[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.

City Council 8/11/26

Transcript