[0:00] to order of the city council, city of
Winona, Monday, June 16th.
[0:06] Could you please call the role? Alder
here. Alder is not here yet. Alder here.
[0:12] Alder here. Alder here. Excused. Mayor
here. Please rise for those res
[0:23] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[0:28] stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:33] for all.
[0:36] Thank you.
[0:40] Um, do I have a motion to approve the
minutes from June 2nd, 2025?
[0:47] So moved. Do I have a second? Second. I
have a second. Any changes, corrections,
[0:56] additions to the minutes?
Seeing none. All those in favor say I.
[1:02] I. The minutes are approved.
Um,
[1:09] I have something for appearances, but is
anybody here to make an appearance?
[1:15] No. Anybody on screen? No. Okay. Then
we'll close uh before we close the
[1:22] appearance section.
Uh I have a proclamation this evening.
[1:30] Uh at the last meeting we actually had
proclamation for pride month and and I
[1:34] spent a little bit of time
uh talking uh on WVMO about the
[1:40] importance of proclamations because I
think sometimes they're overlooked by
[1:43] our community and
uh and this one uh certainly falls under
[1:49] that category as well. This is a
proclamation uh for Junth which is this
[1:54] Thursday the 19th proclamation. Whereas
the Emancipation Proclamation signed by
[2:00] President Abraham Lincoln on January 1,
1863 did not end slavery for for all in
[2:07] our nation. It would take two more years
with the end of the Civil War for the
[2:11] Union Army troops to march into
Galveastston, Texas to enforce the
[2:14] Emancipation Proclamation and free the
250,000 people who remained enslaved. It
[2:21] is in remembrance of this day that we
now celebrate June 19th as Junth. And
[2:27] whereas while Junth has long been a
regional holiday celebrated in the
[2:31] American South with parades, picnics,
family gatherings, and prayer, it took
[2:36] on a more national and symbolic
prominence in 2020 following nationwide
[2:40] protests over the killing of George
Floyd. And whereas in 2021, President
[2:47] Joe Biden signed into law the Junth
National Independence Day Act. And Junth
[2:52] became a federal holiday to recognize
the emancipation of enslaved
[2:56] African-Americans
and to acknowledge the enduring struggle
[3:00] for freedom and equality in the United
States. And whereas today's Junth events
[3:06] continue to celebrate black American
culture, history, art, and achievement,
[3:10] and recognize the triumph of the human
spirit over slavery. Now therefore, I,
[3:15] Nancy Moore, mayor of Manona, Wisconsin,
in collaboration with the Manona City
[3:20] Council, do hereby declare June 19th,
2025 as Junth in the city of Manona. I
[3:28] call on residents to join me in
commemorating the centuries of struggle
[3:32] faced by black Americans, celebrating
their power and resilience, and renewing
[3:36] our commitment to promote racial healing
and end systematic inequity wherever it
[3:41] exists. signed the city of Manona, Deng
County, Wisconsin, this 16th day of
[3:46] June, 2025. Nancy W. Moore, mayor.
Um, there will be uh a flag raising for
[3:57] Junth at 8 a.m. on Thursday for anybody
who would like to join us right here at
[4:02] city.
Thank you. Uh, with that, uh, we have no
[4:08] public hearing.
Uh, and I'm going to move to the consent
[4:12] agenda. Do I have a motion to approve
the consent agenda? So moved. Second.
[4:17] Um, I need to recuse myself. Yep. Uh,
Rachel will be recusing herself from
[4:24] this one. Um,
so uh, we have a motion and we have a
[4:28] second. All those in favor say I. I.
Uh, motion carries. Consent agenda
[4:35] carries. Uh that takes us to G council
action items. Unfinished business
[4:40] consideration of 2025 2026 class A
fermented malt beverage and class A
[4:47] liquor licenses for Los Pedos uh Manona
LLC 6001 6005 Manona Drive license
[4:55] review committee from the license review
committee.
[5:00] Uh uh do I have a motion? I'll move to
approve. Do I have a second? Second. I
[5:06] have a second. All those in favor say I.
I. I. Motion carries.
[5:13] Unless you didn't ask for discussion, so
I don't know. Sorry. I just didn't It
[5:18] was pretty straightforward. Was anything
to discuss.
[5:24] Okay. Apologize. I just uh You never
know. It was on the previous agenda. So,
[5:31] um we took it off the previous agenda, I
should say. Um, uh, that takes us to GB,
[5:38] consideration of resolution 25-6-2811,
amending the 2025 operating budget for
[5:45] library salaries
from the finance director.
[5:50] Uh, and this was discussed at the last
meeting. Do we have any Do I have a
[5:55] motion? I'll move. Do I have a second?
Second. Any other discussion about this?
[6:06] Uh given that it's a total of 22,000,
this would be a voice vote. All those in
[6:10] favor say I. I. I.
Hey, there he is. Welcome, Rick. Thank
[6:18] you.
Uh, that takes us to new business
[6:23] G2A,
consideration of resolution 25-6-2813
[6:30] approving a sanitary sewer rate increase
from the public works committee.
[6:38] Welcome. Yeah, thank you. Uh, first read
here. Um,
[6:43] so what I'm recommending is a increase
to the sewer rates of 20%.
[6:49] Um, and there's various reasons why and
kind of kind of go over them. Um, so we
[6:54] have revenue bonds. They're different
than go notes. Revenue bonds are
[6:57] supported by revenues. Um, um, it's
really uh, most of utilities have them.
[7:03] Um, water, sewer, we don't have any for
storm water utility, but there is sewer
[7:08] or storm water utility revenue bonds. Um
we even have tiff increment revenue
[7:13] bonds. Um and all of them have this
requirement in there that's uh in their
[7:18] covenants that we have to meet. Um
revenues let us operating expense
[7:23] excluding uh depreciation must exceed
1.25 the highest annual debt service of
[7:30] the bonds. Um
so right now um we're on verge of not
[7:36] meeting that requirement if we don't
increase it by 20%. Um and there are
[7:40] three reasons why um that are revenues
are uh expenses are causing this. Um one
[7:49] is Madison Metro um sewage district. I
kind of get into that. The other one uh
[7:53] our borrowings and the other one is a
flat or slightly decreased over the last
[7:58] year of um sewer usage. Um the biggest
one here to me is uh the Madison Metro
[8:06] Sewers District. Um there's a there is a
page in here I put in put in here. I
[8:12] don't know what page it is for council.
I just had my finance packet. Um but
[8:16] shows what the increases were um from
Madison Metro from 2015
[8:22] uh 2024. Um
we've had a change of basically 72% over
[8:29] those over those years. You know we
average um about 8%. Uh and you'll
[8:36] notice in 2023 were the big kind of
years. Um happened recently in 2023
[8:43] to 20
uh 2022 to 23 the increase 108,000 um
[8:49] about 13% increase. From 23 to 24 um was
a 20% increase. Uh they usually do tell
[8:57] us they're increase in the rates. It's
usually about between 4 to 8%. Uh we're
[9:01] usually on a little higher side. We're
usually at around 8%. Um, so each
[9:06] district within the uh Mass Metro who's
part of it, they all get separate u
[9:12] notice what their rate increases are
going to be and this ours is usually
[9:15] around 8% um every year. We haven't had
issues meeting the requirements um
[9:21] because our rates um have been okay um
to meet that requirement. Um but this
[9:27] last two years um it's really eat into
any surplus we would have to to meet
[9:33] that requirement of the 1.25 25 in 2024
for we got a thing from Mass Metro. They
[9:41] thought that the overall cost was going
to be roughly a million dollars. Came in
[9:46] at $1.1 million. Um so we actually took
a little bit of a loss in that fund um
[9:51] because of that issue. Um
[9:56] and I've I've shared this I know with
public works and I've shared it now with
[10:00] finance. I've been looking through these
invoices. I'm trying to get a good
[10:04] handle on this whole Madison Metro
Sewers District. I've been in contact
[10:07] with them trying to kind of been going
on for years, but trying to figure out
[10:11] exactly what happens with that. So each
year we get a quarter bill from them. I
[10:15] just want to kind of show analysis one
thing I'm looking at. Um
[10:21] we get a quarter bill. So what I've
learned is one week out of a quarter
[10:25] they'll monitor the flows and that's
what they'll use for the entire month.
[10:29] So whatever that average is for that
week is what you have as a flow. So I
[10:33] was looking at you know last year
quarter one um just just for my analysis
[10:39] last year quarter one so they break it
down all these quads different areas of
[10:43] manona and they use our um
billing usage too the bill but so these
[10:50] there's quads they call it's where these
uh cues is where the the monitors are.
[10:54] There's quad three biggest ones are
affecting us. There's quad 50 which I
[10:59] believe is the Midmmore lifts area um
monitoring system. There's one called 53
[11:07] which is Birch Haven and then 128 which
is the river riverplace of pier 37 area.
[11:14] Um so there's a dramatic difference from
just from quarter 1 to quarter three. So
[11:19] I don't know if it's you know for
quarter one the gallons per day just I'm
[11:25] just going to use a quad 50 which is a
minor wasund 112 gallons per day for the
[11:32] first quarter second uh third quarter it
was 285
[11:37] um gallons per day but our usage is
basically exactly the same so I've been
[11:43] trying to figure out with them they also
have this factor in there which I'm
[11:46] trying to figure out better They charge
1.3% increase. So they're saying there's
[11:52] 30. I don't get it. So I'm trying to
work with them trying to work with Brad
[11:56] to figure out there's basically what
they told me is there's 1.3 factors
[12:01] included in there. They told me pretend
there's 100 um 100 houses connected to
[12:07] the sewer system. Um and they're saying
that 1.3 is there's 30
[12:14] unconnected se connected to the sewer
system. are are flowing through that
[12:18] which I don't completely understand yet.
So I'm trying to get more information on
[12:21] that. And so those two big ones uh C50
and C 53 or Q50 and Q53
[12:31] all have this 1.3 factor in there too.
So I'm trying to figure out exactly what
[12:35] that is. Um but even if I go to Q53 we
went from 100 it's 200 basically 200 uh
[12:43] gallons per day to 370. So and they
increase their rates every year. So you
[12:50] know for some reason there's more
flowage going through there higher the
[12:54] bills um each year. We do get an average
of an increase uh from them. Uh they are
[13:01] not subject to any council. I mean, they
do have a board, but
[13:06] so they, you know, I'm not saying
they're doing, but their rates go
[13:08] through the councils every year or to
their utility board. They approve it.
[13:13] So, and that's represented by the city
of Madison. Um, it's also represented by
[13:17] Dane Countyy's, villages, and cities,
and there's some other unelected
[13:21] people on there, too. Um, they term that
every year, and they tell us what it is,
[13:25] but that's growing at a rate that if it
keeps on growing at this rate, you know,
[13:28] 13 20%, it's really unsustainable. So
trying to narrow down what these issues
[13:33] are in these quads which is really
causing it because our usage on the
[13:37] other hand is staying the same. So the
revenue we're bringing in stays the same
[13:40] every year. Um so we got to make up for
that extra 113,000.
[13:46] Um and that's one of the reasons why
requesting
[13:49] the biggest reason if that keeps on
jumping at this 13 20% is want it's not
[13:54] being sustainable forever um with these
large increases but we need to we need
[14:00] to be able to pay that and make sure we
meet our uh re revenue bonds
[14:03] requirements. Um we do have some debt
service did increase a little bit. Um
[14:08] that's how we also we had some larger
projects the last couple years. Um so
[14:13] that's increased a little bit but so we
have to make up for that um increasing
[14:17] there and the other one is like I said
usage is staying the same. So the usage
[14:22] is staying the same. So we you know
we're not able to meet this the revenues
[14:26] um the expenses are going up and massive
metro sewage district is basically 90
[14:32] some percent of our costs outside of
depreciation interest payments and stuff
[14:36] like that um 90% of our total cost. So
we have no control over that. We
[14:42] actually if you look at the FTE that we
use just for the public works it's less
[14:46] than 1%. So you're not or less than one
FTE. I think it's like 75. So there's
[14:51] not a lot of public works involvement in
there. I mean they do some but it's
[14:55] equivalent to like a 1.75 FTE. It's all
Madison Metro uh driven to us. So we
[15:02] have to meet our requirements. So that's
why I'm requesting this uh increase
[15:08] to the sort of utilities.
[15:12] Would you like to add
some of what we discussed with finance?
[15:18] um uh around one of the things well let
me just say you know one of the things
[15:23] that I said was I understand the need to
increase this because we don't have a
[15:26] choice right we don't have any control
over it on the other hand uh and I
[15:33] really do appreciate Mark's uh
investment and trying to get to the
[15:36] bottom of why it it why the insane
increases in my view two years in a row
[15:44] um when it doesn't appear to relate to
usage it appears to
[15:48] because of this independent body. It's
independent of Madison too as well, by
[15:52] the way. Um,
and so, um, my question was, you know,
[16:00] are we going to keep digging? Are we
going to keep pushing to get the answers
[16:04] to everything even though we need to
increase this amount? And that's what we
[16:08] talked about with the finance meeting.
So, if you want to talk about Yeah,
[16:12] absolutely, Mayor. Um, so the Dane
County Cities and Villages Association
[16:16] um is is has essentially there's a a
component of those communities who are
[16:22] essentially Madison Metropolitan Sewage
District customers. Um that that
[16:25] component of those folks I believe we
have I have a.3 members on the governing
[16:31] board through that through our
association at DCCVA.
[16:35] Um, so part of that is is making sure
that that relationship between our
[16:39] appointees is are basically
communicating with us and following what
[16:44] and being aware of what our issues are
at the local level and then carrying
[16:48] that forward actually at the board
meetings. I think there's been some
[16:51] concern over that. I think the last year
and year year and a half or so um has
[16:56] been a considerable amount more of
discussion at the Dane County Cities and
[17:00] Villages Association meetings uh with
with sharing the same concern. To be
[17:04] clear, I want to make sure so for for
the public as well as for this body,
[17:07] this is an issue for all MMSD customers.
They are experiencing these
[17:13] extreme
increases, I guess, for lack of a better
[17:17] term. Um there's been, you know, some
explanations as to why that's happening.
[17:21] I guess a little bit. um pre there's a a
previous director um I think in the last
[17:27] couple years had set a borrowing number
for capital projects uh at a certain
[17:32] number but then they were only
completing about 2/3 of those projects.
[17:35] So what they're levying for that larger
number. So rolling that fund over and so
[17:41] like what we would do here keeping that
available towards cash funding any other
[17:45] future projects and so forth. But the
problem is they're levying for that that
[17:50] additional amount every year and they're
not doing the project. So it's an
[17:53] unnecessary increase in that regard. I
think that was one thing that was kind
[17:57] of discovered um by one of our one of
our other members had brought that
[18:00] forward. You know, in addition there the
communication in the past has not been I
[18:06] guess uh as as as robust as we think it
probably should be. Um, so I think it's
[18:11] it's been kind of really the last I'd
say the last full year from the Dayne
[18:15] County Cities and Villages Association
meeting. This is a regular topic pretty
[18:18] much at every single meeting. So this is
coming up. So I think the main things
[18:22] are our main order of recourse I think
are one certainly uh you know having
[18:26] Mark and and our we talked about maybe
having the need of having the finance
[18:30] directors uh and you you know of those
folks at of all of the partner the
[18:34] customer communities be a a a kind of a
work group so to speak to actually meet
[18:39] with MMSD and talk about the financial
end of these things but then having our
[18:43] public works directors or our utility
managers being a technical group so we
[18:47] have a better understanding of the
actual need for the projects that
[18:51] they're that they're working on. And so
when they say it's, you know, this is
[18:55] it's past its useful life or this is a
DNR requirement or this is whatever
[19:00] explanation they've provided to us, we
have the technical people in the room to
[19:04] agree like, "Yep, that's correct. That's
absolutely right." Or, "No, that's
[19:07] that's not absolutely not right." So, I
think those are some things that are in
[19:11] the works to help continue to hopefully
make this a little more manageable from
[19:15] their end. But I think the main thing we
need to do is to make sure that those
[19:19] appointed reps through the Dane County
Cities and Villages Association are
[19:23] being responsive to their customer
communities and making sure that our
[19:26] concerns are being brought forward. So
that's kind of our our main our main
[19:31] focus of that organization and as
customer communities at this point. I do
[19:35] think uh I think that's good too. I the
flow thing is really the thing that's
[19:38] really causing the whole the big
difference too. I mean their rates are
[19:42] increasing. So basically they take one
week. This is my and maybe that's a way
[19:47] they can maybe change that. They take
one week out of 12 weeks and say okay
[19:52] this one week this is your flow. We're
going to average that for the entire
[19:56] quarter. So if you got a one week where
it's super you know wet or something
[20:00] that's infiltration
maybe it's that whole that applies to
[20:05] the entire quarter. I mean the opposite
side could be super you know low flow
[20:10] too. we get applied to the super to the
whole quarter to where it's lower than
[20:13] it should be too. Um so there is that
both lads too but you know one quarter
[20:18] to me I don't one week out of 12 weeks I
don't know I don't know if that's to me
[20:24] I
I don't know if I person I don't think
[20:28] that's I don't know if that the whole
average for the whole quarter
[20:33] to Mark's point I think the question is
it's like when you have increased flows
[20:37] but your overall usage isn't changing.
Yeah. Why why don't they use usage? They
[20:43] do use it. They use as part of their
analysis too. Okay. Right. So actually
[20:47] that was going to be my question was
like there obviously must be a formula
[20:51] that's a combination of flow and usage
or else they do use it. So what's the
[20:55] formula
or or I mean not
[21:00] I mean generally speaking what's
they do take are they call um equivalent
[21:05] meters. So they
invoice I have from them. There's like
[21:10] volumes. There's a volume charge is CB.
I don't know exactly what that is. Uh
[21:16] solids, uh nitrates, and then phosphors
and the equipment meters. And then
[21:23] actual customers, they have a charge. So
there's like one, two, three, six
[21:27] different
charges. And so they I so they have the
[21:33] meter and then they have the flows. And
so I assume a lot of it maybe could be
[21:38] INI could be what it is. I'm not for
sure. Um
[21:43] I guess our strength of flow shouldn't
be for the most part because we don't
[21:47] have significant industrial users in the
city. Our our strength of flow
[21:52] should probably be in terms of what's
actually in the water the phosphorus the
[21:56] nitrate.
could should be lower than other folks
[22:00] unless there's something going on that's
causing it's mainly the flow issue that
[22:05] that gallon charge and and they did talk
to him and he said it's if you look at
[22:10] the if you look at these there's three
of them 50 quad 50 53 and 126. Um
[22:19] if you look at the lake levels at that
time they would say it looks exactly
[22:23] like the lake levels.
So if the lake is up then we're getting
[22:28] a lot higher flow charges.
So
[22:34] so that's I mean they did they have
something they were showing me like well
[22:36] if you look at the lake and the levels
and you compare it it's pretty similar.
[22:41] So
any other questions on this particular
[22:45] item? We're not voting on this tonight.
Doug, were you going to Well, one two
[22:50] question or question and a comment. Um,
when was the last time that we raised
[22:56] the sewer rates? Uh, it's been a while.
Okay. Get that. Yeah, I get that about
[23:04] when about seven years ago. Okay. So,
[23:10] um, you know, 20% increase over take
that annually over seven years is not as
[23:16] ownorous as otherwise
sounds. Um,
[23:22] I guess I had always
kind of assumed that part of the reason
[23:26] that their costs are going up, well, two
things. One is there's so much
[23:29] development in the county in the area
that they serve that there's more of it.
[23:34] So, they have a lot of capital cost that
aren't necessarily that we're causing
[23:38] them, but they're for them to operate
the system, they have to do it. Maybe
[23:42] that's not the case, but No, that is the
case. Um, and that there may be, you
[23:48] know, they have other capital needs.
Maybe there's new standards they have to
[23:52] meet. But I'm sure PE fans in there,
too. Right. So, that would on their
[23:57] website it says that
customers should contact the
[24:02] municipality that issued the bill, but
municipal staff can contact the district
[24:06] directly about, you know, their bill.
Um and I did just as information the
[24:13] commission makeup is five Madison
appointees three DCCVA and one town
[24:19] which is not that's fairly common that's
no is sort of set up
[24:25] similarly although
no does have a technical committee made
[24:30] up of like public works directors or
assistant directors
[24:35] that advise their staff and and the the
board on things. Sounds like that might
[24:44] be something that they should look at.
That's kind of them. Yeah, probably
[24:51] manager.
Okay. Any other questions, comments
[24:57] about this item? So, Rick, did you have
anything?
[25:01] No, ma'am.
Mayor question. Um
[25:07] Mark, can you explain the relation
between
[25:12] the
Madison Metropolitan Sewer District
[25:15] Services and the City of Manona's like
we have wells where our drinking water
[25:20] comes from. How is it all related?
Dan's better, but
[25:29] that answer. Um,
well, we have the water. So, anything
[25:34] that goes through your meter, uh, your
water meter goes back into
[25:39] gets a charge.
I'm trying to think of exactly the
[25:43] question. Like, so I guess my question
is every single drop of water that I use
[25:48] in my house is all back to MMSD.
Is that true? Yes and no. Um, so
[25:57] anything that goes to your your actual
meter, you get a you actually
[26:01] get a bill from us for that usage.
Exactly. And then we send that to the
[26:05] MSD, so they have a knowledge of that.
But if you're watering your yard and it
[26:09] went through the meter and it doesn't go
back into the sewer, I mean, it doesn't
[26:13] go back through, you know, your toilet,
your drains, um, you're still getting
[26:16] bill for that even though it doesn't go
into the sewer system.
[26:20] And and I would get build by the city.
You'd get build by the city. So we would
[26:26] get build by the Mass Metro too because
they use that in their analysis the
[26:30] usage, right? Even though it didn't go
through their system, right? But that's
[26:37] common throughout the state for all
sewer utilities. Okay. And then another
[26:42] question I had was um I just wanted to
make sure I heard you correctly. I think
[26:46] you said that MMSD service you know the
fees that we pay the service we pay is
[26:52] 90% of the budget number but the
majority of our whose budget city of
[26:57] Manona's budget so if you look at our
whole
[27:01] sewer utilities if you look at our sewer
utility yeah right as a whole if you
[27:05] take away the uh the principal and the
interest and the appreciation costs and
[27:10] the net like operating costs they're
it's it's pretty tight number. I get the
[27:16] exact number, but that's like your
biggest cost that
[27:20] electric bills for the pump stations.
So, again, just as a resident, I've got
[27:26] I pay for sewer um services. Yeah. 90%
of what I'm paying is related to MMSD.
[27:33] It's a pass through essentially. It's
pass. I mean, they have they have all I
[27:36] mean, they have the infrastructure as
far as the system. They're the ones that
[27:40] do all the the plans. So, that's the
expensive part, right? running those
[27:44] plans. So that's I mean that's the
benefit to us is we don't have to run
[27:50] our own treatment system. Right. Right.
Like I said we have about 1.75 FTEES and
[27:56] they probably I don't even know what
they I'm sure they have a lot higher
[28:00] number than that. So you know they're
paying for that all that stuff.
[28:04] Okay. Thank you.
Yeah. And just to point out just in
[28:09] terms of you know the mention of the
makeup of the actual governing board in
[28:13] terms of the Madison represent Madison
is dealing with this this issue as well.
[28:17] So they're they're seeing increases in
the same ranges that we are. So they're
[28:21] they still have they're still dealing
with the same concern that all the other
[28:25] smaller communities are and that the
percentage increase is is substantial
[28:29] and is significantly higher than
anything they're doing with their own
[28:32] budgets. So, and this is a we it's a
strange case that you know, normally you
[28:37] would think maybe it'd be the small guys
versus the big guy. In this case, we're
[28:40] all kind of on the same same boat. In
fact, they may even getting a little
[28:44] worse as they're since they're the
primary user, they may be seeing even
[28:48] even more of a significant impact of
these these increases than even the
[28:52] smaller communities are. So, so
hopefully together we can continue to
[28:57] keep the discussion going and and
continue to make some progress on this
[29:01] hopefully. So, mayor
Is there anything that any action that
[29:05] we need to take tonight? I know that
this is not started for immediate, but
[29:10] next time we meet, is it is it the
intent that we would ask
[29:16] Mark or someone at the city to take
action if action sounded like a good
[29:22] idea? The next meeting is to vote on the
increase. Right. Right. So, we could
[29:28] have someone from hopefully Madison from
Central to answer questions. That's what
[29:32] I was wondering. I think also there was
just sort of a comment like what's the
[29:37] formula like do we have to request that
Mark find that out or No. No. Yeah. You
[29:43] can ask him to bring it to the next
meeting or you could ask him to keep
[29:47] fighting or whatever, but that doesn't
have to be in the form. Sounds good.
[29:52] Could be it's just, you know, those flow
numbers and stuff. Maybe it's just the
[29:55] II, maybe it's the lake levels. Yeah.
That's what they're going to say. If you
[30:00] look at the lake levels, does that mean
we're lake levels are high? All
[30:06] everything going right into our pipes.
Mhm. It's what basically, you know,
[30:12] is happening. Not all of it, but making
it into the pipes. Although I know the
[30:16] public works has worked very hard to
reduce that. So yeah,
[30:23] there's a strange relationship in terms
of like well if our usage is down how
[30:28] come how can we be paying exactly? Well
because the capital costs as you guys
[30:32] know very well are fixed cost. So even
if so therefore if we if we drop our our
[30:37] usage number how do you make up for
that? Well the rate has to increase to
[30:43] make up to actually get us to that that
usually certainly with the capital and
[30:46] the fix the fixed cost of the budget. So
it is in and little counterintuitive
[30:53] when you first think about it but then
that's when you express one that's it's
[30:58] flip sides. Well you think we and then
we start increasing our usage and
[31:00] increasing our flow somehow that still
goes up too goes both ways. So it's a
[31:05] yeah it it is an extremely complicated
calculation that they brought us through
[31:10] when you know you and Mark can't quite
nail it down right off the bat that
[31:14] should tell you everything you need to
know about these the complexity of the
[31:18] form.
[31:22] All right. Thank you, Mark.
[31:28] And we're going to move on to
new business 2B, consideration of
[31:34] ordinance 625790,
amending chapter 381-3H
[31:41] and 381-4J3
regarding lawn and yard waste disposal
[31:47] from the public works committee. Jan,
thank you, mayor. Can everybody hear me?
[31:54] Okay. Yes. Good sir. Okay. Thank you. Uh
this item did go to the public works
[32:01] committee on June 4th and we did receive
their recommendation for approval. In
[32:06] essence, uh it's um uh a cleaning up of
the the language that's in the current
[32:11] ordinance.
Uh you can see in your packet uh for
[32:16] 381-3 paragraph H, I have some language
that's struck out. uh because it's uh I
[32:24] guess unclear uh as to the intent of
that that sentence. And right below it
[32:30] um the new language where it states the
yard wastists facility is open to city
[32:34] of Manona residents only. Bus business
landscape contractors and non-residents
[32:40] are prohibited from using the yardway
site. So I believe that sentence
[32:44] provides a little more clarity um as to
who can actually use uh the city of
[32:50] Manona yard site. And then if you go to
381-4
[32:56] mandatory recycling
paragraph 3, I added this sentence uh
[33:01] basically the same language. The yard
waist facility is open to city of Manona
[33:05] residents only. Businesses, landscape
contractors, and other non-residents are
[33:10] prohibited from using the yardway site.
So this is this is the only amendment
[33:16] that I'm seeking uh to chapter 381.
And I know there was a
[33:22] a residential contact that we had at
city hall today through the website
[33:28] uh regarding 381-3 paragraph H. And
that's for lawn waste. Keep in mind that
[33:34] lawn waste
uh includes grass clipping leaves and
[33:38] garden debris. And we do not have a
curbside program for that. There is
[33:43] another section in chapter 381 that
discusses the leaf collection program
[33:48] that we do have that's for for curbside.
So um that request that I believe you
[33:53] all were copied on does not apply to uh
381-3 and 381-4.
[34:00] So um that that's it for my summary for
the amendment changes.
[34:07] Be more than happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[34:11] I just um yes, is this coming up because
it's been recognized as a problem um
[34:18] that non-residents or businesses are
using this and then is is it being
[34:25] enforced now and or is there plans to
kind of like tighten up enforcement of
[34:32] it? Is is that the intention of this
change? So the intention of this request
[34:38] um this whole chapter was updated in in
2024.
[34:43] Um we had saw on camera uh a contractor
dumping
[34:51] this year at the archway site and when
one of the staff members went to look at
[34:56] the code he saw that it wasn't clear
that we could site contractors for
[35:02] illegal dumping. So,
um, we have cameras there. In the past,
[35:07] when we've seen illegal dumping, if we
were able to capture the license plate
[35:11] or read, uh, the door tag, we contacted
PD, then PD made contact with, um, the
[35:19] operator of the vehicle. They had two
choices. They could either come and and
[35:23] get what they dumped out or they could
receive a citation. Um so in this
[35:28] particular case um
we we noticed it was a contractor and
[35:35] since the code was updated it we were
missing that one clear sentence that
[35:40] basically said uh if you're a if you're
a business a landscape contractor or a
[35:46] contractor or a non-resident um you were
prohibited from using the site. So the
[35:51] goal here is just to really make that
clear in these two paragraphs.
[36:00] And I had a question. Yep. Rick,
uh, is it posted at the yardway site
[36:06] that there's
a fine uh, potential for illegal
[36:11] dumping? Well, we we do have a rule
board at at the yardway site. Does it
[36:18] mention the fine or anything like that?
I I do not know at this time. It's a
[36:24] It's a pretty detailed sign. I I don't I
don't know off hand what the exact
[36:27] language is, but we do have signs that
say no no no contractor dumping. Okay.
[36:33] Um so it does include that. And we do
have signs. We we also have signs that
[36:40] say that you're being watched that
there's cameras like everything's been
[36:43] captured. Right. Right.
The clarification in the amendment is
[36:48] basically to whoever is going to write
the citation, whether it's code
[36:53] enforcement or PD, that they have a a
clear spot in the code that they can go
[36:58] to to reference on the citation as to
what part of the ordinance um they're
[37:04] going to site them for. And uh like I
said, the the language that was stricken
[37:11] uh was not very clear. Um, I mean it
it's clear that that non-residents are
[37:17] prohibited, but as far as the businesses
and contractors, landscape contractors,
[37:21] that language needed to be added because
Manona residents
[37:25] um should be paying for private
contractors to dispose of of uh yard
[37:32] waste that they're making business
profit off of and and most likely coming
[37:36] from outside of Manona. So, that's why
we're seeking the change.
[37:42] Any
other questions?
[37:47] Okay, seeing none. Thank you, Dan. Thank
you.
[37:53] That takes us uh to uh C
uh which is connected to D both of which
[38:00] are uh starred for
immediate approval.
[38:06] And I will just say um before we uh
begin discussion of them that they're
[38:11] started for immediate approval tonight
because and Brad is here with us um uh
[38:17] to facilitate the discussion and provide
more information. Um but I the reason
[38:23] why the start for immediate approval is
that
[38:26] the public works garage roof is ready to
go. So we need to make the call on
[38:33] getting those you know we've as per
the instructions really from this body
[38:40] you know the staff has spent and Neil
mentioned this last meeting the staff
[38:44] has spent some time with legacy solar
who's the owner of our panels and now
[38:48] the panels need to and so we have some
options to discuss tonight and now we
[38:53] need to make a decision and we can't
really wait a couple weeks because the
[38:57] roof needs to happen. So with that, I
will go to um item number uh C,
[39:03] consideration of resolution 25-6-2814,
approval of the acquisition, removal and
[39:10] transfer of solar p panels from the
public works roof to other city
[39:14] facilities brought forth by the city
administrator. Um and uh with that, I'm
[39:22] going to request a motion to take this
out of order.
[39:27] Um, so moved suspend the rules and taken
out of order. Do I have a second? I'll
[39:32] second. I have a second. All those in
favor say I. I. I.
[39:38] Right. Um,
and uh before we start, we may have a
[39:43] motion
uh for consideration of the resolution.
[39:52] I'll move approval. Okay. Do I have a
second?
[39:56] A second. Second. Okay, we have a motion
and a second. So, we have a motion on
[40:01] the floor for approval of item number C.
Would that Neil? Absolutely. Thank you,
[40:08] Mayor. Um, thank you. Wanted certainly
wanted to bring this forward to council.
[40:13] Um, this is obviously something we have
not u I think don't think I've at least
[40:17] dealt since I have been here with to
this degree of this opportunity. Um,
[40:22] essentially in our staff met with Legacy
Co-op to discuss the removal of the
[40:26] panels in terms of we're really focusing
on the logistics of how that would go.
[40:30] Uh, essentially in the email I sent in
reply to Alder Bernstein's question.
[40:34] Thank you Alder for sending those. Uh,
all of you should have received that
[40:37] hopefully this afternoon. Essentially
there as we kind of were started
[40:40] discussing the the how to proceed with
legacy solar, three options became
[40:45] pretty clear. uh one which is the
probably the easiest and probably the
[40:49] most cost-effective uh is simply to have
legacy co-op remove the panels and
[40:54] dispose of them. Uh essentially the city
the impact of the city would be
[40:58] basically the loss of the the
electricity generated by those panels
[41:02] which we would now have to be paying to
MG. So the most the most simple and
[41:07] probably uh I guess straightforward
option that is out there. As we were
[41:12] talking with Legacy Co-op, um we
suddenly did start realizing that there
[41:16] was maybe an opportunity to reutilize or
relocate uh the existing panels. They
[41:22] are used panels. They have probably
I'm guessing maybe, you know, I think
[41:26] we've heard ranges from anywhere from
from five to to 20 years of of remaining
[41:31] life on them depending on what status or
condition they're in and what the when
[41:35] the most recent uh uh maintenance had
been done on those panels had been. So,
[41:40] we're looking at you trying to figure
out exactly, you know, is it whether or
[41:43] not it's it's, you know, the decision
that this group would like to make in
[41:46] terms of, you know, proceeding with
relocating relocating the panels and
[41:50] reutilizing them. Um, and the other the
options uh two and three that were
[41:54] presented in the email back to Alder
Bernstein's email, one was simply um
[41:58] agreeing to acquire the panels, which is
a a cost of $10,000, not $40,000. Um
[42:05] hopefully folks saw that from Kurt at at
uh Solar Legacy. They said stated that
[42:10] $40,000 would have been the cost if we
were going to put them back onto the
[42:13] public works roof. So, so to acquire
those panels from that particular
[42:18] project would be about $10,000.
The concern in terms of what may trying
[42:23] to measure in fact whether or not it
would be cost effective to save and
[42:27] reposition these panels would be the
need to construct some sort of ground
[42:31] mounts probably either at well three or
at another location. uh we're trying to
[42:36] avoid putting them on the roofs right
now because we're in the process of
[42:39] replacing all of those roofs. So the
idea would be that extra infrastructure
[42:42] would be required to kind of be able to
reutilize those panels. Um so that's
[42:48] kind of really the main so that cost has
been depending on I mean the full cost I
[42:52] think that Brad took a shot at was
around as was a little over $100,000.
[42:57] uh follow-up discussions with Kurt from
Legacy Solar was that that you maybe in
[43:01] the 65 to $85,000 for for all to to put
all those panels all up in one shot. Uh
[43:08] to just for the ground mounts to be able
to re to be able to reutilize those
[43:12] panels. Um which certainly makes the
question of the useful life on how how
[43:16] long would it take to recover costs or
get some kind of payback on that five
[43:21] years pretty tough to do that. closer to
the 10 15 20 probably makes a little
[43:26] more sense. Um there's a lot of moving
target moving moving parts I guess on
[43:31] this at this time. Um but we certainly
wanted to bring those you know those
[43:36] those options forward. Um certainly
three things to look at. If it's simply
[43:40] a financial evaluation then option one
is probably the best. Have Legacy remove
[43:45] them. They dispose of them. We simply
have to figure out a way to make up for
[43:49] the additional electric cost at the
public works garage. simplest, cleanest,
[43:53] but that's that's the only cost impact.
Obviously, if we start looking at at
[43:57] trying to reutilize and redeploy those
panels, there are concerns over
[44:01] certainly the capital costs of the
ground mounting units that would be
[44:04] required. Certainly, some maintenance
costs as well as trying to figure out
[44:09] what those would be. Probably some
replacement of some equipment, the
[44:12] actual um inverters and other things
that are required to utilize the panels
[44:17] and make them effective. um to obviously
eventually what is the impact to uh a
[44:23] future purchase of new panels which I
think we've discussed as part of maybe
[44:27] as a follow-up to once we have redone
our roof each of our major roofs uh on
[44:32] our major facilities that would be the
time then there's actually um a warranty
[44:37] that's required on that roof that lasts
from 1 to two years once that warranty
[44:41] is expired we can actually put panels
onto the roof again on those facilities
[44:46] I think and and Brad can certainly
provide additional detail in this. The
[44:49] idea would be if we were going to do
that to actually get all of the same
[44:52] kind of panel. So, we had the same
maintenance requirements, the same
[44:56] replacement equipment, the same sort of
infrastructure basically to support that
[45:00] effort. Probably in in a time frame of
anywhere from I could say 3 to seven
[45:06] years depending on when all of those
different infrastructure things get
[45:08] done.
So, that is kind of the preliminary uh
[45:12] overview on that. Brad, I don't know if
you want to provide any comments right
[45:15] now or just be available to answer
questions. That's I turn it over to you
[45:19] if you have additional comments you'd
like to make right Neil on it. No, I
[45:23] don't I don't have anything additional
to add to it. Um it is a complicated
[45:30] contract that we have now with Solar
Legacy Co-op, but the they are not our
[45:35] panels obviously, right? So, um if
anybody's new to this, feel free to ask
[45:40] questions. There there are no silly
questions when it comes to this.
[45:47] I have some questions. Questions? Um,
yeah. So,
[45:53] so how many So, you talk about like So,
I think what we're talking about is
[45:59] taking the panels off of public's garage
and putting them on a ground mount over
[46:06] by well number three, which is the well
with the mural by Southtown. Correct.
[46:13] And
the energy
[46:17] electricity generated by the ground
mount panels would
[46:22] be used on site at well number three
currents.
[46:28] How many kilowatts per year do the
panels produce and how many kilowatts
[46:34] per year does well number three use? I'm
looking for that number right now. One
[46:40] moment here.
[46:47] While Neil's uh working on that, it
probably is good to remind the council
[46:52] at this point. All we really need
tonight is a decision on what to do with
[46:57] those panels because it it's imperative
that we get a decision tonight as to
[47:02] whether or not we we want to buy them
and reuse them or just have them dispose
[47:05] of them because that'll dictate how they
take them down. the the decision on what
[47:10] to do with the panels later can be made
at a later date. It's just tonight we
[47:15] need to know are we going to reuse these
things or not?
[47:18] But don't you think that
we need to know whether it's financially
[47:24] worth it to use them? So, so to ask this
question, right? So, if the panels are
[47:31] only going to generate 5% of the
electricity instead of 95% of the
[47:37] electricity at the at the well, that's a
very I mean, I know that I'm using
[47:42] extreme numbers on both ends there, but
um you get what I'm saying what I'm
[47:46] saying. So, I think they're older
panels. They probably don't produce a
[47:49] lot compared to modern-day panels, but
if we can offset a significant
[47:55] electrical bill, maybe it is worth it.
I'm also curious while you're looking
[48:00] for that, the ground mount
infrastructure, would that be built in a
[48:04] way that it would be forward compatible?
And by that, what I mean is as these
[48:08] same panels come off those other
rooftops that we've got them out there,
[48:12] can we augment that ground mount array
as we go until one day down the road
[48:18] where everything lines up and we've got
new roofs on all the buildings and we
[48:22] put beautiful new, you know,
highcapacity panels up.
[48:26] And so two questions I think I heard
there all there one it looks like says
[48:30] the to the total at the well three
ground mounted array would be
[48:32] approximately 150 kilowatts with 24
kilowatts of existing on the roof at the
[48:37] well at well 3 already. So it would
produce 150. So it would be
[48:41] approximately 150 kilowatts. The panels
would produce 150 and I know Brad if you
[48:45] actually have a number on what that well
uses.
[48:49] So demand is on a 15minute window. So
the well, you can't say, well, the well
[48:58] uses 150 kilowatts
a day because in 15 minutes it could use
[49:05] 30 and then another 15 minutes uses
zero. That's why I asked for the yearly
[49:10] number. Yeah. So we don't have that data
yet, Alder Rodermcker. Okay. Um I I told
[49:18] the finance committee earlier uh that
that is some that is information that we
[49:24] can get by the second meeting in July. I
only say that because I'm not in town
[49:31] for the first meeting of July, but I if
I can get it by then, I will share it
[49:36] with uh Neil and Mark and whoever else
and you guys can hash it out at the next
[49:42] meeting. Um,
but like uh like attorney Cole said that
[49:49] this is we can the city council can
always figure out what they want to do
[49:53] with the panels afterwards. It's a
matter of letting Solar Legacy Co-op
[49:57] know whether or not we are interested in
buying them or or if they want to throw
[50:04] them off the rooftop when they're taking
them off the rooftop, then feel free.
[50:08] Right. Right. It's really and let me
just Yeah, let me just follow up with
[50:12] that with Brad. So, cuz it it really it
it boils down to do we want to risk
[50:20] spending $10,000 right now
and therefore buy the panels not knowing
[50:27] whether we're going to use the panels or
not. Not knowing whether it's worth it
[50:30] because we don't know that and we're not
going to know that in time. They need to
[50:33] take the panels off.
So I
[50:39] I I understand that a residential
property is
[50:44] infinitely less complicated than the
port electrical use portfolio of an
[50:48] entire city. But just for comparison,
my home 1100 square foot
[50:56] I use about 600 kilowatts a year in
electricity.
[51:02] So, if these panels only produce 150,
I mean, I would like to I would like
[51:08] someone to look into it. So, I'm looking
at the MGE website right now. Again, I
[51:12] know that an entire city can't do this,
but you can go and see how much
[51:16] electricity you're using. And I don't
know if you can like separate it out
[51:19] like of all the electricity that the
city uses, here's what we use on well
[51:23] number three. But that's what we have to
find out because the panels are only
[51:27] going to feed into well number three.
And so,
[51:31] you know, that payback period really
that that that calculus
[51:36] because we can't just do it just because
it's green, you know, we have to do it
[51:40] because it's financially smart, right?
So, yeah. And that was certainly the
[51:44] reason why staff wanted to bring this
forward is to make sure and have that
[51:47] conversation. Um I think the other
question al you had was um in terms of
[51:52] as a non-engineer I would say yes our
our intention would be to have those
[51:56] ground mounts that would be able to be
able to be utilized for a future panel.
[52:00] Now can we do that is does that thing
exist? I I don't know that at this point
[52:04] personally but I that would certainly be
the intent of wanting to do that. Um,
[52:09] you know, I think, you know, the other
way of looking at certainly in terms of
[52:12] option one, you know, knowing we're
we're losing, you know, a certain amount
[52:16] of renewable energy in terms of how our
usage at the one site, you know,
[52:21] certainly just proceeding with letting
Solar Legacy take those panels off,
[52:25] remove them, and just task staff to find
a way to try to make up that renewable
[52:29] energy is certainly an option as well.
Yeah. And with certainly not without the
[52:34] lot risk, the m the biggest risk is is
the potential capital investment needed
[52:39] to remount these panels, right? For ones
that may have a a a varying useful life
[52:45] depending on their condition, right? Uh
and as well as, you know, an an unknown
[52:49] at this point, an unknown maintenance
and and equipment replacement cost for
[52:54] those with a variable useful life of how
when do we have to replace inverters,
[52:57] when do we have to replace those other
things. So I I certainly, you know, I I
[53:02] think it's it's just a matter of, you
know, ideally there'd be a way to maybe
[53:05] figure to really reposition and
reutilize these there. Just at this
[53:10] point, we're just not I don't think
staff is going to have
[53:13] enough information to really to be able
to comfortably really recommend that we
[53:17] you we grab these $10,000 is still
$10,000. We could use that money to
[53:21] actually buy renewable energy from, you
know, some, you know, either from NG or
[53:25] something else if we had to. I I think
it's, you know, from a simplicity
[53:29] standpoint and I think it just knowing
that the goal would still be to
[53:32] eventually as we go forward to enhance
our solar portfolio as we as we replace
[53:38] these roofs on other facilities, we're
going to get significant more bang for
[53:42] our buck in terms of the efficiency of
the panel. Yeah. the simplic the
[53:46] simplicity and consistency of the
maintenance on if we have the same
[53:49] system on all of our roofs rather than
we put one on in 1985, one on in 1992,
[53:55] one on in 19 they're all they're all
different technology and different
[53:58] brands and it just creates a maintenance
right issue. Um so I mean right now I
[54:04] think that would be my we we did
literally and if there just so anyone's
[54:07] wondering so why in the world haven't we
didn't we look at this sooner. Well,
[54:10] when we met with legacy solar call, it
was literally just to discuss the
[54:15] process for them to remove the panels
cuz that was the contract. That was the
[54:18] contract in terms of what it said. And
as we kind of were started going around
[54:21] and you know, I think you know, Kurt
from mentioned that there's still useful
[54:25] life available on them. It's okay. Well,
maybe we should at least run it up the
[54:30] poll and see if there's something that
could be done. Uh I unfortunately I
[54:33] think that the the capital cost is my my
personally my main concern of know how
[54:39] whether or not how how we would have the
ability to remake that back without
[54:42] having some confidence in the in the
reuse of those panels. Yeah. So I think
[54:46] right now certainly my my own
recommendation would be to probably
[54:49] allow Solar Legacy to just take those
off and dispose of them and just direct
[54:53] staff to try to find some way of making
up that electrical cost in the in the
[54:58] short term someplace.
And I I do appreciate Neil that you've
[55:02] you know like like the mayor said that
was the contract right that they were
[55:06] just going to dispose of them and then
you're seeing like well you know why not
[55:10] examine why not explore whether we can
get something some electricity back from
[55:14] it. Yeah. Yeah. Um, but I do I mean so
as attorney Cole said, the decision
[55:20] tonight is to just say, do we want
legacy solar co-op to tear them off and
[55:26] trash them or do we want them to remove
the panels neatly and slowly? Correct.
[55:31] And we are we would be charged the same
amount 10,000 whether they No, it's zero
[55:37] if they
[55:40] Y
Brian. Uh
[55:44] Dan or Brad or Neil maybe or Bill might
have the answer to this. Um if we buy
[55:51] them for the 10,000, we store them and
we decide not to move forward, is this
[55:56] something that Wisconsin surplus
takes? I would think.
[56:02] And would the resale value be relatively
costneutral?
[56:10] I mean, with with those auction sites,
the buyer has to pick them up and
[56:14] transport them. My my totally uneducated
assumption would be the cost of
[56:19] transporting them is probably about the
value of the things, but
[56:25] and how old are the panels?
They're 12 years old. They're 12 years
[56:33] old. And I think like the cost of panels
has dropped like by 80% in the past, you
[56:37] know, I mean, five years. the technology
is so different.
[56:41] Um
yeah, but they don't make panels like
[56:45] they used to. I'm just going to be
upfront about that. Um these panels are
[56:50] designed pretty well. They're pretty
hardy. Uh but they have been weathered
[56:56] and $10,000
is seems cheap for 150 kilowatts worth
[57:04] of energy, but no, it's not. when you
look online for the same size uh same
[57:11] capacity panels, brand new ones are
getting cheaper as they come. So, um and
[57:18] then yeah, just a heads up. So, I don't
think that that was in the memo, but
[57:22] this is 18 skids, 18 uh pallets worth of
panels.
[57:29] So, it's a lot of storage. Yeah.
So, if and Dan knows this but better
[57:35] than anybody, but in terms of where they
need to be stored, 18 pallets worth of
[57:41] panels is not, you know, a small amount.
It's a it takes up a lot of space. Yeah.
[57:49] And in all honesty, with our lack of
indoor storage that we have, um, they're
[57:55] probably going to sit outside under
tarps
[58:01] for a while, you know, for at least a
year. Or in the parks department, new
[58:06] cold storage building. Great.
Before Jake moves his stuff in. Yeah. Uh
[58:12] do Dan or um Brad, do you have any sense
of the auction question? Uh Brian, so
[58:20] whether something like this would be of
value or it would be a break even thing
[58:25] potentially.
I haven't seen equipment like this on
[58:30] the auction. Usually it's uh like
trucks, cars, construction equipment,
[58:35] that sort of thing. never
um ne never a piece of equipment like
[58:40] like a solar panel. So I I really can't
answer that honestly. I would I would
[58:45] say similar to what we would probably
want to do is we would have before if we
[58:49] were going to buy these, we would be
having her or someone from Solar Legacy
[58:53] actually come out and give us a
basically a panel by panel evaluation.
[58:56] This one's this one's at 90%. This one's
shot. this ones. So, there'd have to be
[59:01] some if I even at auction if I was going
to be buying those, I'd want to see some
[59:05] sort of technical report that gives me
an idea of what that what they can
[59:08] actually still do.
So, it really could it really could
[59:12] vary, I think, all I don't know. And I
know that uh with a co-op model, there's
[59:18] a different sort of contract between
the, you know, seller and the buyer. Um,
[59:24] but off the top of your head, do you
know if there was any sort of guarantee
[59:28] on the output of the panels? Like like
yeah, like now you can say, well, in
[59:33] year 30 the panels are going to produce
92% of what they produce on year one
[59:38] guaranteed, right? I doubt if that was
probably baked into the contract. It was
[59:43] not. The contract had a um name plate
guarantee when they were put in service
[59:50] and then the solar legacy was required
to maintain them to that service level
[59:57] but there's no guarantee going you know
once they're removed what they produce.
[1:00:03] They did say in terms of Mr. Reinhold
from Legacy Solar did say that the
[1:00:07] panels would average about a 0.5%
degradation in in efficiency every year.
[1:00:13] Every year. So over the lifetime of the
panel. Okay. And the lifetime is about
[1:00:17] 30 or And they're 12 years in. 12 years
in. So about halfway. Yeah.
[1:00:24] Um does the city currently own any pan
panels or are they all through this
[1:00:31] model? They are all via Legacy. We were
the first uh and we're a rare bird and
[1:00:38] that we were the first to go with a
third it's a third party the third party
[1:00:43] installation that doesn't exist anymore
because the PSSE took it away. Okay. So
[1:00:49] would it be a fair assumption that we
wouldn't be able to perform the
[1:00:53] maintenance ourselves on these? We would
most likely have to contract it.
[1:00:57] Absolutely are. Good point. Anyway,
that's then that's an unknown cost at
[1:01:01] this point,
right?
[1:01:04] We do have the data at least as of a
couple years ago what the maintenance
[1:01:09] costs had been you know over a several
year period of time. We knew what Falcon
[1:01:15] at the time the predecessor to legacy
solar was paying to maintain them so we
[1:01:20] could maybe extrapolate with that data.
[1:01:26] Doug. Yeah. I mean, I think it it'd be a
shame to, you know, get rid of equipment
[1:01:32] that still has some useful life in it,
but in in this case, we don't not only
[1:01:38] we're kind of if we approve it tonight,
we'd be kind of gambling $10,000 that we
[1:01:42] could that we'll come up with a workable
plan. Well, coming up with a workable
[1:01:46] plan is going to require a lot of staff
time and money and money to actually
[1:01:51] then implement it. So even with the
lower cost, you're still looking at, you
[1:01:56] know, probably at least 80,000
for the project. It just to me, it just
[1:02:02] doesn't add up. But I think it'd be
cleaner and simpler and and probably
[1:02:08] more cost effective to just get rid of
these and
[1:02:13] you know continue to to look to in the
future to possibly developing our own or
[1:02:21] buying our own solar panels or but
you know these are like halfway or more
[1:02:27] through their life. It just
to me that doesn't add up.
[1:02:34] I mean, I got um one quick point for
everybody just so it I doubt very much.
[1:02:41] So, I I could be wrong, but I don't
think Solar Legacy Co-op is going to
[1:02:46] throw these off the roof when we tell
them that we're not re, you know,
[1:02:49] purchasing them. and and and you got to
consider the fact that they still own
[1:02:57] three arrays with the same equipment.
And so if this equipment is in good
[1:03:04] shape,
I would think they want to keep a
[1:03:07] certain surplus of it on hand just in
case they have to replace the other
[1:03:12] equipment. Um so it, you know, a certain
amount may be trashed. Um, but I I don't
[1:03:21] think that a I don't think that a good
amount of it will be. I think that
[1:03:25] they'll keep what they can. I would
assume and then they can store it. Yeah.
[1:03:32] Yeah. Yeah. Just just a note from to
that point, Brad, that Kurt's last note
[1:03:37] was we asked, "Do you have any extra
inverters or the replacement parts that
[1:03:40] would come with the purchase of these
panels?" says, "Not on hand, but our
[1:03:44] maintenance agent can get some of the
other sites that have been
[1:03:46] decommissioned or we can scavenge parts
from other sites here in Manona." So,
[1:03:49] they're already thinking about being
able to reutilize individual components
[1:03:53] if they need to probably on our probably
on our other systems in the city.
[1:03:59] I mean, it's it's unfortunate that we
don't have the data
[1:04:04] and that we can't make a decision based
on data.
[1:04:09] Um
because you really do have to run the
[1:04:12] numbers to to understand if this is
worth it or not.
[1:04:19] I mean, and I mean, technically, even if
if we do decide if the council decides
[1:04:23] to to not proceed with with acquiring
panels, we could actually still run the
[1:04:27] analysis and and kind of follow this
through just as a as an exercise to be
[1:04:31] like this is a this is what would have
happened. Theoretically, we under these
[1:04:35] assumptions, panels last 10 years, this
much maintenance every year, this, you
[1:04:40] know, these this this much of a failure
rate or the degradation, we we could
[1:04:44] probably we could probably do that work
and model that out if we really wanted
[1:04:48] to. Uh, still would be a considerable
amount of work, but um, you know, I just
[1:04:53] think at some at some point, yeah,
without there's even even with a
[1:04:57] projection, it's still a projection. uh
you know two twothirds of the panels
[1:05:01] could go down in one year on a bad storm
if you know this case I don't know if a
[1:05:06] hail storm hits what is what happens if
it breaks them and knocks them I mean
[1:05:10] it's you know suddenly now we're the
owners
[1:05:14] you know so I mean there's an insurance
question that we certainly don't have
[1:05:18] any information on either it's kind of
one of those things the more you unravel
[1:05:21] it the more the more things pop up that
would need to be kind of validated I
[1:05:26] think
But what we do know is that they make
[1:05:30] about 150 kilowatts a year. That's all
we know. I mean, we know that, but we
[1:05:35] just don't know what the what the well
requires. It obviously requires a lot
[1:05:40] more than that.
Dan, do you have any idea? I mean, if
[1:05:46] anybody in the room, Dan might have the
best idea. That's kind of tricky. Um, we
[1:05:51] we have access to our account and we can
have that that data first thing in the
[1:05:56] morning. Um, you know, well 3 has its
own meter and we can pull the 2024 data.
[1:06:04] We can pull uh power consumed January to
today. Yeah. You know, first thing in
[1:06:11] the morning, but yeah, I don't I don't
have access to it right now. Well, that
[1:06:15] would be right there. That'll tell you
your return on how many years it's going
[1:06:20] to take to pay for the this except we
don't know what it's going to cost. We
[1:06:24] have to make a maintenance assumption.
We'd have to make a capital assumption
[1:06:26] on the maintenance. I get but the
maintenance and then building the the
[1:06:30] ground the ground mount arrays. But then
there's the other question like if those
[1:06:34] ground mounts can be built in a forward
compatibility compatible fashion because
[1:06:38] we're going to be pulling off all the
exact same equipment, the same make and
[1:06:42] model from the other rooftops,
same inverters, right? I mean, they were
[1:06:46] all put up in the same year, right?
They're all about the same age. Yes. Um
[1:06:53] I don't know. It might be more money
than it's worth, but
[1:06:58] it' just be nice to have data to make a
decision on, I guess. Unfortunately,
[1:07:03] just the the timing just didn't allow us
to I know. I know. Um, so I have one uh
[1:07:10] question actually uh related to the
panel. So, let's take let's for a minute
[1:07:17] assume that the council uh goes against
uh what is Brad's recommendation.
[1:07:24] uh to you know I mean it just uh that's
why we they pay us the big bucks to make
[1:07:29] the decisions. Um but you know and we go
ahead and we pay $10,000
[1:07:38] for the panels and then when we do the
figuring right we put them we put them
[1:07:44] in storage or you know or put them under
tarps or whatever tops as they say in
[1:07:49] Maine. Um, and then we decide we're not
going to use them because it's too
[1:07:54] expensive, right? Does anybody have a
clue of how much it would cost for us to
[1:07:59] take those panels to the landfill
ourselves since we know it's pretty
[1:08:05] expensive to take big stuff to the land?
Right.
[1:08:09] Bear, if I could add before there's an
answer. Yeah.
[1:08:13] Um, you know, so am I hearing correctly,
uh, Brad, that if we don't want them, it
[1:08:21] costs 10,000 to remove, but if we want
them, it cost 40,000 to remove. Well,
[1:08:25] they they had an updated, uh, note to us
this this afternoon, Dan, that said it
[1:08:29] was it was it's zero cost to us if they
just remove them and dispose of them.
[1:08:34] There's no cost, but if we actually want
to acquire the panels, it's $10,000.
[1:08:38] $40,000 was if they were going to take
them off and then put them back on the
[1:08:42] public works roof, right? So, Brad Brad
brought up a very good point before that
[1:08:48] that if we if we choose to not keep them
and relocate them,
[1:08:54] they they will use them as inventory to
repair our current setups at the other
[1:09:00] facilities. So, there you go. Um, so I,
you know, I'm I'm kind of leaning
[1:09:06] towards I think what Brad is is
suggesting is that we we uh, you know,
[1:09:14] we don't relocate them to well three,
but we we
[1:09:18] remove them so that the components can
be used to maintain our current
[1:09:23] facilities for the next
12 years or, you know, 16 years. Mhm. Um
[1:09:30] because because if we re relocate them
to well three then then we have
[1:09:34] obviously we have another set up and
running but then we have no parts to
[1:09:38] maintain the units that we have at city
hall the library
[1:09:42] um and obviously well three the current
ones at well three. Yeah. Um so
[1:09:49] I don't know. I guess that's just my two
cents right there. Yeah.
[1:09:56] I have a question. um finance and
personnel
[1:10:01] decided not to make a re recommendation
on this. I'm just curious why. I only
[1:10:06] saw part of that discussion.
Uh I think it's safe to say uh that that
[1:10:13] uh although uh you know Doug's one that
made the motion and I second it. Uh but
[1:10:19] um I think it's safe to say that we just
felt like this was a council decision.
[1:10:23] It's not it's not just a financial
decision. It's a council decision.
[1:10:27] Um,
I mean, for myself, I just wasn't
[1:10:33] convinced enough
that it was a good idea to vote to make
[1:10:37] a positive recommendation. Yeah. The
10,000 when we learned then that the
[1:10:43] number was 10 instead of 40, it made it
right more in the realm of right
[1:10:48] discussion. But
that's Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, that I
[1:10:57] just want to make I just want to make
one point if I could. Yeah. Um, if we
[1:11:02] vote it down Yeah. Uh, we don't need to
amend it. But if we are going to vote
[1:11:06] yes, we probably need to amend the
resolution to change it from 40 to
[1:11:11] 10,000. Yes, that that would be correct,
Aler. If there was going to be if there
[1:11:15] was a motion to approve, that would be
which it is right now. Yeah. Is that the
[1:11:20] motion on the floor is approved, right?
And it's a little confusing because it
[1:11:25] says the acquisition, removal, and
transfer. And we are we are voting to
[1:11:31] remove conceivably we're voting to
remove which we don't really need to do
[1:11:36] because and they're coming off. Yeah.
Because there there is no need. This was
[1:11:39] simply to to store them, maintain them.
Yeah. Right. Yeah. So that was my
[1:11:45] procedural question. Let's see if we we
don't want to go forward to this and we
[1:11:49] vote this down.
Don't then we don't need to do anything
[1:11:54] because per the contract they're coming
off. Correct. Yeah. We've already given
[1:11:58] them notice to remove the the panels.
That's correct. Okay. Are we going to
[1:12:03] find are we going to have the same
conversation with the next
[1:12:07] building where the co-op panels are on
the roof? We probably will, right? At
[1:12:13] some point. How far down the road though
will it be at a point where the panels
[1:12:16] are still good? Well, whatever that
depending on when the next roof
[1:12:19] replacement would be would be my my
assumption on that. So, but we're not
[1:12:22] sure when that might be. Um, Alder
Bernstein mentioned that the resolution
[1:12:27] should be amended um with that dollar
change. I would also move to amend it so
[1:12:32] that we properly
site the name of the company as Legacy
[1:12:38] Solar Co-op, not Solar Legacy Co-op.
Yeah.
[1:12:44] If we vote down, we don't need to amend
it. That's true. That's a good point.
[1:12:48] That's true. Can we Can we call the
question? Yeah. We are we ready? Yeah.
[1:12:55] Is it a question on the amendment or the
question on the resolution on the
[1:13:00] resolution as a whole? And to be clear,
the motion is to approve. So if you do
[1:13:03] not wish to approve it, you need to vote
nay on this vote.
[1:13:08] They understand how they want to vote.
Okay. Okay. This is a voice vote, is it
[1:13:14] not?
It is it's only 10 grand.
[1:13:18] Uh yeah, the resolution says 40.
Right. Uh so um whereas clause
[1:13:28] with all the um that I in mind uh all
those in favor say I
[1:13:35] opposed.
[1:13:39] There we go. Okay. The motion is denied.
Got you. Okay. emotion's defeated. So,
[1:13:46] the panels will come off
and staff will other ways of and the and
[1:13:52] the staff will uh continue as as always,
but uh especially knowing that this hole
[1:13:59] will be there. We'll continue to look
for ways whether it's community solar or
[1:14:04] green power tomorrow or other ways. Y
good.
[1:14:10] So, that being the case, we obviously
don't need to be voting on item number D
[1:14:17] uh because uh it doesn't apply anymore.
Um so, that being the case, uh we're
[1:14:26] going to move to H course of committees,
commissions, boards, mayor, city
[1:14:30] administrator, city attorney, department
manager, sustainability efforts,
[1:14:33] diversity, equity, inclusion.
I'm going to start on this end. Rachel.
[1:14:39] Um, I don't have anything to share.
Public or parks and wreck did not meet
[1:14:44] last week and public safety is upcoming
next week.
[1:14:50] And have you been to the pool yet? I
have been to the pool. And how was it?
[1:14:55] Many times.
I was actually just there earlier before
[1:15:00] this meeting. It was wonderful. Yeah.
Good. Good. Glad to hear it.
[1:15:06] um landmark spee
uh
[1:15:14] at least one application to designate uh
landmark and a few other items.
[1:15:20] That's it.
[1:15:24] Brian, uh ZBA meets on Thursday night.
We have, I believe, one application.
[1:15:29] That's it. Okay, Teresa. Um just
something from the transit committee. Um
[1:15:36] Madison Metro does not uh operate on uh
the 4th of July um throughout the city
[1:15:42] of Manona and um
but for the third of the July 3rd of
[1:15:48] July when it would normally operate
there will be a detour because of the
[1:15:53] community festival. So, the metro buses
are still going to run east and west on
[1:16:00] Dean and Nicholls, but the north south
connector road is going to be McKenna
[1:16:07] Road for just just the 3rd of July. Um,
as and if you want to understand other
[1:16:15] aspects of the holiday schedule that
Metro has, you can find that on their
[1:16:18] website. Um,
sustainability did not meet since our
[1:16:24] last uh council meeting. Um, nor did
public works and community media did
[1:16:29] meet, but we didn't have a quorum. So,
um, we'll just talk about budget items
[1:16:34] next time we get together. And, uh,
thank you to the mayor for mentioning
[1:16:39] Junth. I was just going to mention um
under the general sustainability section
[1:16:43] of the agenda that uh this week is um
the federal uh national pollinator week.
[1:16:51] Exciting stuff, right? Um and I just
want to say thank you to our parks and
[1:16:55] recck department and public works
department. I don't know if it's the
[1:16:59] weather, the sunshine, whatever it is,
but everywhere I go, I see tons of
[1:17:02] clover in the grass everywhere. So, I
know that our parks have long um
[1:17:08] refrained from spraying chemicals on our
parkland, and I really appreciate um I
[1:17:13] appreciate that they do that.
[1:17:20] Rick,
um see library board meets tomorrow
[1:17:26] night and senior citizens will have
their first meeting in a while at 5:00
[1:17:32] pm on the 26th.
Okay, that's my report. Okay, thank you.
[1:17:39] Um, Chief,
[1:17:47] hello everyone. Hello. Good evening.
Hello. I'm wide awake if you couldn't
[1:17:51] tell. Um, all right. Well, first I want
to thank everyone uh for uh providing us
[1:17:57] with uh very in this community for
providing us with uh good training money
[1:18:02] so that we can send officers to
specialized training. Officers that have
[1:18:07] been here for all of their careers have
not been able to attend certain
[1:18:10] specialized training. And so we've been
able to do that. But on uh June 9th,
[1:18:14] which was last week, I believe at this
point, um we had uh our department
[1:18:18] training for the first time in the
history of our department. and the mayor
[1:18:21] was able to to show up and uh share some
very kind words and officer Hoffman on
[1:18:26] the way here just spoke on that and how
much uh the department appreciates that
[1:18:30] too representing uh all of you. So uh
thank you. It was very productive
[1:18:34] training. It was it was good for um just
training in general but also morale and
[1:18:40] getting everyone in the same room and
having uh the same conversations and so
[1:18:44] it was it was uh very much appreciated.
Okay. Um, and then the second, this is
[1:18:50] one of the first of many, many, many
PSAs that I will be doing uh leading up
[1:18:54] to the community festival in regards to
parking, right? Um, so um we were sort
[1:19:02] of uh risking our luck um as all of you
know, uh traffic gets a little wonky
[1:19:08] come uh July 4th, uh u close to the
fireworks, typically the last couple
[1:19:15] hours leading up to the fireworks. Um
the chief and I and and other staff, we
[1:19:20] discussed and brainstormed sort of what
we can do um to help alleviate that. We
[1:19:27] were risk in essence playing Russian
roulette um with the fire apparatus and
[1:19:33] an ambulance not being able to get from
point A to point B in our city during
[1:19:36] that time frame. Roughly two hours to
three hours during that time frame. And
[1:19:40] so um under my authority um we're going
to do a an area which will be posted.
[1:19:46] we'll share with our local media
friends. Um it's in the upcoming
[1:19:50] newsletter. Um we'll we're going to do a
video on it. We're going to do as much
[1:19:54] as we can to advertise and for those all
of you who live in Manona with friends
[1:19:57] and family that are planning to come
over potentially plan accordingly
[1:20:01] because we're going to no post a large
segment of the the city um around Winna
[1:20:07] Park. Um no parking one side of the
street.
[1:20:12] Right. So I I get a lot of questions or
I've gotten a couple questions. So, why
[1:20:16] no parking? Um, it's because if we no
park one side of the street and you have
[1:20:22] folks that are driving through or trying
to get to your homes to celebrate the
[1:20:26] event, there's at least space for people
to pull over for that firet truck or
[1:20:31] that ambulance or that police car that's
trying to get through. Um, in years
[1:20:34] past, I've been here four years now, so
three years I've seen this, there's no
[1:20:38] way that a fire engine is going to get
to a fire in this community. Okay? So,
[1:20:44] this is out of necessity. Um, uh, public
apologies to, uh, the event organizer
[1:20:50] who, uh, sort of got, I guess, late
notice of this. Um, but I'm hopeful that
[1:20:57] most people will start paying attention
to how they're going to get here and
[1:21:00] park within the next couple weeks. So,
we're going to do a big push um, to
[1:21:05] advertise and to make sure first of all
residents are aware. Second of all,
[1:21:09] those who are coming to celebrate with
us are aware as well. So, I can't answer
[1:21:14] any questions here right now, but if you
have any um please come to me or we can
[1:21:20] put it on the agenda for discussion at
the next meeting. Yeah, I can I can
[1:21:24] vouch for personally, you know, how bad
it gets. I mean, good point. It gets
[1:21:29] total gridlock on at 9:00 like on my
street also on McKenna and that's a very
[1:21:36] wide road. Yeah. So the pulsings will be
if you look north and south starting
[1:21:41] from Dean stretching to right about
where Winn Road uh starts to go south um
[1:21:48] all the way to Taniwa
and right up until Scoffield. So all of
[1:21:54] those some of those as you know are
already no park on one side um McKenna
[1:21:58] like like you were speaking for you and
um the other older person that lives on
[1:22:02] that road uh that'll be no park. So
everything in between will be no park on
[1:22:06] one side of the street. And um it it's
not going to be the same side of the
[1:22:10] street. We're actually going to look at
the geography and figure out how many
[1:22:12] driveways. We want to count and get as
many parking spots as we can and and
[1:22:17] make good use of of parking. Um so
you'll just have to pay attention to the
[1:22:21] signs which will be clearly posted and
again advertised prior to the event.
[1:22:25] Chief, can you kind of say that again?
Like with the Winna Park sort of being
[1:22:30] like, you know, ground zero and then how
far out from Winna are you doing the
[1:22:34] park only on one side? It is a
zero if if you can imagine. I have it
[1:22:41] here and it will be posted. Yeah. Um but
I'll describe it to you. Um as far north
[1:22:46] as Dean Avenue, which is already one
park, no park on one side anyway. Yeah.
[1:22:51] as far as south where Winnipa starts
turning to the east and right before it
[1:22:57] goes back south again um is when is is
that's how far south it's going to go if
[1:23:03] you can imagine that right
far west as Tanya
[1:23:09] and far east as scullfield.
So when you look at a map, we have long
[1:23:13] blocks here. I understand you're really
only looking like, you know, two blocks
[1:23:18] north of Nicholls, block south of
Nicholls, and then um the whole area
[1:23:24] leading up to Tania like Baskerville,
Matthews,
[1:23:29] where people really just like Alder Wood
experiences, they really park folks in
[1:23:35] on that side of the the city, too. Yes.
So, I'd rather not have fire engines
[1:23:42] physically moving vehicles to get to,
heaven forbid, a house fire. But you all
[1:23:47] know it's a battle um for us to address
illegal fireworks in this community on
[1:23:51] the 4th of July. All we need is a dry
July 4th and um a leaf on a roof and
[1:23:59] firework exploding, we have a bad day.
So, we're hoping to avoid that with some
[1:24:02] PSAs. But um also, heaven forbid we do
have to respond. We want to be able to
[1:24:08] get there.
I don't know if I'm allowed I don't know
[1:24:12] if this is technically a question or a
statement, but um I live on Maywood,
[1:24:16] which is already one parking side, and
um it gets parked on both sides during
[1:24:22] that event. So um I guess just a warning
that enforcement will
[1:24:30] be high
um in order to get this accomplished. I
[1:24:35] appreciate that comment. Uh we will have
an arm of parking enforcement between
[1:24:40] our community service officer and police
who will be ticketing. And we will have
[1:24:44] our partners, contracted partners at
Precision Towing that will be removing
[1:24:49] vehicles, sighting and towing. And I
hope we don't have to do that to anyone.
[1:24:54] That's why I hope that a lot of our PSAs
out there, neighbors see folks, they
[1:24:58] yell, "Hey, you can't park there." That
sort of thing. Um, but in our
[1:25:02] experience, all it takes is for one car
to get told or folks to see that and
[1:25:06] they'll probably get the message. I'm
hoping we don't go there, but we're
[1:25:10] we're prepared to tow. Um, and they're
going to be towed to a legal spot in the
[1:25:14] city. Um, which unfortunately on July
4th probably means a husk,
[1:25:18] but at least that's not at impound.
[1:25:23] Okay. Um,
yeah, I just want to say, you know,
[1:25:27] obviously we're going to be getting the
word out, uh, via all of our media
[1:25:32] channels, uh, as well. Um, and I know
the community festival will too. Um
[1:25:39] and they've identified some lots
uh like the school lots for instance are
[1:25:46] all on board and may and and uh parks
and recreation has given permission for
[1:25:51] the this festival to use Maywood the
Maywood lot the front of Maywood lot uh
[1:25:57] for some not for pedestrian parking but
for vendor parking which is also
[1:26:01] important because they have to have some
place to go. Uh and we're still working
[1:26:06] on some other things. So, um
I would just encourage, you know, use
[1:26:11] your media channels as well and
encourage people to ride their bikes or
[1:26:15] walk. Absolutely. Because you know, um
it's just a important reality and we'll
[1:26:21] probably do an alert too, right?
Probably do alerts. Absolutely. Yeah. Um
[1:26:25] from the city's website. So, yeah. I
mean, we're going to be in the radio.
[1:26:28] We're going to create uh Will is helping
us create a video. I mean, we're really
[1:26:32] doing all I all we can. So, it's a
matter of folks just didn't look at
[1:26:36] anything um and showed up, which is
going to happen, but the signs will be
[1:26:42] clearly obvious about no parking. And
so, you run the risk at that point.
[1:26:48] Okay. Thank you. And I and I would just
say uh I very much appreciated going
[1:26:53] down to to greet the greet everyone. And
it made me realize as your mayor that I
[1:26:59] need a cheat sheet. I need a picture of
your entire force with the names because
[1:27:06] I cannot remember 18 names at once. You
don't see them too much. The evening
[1:27:12] shift folks are hard to We just took on
a new chaplain. He asked for that. What
[1:27:16] I'll do tomorrow, I'll send that to all
of you so that you all have faces,
[1:27:21] names, emails. That's great. All right.
Thank you all. Thanks, Chief
[1:27:27] Elen.
Um, board of review is Wednesday
[1:27:31] starting at 6 PM. Notices were due to me
at 6 PM today because I'll be working on
[1:27:36] the agenda after this meeting.
Thank you, Bill.
[1:27:43] Just to add to Alen's report on board
review, we did receive objections again
[1:27:49] this year from um Walmart and Walgreens
as we have in the years past. Um, so
[1:27:57] just to point out to any of the
residents, you know, unless and until
[1:28:02] the legislature fixes this, cities like
Manona are continuing to receive these
[1:28:07] objections uh from these large corporate
entities and we we are dealing with
[1:28:13] them. Um, but it is they they continue
to occur. I I think this is for Walmart.
[1:28:19] I think we have four years of objection
now in the courts. So, it's it it's a
[1:28:26] problem that hopefully the legislature
fixes.
[1:28:30] Unbelievable.
[1:28:33] Neil, I have no updates on there. So,
I'm back from vacation. So, there we go.
[1:28:42] Uh,
I have no updates either. um
[1:28:48] no updates on it, but I would uh since
we won't have another meeting until
[1:28:55] after the 4th, correct?
I just want to wish everybody a happy
[1:29:01] Fourth of July
vacation and safe
[1:29:07] uh vacation.
And will that we have two two
[1:29:11] appointments and sorry uh yes we do have
two appointments. Um uh so going to um
[1:29:20] two appointments. Do I have a motion to
approve the two appointments? Gwen
[1:29:25] Pagburn to public safety committee and
Jennifer Kerr to public works committee.
[1:29:29] Both effective immediately.
I'll move to approve. I'll second. All
[1:29:34] those in favor say I. I. I. We are
approved. Thank you. Now I will take a
[1:29:40] motion to adjurnn. Move to adjourn.
Second. All those in favor say I. I. I.
[1:29:48] We are adjourned. Thank you. Good night
everyone. Thank you. Good night aller.
[1:29:53] Thanks.