[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.

City Council Meeting - June 16, 2025

Agenda

Transcript