[0:01] Let me know when you're ready. Nico
Marie. One, two, three, four, five, six,
[0:06] seven, eight, nine.
And then, uh,
[0:11] » Regina's online. She makes 10. Uh, can
you hear us online?
[0:19] » Yep. Loud and clear.
>> Excellent. Thank you. All right.
[0:25] Uh, good evening. It's Tuesday, August
11th, 2026. This is the Stoden City
[0:30] Council meeting and the first order of
business will be the roll call which is
[0:34] going to be done by Nicole Marie.
>> Uh Alder Ael
[0:41] » absent.
Uh Alder Butler
[0:45] » here.
>> Alder Caravello
[0:48] » here.
>> Alder Hirs
[0:51] » here.
>> Alder Jensen
[0:53] » here.
>> Alder Nino
[0:55] » here.
>> Alder Reeves
[0:57] » here. Alder Sherlock
>> here.
[1:00] » Alder Schumacher
>> here.
[1:02] » Alder Tillison
>> here.
[1:04] » Alder Vinn Bian new is absent and
excused. Alder Wnjak Scanland
[1:09] » here.
>> We have 10 elders.
[1:12] » All right. Thank you for that. Um
clerk's out doing elections tonight. So
[1:17] if you haven't voted, uh you still have
an hour. Um we are certified in
[1:22] compliance with open meeting laws. Uh so
that would take us to public comment. I
[1:26] think there's at least one person signed
up to speak. Three. All right. Who would
[1:32] like to go first? Come on up to the
podium.
[1:38] » All right. You know the routine, right?
>> Good evening.
[1:42] » Push the button there.
>> There we go.
[1:44] » I should know by now. Okay. Good
evening. Um, I want to thank the mayor
[1:49] and the council for taking relatively
swift action by ending the flock
[1:54] contract and ensuring that the cameras
were disabled in short time. Alder
[1:59] Jensen, I want to thank you. There you
are. uh for making a motion uh at uh to
[2:05] recommend a resolution in the public
safety commission and Alder Tillison, if
[2:11] I'm pronouncing that right. Thank you
for your amendment to cover the cameras
[2:15] within 48 hours. Your comedic suggestion
to set them on fire may not be recorded
[2:20] in the minutes, but will be remembered.
Those of us publicly opposing Flock are
[2:27] aware that making statements like that
and taking any action against the
[2:32] corporation actually comes with risk,
especially with all due respect for
[2:37] anyone who is not a white male in a
position of power. And Flock's CEO
[2:43] called anti-lack activists terrorists.
And we live under an administration that
[2:48] has redefined domestic terrorism to
include anti- capitalists and people who
[2:54] disagree with the administration on
issues related to immigration, race, and
[2:59] gender. Knowing you will take a risk
with us by making a remark like that is
[3:04] no joke and it matters.
You may or may not know that Flock
[3:09] officials watched the city council
meeting on June 23rd. We learned this
[3:14] through a public records request. In an
email dated June 24th, a flock
[3:19] representative wrote to the police
department and said that he and his
[3:24] director had tuned in to the meet to
watch the meeting. The email resulted in
[3:30] a scheduled call to discuss strategy for
protecting the contract.
[3:35] Chief Hill is not here, but I've heard
him report staffing issues and that
[3:41] these record requests have been taxing.
And I know that he's hiring primarily
[3:47] from activity on Facebook. In fact, just
days after Corey Ruiz was murdered by a
[3:54] Madison police officer, Stoton Police
Department announced its open
[3:58] application by posting a picture on
Facebook that said, "Feel the love." And
[4:06] below it, it said, "Are you an officer
not feeling the love from the community
[4:11] you work for?" Stoen PD is hiring and
welcomes welcomecommens you to apply as
[4:18] a lateral transfer. Use the link below
to escape to Stoton.
[4:27] I wish he was here because I would ask
him if that was sarcasm.
[4:32] Was this part of some kind of blue code?
Was this the true sentiment our police
[4:38] department was willing to put out on
public displays
[4:42] after the world watched MPD respond to a
call reporting nonviolent suspicious
[4:49] behavior of a black man on a bicycle
with and they responded with dangerous
[4:56] and deadly violence.
As a friend said, they may as well have
[5:02] just said catching some heat after
shooting someone in the street. No
[5:05] worries, we've got you.
This post was removed from Facebook. We
[5:12] have screenshots.
I'm assuming it's because someone noted
[5:16] just how offensive it was.
The city of Stoton has some reckoning to
[5:22] do.
The live feed camera pointing directly
[5:25] at Cascade Falls entrance and exit was
plenty of evidence that our leadership
[5:32] is not considering the history and
impact of overpolicing on communities of
[5:38] color since policing began in our
country.
[5:42] The content of this Facebook post was
insensitive at best, horrifying at
[5:48] worst.
[5:53] Racial disparities in policing is
documented everywhere.
[6:00] Harmful culture, including white
supremacy within police networks and
[6:06] departments, is also highly documented.
We can't assume we are the exception.
[6:15] I want to know that our city is going to
address this to ask hard questions to
[6:24] ensure proper oversight and begin
building a culture of reconciliation.
[6:29] Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[6:32] » All right. Who would like to go next?
[6:41] » Hello. Good evening. Uh, my name is Lori
Fory Herkus. I live in District 3. Thank
[6:47] you for ending the Flock contract. I'd
like to address a few things that I've
[6:51] witnessed through this process.
We've heard how overwhelming the emails,
[6:57] testimony, research, and open open
records requests have become, but
[7:02] there's no meaningful public engagement
process for this issue. We're deeply
[7:07] concerned, and we have no other way to
work through the critical things that
[7:11] we've learned with you.
>> [snorts]
[7:13] » Three minutes at a microphone isn't
meaningful engagement on an issue that's
[7:18] connected to our privacy and our
freedoms.
[7:21] I don't want residents blamed for taking
your time. I want you to be curious
[7:26] about what we've learned. I need you to
make space to hear from us. Did you know
[7:32] that while Chief Hill was researching
options for the council, he told Flack
[7:36] his goal was to keep the cameras? that
Flack representatives monitored our
[7:40] meetings and offered to help SPD win the
vote and keep the contract. That Flack
[7:46] provided talking points and a strategy
to Chief Hill that included offering to
[7:51] contact older people directly to respond
to residents concerns themselves and to
[7:57] source advocates to influence your
decision.
[8:01] This isn't simply tech support. The
police department and the vendors shared
[8:06] an agenda while the council relied on
them for information and recommending
[8:11] things to the council. This is hugely
problematic and exactly why independent
[8:16] information and oversight matter.
The records also showed SPD was still
[8:22] learning fundamental things about this
system after the cameras were installed
[8:27] and went online May 18th.
On June 2nd, while watching a training
[8:32] video, SPD discovered that the Jackson
Street camera wasn't even the kind of
[8:37] camera that they thought it was. Two
days later and 17 days after that live
[8:43] feed camera went online, which is the
same camera pointing at Cascade Falls,
[8:49] SPD asked Flock, "How do how do we stop
outside agencies from viewing the live
[8:55] feed data?"
These aren't minor details. Camera
[8:59] capabilities and external data access
are fundamental things an agency should
[9:04] understand before activating public
surveillance. SPD put this technology
[9:10] online before it fully understood
either, putting residents privacy at
[9:15] risk. And surveillance doesn't stand
still. Once the infrastructure exists,
[9:20] its capabilities and uses can expand
faster than our understanding and our
[9:25] oversight. We saw this happen here at
essentially the same time SPD was
[9:30] figuring out who else could see what its
cameras captured. It was also trying to
[9:35] expand what the camera itself could
capture.
[9:39] SPD wrote that it had specifically
chosen the Jackson Street location so a
[9:44] PTZ camera could monitor parts of the
school, Cascade Falls, and the roadway.
[9:50] Was the school school board aware? were
families were the residents at Cascade
[9:55] Falls. Who gets to make these decisions
and what is the oversight?
[10:01] Public trust isn't damaged because
residents are asking questions. It's
[10:06] damaged when residents have to
investigate their own government to get
[10:09] answers.
If residents have uncovered information
[10:13] that the council hasn't fully examined,
you should want to hear from us. And
[10:18] independent experts should be a part of
this process. Police departments and
[10:23] surveillance vendors cannot be the only
voices informing decisions about PE
[10:27] police surveillance.
I'm also concerned about how often we're
[10:32] hearing, "Let's see what Dne County
does." Stoen needs to decide for itself.
[10:37] Waiting to see which vendor the county
chooses ignores what residents have been
[10:41] saying all along. We don't want mass
surveillance.
[10:45] Flock itself told Chief Hill that
competitors have federal contracts,
[10:49] including with ICE and DHS. Are you
independently investigating these
[10:54] relationships before even considering
another system? Most importantly, I
[10:59] really want you to remember this.
Residents haven't just identified
[11:04] problems. We've given you a framework to
address them. The people's resolution
[11:09] was carefully crafted because of what
we've learned. It addresses what went
[11:14] wrong, what should have happened, the
lack of transparency and the lack of
[11:18] public involvement, and the
concentration and misuse of power that
[11:23] adequate oversight should have
prevented. Every piece is intentional
[11:28] and the p pieces were designed to work
together.
[11:31] This is what gets lost when the people's
resolution becomes a punch list.
[11:36] Breaking an integrated framework across
multiple committees separates the
[11:40] interconnected checks and balances from
the failures that they were designed to
[11:45] address. It moves decisions into spaces
where public has little or no
[11:50] opportunity to participate. I'm almost
done. Public comments aren't even
[11:54] allowed in all of these committees.
Please don't dismantle the solution
[11:58] before you've fully understood the
problems it was designed to solve. adopt
[12:03] the people's resolution as a whole and
remember what it presents that the
[12:07] original process never gave us. The
ability to say no. If this community
[12:13] doesn't want to be watched, we shouldn't
be watched. Listen to the community.
[12:17] That's how you build trust as our
elected officials. Thank you.
[12:21] » Thank you.
>> All right. We have one more yet?
[12:26] » Okay.
[12:30] » My name is Katherine Foster. I live in
Stoton. Last Friday morning, the gates
[12:35] of the dam were all opened. This
violated the order in the permits for
[12:39] phase one of the Whitewater Park to
notify Riparian owners at least 14 days
[12:45] in advance of dewatering the site. There
has been no such notice.
[12:50] This is just another example of the
deliberate attempts to hide information
[12:54] and actions from the public by the city
and the DNR. If this project had any
[13:00] redeeming qualities, you would have been
upfront and transparent about
[13:04] everything. But you have lied,
misinformed, and hidden important facts
[13:08] and serious issues to assure the
certainty of this vanity project that
[13:14] only a select few want.
3,500 people know better, signing a
[13:19] petition against this when they learned
of the real consequences to the
[13:22] waterway, the wildlife, and to current
recreational uses that they enjoy. This
[13:29] will not improve fishing, as the mayor
has repeatedly said. In fact, it will
[13:33] damage the spawning grounds by lowering
the water levels in Yahara Bay. The fish
[13:38] population is very diverse in this area
where schools of bass have been seen in
[13:43] the mill pond and generations of folks
have fished with their friends and
[13:47] families. I wonder if any of you have
ever engaged with people fishing or
[13:52] otherwise enjoying the Mil Pond area. It
will not clean up the water as you've
[13:57] stated. If you have ever read the
sediment test on the website, you would
[14:02] realize that there is a lot of
contamination in this industrial site
[14:06] that you plan to have children in inner
tubes swimming in. You would also see
[14:11] that there are further questions about
the effects of construction and stirring
[14:15] up what would be better left undisturbed
and further testing in more areas that
[14:20] need to be done. If you had read the
materials management plan for this
[14:24] permit, you would see that the order of
construction will be to dig up
[14:28] moderately contaminated sediment to
reuse and build a whitewater feature.
[14:34] This while diverting the entire flow
past the most contaminated area prior to
[14:39] dredging and removing that sediment.
Won't that just send more contam
[14:44] contamination downstream?
Now, I understand that it is not about
[14:49] the safe handling of industrial waste,
but it is about using your pet project
[14:54] to get taxpayers to clean up the
industrial site where you want a housing
[14:59] development to be built.
If you had kept up with this project
[15:03] costing over $10 million, you might have
wondered why the the project
[15:07] construction order was reversed to go
upstream in phases rather than
[15:11] downstream as was originally planned.
Then you might have asked, is it safe to
[15:16] first complete the phase that starts
from the tainter gates at the dam and
[15:20] goes through a box culvert past a
structure of rock and concrete into a
[15:24] deep pool? Those of you who feign
concern for the safety of kids fishing
[15:29] in the area don't seem to mind that
there that you are creating a deadly
[15:34] magnet for curious children to actually
get in the water and try out the lower
[15:38] half of a white water park.
If you are unaware of these issues,
[15:43] you've been irresponsible in your role
as decision makers regarding public
[15:47] resources and safety. If you know about
this, you chose to promote a project the
[15:52] 3,500 people despise. You have been
negligent, selfish, and completely
[15:56] unconcerned with the health and safety
of people and the protection of the
[16:00] environment and natural beauty of this
waterway that so many enjoy.
[16:06] I cannot express how gut-wrenching and
heartbreaking this is for me living near
[16:11] the mill pond that will be eliminated
and forever changed. I see great blue
[16:16] herand, white and green herand, ospreys
and bald eagles, many different kinds of
[16:21] ducks in different seasons and the geese
with their babies in the spring.
[16:26] I see turtles of all sizes sunning on a
log and at night I hear the bullfrogs.
[16:32] Lately, I've seen a baby muskrat that
could fit in my hand, floating in the
[16:36] green duckweed that you think is algae,
shoveling it into his mouth with both
[16:40] little paws. The birds will fly away
because the water surface area will be
[16:45] drastically reduced. But what happens to
everything living under the water's
[16:50] surface? You have sentenced so many
creatures to death.
[16:55] All those who live on the river will
smell that death. You have sentenced us
[16:59] to heartbreak.
One of you called me a nimi once. People
[17:05] who resort to name calling usually can't
support their position with facts. I
[17:10] wonder if you would have called 3,500
people nimbies to their faces because
[17:15] 3,500 people call this waterway their
backyard whether they are riparian
[17:20] owners or not. And they say absolutely
not in my backyard.
[17:26] I truly hope that your consciences will
prevail and you will give this thought
[17:30] and do the right thing. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[17:34] Anybody else wish to speak tonight?
>> All right. Hearing none, um we'll go
[17:41] into our agenda. Uh the next item is
communications and presentations. Are
[17:47] there any communications from alders?
[17:53] All right. I just have a couple uh
followup. I did have a meeting with the
[17:58] officials from Stoton Trailers uh
regarding uh the conversation we had
[18:04] with uh the land. Um they are open to
the idea of having a conversation about
[18:09] extending the trail down by the RDA
site. So, the city attorney is is
[18:15] working with staff to put together um
some sort of a proposal to hopefully
[18:21] acquire that piece of property there.
And then I also wanted to share that the
[18:26] other land that we talked about um STI
does have some interest, but they're
[18:31] probably a couple years out from really
wanting to pursue it. um which if we
[18:36] chose will give us time to do some due
diligence especially on the uh public
[18:41] works garage site if that's something
that you you chose to do. Um the other
[18:46] update is um been having conversations
uh city attorney and myself with other
[18:52] communities regarding the billboard. So,
we're still gathering some facts. Um,
[18:57] but it seems like um whether it's the
billboards or even the flock cameras,
[19:02] not everybody is really doing things the
same way as far as their process and
[19:08] their approvals or the amounts that, you
know, they're they're getting for their
[19:12] signs or whether or not um their
agreements are apples to apples. So,
[19:16] we'll give you full updates as we get
the rest of the information and we get
[19:20] to the point where uh we're going to
have to make decisions.
[19:25] Um that's all I had. Um
and then we do have a presentation
[19:31] tonight and that's going to be from John
uh Lindert from Strand. I'm just going
[19:37] to cue this up for him so we can uh
begin.
[19:51] I'm not John, by the way. Brett.
>> Oh, Brett's going to start, huh?
[19:56] » Throwing me a curve. All right, I'm
ready when you guys are.
[19:59] » I'll just introduce uh John Lindard, as
you you mentioned, from Strand
[20:02] Associates. Uh so this is an update to
our storm water quality management plan.
[20:08] The last one was done in 2018. Uh so
this just looks to assess our storm
[20:12] water quality for compliance with our
TMDL and John will go into much more
[20:18] detail or as much as you want uh when it
comes to our our storm water uh system
[20:22] and our plan and our maintenance
strategies. So with that I'll hand over
[20:27] to to John.
[20:35] All right. Go ahead.
All right. Today, tonight I'm going to
[20:40] talk about the stormwater quality
management plan update for the city of
[20:43] Stoton. Uh we recently submitted this to
the DNR in I think it was early August,
[20:48] might have been late July. So, uh next
slide, please.
[20:53] So, from an agenda standpoint, uh going
to give you a quick introduction. Uh
[20:57] we'll talk about some updated storm
water programs uh that we're we're
[21:02] doing. talk about storm water quality
modeling update and alternatives
[21:05] analysis
and that includes BMPPS in the city and
[21:09] participation in Yahara winds wershed
adaptive management plan and some
[21:13] recommendations. Next slide please.
So I'll look at this one because it's a
[21:19] little bit closer. Um the the city has a
storm water permit, an MS4 permit it's
[21:26] it's called it has expired. Um but we're
operating underneath that permit uh
[21:31] until they issue a new one sometime this
year is my understanding. You've got a
[21:36] long history of storm water quality
management planning uh in trying to
[21:40] comply with the per the permit that
started back in 2006 with the original
[21:44] plan an update in 2010. We got involved
in 2018 with the TMDL or total maximum
[21:50] daily load with the Rock River. I'll
talk about that a little bit more. And
[21:54] then the we did a uh analysis in 2020 to
give you credit for your leaf management
[22:00] program and we did some things in 2021
to update some programs due to uh some
[22:05] permit changes. Uh the big thing here is
Rock River uh is a 303D listed impaired
[22:12] water. You are in that that basin. So
there was a TMDL or total maximum daily
[22:18] load approved by EPA in 2011 which uh
added more requirements Um the main
[22:24] objective of this plan itself was to
address compliance with this these TMDL
[22:28] requirements which you can see in that
table over there. Uh the reach on the
[22:32] left there's four different reaches or
watersheds uh that the EPA um
[22:39] and the DNR has designated and you can
see your MS4 requirement was 20% TSS
[22:44] reduction. TSS being total suspended
solids otherwise known as sediment. Um
[22:50] that's in your permit. When this Rock
River TMDL came out, you had added a
[22:55] total phosphorus reduction and you can
see on the right um right two columns
[22:59] the reductions there in terms of storm
water quality requirements for runoff
[23:04] coming off the city lands. Next slide
please.
[23:08] In terms of progression uh over the
years, we just go back to 2010 where the
[23:13] city was at 29.6% 6% TSS and 20.3% TP
reduction uh in compliance with that uh
[23:21] requirement. Uh so you got to kind of
sit pretty for a while um until you got
[23:26] to 2018 which responded to the Rock
River TMDL that came out. And you can
[23:31] see in bold there the city for that plan
was at 31.7% TSS and 27% TP reduction.
[23:39] Um those requirements per reach for the
TMDL were not met everywhere. So, we
[23:44] ended up having to do an alternatives
analysis that had alternatives that
[23:48] range from two to five million to get
you in compliance um back in 2018. Since
[23:53] then, you've done a number of things, a
number of projects um which brings us to
[23:58] 2026. And if we look at the bold again,
city at 45.4% TSS and 41.5% TPU TP
[24:05] reduction. This is for a number of
reasons which I'll get into. Um
[24:11] the way that you end up getting in
compliance is trading some pollutants
[24:14] from one reach to another. Um and then
you get in full TMDL compliance. And
[24:19] we'll talk a little bit about more about
that. Uh the uh the map on the right
[24:24] shows those reaches in the purple are
the the purple polygons are the
[24:27] different ones. It's kind of hard to
see, but those four reaches are are
[24:31] shown within there. Most of the city 67
and southeast is 68. Next slide, please.
[24:38] um as you've done since we've been
involved, you've tapped in with Rodney
[24:44] and Brett, uh Brett's support and all of
your support into getting grants for
[24:48] doing a lot of this work. Okay, so this
project cost 122,000. Half of it was
[24:53] paid for by the DNR, which is always a a
good thing uh from a fiscal standpoint.
[24:57] Next slide, please.
Uh these bullets are really the
[25:04] requirements from your permit. Um, we've
done a lot of work on that in the past.
[25:08] So, we were only focusing on a couple of
these here, pollution prevention, where
[25:12] we looked at some of the public storm
water BMPs that were out there, uh, to
[25:16] see if they were still operating as
originally intended. We did the storm
[25:20] water quality management with the wind
modeling update and then we updated the
[25:24] storm system map. Next slide.
[25:29] Speaking of these existing public storm
water BMPs, field reviews, uh we
[25:32] reviewed eight BMPPS uh with the the
text boxes there pointing to each of
[25:37] those. Um and we have some results of
that. If go to the next slide.
[25:44] Um well, I should back up. Each of those
No, no, stay stay there. Sorry. Um
[25:51] the each of those
BMPPS has a figure like this and an
[25:57] associated data from a field survey that
we did to look at uh erosion, how much
[26:03] um sediment is in the pond, uh
infiltration rates of infiltration
[26:07] basins and bio attention basins. Uh so
this is just an example of one of them
[26:11] at Northview Heights. Next slide,
please.
[26:15] So this is a table from the report. It
goes into detail about how much uh water
[26:22] depth is left, how much sediment is in
the pond. And what the DNR says is if
[26:26] you have less than 3 ft of water, that's
when you need to dredge. Okay. So the
[26:31] far right column um basically based on
sediment accumulation rate, we're able
[26:37] to estimate the number of years before
you have that three feet of water depth.
[26:41] And so you can see the they're the flesh
colored the if it's becoming one two and
[26:47] a half 3.7 years you need to start
really planning for dredging those ponds
[26:53] doing something with them. And so you
can see that Northview Heights um Barbar
[27:00] Fields Wet Pond and Franklin Street are
all kind of in in that impending uh need
[27:05] and the Sen Fire Station is on there as
number five. um and that got uh
[27:10] converted to a buyer attention basin. So
that that's all good. Um but really it
[27:15] highlights the need to continue the
program of field reviews of existing
[27:18] stormwater BMPs that are out there and
then initiate design and construction of
[27:22] dredging or maintenance projects uh to
address identified deficiencies. So next
[27:26] slide please. Uh we did on a couple of
them do uh some infiltration testing.
[27:32] The the middle picture is this modified
Philip Dune infiltrometer. It's some
[27:36] newer technology. doesn't isn't as
intensive to get some data. We also do
[27:40] the double ring infiltrometer, but um
that's a lot more work. Um so if you
[27:47] look at the table on the bottom right,
the North View Heights uh infiltration
[27:52] basin, the DNR infiltration rate that
you designed for is 3.6 in per hour. The
[27:57] MPD measured infiltration rate is 73.
What that indicates is something's not
[28:02] working quite right in that in that
infiltration base and something so
[28:04] corrective action should be taken. Uh
now the second one is Williams Drive bio
[28:08] retention basin uh where 3.6 is the
designed DNR infiltration rate and both
[28:14] of the interestingly both of those
infiltration tests came back with some
[28:19] pretty similar numbers of 13.63 well and
it well higher than what it was really
[28:24] designed for. So seems to be working
quite well.
[28:29] Next slide. And this is really an action
item summary of uh routine and non-Rine
[28:34] maintenance for each of those BMPPS.
This is to help Brett and his staff um
[28:40] potentially go out and and do some
corrective action. Next slide.
[28:45] The storm water quality modeling which
is really the the um big part of this
[28:50] project uh is kind of represented here
in these two two graphics. on the left
[28:54] is baseline loading in um pounds per
acre of TP. And what you'll see on the
[29:02] legend on the right is the higher
loadings are reds and oranges. And keep
[29:06] in mind on the left that would be as if
you didn't have any um best management
[29:11] practices uh or BMPs. On the right is
what what you have today. Uh it's called
[29:17] existing condition with control. So what
you want to see in this graphic is a
[29:20] shift to those blues and greens. And you
do see shift to blue and green a lot a
[29:25] lot of that is on the west side where a
lot of the development has occurred but
[29:28] you can see some other blues and greens
is really uh either projects the city
[29:32] has done or developments that have
occurred to uh to help the cause. Next
[29:36] slide please.
Uh this is
[29:42] uh really the results of that modeling
in detail. Uh on the left is the
[29:46] pollutant uh TSS or sediment TP or total
phosphorus. On uh the next couple of
[29:52] columns you have the MS4 required 20%
and then Rock River requirements per
[29:57] reach. Uh and then we do what's called
uh MS4 modeled existing conditions um
[30:03] percent reductions. And then on the far
two right columns we have a TMDF
[30:08] pollutant reduction gap. Are you in
compliance or you not? You're in
[30:11] compliance if you have a negative
number. You're not in compliance if you
[30:14] have a positive number. So I s uh put a
box around in red around reach 67 and
[30:20] 68. Uh you can see reach 68 has positive
numbers meaning it's not in compliance.
[30:25] But interestingly reach 67 is a is
upstream of reach 68. The DNR allows you
[30:30] to water quality trade. So you can kind
of swap those pollutants out and
[30:37] um get yourself into compliance uh
without really doing anything. It's it's
[30:42] basically you're doing better in reach
67 to help 68. So um that is is a good
[30:49] thing. Uh next slide.
Okay. So what have you done since 2018?
[30:56] Why are we so much better? Why are we
actually in compliance? Uh number one,
[31:01] enhanced street sweeping program. uh a
vacuum street sweeper was purchased and
[31:06] uh the things you do uh with that uh
help help the bottom line. We did that
[31:12] TP leaf collection credit analysis in
2020 and again in 2025 well actually
[31:16] 2026 with the report. Um
and then Paradise Pond which is out
[31:23] there which is an internally drained
area. We were able to get better uh
[31:27] percent reduction there due to some
monitoring that the city was doing and
[31:30] we'll talk about that in a bit. you did
the next two or two projects you
[31:34] actually built uh with the help of
grants. Um you've had new development
[31:37] that has helped um because you you have
ordinances in place that require them to
[31:43] get certain amount of TSS and TP
reduction uh redevelopment has occurred
[31:47] and we've modeled we have some BMP
modifications from a modeling standpoint
[31:51] that we're allowed to do uh with DNR. So
next slide please. So I'll talk through
[31:57] some of these um relatively quick
quickly. You have an enhanced street
[32:02] sweeping program. You got a $54,000
grant back in 2020 to get a new vacuum
[32:06] street sweeper. This TP leaf collection
credit analysis is in that table there.
[32:12] And those are the two analyses. And the
total TP on the right. Uh and the 2025
[32:18] analysis got you another well actually a
difference there. Another 44.6 pounds of
[32:23] TP which is quite quite a bit for work
that you're already doing. Next slide.
[32:32] Okay, this is Paradise Pond. The uh it's
an internally drained wet pond with an
[32:37] 11 acre surface area. You can see the
waterershed on the bottom right graphic
[32:42] uh in blue, 166 acres. Uh discharge is
only through that pump station uh that's
[32:48] hand operated and the the table shows
how we got an improvement. Uh so 2018
[32:56] there were some assumed values. 2025 was
based on actual monitoring that Brett
[33:00] and his staff did uh every time they
they pumped that out. Um so you got a
[33:06] 6.7% increase in TSS reduction and a
22.3%
[33:11] uh increase in TP reduction all to the
benefit of of the bottom line here.
[33:17] Again, next slide, please.
Uh the industrial park dry to wet pond
[33:22] conversion was the highest priority
project back in 2018 on that plan. The
[33:28] uh project gets 30 pounds of TP
reduction and and is in TMDL reach 68
[33:32] which is where there was a need
identified at the time. Next slide
[33:35] please.
Uh
[33:39] here are some pictures of that uh after
construction. Uh the table itself shows
[33:45] the grants that uh that the city got for
that. Uh so through Dne County urban
[33:52] water quality grant and the DNR urban
non-point source grant. So only 38.2 2%
[33:56] of that project had to be paid for
through local funds by the city. Next
[34:01] slide.
Uh next project was uh the second
[34:05] highest priority in 2018 storm water
plan and uh this project as you can see
[34:11] there is in that blue watershed. Uh you
can also see it's located above the
[34:17] Yahar River Dam and potential water
whitewater park uh coming forward. So it
[34:22] helps to treat some water where people
are interacting with uh with the water
[34:27] uh down down at River Park and and the
area there. So next slide, please. This
[34:34] project even got more grant funds. Um in
fact, only 13.8% of the project had to
[34:40] be paid for by the city. There were
grants through Dane County and DNR uh
[34:44] that paid for the rest. And that was
basically a box um that treated Yeah,
[34:50] you can see it there. It's got some
baffles and some other things that treat
[34:54] water before it gets to the Har River
where before it just discharged directly
[34:58] uh to the river. Next slide, please.
Uh new and redevelopment reduction. Uh
[35:04] as you know, a lot of that uh
development has occurred on the west
[35:09] side. Those big whatever color that is
orange stars. Um and as you can see in
[35:15] the bottom
um table, 569 pounds of reduction from
[35:20] new development, 13.8 through
redevelopment. And so you've sort of
[35:25] helped you've sort of developed your way
into compliance a little bit. It's
[35:29] contributed to to helping with the
bottom line again with compliance. Next
[35:33] slide.
And a lot of those developments on the
[35:38] west side were in kettles or internally
drained areas. Um the DNR has a number
[35:45] of requirements that you have to meet
before being able to take credit for
[35:49] those areas. And this is uh a lot of
detail you probably don't need, but uh
[35:54] three of the areas uh qualified and we
took advantage of that with the
[36:00] stormwater quality modeling. Next slide.
Uh even though you are in compliance, we
[36:07] didn't know at the time if you would. So
we did do a small alternatives analysis.
[36:11] This is just a flowchart showing what
how we would go about doing that. And
[36:15] really the uh middle bottom watershed
adaptive management you had been
[36:20] participating in and bottom right design
and construction of BMPS you had been
[36:25] participating in. Basically at this
point you're done. So um that's a good
[36:31] thing um as well. Next slide.
[36:36] So, we did look at uh four or five
different BMPPS in the white text boxes
[36:42] there. A bit hard to read, but the
important thing is they are upstream of
[36:46] the Har River, uh your river park,
everything happening down there.
[36:51] Anything you might do discretionarily at
this point would help water quality
[36:56] within uh the mill pond uh and
downstream.
[37:00] Next slide.
So when it comes down to alternatives,
[37:04] alternative number one was doing this
water quality trading uh from reach 7 67
[37:09] to 68. You can see that there. Uh
alternative two was just these four five
[37:15] uh six actually um BMPs that you could
do in the future if you if you desired.
[37:20] Um the Har River Park, is it called
River Park? Just river park.
[37:26] » Yeah, just river park. um bio biobasin
that was out to bid recently that's
[37:30] going to be constructed. Um that's part
of alternative 2 but it's it's something
[37:34] you were going to be doing. You you'll
get some credit for that.
[37:38] Next slide.
Uh watershed adaptive management. You
[37:42] have been participating in this for
quite some time. The only thing I want
[37:46] to say on here is the original buyin to
this was $11,000. And what you were
[37:51] doing here was buying in so that MMSD
and Yahara Winds can go out to the egg
[37:55] community and get um agricultural BMPs
installed at a lower cost than you can
[38:00] do in the city. Um buy in after the 2018
modeling update was 8,76.
[38:07] So we were able to save the city $2,900
a year. Um, at this point, since you are
[38:14] in compliance, that buyin gets reduced
to zero, saving you another $8,76
[38:19] per year. Uh, again, uh, a positive.
Next slide.
[38:26] This is just a table from the report and
the uh, polygons there in red are
[38:32] alternative number one, and it's that
water quality trade. There's zero cost
[38:36] to do that. It's already done.
Alternative number two is adjacent to
[38:40] that. And uh again, it's discretionary
projects if you want to go ahead and
[38:44] continue to work on on water quality or
if requirements change someday, which we
[38:51] don't have any indication that they are
at this point. Next slide. So, here's
[38:56] the obvious choice. Do you do
alternative one or alternative two? Um
[39:01] $0 versus, you know, 2.85 million. Um,
and again, alternatives 2 is just there
[39:09] to give you opportunities and projects
to work on in the future if you'd like.
[39:14] Next slide.
Uh, here we have uh DNR approval of the
[39:18] modeling and internal water quality
trade. If you zoom in there, it's a nice
[39:22] little sentence um couple of sentences
that uh confirms that the DNR agrees
[39:28] with the report and you're good to go um
moving forward. Next slide.
[39:41] Okay. So, we'll end up with some
recommendations
[39:44] for MS4 programs. The things that, uh,
Brett and his staff are already doing,
[39:49] uh, continue to do that. Uh, that's
defined in that 2018 plan and a 2021 MS4
[39:54] appendix. Uh, for each of those bullet
items there that are conditions to the
[39:58] permit, Yahara winds buyin. Um, you will
need to follow up on calculations that
[40:05] we submitted to Madison Met on July
23rd. Uh, that would reduce the city's
[40:10] buy in to zero dollars in 2027. Um,
so they're reviewing it right now. I'm
[40:16] I'm sure they'll be approving it
shortly, but Brett, we should just keep
[40:21] our eye on that. So, uh, future
stormwater BMPs that I talked about
[40:26] discretionarily pursue alternative
number two, BMPs. This would provide
[40:30] additional pollutant reduction to the
Har River. And if you pursue those two
[40:34] grant programs, you can uh gain up to
upwards of 80% um funding. Um and and
[40:41] that's a good thing. Uh pollution
prevention program modifications. I
[40:45] mentioned this before. Continue the
program of the field review of the
[40:48] existing storm water BMPs. Uh and then
initiate the design and construction of
[40:53] dredging or maintenance projects to
address address the identified
[40:56] deficiencies. And lastly,
One more. There we go.
[41:02] So, are you are you truly done? Are you
are you not? Um, I would say you should
[41:08] be tracking the storm water quality
improvements because because of new and
[41:11] redevelopments in the spreadsheet
format, Brett, we um that's something
[41:15] that just will help. Um, and then the
sec third bullet there, um, the storm
[41:20] water quality modeling will likely still
need to be updated every 8 to 10 years.
[41:24] That's a ways out now. uh or if there
are changes in the Rock River TMDL
[41:27] wastist load allocations or substantial
changes in the city boundary. And those
[41:32] last two caveats were actually in that
DNR letter that said, hey, uh if
[41:36] something changes, you may have to do a
little more. But at this point, you're
[41:40] you're pretty much in the clear. Um but
just keep track of what what
[41:44] developments are doing and any projects
you might do moving forward. With that,
[41:49] I open it up to questions and answers.
>> All right. Thank you. older person
[41:54] reefs.
>> So, and I don't know if you know off the
[41:58] top of your head, but how many wet
basins are there? And I'm curious who's
[42:02] doing the water testing. Is it all of
them? Is this sporadic? I'm I'm just
[42:07] thinking that sounds overwhelming
>> for staff or you know who's
[42:13] » as far as the number of basins, we can
refer to our GIS system.
[42:18] But yeah, we can get you those how many
wet basins and infiltration basins we
[42:23] have. We can get you those.
>> Yeah, I'm just curious. And then is do
[42:27] we subcontract on the on the testing for
you know the the water quality? I'm not
[42:33] 100% sure how all this work. So
>> you come on up to the mic, Brett.
[42:37] » Yeah, just take that corner seat there.
[42:44] So through the the study they did um a
snapshot of basically the basins and did
[42:49] a basin aggregate. Correct.
>> Yeah.
[42:52] » So then over time we do visual
inspections and then we have dredged
[42:56] some um wet basins in the past as well.
So we're actually looking at doing a few
[43:01] um next year um some of our storm water
swailes to regrade them for to improve
[43:07] storm water flow. So it's a we're never
done. It's always a constant I I want to
[43:12] say battle because it's really the you
know it's a a great thing that we're
[43:17] doing to treat water before it gets to
the Yahara. Um so it's it's a but
[43:21] there's a lot of uh BMPPS out there. So
there's as you in new development
[43:26] especially uh which obviously is a good
thing. However, we need to staff up for
[43:31] it and account for equipment as we move
forward with these two.
[43:36] » Yeah. I just have a couple. So, Eastwood
is one that you've dredged and I was
[43:42] that on there? I don't know if I
>> um I'm not I don't think it was in the
[43:46] slides. That was back in 2019 or 2020
somewhere in there.
[43:50] » And then um how about the man parking
lot?
[43:54] » Yep. So, those are infiltration or bio
basins. So, that's all part of the the
[43:58] new
>> those we added recently. So,
[44:01] » so, so we during the study I believe we
forecast or used some of the um newer
[44:06] basins um as as part of the study.
>> Yeah. Everything we knew about would
[44:11] would have been modeled and you had
gotten credit for anything from this
[44:16] point forward keep track of with a
spreadsheet and and we we help you guys
[44:21] with all of developments anyway. So, we
have a lot of information, but it's it's
[44:25] good to just kind of keep track of where
you're at in the future to use that
[44:28] information when you do have to update
the model.
[44:30] » As you'll see, the the project in
Highway 51, they're they're adding, I
[44:33] think, four new basins as well
throughout that corridor.
[44:37] » I think what I'm hearing is all the
things that we've been doing is really
[44:41] helping the water quality in in the
river downstream in the area where we're
[44:46] talking about putting the park.
Do you have any concerns about the water
[44:50] quality down there and people being in
and out of there?
[44:54] » I all I can say is any storm water BMP
put upstream will help it in some
[45:00] fashion. It's hard to like put a
how much it's going to improve it. It
[45:07] just it will incrementally improve
improve the water quality. Less trash,
[45:12] less other things, you know, out there
too. And part of our maintenance too is
[45:16] to um find um or or look at source
pollution and then get on it. So um
[45:23] luckily we have, you know, Sue Eddie,
she's on top of it and she she's uh she
[45:28] sees anything that's uh not normal, she
will take action. Okay.
[45:34] » Any questions from alders?
Um anybody online? Regina, do you have
[45:40] anything?
[45:44] Uh, [snorts] no, not tonight. Thanks.
>> Yeah, I know there's a lot of
[45:47] information there. I don't know how best
to digest all that. Um, if you have any
[45:53] suggestions on how we could do that. So,
>> well, uh, we've been experimenting with
[45:58] some AI opportunities. So, so showing
John
[46:02] » uh we we basically took uh his um report
and the slides and and put it into an AI
[46:10] system and it spit out basically Cliff's
notes. So, what I can do is is have John
[46:15] review that and then we can send that
out to the group. It it is helpful to
[46:20] read. It kind of boils it down into an
easyto read uh couple pages versus a
[46:26] whole report or you know 34 slides. So,
>> will it be accurate? Right.
[46:30] » That's that's so it's a tool. AI is a
tool. And so [laughter]
[46:35] disclaimer.
>> Yeah. So we have to, you know, proofread
[46:37] and and do our due diligence that way.
But um you know, it's interesting where
[46:42] things are going. So I I showed that to
John before. I'll send that to him
[46:47] tonight. When he has time, maybe we can
just review that for accuracy.
[46:50] » Sure.
>> Thanks for doing that. And I I would say
[46:53] the commitment you the city of Stoton
has made to to storm water over 20 years
[46:58] is pretty remarkable. We do a lot of
work for other communities and you're
[47:03] done in 20 years. Okay. And there's
communities we work with that are
[47:07] looking at 40 50 years before they're
going to get into compliance. So the the
[47:11] work and dedication you and Rodney and
yourself and you know everyone here have
[47:15] had is is really a success story. and we
did present on uh your story at a
[47:21] conference and it was wellreceived. So
you're doing you you did a lot of the
[47:25] right things. So
>> appreciate hearing that. And do you work
[47:29] with some of the other groups like uh
Renew the Blue or the Lakes and Water
[47:34] Commission?
>> Um
[47:37] I I don't personally, but I'm aware of
all those initiatives. Yeah.
[47:41] » So we have like Brett, he's he's leading
one of the teams on there. Adrian's been
[47:46] pretty involved as well. So,
>> perfect.
[47:48] » That's the other thing is we have really
good commitment from our elders as well.
[47:52] » That's great.
>> All right. Um, any questions from alders
[47:58] before we cut John loose? He's got to go
all the way back to Oregon tonight. So,
[48:04] » all right. Thank you for being here.
>> Thank you guys.
[48:11] » All right. and I'll get queued up here
for the next item is the uh consent
[48:14] agenda. So we have a number of items in
the consent agenda. I would entertain a
[48:19] motion to approve the consent agenda.
>> So move second.
[48:23] » Motion by Jetson. Second by Tillerson.
Would anybody like anything acted on
[48:28] separately on the consent agenda?
[48:33] Hearing none. All in favor say I.
>> I.
[48:36] » I. And uh any opposed?
None oppose. That motion carries. Takes
[48:42] us to old business, right?
>> Y.
[48:44] » Okay, we're going to old business, which
is uh a second reading from the plan
[48:50] commission on ordinance 14, older person
caravllo.
[48:55] » And this is ordinance 14 of 2026
amending chapter 78 article 8
[49:03] signage regulation. And I so move.
>> Is there a second?
[49:08] » Second. Second by Wazak Scanland, other
person Caribelloo.
[49:13] » And I'm just gonna hand it over to Chris
if anybody has any questions so she can
[49:19] enlighten us about Reed versus Town of
Gilbert fun facts.
[49:24] » I know you guys all listened to my spiel
at the last meeting. Did you guys have
[49:28] any follow-up questions to any of it or
want anything else explained? Don't want
[49:33] to hear all about exciting signs?
[laughter]
[49:38] Um, if you have any follow-up questions,
let me know. Um, if you guys see
[49:41] something in the ordinance you want
changed later on, we can address it. But
[49:44] for the most part, not a lot has
changed. We brought it into compliance,
[49:49] just made more robust definitions and
um, tried to break out so it was a
[49:53] little easier in a chart with those
areas. So,
[49:57] » thank you for your work on that.
Anything you want to add, Attorney
[50:00] Manthy?
[50:04] Uh nothing to add but happy to answer
any questions if uh there are any on the
[50:11] Supreme Court case law or anything like
that.
[50:14] » All right. Any questions from alers or
comments?
[50:19] Hearing none. All in favor of the motion
say I.
[50:23] » I.
>> And any opposed?
[50:26] That motion carries. Um that'll take us
to
[50:31] um ordinance 15 is a first reading and
that's coming from public works all
[50:38] person to listen.
[50:49] Uh, yes. This is ordinance 15 of 2025 to
amend ordinance section 50-5, offenses
[50:56] against public peace order and other
public interest to replace section H
[51:01] with construction activity within the
public right ofway. Uh, move the former
[51:06] section H to newly created section I and
I so move.
[51:11] » It's a first reading, bud.
>> Oh, well, first reading.
[51:13] » Yeah. All right. Do you want to walk us
through this or somebody?
[51:17] » Yeah. So I'm going to summarize so that
it's just questions but uh this is
[51:21] basically
for the piece. Uh so when construction
[51:26] crews can work and when construction
crews can't work uh during certain set
[51:30] hours so that there's no real noise
pollution that we're not having uh major
[51:34] issues because we don't want anyone to
be like the person who runs their lawn
[51:37] mower at 9:00 a.m. on a Sunday. We're
all been annoyed by that. So, this is
[51:42] just directions or ordinances for those
construction type crews to say, "Hey, we
[51:48] don't want to have this." So, then I
will let Brett take it away from there.
[51:51] » Right. Yeah. I'll just add to to that.
That's a a great summary. So, um, so
[51:56] before it was more of a a policy that we
had here that, um, construction the
[52:00] right of way, uh, could not occur after
700 p.m. until, uh, 7 a.m. And so, we'd
[52:07] like to make that ordinance and add some
more language in there about the types
[52:11] of activities that would be allowed,
emergency type services or or water main
[52:16] breaks, for example. Um, so, um, this is
in the the nuisance ordinance and it's
[52:23] not to be confused with what's already
in there when it comes to on private
[52:26] property, um, and the noise ordinances
that are already, uh, in there. Um, but
[52:31] it's just to add, um, an ordinance
versus a policy so that we can, you
[52:37] know, enforce this and potentially issue
citations. So, uh, we do, um, again, it
[52:43] it does not allow work, um, after 700
p.m. until 7 a.m. Monday through
[52:50] Saturday and no work on Sundays, uh, is
allowed. Now, there is some some
[52:55] carveouts, um, emergency exemptions, um,
section two. Uh so essentially if there
[53:02] is uh a reason to or a necessary to
protect uh life, health, safety or
[53:09] property u we can um allow crews to to
work uh beyond those hours or even on
[53:15] Sundays. Um again the example is a water
mane break. Um so essential public
[53:21] services uh we we wanted to define that
um as law enforcement, fire protection,
[53:27] public works operations, water, sanitary
sewer and wastewater utility services,
[53:33] storm water management as we talked
about today and flood control, emergency
[53:37] management, disaster response activities
and any other governmental function
[53:42] designated by the city as necessary to
protect life, property, public
[53:45] infrastructure or the continuity of
governmental operations. Um then beyond
[53:50] that, we do have special authorizations
where um I could authorize some entity
[53:57] to work beyond those hours. Uh we
wouldn't take that lightly, but let's
[54:02] say um a crew wanted to work past 7 till
maybe 8 9:00 so they didn't have to come
[54:07] back the next day to disrupt a business
for example, we may allow that. Um, but
[54:14] we need to take those um, asks very
seriously because we want to stick to
[54:18] the ordinance.
Any questions? I know this is just a
[54:22] first reading, but any any questions?
>> How does this apply to the state highway
[54:27] that we have running through our town?
>> Yeah, so it's it's a connecting highway.
[54:31] So, we do have local control. Um, so
[clears throat] within reason because
[54:37] there are some operations within the um
the construction of the roadway. Uh, for
[54:42] example, when they saw cut the concrete,
a lot of times those may be after hours
[54:48] um after these hours, which was again a
policy um but um within the right area.
[54:55] So if it's on the northwest side of
town, we may uh work with them to allow
[54:59] them to do that so that doesn't disrupt
um you know the flow of traffic like we
[55:03] have now. you know, we have traffic on
these these roadways to keep it flowing
[55:08] and and it's not shut down like it was
on East Maine last year. So, uh we do
[55:13] have local control up to Roi Road. So,
beyond that, we don't have local
[55:17] control, but we do have local control
when it comes to that.
[55:21] So as a followup to that, is that
something that would be in the the
[55:25] contract with the
>> So uh for us and our contracts, we
[55:32] usually go over this during the uh pre
construction meeting with the
[55:36] contractors so that they understand what
our or well policy was, but if you guys
[55:41] approve this, what the um ordinance is
in the city of Stoen, uh we already go
[55:46] through this with them and we uh we harp
on that because our citizens need a
[55:52] break in the evening um and on Sundays
as well.
[55:56] » So, how about the DOT's agreement? Do we
have any say in that?
[56:00] » Again, it's a connecting highway. So,
>> generally, they've been pretty good. Um
[56:07] you know, not working late. Uh the
example I do have is the the saw cutting
[56:11] of of concrete, which I know they were
doing well into the evening. And for
[56:16] some of that there was no there was uh
there was no other alternative but
[56:21] » and some of it's [clears throat] depends
on where they are. If they're out by the
[56:24] car dealership on 51 there's no
residential out there. It's probably not
[56:28] an issue. Right.
>> Right. And those are the types of you
[56:30] know situations that we would take into
account when we would would allow them
[56:33] to do that type of work.
It's also about being efficient to get
[56:39] the job done. Like like I I mentioned
the example is if they have another, you
[56:42] know, 7 o'clock and they're going to get
finished in the next hour or two just to
[56:46] get it done so they can move out and not
disrupt another day um of of business or
[56:51] or residents getting to their homes. We
may allow them to do that.
[56:55] » Sure. Any questions or comments from
alers?
[57:00] Um otherwise, this one will be back at
the next meeting. Um, if you have
[57:04] anything that comes up, feel free to
reach out to us and we'll we'll get you
[57:08] some answers. Thank you.
All right. Uh, next item is u R114
[57:17] um outdoor warnings sirens and it looks
like that was at finance person Butler.
[57:23] » It was this is R114 of 2026 to amend the
2026 budget for outdoor warning siren at
[57:30] 51 West. And I so move.
>> And is there a second?
[57:35] » Second.
>> Second by Alder person Reeves. Alder
[57:38] person Butler.
>> Yeah, this was at uh finance tonight. It
[57:41] did pass unanimously. It's to
um cover a little bit of an increased
[57:47] cost for an outdoor siren um
uh in the 51 West area. Is Chief Rip on?
[57:56] » Yeah, he's still on there.
>> Okay. I saw pulse point went off. I
[57:59] wasn't sure.
Go ahead, Chief.
[58:03] » Yep. Um, so this is this is a siren that
was approved as part of the capital
[58:08] budget for 2026.
Um, by the time we got to ordering uh
[58:14] the siren, there were some price
increases that had come through uh that
[58:19] raised it uh little over $4,000 more
than we anticipated. So, I'm just
[58:25] looking for approval to finish the
purchase and uh get this project moving.
[58:32] » All right. Thank you. Any questions or
comments on this one?
[58:36] » I'm supposed to remember I'll remember
it now. I won't remember it next time
[58:41] this comes up that um this is something
that we're looking at adding to um
[58:46] development agreements going forward so
that the city doesn't have to shoulder
[58:50] um the burden on it.
>> You remember through tonight. That's
[58:52] pretty good.
Okay, thank you. Questions or comments?
[58:59] Hearing none. All in favor say I.
>> I.
[59:02] » I.
>> And any opposed?
[59:05] That motion carries. The next one is
R15. That one also came from finance.
[59:11] » This is R15 of 2026 to reduce the
irrevocable standby letter of credit for
[59:16] SDI holdings. And I so move.
>> Is there a second?
[59:21] » Second. Second by President Schumacher
or person Butler.
[59:25] » This also passed um almost unanimously.
There's one abstension um
[59:31] uh to reduce the standby letter of
credit due to finishing most of um phase
[59:38] or yeah most of phase 2A's um uh
improvements with the exception of some
[59:45] storm water stuff. And I will let either
Nicole Marie or Chris speak to that.
[59:51] Um, so we started bringing the letters
of credit through finance committee and
[59:55] common council just so we've got
tracking history of the paper trail of
[59:59] how the credit letters of credits get
issued, reduced, released as they go
[1:00:04] through the various phases of
construction. So this is the um original
[1:00:07] letter of credit from STI Holdings was
$11 million. They rolled part of that
[1:00:11] into phase 2A, which is what this letter
of credit is for. So we're releasing um
[1:00:16] a portion of that except for the storm
water part. So, at the end of the day,
[1:00:20] we'll retain a $2.6 million letter of
credit until the um remainder of the
[1:00:26] infrastructure is complete, and we hold
that for a period of one year.
[1:00:32] » All right. Thank you. Anything you want
to add, uh, Attorney Matthew?
[1:00:39] No, this is uh pretty standard um and in
line with the development agreement to
[1:00:44] reduce the letter of credit as work is
completed. And once it's accepted um so
[1:00:51] the public improvements haven't been
accepted at that point, then that's when
[1:00:55] the one-year warranty would begin.
>> Okay. Thank you. Questions or comments
[1:01:01] from olders?
[1:01:05] » Hearing [snorts] none. All in favor say
I.
[1:01:08] » I. And any opposed?
None opposed. That motion carries. I
[1:01:14] would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So
vote. Motion by Jensen. Is there a
[1:01:18] second?
>> Second.
[1:01:21] » Who was that?
>> I think it was Nino.
[1:01:23] » Uh second by all the person Nino. All in
favor say I.
[1:01:27] » I.
>> And any opposed? That motion carries.
[1:01:31] We're adjourned. Thank you. Yay.