event organizers

[27:38] of how um village board members can be a

[27:41] part of that.

[27:43] And at a high level, if there's any

[27:44] questions,

[27:45] » Did did other communities have policies

[27:49] like this?

[27:49] » They based off um kind of the village of

[27:51] Oregon, they have a really similar

[27:52] program.

[27:53] » Village of Oregon.

[27:56] » I I have a question. I

[27:59] I think this would be more for Kelsey.

[28:05] There are a lot of events in the village

[28:08] where

[28:11] more than two village board members are

[28:14] attending but aren't attending in a

[28:19] social

[28:20] » Yeah. but aren't attending in in a way

[28:22] that this is um in a in a way that this

[28:26] uh is intending. If there were two

[28:30] village board members who were directly

[28:33] involved in the event engagement, but we

[28:36] know that there are going to be other

[28:38] village board members attending the

[28:39] event. Do you still need to notice it?

[28:44] » So, our plan is to notice every event,

[28:46] even if it's only two people. Okay.

[28:48] That's just it's so easy to notice. It's

[28:51] okay. I didn't know that.

[28:52] » Yep. Yep. It's no problem. You don't

[28:54] have to do an agenda. You just notice

[28:55] it's a notice of possible quorum. Okay.

[28:58] I didn't want to, you know, have to hand

[29:00] over my social calendar for

[29:04] » Any other trustee questions.

[29:06] » I love this by the way.

[29:08] » Yeah, it's a nice

[29:10] hearing none. Enjoy your last two weeks

[29:15] in Wishbang.

[29:16] » Amelia has been wonderful.

[29:17] » She's been wonderful.

[29:18] » He helps everyone and has been amazing.

[29:21] So, we're going to miss her, but I think

[29:22] she'll be back maybe this winter and

[29:24] we're crossing our fingers maybe next

[29:26] summer. So,

[29:27] » Wow. Okay.

[29:28] » Yeah, she's been great. So, week and a

[29:30] half left.

[29:30] » Thanks work. Thank you, Amelia.

[29:33] » All right, we will then move on to

[29:35] number three. Discussion discussion on

[29:38] abolishing the Wishers Bay Municipal

[29:40] Court and joining the Northshore.

[29:42] » There was no motion, right? There's no

[29:44] motion.

[29:45] » Oh, was there you want to adopt the

[29:47] policy?

[29:48] » Oh, I'm sorry.

[29:48] » Well, then we'll stop and we'll go

[29:50] right.

[29:50] » Yes. I I'm sorry I missed I I I missed

[29:53] uh number two. I move the village board

[29:55] adopt the village board community event

[29:56] engagement program as presented.

[29:58] » Do I hear a second?

[29:59] » Second.

[30:00] » Thank you, Anna. Uh any further

[30:02] discussion? Hearing none. All those in

[30:04] favor say I.

[30:05] » I.

[30:06] » Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Now

[30:10] we'll move on to discussion on

[30:12] abolishing the Whitefish Bay Municipal

[30:14] Court and joining the Northshore

[30:15] Municipal Court.

[30:18] » Sure. Um so the village of White Fishb

[30:20] currently operates our own um municipal

[30:22] court and we recently participated in a

[30:24] shared services feasibility study which

[30:27] was funded by an innovation g grant

[30:29] through the state of Wisconsin. Um so

[30:31] the state has been really trying to

[30:32] encourage municipalities to explore

[30:35] consolidation or shared services in an

[30:37] effort to hopefully reduce costs. You

[30:39] may remember that the village utilized

[30:41] um that grant program to do both a study

[30:44] and then we actually are receiving a

[30:45] grant. This is the first year to

[30:47] consolidate our IT services with

[30:49] Bayside. Um so that's one example. Um

[30:52] this feasibility study was done around

[30:54] the same or started around the same time

[30:55] but just was completed later. Uh so what

[30:58] they were looking at is if the three

[31:00] Northshore communities, River Hills, um

[31:03] Shorewood and Whitefish Bay, who

[31:04] currently don't participate in the

[31:06] Northshore Municipal Court, um basically

[31:09] if there were any benefits to those

[31:10] three communities joining the others, um

[31:13] as a a larger partnership. So the study

[31:17] was attached in the packet. Um and I'm

[31:19] just going to walk through a little bit

[31:20] at a high level basically how it would

[31:22] work. Um so basically the village could

[31:25] potentially join Glendale. Um the court

[31:27] operates out of Glendale and then Brown

[31:29] Deere and Bayside are participants in

[31:32] that program. Under a consolidated

[31:35] model, all the tickets um would need to

[31:37] be paid online, mailed or in person at

[31:40] the Glendale City Hall. Uh so from a

[31:42] public facing standpoint, that would

[31:44] probably be the most noticeable impact.

[31:46] Currently, you come can come into

[31:47] Village Hall to pay that. you would need

[31:49] to go to Glendale and then obviously the

[31:51] court days would also be held in

[31:53] Glendale. They would no longer be held

[31:55] in this room um in the village. There

[31:58] would be one judge that's elected to

[32:00] serve all the municipalities

[32:01] participating in the Northshore Court

[32:03] and that judge would be elected by all

[32:05] the communities. Um I mentioned that the

[32:08] court be held in Glendale. We would have

[32:10] the same night as one other community uh

[32:13] which that community has not yet been

[32:14] identified. the village would be

[32:16] responsible for paying our share of the

[32:19] total Northshore Court expenditures each

[32:21] year. Um, and that would be based on a

[32:23] percentage of the tickets written. So

[32:25] that'd be approximately 16% if all three

[32:28] of those communities joined or 23% if

[32:31] only Whitefish Bay joins the existing

[32:34] communities.

[32:36] Each community would retain their own

[32:37] court fees and ticket revenue. Uh

[32:40] there's a chart at the on page two of

[32:42] the memo that breaks out the village's

[32:44] existing expenditures in comparison to

[32:46] joining the estimates for joining the

[32:48] Northshore Municipal Court. You can see

[32:50] there's like an existing column for

[32:52] costs and then if all join, it's

[32:54] important to look at it separately

[32:56] because obviously each community will be

[32:58] making their own decision and those

[32:59] decisions will be made at different

[33:01] times. Um, so if all those communities

[33:03] join, you can see the cost and what that

[33:05] delta is or if only White Fish Bay joins

[33:08] and what that delta is. Um, but likely

[33:10] the savings on an annual basis would

[33:13] range from like 36,000 to 42,000.

[33:18] Um, let's see. In terms of um process

[33:22] changes for our staff, currently um we

[33:25] have a court clerk who prepares the

[33:27] records for court. uh this function

[33:29] would need to be transi trans

[33:30] transitioned to our police department

[33:32] staff uh which our our police chief has

[33:34] already kind of reviewed that and feels

[33:36] comfortable with that change.

[33:38] Additionally, there's parking citations

[33:40] which are currently processed by the

[33:42] municipal court clerk and this function

[33:44] would have to transition to our police

[33:46] department administrative administrative

[33:48] assistant. uh that training has actually

[33:50] already started and so um we're feeling

[33:53] pretty comfortable about the ability for

[33:55] that to be able to happen.

[33:57] Uh one operational benefit that was

[33:59] noted in the study that I just wanted to

[34:01] mention um is that currently we have one

[34:04] court clerk. The functions of a court

[34:06] clerk is very technical. You have to

[34:08] make sure things are done a very

[34:10] specific way. You have to have access to

[34:11] certain programs. Um so we do not have a

[34:14] backup for that position. So sick leave,

[34:17] vacation, um you know, an employee

[34:20] resigns, uh we would be relying on other

[34:23] communities and trying to navigate

[34:25] through those situations because we do

[34:26] not have internal redundancy

[34:28] » Today.

[34:29] » Today? Yep. But with the Northshore

[34:31] model, they do have um I believe it's

[34:33] two or three court clerks. I can't

[34:35] remember the number, but they have that

[34:37] redundancy. And so if there are vacation

[34:38] or unexpected leaves, then they're able

[34:41] to account for that. And then the last

[34:43] thing I didn't mention um but wanted to

[34:45] just say in the presentation is that the

[34:48] innovation grant was used to fund the

[34:50] study. Uh but also there it's very

[34:53] likely that a new grant cycle will be

[34:55] repeat will be released in the fall

[34:57] again. Uh and so that is roughly $44,000

[35:01] annually for four for five years which

[35:03] is like $224,000

[35:05] that the village would be eligible to

[35:07] apply for. Um

[35:08] » That's shared or just for the village.

[35:11] So that would be determined by the

[35:12] contract. Um so in the case of it, I was

[35:15] able to make the case that we were

[35:17] spending more for the services and so

[35:19] all that money needed to be retained by

[35:21] the village.

[35:22] » In this case, um you know, there might

[35:24] be transitional costs and such that

[35:26] would have to be negotiated out and how

[35:28] that money would be split. Uh but

[35:30] regardless that would be money available

[35:32] to the communities uh if it was awarded

[35:36] um to be able to use for whatever

[35:38] purpose makes sense

[35:40] » For potentially 5 years

[35:42] » For potentially five years.

[35:43] » So this is this is on top of the 31 to

[35:46] 40 whatever that number is.

[35:49] » So the way the grant works is it's 25%

[35:51] of the cost of service in the year prior

[35:54] to the transition of service.

[35:56] » And so that was that's roughly $44,000.

[35:59] So for five years is 224,000.

[36:02] » Correct.

[36:03] » Uh so staff this evening is really just

[36:05] looking for direction. We wanted to you

[36:07] know have the initial conversation um

[36:10] include the included in the packet is

[36:12] the existing contract. I wouldn't expect

[36:14] significant changes from that. It was

[36:16] actually already written in a way that

[36:18] has a process for other communities to

[36:20] be able to join the Northshore Court. So

[36:22] I would anticipate it'd be relatively

[36:24] similar. um and then also include the

[36:26] study to have an initial discussion and

[36:28] then if the village board was interested

[36:30] then at a future meeting um likely

[36:33] August 31st there'd be a discussion um

[36:36] in potentially action around an

[36:38] ordinance to abolish the court, an

[36:40] ordinance to create the Northshore Court

[36:42] and then the contract to join.

[36:45] » Sure.

[36:49] happy to answer any questions or

[36:52] » Um well Jane go ahead there are three

[36:54] people I would like to hear from on this

[36:57] um all three of them are in this room

[36:58] oddly enough uh I want to get I I would

[37:02] like to get opinions from attorney

[37:04] Jacobs from Chief Whitaker and I noticed

[37:08] that our esteemed municipal court judge

[37:12] uh is here with us this evening. Um

[37:16] uh so

[37:18] those those are the three because I and

[37:20] I and I say that because

[37:23] [clears throat]

[37:24] from attorney Jakeel's side, you know

[37:26] what I just want to know what the

[37:28] changes would mean for each of these

[37:32] three individuals in in the case of

[37:34] Chief Whitaker his department because

[37:36] Kelsey as you mentioned there would be

[37:38] no more

[37:40] coming to pay you know tickets which I

[37:43] believe is done at the police department

[37:45] window. I'm just double checking. Thank

[37:47] you. Um not that I've ever gotten a

[37:49] ticket. Uh

[37:51] and I I just kind of want to know what

[37:53] changes it would mean for you

[37:56] individually in your departments and if

[38:00] that's a good change, a bad change. Um

[38:03] just kind of want to get your opinions

[38:06] because you would be the folks most

[38:07] impacted by this.

[38:08] » Yeah. Would you mind? Um you're probably

[38:11] first in the batting order. uh the chief

[38:14] in that a member of staff who can you

[38:18] know give us their I concept of whether

[38:21] this is a a good path or not.

[38:24] » Yeah. Um so we would be our

[38:27] administrative staff would be taking on

[38:30] a few other things that they don't

[38:32] normally do right now. Uh like Kel

[38:34] Kelsey said, we've already started um

[38:37] processing um unpaid citations that that

[38:41] go to suspension. um on the uh the

[38:46] registration of the vehicle. Um we would

[38:49] be uh right now Susan the court clerk uh

[38:52] handles the paperwork preparing for

[38:55] court and and you know gathering the

[38:58] reports, the citations and everything,

[38:59] the video that's needed. Um we've talked

[39:03] to Glendale um about that process in

[39:06] Bayside and um they're um right now

[39:09] looking at making it smoother. um and u

[39:14] paperless like we have now. Um

[39:18] so that would be an extra thing that our

[39:20] staff needs to do. But as you said with

[39:23] people not showing up to pay citations,

[39:24] they would have to go to Glendo. That

[39:26] frees up some time um for our our clerk

[39:29] right now. Uh we also have community

[39:31] service officers that that can help out

[39:33] with that.

[39:35] I you know

[39:37] in in the end I don't have any concerns

[39:40] that we won't be able to handle the the

[39:42] additional workload.

[39:44] » Okay. What would it mean for

[39:49] your officers? Um,

[39:53] because I I don't assume this, but I I

[39:56] would imagine that in a lot of

[39:58] situations,

[40:00] your officers are attending

[40:03] court hearings

[40:05] if it rises to a certain level.

[40:08] » Yeah. Um, so if there are they're needed

[40:10] to to um testify in court, rather than

[40:13] walking upstairs, they would drive to

[40:15] Glendale.

[40:17] » How often does that?

[40:19] » We have trials once a month. Not every

[40:25] trial night goes, so it sporadic. Would

[40:29] it

[40:31] would you have any concerns about

[40:36] response time or any

[40:40] public safety concerns by having

[40:43] officers go to Glendale for court?

[40:46] » No. Um, you know, if they're here on

[40:49] overtime, that's an extra 10 minutes of

[40:51] travel time at the most. Um, and you

[40:55] know, we would make sure we have we make

[40:58] sure we have coverage already if they

[41:00] have to be

[41:01] » Testifying.

[41:02] » Things I think of.

[41:04] » Any other questions for the chief from

[41:06] trustee Casper or Surin?

[41:10] Okay.

[41:12] Thank you. Um,

[41:16] uh, Mr. Jacobs, what do you think of

[41:19] this, uh, consolidation?

[41:23] Well, we've had Yeah, we've had some

[41:25] we've had some discussions of that. It

[41:27] it um

[41:30] it's

[41:31] very much a fat comple

[41:34] it's uh you know because

[41:37] uh Bayside for example doesn't have a

[41:40] judge anymore. They they you know become

[41:42] part of the the Northshore court. Um

[41:45] where it's going to change is

[41:48] uh that uh the people we have doing the

[41:51] prosecution now

[41:54] um may or may not be doing that

[41:56] prosecution in the future because

[41:58] there's discussion about going out for

[42:00] requests for proposals to hire basically

[42:03] hire all new uh all new prosecutorial

[42:07] teams

[42:08] um and share those among communities.

[42:12] » And is that a good thing? I mean, well,

[42:15] you're very different. I'll say your

[42:17] firm, I think, is what you're saying.

[42:18] » Yeah, it's it's very different, I'll

[42:20] say.

[42:21] » Um,

[42:23] the right now it's it's your various law

[42:26] firms doing, you know, somebody's doing

[42:29] uh Glendale's work, somebody's doing

[42:31] Browners's work. I don't I don't know

[42:34] what's done in Shwood, for example. Um,

[42:38] but long and the short of it is that's

[42:40] probably going to change.

[42:43] because all these communities need to

[42:46] need to have uh consistent coverage,

[42:50] » Right?

[42:51] » Um you know there's a there's big

[42:54] difference between Bayside who's a small

[42:57] uh small piece of the court

[43:00] and from the monetary side they function

[43:02] on a retainer

[43:04] which is very different from what's

[43:06] probably going to come out of

[43:09] » The RFP process.

[43:11] at at what level would a full-time

[43:15] prosecutor be entertained? Or is that

[43:17] even possible with the number of with

[43:19] the volume? You know, doesn't Milwaukee

[43:23] have their own prosecutors, for example.

[43:24] I mean, they do, example,

[43:26] » They do, but that's that's a massive

[43:29] municipal court.

[43:30] » Sure. I'm I'm just there's some level

[43:32] where there's a tipping point. I don't

[43:34] know what that is. Yeah, it's it's been

[43:36] a long time since. In fact, I think Al

[43:38] Meyer was the last one if that was his

[43:40] name in Shwood. I mean, there hasn't

[43:42] been there hasn't been a

[43:44] » Yeah, there hasn't been a dedicated

[43:46] prosecutor

[43:47] in decades.

[43:49] » Interesting. Well, right. But now we've

[43:51] if there is a Northshore court,

[43:53] » The number of citations and cases that

[43:55] come up may rise to a certain level. And

[43:57] I I don't know what that is, but maybe

[43:59] Kelsey does. Brown or Brown Deer has

[44:01] in-house an in-house prosecutor that

[44:04] works with Glendale. You know her?

[44:06] » Oh, yeah. Rebecca.

[44:07] » But what I don't know what percentage of

[44:09] her time she spends on prosecution

[44:10] versus other purposes, but she is a

[44:12] Brownier employee.

[44:13] » She's pretty much only an only a

[44:16] prosecutor.

[44:17] » Okay. So, right now there is, it sounds

[44:19] like essentially a shared prosecutor

[44:21] between two other communities.

[44:22] » Okay. Which opens the door for another

[44:27] » When others join. That's a topic for

[44:30] another day.

[44:30] » Well, I'd love to continue prosecuting.

[44:34] » Sure you would.

[44:34] » Just just so you know, but I but at the

[44:37] same time, I've got to recognize

[44:40] facts here. So,

[44:41] » Way the winds blow.

[44:42] » Mhm.

[44:42] » Um sort of I I I would have saved this

[44:44] for the end, but um when when

[44:47] consolidation occurs for any particular

[44:50] department, um I always look beyond the

[44:54] savings, right? because there's always a

[44:55] number that that oh we're going to save

[44:57] this and hopefully that's a great

[44:59] estimate and maybe it's higher and maybe

[45:00] it's lower. Um but but you know policy

[45:05] boards are interested in saving money,

[45:07] right? But there's also a part where we

[45:09] look and say well what is if the savings

[45:11] is let's say 40,000 or maybe it's 80

[45:13] depending on grant funding and whatever.

[45:15] Um what are we getting in return if we

[45:18] don't right? What are we buying for 80

[45:20] extra thousand dollars that we normally

[45:23] wouldn't get? And so there's there's

[45:25] there's, you know, uh, benefits to, um,

[45:28] spending more money when when you get

[45:30] some benefits out of it. So I'm I'm I'm

[45:32] not I wouldn't call it a a done deal. I

[45:35] would say it's it's something we just

[45:36] need to evaluate.

[45:38] » Sure.

[45:39] » Uh, I guess our next guest is kind of a

[45:42] staff member, but just an esteemed

[45:44] member of the public. Uh, why don't you

[45:46] state your name and address for the

[45:49] record?

[45:49] » Sure. My name is Craig Johnson.

[45:50] » Oh, sorry. Wait. Could could you tr

[45:52] trustee Saraban? Did you

[45:54] » Yeah. Ke Kevin, can I just ask a quick

[45:57] quick question of um Attorney Jake? I'm

[45:59] I'm hearing in your tone that that this

[46:02] is not something you would be in favor

[46:03] of um other than the fact that you know

[46:06] you would like to continue to prosecute.

[46:08] Is there is there something else that

[46:09] you would consider to be a downside?

[46:11] Because I agree with Kevin. I did not

[46:14] come into this thinking this was a fat

[46:16] comple. And so I would very much like to

[46:18] hear what your perspective is on this um

[46:22] and whether you do think it is a good

[46:24] thing as much as you can possibly take

[46:26] yourself out of it. Is it a good thing

[46:27] for the village or are you thinking it

[46:29] is not a good thing for the village?

[46:31] » It depends on what you want out of your

[46:33] court.

[46:35] Um if you want everybody to know

[46:38] everybody's name I mean that's those

[46:41] days are gone. Um and and in this case I

[46:46] I think we will be dealing with and just

[46:50] I'm again I'm reading the tea leaves but

[46:52] we we'll be dealing with um a uh a

[46:55] situation where for example the the

[46:58] elected judge you know people got very

[47:01] very involved in the judge races here

[47:03] here in in Whitefish Bay because they

[47:06] had their favorite candidate or their

[47:07] good friend who does that kind of work

[47:09] or or you know you help let's help get

[47:11] elect this guy or that woman. Um, it's

[47:14] not going to be that way because there

[47:17] there's, you know, Judge Lipkcom is

[47:18] covering

[47:20] uh way more way more territory

[47:24] um than uh than our current judge. Um,

[47:29] and so that makes it it makes it a

[47:31] completely different sort of

[47:34] tone, for lack of a better description.

[47:37] Does that does that help

[47:39] » To some degree? If you were to say the

[47:42] percentage of people who are seeing in

[47:44] the courts are residents of Whitefish

[47:46] Bay versus not residents of Whitefish

[47:49] Bay, that that maybe also um indicates

[47:52] how important that piece of it is. Would

[47:55] you be able to give me a kind of a round

[47:57] number?

[47:59] » Oh gosh, I think the chief could, but um

[48:02] because he and I have discussed this

[48:03] before, but I I defer to him on that.

[48:08] I wouldn't be able to give you an exact

[48:10] number, but my belief is roughly 20% of

[48:15] people come to court are residents,

[48:18] » I guess. Okay.

[48:19] » People we write citations to, I

[48:21] shouldn't say, that come to court.

[48:23] » Okay. So, so in some ways that feeling

[48:27] of everybody knows everyone's name

[48:29] already doesn't exist.

[48:32] Correct.

[48:33] » I would agree with that. Yes.

[48:35] » Okay. We have a judge here

[48:37] » Who might have a better data set.

[48:39] » Yeah,

[48:40] » I understand. I just I just really want

[48:42] to make sure I understand where Chris,

[48:45] you know, Attorney Jacel's

[48:47] » Concerns are coming from and whether we

[48:50] think that this is, you know, ultimately

[48:52] because I agree with Kevin, there's a

[48:54] yes, there's there's money, but then

[48:56] there's also

[48:58] the experience and, you know, in the

[49:00] same way that there are other services

[49:02] that I would not be in favor of

[49:03] combining because of the experiences for

[49:06] the village, I'm wondering how much that

[49:08] would be impacted. So that that was more

[49:10] what I was looking for.

[49:13] » Thanks.

[49:14] » Okay. Thank you.

[49:15] » My apologies.

[49:16] » That's okay. Thank you very much for uh

[49:18] your time and your attention. My name is

[49:20] Craig Johnson. I am the White Fishb

[49:22] Municipal Judge elected in 2023 and my

[49:25] term ends next spring. Um and just to be

[49:28] clear, my opinions on this are totally

[49:31] not related to my serving as judge

[49:33] because I made the decision about a year

[49:36] ago that I wasn't going to run for

[49:37] another term. and I talked to a number

[49:40] of different lawyers locally who might

[49:42] might be interested and sort of talked

[49:44] about why it's a nice position to have

[49:47] and a good way to serve the community

[49:49] etc. And I think there are interested

[49:51] people um who would like to serve in the

[49:53] position but in that sense it's not

[49:56] personal to me um whether or not

[49:58] Whitefish Bay maintains a municipal

[50:00] court. I can tell you that I I think the

[50:04] the figure in terms of people who show

[50:05] up to court who are White Fishbay

[50:07] residents is much higher than 20%. I

[50:10] think it's roughly probably 50%. I sort

[50:13] of keep a running mental note of it as

[50:15] as we call cases and I look at people's

[50:18] addresses. Um and I think that makes

[50:20] sense because you know as for reasons I

[50:24] I'll get into in a minute. This is a

[50:26] local court that is generally within

[50:28] walking distance of residents homes and

[50:31] it's very easy thing and I think it's

[50:33] one of the big attractions to having a

[50:35] local municipal court that people can

[50:37] feel that they can walk up and weigh in

[50:42] on their parking ticket, on their

[50:43] speeding ticket, on their ticket for not

[50:46] shoveling snow, whatever it might be.

[50:48] and they don't have to troop over to

[50:50] Glendale to um make their case to a

[50:53] judge they've never seen before or heard

[50:56] of before. Quite frankly, um on a

[50:58] practical level, I don't think there's

[51:00] anybody who would prefer to go to

[51:02] Glendale to contest a ticket that they

[51:04] receive in White Fish Bay who live in

[51:06] Whitefish Bay, your constituents, the

[51:08] residents of Whitefish Bay. When I went

[51:11] door todo running for this position a

[51:13] number of years ago, there was not one

[51:15] single person who told me, "Wow, you

[51:17] know, I wish you would get rid of that

[51:19] court. I wish I could go to Glendale to

[51:22] fight my tickets. That would be much

[51:23] better for me as a resident of White

[51:25] Fishbay." That conversation never took

[51:28] place. Um, I think people had ideas

[51:32] about the court. They had ideas about,

[51:34] you know, can you use Zoom? Can we

[51:36] figure out how to to to make it easier

[51:38] to more practical for people to to come

[51:41] to court? But certainly never anybody um

[51:45] discussed with me the idea of abolishing

[51:47] the court or consolidating it. The idea

[51:50] that it's a fate of comply I I would

[51:53] disagree and agree that the fact is

[51:56] there is a Northshore Municipal Court

[51:58] right now that is a fatal comple it

[52:00] already exists. The question is who's

[52:02] going to be a member of it? Glendale,

[52:05] uh, Brown Deer, and Bayside are in the

[52:08] White Fish Bay Combined Municipal Court.

[52:11] And, you know, as far as I can tell,

[52:13] they're happy with it. But that's not

[52:15] Whitefish Bay, and that's not Shorewood,

[52:18] and it's not Fox Point. Fox Point, for

[52:20] whatever reason, was not touched in the

[52:22] study. I don't know why. I've talked to

[52:25] the Fox Point municipal judge, and he

[52:27] assures me that Fox Point will not be

[52:29] getting rid of their municipal court.

[52:30] they will not be joining the Northshore

[52:32] Municipal Court. I've talked to the

[52:34] judge in Shorewood and she assured me

[52:36] that when this item came up for

[52:38] discussion at their village board, it

[52:41] was tabled because they have no interest

[52:43] in pursu in in joining the Northshore

[52:45] Municipal Court. So, it will not be done

[52:47] in shore either. Um, so it will continue

[52:50] to consist of Bayside, a very small

[52:54] community, Glendale, a community about

[52:57] our size, and then Brown Deer. Um, and

[53:00] it will be the the tricky thing about it

[53:03] is that right now you've got a judge,

[53:05] Judge Lipkcom, who's somewhat of a

[53:08] unicorn in that he devotes a good

[53:11] percentage of his time as a lawyer being

[53:14] a judge and he's paid somewhat

[53:16] commensurate to that. He's paid 30 to

[53:19] $38,000 a year for his service.

[53:24] at a municipality of our size, 2,000

[53:27] tickets a year, it's one-third more the

[53:30] workload. It's going to be onethird more

[53:33] of his time. It's going to be a shared

[53:36] night. So, when you talk about police

[53:38] overtime, you can't talk about coming

[53:41] here and waiting for five minutes for

[53:43] the one trial we have, you're talking

[53:46] about a shared night over there with

[53:48] another community. Um, and the officers

[53:51] waiting for significant more time is

[53:53] what I would expect. Plus, the commute

[53:55] time to to go to Glendale. So, I think

[53:57] the idea that you're not going to see an

[53:59] increase in overtime cost is is not

[54:01] correct. I think there's concern also

[54:05] with um compliance with um the uh

[54:09] earlier legislation

[54:11] uh Wisconsin 2009 Wisconsin Act uh 402

[54:16] which really wants to separate police

[54:18] department administrative staff from

[54:20] court staff. So, if you have

[54:22] administrative staff in the police now

[54:25] doing some of the court work, that's

[54:27] potentially a problem under that state

[54:29] law in chapter uh 755. And I think

[54:33] that's something if the police is

[54:35] preparing records for court could be a

[54:38] problem legally for the village if if it

[54:40] does that. Um, I I I think generally

[54:44] people like the fact that they know

[54:47] their local judge, they know their local

[54:50] court. The idea that this is a thing in

[54:52] the past where people don't know each

[54:54] other by name when they come to court. I

[54:58] can tell you that's not true. I run into

[55:01] people at Sendex. I run into people at

[55:04] uh, you know, Fourth July, Clo Park.

[55:07] They know me. Our kids went to Whitefish

[55:10] Bay schools. They know the people who,

[55:13] you know,

[55:16] people come to court. I know them. They

[55:18] know me. And that personal touch, I

[55:22] think, is something that people really

[55:24] appreciate. And I think it's something

[55:25] that people will miss if the court is

[55:28] over in Glendale. So, um I think they

[55:31] like the fact also that they can if they

[55:34] don't like the judge, they can conceive

[55:37] of running against the judge, not you

[55:39] know them personally, but supporting a

[55:41] candidate locally in White Bish Bay an

[55:43] election here that's going to change who

[55:47] is going to be presiding in the court

[55:49] right in Glendale. That's going to be a

[55:51] combined court with Glendale, Brown

[55:54] Deer, Bayside, possibly River Hills.

[55:57] That's not going to be in any sense a

[56:00] locally controlled court, right? It's

[56:02] going to be difficult to imagine, you

[56:04] know,

[56:06] how do you fight city hall, right?

[56:08] That's always the question. You know,

[56:09] you can't fight city hall. Well, you

[56:11] certainly can't fight city hall if it's

[56:13] located in Glendale, right? I mean,

[56:16] that's going to be the the the idea that

[56:19] people have about going to municipal

[56:21] court for White Fish Bay when they're

[56:24] going to municipal court in Glendale.

[56:26] It's going to be a a a philosophically

[56:29] alienating, not to, you know, get too

[56:32] high in the sky, but it is going to be a

[56:34] philosophically alienating

[56:36] um experience to have to go fight your

[56:40] parking ticket in front of a Glendale

[56:43] judge and it will decrease the quality

[56:45] of service in that regard that Whitefish

[56:49] Bay delivers to its community. So, I

[56:52] think you should look hard at this. I

[56:54] think there's a number of concerns about

[56:56] it. I think the savings are not worth it

[56:58] quite frankly to to maintain the local

[57:02] character that we have in our municipal

[57:04] court where people can come and

[57:06] experience you know what often times the

[57:10] Fox Point judge um Scott Wales refers to

[57:14] as the people's court. That's what he

[57:16] calls it when people come to his court

[57:18] in Fox Point which is you know right up

[57:21] in Village Hall in Santa Monica. and he

[57:23] knows that people can come and they know

[57:26] who he who who he is and they know what

[57:29] his you know personality is and what his

[57:33] philosophy is and and things like that.

[57:35] So I think it's very important to

[57:37] maintain that local character for our

[57:40] municipal court and um to not combine it

[57:44] with the uh other court. The other thing

[57:47] I would say about the study is that you

[57:50] know it uh talks about this the joint

[57:52] feasibility study. It compares it to the

[57:55] Midmarine Municipal Court which is

[57:58] really a bad comparison because the

[58:00] Midmarine Municipal Court has 16

[58:03] communities. Okay. And they have 16

[58:06] sites where they have court. Each

[58:08] community basically has court in their

[58:10] own community from Meccan to Germantown

[58:13] all over the place. And they have a

[58:15] judge who's essentially a full-time

[58:17] judge, right? I mean, she Chris Olas

[58:21] basically does not practice law other

[58:23] than be a judge for the mid-marine

[58:26] municipal court. And her salary is

[58:28] commensurate with that. It's easily

[58:31] twice what uh Judge Lipkcom currently

[58:33] gets. Um, and it's just there's there

[58:37] the comparison between that and these,

[58:40] you know, little assortment of villages

[58:42] here is absolutely apples and oranges.

[58:45] It it it there's no comparison in terms

[58:47] of the way that works and the way this

[58:50] would work here. I think it's very

[58:52] important that you think carefully about

[58:54] this before you make any decisions to go

[58:57] ahead with this. I think the system is

[58:59] working very well right now. I think

[59:01] there's a saying that goes, if it ain't

[59:03] broke, don't fix it, and it ain't broke.

[59:07] So, thank you.

[59:09] » I'm I'm just curious. Uh, the study that

[59:12] was done, if if I was creating a study,

[59:15] I think you would be one of the people I

[59:17] would interview. Did

[59:18] » I think so, too? They did not interview

[59:20] me.

[59:20] » They did not interview.

[59:21] » They did not interview that question.

[59:23] » I I didn't hear from any think anybody

[59:25] either.

[59:25] » Interesting.

[59:26] » Right. I mean, they didn't they didn't

[59:27] really get on the ground in terms of I I

[59:30] I think the same is true of Shwood. When

[59:32] I talked to Margot Kirtcher, the

[59:33] Shorewood judge, she was surprised when

[59:36] this thing even came up. She was like,

[59:37] "They did a study. Nobody told me."

[59:40] » Did they interview Village Stack like

[59:43] where are they getting they must got a

[59:44] citation data and you know,

[59:46] » Yeah, they got data, but they I don't

[59:48] think they interviewed people and they

[59:49] certainly didn't come to see how court

[59:51] works. As far as I can tell, they didn't

[59:54] do any on the ground investigation

[59:56] besides gathering data. I could be

[59:57] wrong.

[59:58] » Yeah. So, they did a data request. Um,

[1:00:00] there was talk or we were told there was

[1:00:02] potential that they'd be interviewing

[1:00:04] staff and so both of them were informed,

[1:00:07] but my understanding is that they didn't

[1:00:08] interview them.

[1:00:09] » My apologies. Who who in who initiated

[1:00:12] this this study? So the village of

[1:00:14] Bayside is the one that's that applied

[1:00:17] for all the grants and there were

[1:00:18] several that we were allowed to

[1:00:20] participate in and so the Northshore

[1:00:22] managers were asked which do you want to

[1:00:23] participate in and we participated in

[1:00:26] all of them because there's no cost and

[1:00:28] why not

[1:00:28] » And the confusing thing about Bayside

[1:00:30] initiating this study is that they were

[1:00:31] already in the court. They were already

[1:00:33] in the Northshore mine court. So I'm not

[1:00:35] sure they decided to study.

[1:00:37] » You know why I'm asking the question?

[1:00:38] I'm trying to figure out like, you know,

[1:00:40] how impartial all of this is and it

[1:00:42] sounds like it's

[1:00:44] » Not completely

[1:00:45] » Right. I I would agree with that.

[1:00:48] Other questions or

[1:00:50] » Yeah. Do any trust?

[1:00:51] » I have a question for Chris. Um Chris,

[1:00:54] you were talking about

[1:00:56] for prosecution.

[1:00:59] » Oh, sorry. Yeah, Chris.

[1:01:00] » I'm not sure who you're

[1:01:01] » Attorney Jaggles. Sorry. Okay. Um, you

[1:01:04] were talking about going out for RFP for

[1:01:07] prosecution. Did I hear that correct?

[1:01:10] » Uh, that's just what I've heard out on

[1:01:12] the street.

[1:01:13] » Okay. Do Do you think the numbers aren't

[1:01:16] really correct in the study? Then it

[1:01:17] will actually be more expensive.

[1:01:20] » I don't know that it'll be more

[1:01:22] expensive. I know that some of the

[1:01:23] numbers I see in there are not the

[1:01:25] numbers

[1:01:26] that I'm familiar with, if that makes

[1:01:29] sense.

[1:01:30] But

[1:01:31] » I I'll comment on that because I do

[1:01:33] think that the study numbers are

[1:01:35] overstated which is why I did my own

[1:01:37] calculations in the memo. So so

[1:01:39] specifically from the prosecution side

[1:01:41] they had assumptions about number of

[1:01:43] hours spent on cases which is based on

[1:01:47] what they have realized in the

[1:01:49] Northshore court but our numbers in

[1:01:51] prosecution hours have been

[1:01:52] significantly higher. So, I used the

[1:01:54] same number of hours and then multiplied

[1:01:56] it by the hourly rate, which they got an

[1:02:00] actual quote on. So, that isn't a madeup

[1:02:02] number. That's a quote that was pro

[1:02:05] provided by the atur or the um law firm

[1:02:09] that represents Brown Deer and Glendale

[1:02:12] currently. Uh but yeah, the idea was

[1:02:15] that potentially the communities would

[1:02:17] go out to RFP. we would have per the

[1:02:20] contract, I think it's five or six years

[1:02:22] that we could remain with our current um

[1:02:24] prosecution service or prosecution firm

[1:02:27] or we could go out to RP and that

[1:02:29] decision could be made at a later time.

[1:02:31] It doesn't have to be made now. But I

[1:02:32] guess all that to say is yes, I think

[1:02:34] the prosecution savings in the study is

[1:02:36] overstated because it's based on an

[1:02:38] assumption of fewer hours being spent

[1:02:40] which could or could not be realized.

[1:02:42] And so I feel like my numbers are pretty

[1:02:45] conservative and so that's why I added

[1:02:47] those additional numbers in the memo.

[1:02:50] » And the other thing I would say about

[1:02:51] that is if you're really talking about

[1:02:53] doing a court on the same night as

[1:02:57] another community in the Glendale

[1:02:58] Municipal Court, your prosecutors are

[1:03:00] going to be spending far more time there

[1:03:02] than they do here. I mean, we can get

[1:03:04] through cases quick here. And if you're,

[1:03:08] you know, if Judge Lipkcom is, I don't

[1:03:11] know what he's going to be doing, you

[1:03:12] know, 5 to 7, you know, whatever it's

[1:03:15] going to be, it's going to be more

[1:03:16] difficult to do that and that adds up to

[1:03:19] more hours as far as I can tell.

[1:03:22] » That's why initially there was

[1:03:23] discussion about White Fish Bay being

[1:03:25] paired with Bayside because we have the

[1:03:27] same prosecutor. Um, I'm not sure if

[1:03:29] that's what would actually end up

[1:03:30] happening. Uh, but I do hear what you're

[1:03:32] saying and that's part of the reason why

[1:03:35] there's this desire from the existing

[1:03:37] participants to have joint prosecution.

[1:03:40] Well, that's always assuming or that's

[1:03:43] that's assuming that

[1:03:45] we're always going to have the same

[1:03:47] prosecutor, which is a I mean, it's

[1:03:50] there's a big difference between

[1:03:53] are we always going to have the same

[1:03:54] prosecutor and are are we always going

[1:03:56] to have a need for police and fire? I

[1:03:58] mean, I there's a

[1:04:01] consolidation in this situation is is

[1:04:04] vastly different than other ways that

[1:04:05] we've done other consolidation in the

[1:04:08] Northshore.

[1:04:12] » Quick question just about the memo and

[1:04:14] the savings numbers, but particularly

[1:04:16] the innovation grant that is that

[1:04:19] renewable like you have a fiveyear

[1:04:21] window. Is it renewable after that? So

[1:04:23] year six, any potential grant funding

[1:04:26] that's not on the table? Okay. So for

[1:04:30] for long-term purposes, you you are and

[1:04:33] and knowing that

[1:04:36] from what you're suggesting um that

[1:04:40] Shwood is not interested

[1:04:43] and so this all white you know everybody

[1:04:47] joins this court is likely not

[1:04:51] happening. You know, the the the numbers

[1:04:54] are closer to the 36 and I'm sorry, 36

[1:04:57] or 31. 31.

[1:04:59] » It's 36. I really

[1:05:00] » Yeah. Oh, I see. So, okay. So, it is

[1:05:02] six. Got it. Um

[1:05:06] 36 is the ongoing

[1:05:08] savings in your especially in year six

[1:05:12] going forward. So, that's you know, it's

[1:05:14] it's nice to have the potential of an

[1:05:16] innovation grant, but you know, I always

[1:05:18] look longterm and so um all right. Are

[1:05:22] there any other questions for our judge?

[1:05:26] I want to thank you for coming. Um,

[1:05:28] thank you.

[1:05:28] » Lots of great information that um, memos

[1:05:31] and studies don't give uh, color to and

[1:05:34] you've done a great job tonight. So,

[1:05:36] » Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[1:05:39] » Were should we call other members of the

[1:05:41] public or Yeah. Are there other members

[1:05:43] of the public or anyone else staff

[1:05:45] members who'd like to speak on that? You

[1:05:49] will. All right. Come come come to the

[1:05:52] » So my caveat is this is also my husband.

[1:05:54] Um so my name is Paige Styler. I'm

[1:05:56] obviously a resident of Boyish Bay. I'm

[1:05:57] also a lawyer and I'm a public defender.

[1:05:59] » Do you need her address?

[1:06:01] » I speak really fast too. Sorry. Do you

[1:06:03] need my address?

[1:06:03] » Address, please.

[1:06:04] » 4918 North Idol Wild Avenue. What a

[1:06:07] great

[1:06:08] » Proud neighborhood. Uh proud neighbor of

[1:06:10] Jay and his family.

[1:06:12] » I'm sorry to hear that.

[1:06:13] » Yeah, I know.

[1:06:14] Um, so the one thing I just wanted to to

[1:06:16] say to the the to all of you is that I'm

[1:06:19] a real big believer in procedural

[1:06:21] justice. And when a person gets a

[1:06:24] ticket, even if they are totally guilty

[1:06:26] of that ticket, how they are treated

[1:06:28] makes a big difference. And I always I

[1:06:31] have come up and I've watched my husband

[1:06:33] and yes, I'm very proud of him, but I'm

[1:06:34] proud of everyone I see in the court and

[1:06:36] how they treat people who are not only

[1:06:38] from Whitefish Bay, but outside the

[1:06:41] community. It's very important to me to

[1:06:43] have a good reputation about the people

[1:06:46] who come through here, whether or not

[1:06:47] that person is from here or not. You

[1:06:50] cannot control another when you

[1:06:52] outsource, you can't control what

[1:06:54] happens. And if something bad happens

[1:06:55] and they say, "This is a White Fishbay

[1:06:58] ticket and this is how I was treated."

[1:07:00] How are you going to defend yourselves?

[1:07:02] We control how we treat other human

[1:07:04] beings by keeping it local. by making it

[1:07:07] a people's court. When you have

[1:07:09] prosecutors who care about what they're

[1:07:12] doing, when you have a judge who cares,

[1:07:14] when you have a clerk who cares, when

[1:07:16] you have the police department baifts, I

[1:07:18] don't know how they're exactly called,

[1:07:20] I've seen amazing things in this very

[1:07:22] small court in which even when a person

[1:07:25] is found guilty, they're going to pay a

[1:07:27] fine, they're going to get something,

[1:07:29] they're very thankful to the court and

[1:07:30] how they were treated. And I just want

[1:07:32] to say you can't that's something that

[1:07:35] money can't buy. And it's really

[1:07:36] important to how your community is

[1:07:38] viewed. And when Jay was talking about

[1:07:40] earlier about, you know, we want

[1:07:42] everyone to love White Fishbay. We want

[1:07:43] to see the big boom. When you do these

[1:07:46] other things, they can be you just have

[1:07:47] one bad article and kind of that's where

[1:07:49] all that goes. People have perceptions.

[1:07:51] So, I want to just say that I think it's

[1:07:53] really important that we control it. Um,

[1:07:55] and then if you don't like something

[1:07:56] that someone does, you vote them out.

[1:07:58] That's kind of the the best way to

[1:08:00] handle it. Um, and what else can I tell

[1:08:03] you? Um, I just think it's it's great.

[1:08:05] You guys should be proud of yourselves.

[1:08:07] When I come up here and I watch um

[1:08:08] people think I'm ridiculous that I come

[1:08:10] and I watch my husband do ticket after

[1:08:12] ticket after ticket, but watching um you

[1:08:15] know the court in action is is a is

[1:08:17] really important and how people are

[1:08:19] treated. Um and there's also things like

[1:08:21] there's truency, there's other things

[1:08:23] that come through here. I think having

[1:08:24] an understanding of the White Fishb

[1:08:26] school system is really important. Um

[1:08:28] and then lastly, what I would say is we

[1:08:30] all have great kids, right? We all have

[1:08:32] perfect children and they're never going

[1:08:34] to make a mistake. But there are really

[1:08:36] good kids, and you probably know of

[1:08:38] them, that will get an underage drinking

[1:08:40] ticket. And there are really good kids

[1:08:41] that will do something wrong and they'll

[1:08:43] take a a prank too far. And I think our

[1:08:47] community needs to make sure that

[1:08:49] whoever is elected to position, whatever

[1:08:50] this court is, make sure that they

[1:08:53] represent kind of where we want. I mean,

[1:08:56] people and children sometimes need to be

[1:08:57] held accountable, but we don't want to

[1:08:59] ruin their lives either. and you lose

[1:09:01] that control when it goes in a different

[1:09:03] um community. I know that one thing that

[1:09:05] was very concerning to this community

[1:09:07] was um pedestrians and to make sure that

[1:09:10] uh people were watching out for

[1:09:12] pedestrians and so I know the police

[1:09:14] department did a lot of work in that

[1:09:15] area and so I watched a lot of tickets

[1:09:17] come in front of my husband on that and

[1:09:20] because he knew it was a concern for

[1:09:21] this community. It's when someone took

[1:09:23] the ticket or was being found guilty. He

[1:09:25] didn't just say, "Okay, you're guilty or

[1:09:27] whatever, whatever." He talked to them

[1:09:29] about the importance, how important it

[1:09:30] is to slow down, how important it is to

[1:09:33] watch out for pedestrians. We are a

[1:09:35] walking community. When your judge, when

[1:09:38] your police department, when your clerk,

[1:09:40] when everyone knows the concerns of this

[1:09:42] community, I think you can really make

[1:09:44] your court um represent it in a very

[1:09:47] good way. Um, and I think it also gives

[1:09:49] you that latitude that when a good kid

[1:09:51] messes up, you can figure out a way that

[1:09:53] it they can still become a nurse or they

[1:09:55] can still become a lawyer. They can

[1:09:56] still become some of these things

[1:09:57] without having something that they

[1:09:59] explain have to explain to a bar

[1:10:00] association 30 years later that they got

[1:10:02] an underage drinking ticket. So that's

[1:10:04] what I would say.

[1:10:05] » All right. Thank you. Any other members

[1:10:08] of the public interested?

[1:10:11] Okay. So, my next question is for

[1:10:15] Kelsey. What do you want from us

[1:10:18] tonight?

[1:10:19] » So, this was just noticed as an initial

[1:10:22] introduction discussion. Uh, so if

[1:10:24] there's a desire then to continue having

[1:10:26] this conversation, then it would be

[1:10:28] direction to staff to draft the

[1:10:30] ordinances and the um contract or it

[1:10:34] could be direction for additional

[1:10:35] information or you know, whatever the

[1:10:38] board needs.

[1:10:39] Um,

[1:10:41] so I just just a couple of things on on

[1:10:44] along those on that line. Uh,

[1:10:49] Judge Johnson kind of echoed

[1:10:52] um,

[1:10:54] you know, I would have echoed some of,

[1:10:55] you know, a lot of the concerns that he

[1:10:57] shared. um

[1:11:00] especially the

[1:11:03] uh the the workloads and the you know

[1:11:07] the the people's court aspect. Uh

[1:11:12] there's there's one caveat that that I

[1:11:16] want to put in here for us to think

[1:11:18] about is I think we've been we've been

[1:11:21] incredibly fortunate to have someone

[1:11:25] like Judge Johnson who actively wanted

[1:11:29] to take this role and is actively trying

[1:11:32] to recruit potential replacements.

[1:11:35] we might not always be that lucky and

[1:11:40] I I don't you know that

[1:11:41] » In terms of getting a candidate

[1:11:43] » Getting a candidate I mean there have

[1:11:45] been times where you know for for and

[1:11:48] this is across all you know municipal

[1:11:51] elected officials um you know who I know

[1:11:56] that you know that Judge Lipkum in

[1:11:59] Glendale has been there a very long time

[1:12:01] and to the best of my knowledge has a

[1:12:02] great reputation but at the like what

[1:12:04] happens you know if it you

[1:12:08] [clears throat] know when when he you

[1:12:10] know when he leaves are they gonna have

[1:12:12] you know those kind of an issue if there

[1:12:14] is a consolidated court I think that we

[1:12:18] all of the communities involved would

[1:12:20] have an easier chance at would would

[1:12:25] have a better chance at having

[1:12:27] candidates because there would be such a

[1:12:31] um such a workload

[1:12:33] Um that is the only

[1:12:36] sticking sticking point to me is that

[1:12:39] you know it's possible that that becomes

[1:12:42] more than just a

[1:12:44] you know a a a a part-time once a month

[1:12:47] you know gig the more of these

[1:12:49] communities that that come to it again

[1:12:51] the only sticking point I have no

[1:12:53] interest in in this in moving forward

[1:12:57] with it um but I just want to if in if

[1:13:02] others do that's one thing that I that I

[1:13:04] would throw out there.

[1:13:05] » That's the first thing I I heard the

[1:13:06] rumor that uh our judge wasn't

[1:13:08] continuing and I wondered what happened

[1:13:10] if nobody stepped forward. So that is

[1:13:13] absolutely inaccurate um commentary.

[1:13:16] That being said in we've had two judges

[1:13:18] in 25 and that's the thing stick around

[1:13:22] for a while.

[1:13:22] » But you know again

[1:13:23] » You need that one

[1:13:24] » We've been inc we've been incredibly

[1:13:26] lucky and same thing with Glendale.

[1:13:27] Judge Lipkin has been there since the

[1:13:29] dawn of time as far as I know. There was

[1:13:32] there was a person who expressed

[1:13:34] interest in the position

[1:13:37] » In ours.

[1:13:38] » Yes.

[1:13:38] » Yes. I Yes. I I mean I know but yeah,

[1:13:41] » But I I just I

[1:13:43] » I think we'll fill it.

[1:13:44] » But four years from now, will we fill

[1:13:46] it?

[1:13:47] » Four years from then, will we fill it? I

[1:13:49] I just

[1:13:50] » You're not wrong.

[1:13:51] » I that is the only

[1:13:53] sticking point for me.

[1:13:54] » Trusty Saravan or Casper?

[1:13:57] So yeah, I'm I'm curious what your

[1:14:00] thoughts are in that we needed direct

[1:14:02] staff. So let us

[1:14:05] » I I came in here rather dubious about it

[1:14:08] and then listening to two of the three

[1:14:11] people who spoke. I am leaving even more

[1:14:14] so. So I am not super enthusiastic about

[1:14:19] proceeding with this either.

[1:14:21] » Thank you. Trusty Casper.

[1:14:24] » Same. You both are really good

[1:14:26] attorneys. changed my mind.

[1:14:29] » There you go. Um, yeah, my perspective

[1:14:33] is really shared the same thoughts of

[1:14:35] the other trust, three trustees in that

[1:14:38] the the savings if the savings number

[1:14:41] was double, triple, or quadruple, then

[1:14:43] you'd have my attention. Um, I I do look

[1:14:46] at this as a $36,000 purchase. And and

[1:14:51] what what does Whitefish Bay get out of

[1:14:53] this by not consolidating? and and I I I

[1:14:57] think what um Judge Johnson just

[1:15:00] described was completely valuable,

[1:15:02] completely worth that kind of funds to

[1:15:05] pass up. Um so I I I think amongst the

[1:15:08] four of us currently um none of us are

[1:15:12] interested in in continuing. We we are

[1:15:14] missing three other trustees. Um, I

[1:15:17] would I I I would like to hear from them

[1:15:19] at some point what their thoughts were

[1:15:21] because at some point we did discuss

[1:15:23] this and whether this should be on the

[1:15:25] agenda and I think it was like, hey,

[1:15:27] let's at least talk about in the agenda.

[1:15:28] So, I'm I'm not entirely positive what

[1:15:30] the other three trustees think. Um, so

[1:15:34] perhaps you could

[1:15:38] do I do we want to put it on on a future

[1:15:40] agenda or do we need could we have the

[1:15:42] three trustees reach out to the village

[1:15:44] manager to say they disagree with this

[1:15:46] and they would like to I think it

[1:15:48] shouldn't be on a future agenda until

[1:15:50] another trustee that isn't here um says

[1:15:53] that they'd like to put it on. I

[1:15:55] couldn't agree more.

[1:15:56] » That makes the most sense. I couldn't

[1:15:57] agree more and I and I think you'll find

[1:16:00] at least one of the trustees who's not

[1:16:02] here that completely agrees with us.

[1:16:04] » Okay. And I mean the the other little

[1:16:06] caveat I'd put in there is I I'm basing

[1:16:08] this mostly on the math. Um if if it

[1:16:12] turns out that we've made some

[1:16:13] assumption that's wrong and that you

[1:16:15] know the the numbers are double and

[1:16:17] triple and and because we are heading

[1:16:19] for a moment of levy limit issues and so

[1:16:22] we shouldn't be leaving um stones

[1:16:24] unturned. So

[1:16:27] my only caveat is simply

[1:16:30] let's continue to have an open mind as

[1:16:33] any new information comes to light that

[1:16:35] changes the mathematics of this. But for

[1:16:38] the moment I think it's uh four trustees

[1:16:41] have basically said we're not interested

[1:16:42] in moving forward and until another

[1:16:45] trustee steps forward or math has

[1:16:47] changed I think it is u off of our

[1:16:50] agenda. Did you do you need

[1:16:53] do you was there action for this or this

[1:16:55] discussion? So this is staff this is

[1:16:57] going to be staff direction.

[1:16:59] » I mean the entire budget of the minutes

[1:17:00] of court is like 180,000. So it's not

[1:17:03] going to be quadruple that.

[1:17:04] » Right. Yeah. I

[1:17:07] Good point.

[1:17:08] » Yeah.

[1:17:08] » Good point.

[1:17:09] » Okay. That's

[1:17:10] » All right. Well, uh thank you for

[1:17:12] joining us tonight.

[1:17:14] » Thank you. Appreciate your uh public

[1:17:16] service.

[1:17:18] » Thank you. We will then move on to uh

[1:17:21] number four discussion action on

[1:17:22] ordinance 1928 to reduce the speed limit

[1:17:24] on a portion of North Lake Drive to 15

[1:17:27] miles per hour. Chief.

[1:17:29] » Yeah. So, as part of our ongoing process

[1:17:31] to improve pedestrian and bike safety,

[1:17:34] um I'm here to propose reducing the

[1:17:36] school zone speed limit on Lake Drive,

[1:17:39] uh the portion that's north of Silver

[1:17:41] Spring, which runs um approximately

[1:17:43] Carlile to Bell um from 20 miles an hour

[1:17:47] to 15 miles an hour. Um this would align

[1:17:49] with the school zone um state statutes

[1:17:52] and other school zones bay. Um the

[1:17:55] current 20 miles an hour uh limit was is

[1:17:58] allowed under an exception in state law

[1:18:01] which gives local municipalities an

[1:18:03] ability to to have an exemption for

[1:18:06] different speed limits within a certain

[1:18:08] parameter. Um in 2023 the village board

[1:18:13] lowered the speed limit the overall

[1:18:15] speed limit in the area from 30 to 25.

[1:18:17] To me, it makes sense to to lower it to

[1:18:19] 15 um when school is crossing um or

[1:18:23] school is um kids are going to and from

[1:18:25] school. Um this uh signage has already

[1:18:29] been approved by the village board to to

[1:18:32] improve the outdated signs that are

[1:18:34] there so we can accommodate um having

[1:18:36] the 15 miles an hour on those new signs.

[1:18:40] And if I remember correctly, isn't isn't

[1:18:42] it 15 on other school zones in Wet like

[1:18:45] Marlboro and every school?

[1:18:48] » So this is an this is correcting a

[1:18:50] oopsies really.

[1:18:51] » State statute says the school zone is 15

[1:18:54] miles hour. Um like I said that same

[1:18:56] statute gives you the ability to change

[1:18:58] it, but I don't see a reason why we

[1:19:00] would have it at 20 m hour

[1:19:04] » When it differs from anywhere in White

[1:19:05] Fish Bay. Um, this was presented to the

[1:19:09] public works committee. Yes,

[1:19:12] » This one was not.

[1:19:13] » Well, I the signage was the signage,

[1:19:16] » But the the ordinance never was, but the

[1:19:18] signage was approved. How about that?

[1:19:20] » Yes.

[1:19:21] » Yeah, we we just felt it prudent to get

[1:19:24] this done before the school year.

[1:19:26] » I I have a slightly different topic

[1:19:29] question and I I'm not sure it's going

[1:19:30] to be for the chief. I'm not sure who's

[1:19:32] going to answer the question, but um we

[1:19:35] have the capacity to um change the speed

[1:19:39] limits for different kind of vehicles

[1:19:40] like trucks. Can you you know like

[1:19:42] there's highways you can have truck

[1:19:45] speeds and regular speeds? Do you know

[1:19:46] if municipalities can differentiate

[1:19:49] between vehicles and trucks and speeds?

[1:19:51] » I believe on local roads you can.

[1:19:54] » No.

[1:19:54] » No. Okay. I was just asking.

[1:19:56] » I think so.

[1:19:59] where I was going was differentiating

[1:20:02] with um ebikes and maximum speeds and if

[1:20:05] we can regulate truck speeds, but

[1:20:08] apparently we can't. So, never mind. Uh

[1:20:12] are there any trustee questions about

[1:20:14] this or members of the public?

[1:20:18] Hearing none, Jay, do you think you

[1:20:20] could give me um number four?

[1:20:23] » Yes. I'm sorry. I move the village board

[1:20:25] adopt ordinance number 1928 to amend the

[1:20:28] speed limit identified in municipal code

[1:20:30] 6-4 from 20 mph to 15 mph or North Lake

[1:20:34] Drive from a 158 ft south of the south

[1:20:39] curb line of East Carile Avenue extended

[1:20:42] to a 172 ft north of the north curb line

[1:20:45] of East Bell Avenue extended at such

[1:20:48] time children are present in the school

[1:20:50] crossing zone.

[1:20:51] » Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second.

[1:20:54] » Thank you, Anna. Uh, any further

[1:20:56] discussion?

[1:20:57] Hearing none. All those in favor say,

[1:20:59] "I."

[1:21:00] » I.

[1:21:02] » Uh, any opposed?

[1:21:04] Motion carries. Thank you.

[1:21:07] » Okie dokie.

[1:21:08] Uh, moving on

[1:21:11] to number

[1:21:13] five, discussion action on ordinance

[1:21:15] 1929

[1:21:17] to create article 7 of the of chapter 14

[1:21:20] of the municipal code in regard to lead

[1:21:22] service line replacement LC.

[1:21:26] » Um, so actually attorney Jacobs is going

[1:21:28] to take this one because it's really

[1:21:29] largely a legal leader legal procedure

[1:21:33] uh that we need to adjust.

[1:21:34] » Yeah. Uh, thank you. Um,

[1:21:38] This is the result of some recent

[1:21:40] changes

[1:21:41] um in the in the statutes, changes that

[1:21:44] were welcome changes. And I say this

[1:21:46] because um we had been using uh the

[1:21:50] special assessment

[1:21:52] vehicle um as a way to to pay for

[1:21:56] improvements to properties uh and then

[1:21:58] to assess the cost of those

[1:22:00] improvements. The the the

[1:22:03] state now the department of

[1:22:04] administration has come down and said,

[1:22:05] "Well, wait a minute. you can't you

[1:22:07] can't be um uh especially assessing

[1:22:11] private property. Um in other words,

[1:22:14] it's all got to be devoted to the

[1:22:16] public. Now, that being said, the

[1:22:18] legislature came out with Act 137, which

[1:22:21] is a statute they passed in 2017,

[1:22:25] um, which, by the way, has public

[1:22:27] service commission advanced approval,

[1:22:29] which is important because

[1:22:32] everything we talk about when we're

[1:22:33] paying for utilities like this is, are

[1:22:36] we on the right side of the PSC rules

[1:22:40] requirements? In this case, it's been

[1:22:42] determined that if we pursue this Act

[1:22:45] 137 approach, um that we are free from

[1:22:50] having to submit everything to the

[1:22:51] public service commission for approval.

[1:22:54] That's a bunch of uh legal ease

[1:22:57] unfortunately, but um we just have to

[1:22:59] get get a our arms wrapped around that

[1:23:02] first. Um what the statute does is says

[1:23:07] that from from now on um

[1:23:12] basically uh improvements can be made to

[1:23:15] private property specifically for lead

[1:23:17] service line laterals. Um and those

[1:23:20] improvements can be made using uh loans

[1:23:25] from the municipality not from the

[1:23:28] utility. Everything has to be kept

[1:23:29] separate from the uh Whiteish Bay Water

[1:23:32] Utility um for our purposes on this. But

[1:23:36] the the exemption allows for having work

[1:23:39] done and paying for that work with a

[1:23:42] special charge for current services.

[1:23:44] That's the same statute that you use

[1:23:47] when somebody doesn't cut their lawn and

[1:23:50] the village will come in and cut down

[1:23:52] the, you know, the chest high weeds or

[1:23:55] whatever it might be. uh clean something

[1:23:58] up and clear all that out that under the

[1:24:01] statute can be put on the tax bill for

[1:24:03] the property that was that was affected.

[1:24:06] So it it becomes a a u a way of

[1:24:11] enforcement as well. Um, and I say that

[1:24:14] because

[1:24:16] the special the um I'm sorry, the

[1:24:19] special charge for current services um

[1:24:22] that that is done um and and and set up

[1:24:27] and in setting it up there's there's a

[1:24:30] number of documents that have to be

[1:24:31] created to um to to satisfy this regime.

[1:24:35] One for example is that there has to be

[1:24:38] an ordinance that says that uh that

[1:24:42] nobody can maintain

[1:24:45] uh the uh the lead the lead laterals if

[1:24:49] there is a need to rehabilitate

[1:24:53] the uh sanitary right in that same

[1:24:55] location or the water man. If a water

[1:24:58] mane uh is replaced,

[1:25:01] the the homeowner is required to take

[1:25:04] the actions to remove the uh the the uh

[1:25:08] lead lead lateral. Um

[1:25:12] the the statute though also in envisions

[1:25:15] a negotiated uh lease for that for that

[1:25:20] property. I guess at least is the wrong

[1:25:23] term, but an agreement um

[1:25:27] to uh to to allow for lead service

[1:25:29] replacement and to do so

[1:25:33] um under so so you've got today uh

[1:25:38] ordinance 1929. That's the action we're

[1:25:40] taking today. Um but the uh le policy

[1:25:46] that that's in the past uh act 37.

[1:25:51] Yeah, there's a loan agreement. That's

[1:25:52] what I was trying to drive at. So, the

[1:25:55] the loan agreement has to be entered

[1:25:57] into and then money can be

[1:26:01] loaned out. Essentially, the village the

[1:26:03] village borrows the money and then pays

[1:26:05] for the special charges with that money

[1:26:08] and then it goes on the tax bill for

[1:26:10] that property or gets paid in a a

[1:26:14] negotiated um loan agreement which will

[1:26:17] specify the term, the interest rates

[1:26:19] which by the way are very low. Uh and um

[1:26:25] uh and the um the access. Now, the

[1:26:28] access is also spelled out in some of

[1:26:30] the documents in the uh in the packet.

[1:26:34] And by the way, this is a kind of a

[1:26:36] complex, messy situation. And I I

[1:26:39] applaud Kelsey for the memo she put

[1:26:41] together because uh it makes it a lot

[1:26:44] easier to understand what's going on

[1:26:46] here because it's all very succinct. Um

[1:26:51] so in the process we got a

[1:26:53] pre-construction inspection and private

[1:26:55] uh replacement commitment that that

[1:26:58] document has to be signed

[1:27:00] um

[1:27:02] and that that essentially chooses

[1:27:04] between a loan agreement payment in full

[1:27:06] or or a special charge. Now, a special

[1:27:09] charge can sit on the on the the uh tax

[1:27:12] roles for the property until there is

[1:27:15] some sort of foreclosure or sale of the

[1:27:17] property. Um that that makes sure that

[1:27:21] the village gets its money back no

[1:27:22] matter what. And so it's a lot of times

[1:27:26] when you when you sell a property, you

[1:27:28] you have a closing and at the closing in

[1:27:30] comes the uh the list of exceptions from

[1:27:33] the title company. Well, this is one of

[1:27:35] those ex those exceptions that's going

[1:27:38] to be on that title and it has to be

[1:27:40] paid out in order to in order to close

[1:27:42] it out when the property is sold. If the

[1:27:46] property is not sold, you're still

[1:27:48] hoping to depend on the loan agreement

[1:27:51] and the uh the property owner being

[1:27:53] current on their payments. Um

[1:27:57] the um

[1:28:00] the interesting thing that was was added

[1:28:03] here

[1:28:04] um is [snorts] that in order to

[1:28:07] participate in it's section 660627

[1:28:11] sub8 AG1.

[1:28:15] » Really?

[1:28:16] » Yes.

[1:28:17] » Okay.

[1:28:17] » Yes. And uh and so that's that's that's

[1:28:22] where the amendment landed that I was

[1:28:23] talking about from 2017. It requires

[1:28:27] that in order to participate and the PSC

[1:28:29] backs this up, in order to participate

[1:28:32] in in the funding,

[1:28:35] um, every property in that jurisdiction

[1:28:41] should be subject to, uh, required

[1:28:44] connection,

[1:28:46] I'm sorry, required replacement. Um so

[1:28:49] so that's that's required if if we're

[1:28:52] not maintaining that system as a village

[1:28:54] again not as a utility um then the the

[1:28:58] department of administration or the

[1:29:00] department of natural resources might

[1:29:02] withdraw our authority to to conduct

[1:29:05] these programs. Um, I I say that

[1:29:10] but I point out that what Kelsey has put

[1:29:13] together here, including the list of

[1:29:14] attachments, um, accomplishes what needs

[1:29:17] to be accomplished. Um,

[1:29:20] and can help get this get this done. Um,

[1:29:25] let's see.

[1:29:26] » And this isn't specific to Wes Bay. It's

[1:29:29] » Right. The statute is the statute is uh

[1:29:31] in use elsewhere. Um, Kelsey modeled a

[1:29:34] lot of these documents after the the

[1:29:36] same process in Cedarberg.

[1:29:38] » Okay.

[1:29:39] » And they they had some they had some

[1:29:41] nice ordinances and whatnot. Kelsey

[1:29:43] brought them to my attention. They I

[1:29:45] thought they were great. And um so we've

[1:29:48] been in consultation with other

[1:29:50] communities like like uh like like I

[1:29:54] just like um like I just described,

[1:29:56] Cedarberg. Um, but we've also consulted

[1:29:59] with experts in this field just to make

[1:30:01] sure there wasn't something that we

[1:30:02] weren't weren't catching. Um, and I say

[1:30:06] experts meaning u

[1:30:08] an attorney in particular who

[1:30:10] specializes in this statute and this

[1:30:12] action. Um, [clears throat]

[1:30:15] and everything is in order. I will I

[1:30:18] will tell you that uh it can the money

[1:30:22] can only be spent in pursuant to a

[1:30:25] program that's administered by the

[1:30:26] municipality.

[1:30:28] In other words, nobody can just look up

[1:30:30] and say, "Well, I'm going to replace my

[1:30:32] lateral, my my lead lateral to give me

[1:30:35] some money."

[1:30:36] » Yeah. Um, it has to be part of a village

[1:30:39] program or uh, and uh, Trusty Sarman had

[1:30:44] brought this up possibly on an emergency

[1:30:47] basis,

[1:30:49] you know, and we put together a draft to

[1:30:50] do that if if we need to do that. Um,

[1:30:56] let's see.

[1:30:59] » I hope we have enough.

[1:31:01] » Yeah, I was going to say you're going to

[1:31:04] want to stop me now. Yeah, I'm gonna

[1:31:06] [laughter] stop you there. Um, quick

[1:31:08] comment. I thought Trusty Deman had some

[1:31:11] questions. Did he contact you and yeah,

[1:31:14] » Get this resolved?

[1:31:15] » Well, we talked over the phone. He had

[1:31:17] questions about if we did the financial

[1:31:20] assistance program that's authorized

[1:31:22] through the PSC if that would mean that

[1:31:24] we didn't we didn't have to do the

[1:31:26] mandatory replacement ordinance. And I

[1:31:28] looked into that and my research showed

[1:31:30] that it would still be required.

[1:31:31] » Yeah, it's it's required. I just want to

[1:31:33] make sure in absentia that he got his

[1:31:36] words in.

[1:31:37] » It's required and that's that's what

[1:31:38] keeps it out of the PSC's uh snare, you

[1:31:42] know.

[1:31:42] » Got it.

[1:31:44] Are there any specific questions for

[1:31:47] staff from any trustees?

[1:31:51] Any members of the public?

[1:31:54] Hearing none. Um there's a

[1:32:05] » Service line. Um could that funding be

[1:32:08] used? It's my understand

[1:32:17] » Can you come up to the microphone just

[1:32:19] because we do have people at home.

[1:32:20] » Yeah. Sorry.

[1:32:24] I'll start my question over. Um, so if a

[1:32:27] resident informs the DPW or utility that

[1:32:30] they're replacing their private side

[1:32:32] independently of a village project, it's

[1:32:34] my understanding that the utility has to

[1:32:38] replace their public side. So, could

[1:32:40] those funds be used in that scenario?

[1:32:42] Because I think that that happens

[1:32:45] enough for it to be addressed.

[1:32:48] » You mean where it's just a single solo

[1:32:50] project?

[1:32:51] » Correct. It can be done but it can't it

[1:32:53] can't be eligible for funding.

[1:32:56] » That was my question.

[1:32:57] » Okay.

[1:32:57] » Thank you.

[1:33:01] » And I'm going to look at Jay unless he

[1:33:02] has a question to entertain motion

[1:33:04] number

[1:33:05] » Sorry. First

[1:33:07] Sarban. Did you want to jump in with

[1:33:09] your suggested amendment

[1:33:12] the ordinance?

[1:33:13] » Yeah. Yeah. I I had just suggested and I

[1:33:15] think that's what the memo was that you

[1:33:17] guys got later this afternoon. I had

[1:33:20] suggested that since we were changing

[1:33:22] the ordinance now that if someone had an

[1:33:27] emergency with their with their service

[1:33:31] line and we are now requiring that they

[1:33:34] replace it, we're no longer allowing

[1:33:36] them to repair it that it seemed to me

[1:33:39] that would make it eligible for this

[1:33:41] money. And I think I think we kind of

[1:33:44] covered that already, but that was just

[1:33:45] what my thinking was behind it. And so

[1:33:48] what was passed out is version two and

[1:33:50] that that's what we're discussing today.

[1:33:52] » So you don't have in front of well you

[1:33:54] might but um we've were delivered a new

[1:33:58] version of this um with language on uh

[1:34:02] emergency replacements.

[1:34:04] » Correct.

[1:34:04] » Right.

[1:34:05] » So I just wanted to clarify for anybody

[1:34:06] that maybe is listening at home. It's

[1:34:08] different than what was included in the

[1:34:10] packet in that the eligibility language

[1:34:12] has changed to include emergency

[1:34:15] » And so yes. which is still is still

[1:34:19] different than someone just opting to do

[1:34:22] it, you know, absent an emergency,

[1:34:25] absent a break.

[1:34:27] » Do I'm sorry. Do we have

[1:34:34] » Do we have email? We got it via email

[1:34:38] this afternoon, Jay.

[1:34:39] » No, no, no. What I what I'm asking is do

[1:34:41] we have

[1:34:43] what constitutes an emergency?

[1:34:46] » I think it it described a break and that

[1:34:49] it and it had to be, you know, in

[1:34:51] consultation then with the village

[1:34:53] engineer who would look and confirm that

[1:34:55] this was a break that needed to be

[1:34:57] replaced.

[1:34:58] » Exactly. It's a it's an administrative

[1:35:00] decision by the public works director,

[1:35:04] » I believe, is how it's written, right?

[1:35:06] » It's by the village engineer.

[1:35:07] » Village engineer. Okay. And is is there

[1:35:09] not an emergency

[1:35:13] » A planned break? I don't think

[1:35:15] » I'm just I I I that's one thing I didn't

[1:35:18] see and and I still don't see it. Where

[1:35:23] where is that in the in the ordinance?

[1:35:26] » It's on page three and it's in blue.

[1:35:29] It's the second line of blue text.

[1:35:32] » Oh, as deter I'm sorry. Determined by

[1:35:33] the village engineer. Okay.

[1:35:35] » Yeah. Um, Attorney Jacles, are you

[1:35:38] you're good with with that?

[1:35:40] » Yes, I've gone over this and edited it.

[1:35:42] » Okay.

[1:35:43] » Made some changes.

[1:35:44] » All right. Actually, now that we have

[1:35:46] the word village engineer, do we we we

[1:35:51] still use the term village engineer.

[1:35:53] » That's all over our code. So, that's why

[1:35:54] I didn't instead of public works

[1:35:55] director, it's a defined term.

[1:35:56] » Fair enough. I I know we used to have

[1:35:58] one and then we Yeah. Okay.

[1:36:00] » Yeah. That's why I I instinctively said,

[1:36:02] » Yep. You know,

[1:36:03] » That's fine. If if it's public

[1:36:07] » Uh all right so if you'd like to make a

[1:36:09] motion

[1:36:10] » Trusty cat you do I don't know if you

[1:36:13] talked to trusty Casper on this

[1:36:16] » Okay

[1:36:17] » Good

[1:36:18] » I'm looking out for you Anna

[1:36:20] » Okay um

[1:36:22] » Okay uh with that said I move the

[1:36:24] village board adopt ordinance number 129

[1:36:27] creating article 7 of chapter 14 of the

[1:36:31] municipal code with regard to lead

[1:36:33] service line replacement as amended.

[1:36:35] » Perfect. Do I hear a second?

[1:36:37] » I second.

[1:36:38] » I'm going to give that to Anna. I think

[1:36:40] she got it in.

[1:36:41] » Oh, wow.

[1:36:42] » Um,

[1:36:42] » Right, Terra. [laughter]

[1:36:44] » They're all yours.

[1:36:46] » Any further discussion? Hearing none.

[1:36:48] All those in favor say I.

[1:36:50] » I.

[1:36:52] » Any opposed?

[1:36:53] » Motion carries.

[1:36:55] All right. Now, we move into our final

[1:36:58] item of the night, which is uh to go

[1:37:00] into close session. Tara, do you want to

[1:37:02] do it? Oh, I'll let you, Jay. You're

[1:37:04] there. [laughter]

[1:37:06] » I'll I'll do my best trusty Sarah uh

[1:37:09] impression here. Uh I move the village

[1:37:12] board convening a close session pursuant

[1:37:13] to Wisconsin state statute 19.851c

[1:37:17] considering employment promotion

[1:37:18] compensation or performance evaluation

[1:37:20] data of any public employee over which

[1:37:22] the governmental body has jurisdiction.

[1:37:24] I think so.

[1:37:24] » Or exercises responsibility

[1:37:27] regarding 2027 employee compensation

[1:37:30] benefits pursuant to Wisconsin state

[1:37:32] statute 19.851E

[1:37:35] deliberating or negotiating the purchase

[1:37:37] of public property, investing in public

[1:37:38] funds, conducting other specified

[1:37:40] business

[1:37:42] » Whenever competitive and or bargaining

[1:37:44] reasons require a close session

[1:37:45] specifically regarding contract

[1:37:46] negotiations with the police union.

[1:37:49] » Thank you. Do a second.

[1:37:53] I'll second it.

[1:37:54] » I was letting Anna do it. I was letting

[1:37:56] you do it. [laughter]

[1:37:57] » All right. Uh, all those in favor of the

[1:38:01] motion to go into close session, say I.

[1:38:04] » I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are

[1:38:07] now going into close session.

[1:38:12] » Pause the recording.

[1:38:20] There's nobody else in the

[1:38:22] » Yeah.

[1:38:23] » Room. Okay. We have reconvened into open

[1:38:26] session. It is 8:07 and the last thing

[1:38:28] we need to do is

[1:38:29] » Mr. President, I move to adjourn.

[1:38:32] » Oh, I'm giving it to Jay and is there

[1:38:35] anyone to second?

[1:38:37] » Second.

[1:38:37] » Thank you, Anna. All those in favor of

[1:38:39] adjourning say I.

[1:38:41] » I.

[1:38:41] » Any opposed? Motion carries. We are

[1:38:43] journed. Thank you all for

[1:38:46] » Spending two hours of your life

[1:38:49] with the public meetings that we have.

[1:38:52] » Good night.

[1:38:53] » Good night.

Untitled meeting

Transcript